| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (44)

Posted: Sep 30th 2011 9:29AM A Better Bard said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Great points all around, and as a hardcore "old-school" MMO player I would tend to agree with basically everything you stated. That said, I feel (unfortunately) most of these aspects are what keeps sandbox games from reaching a wider audience and though it'd be nice to live in a world where you could say "who cares how many people play my game, as long as someone enjoys it!" that's just not how it works.

The real article I'd like to see is how to implement said systems in a way that players from less-niche gameplay preference could find a home in these games. I'm not saying appeal to all audiences (Griefers can find their own home), but appealing to a wider market that might not understand the joys of carrying your huge sack of goods from one AH to another, avoiding brigands along the road. More players = more revenue = more polished content for everyone.

Although conversely, maybe it's just not the game for them. Maybe we just need an ultra polished niche game to keep us satisfied.

/goes_to_think_on_things

Posted: Sep 30th 2011 9:32AM Kalex716 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
great article.

The only one of these i wouldn't consider a standard rule of thumb if you were making a game that is supposed to appeal to open world/sandbox players is the first one, which honestly isn't that big of a deal either way.

Posted: Sep 30th 2011 9:52AM Eric Francis said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Really nice article, the points youve brought up are parts of the reasons why ive abandoned MMOs altogether.

I would like to add one more point to the list:

An open-ended world that fosters and encourages exploration with different regions of the sandbox having all kinds of "levels" of enemies.

That way, you dont have to follow "rails of the theme park" and do Village A, then village B, then C because thats how level progression works. You can just go out and explore.

Bonus for this is that when you do start an alt, youre not thinking oh god, have to grind the same content in the exact progression again.

Posted: Sep 30th 2011 7:50PM JuliusSeizure said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Eric Francis

Uh, that would still make for an optimal path of progression, it would just be a more painful one with a lot more travelling time and inadvertent death.
Reply

Posted: Sep 30th 2011 10:02AM Khal said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"While there is a veritable ton of different sandboxes to choose from,..."

That was the only line that I didn't agree with. I don't see these plethora of games that you speak of. I see a bastardized SWG that is being shut down. I see under funded and under produced Darkfall, Earthrise, Xyson and Mortal Online. I see a very dated Ultima Online and Ryzom. Lastly I see ATITD that eliminates combat sum total, which is the other extreme to counter FFA PvP.

The only "current" sandbox with a decent production value is Eve Online whose time-based advancement is a barrier to entry for most folks.

One of the biggest issues sandboxes have in my view is that the indie companies making them don't have the finances or resources to pull them off in a polished manner with features that hook players for the long term. They focus on short term, short attention span features, mainly combat and specifically PvP, and give mostly lip service to others (community building...literally) that would vest players for a longer time period.

When a developer has the stones to marry ATITD's community building features with Eve's handling of PvP (with the different policed levels of "space") and put the level of polish on it that we saw in...say Rift...those people will most certainly see a nice return on their investment.

It may not be an immediate one the size of TOR but it would likely be competitive with the majority of other AAA themeparks that have been released over the last few years.

Posted: Sep 30th 2011 10:08AM Orrin said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Nothing much new here as all of these used to be pretty much standard features for virtual worlds.

The last point about consequence free PvP is an article in itself and I don't think you've really scratched the surface.

I don't see a "digital time-out" (old style MUD jail anyone?) being much of a deterrent when players can just log in an alt and carry on griefing.

There are a few things you can do to improve FFA PvP:

1. Narrow the gap between the top and the bottom of the PvP food chain.

While the experienced and skilled character/player should still have the advantage, there's no point having meaningful consequences to PvP if high levels/twinks can run around roflstomping people.

There are various ways to do this but decoupling character health/hp from advancement would be a good start.

2. PvP switch.

Whether it's just a few hours immunity after defeat, a geographical separation system with safe zones, or a longer term role based switch, unless you want your game to be "all PvP all the time" then you need a way for some people to opt out some of the time.

