The whole freedom to do anything point is a ridiculous. There is no game that allows that (even modding has limits). You are always restricted by game mechanics.
Everytime someone lists features that should be part of a sandbox game, they are just listing their preferences.
If you compare games that are often labeled by players as sandbox, you will notice that they don't really have the same features.
This is why people who talk about 'true sandbox games' make no sense and only turn forum threads into useless discussions about non existing rules that make up a sandbox game.
"A "sandbox" is about freedom. Therefore, players should have the freedom to kill other players (and loot them because risk v reward)."
You nailed it. There should be jails and such too.
So what you are saying is that if the developer is going for an extremely limited, niche audience - they can go full "sandbox." If they actually want to be of any relevance beyond that small niche, it needs to be a "limited sandbox" - got it ... and I think most developers understand that too...
same old argument. Hows landmark working for you?
Hows those FFAOWPVP mmo sandboxes going? Oh ya, they are barely a fart in the wind. Besides the one out-liner EVE.
Like I've said for so many times, pvp isn't the world, its a part of it, so this whole emphasizing pvp in sandbox mmos is ridiculous imo. PvP focus in sandbox mmos just like every other mmo who put too much focus on PvP is a recipe for failure.
The acronym MMORPG use to mean Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
Should be full inventory loot imho. Yes it is great to take the gear off someones back but realistically , you may lose retention from rage quitters
True that. And let's not forget how easy it is for the hunter to become the Prey..... No wonder those kind of games become barren land after just few months.
1 Freedom,well what about the OTHER player in that 2 player equation,what if his wish is to NOT be attacked,where is his freedom to do as he wants?What if he just wants to go out harvesting? 2 Risk??What if player 2 is far inferior to player 1 ,where is the risk?The ONLY risk would be for player 2 and that only risk would be the simple task of login because any higher tier player would kill him.
Two very obvious points that i cannot believe anyone misses,yet once again,i feel so many gamer's really just don't ..."get it".
You made 2 good points and didn't bring FF11 into it. I'm proud of you
In My Opinion, I have a pretty strong belief that in a sandbox games have this magical belief that if they give players the ability to screw each over other it'll magically generate real content that keeps people around. It doesn't work like that at all.
Even the most quoted game as a "sandbox" only plays like it. It's actually a market and supply chain simulator for the people playing the real game (if you don't believe me look at the mechanics that were there in day one, and the mechanics that receive the fewest reworks since they actually have sound design).
Other games that claim to be sandboxes fail at it pretty hard it as well. Go try to play your FFA pretend sandbox and try to have a fun experience without entering combat.
Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent.
"At one point technology meant making tech that could get to the moon, now it means making tech that could get you a taxi."
"A "sandbox" is about freedom. Therefore, players should have the freedom to kill other players (and loot them because risk v reward)."
You nailed it. There should be jails and such too.
So what you are saying is that if the developer is going for an extremely limited, niche audience - they can go full "sandbox." If they actually want to be of any relevance beyond that small niche, it needs to be a "limited sandbox" - got it ... and I think most developers understand that too...
same old argument. Hows landmark working for you?
Hows those FFAOWPVP mmo sandboxes going? Oh ya, they are barely a fart in the wind. Besides the one out-liner EVE.
Yeah, EVE has always been the exception, but if the recent rumours are to be believed, for how much longer ?
EVE succeeded because the game world was truly massive. Corps could rule over their small slice of space for months, even years, without negatively impacting 90% of the player base's game world access. I played EVE for 6 years and never visited 70% of the game world. But that fact didn't cramp my play style at all. I can't say that about any other game.
F2P and sandboxes are not a good mix. Some players will pay for cosmetics, most players will pay for advantage. EVE has entered the F2P era, now it's days are numbered...
A sandbox can also be about creativity, collaboration and competition which does not revolve around murder. But we tend to bring our insecurities into these virtual worlds. And our need to feel powerful over others overshadows our need to feel free. So we continue to define ourselves through roles of oppression. Ironically in the pursuit of escaping reality, we rush to embrace the worst aspects of it.
A sandbox can also be about creativity, collaboration and competition which does not revolve around murder. But we tend to bring our insecurities into these virtual worlds. And our need to feel powerful over others overshadows our need to feel free. So we continue to define ourselves through roles of oppression. Ironically in the pursuit of escaping reality, we rush to embrace the worst aspects of it.
Yeah, but even with that knowledge, I fail to see the full loot mechanics purpose there.
Sure, it is freedom to be able to attack anyone but full loot does not really mean freedom, it just conditions people to murder others for their stuff.
