That kind of fails to answer my question. If you have 2 factions, then each player on one faction views the opposite faction as their enemy (assuming that this is a game where the factions fight each other, otherwise I don't see what the factions are for in the first place). If you add a third faction, it creates a dynamic where two factions might not necessarily view each other as enemies if they both have to fight the third faction. In fact, the alliances might switch around as factions take turns being "in the lead".

Adding a fourth faction (or more) doesn't change that dynamic, it only reduces the amount of control you have over the shifting balance of power, and makes the relationship among the factions harder to predict. It also makes it harder for the players to feel strongly about each other faction. If you want the power struggle to be out of your hands and hard to plan for, you should just allow player-made factions because that also greatly increases the players' sense that they are in control of what goes on in the game.

Two factions - good.

Three factions - good.

Unlimited factions - good.

For any other value, I'd need to see you really present a strong argument.

The central issue of the OP was that game publishers are companies and they're in the business of making money, not making good games—and that's terrible. We can address this without getting baited into politics.

How long do you think it would take to make a perfect MMO? If you answered anything other than "Infinity squared, and then some", you don't know much about software development. You'll never hit perfect. In fact, even without worrying about implementation, you can't even design a perfect MMO. Anytime you say "okay, finished", are you really saying that if you had another month or another year to sit there designing it, you couldn't make it even a teensy bit better?

It is super easy to say "Game X was released in terrible shape because they cut corners and didn't want to spend the amount of time and money it would have taken to fully develop the game." But the stone cold truth is that no game is ever fully developed. Without someone to say "This game is done as of this date" or "This game is done as soon as this and this are fixed and this and that are finished", no game would get finished. There's no way we'd have a better caliber of games if publishers just said "We'll keep throwing money at it for as long as it takes for the game to be completely done and perfect." We wouldn't have any games at all.

This is especially true when you consider just how huge games are now. If you go back to the NES, for example, the games were only a few hundred kilobytes at most. There was an unsurpassable limit imposed upon developers. You couldn't add any more sprites, any more levels, any more music, any more text. You could (very quickly) reach the physical limit of what the game cartridge's ROM chip would hold. That's not true anymore. If you're creating an MMO and decide to add in one more quest, one more dungeon, one more continent, you're never going to hit a limit where nothing else can be added.

This video does a pretty good job of explaining the different ways in which a game can appeal to players. They also point out that most games are only designed to appeal to a few of these core aesthetics. If you're looking for games with a different core aesthetic than I am, we're necessarily going to disagree about which games are fun.

Originally posted by MMOPapa

Thank you. So just to clarify you're saying you can't compare Maokai to Tristana because they play two completely different roles? That basically makes the entire claim of 'Overpowered Classes' a null argument in most cases by that very logic because as you just said...

'Ranged DPS Class X' and 'Melee Class Y' are different in ways that are incomparable. This makes for exceptionally good balance, because it is impossible to do what you're trying to do: take two 'classes' and directly compare them to prove that one is strictly better than the other.

Or does that only work when the terminology used for 'a character with a unique skill set' is 'Champion' instead of 'Class'? Seems sort of hypocritical if it's okay to compare classes... but not champions... why? Because of how many there are? So if I chopped up an Archer class with twenty skills into four 'champions' with five skills then did the same with a Tank class; it'd be okay to compare the original versions, just not the champions? Doesn't seem logical to me. If you can compare a Warlock to a Warrior and call the Warlock overpowered, then I can compare Tristana to Maokai and call Tristana overpowered; otherwise you forfeit your argument.

Ah... It's like that.

I don't have an argument to forfeit, I'm on the same side as you (more or less). See what a little too much snark can do?

Originally posted by MMOPapa

Originally posted by Disdena

Man, what.

113 Champions, and the fact that there are some you see only rarely is evidence that the game's unbalanced? The champions with the highest win rates typically sit around 55%. The champions with the lowest win rates are around 40%. That is obnoxiously well balanced. There are a huge number of factors that go into why some champions are played more than others. The notion that you need to play one of those champions in order to have a good chance at winning is not one of those factors.

So you're saying if you play Tristana against yourself playing Maokai... you'll have a chance of winning as Maokai?

This is a gross oversimplification, a bit like saying "Who would win in a 1v1 game of football, this quarterback from this team or that linebacker from that team?" Whatever rules you may come up with for a 1v1 game of football, they wouldn't reflect the skills needed to play the real game.

Tristana and Maokai are different in ways that are incomparable. This makes for exceptionally good balance, because it is impossible to do what you're trying to do: take two characters and directly compare them to prove that one is strictly better than the other.

