Re: The greatest debate, the "stEVE" thing

Campana, thank you for taking the time to write a reasoned response. I greatly appreciate it.

Campana wrote:
Evizaer wrote:

It was a "this genre is broken and this game isn't doing enough to fix that" post.


The genre isn't broken. Niche, yes, broken, no. The main trouble is that companies who want profit will make themepark games. Sandbox games end up being made by indie devs who lack funding, or experience, or both, and the games they make tend to launch with bugs, memory leaks, client crashes and server instability. (Perpetuum is doing amazingly well here).

"Broken" from a game design perspective, not from an execution sense. It's as if the indie devs who make these games have learned nothing from the past and wish to keep repeating nostalgic fantasies that may be fundamentally broken if implemented naively--as they almost always are. (The use-based skill gain model in Darkfall is a great example.)

Evizaer wrote:

There's a reason why most EVE players stick to empire space and Darkfall hasn't increased its sub numbers above (IIRC) 30k. Open world PvP is a very small niche and for a good reason.

Open world pvp doesn't equal sandbox, nor does it have to. All those EVE players living in high sec are still playing a sandbox game, albeit most of their combat is PvE. I can't attribute this fact, but I once saw a statistic that null sec space hosts about 50,000 of EVE's players. That's a pretty respectable proportion if it's true.

Darkfall is (arguably) not a true sandbox* it's just (or was at launch) an open world PvP game and therefore does not support your argument that the genre is broken because open world PvP is broken.

I agree that open world PvP and sandbox shouldn't be conflated. I didn't conflate them in my post. I stated that the open world PvP portion of EVE is significantly less popular than empire space. And this doesn't even count the people who are in nullsec but don't actually PvP, electing to be industrialists and traders instead.

I'm not here to argue about the definition of sandbox and open-world PvP. Those terms are pretty clear when seen in the scope of the MMO genre. Arguing the meanings of subgenres (aside from grievous misclassifications) does nothing but frustrate people. MMORPG players have clearly labeled Darkfall as a sandbox game. If you wish to invent a definition of sandbox, go ahead, but know that it will just cause confusion.

Evizaer wrote:

I also was not talking about "instant escape". If someone is capable of assessing the threat level posed by an enemy force, he can easily pick to avoid all fights but those in his favor. I'm not sure what mechanics Perpetuum has in place to avoid this situation, but if it isn't avoided most of the PvP in the game will be ganking. What mechanics are in place to prevent you from accurately estimating the power of your enemy and just avoiding all fights you won't obviously win?

There are two mechanics which do this in games in general. The first mechanic is the carrot, which lures people into PvP zones in the first place. The second mechanic is the lack of either the will or the ability to disengage.

The carrot can't just be mobs that drop better stuff, or better mining yields. It has to be something that players want, and that they will be forced to protect otherwise they risk losing. Such as owned outposts or player structures - which also serve as the second mechanic, because they have to be captured and defended.

I can't really talk about how successfully Perpetuum has done this, because I haven't played long enough to know. The ingredients are there (or in the case of player built structures are in the pipeline).

You can't really prevent people from avoiding engagements they think they won't win. It's human nature, and game mechanics need to work with human nature, not against it.

We will see how well it works. I hope for the best. I have not seen a game with similar mechanics avoid turning into stone age tribal societies participating in gankfests.


*By "sandbox" I mean a game that tries to simulate a world where players take on social, economic and military roles via their interactions with each other, where the content is largely produced by the players themselves using the tools at their disposal.

According to this definition, Darkfall is a sandbox game.

27 (edited by Campana 2010-11-23 21:43:42)

Re: The greatest debate, the "stEVE" thing

Evizaer wrote:

Campana, thank you for taking the time to write a reasoned response. I greatly appreciate it.

I have failed my corp mates sad But you're welcome. I like writing walls of text every so often.

Evizaer wrote:

"Broken" from a game design perspective, not from an execution sense. It's as if the indie devs who make these games have learned nothing from the past and wish to keep repeating nostalgic fantasies that may be fundamentally broken if implemented naively--as they almost always are. (The use-based skill gain model in Darkfall is a great example.)

