Originally posted by Gdemami

 

---

Originally posted by Ghost12
There is a saying; Only a fool does the same thing over and over again and expects different results.

 

 

---

 

How many sandbox titles did we have after EVE that fell flat on their faces?

Don't blame that on the sandbox...blame that on the devs that attempted to make them.  A sandbox has to release strong as it is player driven, if it doesn't...it goes away.  Darkfall was, still is a success.  To the other titles, they just weren't good sandboxes.  Companies make themeparks because they want the easy way out.  They can come up with some content, advertise it make big money.  Sandboxes must be constantly monitored and the devs have to be on their ball to make them succeed.  If a large scale company made one and did it right, it would be huge.  Look at DF UW, as soon as its announed people are going crazy.  So don't act like sandboxes aren't desired...the desire is to have a good one.

As an investor, that actually studies players, they would see the main faliure of the sandbox model to the investor.  That is no one can agree what a sandbox should have and not have.  One feature pisses off x% of players.  So do you make a game to get the most players or make a game aimed at a smaller market?  How much money will that smaller market game get for development?  What is the return and time for return?  Look at Eve that people point to as the current top sandbox, but many call it boring or that they have no avatar?  Could the game work with both and how do you make it more exciting for the masses.  Is one company will to wait X years with meager returns to develop their game like CCP did? 

Before you cry for a sandbox you better figure out what is going to be in your sandbox.  Plastic toys or metal ones?  Player restrictions or player protections?  What is your estimated number of players?

Originally posted by Icewhite

And this, friends, is how to construct a perfectly loaded poll.

But even given that we agree completely with the op that NOW IS THE TIME!  Rushing your brand new on-demand mmo into production today gets you--five more years to wait before it's done.

...and then we watch it fall flat on its face. Just like every MMO. Not because its a Sandbox but because of us...players every single one of us.  Were capricious, mercurial and personally I dont think a polished Sandbox will achieve 500k players.  Well not after the first couple months.  Dont get me wrong, I would play a great sand box, but I would play a good themepark too.  I just believe you overestimate the appeal.   IMO

Originally posted by Ausare

As an investor, that actually studies players, they would see the main faliure of the sandbox model to the investor.  That is no one can agree what a sandbox should have and not have.  One feature pisses off x% of players.  So do you make a game to get the most players or make a game aimed at a smaller market?  How much money will that smaller market game get for development?  What is the return and time for return?  Look at Eve that people point to as the current top sandbox, but many call it boring or that they have no avatar?  Could the game work with both and how do you make it more exciting for the masses.  Is one company will to wait X years with meager returns to develop their game like CCP did? 

Before you cry for a sandbox you better figure out what is going to be in your sandbox.  Plastic toys or metal ones?  Player restrictions or player protections?  What is your estimated number of players?

 

You are always going to piss off people.

But luckily there are ways of stretching the game. Asheron's Call did that, for example, by giving players the option of playing on a more hardcore server with unrestricted PvP.

There is exactly one reason for developers to build a sandbox mmorpg. That reason is, "There is more financial incentive to build a sandbox MMORPG than there is financial incentive to build something else." There aren't any other relevant reasons.

Originally posted by Ghost12

Originally posted by Ausare

As an investor, that actually studies players, they would see the main faliure of the sandbox model to the investor.  That is no one can agree what a sandbox should have and not have.  One feature pisses off x% of players.  So do you make a game to get the most players or make a game aimed at a smaller market?  How much money will that smaller market game get for development?  What is the return and time for return?  Look at Eve that people point to as the current top sandbox, but many call it boring or that they have no avatar?  Could the game work with both and how do you make it more exciting for the masses.  Is one company will to wait X years with meager returns to develop their game like CCP did? 

Before you cry for a sandbox you better figure out what is going to be in your sandbox.  Plastic toys or metal ones?  Player restrictions or player protections?  What is your estimated number of players?

 

 

You are always going to piss off people.

 

But luckily there are ways of stretching the game. Asheron's Call did that, for example, by giving players the option of playing on a more hardcore server with unrestricted PvP.

but AC1's Darkfall was limited in its sandbox'ness.  Now building of towns.  It was basically just a giant PvP battleground where you really could not change anything.  Hardly what I would call a sandbox.  There was not a real big loss in the game when you died.  Now with Eve would a pure PvE server work?

Originally posted by TalulaRose
Aion only failed in NA because all pvp games fail in the NA market. Its doing great everywhere else.

Originally posted by Ausare

Originally posted by Ghost12

Originally posted by Ausare

As an investor, that actually studies players, they would see the main faliure of the sandbox model to the investor.  That is no one can agree what a sandbox should have and not have.  One feature pisses off x% of players.  So do you make a game to get the most players or make a game aimed at a smaller market?  How much money will that smaller market game get for development?  What is the return and time for return?  Look at Eve that people point to as the current top sandbox, but many call it boring or that they have no avatar?  Could the game work with both and how do you make it more exciting for the masses.  Is one company will to wait X years with meager returns to develop their game like CCP did? 