Originally posted by MMOPapa

 But I'll bite anyway. If you tip your hat to League of Legends then you're basically tipping your hat to the worst example of 'Overpowered Classes' there is. Think of how many Champions there actually are... now think of how frequently you see a handful of them and how rare it is to see some.

Man, what.

113 Champions, and the fact that there are some you see only rarely is evidence that the game's unbalanced? The champions with the highest win rates typically sit around 55%. The champions with the lowest win rates are around 40%. That is obnoxiously well balanced. There are a huge number of factors that go into why some champions are played more than others. The notion that you need to play one of those champions in order to have a good chance at winning is not one of those factors.

As you gain experience, your character's level goes up. Getting all the way to the level cap means you made it to the end of the game. From there, you can continue gaining experience to get some little additional perks.

That's one way of looking at it. But the other way of looking at it is: As you gain experience, your character's level goes up. About 1/4 (?) of the way through the game, your character's level stops going up and you gain specific little perks instead of the normal level up benefits you're accustomed to. Getting all of the little perks means you made it to the end of the game.

Same exact system, just a different way of looking at it. The second model reveals what I don't particularly like about AA systems (or endgame in general). It takes the measurement you've been using to gauge your progression and does away with it partway through the game. (1/4 is just a guess. Some games have an impossibly long and rich endgame, others don't.) Levels serve a purpose. They let you know what your general power level is compared to other players and compared to challenges within the game. I'm not opposed to levelless games but I understand that that's what levels are for in a game that has levels. Saying "we're not going to use levels anymore" at an arbitrary point in the game takes that purpose away.

Now you're no longer a level 68 looking for 2 level 66-70 partners to go to the level 70 demon fortress, you're a level 80 with 5 points in Faster Casting, 5 points in Party Damage Aura, 5 points in Reduced Interruption, and 2 points in Increased Curse Duration looking for a [how do I know who I can party with?] to go to the [how do I know which area is an appropriate challenge?]. The game trains you to think of your character's potential as being distillable down to one number and then removes that number.

Endgame AA points aren't the only culprit; this is the same thing that happens with visible ilvl and GearScore and so on. I'm not sure there's any endgame system that satisfies me. I'd almost rather see the game end when you reach the level cap. DING, here's the last dungeon or whatever, and after that there's nothing. You reached the end of the game. I mean, that effectively happens anyway when you max out whatever the endgame progression is (whether it's gear based or AA points). Why not just use levels the whole way through instead of switching systems partway?

I see that it's complex, but what's dynamic about this? Every time you craft an item, you're still going to go through that same series of steps every time. Whether it takes you a little bit of experimentation or simply looking up a how-to video, nothing changes once you've got the steps down. The question is a bit loaded because the crafting described here is complex but not dynamic.

For me, it depends on the game. If the main mode of advancement is grinding on mobs, I'd rather the quests didn't give any experience at all. I like to do quests. Sometimes, you feel that pressure to "do this quest before I get too far above it and it becomes worthless." If the amount of experience I get isn't significant even when I do it at the appropriate level, I'd rather it not give me any at all so that I don't have to fret about how soon I get around to completing it.

Edit: I guess the same applies to crafting. I like efficiency and I suppose I like XP as being a good reward for efficient behavior. But I don't like crafting being a part of that formula. Let's say there are certain levels where your class is a bit weak, like the couple of levels before each major ability upgrade or equipment upgrade. If leveling up a craft grants XP, that's like an XP supply that you can dip into anytime, but there's only so much in the supply. The metagame strategy suggests that if you're going to level up a craft, you should only do it during those levels where it would be hard to go out and fight, and then stop crafting when you hit the good level. I don't like this level of metagaming, planning out what activities I can or can't do at a given time. So I don't want XP attached to crafting because I don't want to be rewarded for playing the game that way.

Originally posted by nariusseldon

Originally posted by Deivos

 

 

Notably, pacing.

Games are not movies. I don't need the game to pace me. If i need a break, i will turn the game off, get up and go get a sandwich.

And slow travel is not pacing, it is unavoidable boring bits that many players don't want. Otherwise, why would players use teleports at all?

Plus, in a movie, even the non-action parts are made (or tried to be made) interesting. Look at the Avengers. The bantering is as much fun as the action. The movie could not have made $1.5B if the film maker show nothing but Tony Stark traveling from point A to B in between fights.

While I agree that fast travel is not the immersion-killer and genre-ruiner that people like to call it, I think it would be better for you to concede this point. Forcing slow travel on people does have some value in creating a contrast between low and high moments. There are a lot of things that players want but don't think that they want, or things they don't think they want but they really do. So I don't think you can claim that slow travel is bad due to the fact that players do skip it when given the opportunity.

