A lot of good responses and most I would really want. To complement the list, computer resource needs aside, a voxel world would be my chosen feature. IMO nothing makes a world more palpable than digging into the earth or a side of a mountain and getting appropriate materials. Make this doubly so if there are material "grades" and going deep into a cavern or volcano would produce a better stone or metal.
Originally posted by TheeLord Simple Q, What is your most wanted feature in a sandbox MMO? What other games have you played and wish they had xyz feature?
Freedom - freedom to do what I want, when I want in any way I choose to do it.
On a side note: Personally I won't use the term Sandbox. I call it the "S" word :-)
I have my own theories on it. But in discussions I see a wide range in definitions, often so extreme in absolutes it's to the point of being absurd.
Territory control player-driven activity with no developer storyline on one side, to free roaming non-linear adventure game with tons of developer provided storyline.
I've studied how this difference came about. If you want a brief synopsis, I'll share.
EDIT: btw, beautiful screens !!!
I believe your first definition there is often the direction most sandbox games go if for no other reason than its the cheaper route. It also stands in contrast with the sandbox games of the past that were most beloved and successful. Crafting a virtual world is unfortunately not as easy as dropping players and some tools onto an empty canvas as many people like to believe. Some work must be done to make the world compelling, believable and most importantly, offering players a reason to play (which goes back to my suggestion, PvE).
A real player driven market is the most fun you can have in a sandbox game. The most important thing: No auction house so that space and distances influencing the market.
i.e. In a small village some adventurers need Leather Armors. As a vendor or crafter you can get to a big city buy some armors, travel to that village and sell it there to the adventurers.
I believe your first definition there is often the direction most sandbox games go if for no other reason than its the cheaper route. It also stands in contrast with the sandbox games of the past that were most beloved and successful. Crafting a virtual world is unfortunately not as easy as dropping players and some tools onto an empty canvas as many people like to believe. Some work must be done to make the world compelling, believable and most importantly, offering players a reason to play (which goes back to my suggestion, PvE).
Very ignorant. Most of the 800 millions of MMO players worldwide play for PvP, but you say the only possible reason to play MMO is PvE. If I want to play PvE I will play single player RPG. MMOs are to play with people. And there is no objective reason crafting to be different from fight - with skills, risk, competition and challenge. The problem of crafting is that it is a PvE feature like that in solo games.
1) First of all, there are not 800 million people playing MMOs. Not even close. That is an incorrect statistic which could only come from including other multiplayer games and lumping them together with Massively Multiplayer games.
2) Player advancement has always been one of the most successful ways to keep players logging in. The sandbox games that have neglected that aspect have, all with one accord, done poorly.
3) In the MMO genre, statistics show that PvE servers and those predominantly based around PvE, are more popular overall than those based around PvP.
4) PvE does not mean solo content. Ideally, PvE and player progression in an MMO should be a multiplayer endeavor. Working together with other players to achieve goals is something that was present in all the most successful sandbox games, while those focusing on solo content or only PvP aspects have struggled.
5) Lastly, I did not claim PvE is the "only" reason to play an MMO. Its simply a mechanism that provides players with a reliable reason to log in, and is also one of the best catalysts for PvP. The problem with the PvP only philosophy is that, in the absence of players or PvP, the player gets bored for lack of a way to better his character. Hence the reason why themeparks games give you "pvp on demand" via arenas. In a virtual world, its important to offer content that serve as points of interest, giving players a reason to work together or against each other.
Craft my own skills. I dont mean put some mats in a book that makes the same spell every wizard has but truly make skills. If I want my DD to do 25% of its damage at the end as a dot I should be able to do that. Or pick any DD and have 15% of the damage return as a HoT. If each thing you add had a cost and the more powerful what you adding is, the more it cost, you could balance it that way. I really want to build my own class.
DoT mana regen DPS class. DDing master with low cast times. Tank that uses AoE spells over melee. A rogue that most of his damage comes from insta cast DDs. If I can think of a class, I want to be able to make it. If an MMO gave me that freedom, they would win my business. I get it would be hard to balance but I think its worth it.
I think you will love what we are planning with our skills-based advancement and magic being "created" at casting using various spell words to decide what exactly the spell will do.
