1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Greetings Guest!!

    In order to combat SPAM on the forums, all users are required to have a minimum of 2 posts before they can submit links in any post or thread.

    Dismiss Notice

MMORPG Article - Sandboxes and UO

Discussion in 'UHall' started by Coldren, Aug 7, 2009.

  1. Coldren

    Coldren Sage
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    115
    I just read this article on MMORPG.com and wanted to share it. It's a very thought-provoking article about what makes Sandbox games like MMO so incredible. There are several references to UO, and a few notes on why, up until now, no one has replicated it's success as a Sandbox MMO like UO has.

    Build a Proper Sandbox MMO

    Enjoy!
     
  2. kelmo

    kelmo Old and in the way
    Professional Stratics Veteran Alumni Dread Lord

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    17,379
    Likes Received:
    4,698
    Spot on. *nods*
     
  3. Coppelia

    Coppelia Guest

    Note how the author considers UO dead.
     
  4. kelmo

    kelmo Old and in the way
    Professional Stratics Veteran Alumni Dread Lord

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    17,379
    Likes Received:
    4,698
    "It's just a flesh wound!"
     
  5. Trebr Drab

    Trebr Drab Guest

    "I didn't need that leg anyways."
     
  6. Coldren

    Coldren Sage
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    115
    And that's his view of it. To him, maybe it is.

    Over the course of it's life, UO has undergone many changes. The itemization of the game, insurance, Trammel/Fellucca split, Ninjas, new races. A lot of people feel that UO has grown in a direction away from it's roots. Weather or not you feel it was necessary, or if you like the direction it's taken is a personal opinion.

    Since it's inception, it's taken on characteristics more common level-based games, and really not that many new features that could uniquely be developed and applied to true immersive sandbox MMO's like UO.

    But the essence of UO, what made it a great sandbox, is still an idea that no one has replicated. Even if UO has chosen to not play to that strength, and instead taken more decisions in an attempt to appeal to the masses (And not without good reason), on it's most basic levels, it simply hasn't been match.

    That's my opinion for what it's worth, anyway.
     
  7. MalagAste

    MalagAste Belaern d'Zhaunil
    Reporter Professional Governor Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend Campaign Supporter Royal Knight

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2000
    Messages:
    18,967
    Likes Received:
    5,453
    That pretty much sums up WHY I still remain in UO. Freedom... Freedom to dream to build and to imagine... I really can "feel" more into my characters and the environment because I can "change" the environment... I can create things... and I don't have to go from one "quest run" to the next... My path is NOT laid out in front of me by the first moment I decide what "race and class" I'm going to be.

    The true beauty of UO is in the imagination and co-operation of the community. When EA and the DEV team truly realize the difference between UO and all other games and build and expand on that principle then and only then will UO once again rise above all others.

    Anyone with a little imagination can find themselves truly immersed in UO.

    Certainly it would be nice in a true 3d realm... One with a far better engine that KR or SA could ever hope to provide.

    I keep hoping that one day EA will wake up and smell the potential that they have sitting right in their lap. They have had UO for years now and have seriously failed to realize exactly what they had. I think that the current DEV team realizes some of what they should be doing.

    Having the EM program is a start. The ability of UO to be neverending adventure is key.

    Much of the disaster of UO began when they moved UO into the item race. It's my hope that imbuing will break people out of the item race and back into adventure.

    I do not believe it is ever possible to have "done everything" in UO. After playing 9+ years I've yet to "do everything" and I play on a nearly daily basis...

    I've never really "done" factions. Never truly explored Fel or Fel PvP.... Had a few Fel adventures where I have PvPed there... and done some Yew gate fighting.... but for the most part have not ever lived or experienced Fel. Not that I possibly ever will but perhaps I may someday.

    Never had a vendor either. Don't have time to devote to vending.
     
  8. Coldren

    Coldren Sage
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    115
    Random thought, relevant to the discussion.

    I'm starting to see this whole situation as something akin to console games that have been brought to every new system. Think about Mario Brothers or Zelda.

    Does anyone still play the original Mario Brothers or Legend of Zelda game on the NES? Maybe a few do, some in ROMS. But why is it that every new Nintendo console has a Mario or Zelda game, and every time, it sells like hotcakes? (That is, not offshoots like Dr. Mario, or Wario World, but direct sequels to the original). Because every new one is basically the same game as the original. Jump on this, get a power up, go. Only with new graphics and maybe smaller, new twists.