Plenty of games—especially RPGs—use pacing. It would be a big mistake for a Final Fantasy game to be nothing but dungeons from start to finish. Even if the player has the ability to take a break whenever they want, that's not the same as having a part of the game that's just laid-back. A break in the action can be a part of the experience; you shouldn't have to step back from the game for that.

Originally posted by roreux

3. Only the rules of physics apply.  Players have complete freedom.

This is a bit ambiguous... The ability to do things depends completely upon developers implementing features. It's not as though you can just #include <physics.h> and call it a day. You can certainly make it so that objects have momentum, fall according to gravity, and bounce off of each other (or break) when they collide. But everything that your avatar does in a computer game is possible because some designer said "player characters should be able to do this, don't you think?"

If a player wants their character to walk, jump, crawl, punch, pick up a rock and throw it, swing a sword, or get injured and die, those things are dev content. And everything the developers don't implement is off limits. Complete freedom is impossible within the confines of a computer program.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Disdena

That's your definition, it's not the one true definition, and the author of the article is not incorrect.

The article's author is actually incorrect on several accounts:

• Incorrect use of the term "sandbox" relating to a game which is nonlinear, rather than a game which is about player authorship over the game world.
• Assuming the problem with sandboxes is choice overload, when the problem is a lack of choices.  

The definition of sandbox I use:

• Is the historic origin of the term as applied to games.
• Makes the most sense logically.

What the hell more do we need than that?

I reject the historic origin that you claim. Furthermore, whether it used to mean that, it should be enough to point out that a.) many people use a variety of definitions for the word "sandbox" (this is hardly the first time people have disagreed over what it means and whether or not a particular game is one) and b.) the article is based around a different definition than yours. If you want to speak of logic, this is what you'd call an etymological fallacy.

I think that the reason we call nonlinear or undirected games sandbox games is apparent, but rather than continuing to nitpick over whether a correct definition exists, why not keep the thread on track and accept that this discussion is about being overwhelmed by choice in games that are open and undirected, rather than games with malleable game elements? There are plenty of other threads to have that discussion. Lizardbones has been trying to keep this one on topic.

It's the essence of the ARPG. Who really complains about running around killing monsters nonstop?

Also, the economy/crafting is unique, and the ways of customizing your character are very well done.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Disdena

It's not my definition.

It's the original definition someone coined years ago.

I heard a different, later article about sandboxes from a developer and picked up the term from there.

• Sandbox = sand = malleable game elements.
• Themepark = rides = static (dev-built) elements.

Which is really the only definition that makes any sense, because any other definition doesn't have any right to be called "sandbox".  Literally.  The other definitions share almost no similarities to the term.

• If you're talking about open world games, why would you liken them to sandboxes, which are closed freeform environments?
• If you're talking about open world PVP, why would you like them to playful spaces which weren't about territorial dominance?

We should all be disappointed that some game journalists have no clue what the term means and so they toss it around haphazardly, sure.  But one mistaken journalist doesn't get to re-write the term, and certainly can't re-write the underlying logic behind the original true definition.

That's your definition, it's not the one true definition, and the author of the article is not incorrect.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Without mods, it's definitely a themepark.  Because you can't really manipulate Skyrim's world and once you're done riding the rides (consuming all the content) then you're done.

With mods, yes it's a sandbox.  Especially for the mod creators, but also for anyone who customizes their Skyrim with exactly the elements they want.  Although in the latter case there's certainly a spectrum between the artist who uses paints created by others to create something truly their own, and a person who just downloads a bunch of google images and creates a collage of art that is predominantly the creation of others.  So just installing one big conversion mod hasn't really turned the game into a sandbox for that player.

We don't really need a new term.  Since a sandbox is about sand (malleable game elements) it's fundamentally a "freedombox".    While the denotion between sandbox and themepark isn't always 100% clear, it doesn't have to be: these are genre-like definitions.  Nobody sits around questioning whether WOW is a first-person shooter just because there are a few sequences where you're shooting things from a turret.  And nobody considers WOW a sandbox just because things like the Auction House are very player-driven.

If we needed a new term it would be "open world PVP".  That's the most common way sandbox is mis-used, with players thinking that's what sandboxes are about.

Okay, I have to cut you off here. The topic is about whether players of sandbox games get overwhelmed by choices. It's clear that your definition of sandbox, no matter how much you enjoy explaining it, is not the type of sandbox that's being discussed here.