How do you keep some sort of balance in your ideal game? If you had heavy plate armor wielding sorcerers, and amazingly good archers that can also wield a 2h battleaxe with grace, do you think things will become too unbalanced? I have my own ideas on this, but would like to hear your take
Adding damage reductions from skills and armor would lower the damage of the skills. Putting sliders on things like refresh rate, set to insta cast lowers the damage but sliding it to have a longer refresh rate would raise the damage. So it would be all about the modifiers. So someone could make a spell that is a DD, that returned 50% of the damage as a HoT, insta cast, that snared someone for 30% but you would end up with a DD that did 20 damage. What game are you talking about?
The PvE games I played have politics,fame,respect,competition and cooperation. Perhaps you have not experienced it in the games you have played. Please do not sugest they are more meaningful in a PvP game as they are games after all and what is meaningful is all subjective . From my recollection the competition ,respect and cooperation I experienced in Everquest was very meaningful to me.
The PvE games I played have politics,fame,respect,competition and cooperation. Perhaps you have not experienced it in the games you have played. Please do not sugest they are more meaningful in a PvP game as they are games after all and what is meaningful is all subjective . From my recollection the competition ,respect and cooperation I experienced in Everquest was very meaningful to me.
I would want optional PvP as the feature.
And what is that PvE game with politics? Let make alliance vs mobs What competition you have in PvE game except dress up contest.? What fame, when you and thousands or even millions of players kill the same mob over and over again. Only some limited cooperation is possible if you remove the PvP from MMO.
Sorry you missed classic EQ, it had all of those things.
I played on Rallos Zek (PvP) and it remains, to this day, hands down the best PvP I've ever experienced in an MMO. Not because of the combat mechanics, but because of the competition that existed over content and the group play necessary both in PvP and PvE. Nothing else even comes close to the level of rivalry and competition, and it existed because of PvE and politics.
The politics on both PvE and PvP servers were a big part of the game, because how you and your guild carried yourself became well known to all players. Those players who were the most skilled (in pve/pvp) or played the most, downing the hardest bosses, and completing the most challenging quests, we're renowned.
resource grades, and scarce resources being in caves etc... can be done without terrain modifications. I personally don't like terrain modifying because it leaves the world unplayable in some places and also leaves it looking very unrealistic and generally ugly in many cases. Also is extremely hard to pull off with true MMO population numbers since it's so resource intensive on the servers
I see no problem with quests, as long as its not quest progression. Quests can be a great method of telling stories and providing a sense of history to a world. Its grinding generic quests for experience that is the problem. That should have never been a thing.
I agree,been saying it for years.Why can't we have a game that is sandbox with NPC's that give quests also ? I just don't get it tbh,there are people that want a sandbox type of 'game' that feels more difficult than real life to me this is not a 'game'.
You could even have kill 10 rat quests within reason,what I mean is once 500 rats are killed by players turning in the quest the NPC stops giving the quest until the population grows again or a set amount of time passes ( I do NOT mean like the tedious heart events in GW2)
Quests are developer-authored content. Dev-authored content is the exact opposite of a sandbox (which is about player-authored content.)
Now obviously themepark (dev-authored) content will sell better, but perhaps that's not the direction the OP wants to go.
The fact that you two dislike quest rewards makes no sense. If a sandbox is going to include themepark rides (quests) then they should obviously be XP-rewarded as much as any activity in the game. By being XP-based (not skill/use-based) and balanced, players are free to do whatever activity they want (ie player freedom, the core point of sandboxes) to advance. Don't like questing? Go do something else, and you'll earn the same rate of XP. (Replace XP with money and/or items. Whatever rewards the game has for engaging with the game. For example EVE may keep its XP entirely separate from any game activities, but it still provides some reward for missions -- perhaps not a balanced amount where you felt you were free to choose that activity, but it was there.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I see no problem with quests, as long as its not quest progression. Quests can be a great method of telling stories and providing a sense of history to a world. Its grinding generic quests for experience that is the problem. That should have never been a thing.
I agree,been saying it for years.Why can't we have a game that is sandbox with NPC's that give quests also ? I just don't get it tbh,there are people that want a sandbox type of 'game' that feels more difficult than real life to me this is not a 'game'.
