Originally posted by Adalwulff

Full loot FFA PvP is NOT the definition of sandbox, by no means.

EVE showed us that you can separated the PvE and the PvP, and still get FFA full loot, with limited griefing, but still make most of the players happy, on both sides of the fence.

GW2 is doing the same, they took the best of DAOC RvR and EVE, and made a PvP paradise, without FFA full loot, but you do still get some loot from PvP, and its not trash either. So, I would call GW2 a sandpark.

Themepark = on rails quest driven, being hand held from creation to level cap.

Sandbox = Open world, free to go most any where, not constrained by any development roadblocks.

That is the only 2 defenitions of the 2 sub classes in the genre.  Where did this notion that their "had" to be player content for Sandboxs or FFA PvP loot?  Its not true at all no matter how you want it to be.  Can you do player made content?  Sure, but its not a requirement.  Doesnt matter what anyone says but GW2 features some aspects of a sandbox but its still mosttly a themepark.

Originally posted by Zylaxx

Originally posted by Adalwulff

Full loot FFA PvP is NOT the definition of sandbox, by no means.

EVE showed us that you can separated the PvE and the PvP, and still get FFA full loot, with limited griefing, but still make most of the players happy, on both sides of the fence.

GW2 is doing the same, they took the best of DAOC RvR and EVE, and made a PvP paradise, without FFA full loot, but you do still get some loot from PvP, and its not trash either. So, I would call GW2 a sandpark.

 

Sandbox = Open world, free to go most any where, not constrained by any development roadblocks.

I have to disagree with your personal definition there. You can have what you describe and still not have a sandbox. You are missing a few ingredients for it to be a sandbox. The building and creating part. You can make a themepark that fits your description without it being either sandbox or a hybrid

And therein lies the problem. We all have our own definitons. To me logic dictates that if we are to equate it with a sandbox with sand. In order for that to have any meaning, you should be able to do what you can do in an actual sandbox. That is to create something, be it a road, a castle even an elephant or a cake. Everything else is optional ...welcome or not

Garys mod, minecraft, terraria are the truest sandbox forms. You can build and destroy. Those are the foundations of a sandbox. Everything you add to that is just filling and not a defining feature

Why Darkfall became a free for all pvp sandbox games is becouse Claus lead designer of Darkfall he was the one who came up with name in end of 90s played back then first muds, later with his other norwegian friends started playing in games like UO and AC. iN 2001 they started with ideas of making there own game and project Darkfall was born.

So Darkfall was from start a game that will give freedom and hardcore PVP that they experience in specially Asheron's call-Darktide.

2003 they started from scratch in greece as aventurine, first name of company was razorwax back in norway.

P.S Oh and GW2 is not even close to be called sandbox or close to be called free for all pvp like Darkfall even EVE is a rather tame carebear sandbox.

Originally posted by BadSpock

-EvE: low sec/null sec - PoS , alts for moving goods between high/low and null, etc. No real risk for being a PK.

Friend of mine plays EvE a lot - null sec corp, always telling me about these great battles and camping gates and blowing people up. Says he doesn't care if he loses 500 million in ships/parts in a night, easily makes that back in industry and null sec ratting. Or just buys Plex.

Where is the risk there?

The risk is all, 100% on the newbie who doesn't have the skills/connections to make that kind of isk.

Losing a 100 million battleship is nothing when you can make 100 million in an hour.

Losing a 2 million crusier is EVERYTHING when you have to grind L2 missions for a few days to make that 2 mil back.

The only problem with this argument is that the risk is mitigated by good organization of players. He can make back that 500million isk because his organization secures a nice piece of space to make money in. Its not low risk free because the devs made it that way for them, its low risk because they put in the effort to organize together and minimize the risk.

Essentially you are saying certain players/guilds need to be nerfed for trying too hard and choosing to not be so casual.

