Originally posted by altairzq

I explained in another message above.

You got to realize:

1) creating a pre-set base is not changing game world.

2) I didn't say that "a changing game world" is not a part of a sand box.

3) I opposed the concept that creating a pre set base and destroying it is the core of a sandbox gane.

4) I can accept that creating is the core of a sandbox. Creating in the most general sense, but certainly not a pre-set building just to be destroyed afterwards or defended.

I will leave this absurd discussion here.

By that measure, Second Life would be the only sandbox.  If that's where you draw that line, fine, as long as you're consistent.

But, I think you're missing the point that LOVE is still early in development.  If no other significant features are added, then it would be fair to say that it's not a sand box.

Originally posted by altairzq

Originally posted by Tatum

Originally posted by Cik_Asalin

Im still waiting for someone to really describe why this game is a sandbox or even worth playing.  It seems like mmo legos.

 

+ Its a First-Person something.

+ Its a procedurally generated world with triggers.

+ My avatar name is assigned by code.

+ Persistent world.

 

Probably, because of the building/creating/destroying bases aspect of the game.  At the least, thats the core of a sand box.

 

Since when? Sorry to be so blunt, but you guys don't know what a sandbox MMO is.

Why don't you explain it then?  If building/creating and a changing game world are not part of a sand box, then I don't know what is.

The funny part is, no one really has a leg to stand on here.  Nearly every MMO since WoW has been a failure...regardless of where it fell on the design spectrum.  EVE is about the only one that gets a pass as they started really small and built into a nice niche.   

Originally posted by Robsolf

Originally posted by Tatum

 

This is along the lines of what I was going to add.  There needs to be some sort of faction system and/or mob ecology where the size of the centuar population also has an effect on other related mob populations, increasing or decreasing their size depending on whether they're friendly/hostile/neutral.

Also, I don't think wiping out the centuar population is an issue.  Even in this case, they should slowly recover over time.  Maybe a few spawns here and there at first, increasing unless the players get obsessive and really stay on top of them.

 

It would be interesting to see what experiments were done by devs regarding those types of systems, but I think you already know the answer, which is why they don't implement them:  Those mobs that people are required to kill through quests, or have drops that players use, etc., would die out and become scarce, while bunnies and squirrels and whatnot would overpopulate.

This means that players who need materials that those mobs provide wouldn't get them, and wouldn't be able to finish their quests, or whatever it was that they were working on.

You'd also have griefers wiping out every mob that's of use to anybody, or screwing with the ecology in a way that impedes progress for other characters.

If you give a population of anonymous players the means to screw over their peers, don't be surprised when they use it.

That's assuming that you have quests and other systems that depend on specific mobs.  A game designed around this system should allow for advancement, crafting, etc no matter what type of populations you have at the time.

A nice balance might be to place most of the crafting materials on the "good" creatures.  When/if players over hunt these, their population decreases and the population of the "evil" creatures increases drastically.  The player base would have to maintain some sort of balance or just deal with constant raids from the evil creatures.

Originally posted by Chealar

Well, let's say the centaurs attacked because overexploitation of the forest have limited their habitat and ressources. In order to have enough to eat, they attack the city and pillage the grananries.

Some players decide to hit the centaurs hard, because they only see the end result of "being attacked", not that the players have caused the attack by depleting the forest of its ressources. So they push the centaur into exile after having decimating most of their warriors.

Well, the centaur may come back to this town, either for revenge or because this is their ancestral territory; the when, why, and how could be dependant to players' actions. But after a couple attack/counterattack cycles, some players say "we'll exterminate all centaurs and be done with this". Which they do.

But some "eco-friendly" players decide the ecosystem will be screwed with no more centaur and act to intercede with the gods to bring back the centaur race. Or they culd already have "befriended" the centaurs and helped them get back to their homeland in the first place.

Multiply this by several different races, several alignements among these races of mobs, several different trigger, and you may have a "dynamic" faction system. With no "hard-coded" faction, but shifting alliances. And maybe sone players will create a guild which is all about destructiona nd some other a guild to "protect the ecosystem".

This is along the lines of what I was going to add.  There needs to be some sort of faction system and/or mob ecology where the size of the centuar population also has an effect on other related mob populations, increasing or decreasing their size depending on whether they're friendly/hostile/neutral.

Also, I don't think wiping out the centuar population is an issue.  Even in this case, they should slowly recover over time.  Maybe a few spawns here and there at first, increasing unless the players get obsessive and really stay on top of them.

Originally posted by Cik_Asalin

Im still waiting for someone to really describe why this game is a sandbox or even worth playing.  It seems like mmo legos.

 

+ Its a First-Person something.

+ Its a procedurally generated world with triggers.

+ My avatar name is assigned by code.

+ Persistent world.

Probably, because of the building/creating/destroying bases aspect of the game.  At the least, thats the core of a sand box.

Originally posted by Lizard_SF

Originally posted by Tatum

Really, theres almost no point in following the AAA titles unless you're a noob, obsessive achiever type, or ultra casual player typical of 95% of paying customers.   If you don't fit into those catagories, then AAA MMOs have nothing to offer you other than the same old shit in a different box.

 

Fixed your typo.

I always love how people simultaneously class themselves as the few, the proud, the elite, AND wonder why no one spends as much money making a game for them as they spend making games for the vast majority.