You could even have kill 10 rat quests within reason,what I mean is once 500 rats are killed by players turning in the quest the NPC stops giving the quest until the population grows again or a set amount of time passes ( I do NOT mean like the tedious heart events in GW2)
To be fair, developer-authored content is the exact opposite of a sandbox (which is about player-authored content.)
That said, yes obviously developer-authored content (ie themepark) will sell way better than an empty sandbox. We see this all over the place. Even the very names of the sub-genres implies how things work: people pay a lot for themeparks, but not much for sandboxes. This is because themeparks have a lot of effort going into each 'ride' and are designed to entertain you whereas a sandbox is just a pile of sand (much cheaper to produce) and you have to entertain yourself.)
The fact that you two dislike quest rewards makes no sense. If a sandbox is going to include themepark rides (quests) then they should obviously be XP-rewarded as much as any activity in the game. By being XP-based (not skill/use-based) and balanced, players are free to do whatever activity they want (ie player freedom, the core point of sandboxes) to advance. Don't like questing? Go do something else, and you'll earn the same rate of XP.
Why should quests give any special reward? You get the normal XP, gold and items for killing the mobs related to the quest. It would be identical to a person who does not want to do the quest and just grind the same mobs. That actually seems well balanced to me.
If the players like quests as much as they claim then shouldn't completing them be it's own reward?
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own. -- Herman Melville
The notion that sandbox cannot include developer content is utterly ridiculous and partly (to entirely) responsible for so many failed sandbox games.
Sandbox means freedom. It means you do what you want, but that still implies there should be things to do. Where do you draw the line? The terrain? The cities? What of backstory? What of NPC factions? What of evil forces and entities at work in the world? What of deities?
There should be enough variety that it brings together many different types of people to create the feel of a virtual world. Truth of the matter is, when you fail to offer enough depth and variety in gameplay, your game actually becomes less "sandbox" and more linear.
It may seem a bit paradoxical on the surface, but its pretty obvious once you give it some consideration.
The notion that sandbox cannot include developer content is utterly ridiculous and partly (to entirely) responsible for so many failed sandbox games.
Sandbox means freedom. It means you do what you want, but that still implies there should be things to do. Where do you draw the line? The terrain? The cities? What of backstory? What of NPC factions? There should just be enough variety that it brings together many different types of people to create the feel of a virtual world. Truth of the matter is, when you fail to offer enough depth and variety in gameplay, your game actually becomes less "sandbox" and more linear.
It may seem a bit paradoxical on the surface, but its pretty obvious once you give it some consideration.
How many sandbox games have their been that have actually included no developer (pre-placed) content?? I can't think of any off-hand. The new batch of non-MMO survival games, sure, but those aren't MMOs. I think sandbox MMOs in general have tried to ride the fence on pre-made content. Claiming their world is wide open, but providing pre-existing cities and quests for the players and only allowing construction in certain areas etc... Seems like a cop-out to me.
I think player created missions can give less "creative" players something to do quickly, or allow the players who like to have clear goals to have more direction without introducing pre-made dev created content to the world. More tools to the players, isn't that what we all want?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Housing. Most mmo's these days have dropped the idea of every player getting their own housing instance. My first mmo with housing was FFXI. I liked how I kept getting drawn back into finding furniture that would give me battle stats on the field. Made my mog more important. But I kept wishing I could upgrade from a city apartment to a hut to a village house to a castle some day. Or maybe go live in a tree house with the elves or an underground mine with the dwarves. So much role playing possibilities yet devs skip this like it means nothing. Taking the RP out of mmorpg.
Crafting. But I see crafting as an extension of housing. I would like a sandbox that emulated the sims' franchise where I could buy a dressers and keep an armory. I could craft and store my weapons in my own home. Not in some invisible inventory pocket on my pc.
Interaction. I want my character to sleep in a bed, sit at a table with other chars interacting with the foods a bar maid sets before us. Have the bar maid clean the table when done. I want a real world in cyberspace.
Music. Play and create songs (note what Mabinogi did in this no other mmo has ever done). Jam sessions where you can have an actual concert with other players.
Art. There is no reason why we can't have art contests where the player base votes on new armor and weapons made by the players themselves with art programs. Why do we have to wait on the devs to come up with our content??? We're all complaining we are bored all the time. Some of us could stem that boredom if we were allowed to make content for the game we play.
