Topic: For those who would like more Sand in their Box

I've been seeing a large amount of posts based around "Fairness", player interactions, capabilities levels and cuddly wuddly stuff.

Honestly I'd prefer a world of choices.. BUT that too needs to have it's own backlash. Here are a few ideas to put some more sand back. The Consequences will never be the same.

Syndicate Rating:
Every "Bad" action will result in the loss of Rating. Opening containers that don't belong to you or possible attacking someone who isn't PVP flagged (Would mean adding areas of the beta island there PVP flagging is forced and once new island come out they should force PVP flag anyone for fairness). This of course isn't to punish law breakers but to give consequences to them. In return for this rating system they'd have the chance to open any container (Apart from field). Of course as more features come into the game that allow griefing they'd be included to. If your rating drops below -5 you're PVP flagged on Alpha islands all the time. I thought that -10 (The lowest rating) would stop access to Alpha islands but perhaps it should just limit the robots you can use on it without being "Disabled" (Meaning unable to activate offensive modules without being destroyed). This of course can be expanded upon but does mean you can create more Sandbox elements rather than limiting them. I know I would prefer a world of choices and consequences.

Some of the ideas I have suggested are not finished and require a lot of community backing. More so I want to hear from those who want more choices in their sandbox. But choices have to have consequences. This idea is rough and isn't of course the final version but the idea of a rating system that limits or boosts your play-style depending which direction you want it to take it is the fundamental idea here. The idea of enforced PVP flagging areas is designed to break up the griefing/pirates and hard-core PVPers a little. The world is too small right now and we're all very close together meaning than a 1 day old newbie is faced with very old veterans who can very easily limit the newbies play style.

Though?

Last edited by Alexander MkII (2010-09-02 13:43:13)

Re: For those who would like more Sand in their Box

Welcome to the world of what we call "security status". Oh wait thats a different game... wink

Re: For those who would like more Sand in their Box

I'd like to improve on that system. Limiting it to Assignments would suck for most people. Rating should be based on your profession and the better you do the more rating you get. Granted you can't work out if someone is funding a "Terrorist" group or not but something that give the bad guys what they want but with consequences to their actions as well.

Re: For those who would like more Sand in their Box

Epic title.  But for that, you will never get a serious response out of me.

Re: For those who would like more Sand in their Box

Alexander MkII wrote:

I've been seeing a large amount of posts based around "Fairness", player interactions, capabilities levels and cuddly wuddly stuff.

Honestly I'd prefer a world of choices.. BUT that too needs to have it's own backlash. Here are a few ideas to put some more sand back. The Consequences will never be the same.

Syndicate Rating:
Every "Bad" action will result in the loss of Rating. Opening containers that don't belong to you or possible attacking someone who isn't PVP flagged (Would mean adding areas of the beta island there PVP flagging is forced and once new island come out they should force PVP flag anyone for fairness). This of course isn't to punish law breakers but to give consequences to them. In return for this rating system they'd have the chance to open any container (Apart from field). Of course as more features come into the game that allow griefing they'd be included to. If your rating drops below -5 you're PVP flagged on Alpha islands all the time. I thought that -10 (The lowest rating) would stop access to Alpha islands but perhaps it should just limit the robots you can use on it without being "Disabled" (Meaning unable to activate offensive modules without being destroyed). This of course can be expanded upon but does mean you can create more Sandbox elements rather than limiting them. I know I would prefer a world of choices and consequences.

Some of the ideas I have suggested are not finished and require a lot of community backing. More so I want to hear from those who want more choices in their sandbox. But choices have to have consequences. This idea is rough and isn't of course the final version but the idea of a rating system that limits or boosts your play-style depending which direction you want it to take it is the fundamental idea here. The idea of enforced PVP flagging areas is designed to break up the griefing/pirates and hard-core PVPers a little. The world is too small right now and we're all very close together meaning than a 1 day old newbie is faced with very old veterans who can very easily limit the newbies play style.

Though?

This is absolute nonsense. I don't even feel to explain why, but hey, i'm gracious today.

Sandbox games mean, that nearly EVERYTHING is player made. Naturally there is only a very very small frame (lore, basic mechanics) which players can build on. Adding consequences by giving game mechanic more intrusion into player actions is taking away freedom and choice. Certainly your post is a paradoxon. Giving more freedom by restricting others and thus shaping the game towards a specific direction. Even the definition of 'bad actions' is a shaping of the game.

In sandbox games all content is meant to be made by players. You want to have consequences for someone who attacks you or steals your loot? Kill him. If you are not able to do so, don't try to post useless threads which suggest game mechanics to help you because of your inability.