I think if people are really honest with themselves, there is a case to be made for both sides. Here is some (hopefully relevant) copypasta from a post I made over at archeagesource.com where people were debating the need for a "death penalty" of some kind when players die as a result of PvP combat:

This is a long-standing debate that has been going on for decades. Some interesting thoughts on both sides of the matter can be found HERE and HERE (the top half).

Personally, I am all for open PvP FFA (with perhaps a few safe zones such as npc cities). I feel meaningful risk forces blues to band together and enhances the community of the game, reinforcing the interdependence between players and alliances of guilds, ultimately spawning emergent play. A bit more about this is included in the second half of THIS INSIGHTFUL ESSAY from Koster's blog and THIS decent write up about the appeal of UO pre-trammel (though that author botches a couple of facts/details).

Even though I support PvP FFA and feel that PK's bring something important to a game, I understand how "PvP'ing" often turns into needless griefing and can destroy the community and game world/experience. It's a very delicate balance, quite similar to ecology and predator-prey models, but what is unfortunate is that many reds are simply *NOT* smart hunters and they don't understand that you have to let your prey survive and proliferate to guarantee a continual hunt. Griefing and tormenting people to the point that the prey/carebears/noob's ragequit can turn the game into a ghost town and ultimately limits the chances for profitable and fun PvP/PK'ing...

So, to address the actual topic of the OP, there should be penalties for dying beyond the debuff and the timesink of having to walk back to the spot of the battle (or a new hunting ground). I think, at the very least, AA should embrace something like what GW2 is supposedly going to do: after X number of deaths, armor/weapons degrade and require repair. Not only would this provide a costly consequence for repeated deaths, but it would reinforce the economy-side of the game. I can still remember how in UO the very act of fighting (even PvE) would reduce the effectiveness and condition of armor/weapons (potentially resulting in them breaking, if I remember correctly). It made access to a PC blacksmith a necessity and you got to know your local smithies (and many of them would get skill gains for repairing your gear). I used to like to tip them for their service, as well, even though they normally gave me my money back.  :D

Also, I think it would be reasonable for the PK to get some percentage of the money that their prey was carrying when they died (10%? 50%? 100%?), with a very low chance of looting an actual peace of gear or random inventory item from the dead player's body.... That said, I did like the earlier suggestion (can't remember by whom) that higher level players who kill lowbies would not be able to get any loot from their "victory."

IMO, the pro-"real death penalty" camp are correct that a meaningful consequence is needed if only because risk yields rewards. It's just a matter of balancing between the two camps and having some kind of mechanism in place to check griefing (which is very hard to do, admittedly). UO struggled with it (and their "solution" of a reputation system didn't work, and the eventual creation of Trammel essentially destroyed the game). Still, the Dundee write up on Raph's blog points to the reality that there are other solutions to this problem than what we are typically used to seeing. What's more, these solutions could work if the game's dev are willing to work at the problem (and not just try to find an easy one-size-fits-all solution that are commonplace in today's MMORPG's). I, for one, still remember the great thrill of helping other blues take out one of those murderous reds (but I don't forget the hard knocks and lack of fun that is the result of being continually griefed by players who view the game as little more than a hunting ground for ganking up-and-comers).

I'm not sure if this was a useful post, but I hope it contributes something to the discussion =/

Starpower writes:

Originally posted by Starpower

Originally posted by Zylaxx

Originally posted by Adalwulff

Full loot FFA PvP is NOT the definition of sandbox, by no means.

EVE showed us that you can separated the PvE and the PvP, and still get FFA full loot, with limited griefing, but still make most of the players happy, on both sides of the fence.

GW2 is doing the same, they took the best of DAOC RvR and EVE, and made a PvP paradise, without FFA full loot, but you do still get some loot from PvP, and its not trash either. So, I would call GW2 a sandpark.

 

Sandbox = Open world, free to go most any where, not constrained by any development roadblocks.