    Someone needs to take the Ultima Online and make a Super Mario 64 out of it.
     
  9. Sarsmi

    Sarsmi Grand Poobah
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    5,789
    Likes Received:
    6
    Great article. To me, a good sandbox game is a marriage between having rules and freedom. Absolute freedom with no constraints doesn't make for a good game for most people. It would be like Legos Online (is there such a thing?), an MMO where you can have an infinite number of bricks of any color and size and type and can do anything with them. Sure you could go nuts building but after a while freedom actually chafes. Constraints can limit imagination but they can also direct it. More rules can force more creativity and interest. How about if you only had 100 blocks but you could get more by doing building quests? Would you feel driven to build more if you could unlock more blocks that way? What if you could showcase your creations for community votes, and eventually be able to be a lego world builder through getting enough votes?

    It's great to have freedom, but we need a purpose to work towards, and rules to make the journey difficult but worth it.
     
  10. Coldren

    Coldren Sage
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    115
    And that's one of the issues with a sandbox - Not everyone likes to think of their own purpose.

    The appeal of games like WoW is, there are clear-cut definitions of what you can work towards. You can vary a little in how you get to them, but ultimately, players don't really have to think for themselves.

    Most people don't see it as a "goal" in a game to harvest 1 million of every resource, or to do nothing but sell items on vendors, or simply get the biggest house and keep redecorating it, or to have RP..Well, anything.

    It's a fine line to walk for developers to not only allow people to set their own goals, but provide meaningful ones for those who want some form of a pre-determined path.
     
  11. Harlequin

    Harlequin Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    2,716
    Likes Received:
    32
    Has someone mentioned to him that UO is still very much alive?
     
  12. Maplestone

    Maplestone Crazed Zealot
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2008
    Messages:
    3,657
    Likes Received:
    9
    I've asked about the use of past tense.

    However, I suspect it may be something as simple as a convention of speech for industry insiders to talk about games in the past tense after they are released.
     
  13. Alezi

    Alezi Lore Keeper
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2007
    Messages:
    754
    Likes Received:
    1
    TL;DR article/thread. The answer is simple : Sandbox MMO's are the best because you can do whatever you want.
     
  14. Coppelia

    Coppelia Guest

    I did the same remark because each time someone writes an article about MMORPG designs, when they mention UO and how it was great, they're speaking about features that are still there or were enhanced. But they use a preterit tense, meaning it's over. I think I can easily bet a cookie that they :
    • don't know UO is still up and running, and don't know the evolution it took.
    • quit very early to go to those shiny leveling games they now denounce (some of them probably even before Renaissance).
    • are very forgetful how UO was actually in the beginning. Like there weren't copycats template of the month, you could do whatever you want (yeah just try passing Brit bridge).
    • are a bit too nostalgic. THEY changed and THEY don't want to come back to what they loved back then. Even if they could find it again. Seriously, not one thing he mentions is gone.
     
  15. Arcus

    Arcus Grand Poobah
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    Messages:
    6,452
    Likes Received:
    107
    Just curious how you think this will / might happen?
     
  16. Coldren

    Coldren Sage
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    115
    I'd guess the logic would be that when items that are useful and are more easily available, people won't spend most of their time attempting to acquire items like artifacts. Help it shift from being item-centric to other avenues of gameplay.

    Just my guess anyway.
     
  17. Sarsmi

    Sarsmi Grand Poobah
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    5,789
    Likes Received:
    6
    Thats a good point. And the MMO crowd wouldn't be nearly as big without most of us needing to be told what to do, which means there would be less interest in making new games, or making the games we play better. Of course, most of the effort directed nowadays seems to be in the same old treadmill leveling games/wow clones. Kind of a catch-22. It's like we're attracting all the wrong sort of folks for playing MMOs! :p

    That's mostly tongue in cheek, I'm really just not a fan of leveling games. Maybe because pvm bores the heck out of me, and that is 85% of what goes on in leveling games.
     