(I speak as someone whose favorite musical genre considers sales of 500-1000 discs to be a "breakout bestseller", and whose favorite style of CRPG hasn't had a single title since around 2000. And who liked the Seventh Doctor and "Enterprise". I don't TRY to have minority tastes and I don't think they show me to be better, smarter, or deeper than people who like what everyone else likes, it's just how I keep ending up. I'm pretty happy that, at least for MMORPGs, my tastes and the majority's FINALLY coincide!)

You're making a lot of assumptions there.

The achievers and the hard core generally claim elite status in this genre...or pretty much any genre.  I certainly don't fit into either of those groups.  I will never raid and I don't ever go for 8 hour sessions.  So, once again, if you don't fit into those groups you won't find much to interest you in these games.

If by the "95% majority" you mean the massive horde of noobs (not saying that in a bad way), then you're going a long way in assuming that they have any opinion about game design.  More than likely, they came to WoW because of marketing and hype and they stayed because it is extremely polished and has smooth controls.  Most of these players have new clue that these Themepark vs Sandbox arguement even exist.

Most of us don't want to be the hip minority.  We just want some new games that aren't so controlling and linear.

I was just asking about this the other day in the LFG forum.  Hadn't heard about it in a while.  Anyway, I got this link:

http://www.gaminglove.net/

Plenty of info there.  The core of it sounds really good, still pretty early though.  Of course, the beta will only be like $4 or $5, so not much to lose there.

Damn...I gave up trying to reading all of this some where around page 12.

OP, I think you already know what the only option is:  exit the genre, find other hobbies or game genres, poke your head back in now and again to see if any thing new has happened.  The smaller title games and indie games are the ONLY ones that might break the mold in any way.

Really, theres almost no point in following the AAA titles unless you're a noob, obsessive achiever type, or ultra casual player.  If you don't fit into those catagories, then AAA MMOs have nothing to offer you other than the same old shit in a different box.

Has anyone actually played this game?  I've been interested since it was first anounced, but there's hardly any real info out on it other than a video here or there. 

I can't imagine why people actually enjoy MMO combat?  It's awful, it's always been awful.  1-2-3, repeat, then pretend like my gear and numbers didn't do all the work.  Yahtzee described it best as, kicking each other in the shins until some one falls over. 

This is why mob killing is a "grind", because the combat is boring as shit.  It's just mindless button mashing. 

There are alternatives to the massive power curved level system.  Lateral progression, radial progression, no progression.  Problem is, many players are too attached to the straight vertical level system.  They hate grinding, they hate not having any one to group with, but they still want a massive power curve that encourages grinding and separates the play base...???

As far as FPS, yea I do think people would pay for an FPS as long as it has a large persistant world and some sort of ongoing conflict.  There are other forms of progression you could mix in there that wouldnt directly effect a characters power.

Originally posted by Ozmodan

Dark Age of Camelot still has the best pvp in the genre, too bad the servers are lightly populated these days.

That's what happens when you release a shitty expansion and constantly ignore every thing your player base says.  Great game design, terrible dev team...

The instance arguement might make sense if MMOs actually had good content...they do not.  All of those scripted encounters are just a half assed imitation of a single player rpg.

Lots and lots of great ideas in there.

World vs world PvP...check

Dynamic PvE...check

An interesting class system with actual customization...check

If they can deliver on most of this stuff, they'll have a hit.  I guess we have a year or so to find out...

Neither.  Standing in one spot, killing the same mobs over and over sucks.  Running through the same scripted, instanced encounters sucks.  Some thing more dynamic and less predictable would be an improvement.

I'll be interested just to see what theyre shooting for.  Some sort of hybrid design would make sense. 

Also, I'm still waiting to hear some thing from WoD or schillings MMO.  Who knows how far out those are...

We've already seen the Age of The WoW Clones.  None of them lived up to expectations.

So yea, it's a good bet that we'll see a backlash of MMOs that try (at least a little) to be different.  Even Blizzard would be stupid to clone their own game.  At the very least, they'll go for  a drastically different setting...but I hope they go further than that and take a big step away from the same model we've seen for too long.

Of course, who knows when this "next gen" will really hit.  I wouldn't expect much for 2010, but maybe 2011 or 2012 will see some of these games launch.  Will be interesting to see if Blizz or CCP can avoid the curse of bombing on their second title.

Originally posted by Lansid

Mark my words, FFXIV will give the genre a much needed kick in the ass towards a different direction. Whether or not it's "better" is subject to individual opinion, but they're breaking away from the current Flavor of the Decade.

Just curious (because I know nothing about the new game), but how are they breaking away?  Do you mean theyre staying away from the ultra-casual, quest train stuff?

Originally posted by Axehilt

Personally I still can't figure out why anyone would claim Killers aren't satisfied.  Especially with instanced PVP being such a superior arena for competitive play.  WOW's Arenas and Guild Wars PVP are basically the best PVP MMORPGs have seen.

The only argument against Killers being satisfied is how few good competitive-PVP MMORPGs have released after WOW and GW.  MMORPGs aren't the optimal genre for competitive play, but there's really no excuse for games which try  to be PVP-focused like WAR to fail on account of combat being shallow (and on account of the game wasting a lot of manhours developing half-hearted PVE content.)

I'm not a "killer", but I'm going to say that most of them are looking for some type of open world PvP with consequences and rewards.  With arenas, battle grounds, instances, what ever, you might as well just play FPS.