I don't think anyone has ever solved this problem. And I disagree that sandbox games should make character progression short and easy. The way MMOs work you have to have a separation between the newbs and vets because: 1) newbs need time to learn the game mechanics; 2) it makes players keep to a consistent identity instead of rerolling whenever they please; and 3) it gives them a clear goal to work towards when they start.

The only way to do this is provide grind. The trick is dressing it up so that's it's not a horrific experience, and providing different avenues for doing so. The second thing you need is to create a power plateau beyond which vet players can diversify but not become so uber a newb can never catch up.

Contrary to what you said in your first post, I think the way Perpetuum does it works pretty well. You have all the standard elements - resource gathering, killing mobs, running missions, industry, trading. You can do as much or as little of each of these as you please in order to progress. Pick one that is relaxing, where you can just zone out and do it on automatice while listening to music or people talking crap on vent/TS. Or if you want a challenge go for something slightly beyond your level that's a bit harder to manage but keeps you interested. Plus time based skill progression means all you need to grind for are materials/wealth/gear, which can only make it easier for the casual player.

Evizaer wrote:

I stated that the open world PvP portion of EVE is significantly less popular than empire space. And this doesn't even count the people who are in nullsec but don't actually PvP, electing to be industrialists and traders instead.

I don't get your point here. Why does this mean the sandbox genre is broken? If a game offers zones with no/limited PvP zones it will attract players who like to play in those zones. Are you saying EVE should try and encourage more players to go to high sec?

Evizaer wrote:

I'm not here to argue about the definition of sandbox and open-world PvP. Those terms are pretty clear when seen in the scope of the MMO genre.

You keep bringing Darkfall up as an example of the brokenness of the genre. Yes, it's an example of some bad design decisions, but it's not an example of the sandbox genre failing....it's an example of a game failing to be sandbox. So it's not really relevant to Perpetuum's situation.

We will see how well it works. I hope for the best. I have not seen a game with similar mechanics avoid turning into stone age tribal societies participating in gankfests.

We're here because we want to play at stone age tribal societies. That's the whole point! But yes, hoping for the best here too.

Evizaer wrote:

According to this definition, Darkfall is a sandbox game.

First, it doesn't have local banking, therefore the economy cannot work properly. Second, it doesn't (or didn't at release) have character specialisations. A game must have a realistic virtual economy and allow players to take on roles e.g. trader, crafter, thief, soldier, courier, spy etc. Darkfall has sandbox elements, but it is not, to me, a sandbox and this is one of the reasons I'm not playing it.

Re: The greatest debate, the "stEVE" thing

Evizaer wrote:

"Broken" from a game design perspective, not from an execution sense. It's as if the indie devs who make these games have learned nothing from the past and wish to keep repeating nostalgic fantasies that may be fundamentally broken if implemented naively--as they almost always are. (The use-based skill gain model in Darkfall is a great example.)

I don't think anyone has ever solved this problem. And I disagree that sandbox games should make character progression short and easy. The way MMOs work you have to have a separation between the newbs and vets because: 1) newbs need time to learn the game mechanics; 2) it makes players keep to a consistent identity instead of rerolling whenever they please; and 3) it gives them a clear goal to work towards when they start.

1.) If vertical character advancement lasts no longer than the time it takes the newb to get familiar, I'd say that's an appropriate length. Beyond that, getting better at the game should be the only way to advance. Otherwise you just have additional grinding. If you have vertical character advancement beyond that, you're just asking for it to take the players longer to feel like they're playing the "real game".

I'm not a fan of mechanics that approximate doing little more than transferring player time into character power. I'm also not a fan of the idea that a player should have some kind of "main" that they spend all their time working on--but that's for a different discussion.

2.) When you develop a reputation among other players, you won't want to arbitrarily reroll. If we're going to endorse "main" characters, I don't think you should even be ALLOWED to have multiple characters--perhaps players shouldn't even be able to reroll without GM approval. If you let players reroll whenever they want, you're allowing players a "get out of jail free" card to play whenever they do something naughty. If you let them off the hook so easily for breaking norms among their peers, you are basically giving them carte blanche because there can be no social consequences.