I have to disagree with your personal definition there. You can have what you describe and still not have a sandbox. You are missing a few ingredients for it to be a sandbox. The building and creating part. You can make a themepark that fits your description without it being either sandbox or a hybrid

 

And therein lies the problem. We all have our own definitons. To me logic dictates that if we are to equate it with a sandbox with sand. In order for that to have any meaning, you should be able to do what you can do in an actual sandbox. That is to create something, be it a road, a castle even an elephant or a cake. Everything else is optional ...welcome or not

Garys mod, minecraft, terraria are the truest sandbox forms. You can build and destroy. Those are the foundations of a sandbox. Everything you add to that is just filling and not a defining feature

 

Well, I see "building" your characters the same as building anything else. A "sandbox" character is someone with few restrictions on how to build thier skills and weapon sets, in GW2 you have that, much more than other games I have played. Thats why I see it as sandboxy-ish.

Originally posted by Calfis

The only problem with this argument is that the risk is mitigated by good organization of players. He can make back that 500million isk because his organization secures a nice piece of space to make money in. Its not low risk free because the devs made it that way for them, its low risk because they put in the effort to organize together and minimize the risk.

Essentially you are saying certain players/guilds need to be nerfed for trying too hard and choosing to not be so casual.

Good point, however I was responding to a post that was saying that the problem comes in the LONG TERM risk being negligable.

Over the long time, the risks of being a PK ganker/griefer are nearly completely mitigated by the game systems - built by the devs.

It is the long term structure, both social and in terms of access to resources/skills etc. in the game that is punishing for anyone who joins the party late.

But shouldn't players be rewarded for long term play? Of course they should... but how do you make it so the long term players still have the risks associated with these kinds of behaviors?

That is the big question.

This is, in part, why many people like expansions in themepark games - it hits the reset button on progress so people who join late can be there for the big start over. But obviously many others hate it because their efforts/gains before the reset are made meaningless.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Take UO for example - you are a Red PK and you have a house full of spare equipment and regents, and your skills are all 7x GM and you also have a full bank in Bucs Den and know where all the Red Healers are.

What risk is there to you to be a PK? An army of blues who are Anti-PKs can kill you a dozen times and it still won't matter, at all.

But if you are a new player without a ton of extra gear, a PK kills you once - that's everything you own. Gone.

So again, how do you reward long term play, while still giving veteran players the same RISK that new players face in a FFA PvP environment?

Originally posted by Adalwulff

 

Well, I see "building" your characters the same as building anything else. A "sandbox" character is someone with few restrictions on how to build thier skills and weapon sets, in GW2 you have that, much more than other games I have played. Thats why I see it as sandboxy-ish.

I doubt you will find anybody who agrees with you but you are entitled to believe GW2 is sandboxy.

Originally posted by Starpower

Originally posted by Adalwulff

Well, I see "building" your characters the same as building anything else. A "sandbox" character is someone with few restrictions on how to build thier skills and weapon sets, in GW2 you have that, much more than other games I have played. Thats why I see it as sandboxy-ish.

I doubt you will find anybody who agrees with you but you are entitled to believe GW2 is sandboxy.

Skyrim doesn't have any building or destroying and it isn't even multiplayer...

Yet it's widely regarded as an excellent sandbox RPG.

So what makes Skyrim a sandbox?

Freedom.

Freedom to make your character how you want to make them - no restrictions on "this race can't use that skill or be this class"

Freedom to level the skills you want to level instead of being pigeon holed into a specific class.

Freedom to follow the dev crafted story, or simply wander the world doing whatever the hell you want.

GW2 is best described, I think, not as a sandbox or a sandpark but as a Themebox.

It's a themepark, but it is not on rails - you have a lot more freedom than many/any other Themepark games, and as such, has elements that are certainly sandboxy.

Open world "full on" 24/7 PvP is a sure fire way to not get me into a game.  In the end it doesn't matter how many awesome sandbox features that it has. Now I'm not saying PvP can't be in a game or anything like that, but I want to have a choice in the matter.  I'm fine with a game that has some kind of pvp toggle or pvp zones so that people can play that way if the choose.  but when a game like Darkfall comes around my only real choice becomes get the game or don't.