Basically SANDBOX means more role playing options.
Housing. Most mmo's these days have dropped the idea of every player getting their own housing instance.
That's an odd statement. Over the past five years, most have added or expanded it.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
The notion that sandbox cannot include developer content is utterly ridiculous and partly (to entirely) responsible for so many failed sandbox games.
Sandbox means freedom. It means you do what you want, but that still implies there should be things to do. Where do you draw the line? The terrain? The cities? What of backstory? What of NPC factions? What of evil forces and entities at work in the world? What of deities?
There should be enough variety that it brings together many different types of people to create the feel of a virtual world. Truth of the matter is, when you fail to offer enough depth and variety in gameplay, your game actually becomes less "sandbox" and more linear.
It may seem a bit paradoxical on the surface, but its pretty obvious once you give it some consideration.
Absolutely correct: games being totally sandbox (player-authored) is why sandbox games fail. They typically need themepark content to succeed.
Your list of things is all appealing dev-authored content. It's themepark content. And yeah, it appeals to players but the more dev-authored content that fills the world, the less space there is for player-authored content, so the less sandbox the game is.
I never said sandboxes cannot include dev-authored content, I only pointed out that dev-authored content is by definition themepark content.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by TheeLord Simple Q, What is your most wanted feature in a sandbox MMO? What other games have you played and wish they had xyz feature?
For me there are 2 primary things a Sandbox game MUST have.
This assumes that the game as a whole is otherwise well made.
1) A real Justice System. Allowing PKers to run around rampant killing players just drives non-PKers (even many PvPers) out. This has been seen in every Sandbox game to even make it out into an actual game, and has killed many before they even started. This system has to make PKing ((outside of PvP in the form of warfare, racial conflict, or (something I'd love to see) faction enemies)) a punishable offense that carries real punishment enough to cause players to think twice before just PKing others.
2) Small power gaps. You cannot have a world with "freedom" if you have large power gaps in character development. I'm not saying there shouldn't be areas that are to powerful for characters of lowly skill advancement. I'm saying that there should never be areas that players simply cannot enter without dying. A newbie should be able to play along with fully advanced player characters, even if said newbie needs a lot of help in doing so. Players cannot be divided by "level ranges" if you want a world that actually has "freedom".
Other than that, you want a world with many features (not all "Sandbox") to make it interesting, exciting, and fun.
Housing, trade, lore, mystery, exploration and discovery, worldly interaction (players really need to reach out and touch the world in many ways). You really need a lot of things for a world to be worth playing in, and staying in.
Originally posted by TheeLord Simple Q, What is your most wanted feature in a sandbox MMO? What other games have you played and wish they had xyz feature?
For me there are 2 primary things a Sandbox game MUST have.
This assumes that the game as a whole is otherwise well made.
1) A real Justice System. Allowing PKers to run around rampant killing players just drives non-PKers (even many PvPers) out. This has been seen in every Sandbox game to even make it out into an actual game, and has killed many before they even started. This system has to make PKing ((outside of PvP in the form of warfare, racial conflict, or (something I'd love to see) faction enemies)) a punishable offense that carries real punishment enough to cause players to think twice before just PKing others.
2) Small power gaps. You cannot have a world with "freedom" if you have large power gaps in character development. I'm not saying there shouldn't be areas that are to powerful for characters of lowly skill advancement. I'm saying that there should never be areas that players simply cannot enter without dying. A newbie should be able to play along with fully advanced player characters, even if said newbie needs a lot of help in doing so. Players cannot be divided by "level ranges" if you want a world that actually has "freedom".
Other than that, you want a world with many features (not all "Sandbox") to make it interesting, exciting, and fun.
Housing, trade, lore, mystery, exploration and discovery, worldly interaction (players really need to reach out and touch the world in many ways). You really need a lot of things for a world to be worth playing in, and staying in.
Originally posted by TheeLord Simple Q, What is your most wanted feature in a sandbox MMO? What other games have you played and wish they had xyz feature?
For me there are 2 primary things a Sandbox game MUST have.
This assumes that the game as a whole is otherwise well made.