Before you cry for a sandbox you better figure out what is going to be in your sandbox.  Plastic toys or metal ones?  Player restrictions or player protections?  What is your estimated number of players?

 

 

You are always going to piss off people.

 

But luckily there are ways of stretching the game. Asheron's Call did that, for example, by giving players the option of playing on a more hardcore server with unrestricted PvP.

but AC1's Darkfall was limited in its sandbox'ness.  Now building of towns.  It was basically just a giant PvP battleground where you really could not change anything.  Hardly what I would call a sandbox.  There was not a real big loss in the game when you died.  Now with Eve would a pure PvE server work?

AC1's Darkfall did have player housing.

There was a death penalty. You would lose some of your items. In fact, players would haul around "death items" that were comparable to the price of your gear so you wouldnt drop it. "Partial Loot" which IMO is the best PvP system. Not a full loot, but a partial penalty.

You clearly didnt play the game. I did.

Originally posted by Ghost12

Originally posted by Ausare

As an investor, that actually studies players, they would see the main faliure of the sandbox model to the investor.  That is no one can agree what a sandbox should have and not have.  One feature pisses off x% of players.  So do you make a game to get the most players or make a game aimed at a smaller market?  How much money will that smaller market game get for development?  What is the return and time for return?  Look at Eve that people point to as the current top sandbox, but many call it boring or that they have no avatar?  Could the game work with both and how do you make it more exciting for the masses.  Is one company will to wait X years with meager returns to develop their game like CCP did? 

Before you cry for a sandbox you better figure out what is going to be in your sandbox.  Plastic toys or metal ones?  Player restrictions or player protections?  What is your estimated number of players?

 

You are always going to piss off people.

But luckily there are ways of stretching the game. Asheron's Call did that, for example, by giving players the option of playing on a more hardcore server with unrestricted PvP.

All the AC servers were going to be PVP and then they realized that only a fraction of their playerbase would find that fun, thus only Darktide* was full PVP, with opt-in PVP on the others.

*please do not insult it by calling it Darkfall. :)

Look @ this thread TESO, Warhammer 40k Onlime, and NeverWinter Online devs.

We haven't wanted Themeparks for the past 5+years! That's what you're creating, a soon-to-be-failure if you continue on your current route.

Originally posted by ShakyMo
What I meant with the hybrid thing and the mention of a more sandboxy gw2 was. One of the big things that put people of sandboxes is ffa full loot pvp, but on the other had no pvp gets boring fast.

If you had some sort of sandbox themepark hybrid, where you play on your own server in a fully pve environment, but travel to a battle server which is pvp flagged, that might work. You could even have 2 places to travel too, one with faction based warfare against other servers, the other bring ffa and guild based.

Hybrid idea sounds wonderful.

But why does it have to be ffa full loot? Why not partial loot?

Originally posted by ShakyMo
What I meant with the hybrid thing and the mention of a more sandboxy gw2 was. One of the big things that put people of sandboxes is ffa full loot pvp, but on the other had no pvp gets boring fast.

If you had some sort of sandbox themepark hybrid, where you play on your own server in a fully pve environment, but travel to a battle server which is pvp flagged, that might work. You could even have 2 places to travel too, one with faction based warfare against other servers, the other bring ffa and guild based.

There are/were several games that had "contested" territory with FFA FL PVP, thats not the point.

There is only -one- way to sell a sandbox.

One.

And its the same way you sell a themepark or any other game.

Its by creating a polished game with high production values.

Lets be honest here, EVE is a popular sandbox because its shiny. Games like DarkSpace are mechanically superior and more interesting, but they are buggy as shit, and ugly as sin.

What puts people of sandboxes is, every other sandbox on the market is an ugly, buggy, unpolished, student project (DF, MO). That reputation stuck as we've seen new sandboxes being released every year and continuing the trend of being of low quality.

This is the preconception that has to be broken -first-

Then you can add really cool ideas about FFA FL PVP.

Originally posted by Ghost12

Originally posted by ShakyMo
What I meant with the hybrid thing and the mention of a more sandboxy gw2 was. One of the big things that put people of sandboxes is ffa full loot pvp, but on the other had no pvp gets boring fast.

If you had some sort of sandbox themepark hybrid, where you play on your own server in a fully pve environment, but travel to a battle server which is pvp flagged, that might work. You could even have 2 places to travel too, one with faction based warfare against other servers, the other bring ffa and guild based.

 

Hybrid idea sounds wonderful.

 

But why does it have to be ffa full loot? Why not partial loot?

DAOC was a hybrid (aka: Sandpark).

Just saynig....