Trion to publish and operate ArcheAge

[forwards1ca]

for those of us who aren't familiar with the lingo, what is a sandbox MMO and how does it work?

[PACOX]

for those of us who aren't familiar with the lingo, what is a sandbox MMO and how does it work?

All sandbox RPGs are a bit different but think The Eldar Scrolls. You are given a set of skills which you level up depending on your playstyle. Two popular sandbox MMOs are EVE and SWG.

[forwards1ca]

All sandbox RPGs are a bit different but think The Eldar Scrolls. You are given a set of skills which you level up depending on your playstyle. Two popular sandbox MMOs are EVE and SWG.

This doesn't really help much if you didn't play either of those games(which I didn't) and I really don't know what the Eldar Scrolls is either.

[Grable]

This doesn't really help much if you didn't play either of those games(which I didn't) and I really don't know what the Eldar Scrolls is either.

Sandbox means there's a bit more freedom in what you do in a game than your typical themepark MMO (think WoW for themepark). That can mean almost anything:
- freedom in character progression (no levels, no defined classes, raising skill levels instead of character levels)
- more impact on the world (terraforming, uninstanced building and construction)
- different ways to play the game, not just quest to level > endgame

+ a ton of other stuff that goes under sandbox. Each is unique and each has it's own interesting features.

[Deleted]

I will be looking out for this.. can't be bad if it's trion..

Still sad about Tera EU they are handling things so bad and is so far behind with things..
(you can't even server transfer x.o)

[Ighox]

for those of us who aren't familiar with the lingo, what is a sandbox MMO and how does it work?

There's "different degrees" of sandbox MMO's, which makes it pretty hard to define and people don't really agree on where to draw the line between sandbox and theme park. But basically the more freedom you get in a game, the more sandbox it is. Things like invisible walls, unclimbable mountains, linear zone progression does not belong in any sandbox game. You should be able to just log in and do whatever you want.

[Lusitan]

a review by a level 50

http://www.aionsource.com/topic/135076-review-archeage/

[Deleted]

9. Visit a priest or sister after your character dies
After level 10, a penalty is applied every time you die. You lose some of your experience points when this happens. This is extremely annoying especially after spending time trying to level your character in the first place.

I hope they change this part for the EU/US release of the game. I'm interested in ArcheAge, but it doesn't seem like the kind of MMO I would play for hours on end like World of Warcraft, but I know for sure I wouldn't play if for long if I lost experience after every death.
If they -have- to punish players somehow, a durability system on gear would work better.

[Kelimbror]

The loss of experience when dying is one of the hardest parts to take when I play MMOs. I hate to see my hard earned exp get lost just like that. I was thinking if this could be changed to a different format. So yeah I hope Trion does something about the penalty.

I already saw people pointing to EVE and other games, like I predicted, saying that it was 'perfect' or 'better'. Unfortunately having XP loss on death (especially in a game where you can be ganked and abused) is a trip back to the stone age. People who want to play this game shouldn't be hoping it is compared to EVE or any other niche game. Putting in such a regressive feature not only dates the design to the stone age, but already lines it up to fall into a niche category.

It's great if a game winds up niche and running strong for a long, long time...but it's a very bad strategy to aim for when launching a game. It runs the risk of being DoA simply from lack of box sales, subs, etc. If it is launching as F2P, they can probably do whatever they want and last a couple of years.

There's room for all experiences and wanting XP penalties is a perfectly acceptable desire for some players who are more 'hardcore', but it is entirely regressive and won't appeal to as many people. Punishing players is never a good strategy for designing games anymore, unless you are targetting masochists.

[Venziir]

All sandbox RPGs are a bit different but think The Eldar Scrolls. You are given a set of skills which you level up depending on your playstyle. Two popular sandbox MMOs are EVE and SWG.

That's not really what sandbox means. Sandbox means it's a huge non-linear game where you can (in theory) go and do as you please.

[Kelimbror]

for those of us who aren't familiar with the lingo, what is a sandbox MMO and how does it work?

Just picture the actual objects when you hear the names:
1) Sandbox
-Can build what you want with a small amount of tools
-what you make can be altered by other players
-you can work with someone to build things

2)Themepark
-You do activities that someone else designed for you
-You cannot do anything differently than the format it is designed
-Sometimes it is 'on rails', i.e. one defined path of accomplishing something

A lot of games use elements from both categories and many games are really hybrids at this point.