1) A real Justice System. Allowing PKers to run around rampant killing players just drives non-PKers (even many PvPers) out. This has been seen in every Sandbox game to even make it out into an actual game, and has killed many before they even started. This system has to make PKing ((outside of PvP in the form of warfare, racial conflict, or (something I'd love to see) faction enemies)) a punishable offense that carries real punishment enough to cause players to think twice before just PKing others.
2) Small power gaps. You cannot have a world with "freedom" if you have large power gaps in character development. I'm not saying there shouldn't be areas that are to powerful for characters of lowly skill advancement. I'm saying that there should never be areas that players simply cannot enter without dying. A newbie should be able to play along with fully advanced player characters, even if said newbie needs a lot of help in doing so. Players cannot be divided by "level ranges" if you want a world that actually has "freedom".
Other than that, you want a world with many features (not all "Sandbox") to make it interesting, exciting, and fun.
Housing, trade, lore, mystery, exploration and discovery, worldly interaction (players really need to reach out and touch the world in many ways). You really need a lot of things for a world to be worth playing in, and staying in.
Love the way you think!!
I didn't realize you had a game you were making. Nor that you have "factions". I blow through here and post on a whim at times, not really paying attention to details like that.
So I went to your site and I'll go back. But I'm not clear yet on your PvP thinking.
Also, your "factions" and my "factions" aren't the same thing. My idea is like a religious cult guild that has a permanent enemy in opposing religious cults. Set up as a guild that tags themselves as worshippers of a deity, that comes along with an enemy deity and enemies in the form of any guild that chooses that opposing deity.
And then a game can do the same with other sorts of guild allegiances too. Think "corporate competitors" here. Also assassins vs. contract target's associates and allies.
I think "contracts" can come with both allies and antagonists. But that's just an idea I haven't thought out, but could be interesting for PvP sanctions in a world with a justice system.
Edit to add: So basically a large city could have opposing sanctioned "warfare" among it's deity cults or corporate opponents. But said city also has laws against attacking (even among these). But in the dark of the night....
Comments
A lot of good responses and most I would really want. To complement the list, computer resource needs aside, a voxel world would be my chosen feature. IMO nothing makes a world more palpable than digging into the earth or a side of a mountain and getting appropriate materials. Make this doubly so if there are material "grades" and going deep into a cavern or volcano would produce a better stone or metal.
Freedom - freedom to do what I want, when I want in any way I choose to do it.
I believe your first definition there is often the direction most sandbox games go if for no other reason than its the cheaper route. It also stands in contrast with the sandbox games of the past that were most beloved and successful. Crafting a virtual world is unfortunately not as easy as dropping players and some tools onto an empty canvas as many people like to believe. Some work must be done to make the world compelling, believable and most importantly, offering players a reason to play (which goes back to my suggestion, PvE).
A real player driven market is the most fun you can have in a sandbox game. The most important thing: No auction house so that space and distances influencing the market.
i.e. In a small village some adventurers need Leather Armors. As a vendor or crafter you can get to a big city buy some armors, travel to that village and sell it there to the adventurers.
1) First of all, there are not 800 million people playing MMOs. Not even close. That is an incorrect statistic which could only come from including other multiplayer games and lumping them together with Massively Multiplayer games.
2) Player advancement has always been one of the most successful ways to keep players logging in. The sandbox games that have neglected that aspect have, all with one accord, done poorly.
3) In the MMO genre, statistics show that PvE servers and those predominantly based around PvE, are more popular overall than those based around PvP.
4) PvE does not mean solo content. Ideally, PvE and player progression in an MMO should be a multiplayer endeavor. Working together with other players to achieve goals is something that was present in all the most successful sandbox games, while those focusing on solo content or only PvP aspects have struggled.
5) Lastly, I did not claim PvE is the "only" reason to play an MMO. Its simply a mechanism that provides players with a reliable reason to log in, and is also one of the best catalysts for PvP. The problem with the PvP only philosophy is that, in the absence of players or PvP, the player gets bored for lack of a way to better his character. Hence the reason why themeparks games give you "pvp on demand" via arenas. In a virtual world, its important to offer content that serve as points of interest, giving players a reason to work together or against each other.
Adding damage reductions from skills and armor would lower the damage of the skills. Putting sliders on things like refresh rate, set to insta cast lowers the damage but sliding it to have a longer refresh rate would raise the damage. So it would be all about the modifiers. So someone could make a spell that is a DD, that returned 50% of the damage as a HoT, insta cast, that snared someone for 30% but you would end up with a DD that did 20 damage. What game are you talking about?