  18. BajaElladan

    BajaElladan Certifiable
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,820
    Likes Received:
    3
    Hail Folks,

    Our virtual world, Sosaria or Britannia depending upon your age and preference, also known as Ultima Online, had its first allure based upon the Ultima series games. Most, tho not all of UO's earliest players were fans of Ultima.

    In addition to the Ultima fans, UO quickly gained many more fans drawn to the early option for MMORPG over the internet.

    Yet in addition to all other "reasons" for UO's early success, I believe its longevity is tied directly to the deeply immersive world UO was from its infancy. Almost limitless choices existed then, and exist now. Far more skills than any one character could possess led to almost limitless character templates. UO became home to tens of thousands of imaginative and creative folks. A few hundred thousand others less imaginative or creative, or merely less interested in testing their own imagination and creativity, followed onto shard after shard to live vicariously for snippets of time of varying durations through their character(s).

    Some chose to be mages, some warriors, some crafters, hunters or gatherers, fishers, cooks, nobles, thieves, and on and on and on. The virtual world we were given allowed almost limitless options, choices, and possibilities.

    I have inhabited this world continuously for almost 12 years. However, I am now 54. And even though I have no intention of leaving, human realities and eventual death will one day end my journey upon Sosaria.

    My characters may out live my real life self as I hope to have friends younger than myself to take over my accounts when I'm gone from this earth.

    Or, the unthinkable could happen. If as enough "ancient" players die off or leave for whatever reasons, new players are not courted to take their place, then one day UO will become economically unviable or less profitable to be continued.

    Should I survive to see that day, I will indeed mourn the loss of that most wondrous, endearing, and enduring world, Sosaria.

    Until that day comes, or I am called through Rapture or death unto eternity, I will continue my Sosarian sojourn with deep thanks for those who gave me this world and those who worked so long and hard to sustain it for me.

    Elladan of Baja and numerous other folks

    p.s. I thought the article writer did an excellent job in what was written
     
  19. Tuferon

    Tuferon Adventurer
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2008
    Messages:
    66
    Likes Received:
    2
    The article was PEERRRFFFEEECCTTT!
    They are losing thier core of vets like my hubby and I after 11 years. The item collectors will eventually not be enough. While UO is not dead it is CTD without some return of the sandbox as the focus.
     
  20. which leg ;) ?
     
  21. I have yet to see a world [game] that give me what UO does. Oh I have looked at them, read about them, even took free trials of them, but never saw anything that I had in UO. My problems today with UO is the new interface for the KR aka SA. I don't like it and will not be playing in it. Now I dread that someday they will look at the numbers, players in SA vrs players in 2d, and go, "ok time to turn off 2d". That will be the day we close our accounts. Till then we be right here in UO. [1999-2009]
     
  22. EnigmaMaitreya

    EnigmaMaitreya Crazed Zealot
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    3,402
    Likes Received:
    0
    *Shrug*

    My 2cp's .....

    The author was clearly biased and nostalgic for his experience in the original UO when ever that was .......

    He has .... some things wrong.

    His point about the level 1 < 5 < 10 < 15 < 20 is right and recognized as an issue, only in terms of PvP such that there are level differences in PvP that preclude the people from engaging each other. As well it might as it would be pointless. What the author does not bring out is with each level, skills increase. That is what causes the imbalance. It is not beyond the PvP'r in Everquest to DE-LEVEL. Meaning die so many times you lose your level (a punishment in level based games) BUT you do NOT lose the gained skills which are the majority of the imbalance, there is always a level difference modifier involved that completes the imbalance.

    Were he is wrong and probably can not even see it is based on his Bias. Everquest is the Level Based game he used. Yes it is level based. Yes to some degree the more people involved the less XP for leveling one gets BUT the more people there are the MORE MASS KILLING THAT CAN BE DONE. In short A WASH.

    What evolves is two play styles, well 3 but the distinction between 2 and 3 is very small.

    Play Style one is Raid Centric, this can be measured in the 10's if not 100's of people to take down a boss mob. It probably requires many learning experiences (wipes/deaths) to get something that resembles a working plan. It also facilitates to dictates Role Playing, NO not role playing as your thinking. Role Playing as in Your a Healer NOT a fighter. Your a Rez'r. Your a Archer. Your a Nuker. Your a Tank etc. Which when all is said and done demands that each person playing their Role MUST have a minimum level of itemization that is SPECIFIC to the role they are playing.