3.) How does vertical character advancement provide a clearer goal than the mere acquisition of wealth and power? If the player is incapable of entertaining themself in a sandbox world without sweeping character advancement, I don't see how they wouldn't find a world with such advancement equally unappealing. Players who need to be guided by the nose around the game world don't actually enjoy sandboxes to begin with.

The only way to do this is provide grind. The trick is dressing it up so that's it's not a horrific experience, and providing different avenues for doing so. The second thing you need is to create a power plateau beyond which vet players can diversify but not become so uber a newb can never catch up.

Why should I have to do activities that aren't fun in order to get to fun activities? Why can't I just log on an hour a night and have some fun? Maybe I just value my time higher than other people. If a game isn't going to give me interesting things to do within the first 10 hours, I have trouble justifying spending so much time on it when there are so many other great games around to occupy me to much happier ends.

Contrary to what you said in your first post, I think the way Perpetuum does it works pretty well. You have all the standard elements - resource gathering, killing mobs, running missions, industry, trading. You can do as much or as little of each of these as you please in order to progress. Pick one that is relaxing, where you can just zone out and do it on automatice while listening to music or people talking crap on vent/TS. Or if you want a challenge go for something slightly beyond your level that's a bit harder to manage but keeps you interested. Plus time based skill progression means all you need to grind for are materials/wealth/gear, which can only make it easier for the casual player.

Why should there EVER be grind, though? Why can't the game be designed to be fun end-to-end (or as close as you can come) instead of requiring you to do repetitive, boring tasks. I don't play games in order to "zone out", I play them to have fun and be entertained as well as to be mentally stimulated a bit.

Evizaer wrote:

I stated that the open world PvP portion of EVE is significantly less popular than empire space. And this doesn't even count the people who are in nullsec but don't actually PvP, electing to be industrialists and traders instead.

I don't get your point here. Why does this mean the sandbox genre is broken? If a game offers zones with no/limited PvP zones it will attract players who like to play in those zones. Are you saying EVE should try and encourage more players to go to high sec?

I'm saying that people vote with their feet. They would prefer not to be bothered with the ganking and histrionics.

Popularity doesn't mean much. But this genre has been around for over ten years now and no one has made a game that has truly succeeded on a large scale without turning it into at least a partial themepark/safe zone? As it stands now, it seems that sandboxes that focus on open-world pvp are basically inferior products. Design hasn't progressed as it has in the themepark realm.

Evizaer wrote:

I'm not here to argue about the definition of sandbox and open-world PvP. Those terms are pretty clear when seen in the scope of the MMO genre.

You keep bringing Darkfall up as an example of the brokenness of the genre. Yes, it's an example of some bad design decisions, but it's not an example of the sandbox genre failing....it's an example of a game failing to be sandbox. So it's not really relevant to Perpetuum's situation.

I don't understand your aversion to calling Darkfall a sandbox. It's clearly a sandbox when compared against industry standard games like WoW. It may not be AS sandboxy as Wurm Online or EVE, but that doesn't mean it isn't a sandbox--I guess you could say DFO just has less sand.

We will see how well it works. I hope for the best. I have not seen a game with similar mechanics avoid turning into stone age tribal societies participating in gankfests.

We're here because we want to play at stone age tribal societies. That's the whole point! But yes, hoping for the best here too.

Here I disagree. Stone age tribal societies are nice in the beginning, but for how long is brutal coercion by force as the default a fun way to live in a virtual world? I think we should have better tools for building and maintaining societies in-game so we can get past hitting one another with rocks as the main way to solve problems. Of course combat should still remain important, but it should be relegated to specific purposes like outright war, sparring, and fighting criminals/bandits/pirates/rogue AI.

Evizaer wrote:

According to this definition, Darkfall is a sandbox game.