The PvE games I played have politics,fame,respect,competition and cooperation. Perhaps you have not experienced it in the games you have played. Please do not sugest they are more meaningful in a PvP game as they are games after all and what is meaningful is all subjective . From my recollection the competition ,respect and cooperation I experienced in Everquest was very meaningful to me.
I would want optional PvP as the feature.
Sorry you missed classic EQ, it had all of those things.
I played on Rallos Zek (PvP) and it remains, to this day, hands down the best PvP I've ever experienced in an MMO. Not because of the combat mechanics, but because of the competition that existed over content and the group play necessary both in PvP and PvE. Nothing else even comes close to the level of rivalry and competition, and it existed because of PvE and politics.
The politics on both PvE and PvP servers were a big part of the game, because how you and your guild carried yourself became well known to all players. Those players who were the most skilled (in pve/pvp) or played the most, downing the hardest bosses, and completing the most challenging quests, we're renowned.
Founder and Lead developer of Factions. The complete fantasy sandbox survival MMO.
Factions indiedb Page (most up to date info) | Factions Website
Quests are developer-authored content. Dev-authored content is the exact opposite of a sandbox (which is about player-authored content.)
Now obviously themepark (dev-authored) content will sell better, but perhaps that's not the direction the OP wants to go.
The fact that you two dislike quest rewards makes no sense. If a sandbox is going to include themepark rides (quests) then they should obviously be XP-rewarded as much as any activity in the game. By being XP-based (not skill/use-based) and balanced, players are free to do whatever activity they want (ie player freedom, the core point of sandboxes) to advance. Don't like questing? Go do something else, and you'll earn the same rate of XP. (Replace XP with money and/or items. Whatever rewards the game has for engaging with the game. For example EVE may keep its XP entirely separate from any game activities, but it still provides some reward for missions -- perhaps not a balanced amount where you felt you were free to choose that activity, but it was there.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Why should quests give any special reward? You get the normal XP, gold and items for killing the mobs related to the quest. It would be identical to a person who does not want to do the quest and just grind the same mobs. That actually seems well balanced to me.
If the players like quests as much as they claim then shouldn't completing them be it's own reward?
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.
-- Herman Melville
The notion that sandbox cannot include developer content is utterly ridiculous and partly (to entirely) responsible for so many failed sandbox games.
Sandbox means freedom. It means you do what you want, but that still implies there should be things to do. Where do you draw the line? The terrain? The cities? What of backstory? What of NPC factions? What of evil forces and entities at work in the world? What of deities?
There should be enough variety that it brings together many different types of people to create the feel of a virtual world. Truth of the matter is, when you fail to offer enough depth and variety in gameplay, your game actually becomes less "sandbox" and more linear.
It may seem a bit paradoxical on the surface, but its pretty obvious once you give it some consideration.
How many sandbox games have their been that have actually included no developer (pre-placed) content?? I can't think of any off-hand. The new batch of non-MMO survival games, sure, but those aren't MMOs. I think sandbox MMOs in general have tried to ride the fence on pre-made content. Claiming their world is wide open, but providing pre-existing cities and quests for the players and only allowing construction in certain areas etc... Seems like a cop-out to me.
Founder and Lead developer of Factions. The complete fantasy sandbox survival MMO.
Factions indiedb Page (most up to date info) | Factions Website
Exactly!!! Like we do..
http://www.indiedb.com/games/factions/news/devdiary11-player-created-missions
I think player created missions can give less "creative" players something to do quickly, or allow the players who like to have clear goals to have more direction without introducing pre-made dev created content to the world. More tools to the players, isn't that what we all want?
Founder and Lead developer of Factions. The complete fantasy sandbox survival MMO.
Factions indiedb Page (most up to date info) | Factions Website
Did you always have that sig, TheeL?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Housing. Most mmo's these days have dropped the idea of every player getting their own housing instance. My first mmo with housing was FFXI. I liked how I kept getting drawn back into finding furniture that would give me battle stats on the field. Made my mog more important. But I kept wishing I could upgrade from a city apartment to a hut to a village house to a castle some day. Or maybe go live in a tree house with the elves or an underground mine with the dwarves. So much role playing possibilities yet devs skip this like it means nothing. Taking the RP out of mmorpg.