I think it is really unfortunate that so the trend has become that sandbox and open Pvp have somehow become linked.  PvP is a playstyle, and while a vocal one, it does not represent entire MMO market (even if some would love to think so).  But going even farther than that, not all PvP players like open, 24/7 world PvP.  If they did, games like Darkfall would dominate the market.  When you make your game have open world PvP you are excluding a large number of potential subscribers right off the bat.  And that's cool if that is what you want to do.  I respect Darkfall and the design they have because they specifically said that there would not be a "soft" version of darkfall and that it was what it was.  That's cool, I would expect them to change that stance if they believe in it, however I also would never play it.

I would love to see a good sandbox game come out that didn't have open world PvP or try and sell itself as a PvP game and see how it does.

Originally posted by BadSpock

Originally posted by Starpower

Originally posted by Adalwulff

Well, I see "building" your characters the same as building anything else. A "sandbox" character is someone with few restrictions on how to build thier skills and weapon sets, in GW2 you have that, much more than other games I have played. Thats why I see it as sandboxy-ish.

I doubt you will find anybody who agrees with you but you are entitled to believe GW2 is sandboxy.

Skyrim doesn't have any building or destroying and it isn't even multiplayer...

Yet it's widely regarded as an excellent sandbox RPG.

So what makes Skyrim a sandbox?

Freedom.

Freedom to make your character how you want to make them - no restrictions on "this race can't use that skill or be this class"

Freedom to level the skills you want to level instead of being pigeon holed into a specific class.

Freedom to follow the dev crafted story, or simply wander the world doing whatever the hell you want.

GW2 is best described, I think, not as a sandbox or a sandpark but as a Themebox.

It's a themepark, but it is not on rails - you have a lot more freedom than many/any other Themepark games, and as such, has elements that are certainly sandboxy.

Skyrim is not a sandbox without the creation kit period.

It's a great open world exploration RPG but a sandbox it's not without the ability the creation kit gives you and the fact you can mod the world you play in

Look at where the term comes from

Originally posted by barezz

I would love to see a good sandbox game come out that didn't have open world PvP or try and sell itself as a PvP game and see how it does.

SWG, FFXI, and UO post-Trammel split (when it was at the height of its popularity) were all examples of sandbox games with little or consensual PvP.

All 3 were/are fairly popular.

UO is on a 13 year run, still charging a sub fee, SWG ended but ran for 8 years with a sub fee, and FFXI I beleive is still up and running with a sub fee and doing well (probably helped FFXI that FFXIV crashed and burned)

There is a market for PvE sandboxes with optional PvP.

Originally posted by Starpower

Skyrim is not a sandbox without the creation kit period.

It's a great open world exploration RPG but a sandbox it's not without the ability the creation kit gives you and the fact you can mod the world you play in

So you are of the opinion that sandbox = ability to build/create in the game world?

Would UO and EvE be considered sandboxes even though the only thing you can build in the game world is housing/POS?

Well I guess EvE also has planetary construction now.

Originally posted by BadSpock

Originally posted by Starpower

Skyrim is not a sandbox without the creation kit period.

It's a great open world exploration RPG but a sandbox it's not without the ability the creation kit gives you and the fact you can mod the world you play in

So you are of the opinion that sandbox = ability to build/create in the game world?

Would UO and EvE be considered sandboxes even though the only thing you can build in the game world is housing/POS?

Well I guess EvE also has planetary construction now.

If you can build housing using various components then it has one of the most important sandbox elements. I would call Vanguard a sandbox/themepark hybrid. It allows you to not only create houses and castles but also ships you can use in the gameworld. Both UO and EvE are sandbox games even moreso than the former examples

If you can build permanent structures in the gameworld and destroy them then you have a true sandbox. In the spirit of freedom it's generally accepted you have that same freedom stretching to other aspects of the game but if your character is rigid with no way of molding it, giving you complete freedom to build and create everything else. It's still a fully fledged sandbox game. it may not be a game you want to play but it would still be a sandbox

The term lends for you to mold the world you play in. It doesn't mean molding your character.