[Ighox]

I already saw people pointing to EVE and other games, like I predicted, saying that it was 'perfect' or 'better'. Unfortunately having XP loss on death (especially in a game where you can be ganked and abused) is a trip back to the stone age. People who want to play this game shouldn't be hoping it is compared to EVE or any other niche game. Putting in such a regressive feature not only dates the design to the stone age, but already lines it up to fall into a niche category.

It's great if a game winds up niche and running strong for a long, long time...but it's a very bad strategy to aim for when launching a game. It runs the risk of being DoA simply from lack of box sales, subs, etc. If it is launching as F2P, they can probably do whatever they want and last a couple of years.

There's room for all experiences and wanting XP penalties is a perfectly acceptable desire for some players who are more 'hardcore', but it is entirely regressive and won't appeal to as many people. Punishing players is never a good strategy for designing games anymore, unless you are targetting masochists.

I don't see why people shouldn't compare one sandbox game with other sandbox games.
And why don't people wait before complaining, so far I haven't heard a single high-level player that actually plays the korean ArcheAge say that the death penalty sucks, only the opposite where people say it doesn't matter at all because levels don't give you much power.

[Kelimbror]

I don't see why people shouldn't compare one sandbox game with other sandbox games.
And why don't people wait before complaining, so far I haven't heard a single high-level player that actually plays the korean ArcheAge say that the death penalty sucks, only the opposite where people say it doesn't matter at all because levels don't give you much power.

Where did I say "Don't compare sandbox games"?

Also, what is the purpose of having a penalty if it 'doesn't matter'? That's even more a definition of inconvenience. Having to waste labor points to reclaim your experience otherwise it still has to be earned again. Regardless of whether you think it matters is irrelevant. It's also irrelevant if they started nerfing damage by 5 pts every month or removed 5 gold of yours every week. Sure 'it doesn't matter' except it was something you already earned being retroactively reduced.

No thanks. It's a terrible philosophy regardless of the supposed impact and other people's opinions of it. I already said it's fine if people like it, but to think it's great game design is a fallacy.

[Jamber]

Where did I say "Don't compare sandbox games"?

Also, what is the purpose of having a penalty if it 'doesn't matter'? That's even more a definition of inconvenience. Having to waste labor points to reclaim your experience otherwise it still has to be earned again. Regardless of whether you think it matters is irrelevant. It's also irrelevant if they started nerfing damage by 5 pts every month or removed 5 gold of yours every week. Sure 'it doesn't matter' except it was something you already earned being retroactively reduced.

No thanks. It's a terrible philosophy regardless of the supposed impact and other people's opinions of it. I already said it's fine if people like it, but to think it's great game design is a fallacy.

Here's the crux of the matter: you don't like when you lose something you grinded for, others feel it's not that big of an issue. You place undue value on exp in a sandbox game, where others see it only as another thing to progress your character. You don't like it, and take the stance that, since it's not common in newer games, it must be a relic of the past, and therefore, obsolete. It is 100% percent true that, should there be exp loss in the final project, the game will not reach the heights of popularity of WoW and other "progressive" games, and I don't think anyone is arguing that fact (I hope). But, you still seem adamant to condemn the game as a potential failure on losing exp, when you can get back 90% by talking to someone.

The primary fact is, we don't even know how much exp, if any, would be lost in the finalized game. But, I'm guessing in your mind, losing as little as 5% exp of a level is a call back to the stone-age. So many games today put relevance and importance on your level by giving 85% of the power gained to a character by inherent stats, based on your level. Well, what if the system puts 85% of your stats on your gear, and your level only dictates what gear you can you can equip, very loosely? You aren't losing your gear when you die.

[Kelimbror]

It is 100% percent true that, should there be exp loss in the final project, the game will not reach the heights of popularity of WoW and other "progressive" games, and I don't think anyone is arguing that fact (I hope). But, you still seem adamant to condemn the game as a potential failure on losing exp, when you can get back 90% by talking to someone.