First, it doesn't have local banking, therefore the economy cannot work properly. Second, it doesn't (or didn't at release) have character specialisations. A game must have a realistic virtual economy and allow players to take on roles e.g. trader, crafter, thief, soldier, courier, spy etc. Darkfall has sandbox elements, but it is not, to me, a sandbox and this is one of the reasons I'm not playing it.

I don't see how global banking makes a game less of a sandbox. I'd think that not being able to build wherever you want would make a game less of a sandbox. Local banking would make the game more realistic and perhaps more fun, but it doesn't seem to contribute to the game's sandbox label.

DFO does have character specialization now, to some extent, though I don't think they did a particularly good job with it.

"Sandbox" is merely a descriptive term for games that, relative to the industry standard, let you go your own way and forge your own fate. "Sandbox" means notably less directed than average, not "realistic". (At least in common parlance it's used that way.)

Re: The greatest debate, the "stEVE" thing

Dorkfail is a sand bag.

I am Perpetuum's Most Dangerous Agent and an equal opportunity troll.
-> You just lost The Game <-
"Perpetuum sounds like a something I would stick up my *** for enjoyement." -Kaito Kurusaki

30 (edited by Campana 2010-11-24 22:26:25)

Re: The greatest debate, the "stEVE" thing

Evizaer wrote:

1.) If vertical character advancement lasts no longer than the time it takes the newb to get familiar, I'd say that's an appropriate length

"Appropriate" length is different for everyone. What takes one player a week to learn might take another three months. Most western MMOs probably take the average new player anything from one to three months to progress to a point where they are competitive. In a really complex MMO you probably never stop learning. I hope Perpetuum will be like that, but to get to a competitive level will take a newb about 2 months ito EP, which is pretty fair.

Evizaer wrote:

If we're going to endorse "main" characters, I don't think you should even be ALLOWED to have multiple characters

You're taking what I said too far. All I meant by that point was that a mass zerg of newly created alts should not be effective in combat, because it gives corps an easy win button. Encouraging zergs via a game mechanic is a bad thing. I wasn't endorsing "main" characters per se, and I think the restrictions you suggest are completely unecessary. The way it is now works fine.

Evizaer wrote:

How does vertical character advancement provide a clearer goal than the mere acquisition of wealth and power?

Because character advancement are methods of achieving greater wealth and power. And because a sandbox game is supposed to be a virtual society as much as a game, and should model the way things work in real life where we need to learn skills in order to perform roles.

Evizaer wrote:

Why should I have to do activities that aren't fun in order to get to fun activities?

Again, because a sandbox game is supposed to be a virtual society, and should model the way things work in real life. You have to work to get rewards, and when you've done that the reward is all the sweeter. Secondly, why do you assume all the activities I've named aren't fun? None of them are exciting, but they can all be fun in their own way. I actually enjoy putting up buy and sell trades on the market and trying to make a profit out of it. Out of all the things I named, I like killing mobs best so in order to get NIC that's what I do.

If I don't like the grinding options provided in a game, I won't play it. I don't like quests, so I'm not playing WoW. I don't enjoy killing wisents for gold, so that's one of the reasons I'm not playing Mortal Online. I do enjoy killing mobs in Perpetuum, and that's one of the reasons that prompted me to pre-order.

Evizaer wrote:

Why should there EVER be grind, though? Why can't the game be designed to be fun end-to-end (or as close as you can come) instead of requiring you to do repetitive, boring tasks.

Look at single player games. Years of work by large teams go into a game that could last anything from 10 to 80 hours. People play MMOs for thousands of hours...it's unrealistic to expect similar content to be generated for all that time. Having said that, did you check out SWTOR? What do you make of that?

I do think more could be done to make content in MMOs interesting. For instance, PvE dungeons are almost always 1) See goup of stationary mobs 2) Tank pulls group 3) DPS dpses group 3) healer heals 4) Mobs die 5) Go round the corner and repeat with next group of mobs until you get to the boss. I think they should add more puzzles. Some MMOs do this, but after a while even that gets repetitive (e.g. DDO).

But to get back to my original point, in a virtual society not everything can be fun. The whole point of the game is to work for rewards, and you know you are playing the right game when you enjoy the work as well as the reward. That's what I mean about dressing up the grind to make it fun.