Originally posted by Starpower

If you can build housing using various components then it has one of the most important sandbox elements. I would call Vanguard a sandbox/themepark hybrid. It allows you to not only create houses and castles but also ships you can use in the gameworld. Both UO and EvE are sandbox games even moreso than the former examples

If you can build permanent structure in the gameworld and destroy them then you have a true sandbox. In the spirit of freedom it's generally accepted you have that same freedom stretching to other aspects of the game but if your character is rigid with no way of molding it, giving you complete freedom to build and create everything else. It's still a fully fledged sandbox game. it may not be a game you want to play but it would still be a sandbox

You couldn't destroy structures in UO, so I guess UO was not a true sandbox to you?

Also couldn't destroy structures in SWG, so must not be a true sandbox.

Neither in FFXI. No construction or destruction.

So EvE is the only true sandbox because you can build and destroy POS?

What a narrow definition, no wonder sandbox gamers never get any good/new games...

Originally posted by BadSpock

Originally posted by barezz

I would love to see a good sandbox game come out that didn't have open world PvP or try and sell itself as a PvP game and see how it does.

SWG, FFXI, and UO post-Trammel split (when it was at the height of its popularity) were all examples of sandbox games with little or consensual PvP.

All 3 were/are fairly popular.

UO is on a 13 year run, still charging a sub fee, SWG ended but ran for 8 years with a sub fee, and FFXI I beleive is still up and running with a sub fee and doing well (probably helped FFXI that FFXIV crashed and burned)

There is a market for PvE sandboxes with optional PvP.

As somebody who played FFXI from launch (and still has an active sub and logs in from time to time to craft and put my wares up on the AH), FFXI is *NOT* a sandbox. To some extent, there is *some* freedom as far as what you do in the game (mostly because of the extent of the many rails that are provided to ride), but FFXI doesn't deserve to be put in the same category as SWG and UO. With EQ, perhaps. But, it is a themepark with some sandboxy aspects along the periphery of the game.

As for your other point about building in the game (and UO only featuring housing as far as what players can build), what about the amazing and diverse choices for crafting, gathering, resource management and refinement that UO offered? What about being able to go into the wild and find and tame animals (including mounts), then sell those mounts to other characters? *edit to add: What about mining and smithing, namely characters creating some of the best gear in the game (and also repairing it as it got damaged because gear degraded with use/over time)?

Those kinds of features and the actions related to them were as much about "world building" as the actual erecting of physical structures like houses ever was....

Originally posted by BadSpock

Originally posted by Starpower

If you can build housing using various components then it has one of the most important sandbox elements. I would call Vanguard a sandbox/themepark hybrid. It allows you to not only create houses and castles but also ships you can use in the gameworld. Both UO and EvE are sandbox games even moreso than the former examples

If you can build permanent structure in the gameworld and destroy them then you have a true sandbox. In the spirit of freedom it's generally accepted you have that same freedom stretching to other aspects of the game but if your character is rigid with no way of molding it, giving you complete freedom to build and create everything else. It's still a fully fledged sandbox game. it may not be a game you want to play but it would still be a sandbox

You couldn't destroy structures in UO, so I guess UO was not a true sandbox to you?

 

You couldn't destroy your own house you just built? News to me

If Minecraft patched the game making it impossible to change, alter or destroy other peoples creations it would still be a sandbox because the creator can do those things himself

Originally posted by Starpower

Originally posted by BadSpock

You couldn't destroy structures in UO, so I guess UO was not a true sandbox to you?

You couldn't destroy your own house you just built? News to me

If Minecraft patched the game making it impossible to change, alter or destroy other peoples creations it would still be a sandbox because the creator can do those things himself

What a narrow definition, no wonder sandbox gamers never get any good/new games...

So you have to be able to build.. and destroy.. but it doesn't matter if you can destroy other people's things as long as you can destroy the stuff you place...

It's a sandbox?