No risk to crafting, Needs Penalties

[JCatano]

The statements made by Notorious Game are unambigous and clear. Interpretaion is not necessary. At first safe zones everywhere. The begining area we have now out to the mist. Later that area may be allowed to opt out. Xsyon says he is still considering this option. Later zones will be added and the mist will get pushed back from the begining area. Some or all of the newly added zone(s) may entirely be free of safe zones--maybe not--he is going to watch the server population to determine our course. Later servers will not all have safe zones. I suspect--given enough clients--there will be servers like ours with a begining safe zone optional area. But maybe this will be the only server with safe zone guarenteed areas. That part is unlcear.
I haven't, by any means, read much of the threads in this forum. No where that I've read has said a word about revoking a tribe's option to remain safe in the original area the game launches with.

No.

For Prelude, tribal zones are safe. He is considering allowing people to remove the safety of their tribe zone during Prelude. After Prelude, safety in tribe zones will be turned off.

The separate zone or server he is speaking of seems to reference this:

"We are considering setting up additional servers in both the US and Europe that will be more war oriented where we will remove safe zones and make some adjustments. At the moment this is very likely, but we have no set date for this."

Either a separate server or zone without any safety during Prelude.

[fflhktsn]

I think it's funny that any time I see people talking about a game being a sandbox the primary idea that people have about what it should be is just running around killing whoever they want, whenever they want. As though the scope of their imagination is limited to just ganking, not pvp - actual "balanced" combat but just pk'ing - running around killing people you know can't really fight back.
And this, I think, is the primary reason the PvP vs. PvE discussion, if you can really call it that, will never be settled. The loudest voices for the "PvP" side want nothing but to kill the weaker players and crafters who won't fight back to take their stuff. Which, of course, sets off the weaker players and crafters. It's an endless cycle.

Also, this entire thread seems to be pointing directly to the solo-crafter. In 6-9 months it won't matter, on the assumption safe zones will in fact be removed. So for now, you have solo-players you can't get at. Big deal.

if the players of a sandbox want to run around just killing eachother then they are free to do so in a sandbox..often that is the case becasue you are referenceing sandboxes that offerd that as the only form of entertainment.

also i pointed out some pretty obvious forms of abuse that larger tribes could do using their other account in sub tribes using safezones

and they said they wanted to keep safezones as an option during tribal warfare.

[orious13]

I think it's funny that any time I see people talking about a game being a sandbox the primary idea that people have about what it should be is just running around killing whoever they want, whenever they want. As though the scope of their imagination is limited to just ganking, not pvp - actual "balanced" combat but just pk'ing - running around killing people you know can't really fight back.
And this, I think, is the primary reason the PvP vs. PvE discussion, if you can really call it that, will never be settled. The loudest voices for the "PvP" side want nothing but to kill the weaker players and crafters who won't fight back to take their stuff. Which, of course, sets off the weaker players and crafters. It's an endless cycle.

Also, this entire thread seems to be pointing directly to the solo-crafter. In 6-9 months it won't matter, on the assumption safe zones will in fact be removed. So for now, you have solo-players you can't get at. Big deal.

exactly...

The big picture has been missed. This true sandbox is a pipe dream and has far too many problems to be viable for any producer to take it seriously.

[fflhktsn]

exactly...

The big picture has been missed. This true sandbox is a pipe dream and has far too many problems to be viable for any producer to take it seriously.

only because people like you refuse to take off the blinders.

no true sandbox has EVER been made.

you must be a game developer, because that is exactly the attitude that gets us 500 wow clones

[NexAnima]

again you missed the point as to fit your argument

UO moved away from a sandbox, it got old, its audience changed and they were never a full frontal sandbox to begin with. they were close however.

if this game stuck to a true sandbox mentality, create the world and drop the people in it, a lot of people would flock to it, i'm not talking wow sized community, but several times its current following to say the least.

that is if this game doesn't turn into another MO, where all the features never make it and it gets stuck in alhpa stage for life.

I for one see, both sides of the argument. My statement was the customers don't always know what they want...correction, they know what they want but they don't care how it affects others or the world. Hell, they scrapped the biggest (IMO) MMO (UO:X) because players didn't want to start over. The original UO was as close to a sandbox as you could get.

There's a reason we will never see a complete sandbox, the players. In pure anarchy, do you truly believe the player base has the ability/maturity to create a fully functional game world? No..without system checks and balances griefers would roll over every starting tribe and create a power imbalance. Without going to far into it, there's a reason modern society exists as it does...fear. In the case of real life, death is the fear that keeps us all in line. But what about the game world? You die respawn with perhaps less stuff but nothing you can't get back later. Where's the fear to guide the path of the players?

We the players do not have the ability to control the world as a community, because the minute our vision or objective changes we turn on one another like rabid dogs. Which would be fine if such a thing caused the fear need to control the the masses, but alas there is no fear or long term consequences for ones action, No there is no ability to control without coded system to keep the peace.

[fflhktsn]

I for one see, both sides of the argument. My statement was the customers don't always know what they want...correction, they know what they want but they don't care how it affects others or the world. Hell, they scrapped the biggest (IMO) MMO (UO:X) because players didn't want to start over. The original UO was as close to a sandbox as you could get.

There's a reason we will never see a complete sandbox, the players. In pure anarchy, do you truly believe the player base has the ability/maturity to create a fully functional game world? No..without system checks and balances griefers would roll over every starting tribe and create a power imbalance. Without going to far into it, there's a reason modern society exists as it does...fear. In the case of real life, death is the fear that keeps us all in line. But what about the game world? You die respawn with perhaps less stuff but nothing you can't get back later. Where's the fear to guide the path of the players?

We the players do not have the ability to control the world as a community, because the minute our vision or objective changes we turn on one another like rabid dogs. Which would be fine if such a thing caused the fear need to control the the masses, but alas there is no fear or long term consequences for ones action, No there is no ability to control without coded system to keep the peace.

again your missing the point. a sandbox isnt where the players choose how the game is created, what tools are in the game, or anything of the sort. they are simply allowed to do whatever they want in a world using the tools created for them

this doesnt involve penalizing people for choices, or creating optional safe areas, these are anti-sandbox features being discussed by development. also whatever that quite from jookie saying he wanted 90% of the community good aligned...that isnt a sandbox move. its up to the players to decide how they use the tools given to them in game

if they change their maind, and all of a sudden hate the pvp world they created, then they are free to regulate in game as they see fit, easily banding together to stomp out any reckless gankers, however in the process of doing this, they are in fact playing the game.

its not about bitching for arena pvp, getting it, then hating it, thats not sandbox...

[Dade512]

ffhktsn, I think you're the one missing a lot of points. All you keep doing is telling people they're missing the point, because they don't agree with your assessment.
Nex, I believe, was referring to not the creation of the game but the creation of a functional society within the game. Atleast that's what I got out of his post.

If 23pgs of people are "missing the point", maybe the point is flawed?

[MrKrueak]

again your missing the point.

if we are missing the point then point us somewhere where it defines a sandbox? fact is you can't because it is subjective, anywhere you look it defines a sandbox as a game with "limited rules" not "0 rules".

[Treepoet]

ffhktsn, I think you're the one missing a lot of points. All you keep doing is telling people they're missing the point, because they don't agree with your assessment.
Nex, I believe, was referring to not the creation of the game but the creation of a functional society within the game. Atleast that's what I got out of his post.

If 23pgs of people are "missing the point", maybe the point is flawed?

And your point is...?

[MrKrueak]

And your point is...?

had to laugh at that *lol*