Sandbox or Themepark?

[Korgov.7645]

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:

@Korgov.7645 said:snipple

so is your name a reference to vampire hunter d?

I didn't get the reference but now I am compelled to see the movie. :)

[b k.1648]

Being able to place a couple things and compete against players doesn't make a sandbox, I'm afraid. May as well call DotA etc. sandboxes too.

The archetypal 'sandbox' game is something like Minecraft, Ark or (for MMOs) EVE, where players have nearly complete control over what happens in the world, and usually can literally reshape it. There are a number of explanations I'm seeing floating around the internet, but this seems to be a popular one:

It all comes down to "Agency". Do the players determine the most important aspects of the world, or do the developers? In a sandbox game the objective is to empower the players to take the leading roles, to be the Agents that create the total experience through their interactions, through their play, and through the persistent results of their actions.

Players in GW2 WvW have very limited agency compared to what you'd see in an actual sandbox game. If it was designed to promote emergent gameplay, the game would incorporate most, perhaps all, of these elements:

• No weekly reset. Player changes to the world state remain in effect permanently, unless further changes are made by those players.
• No scoreboard. If players want to score anything, they would need to do it themselves, and it would only mean whatever those players collectively agree it means.
• No fortifications except what players build themselves. Players could build in any location allowable by the engine.
• Destroyed fortifications would remain destroyed unless players rebuild them.
• The world map may be procedurally generated, and potentially have no maximum size. Zone boundaries may be used for memory management only, with terrain features defining how traversible an area is instead.
• Players would create their own factions, with no limit on the number of player factions in a single realm.

Perhaps most importantly, in a sandbox MMO, players can use a mixture of combat and diplomacy to maintain control of their section of the world. In GW2, combat around set pieces is very much the focus, and there are few avenues to try anything else.

[enkidu.5937]

@Korgov.7645 said:

@enkidu.5937 said:

@Korgov.7645 said:

@enkidu.5937 said:

@Korgov.7645 said:

@"Ben K.6238" said:Tonics, fireworks, manual upgrades...

No. That's just tinkering around the edges. In a sandbox WvW-style game, you build fortifications on sites you choose yourself, with layouts you design yourself.

The competition is the sandbox element. Teams trying to organize around whatever freedoms allowed by the developers to beat the enemy. Sure you could extend these freedoms to include castle building, team armory, unlocking team traits, or whatnot.

Now you could ask whether the measure of success should be set by ANet or by the players in a sandbox model. I think the ANet should set the goal and leave it to the players to fight their way to the top.

There is a

leaderboard

for worlds, but ANet destroyed it by blocking transfers on whim, manually adjusting ratings and introducing the world linking. We also had tournaments but ANet decided not to continue them.Kind of sounds to me, that you euqate sandbox with competitive and themepark with non-competitive. And that its Anets fault, that ppl use(d) their given freedom, leading to a non-competitive environment*.

'* non-competitive in terms of "not trying to reach the game goal". E. g. duelists, fighting in duel areas instead of fighting for objectivs, or coms doing zerg fights for hours in SMC or close to spawn, ignoring objectives. To me that is sandbox, and non-competitive.

Competing against other players, developing strategies and counters, organizing with other players is living, open-ended content. The enemies always come up with something new you need to react to. A sandbox.

Events, armor skins, Warclaw are ANet defined rides you can take, enjoy for a while, and once completed, wait for ANet to release more content. Players do not have means to provide those rides.

"ANet's fault"... I'd rather say work well done. The vision was all along to turn WvW into the non-competitive themepark model. There are lot of players who enjoy that.

Dueling, GvG, zerg fight coms are sandbox, agreed. They are exclusive and not competing for the objective set by ANet: matchup victory. But something like KDR or just being able defeat the enemy.

Its not like in 2012 everyone planned to hardcore compete for the next 10 years, and suddenly Anet said: „No, we dont want that, we'd rather make it a themepark, where winning is completely irrelevant.“

Its because ppl got bored or exhausted, and as a reaction, Anet introduced events, rewards, warclaw, linkings, tournaments, to keep world and population numbers at a playable level. At least for my awareness.

The game goal is still fighting for objectives and thus winning the skirmish / match-up and climb the tiers. You just have to work with a linking partner now to obtain the goal. Does that make „winning completely irrelevant“? I dont see why.

Anet even provided more „sandbox“ tools, with the introduction of PPK, additional siege weapons (EDIT: including traps and tricks), tactics.

So if your question is less about the modus operandi („sandbox or themepark“) but more about „casual or competitive“, I can leave you a link, where I had the same question as you ;)

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/61116/how-competitive-is-wvw-in-your-opinion

Thanks for the link. I can agree with your observation that competitiveness had already declined back then. Having a break from WvW can emphasize how big of a change it was.

The problem with linking is that host worlds can no longer claim glory for winning. They got carried by the guest worlds. ANet decides the links, the coverage, which is probably the biggest factor to succeed in WvW. And of course the guest worlds' war efforts go completely unrewarded.

I think it is fair to say the poll is about competitiveness. Did ANet make the right choice by driving PvP minded players to exclusive, self-created goals only, and by adding other content to attract PvE minded players?

After reading this, I'd chose a third poll option: „Sandbox or Themepark? → Both!“ ;)

The devs should imo set the common game goal, that everyone can compete for. And they have to ensure an appropriate number of worlds and player coverage on each world, as the unevitable prerequisite for (semi-)competitive play (this might only work with linkings, events, rewards, to attract the masses). → Themepark

The devs should also provide an arsenal of tools / tactics etc., to make the one win, who uses the appropriate strategy at the right time and at the right place. → Sandbox

Imo Anet did a good job, making it a Themepark Sandbox. But in the end, its up to the players.

[Chaba.5410]

Another example of why player-created polls are bad and should be removed. You trying to tell me orbs and all the associated WvW achievements and karma/wxp events were not themepark?!

[Stand The Wall.6987]

@Korgov.7645 said:

@Stand The Wall.6987 said:

@Korgov.7645 said:snipple

so is your name a reference to vampire hunter d?

I didn't get the reference but now I am compelled to see the movie. :)

nice! yeah there are two of them and they are both great animes. one of the greats.

[Redavv.2643]

Sandbox FTW

also i would like to see a map with no keeps,towers etc and give players the ability to create their own defence have endless Battlefield, cause EB is more like running around in the center boring as hell nowdays