When the main base of getting gear is taking it from other players your economy gets weird, it is usually easiest to band up in a large gang and steal stuff then to create new stuff yourself and that severely limits the freedom for many players who just leaves the game.
A good sandbox game need to have different kinds of players and I just fail to see how full loot can support that. Losing your gear when dying is tough but it isn't the problem, the problem is that when peoples main incomes comes from looting others it takes away far more then it gives from the game.
A good sandbox game need to have different kinds of players a...
Very true.
Unfortunately, nobody has figured out how to make a commercial success out of attracting those players. Once somebody designs "Minecraft Online", we'll know for sure...
people want full loot because it is more immersive and contributes to a more realistic world. why shouldn't i be able to loot the stuff off of someone's corpse after killing them? it makes no sense that it would magically go back with them. it makes it more difficult to suspend disbelief.
sure, its more difficult to design a game that includes full loot and therefore few games have effectively accomplished it, but that doesn't mean there isn't a way it could be implemented that would work. we just need more creative thinkers to solve the problem.
im personally tired of dime-a-dozen MMOs as they are made now and am yearning for something new. im digging what crowfall and CoE are attempting; at least they are trying.
Rather that chasing down an ideology a dev should focus on making a good game. Therefore, even if sandox was about freedom and say... full loot PvP would bring in more freedom (which I'm not convinced it does) it still might be better to leave it out if it doesn't make a good game.
So far, I haven't seen open world PvP made in a way that would attract more than just a very small niche. Unless you make drastic changes to what has been done before, you won't be aiming for a very large customer base.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
So far, I haven't seen open world PvP made in a way that would attract more than just a very small niche. Unless you make drastic changes to what has been done before, you won't be aiming for a very large customer base.
That's why when I saw the trailer for Wild Terra and watched these people getting murdered while they were farming, I just said "yuck." Who's going to play this? It will just be that small and dwindling niche. Farmers/builders and pkers just don't seem to go along well together.
Themeparks are game led experiences. Sandbox games are player led experiences. No form of combat is required for either, nevermind PvP and player killing.
If you want full loot pvp mmo, play Slither.io/ You start out with nothing and if someone kills you they take all your points. Even if you're the most powerful person on the server, you'll eventually die even if it's just from boredom. It doesn't have the best graphics or customization but in a game like that, no one would even bother with that so it's actually exactly what you want. FYI, only 10 year olds play that for more than a month.
There will always be someone better than you at PvP. Do the people who want full-loot understand that those people will kill you, take your loot and you also will end up quitting after a month of constantly getting wrecked?
The only way you'd survive is if you were in a constant talentless zerg killing people who have probably already died thousands of times and don't even have armor. Your raid would disband and kill each other after that. Everyone would only play the game for a month.
Why do you want a game you yourself will only play for a month? If you don't think so, try Slither.io/
people want full loot because it is more immersive and contributes to a more realistic world. why shouldn't i be able to loot the stuff off of someone's corpse after killing them? it makes no sense that it would magically go back with them. it makes it more difficult to suspend disbelief.
You know what really suspends disbelief? People coming back after they are killed at all, nevermind coming back with the items they had on them at the time of death.
When people can magically return to life and this is accepted as
realistic for the game setting, magically returning back to life with
all the possessions they had at the time of death isn't even a stretch.
So, unless a game has permadeath, using enabling the suspsension of disbelief as a feature of full looting doesn't hold much weight.
I would be all for FFA full-loot sandbox when skill and luck is implemented in the game. What I mean is that in a real situation there is no binary machine deciding the outcome. It's fluent, organic. You could be the best fighter in the universe, but there is still the chance that me tripping with my pocket knife happens to stumble and slit a artery killing you. There was no training in that world that could have saved you from that chain of lucky/unlucky events. But that is not in any game. They are all very binary.
More and better gear should reasonably give you the upper hand. But it feels that in most games it guarantees it outside of exploits and bugs. That is not the case and therefore the while risk vs reward is a useless argument in pvp.
A good sandbox game need to have different kinds of players a...
Very true.
Unfortunately, nobody has figured out how to make a commercial success out of attracting those players. Once somebody designs "Minecraft Online", we'll know for sure...
Minecraft works because it's a great single player sandbox game with multiplayer options.
That's why it's so popular, if no one is around I can still have tons of fun. My fun isn't dependent on others being there.
full loot open world pvp has been the death of the sandbox market its not a necessity, its a disease.
It is not the Full Loot the problem of Sandbox PvP games, it's the lack of rules. Without rules, it becomes a Far West, where only a restricted Elite of skilled gunslingers survives, making life misery for everyone else.
Comments
Everytime someone lists features that should be part of a sandbox game, they are just listing their preferences.