    Play Style two, small groups, *Screw it* / Solo. Both are about the same and are differentiated only by the level of the mob it can take down.

    All of the above play styles are viable with this understanding .....

    Raid Centric pretty darn much demands your playing vs Peer level mobs or else the way your itemized you would be like a 800 Skill Tamer with a Perfect Greater Dragon fighting Chickens and Rats. AKA BORING ......

    Group/Solo your going to be fighting levels 15 to 20 levels below you. OK, but the Loot is ALSO 15 to 20 levels below what the Raid Centric Players are getting IF NOT MORE.

    Everquests problem is the same as UO. They do NOT get new players. So they end up with everyone making a mad dash to the Max Level and then looking around and wondering What do I do next.

    Based on sheer Numbers there is a larger static subscriber base for the Everquest Model than there is for the UO model. Each group is 100% sure their way is the best :)

    Were he is WRONG ABOUT UO and again probably does not even know it based on his nostalgia is this.

    No one can control the age of the players that make up the subscriber base. A certainty, Age does change the perception of what FREEDOM is.

    So within the UO player base there is this .... varying definition of the concept of FREEDOM. Regardless of the person, what goes with Freedom in a Social Environment is RESPONSIBILITY to the social group.

    As a GENERALIZATION ONLY, the ... well one group will see their Responsibility as NON EXISTENT, the other group will see their Responsibility as TOLERANCE.

    At the very least you will have two groups in the player base tearing at each others throats, accusing the other of causing the game to die. The designers will be torn between them. The game will swing back and forth. Trying to bring balance, coherency, stability, PURPOSE tends to be more of a JOKE than anything else.

    It is just a darn good thing that the player base is populated by HARD CORE FANATICS OF THE GAME, else it would have surely perished a long time ago.
     
  23. Mairut

    Mairut Guest

    Wow Enigma...I think I agree with you...I don't know a whole lot about EQ or other leveling games, but the UO stuff is correct imo. Well put.

    I also agree with that Dana Massey guy to an extent.

    When I came back to this game after several years away, it was much much different than I remember. It has become a bit more skill-based than it used to be with all the power scrolls etc., and is very much based on items. I miss all the undefined skills (looting as a skill would be one...it's not on your skill list and it takes real mouse-clicking skill...others might be gate hopping or gate hugging in fel after tram/fel split, being able to run in random directions to outrun someone, selling items on vendors and advertising your shop, being good at decoing and using that to make gold or better the community ;) ).

    You could best a great pvp'r because you were better than him or her at using some undefined skills, of which there are more than I listed. You were on mostly equal footing when it came to armor and weapons, and you had generally the same number of skills. You had the freedom to do what you wanted and have a chance to actually be something, and be equal to other people, rather than being someone's underling like now, because it costs somewhere around (I've heard) 100mil for a great pvp suit, or like in other games, because your skill level and XP levels are not the same. And as far skill levels...it can be hard to find or afford those scrolls that add an extra 20 points to a skill.

    On the same note, it still has the same community feel as it did before. You could, as a matter of fact, afford that sweet 100mil pvp suit...with the help of guildies and friends. You still have the options to choose the skills you want, and there have been more added. There seems to be much more merchanting(forgive my bad grammar) going on than there was before...there is alot more to do, but along with that there seems to have come a lot more restrictions on what we can do, and how we interact with the world around us (excluding other players, as I said before, the community feel hasn't changed).

    I do have a bit of nostalgia for the old UO, but I'm going to try to enjoy this game as much as I can because it's still the best there is.

    I hope that all made sense. :coco:
     
  24. Setnaffa

    Setnaffa Certifiable
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow.

    I never truly understood why I love UO so much more than the other MMO's until I read that article.
     
  25. UOKaiser

    UOKaiser Guest

    But then if everyone has all the items they want what will be the point of going on a adventure the person has done a million times before? Even in the past the adventure was the goal to get a chance at a silver/durable/vanquishing katana or whatevet yo improve youre characters. The whole market is revolved on items. Always finding a better piece to improve youre character.
    When there wasnt many items before the skill was hard to get to. But once you got to the skill and got the best armor and weapon then just lose it again when you died and start it all over again.
    Either way items are here to stay and if they havent gone the item route UO would of quite possibly dissapered a while ago because there wouldn't be enough subs to maintain it.
     