I guess you are missing the point where I said it's great if it's aiming to be niche, but from a business perspective it is a terrible strategy. Maybe if you took the time to read the posts instead of jumping to a judgmental conclusion in defending this game, you would see that you've repeated several themes I have already expressed.

The primary fact is, we don't even know how much exp, if any, would be lost in the finalized game. But, I'm guessing in your mind, losing as little as 5% exp of a level is a call back to the stone-age. So many games today put relevance and importance on your level by giving 85% of the power gained to a character by inherent stats, based on your level. Well, what if the system puts 85% of your stats on your gear, and your level only dictates what gear you can you can equip, very loosely? You aren't losing your gear when you die.

Not sure how the amounts are relevant. I already explained that it's the principle, why does the amount matter?

Also, it's extremely hypocritical to pick another regressive design concept like losing gear when you die and stating that in a negative light. How is it different? You are losing something that you have earned by playing and now have to earn back. They are the same thing. So even in your own words you are admitting that there is a problem with the concept, but in your rush to defend something I'm apparently attacking you haven't thought that part out.

Furthermore, if your level dictates your power in any way(like in your example), whether it's the ability to equip gear or not, you just lost power and progression because you died. It's even worse in the example you give.

Redit:

The design is regressive in nature, period. End of discussion. No amount of whining or tring to paint it in a different light makes it different.

Punishing players (in any way) for things they have already accomplished is a design flaw. No matter how you frame it. No matter how it is represented.

I can state these things with no relevance to this game because it is a tenet of game design. It's fine if they are aiming for a smaller crowd, but a rare amount of MMOs do that and survive. That's just the way it works.

To repeat a missed point: If it launches F2P, they can try all the crazy design ideas they want and still be ok for a little bit. A sub game with that kind of design? Might get lucky and hit an EVE, all relevant data points to DOA.

[Maelle]

Imagine being camped by some douchebag while you are levelling, you don't really know anyone, and the pvp sounds pretty FFA? You would be stuck having greifers delevel you for "fun" - it's annoying be camped in any game, now imagine it with EXP loss. Enjoy ^^

[bohapjut]

Minecraft is a successful game where you lose your entire inventory and level on death but can get it back if you hurry back to where you died and it wasn't destroyed. People aren't up in arms over that as far as I can tell, it's just part of the game.

[SamR]

In my view, a sandbox MMO is more related to the content you do than the leveling or character progression. Sandbox MMOs are ones like EVE or SWG where people play it mainly for content that exists because of player interactions. Themepark MMOs are ones like WoW where people log in just to do content that's been specifically designed by the Devs for consumption(like raids, dungeons, and bgs).

As for ArchAge, targeting the hardcores who always complain on MMO forums about how casual friendly modern MMOs are is a ballsy move. I don't think it's going to attract many people here in the West, but it's certainly a niche that's been begging for something less casual friendly than what's out there now.

[Ighox]

Imagine being camped by some douchebag while you are levelling, you don't really know anyone, and the pvp sounds pretty FFA? You would be stuck having greifers delevel you for "fun" - it's annoying be camped in any game, now imagine it with EXP loss. Enjoy ^^

That's why sandbox games should have (and in some cases have) a bounty system, that along with the jail system would pretty much stop that.
But probably not going to be a problem in ArcheAge because there are so many safezones on two of the three continents.

As for ArchAge, targeting the hardcores who always complain on MMO forums about how casual friendly modern MMOs are is a ballsy move. I don't think it's going to attract many people here in the West, but it's certainly a niche that's been begging for something less casual friendly than what's out there now.

I think there's a market for a hardcore sandbox in the west, games like Darkfall which really sucked (except for the first 6-10 months) and wasn't really sandbox at all sold ~500k copies just based on the features they promised on their site.
And Eve is doing really good even though the long skill training, sci-fi theme and slow combat system turns off most of the players waiting for a good sandbox.

That said, I don't think ArcheAge will be that sandbox game people have been waiting for, it seems like they are trying to cater a little to everyone and not just one side.

[zito]

Archeage seems to have half the things I want and half the things that are the boring standard.

+Housing, farming, variety in crafting, farms?!?! Omg it's like runescape when I was 10 years old.

-Boring combat, losing exp when you die, 3 class role with half the tree filled with +%, dungeons, gear grind? Yup here we go again...

Why do games stop half way and fill the rest with crap?