If you compare games that are often labeled by players as sandbox, you will notice that they don't really have the same features.
This is why people who talk about 'true sandbox games' make no sense and only turn forum threads into useless discussions about non existing rules that make up a sandbox game.
But the acronym MMMORPG now currently means Microscopic Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Kappa.
And let's not forget how easy it is for the hunter to become the Prey.....
No wonder those kind of games become barren land after just few months.
In My Opinion, I have a pretty strong belief that in a sandbox games have this magical belief that if they give players the ability to screw each over other it'll magically generate real content that keeps people around. It doesn't work like that at all.
Even the most quoted game as a "sandbox" only plays like it. It's actually a market and supply chain simulator for the people playing the real game (if you don't believe me look at the mechanics that were there in day one, and the mechanics that receive the fewest reworks since they actually have sound design).
Other games that claim to be sandboxes fail at it pretty hard it as well. Go try to play your FFA pretend sandbox and try to have a fun experience without entering combat.
Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent.
"At one point technology meant making tech that could get to the moon, now it means making tech that could get you a taxi."
EVE succeeded because the game world was truly massive. Corps could rule over their small slice of space for months, even years, without negatively impacting 90% of the player base's game world access. I played EVE for 6 years and never visited 70% of the game world. But that fact didn't cramp my play style at all. I can't say that about any other game.
F2P and sandboxes are not a good mix. Some players will pay for cosmetics, most players will pay for advantage. EVE has entered the F2P era, now it's days are numbered...
But we tend to bring our insecurities into these virtual worlds. And our need to feel powerful over others overshadows our need to feel free.
So we continue to define ourselves through roles of oppression. Ironically in the pursuit of escaping reality, we rush to embrace the worst aspects of it.
Sure, it is freedom to be able to attack anyone but full loot does not really mean freedom, it just conditions people to murder others for their stuff.
When the main base of getting gear is taking it from other players your economy gets weird, it is usually easiest to band up in a large gang and steal stuff then to create new stuff yourself and that severely limits the freedom for many players who just leaves the game.
A good sandbox game need to have different kinds of players and I just fail to see how full loot can support that. Losing your gear when dying is tough but it isn't the problem, the problem is that when peoples main incomes comes from looting others it takes away far more then it gives from the game.
Unfortunately, nobody has figured out how to make a commercial success out of attracting those players. Once somebody designs "Minecraft Online", we'll know for sure...
people want full loot because it is more immersive and contributes to a more realistic world. why shouldn't i be able to loot the stuff off of someone's corpse after killing them? it makes no sense that it would magically go back with them. it makes it more difficult to suspend disbelief.
sure, its more difficult to design a game that includes full loot and therefore few games have effectively accomplished it, but that doesn't mean there isn't a way it could be implemented that would work. we just need more creative thinkers to solve the problem.
im personally tired of dime-a-dozen MMOs as they are made now and am yearning for something new. im digging what crowfall and CoE are attempting; at least they are trying.So far, I haven't seen open world PvP made in a way that would attract more than just a very small niche. Unless you make drastic changes to what has been done before, you won't be aiming for a very large customer base.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
But I don't see full-loot as being necessary for sandboxes. I do think it makes them a hell of a lot more interesting, though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUxmG8VCY08
MurderHerd
You start out with nothing and if someone kills you they take all your points. Even if you're the most powerful person on the server, you'll eventually die even if it's just from boredom. It doesn't have the best graphics or customization but in a game like that, no one would even bother with that so it's actually exactly what you want. FYI, only 10 year olds play that for more than a month.
There will always be someone better than you at PvP. Do the people who want full-loot understand that those people will kill you, take your loot and you also will end up quitting after a month of constantly getting wrecked?
The only way you'd survive is if you were in a constant talentless zerg killing people who have probably already died thousands of times and don't even have armor. Your raid would disband and kill each other after that. Everyone would only play the game for a month.
Why do you want a game you yourself will only play for a month? If you don't think so, try Slither.io/
When people can magically return to life and this is accepted as realistic for the game setting, magically returning back to life with all the possessions they had at the time of death isn't even a stretch.
So, unless a game has permadeath, using enabling the suspsension of disbelief as a feature of full looting doesn't hold much weight.
More and better gear should reasonably give you the upper hand. But it feels that in most games it guarantees it outside of exploits and bugs. That is not the case and therefore the while risk vs reward is a useless argument in pvp.
That's why it's so popular, if no one is around I can still have tons of fun. My fun isn't dependent on others being there.
Without rules, it becomes a Far West, where only a restricted Elite of skilled gunslingers survives, making life misery for everyone else.