Evizaer wrote:

I'm saying that people vote with their feet. They would prefer not to be bothered with the ganking and histrionics.

Um. No. Ganking and histrionics make the game interesting and exciting, it's the reason many of us play. Moreover, Perpetuum allows you to avoid this - you don't have to go out of the safe zones if you don't want to, any more than you do in EVE. You don't have to post in the corporation dialogue forums if you don't find that kind of thing interesting.

Evizaer wrote:

But this genre has been around for over ten years now and no one has made a game that has truly succeeded on a large scale without turning it into at least a partial themepark/safe zone?

Why does a game need to succeed on a large scale? Why is that an aim? Most sandbox devs very sensibly aim small because they know their genre is a niche one. Prior to WoW, MMOs measured success in terms of hundreds of thousands of subs. Small developers can easily survive and make a profit on these subscriber numbers, so why on earth would they count it a failure just because they can't get millions of subs?

Evizaer wrote:

I don't understand your aversion to calling Darkfall a sandbox. It's clearly a sandbox when compared against industry standard games like WoW. It may not be AS sandboxy as Wurm Online or EVE, but that doesn't mean it isn't a sandbox--I guess you could say DFO just has less sand.

I'm trying to make the point that you can't call the sandbox genre broken because DF is broken. It's the other way around. DF is broken because it doesn't do the sandbox properly.

Evizaer wrote:

Here I disagree. Stone age tribal societies are nice in the beginning, but for how long is brutal coercion by force as the default a fun way to live in a virtual world?

A stone age society does not imply brutal coercion by force. The simplest tribal societies have egalitarian structures with small group sizes, and if there is one person in charge he tends to lead by consensus and does not posses greater personal wealth than the rest. Many small guilds follow this structure. At the other end of the scale are larger guilds with more stratified hierarchies, where the leadership control and allocate most of the guild's resources. Guilds are microcosms of real world polities and it's funny to see how different nationalities consistently produce the same kinds of structures...like French guilds are so often organised along democratic lines, etc. The main differences between real life and virtual polities is that (a) individual members have a choice as to which guild they join and (b) they are smaller in size. This means that some things that work irl don't work in games and vice versa.

Sorry that was a bit of a digression there. But the point I'm trying to make is that all these little polities need to decide whether to co-operate or conflict with each other, it's like a giant game of prisoner's dilemma, and it involves trade, non-aggression pacts, treaties, alliances, hostilities and war. That's what I thought you meant by "stone age societies" and this is one of the main reasons people are drawn to a game like Perpetuum.

Evizaer wrote:

I think we should have better tools for building and maintaining societies in-game

Like what...? I can think of some ways that in game organisations could model rl ones more accurately, but what's there works perfectly adequately for our purposes.

Evizaer wrote:

so we can get past hitting one another with rocks as the main way to solve problems.

But "hitting each other with rocks" is one of the main reasons we are here. The more the hitting better.

Evizaer wrote:

Of course combat should still remain important, but it should be relegated to specific purposes like outright war, sparring, and fighting criminals/bandits/pirates/rogue AI.


Um...it already is? There are already corps fighting each other out there in the beta islands. Those that don't want to just stay in alpha territory and peaceably build up wealth and mutual love or whatever it is they do with each other.

Evizaer wrote:

I don't see how global banking makes a game less of a sandbox.

As mentioned above, a sandbox is a game that sets up a virtual society within a box. A society needs to be defined by the rules and restrictions that govern it. DF is a fantasy world, it should have bankers, traders, trade caravans, bandits and an economy. By choosing to make banking global, Adventurine wiped out any chance of any of these things happening.

Evizaer wrote:

"Sandbox" is merely a descriptive term for games that, relative to the industry standard, let you go your own way and forge your own fate. "Sandbox" means notably less directed than average, not "realistic". (At least in common parlance it's used that way.)