  26. Landicine

    Landicine Seasoned Veteran
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    Messages:
    328
    Likes Received:
    36
    I don't think "the purpose to work towards" is completely necessary. I think it has to do with the artificial distinction between "game" and "play." With play, one finds something to do while a "game" has rules and goals and such. The sandbox tends to focus more on the "play" idea. The level grind more on the "game."

    It is still artificial though. People will make their own games and rules in a sandbox (pvp wars, roleplaying standards, guild rules, pvm goals). The freedom is to simply pick which purpose to choose. I have no desire to be the greatest pvper ever. I do like to focus on roleplaying and such.

    I don't completely agree with the AoS/item bashing. I think there is a lot of freedom to the current system. In the old days, you always cast certain spells (explosion, energy bolt) since they were just better. Warriors tended to have certain skills and used whatever the weapon of the day was. With the current system, there is flexibility. My treasure hunter roleplay guttersnipe wears a junk set and only does treasure maps with a group of able-bodied meat shields. My scribe has a set focused on mana regeneration. My crafter has a room filled with stuff to build various roleplay props I need. There is a lot of freedom in the current system.

    The problem is that people get obsessed with just the item-hording mini game. Most people can't see past that "purpose." However, we are not forced to follow their lead. We have the freedom to do other things.
     
  27. Rogal

    Rogal Slightly Crazed
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,384
    Likes Received:
    5
    Eve Online has the same sandbox method as Ultima Online. Granted they're as different as chalk and cheese but the same principal applies - freedom to choose what you want to be and go where you want.

    I agree though, someone should remind him that UO is not dead.
     
  28. Amren

    Amren Journeyman
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    221
    Likes Received:
    0
    Fallout 3 was the perfect sandbox game.

    The problem with sandbox MMOs is that you basically pay to find your own fun. I can honestly say that is harder in UO now then it ever was. All my characters are built, I have seen every area many times, killed everything that game has, and have experienced all the content the game has to offer.

    Not to mention all my friends already quit and the hours I play there is not a whole lot of people on it seems.

    This is why my MMO play time is directed at other games. I pay to be entertained by content added by the developers, I don't like paying to find my own fun.
     
  29. Rwyan

    Rwyan Guest

    I think the next 'great' sandbox, if there ever is one will get players to care about their worlds as much as their characters.

    Most of these games have developed into item-driven beasts which has become the ultimate carrot on the stick. The primary motivations for players in MMOs is to get to the next level/skill up and get the next best item.

    However, what I loved about rpgs in general is that this idea of advancement/progression was always a biproduct of getting enveloped in a story and making choices within that story. Granted, there were those occaisional side quests taken to get that really 'cool' item. When I first played EQ(I played EQ way before trying UO), while leveling was a goal, having fun and exploring with friends was first and foremost the primary goal. Once that was replaced with leveling, I quickly lost interest in the game as it wasn't as fun anymore.

    I was really excited for Horizons, both the pre-blackout and post-blackout versions of it. The post-blackout version, which is what was released, teased players with this potential enemy force that would be in constant battle with players. Constantly trying to push players back and diminish the communities advancements. Unfortunately, the level of interactivity between these forces of evil and the gameworld were never fully implemented to the level they were promised.

    So - in my opinion - the next best sandbox game will revolve around players accomplishing 'worldly' goals with and/or against each other and in such a game, a variety of roles would be needed. Ultimately, these games need to be dynamic to some degree in order for the 'end game' to be infinately endless (players may personally stop advancing but community collaboration and adventures wouldn't).
     
  30. Kylas

    Kylas Guest

    Sounds like a paper I presented to some people about eight years ago. The author missed a few points. The most important and the one the developers (now gone) failed to heed was UO cant exists without a community. When they split the worlds and added land mass they divided that community and diluted it. It was an epic failure from developers that IMO still dont get it. Some of the best in game content was created by Seers on the spot. It was always interesting and unique. Nobody needed some fancy bobble at the end to have had a good time.

    Dig
     
  31. Mavar

    Mavar Guest

    I agree fully Landi, I've adapted to the changes (and don't miss four-hour anti-pk patrols either).
     