I can't pretend like I have proof that the majority of people discussing sandbox MMOs use a certain definition of sandbox, but the author of the article linked in the OP clearly is using a different definition than you are. Case in point: she alludes to the fact that Skyrim is a sandbox game, and she's not talking about mods when she says it. She's referring to the fact that a player who does not understand sandbox gameplay may stop playing the game after plowing through the main story quest. This observation doesn't make any sense if you define sandbox games as those with malleable game elements. There's no point in insisting upon another definition, because that would invalidate the central premise that's being discussed.

So let's not get sidetracked over a definition. Even if you feel it's a misuse (and by the way, who died and made you Merriam and/or Webster?), the author is treating the sandbox genre as one in which most or all of the gameplay is undirected—that is, you do it because you want to, not because the game instructs or incentivizes you to do it. With that in mind, can having too much choice and too much freedom in a game like that have a negative effect on the player's experience?

Originally posted by Sagasaint

I get that. I just cant make the connection between that and "having fun"

 

to me it sounds like getting the boot, regardless of how much one was previously enjoying the game before the proverbial "wall". it doesnt seem like players are in control of when they stops playing the game.

 

so, if someone was having fun and all of a sudden the game becomes hostile enough towards him that he feels compelled to abandon it, no matter how much he wanted to stay....what motivates someone to repeat that same experience?

 

I dont understand people like nariusseldon. its like watching the first 30 minutes of a movie and then getting kicked out of the cinema...and then again...and again....and again....seriously, that sounds enervating to me.

 

but of course, different strokes for different folks, and if that works for him, Im happy for him. but still, I cant understand him.

Similarly, I can't understand people who loathe levelling up and view it as a "grind". There are people who are so enthralled by the promise of a fun endgame that they'll slog through a grind that they claim to hate. For some of these players (not all, but some), if they can get through it faster or easier—either by cheating/botting or by buying currency from an RMT—they will. And some will even go to the extreme of handing their account over to a powerlevelling service, which incurs a real money cost as well as the risk of losing their account. Literally paying someone to play a video game for them. All this because the endgame will be fun.

Play a game that you don't enjoy with the understanding that eventually the gameplay will change into something that you'll enjoy. The complete opposite of that philosophy makes more sense to me: Play a game that you do enjoy with the understanding that eventually the gameplay will change into something that you won't enjoy. When you reach that point, stop playing. Nothing about that seems confusing.

Originally posted by Quizzical

If you're never going to pay, then of course you wouldn't care whether it costs a lot or a little to pay.  But if you're never going to pay, then why should any game company care what you think about their business model?

Well... it's not as though attracting freeloaders to the game is bad for business. The more new people that join the game, the more full (and thus worth continuing to play) it feels to the rest of the playerbase. And even if those people aren't spending money in the cash shop, they may attract other new players to the game who are willing to spend money. These are businesses trying to make money, but there's really no cost (well, a negligible cost) associated with providing service to some players for free, so there's no downside. I don't think you'll find a F2P business model anywhere that says We lose money when a nonpaying player joins our game and we gain money when he leaves.

Originally posted by Mimzel

F2P games are intentionally more unclear than sub games in regards to how much it will cost you. In sub games (barring free trials) you know the cost up front. In F2P games you know you will be able to log in without paying anything. From that point on it varys from F2P game to F2P game how much you will spend.

What about expansions? These are a staple of P2P MMOs and nobody balks at them the way they balk at cash shops. A P2P MMO can come out with an expansion that costs two or three times as much as your monthly subscription fee, and you feel fairly obligated to buy it.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, or that it's worse than what happens with cash shop nickle-and-diming, but if your argument is that you always know up front exactly how much you'll be paying for a subscription, that's a key part that you're missing. You have no advance knowledge of how expensive expansions will be nor how much you will have to pay for them.

Originally posted by Quizzical

Originally posted by Disdena

If that's truly the case, then shouldn't those same games be practically devoid of nonpaying players? But they're not. Freeloaders do not exclusively inhabit non-P2W games. Why would they? Unless they're looking for a game to play competitively, it doesn't really matter what's in the cash shop even if you can directly purchase levels or in-game currency. They're not going to pay, so the only thing that matters is the base game: what you get if you pay nothing. There's no reason I would insist on going to a "truly" F2P game rather than a P2W game if playing the P2W game for free is more fun.

As I said before with the Mega Man post, a freeloader has no reason for looking at the version of the game he's playing as being "crippled". Crippled compared to what? Compared to an option he's already decided he's not going to play? That's a total non-issue.

People who know that they're never going to pay anything tend to want as much as they possibly can for free, even though it will always be far short of everything.  Games with flagrant pay-to-win item malls tend to be the best for that, as they can give a lot of the game away for free and charge later.  Subscription games with a free trial tend to offer far less of the game for free.

You make it sound as though pay-to-win games have a lot to offer to many different types of players.