There is no agreed definition of sandbox. Despite this tongue I think your definition is wrong. More freedom does not equal sandbox. A sandbox has to have a set of rules that govern it, which either reflect or twist real life rules. A theme park restricts you in a very artificial way by giving you a specific path to follow e.g. you become an assassin by rolling a class with that name that uses daggers, not by joining a secret society and getting contracts to murder other characters.

A sandbox provides many different options which are limited by the rules and the mechanics of the game, in the same way that we are limited in a real life society. Local banking is one of those kinds of limits that enhances game play and creates reasons for players to interact with each other, thus making their gameplay experience more challenging, but also more meaningful.

Re: The greatest debate, the "stEVE" thing

Neoxx wrote:

Dorkfail is a sand bag.

I declare this thread a competition to see who can write the longest essay. Thank you for your effort.

Re: The greatest debate, the "stEVE" thing

I didn't read any of that big *** post.

Can somebody 1-line it for me?

Re: The greatest debate, the "stEVE" thing

Bartlebe wrote:

I didn't read any of that big *** post.

Can somebody 1-line it for me?


"If you can't make more than 2 sandcastles in, is it a sandbox?"

Re: The greatest debate, the "stEVE" thing

Bartlebe wrote:

I didn't read any of that big *** post.

Can somebody 1-line it for me?

Perpetuum rocks.

35 (edited by Outlaw 2010-11-25 08:38:28)

Re: The greatest debate, the "stEVE" thing

the game evolution is to take something and make it better for example is better that eve and i like that
for me take every single feature EvE have beat your head against something(a wall) untill yo make it better

also this should be moved on off topic section on the forum smile

To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, and be nothing.” – Elbert Hubbard

Re: The greatest debate, the "stEVE" thing

Well the forums are certainly starting to look a LOT like Eve's.

37 (edited by skullkandy 2010-11-26 16:41:56)

Re: The greatest debate, the "stEVE" thing

If it was influenced, good.

stEVE is a brilliant game, one of the very few true MMOs on the market that isn't just a multi-player dungeon crawl which isn't what MMO used to mean or where they started. The theme park MMO is a devolution of the genre. I've said for years I wish someone would make a game like stEVE but not so boring. Because even though it hands down has the absolute best mechanics of any MMO in the end the whole experience can feel very stale and disconnected since it's essentially "spread sheet in space."

There is nothing wrong with using a good idea and expanding upon it in a different direction.

influneced or not, either way perpetuum has my $ because they had the balls to make a true MMO which is a million times harder than making yet another quest collector game.

Re: The greatest debate, the "stEVE" thing

It's already more fun than Eve and is minus the massive amount of metagaming/multiboxing and future cash shop (final nail in the coffin for me regarding Eve). Copy or not, I don't care one bit. Lets hope these guys don't drive the game off the road several years down the line lke CCP did.

Re: The greatest debate, the "stEVE" thing

Home movies!  Walter and Perry even get married in one episode lol, where McGuirk blows it with Brendan's mom's hot friend.

Re: The greatest debate, the "stEVE" thing

Perpetuum is not bad, but it feels immoral to play it, since so much was ripped off EVE.

41 (edited by CenDre 2010-11-27 22:54:23)

Re: The greatest debate, the "stEVE" thing

Ever since I started playing eve (may of 2008)I have been comparing all other MMOs to eve. Waiting hoping something would come along that deserved to be compared to EVE. Perpetuum is that game.....the only game in fact. I don't care if there are similarities. If anything they make me want to see more of the game.

If you ask me Avatar has simply followed the natural progression of advancing the way game will start being developed adding in far more functionality than what was available in the past. No longer will gamers be satisfied with poor functionality no improvements with noting more than a fresh coat of paint. Gamers are going want and expect new functionality, more skills. The days of paying for crap expansions are over.(WOW style)

The other day I was sitting there playing Perpetuum and all of a sudden I started getting light headed and shaky and realized I had not eaten a thing since the day before I was so involved with the game. That's never happened with any game before.....so now I set the alarm to warn me when i should take a break and get food and stretch my legs. I'm loving it.

Eve was the first

Perpetumm is now ... the mold is broken there is no going back.