Posted: Sep 30th 2011 10:28AM DeadlyAccurate said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@Orrin I think that overall, EVE has the best handle on this. I lived in lowsec, and I loved it. I loved the risk, the need to stay on my toes, the necessity in finding people to trust, how much trust actually matters because it's not artificially instilled, and how important an information network was. But if my friends weren't online, or I was just too tired to watch my back, I could always go do something in highsec and be almost 100% safe (I was never actually attacked by another player in highsec).

But I also like there to be some measure of penalty for engaging in unprovoked attacks against other players, at least outside of certain "Wild West" areas. Young characters should not be open season for experienced, bored gankers. Repeatedly attacking the same person, following them around harassing them; those should be penalized. Trying to ruin someone else's game is what the developers should not stand for (why would they want to support a system that runs off paying customers)?
Reply

Posted: Sep 30th 2011 10:33AM DarkWalker said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Orrin

For myself, I only participate in PvP if there is few to no advantages a character can have. I don't want to be handicapped due to having a newbie char - and, at the same time, I see no fun in going against players with weaker characters.

As a result, I don't do PvP on any MMO with significant gear-based PvP progression.
Reply

Posted: Sep 30th 2011 2:22PM j3w3l said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Orrin
i actually think a good way to narrow the gap in pvp is too maybe side kick players up to the level of the person attacking them. It wouldn't work the other way though if a lower level initiated the combat
The person initiating still has the upper hand but not to the extremes we see
Reply

Posted: Sep 30th 2011 10:13AM OutThere said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The number one thing that keeps me from even trying sandboxes is the FFA PvP that seems to be the cornerstone of every one of them. However much I might be intrigued by the other aspects of the game, I lose all interest when I see that "FFA PvP". There's no point investing time in a game that ultimately is about fending off gankers and griefers. I try to avoid bullies and jackanapes in real life and certainly don't want to "play" with them.

Posted: Sep 30th 2011 12:31PM Eric Francis said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@OutThere I cringe each time i hear this. Would someone characterize a game like counterstrike as a bunch of griefers? No, combat is part of the game. If you dont like this kind of PVP, then you choose not to play the game.

The same goes for a MMO with FFA PVP. You might not like the game, but this "paint everyone with one brush" oversimplification of players who like this type of game as bullies is dishonest and false.

Reply

Posted: Sep 30th 2011 12:34PM Eric Francis said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Eric Francis thats not what you said actually :)

note to self: dont post comments in the morning
Reply

Posted: Sep 30th 2011 1:15PM StClair said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Eric Francis
There are some (critical, IMO) differences between PVP in a multi-player FPS and in a sandbox MMO:

There's nothing else to /do/ in the FPS /but/ PvP - the game is built and balanced around that. You're not interrupting and/or wasting the time of someone who just wants to log in and gather mats or whatever. Both players have come with the same intent; they're on the same page. Everyone on a CS server is there to play CS.

There's not as much progression or investment in an FPS. Sure, you might have unlocked a fancier gun, but in the end it comes down to player skill. A good CoD player will pwn a newbie playing on his brother's five-star-general account every time. And if you die, you haven't really lost anything; you simply respawn a few seconds later. MMOs, however, tend to require significant investment of time beyond just practicing player skill to get good; one also has to craft or acquire competitive gear, etc, and may lose some or all of their gains if defeated, which they /will/ be (a lot) during the learning process. How many people would play chess if every player had to go out and make their own board and pieces from scratch, and if the better-quality chess set gave its owner extra moves or multiple queens?
Reply

Posted: Sep 30th 2011 2:54PM OutThere said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Eric Francis

Duly noted. :~)

Since I also posted first thing in the morning, I should have said I have no dislike of PvP, having played for years in WoW. But I also played D2 for years, where PKers were a blight. In a PvE ruleset, you have a choice of engaging in PvP or not. In FFA, you don't. Whatever your intentions are when you sit down to play, they can be completely subverted by another player. Since I am goal driven, having my game play disrupted by someone else's agenda is just not my idea of fun.
Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2011 3:08AM Unverfied B said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@OutThere

I'm currently playing Wurm Online... it has both PVP and PVE servers and is one of the most "pure" and well made sandboxes out there (if you can get past the somewhat crappy graphics and crappy/missing animations :P).