Crafting. But I see crafting as an extension of housing. I would like a sandbox that emulated the sims' franchise where I could buy a dressers and keep an armory. I could craft and store my weapons in my own home. Not in some invisible inventory pocket on my pc.
Interaction. I want my character to sleep in a bed, sit at a table with other chars interacting with the foods a bar maid sets before us. Have the bar maid clean the table when done. I want a real world in cyberspace.
Music. Play and create songs (note what Mabinogi did in this no other mmo has ever done). Jam sessions where you can have an actual concert with other players.
Art. There is no reason why we can't have art contests where the player base votes on new armor and weapons made by the players themselves with art programs. Why do we have to wait on the devs to come up with our content??? We're all complaining we are bored all the time. Some of us could stem that boredom if we were allowed to make content for the game we play.
Basically SANDBOX means more role playing options.
That's an odd statement. Over the past five years, most have added or expanded it.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Absolutely correct: games being totally sandbox (player-authored) is why sandbox games fail. They typically need themepark content to succeed.
Your list of things is all appealing dev-authored content. It's themepark content. And yeah, it appeals to players but the more dev-authored content that fills the world, the less space there is for player-authored content, so the less sandbox the game is.
I never said sandboxes cannot include dev-authored content, I only pointed out that dev-authored content is by definition themepark content.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
MSI GE70 - i7-4700MQ, GeForce GT 750M, 8gb ram, 750gb 7200RPM HDD and 128gb SSD
For me there are 2 primary things a Sandbox game MUST have.
This assumes that the game as a whole is otherwise well made.
1) A real Justice System. Allowing PKers to run around rampant killing players just drives non-PKers (even many PvPers) out. This has been seen in every Sandbox game to even make it out into an actual game, and has killed many before they even started. This system has to make PKing ((outside of PvP in the form of warfare, racial conflict, or (something I'd love to see) faction enemies)) a punishable offense that carries real punishment enough to cause players to think twice before just PKing others.
2) Small power gaps. You cannot have a world with "freedom" if you have large power gaps in character development. I'm not saying there shouldn't be areas that are to powerful for characters of lowly skill advancement. I'm saying that there should never be areas that players simply cannot enter without dying. A newbie should be able to play along with fully advanced player characters, even if said newbie needs a lot of help in doing so. Players cannot be divided by "level ranges" if you want a world that actually has "freedom".
Other than that, you want a world with many features (not all "Sandbox") to make it interesting, exciting, and fun.
Housing, trade, lore, mystery, exploration and discovery, worldly interaction (players really need to reach out and touch the world in many ways). You really need a lot of things for a world to be worth playing in, and staying in.
Once upon a time....
Love the way you think!!
Founder and Lead developer of Factions. The complete fantasy sandbox survival MMO.
Factions indiedb Page (most up to date info) | Factions Website
Nope, been in production for like 6 years (4 ppl working on it), but now we're finally months away from making our first publicity push.
Founder and Lead developer of Factions. The complete fantasy sandbox survival MMO.
Factions indiedb Page (most up to date info) | Factions Website
This isn't a signature, you just think it is.
I didn't realize you had a game you were making. Nor that you have "factions". I blow through here and post on a whim at times, not really paying attention to details like that.
So I went to your site and I'll go back. But I'm not clear yet on your PvP thinking.
How does my #1, Justice System, stack up?
Also, your "factions" and my "factions" aren't the same thing. My idea is like a religious cult guild that has a permanent enemy in opposing religious cults. Set up as a guild that tags themselves as worshippers of a deity, that comes along with an enemy deity and enemies in the form of any guild that chooses that opposing deity.
And then a game can do the same with other sorts of guild allegiances too. Think "corporate competitors" here. Also assassins vs. contract target's associates and allies.
I think "contracts" can come with both allies and antagonists. But that's just an idea I haven't thought out, but could be interesting for PvP sanctions in a world with a justice system.
Edit to add: So basically a large city could have opposing sanctioned "warfare" among it's deity cults or corporate opponents. But said city also has laws against attacking (even among these). But in the dark of the night....
Once upon a time....