  32. He refers to UO in the past tense because the UO that he (and many others) played and loved has been dead and gone since May 4, 2000. The corpse was burned and discarded on February 11, 2003.

    What remains in its place is a cheap plastic copy of the original with many gaudy neon color trinkets attached to it.
     
  33. Coppelia

    Coppelia Guest

    Actually, the UO he's describing took all its power on May 4, 2000. Poets finally had the occasion to do other verses than OOOooOooOo.
     
  34. Coldren

    Coldren Sage
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    115
    This is something a game like UO can accomplish that others can not, and it's a heritage that, like what AoS did or not, completely altered it's course.

    It used to be, magic items were very, very rare. Especially vanquish. Hell, half the time, didn't even know what you got unless you had an ID wand or Item ID. Not like now, where there are TONS of artifacts at your local Luna shop. Why are they just sitting there (Aside from the absurd prices) if they're just as if not more relevant than when we had simple magic items? How long do you think a Exceedingly Accurate Katana of Vanquishing (Silver or not) would have lasted on a vendor? You could have demanded a kings ransom of 250k at the time, and SOMEONE would have got it.

    And by the way, odds are good, someone would have LOST it too. Items lose their meaning and their value when they are easily replaced. To this day, I still don't understand the allure of fighting for items that once you get, are almost impossible to lose. What's the feeling of accomplishment? Don't feel like hunting them on your own? Buy them. Everyone sells them. What's so great about it?

    UO should have focused more on giving the players more tools to create their own content. To this day, I don't understand why some of these basic ideas aren't implemented.

    1) Player-run Cities. Like Trinsic. Players register to be a citizen of a city. Citizens vote on leaders from the controlling guild. Leaders appoint officials, set taxes, declare war on other cities. Factions on crack.

    2) Destructible cities. Complements #1. City sieges. Guilds vying for control of a city. Destroying buildings, killing guards, taking time and resources money to recover from and rebuild and execute. Necessitating alliances, social elements.. Imagine the pride of your first city capture, or turning in that batch of ingots or boards that gets your bank rebuilt.

    3) Declaring NEW cities. Setting up a Trinsic in Malas. Guild claims an area of land, gets a marker, sets up walls and roads, hires NPC's.. Then apply 1 and 2. Hamlets fighting against city nations. Rebellions. Political intrigue. Treachery.

    3) Food! Why don't we have a food system yet? Need to eat every few hours or you get debuffs to combat and trades. You walk slow. Certain foods keep you better fed than others. Have a banquet at your guild house for the best food to keep your character going!

    4) Sleep! That'll put a dent in the scripters. Same debuff's as food, only applied if the character hasn't been logged out.


    See, these things, they make it more of a WORLD rather than a theme park. THIS is what a sandbox can do. Now balancing these sort of things with a PvP and PvE/RP/Crafter friendly way may sound impossible, but not if you think about it. Make all PvP voluntary.

    For example, you chose to be a citizen of Trinsic, which is at war with Brit. Brit invades Trinsic. The attackers can only attack citizens who have chosen to be part of the militia. But if a non-militia citizen helps a solider (Heals, rezzes, etc.), they can be attacked too. Territories determine who's attacking and who's defending. Militia can only attack the militia in cities they are at war with.

    Then you give it a flip side. If you're not in the militia, you can't become, say, mayor of the town, or on the high council. You're safe to travel anywhere and not be attacked, unless you do something to provoke it. And the cities you are at war with, well, let's just say the merchants won't be so kind and will attack your purse with a vengeance. So you can partake in anything, but unless you do more than farm monsters, you have less of a say in what goes on in the world around you.

    Then you have yet another division, Mercenaries. They can fight anyone in any faction (including their own) who participates in PvP (Soldiers/Militia), and they too can be attacked by the same people (and other Mercenaries). They don't have a city, they just want a fight

    Free for all PvP, Factional PvP, PvE, all rolled in to one, with pros and cons.

    Things like that. THAT'S where sandboxes like UO should go. Give players not only the option to do what's scripted for them (PvE), but give them chances to actually make the world their own, and create their own conflicts, and just generally be creative. I'm in no way saying it would be EASY, but it's a direction it doesn't even feel like we're aiming for.



    No, no... Much better to add a new dungeon with a new uber weapon to drop that people will be farming in a few hours after it's released. Everyone keeps what they have, there's little risk other than inconvenience of insurance money.

    Most people aren't people who will risk losing anything, even if it means a greater appreciation for what they have and what they did to earn it.
     
  35. Coppelia

    Coppelia Guest

    I disagree. UO is a sandbox because those features aren't implemented as feature themselves. And that's what's great. Cities are already run by players. If it were implemented, like a theme park MMORPG would feel forced too, it would be a failure. Players would be interrested by city control because of the gameplay rewards, and the best players with this gameplay wouldn't care about what you're searching for. Look at the Factions : it's an attempt to give player control to the players. But it's for PvPers who don't care about your view of what's UO.

    Nowadays, the players who want to play player controled cities, with citizenship, taxes, sieges, attack, destruction, etc, are already doing it. Adding gameplay rules would actually forbid them the access to the playstyle they like.
     
  36. Coldren

    Coldren Sage
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    115
    Let's just say I disagree with you on every count of this. It'd be optional, like everything else in UO. Not forced into anything. People aren't forced into factions, guilds, wars, and alliances.. Or to even own a home.

    And no, player "cities" are not "cities". They are a cluster of houses, with nothing more than RP value.. At best.

    Sorry, bit of a rush. But I disagree with you on every principal.
     
  37. If I were forced to work with others to accomplish goals, I wouldn't be playing anymore. Long ago I was ok with that but I am too busy to arrange my play time to coincide with others
     
  38. I knew poets and authors in UO that started the game on day 1. They had no problems getting their works out.

    Despite what some people will tell you, pre UO:R UO was not one big gank fest. That was just one aspect of the game, a REALISTIC aspect of the game, that we all had to deal with.

    But on the flip side, when someone killed a poet, or a miner, or a mage, it meant something. It meant that someone had made an enemy...a real, human played, enemy. And revenge came often.

    Now, the only enemy anyone has is a lame AI creature that might, if you are lucky, drop some Uber rare neon hued item that can be sold in Luna for 54,000,000 gold.

    Indeed...what an "upgrade".
     
  39. Coppelia

    Coppelia Guest

    No, I'm talking about Trinsic, Vesper, Yew, etc. They are already run by players who want to run them.
     
  40. Coppelia

    Coppelia Guest

    The reality is that just when you started to hope you could play outside guardzone, there was a group realistic human enemies with smart names and appropriate language that would beat you after a long struggle, giving you the will to get a revenge, with the help of the bounty system for example. Except the enemies were players who were dedicated in making the game of others a pain, they already had stupid names and trashtalk, you would see grey the next second the red names would pop in, you wouldn't have a chance to get a revenge because they weren't looking for fair fight and of course the bounty system was a joke.

    That wasn't realitstic, that wasn't fun in long term because not every player was able to deal with such a razor blade world where you could lose everything you patiently managed to get in a matter of seconds. A few PvMers were able and wouldn't grumble too much when the unavoidable stone would fall on their head, a few PKs were polite and courteous, but seriously most of the players weren't playing the same game.
    And when the power of destruction is so much higher than the power of construction, the sandbox is vowed to fail. Renaissance was a good thing, and there's no way you can link it to AoS like it's the same. You could have had neon and diabloization without Trammel, and you would have cried twice more.
     
  41. A few things:

    Yes, there were PKs...and there were Anti-PKs . The biggest problem was NOT the existance of PKs, it was the lack of any real consequence for their actions. Had PKs been jailed, perma-killed, or faced anything akin to true justice, beyond what guilds like PoV could dish out to them, then perhaps they would not have been so quick to slay indiscriminately.

    But in the end, which is more realistic? A world ruled by thugs, or a world in which a weapon in the hands a determined killer, regardless of his or her motivation, has no effect whatsoever.

    You say that Renaissance was a good thing, I disagree 100%. Renaissance was a cop-out, quick fix, answer to a complex problem that deserved a more complex solution.

    Yes, Renaissance allowed people that didn't want to PvP the opportunity to simply ignore the other players in the game that wished to them harm, but what is REALISTIC about that? Nothing.

    So now, we all live in Beverly Hills. There is no violence, no gangs, no real world of any kind.