Interesting, but the PVE servers (currently 3 of them) host like 95% of the playerbase, and the one PVP server is nearly empty, so there is definitely a market for non-PVP sandbox games.

I really wish more games would adapt that approach.
Reply

Posted: Sep 30th 2011 10:18AM nimzy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Ah, this brings me back to my days spent in Haven and Hearth and the ol' ethnocentrism that saw players of different nationalities slaughtering each other for no reason except that the players couldn't read what the other was saying. It was like Red Dawn all over again. Build those brick walls, because the Russians are coming!

Posted: Sep 30th 2011 10:23AM DarkWalker said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Nice article.

Regarding Item Decay:

I don't fully agree with the "item decay" point. Or, at least, not for any hard to get items. If I spend countless hours getting an über piece of gear, just to discover after I use it a certain number of times it will vanish in a puff of smoke - with no way to ever repair it back to it's previous efficiency - it simply won't leave my bank. Ever.

I only use gear that I'm quite sure I either can replace it easily, or I never can lose through RNG, defeat, or flat out item wear. I won't even attempt to earn a hard to get item that I'm not sure of being able to use for as long as I want.

Regarding consequence-free PvP:

I almost always avoid FFA PvP games. Not due to the PvP itself; mostly, due to the fact I read "FFA PvP" as "Easy Griefing". Even more if there is a real risk of item loss on death.

Also, I'm a pessimist. I won't, ever, trust the community to police itself and handle the anti-social elements - at least, not without seeing proof that the actual community of the game does this quite well, but then we have a chicken and egg problem - so, if the game does not have something in it's design capable of handling griefers, I'm out.

Posted: Sep 30th 2011 12:33PM fallwind said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@DarkWalker the thing with item decay is that the devs no longer have to make "teh epics" take dozens or hundreds of hours to get, because they know that when it breaks you will need to get a new one, so the drop rate can be VASTLY higher.

Players get better drops more often, devs get an extremely easy to balance economy, it's win/win.
Reply

Posted: Sep 30th 2011 10:35AM Yukon Sam said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Cross-faction chat: Fine, if you've got the Customer Service staffing levels to field the harassment calls. Gratuitious "nanny state" dig.

Bind on Equip/Pickup: It means you earned something rather than buying it off a Pharmer.

Item Decay: If by "MMO-lite" you mean "everybody but crafters... and more than a few of them", then this is a true statement. Players hate it.

Crafting is not combat: Mostly agree, but crafters should always have the option to secure their own materials. Doesn't have to be easy -- I've been known to mine the Abyss for fun. Just possible.

Local Banking: In any system where you can teleport people from point to point via tech or magic, you could do the same with goods. Besides, you'd get one centralized trade hub and everyplace else would be dead -- that tends to happen anyway, but local banking makes it worse.

Consequence-Free PvP: Flag it or zone it, keep my resource nodes out of the way, and I couldn't give a rat's ass. The time-out period was proposed in detail about ten years ago for Ultima Online, but really all it means is that you log your alt and keep on griefin'. You can't stop a punk from being a punk by what they view as imaginary consequences in an imaginary world, and since they've got zero investment, consequences have zero meaning. FFA is a non-starter unless you're aiming for a shooter in which long-time players get god mode.

Posted: Sep 30th 2011 10:56AM Seffrid said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Yukon Sam

All good points.

Interesting article too, thanks Jef. Fallen Earth probably deserves a mention as the kind of game that you appear to be looking for.
Reply

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW