The Dark of Night


Pathfinder Online

201 to 250 of 370 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
deinol wrote:
Hye Roler wrote:
Zesty Mordant wrote:

Can we please return darkness to the mmorpg genre? I mean real darkness not this constant twilight that present in today's mmo's? In EQ, I remember the exhilaration of going to places like Kithicor Forest, The Feerott and Innothule Swamp (as a human) and not being able to see much more than 5 feet in front of me. Was it terrifying at times? Sure, but I'd had friends with spells or night vision that would act as my guide so I could make it from place to place, and sometimes without dying!

I really like the way that The Witcher handles lighting and the significance of what you can do in the evening vs. daytime. i.e. normal business is closed at evening times, certain quests only can be accomplished at night,etc. I think it has REALLY added to the realism for me as a player. I realize it isn't an MMO but was hoping that PFO was going to include lighting as well. Oh well.
I haven't played The Witcher. But I assume that as a single player experience, if you really need to shop, there is a "sleep at the inn until morning function" that other similar games provide. In an MMO shops that are closed for a significant amount of time would be highly annoying. Do you really want to wait four hours of real time to buy potions of healing before going on your next adventure?

Maybe just DIFFERENT shops/vendors that were open during the day then the night. That wouldn't neccesarly stop a player from doing anything important or critical....but it would mean your experience at night was DIFFERENT then it would be at day....possibly you might have to make some compromises if you didn't want to wait till a specific vendor was availble...like maybe dealing with a shop that wasn't quite as honest or who's goods weren't quite as reliable.

If a game wants to appeal to a different audience then that which is already very well served by most of the big AAA themepark games out there....then it's features can't just be differences without a distinction.

Most of the sandbox crowd actualy wants something that really is more a virtual world and less a game with easy and convenient features that delivers instant gratification. They might accept some compromises for the sake of convenience.....but if too much of the virtual world effect is compromised...it won't appeal to them...and they just won't play.... because it may be different then the current crop of AAA themepark games....but it won't be different in ways that matter to them.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:


I don't really see that as a valid arguement, Onishi, that same arguement could be used for just about any feature loaded onto the client....including things like not having walls block vision...or not allowing characters to be stealthed. Unless you are using a thin client...you'd pretty much not have a game in that regards.

IT Security (20 years experience here...last 10 of it running Ops for an SaaS) tells us that pretty much any application or security measure can be breached given enough time, effort and resources.

What we are talking about here are features that would be EASLY compromise as opposed to ones that took a real hack to do. I believe what Ryan was specificaly refering to (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) is the ability for the user to circumvent darkness effects by playing games with the contrast of the monitor...

No I think Ryan was pretty clear that he was talking about the client being hacked, considering what his examples were

Ryan Dancey wrote:


Nothing, nada, zip, zilch, zero could be done to stop this from happening. (Look up what happened when people figured out you could make the walls transparent in iD games if you're interested in the cat & mouse between developers and those wiling to cheat).

Did you know that World of Warcraft runs a hidden process on your machine that is designed to detect this kind of cheating? It's called "Warden" (you can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warden_%28software%29

And even with this, people still hack the heck out of the WoW client.

He's pretty clearly talking about client hacking. Now the reason why walls etc.. are not a huge factor in MMO's, is that typically PVP areas in MMO's are held in wide open areas with little in the way of obstructing vision.

The only part of the MMO that will be unlikely or difficult to hack, is what is behind the server. As an IT security expert I'm sure you know one key part of security. If you have physical access to the box, you can own it easily. Much like since the client is in your possession, everything it knows the user can know, and the user can trick the client into doing whatever they feel like (however the server will not care if the client is tricked into showing full HP 100% of the time, the server is tracking the players health and knows when he is dead).

Stealthed players is plausible because the client can be unaware of them, and only have to render say 5 rogues or so. Rendering an army of 50 players instantly is a bit harder. Which is also why in games when you enter a city or a crowded area, you see players appear semi-randomly. Someone 50' away sometimes appears before the one 30' etc... The games try to render them as far off as possible, and before they are close enough for it to be a huge difference. Now when it can't even start until they are 25' in front of you... that is lag central.

There is a reason why few to no MMORPGs use vision limiters as a core trait of combat. You are absolutely right walls can be cheated to look through with ease, all it takes is a bit of modifying to the graphics templates. Which is also why to the best of my knowledge, no MMO builds a PVP arena in a maze, where walls limiting vision is a key deciding factor. If the advantage is small people won't take the hours to do it, and even if they do few will bother spending the time to do it, if it is a huge game-changer, then if it isn't on the server it shouldn't be happening.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Trent wrote:

Let's talk about me for a minuite. I have a maximum of three hours a day for gaming (I have a problem). If I want to head in to Thousandbreah Forrest and hunt fey for a bit but upon logging in realize that it's night and I can't play because some neck beard on the Internet thinks I should wade my time slogging back to town to get torches (that guy also opposes fast travel) it's honestly unliky I'll download the 'able to play the game' patch. What I will do is not subscribe or play the game.

A game is about having fun not simulating reality.

I understand what you are saying....but the reality is that you can't satisfy all audiences with one product.

Let's say that you absolutely love Action Movies..... there is a new flick coming out where "The Rock" blows up an entire city with a grenade launcher. Great for you....but your wife, who's only really into Romantic Comedies and loathes Action Movies and anything with "The Rock" in it, probably isn't going to be much interested in going to see it.

Thing is that there are already tons of AAA titles out there that do fast travel, non-meaningfull day/night cycles and emphasize convenience over virtual world..... there are almost none that offer the reverse.

If this game offers mostly the same sort of experience that the other AAA titles out there do....then the folks that have been looking are looking for a very different play experience aren't going to have any reason to be interested in playing it.... and it can go ahead and fight the other AAA titles for the same audience that are interested in the same style of gameplay experience that they pretty much all offer.

It's fine if the Developers want to take it that direction....but I'd kinda like to know now so that I can pretty much write it off now and stop wasting my time.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Onishi wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:


I don't really see that as a valid arguement, Onishi, that same arguement could be used for just about any feature loaded onto the client....including things like not having walls block vision...or not allowing characters to be stealthed. Unless you are using a thin client...you'd pretty much not have a game in that regards.

IT Security (20 years experience here...last 10 of it running Ops for an SaaS) tells us that pretty much any application or security measure can be breached given enough time, effort and resources.

What we are talking about here are features that would be EASLY compromise as opposed to ones that took a real hack to do. I believe what Ryan was specificaly refering to (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) is the ability for the user to circumvent darkness effects by playing games with the contrast of the monitor...

No I think Ryan was pretty clear that he was talking about the client being hacked, considering what his examples were

Ryan Dancey wrote:


Nothing, nada, zip, zilch, zero could be done to stop this from happening. (Look up what happened when people figured out you could make the walls transparent in iD games if you're interested in the cat & mouse between developers and those wiling to cheat).

Did you know that World of Warcraft runs a hidden process on your machine that is designed to detect this kind of cheating? It's called "Warden" (you can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warden_%28software%29

And even with this, people still hack the heck out of the WoW client.

He's pretty clearly talking about client hacking. Now the reason why walls etc.. are not a huge factor in MMO's, is that typically PVP areas in MMO's are held in wide open areas with little in the way of obstructing vision.

The only part of the MMO that will be unlikely or difficult to hack, is what is behind the server. As an IT security expert I'm sure you know one key part of security. If you have physical access to the box, you can...

I can think of quite alot of online PvP games that use walls, limited visability at night and other obstructions to vision as a very significant factor in gameplay.... granted most of them are FPS style games (the BattleField Series, Tribes, etc) rather then MMO's but the principle holds. The 2 MMO's that I can think of that seem able to handle those functions are WWII Online and PlanetSide.... I do know plenty of MMO's where Keep or Fortification battles were a major part of the action... They are significant in LOTRO and were in WOW when I played....and I heard they factored prominantly in DAOC as well.

If PFO is not going to offer anything but fights in wide open terrain where everyone can see everyone else perfectly all the time because it can't handle dealing with hackers.....then plain and simple I'm just not that interested in playing.

No offense but I can get a far better PvP experience then that in 95 percent of the FPS games out there....and frankly a number of MMO's as well.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:
Thing is that there are already tons of AAA titles out there that do fast travel, non-meaningfull day/night cycles and emphasize convenience over virtual world..... there are almost none that offer the reverse.

Well, I mean, there were. And then people realized that they were kind of awful and that you were better off doing things differently, because having to spend hours doing nothing but walking just to meet up with your friends in a social game just sucks.

Half of the people clamoring for these features don't even realize what it would be like if they got their wish. They imagine a feature, think about it for thirty seconds, and conclude, "Hey, that would be like living in a real fantasy world!" and then spend the next few weeks pushing for it on a message board.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:
Thing is that there are already tons of AAA titles out there that do fast travel, non-meaningfull day/night cycles and emphasize convenience over virtual world..... there are almost none that offer the reverse.

Well, I mean, there were. And then people realized that they were kind of awful and that you were better off doing things differently, because having to spend hours doing nothing but walking just to meet up with your friends in a social game just sucks.

Half of the people clamoring for these features don't even realize what it would be like if they got their wish. They imagine a feature, think about it for thirty seconds, and conclude, "Hey, that would be like living in a real fantasy world!" and then spend the next few weeks pushing for it on a message board.

I think you are assuming facts not in evidence. There is no doubt that the style of game that is being pushed by large publishers has changed over the years. The question as to WHY that is, is open for debate.

For example, if when UO first released any conjecture as to how many subscribers it would have if the same number of households had computers and fast reliable internet access back then as do today?

Then there is EVE....it's ranked pretty constantly in the top 5 or top 10 subscription based games in the West....and yet it has many of the lack of convenience features that are talked about here...how should that come to be?

Furthermore, if "convenience" features won out over "virtual world" consistantly then one would expect small budget indie themeparks to consistantly outperform small budget indie sanbox's....do they?

The fact remains that there is an audience out there for virtual worlds that is grossly underserved right now.

If wanted a game who's features were largely similar to WOW, RIFT, AION, TOR, LOTRO, etc...why would I not go out and play them instead. There are litteraly DOZENS of such offerings out there to choose from.... why would I want to play PFO instead? Just because it starts with a "P" ?

Goblin Squad Member

Having things similar to other MMOs =/= WoW.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:
Thing is that there are already tons of AAA titles out there that do fast travel, non-meaningfull day/night cycles and emphasize convenience over virtual world..... there are almost none that offer the reverse.

Well, I mean, there were. And then people realized that they were kind of awful and that you were better off doing things differently, because having to spend hours doing nothing but walking just to meet up with your friends in a social game just sucks.

Half of the people clamoring for these features don't even realize what it would be like if they got their wish. They imagine a feature, think about it for thirty seconds, and conclude, "Hey, that would be like living in a real fantasy world!" and then spend the next few weeks pushing for it on a message board.

And yet I can think of at least one MMO that I played for years that had meaningful day night cycles, shop closures, and minimal fast travel. It wasn't that bad, the game was even fairly successful and maintained a solid half million active players for a decade.

Goblin Squad Member

GunnerX169 wrote:


And yet I can think of at least one MMO that I played for years that had meaningful day night cycles, shop closures, and minimal fast travel. It wasn't that bad, the game was even fairly successful and maintained a solid half million active players for a decade.

Some aspects are going to be needed, with the goals of this game I would say at the very least some degree of slow travel will be necessary for the game to work. Ryan has stated explicit desire to have goods require to be taken to several areas to be raised to their best values, separate areas intended to have their own economies. Things like fast travel and universal auction houses would completely eliminate these concepts, as well if something is cheaper on the other side of the world, you'd just pop over there, forcing the right side to match and you wind up with one global consistent economy. Fast travel will absolutely have to be limited in scope for the game to meet it's concepts.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:
I think you are assuming facts not in evidence.

I don't think that I am.

Quote:
If wanted a game who's features were largely similar to WOW, RIFT, AION, TOR, LOTRO, etc...why would I not go out and play them instead.

No one is talking about trying to make a game like any of those games. This demonstrates to me that you are consistently missing the point.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:
I think you are assuming facts not in evidence.

I don't think that I am.

Quote:
If wanted a game who's features were largely similar to WOW, RIFT, AION, TOR, LOTRO, etc...why would I not go out and play them instead.
No one is talking about trying to make a game like any of those games. This demonstrates to me that you are consistently missing the point.

I am all ears as to the type of features and style of play that you would propose be distinctly different?

So far, every meaningfull feature that I have heard posited....I've seen you argue that it be implimented in a fashion largely similar to those games that I have listed.

The only thing, I've noted, that you prefer handled differently is that it carry the name "Pathfinder" and that it have FFA rather then faction based PvP. (Ironicaly faction based PvP is the one feature of those style games that I actualy prefer)

So again....I'm all ears....enlighten me as to the meaningfull differences you'd like to see? (No sarcasm intended...I'm genuinelt curious...though I'd be explicit about that as tone is hard to convey on forums)

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:
I am all ears as to the type of features and style of play that you would propose be distinctly different?

Sure.

I think that the idea of a sandbox fantasy game is relatively novel within this generation, so there's that.

I like the idea of player-controlled swaths of land, and the idea of protecting that land from both players and monsters.

I think that focusing on a tiny region with a 1:1 scale and a realistic world size is cool, because of the ease of expansion it provides and the laser focus that its content can have.

And there are about twenty other things that I could go on about, but it's really not important. I like the design goals that the development team has outlined, and I'm choosing to have faith in their ability to make it happen.

What is interesting is that you clearly feel that I need to demonstrate my desire for something different in order for my arguments to be taken seriously. That's a little troubling, because it means that you aren't really examining the strength of my arguments on their own merits. Rather, you're sizing me up for "legitimacy" first. And by "legitimacy" I mean that I have to demonstrate that I am a rebel, and that I want to stick it to the man, and that I'm not a sheep like all those WoW players. Or something. I'm not really sure what you consider legitimate.

"You want this game to be just like WoW!" is not and will never be a good defense of your ideas. Consider that, perhaps, there is a reasonable middle ground that is both not identical to WoW and also not completely different from WoW.

Finally, I don't think I've said anywhere that I prefer the idea of free-for-all PvP to faction-based PvP.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:
I am all ears as to the type of features and style of play that you would propose be distinctly different?

Sure.

I think that the idea of a sandbox fantasy game is relatively novel within this generation, so there's that.

I like the idea of player-controlled swaths of land, and the idea of protecting that land from both players and monsters.

I think that focusing on a tiny region with a 1:1 scale and a realistic world size is cool, because of the ease of expansion it provides and the laser focus that its content can have.

And there are about twenty other things that I could go on about, but it's really not important. I like the design goals that the development team has outlined, and I'm choosing to have faith in their ability to make it happen.

What is interesting is that you clearly feel that I need to demonstrate my desire for something different in order for my arguments to be taken seriously. That's a little troubling, because it means that you aren't really examining the strength of my arguments on their own merits. Rather, you're sizing me up for "legitimacy" first. And by "legitimacy" I mean that I have to demonstrate that I am a rebel, and that I want to stick it to the man, and that I'm not a sheep like all those WoW players. Or something. I'm not really sure what you consider legitimate.

"You want this game to be just like WoW!" is not and will never be a good defense of your ideas.

Finally, I don't think I've said anywhere that I prefer the idea of free-for-all PvP to faction-based PvP.

Scott, I absolutely am not sizing up your "legitimacy" and if I gave you that impression I apologize. I wouldn't do that even to someone who did say "I want this game to be just like WoW!"...that's a legitimate position to have, IMO, just not one I happen to share.

The reason I asked you that question is that you say that you are intrigued by a "sandbox" style game....but in the discussions I've partaken with you here...every time I've seen a "sandbox" style feature (or at least what I percieve as "sandbox" style features) brought up for discussion, you seem to have taken the position that it's impractical and shouldn't be implimented.

So I'm trying to understand what you percieve as "sandbox" that you are interested in seeing in the game.

For me, "sandbox" and the type of preferences that a sandbox audience is generaly likely to espouse...implies that "convenience" is not a primary design concern in relation to creating a "living, breathing virtual world." You might make a small compromise here or there for the sake of convenience...but mostly convenience is going to need to lose out when it comes into conflict with making a "virtual world". At least that's my impression of "sandbox" and my impression of what most players, that I've had discussions with, say they are looking for when they are interested in playing a "sandbox" style game (as opposed to say people who are just interested in playing an MMO...or a Pathfinder based MMO).

I don't think your points are invalid.....they just don't seem to match up very well with the priorties/preferences of folks that I've talked to who espouse a preference for "sandbox" games.

Very specificaly for me.... I'm not interested in playing "Pathfinder Online" ..... I'm specificaly interested in playing a good, high quality, well implimented "sandbox" style MMO where I am not playing a spaceship... If Pathfinder Online happens to be that, great.....if not, oh well...I'll have to look for something else.

Note, I've got nothing against "non-sandbox" style games. I even had some fun playing WOW for about a year and a half...... but I've really no interest to play yet another one....I'm looking for something different this time.... and frankly if I wanted a game that emphasized convenience as a primary design goal over creating a virtual world....I've got alot of high quality options to choose from.... there is nothing that would draw me to PFO over them.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:

I am all ears as to the type of features and style of play that you would propose be distinctly different?

So far, every meaningfull feature that I have heard posited....I've seen you argue that it be implimented in a fashion largely similar to those games that I have listed.

The only thing, I've noted, that you prefer handled differently is that it carry the name "Pathfinder" and that it have FFA rather then faction based PvP. (Ironicaly faction based PvP is the one feature of those style games that I actualy prefer)

So again....I'm all ears....enlighten me as to the meaningfull differences you'd like to see? (No sarcasm intended...I'm genuinelt curious...though I'd be explicit about that as tone is hard to convey on forums)

Well I don't think it is going to be FFA in the sense that anyone you see at random you kill, it will be group based Alliences/Guilds etc... some may be friends some will be enemies, but there is no arbitrary war requiring any side to hate another side without reason.

Secondly it is about actual control of areas. WoW RIFT etc... you aren't fighting for anything, you are just indiscriminately fighting someone because they are listed as "enemies". There is no gain or loss for winning short of maybe some random generated items in rift.

All of the games you listed are primarally about instanced dungeon crawling, which will not be the focus, if it is even present in PFO from everything the dev's have described, it is going to be about building a city, controlling land, managing resources etc... Creating the political structure is going to be the focus of the game, not a predestined political structure that you must adhere to that has no baring on the actual game, which is about raiding/instance whatever.

That is the key difference between what PFO is being described to us as, and what WoW RIFT LOTRO etc... are about.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:

Scott, I absolutely am not sizing up your "legitimacy" and if I gave you that impression I apologize. I wouldn't do that even to someone who did say "I want this game to be just like WoW!"...that's a legitimate position to have, IMO, just not one I happen to share.

The reason I asked you that question is that you say that you are intrigued by a "sandbox" style game....but in the discussions I've partaken with you here...every time I've seen a "sandbox" style feature (or at least what I percieve as "sandbox" style features) brought up for discussion, you seem to have taken the position that it's impractical and shouldn't be implimented.

I think the problem you might be having is that the things you think are indicative of a sandbox are not actually indicative of a sandbox.

For instance, friendly fire is not a sandbox feature. You can have a sandbox game without friendly fire, and you can have a more linear game with friendly fire. Similarly, darkness that significantly impedes vision is not a sandbox feature.

A sandbox, in terms of video games, simply refers to an open world with a variety of ways to approach objectives and a non-linear arrangement in which those objectives can be accomplished. It really doesn't inherently mean any more than that.

Now, I'm getting the impression that when you see "sandbox" you think "realistic world simulator," or something along those lines. That's not really the case. Certainly, sandboxes model real worlds better than more linear games, because sandboxes place a higher priority on freedom of choice and action. That does not mean that sandboxes are designed to model a realistic world, or that a design tenet of sandbox play is that convenience takes a back seat to realism. By way of example, recent Grand Theft Auto games are sandbox-style games, but there are a ton of design decisions that go into them which clearly favor playability over realism.

If you'd like to read up on what it means to refer to a game as a sandbox, this is as good a place to start as any.

Scarab Sages

GrumpyMel wrote:

I understand what you are saying....but the reality is that you can't satisfy all audiences with one product.

<clipped false metaphor>

Thing is that there are already tons of AAA titles out there that do fast travel, non-meaningfull day/night cycles and emphasize convenience over virtual world..... there are almost none that offer the reverse.

I never actually spoke against slow travel. What irks me is that some people don't realize how debilitating combining 'features' can be. For example slow travel is perhaps necessary if the goal is to create different markets. I probably won't pay much more for a sword at the hellknight fort if I can teleport over to the Knights of Iomadae center and buy it cheaper there. If on the other hand it would take 40 minutes to get over to the Iomadan center then I'll probably buy the sword at a significant premium. I honestly expect travel to be slow with the stated goals of creating a robust economy it almost has to be.

Now if the sun sets while I've headed out to go fight and oops I have to go back to town and its going to be an extra half an hour before I get to do anything - that's just not fun.

GrumpyMel wrote:

If this game offers mostly the same sort of experience that the other AAA titles out there do....then the folks that have been looking are looking for a very different play experience aren't going to have any reason to be interested in playing it.... and it can go ahead and fight the other AAA titles for the same audience that are interested in the same style of gameplay experience that they pretty much all offer.

It's fine if the Developers want to take it that direction....but I'd kinda like to know now so that I can pretty much write it off now and stop wasting my time.

I do love the false dichotomy you are striving to create. Its as if no one had ever made a rom-com that also had elements of action movies. Such a thing is after all impossible.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Onishi wrote:

Stealthed players is plausible because the client can be unaware of them, and only have to render say 5 rogues or so. Rendering an army of 50 players instantly is a bit harder. Which is also why in games when you enter a city or a crowded area, you see players appear semi-randomly. Someone 50' away sometimes appears before the one 30' etc... The games try to render them as far off as possible, and before they are close enough for it to be a huge difference. Now when it can't even start until they are 25' in front of you... that is lag central.

That part doesn't make sense to me, reducing draw distance should INCREASE not DECREASE performance as both client and server have less information they need to process and less information that needs to be transfered between them.

If draw distance is only 25' instead of 50' then you only need to worry about handling the object at 20' and not the one at 30' or at 40'. That should be 1/3rd less data communicated between client and server and 1/3rd fewer processor cycles to churn on rendering objects?

It sounds like you are descrbing an engine that is running the GPU at far too close it's tolerence...in which case I'd say reduce the amount of detail that you are rendering.

In any event, if that's really a problem, you can always trip up the exploiters by salting the data with some false positives. Have the server send the client a key right before render saying "Yeah that's really there" or "No I lied". Doesn't hurt the folks playing by the rules as they never see it on the screen...but the exploiter who has cracked the client and is pulling in stuff before it enters view range (p.s. how would they render that to screen anyway if the game engine has trouble keeping up with rendering...design a more efficient method of rendering then the game does?) can't be sure if what he's seeing out there is real or not.


Matthew Trent wrote:
I do love the false dichotomy you are striving to create. Its as if no one had ever made a rom-com that also had elements of action movies. Such a thing is after all impossible.

Well to be fair, that is a terrible action movie, and what I've heard leads me to believe it's a only a mediocre romantic comedy.

Besides pointing to a movie that has attributes of both genre, is in no way sufficient to dismiss there being any differences between said genre. That would require making a solid argument that all action movies were in fact romantic comedies and vice versa.

Or to rephrase your argument: You can't compare Red and Blue because of Purple.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:

Scott, I absolutely am not sizing up your "legitimacy" and if I gave you that impression I apologize. I wouldn't do that even to someone who did say "I want this game to be just like WoW!"...that's a legitimate position to have, IMO, just not one I happen to share.

The reason I asked you that question is that you say that you are intrigued by a "sandbox" style game....but in the discussions I've partaken with you here...every time I've seen a "sandbox" style feature (or at least what I percieve as "sandbox" style features) brought up for discussion, you seem to have taken the position that it's impractical and shouldn't be implimented.

I think the problem you might be having is that the things you think are indicative of a sandbox are not actually indicative of a sandbox.

For instance, friendly fire is not a sandbox feature. You can have a sandbox game without friendly fire, and you can have a more linear game with friendly fire. Similarly, darkness that significantly impedes vision is not a sandbox feature.

A sandbox, in terms of video games, simply refers to an open world with a variety of ways to approach objectives and a non-linear arrangement in which those objectives can be accomplished. It really doesn't inherently mean any more than that.

Now, I'm getting the impression that when you see "sandbox" you think "realistic world simulator," or something along those lines. That's not really the case. Certainly, sandboxes model real worlds better than more linear games, because sandboxes place a higher priority on freedom of choice and action. That does not mean that sandboxes are designed to model a realistic world, or that a design tenet of sandbox play is that convenience takes a back seat to realism. By way of example, recent Grand Theft Auto games are sandbox-style games, but there are a ton of design decisions that go into them which clearly favor playability over realism.

If you'd like to read up on what it means to refer to a game as a sandbox,...

Scott, it's not just me....pretty much every conversation I've had with a self-described "sandbox" gamer or someone who says they are interested in playing a "sandbox" style game seems to express pretty much the same sentiments. Check out any random thread on mmorpg.com, for example that deal's with sandbox's and you'll hear it repeated over and over again.

People are looking for "living, breathing, virtual words", things like meaningfull Day/Night cycles, weather, season, meaningfull travel, dynamic events.... all go with the territory.

I don't know too many, self-described "sandbox" gamers that are interested in going out and purchasing GTA.

I could be wrong.....but your described preferences strike me as significantly off...from most of the people that I've talked to who have expressed an interest or desire for "sandbox" style play.

I'm not saying that you are wrong...but my impression is that there are certain expectations that come with the package.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Trent wrote:


I never actually spoke against slow travel. What irks me is that some people don't realize how debilitating combining 'features' can be. For example slow travel is perhaps necessary if the goal is to create different markets. I probably won't pay much more for a sword at the hellknight fort if I can teleport over to the Knights of Iomadae center and buy it cheaper there. If on the other hand it would take 40 minutes to get over to the Iomadan center then I'll probably buy the sword at a significant premium. I honestly expect travel to be slow with the stated goals of creating a robust economy it almost has to be.

Now if the sun sets while I've headed out to go fight and oops I have to go back to town and its going to be an extra half an hour before I get to do anything - that's just not fun.

Fun is kind of a relative term. It's not generaly "fun" to run out of ammo in a shooting game but I do have more "fun" in shooting games where I actualy need to think about whether it's worthwhile to waste a shot or not because you don't have unlimited ammo to play with. It adds a whole new dynamic to gameplay and a new element of strategy that one has to consider when playing that just wouldn't be there if one could freely blast away without worrying about ammo.

To be honest with you, I wouldn't consider it much "fun" either if I had to spend 30 minutes running back to town to pick up a torch. However, playing in an environment where night was truely dark, and one has to wonder what things were lurking in the shadows just beyond your flickering circle of torchlight.... playing a game where you actualy had to worry about bringing the right equipment with you when you venture out into the wilderness (including lighting sources) and not just how much "DPS" you sword has.... yeah, that's "FUN" for me...and I'll gladly suffer through the occasional 30 minute torch run (if I screw up) in order to get that sort of dynamic in gameplay. YMMV.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:
That part doesn't make sense to me, reducing draw distance should INCREASE not DECREASE performance as both client and server have less information they need to process and less information that needs to be transfered between them.

I would say that I believe that you are off on a few of your statements.

GrumpyMel wrote:
If draw distance is only 25' instead of 50' then you only need to worry about handling the object at 20' and not the one at 30' or at 40'. That should be 1/3rd less data communicated between client and server and 1/3rd fewer processor cycles to churn on rendering objects?

If the draw distance is 25' then it will have to worry about handling the one at 20', most likely 30', and probably 40'. Transmitting information over the internet isn't instantaneous so your client computer needs to be ready to draw anything that comes within your viewing range right away. For example, if you have your character moving forward, and a monster comes into view right at 25', then right then the server will send you the information about it's position, appearance, velocity, and so on. Then you will receive soon after, but because of network latency, that might mean you see it pop into existence when you are 20' away or even closer depending on lag and how fast your character is moving.

It would also be likely putting more pressure on the server because it would have to be aware of the distance from every character to every thing a every moment to be able to send that message out as quick as possible to the player. Normally, you might be able to just send the information for the area in general and let the client computer deal with the issues of distance of rendering (which is what the vision hacks rely on).

GrumpyMel wrote:
In any event, if that's really a problem, you can always trip up the exploiters by salting the data with some false positives. Have the server send the client a key right before render saying "Yeah that's really there" or "No I lied". Doesn't hurt the folks playing by the rules as they never see it on the screen...but the exploiter who has cracked the client and is pulling in stuff before it enters view range (p.s. how would they render that to screen anyway if the game engine has trouble keeping up with rendering...design a more efficient method of rendering then the game does?) can't be sure if what he's seeing out there is real or not.

The server can't send the client the key "right before the render" for similar reasons I brought up above. I believe that the speed that a game is expected to render a frame (from the end of the last, to the end of the current), is shorter than the average response time to a server.

I do believe that is some merit in the idea, but it would mean that these phantom images would have to be far enough from the player so that they couldn't run up to them fast enough to see them during a period of lag (otherwise you just confuse the honest players), but still close enough that the server still needs to send you information about creatures within that area.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:
Scott, it's not just me....pretty much every conversation I've had with a self-described "sandbox" gamer or someone who says they are interested in playing a "sandbox" style game seems to express pretty much the same sentiments.

That's the problem with people self-describing. People are very, very bad at sizing themselves up - they tend to adopt labels they don't qualify for, and try to reject those that they do.

Quote:
I don't know too many, self-described "sandbox" gamers that are interested in going out and purchasing GTA.

If someone chooses to describe himself as a "sandbox gamer" and then proceeds to tell you that GTA 3+ isn't a sandbox game, that person probably isn't actually a "sandbox gamer." I'm not really sure what to call that sort of person.

Quote:
I'm not saying that you are wrong...but my impression is that there are certain expectations that come with the package.

There are, but they are not the expectations you describe.

Again, you should probably take a look at that Wikipedia link. It does a good job of outlining the traits that are understood to be characteristic of sandbox play.

You should consider adopting a different label to describe the sort of game you're looking for. Simulationist, perhaps. Or hyper-immersive. Or versimilitude-y.

Goblin Squad Member

You are going to use the Wikipedia entry for Open World to define Sandbox? Kinda begs the question, no?

Goblin Squad Member

KitNyx wrote:
You are going to use the Wikipedia entry for Open World to define Sandbox? Kinda begs the question, no?

You should probably read the article. It (and the article on non-linear gameplay) goes on to discuss how the term "sandbox" is used to describe games, and games that the term has been applied to.

Still don't believe me?

Go Google "sandbox games" right now. No, wait. Here. I'll do it for you.

What do we have here? The two Wikipedia pages I linked you to earlier in the thread as the top two links? Amazing.

What's that? Further down the page we see two separate "Top Sandbox Games of All Time" links? I wonder what they could contain!

How weird!

One of them lists the following games as the best sandbox games of all time: Red Faction Guerilla, Crackdown, Mafia, Assassin's Creed 2, Hunter (lol), GTA: San Andreas, Red Dead Redemption, Oblivion, Fallout 3, and GTA 3. The other lists Fable 2, Spider-Man 2 (really?!), The Godfather, inFamous, GTA 4, Red Dead Redemption, and Assassin's Creed 2.

I get that you want to sort of own the term "sandbox" and use it to describe exactly the sort of gameplay you're looking for. I don't know why, really, but I get that you do. It's not gonna happen, though. "Sandbox" doesn't mean what you want it to mean in reference to video games.

Goblin Squad Member

Do you know how wikipedia works?

Goblin Squad Member

KitNyx wrote:
Do you know how wikipedia works?

I really hope you turn this into a "Wikipedia isn't reliable and neither is anything else on the internet including all its sources and anything Google turns up" argument. That would be like Christmas two days early for me.