    Which is exactly what I said before...a CHEAP PLASTIC COPY of the original.

    The reality is, OSI took the cheap way out, and cheated all of us out of a richer, more realistic experience, that with the right balancing, could have been the true sandbox that the author of this article was looking for. But sadly now, all we have is this Diablo 2 clone/WoW clone of an item based mockery of what once was.

    I am glad you are happy with it, safe, and snug in Trammel, but there was once a real world. A place that held a realism that some of us enjoyed. But like I said, that has been dead and gone for a long, long time.

    And you say that AoS and Ren were not linked...again, I disagree 100%. What was the draw of pre AoS UO to the player that had free reign over the environment? How many GM Valorite suits could one player own before they got bored and quit?

    Item based incentive was all that was left. AoS was an evolution of Ren, pure and simple...and if AoS had not happened, UO would have died years ago, assuming Ren as a given.
     
  42. Coppelia

    Coppelia Guest

    I don't play a video game or virtual world for realism. The real world is realistic enough for me. UO never was realistic.
    "It was once a real world"... seriously, it's better for you to be out of that "real world", you sound scary.
     
  43. Who is the "scary" one, the one that offers her opinions about a game, or the one that resorts to personal attacks because she feels she lost an argument on a message forum?

    Really...I am sorry you and I disagree, but I would not resort to insulting you or calling your sanity into question over something posted here.

    Get over yourself already.
     
  44. Daga

    Daga Guest

    Alright, granted we all love UO for different reasons.
    Let's relax on any -alleged- personal attacks :)
    & stick with the original topic please, thanks.
     
  45. Yep. Thanks.
     
  46. And for the record, I am VERY scary. :p
     
  47. Coppelia

    Coppelia Guest

    In fact, what I meant was : your would-be winning argument about realism isn't one. Hence why I can't reply. There is no realism to be in UO. That breaks all what you're saying so why would I reply point by point. Speaking about a MMORPG as a real world is emotional crap. You can turn it the way you want, it's still a very wrong exaggeration.
    I'm not going to analyse you to know why you're looking for a real world in UO, you would take it as a personal attack. So just find something else. Sandbox ok, real world not ok.
     
  48. Your preference and mine differ. Nothing breaks my preference. Just because yours is different does not make mine "broken".

    I really do not wish to exchange attacks with you, so I will simply ask that you refrain from further insults upon my person.

    In my OPINION, a more realistic game (ingots needed to make armor instead of pine cones, swords as weapons instead of Candy Canes, etc.) is preferable to ME. You may, or may not, agree. That is your choice, but I am not going to call you "scary" or anything because your ideas do not happen to match up with mine.

    You can backpedal and say that realism is not a factor, but your own words..."That wasn't realitstic, that wasn't fun in long term because not every player was able to deal with such a razor blade world where you could lose everything you patiently managed to get in a matter of seconds"...recall the term realistic (or realitstic in your case).

    The FACT remains, UO was more realistic ... and more sandbox-like (the original point of the post and the article that it quoted) ... in the days before UO:R.
     
  49. Coppelia

    Coppelia Guest

    Because now a witty comment on a mistype isn't a personal attack anymore? Oo

    Not seeking realism in a game doesn't mean that :
    - I can't use the word
    - some basic laws can't be used

    If realism includes abuse of power, I don't want it in an online game. And you admitted that the power of destruction was too free, even if you don't like the solution they took.
    IMO a sandbox isn't about undergoing all other players abuses, griefs and selfish combat. A sandbox is about giving the players the ability to create their rules and build something. And that's exactly what Trammel + War guilds allowed. A circle of guilds creates rules in order to have the maximum of players able to blossom without removing freedom of others. Then if a guild wants to enter the war circle they must repect the rules. Same for individual players. That's what I call a sandbox.
     
  50. NuSair

    NuSair Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Messages:
    2,989
    Likes Received:
    999
    I am not sure 'realistic' is the term I would use. It was a problem that was admitted by the original designers of the game; that there was no way for players to bring 'gankers' to justice. (you can find various quotes to that effect here: http://www.raphkoster.com/ on designer dragons website)

    There wasn't enough/any reason NOT to be PK, other than your own personal moral code that you were applying to a pixelated world.