This is not offensive. To all of you: start dealing with the facts that if you get killed and don't have the chance of revenge (lack of skill, ressources, manpower), then live with it or change it.

M2s is dominating by simply playing the game and enforcing their agenda onto others. Everyone has the chance to change it. EVERYONE. But your lack of skill and tactics prevents you to do so and you seek help in game mechanics which setup a free protection to your favour.

Since i'm pretty sure there will be a post again about 'extension points vs new players' or 'm2s having to much advantage etc.':

How do you justify yourself when retails comes and you will play the game for one year? When every new player will come around and call you and asshole by default and everything unfair because you have the advantage of playing the game longer than him? Its not meant to be an equality. But sandbox games enable you to circumvent this situation. How? Well, go figure.


Being lazy and mentaly not able to encounter other players is not the fault of game mechanics. You get killed, you die, you loose stuff, you loose your precious online work: live with it.


about m2s 'trying to shape game to their favour': Another nonsense ruling the forums and whines. We certainly don't want ANY restrictions and endorse freedom of actions. We try to keep game mechanics as minimal as possible so players can evolve the way they want. The only problem people have is understanting that if you get killed/griefed or whatever its not fault of game mechanics but a result of player actions. We (m2s) make this actions. Its up to you to prevent them. You can have your own playstyle but first you will have to deal with other players who counter your plans. By common sense its not possible to mine m2s to death by saying 'mimimimimi i want mine all day this is my playstyle.' Sorry, but you will have to stand up and defend your playstyle and enforce your own agenda if you are able.

Stop blaming Devs, game mechanics for your own inabilities.


Closing sentence: Lets be friends. I will be very honest here. If you feel that you can't match someone because hes better or whatever and don't want to do anything against it, then competetive games aren't for you. If you feel sad and mentaly broken when someone picks on you online, then you shouldn't play online games at all since you mix reality with games. There are various other games which you might enjoy (coop mostly). MMORPGs like Lord of the Rings online where its only coop sounds pretty much ok and these games are made for people who just like to play with others against artificial intelligence and with no risk to loose anything. Or if you have the desire to be gazed by someone by doing something online, there is also a variety of games where you can do this (especially korean ones which are abour proud and honour). I'm being honest here because to me it seems that 99% of discussions here have nothing to do with perpetuum but players who just feel bad for some reason and can't find their place within the game. Yes, i'm a carebear when it comes to this. I remember a guy in a harsh pvp game whom i killed over and over. He gave me all his items he had and quit the game with the comment 'its to harsh for me. i accept it and you shall have my items...'. He was honest, i respected him for this alot and didn't think like 'omg, wtf pussy'.

Last edited by LatscherX (2010-09-02 17:45:41)

Re: For those who would like more Sand in their Box

Thank you for the feed-back.

Re: For those who would like more Sand in their Box

sorry, latscher, but your definition of "Sandbox" is just what YOU want it to be.

Sandbox games just dont have a fixed path to reach the ultimate goal in the game, or... in case of perpetuum - not even a fixed goal.

So your assumption that "you have won perpetuum" is only true in your side, if you have reached your own goal in that game.

I have reached mine already some month ago...

Re: For those who would like more Sand in their Box

LatscherX wrote:

This is absolute nonsense. I don't even feel to explain why, but hey, i'm gracious today.

Such sentences usually mean "I think my opinion is right but I don't have arguments so won't talk with you".


LatscherX wrote:

Sandbox games mean, that nearly EVERYTHING is player made. Naturally there is only a very very small frame (lore, basic mechanics) which players can build on. Adding consequences by giving game mechanic more intrusion into player actions is taking away freedom and choice. Certainly your post is a paradoxon. Giving more freedom by restricting others and thus shaping the game towards a specific direction. Even the definition of 'bad actions' is a shaping of the game.

Wrong thinking. When you let players do what they want will kill the game finally. If not security status there would be too much grief and something like "security zones" would be just imagination. I can see lot of Sequers being killed on Alpha islands cause some guys are boring cause no PVP outside Alpha. So in my opinin you are doing it for your own intrest, not for being a sandbox style game.

Told you many times, that sandbox isn't free to do everything game cause it causes imbalance. And here we got not only bots, ewar and any other robot stuff to balance. Even play style need restrictions because there are such guys like you abusing everything you can. You think it's funny and it's your way to play the game and win it. And I tell you. Winning the game is worst thing that can happen to you. And it's happening now, you are trying to abuse more and more stuff, probably trying to kill guys in Alpha Islands, cause nobody want to play with you. Here we got bigger and bigger gap between you and other corps. While game release such situation would probably kill the game in few months. I join the game, I am new player, maybe on trial, to see if I want to play the game. First steps are always hard, especially when you never played such style game, then few guys trolling at you and laughing, cause everything they do is funny for them, kill me few times. So I spend next 2-3 months on getting more and more money to buy new stuff being destroyed not by NPC by those guys. Man, I am not that kind of player that retreat on the battlefield but I would say that this game just sucks and stop playing it.

So in my opinion, Alexander's idea is a basis in release. In EVE, if there would be no SS, many ships would die in Jita, cause you could do it almost with no cost (insured BSes) inifinite number of times, even without war, wchich is better cause guy will never know when he will die.

Personally I got rid of this game, seriously. Unluckly got no PVP, but saw that my skill lvl could make only scratch your almost year char. Your attitude on forums, all trolls, even that you offended me personally and my nationality on private convo really makes me to abandon this game. And you know what ? I bet you will kill this game pretty soon after release. You are torpedoing all ideas that prevent abusing, griefing etc. Yeah yeah, I know, I am cry baby, not so hardcore like you, and you win, nothing else. Bla bla bla...going back to play Red Orchestra and waiting for wipe...maybe there is some hope in wipe.

Re: For those who would like more Sand in their Box

Bunkerkind Anni wrote:

sorry, latscher, but your definition of "Sandbox" is just what YOU want it to be.Sandbox games just dont have a fixed path to reach the ultimate goal in the game, or... in case of perpetuum - not even a fixed goal.

And this is YOUR definition. Sandbox may have a path but thats not obligatory.

Bunkerkind Anni wrote:

I have reached mine already some month ago...

Well, if i set my goal to kill an npc arkhe, then yes. I would also win within a minute.

We won perpetuum economical and pvp wise. So if you want to take these two things as path, we won it. Sorry :-)

Re: For those who would like more Sand in their Box

Freedom is not free big_smile

Neither should be security.

Last edited by Siddy (2010-09-02 21:43:37)

Offensive signature. - DEV Zoom

Rawr, fear my signature.

Re: For those who would like more Sand in their Box

Well, wrote quite a bit of a reply then erased it.

I liked the title but was quickly disappointed when it seemed to be nothing but M2S bashing and their chest thumping.

We are in Closed Beta, no one has won except by their own personal character goals.
You can not dominate a closed market, yes you can hord and cause a spike in prices but remember this is a very small cross section of what the market should be.

Look Sand Box gaming has been arround a long time and is not new to MMO's just like balencing the risk/reward for 'good' and 'bad' actions.
The concept of Sand Box gaming is not that there are no Game Environment rules to balence player interaction but just the oposite.

Sand Box gaming allows the Player Character to interact with the Game Environment as he wishes, but that is not to say there are no reactions or affect caused by the players action would be fine for a one person against the computer but this is a MMO which has a back story and a loose code of conduct based on the back story.

Using relationship ratings has been another way to reward/risk Players for their actions agin this falls right in line with the Sand Box type of game. Hte player exsits in a Universe which has a set of paramiters which are acceptable and not acceptable but it is up to the player to make those choices based on risk/reward.

Having no risk for griefing/piroting whole sell is inviting a demaise for the game unless that is the Universal back drop of anarchy and might makes right and is marketed as such. I don't think that is what the Dev's have in mind but it's not my business so I don't know.

What needs to be asked and answered by the Dev's:

Is there a Riverlry between the Mega-Corps which would reward griefing/piroting?

Are there any 'expected' code of conduct of the Characters and if so then what should be the risk of going against that conduct? (Yes, the gamers at large will make up some of this but there is usually a loose guide line)

If the Macro Game is to gain teritory control by Corporations then this opens up another area which is important: Will Mega-Corp ever put out bounties on Players or Player Corps?

There is always an effect for an action no matter the environmet so there should be relational reactions between players and NPC entities based on Player actions this could also be expanded to include Player Corps as well. This would help fill game content, produce riverlries between Mega-Corp story lines and also add to the storyline content.
A Sand Box MMO will develope many storylines as it should due to the varied players which are involved in an MMO.

A Sand Box environment will never be nice to us all the time, some thimes the 'law' will be on your side some time not, sometimes you will be in the wrong place at the wrong time, but the game should be enjoyed by a large enough customer base to support it finacially.

Remeber if you run off other players who are you going to play with?
If the game doesn't have a good player base it will fold, and we as players do have some of that in our hands.
Also in a Sand Box game, enimies who would not work together will to get ride of a mutual threat.
Just my nickles worth, I have no animosity towards any one PC nor Corp. -D²