Goblin Squad Member

No, I don't think I need to. You just keep posting your links to Wikipedia if it supports your position.

Goblin Squad Member

KitNyx wrote:
No, I don't think I need to. You just keep posting your links to Wikipedia if it supports your position.

Cool.

Shadow Lodge Goblin Squad Member

Matthew Trent wrote:


I never actually spoke against slow travel. What irks me is that some people don't realize how debilitating combining 'features' can be. For example slow travel is perhaps necessary if the goal is to create different markets. I probably won't pay much more for a sword at the hellknight fort if I can teleport over to the Knights of Iomadae center and buy it cheaper there. If on the other hand it would take 40 minutes to get over to the Iomadan center then I'll probably buy the sword at a significant premium. I honestly expect travel to be slow with the stated goals of creating a robust economy it almost has to be.

Now if the sun sets while I've headed out to go fight and oops I have to go back to town and its going to be an extra half an hour before I get to do anything - that's just not fun.

I think you've hit on the real problem here Matthew. Everybody seems to be clamoring for maximum realism despite how boring reality can be. The argument "Well that's fun for me" is just as valid as "It's not fun for me". Ultimately what PFO needs to be is fun, and the raw numbers available on the internet (even the Wikipedia part) is that fun games do better than realistic games unless that realism enhances the fun instead of dragging it down.

Slow travel does have a place in the game, but as you say it's mostly to enforce an artificial flow to the game. Many times have I wished for a car in Fallout 3, and that game takes place in a much smaller area than PFO will. I can't imagine being forced to walk in a world in which teleportation explicitly works. If I did show up to a place and it was closed, why wouldn't I teleport to a different shop that was open? If I was a shopkeeper in an area with a large number of adventurers I would not only be open 24x7 I would make sure there was a teleportation pad near my shop with enough highly distinctive features to enable a mage to arrive there without fail.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:
Scott, it's not just me....pretty much every conversation I've had with a self-described "sandbox" gamer or someone who says they are interested in playing a "sandbox" style game seems to express pretty much the same sentiments.

That's the problem with people self-describing. People are very, very bad at sizing themselves up - they tend to adopt labels they don't qualify for, and try to reject those that they do.

Quote:
I don't know too many, self-described "sandbox" gamers that are interested in going out and purchasing GTA.

If someone chooses to describe himself as a "sandbox gamer" and then proceeds to tell you that GTA 3+ isn't a sandbox game, that person probably isn't actually a "sandbox gamer." I'm not really sure what to call that sort of person.

Quote:
I'm not saying that you are wrong...but my impression is that there are certain expectations that come with the package.

There are, but they are not the expectations you describe.

Again, you should probably take a look at that Wikipedia link. It does a good job of outlining the traits that are understood to be characteristic of sandbox play.

You should consider adopting a different label to describe the sort of game you're looking for. Simulationist, perhaps. Or hyper-immersive. Or versimilitude-y.

Scott, I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this. You have your definitions and I have mine. I'm not putting you on when I tell you that I've talked to alot of people who call themselves "sandbox" gamers about the specifics of what they want...and "living, breathing, virtual world" ranks very high up on the list...."convenience" tends to rank very low, if not actualy being seen (and for many I've talked to it is) as a negative trait.

These people really do exist, no matter what you would like to call them... I'm just using the term they tend to use when describing themselves....and I happen to believe they are a rather sizable group... and right now they are a segment that is not really being served well by the sort of offerings availble on the MMO market.

We'll see whay Ryan and the Developers here at Goblinworks have in mind when they use the term "sandbox" and what sort of audience they are trying to appeal to....if it doesn't match up with my preferences...no hard feelings, I'll just look elsewhere.

However, from some of the things I've read here, I'm not neccesarly convinced that they match up well with your defintion of "sandbox" or the things you priortize as a design goal... I'm not sure that they match up well with mine either...but I'll be interested to see.

(Note that in another thread Ryan explicitly stated that while Skyrim was a very cool game...it was NOT a "sandbox"... which I think would imply he didn't believe Oblivion was one either.... though interesting I tend to feel that Skyrim is pretty darn "Sandboxy" for a SPRPG). Guess we'll have to wait and see.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
KitNyx wrote:
Do you know how wikipedia works?
I really hope you turn this into a "Wikipedia isn't reliable and neither is anything else on the internet including all its sources and anything Google turns up" argument. That would be like Christmas two days early for me.

At the risk of agreeing with Scott, this annoys me to no end as well. Especially when it is coming from professors in an academic environment where the ability to vet the reliability of an article should be considered prerequisite, or at least given more emphasis then simple "Rage Against the Web". The idea that somehow wikipedia is less reliable then Encyclopædia Britannica because the later is on paper, is quite frankly ridiculous. Doubly so when you take into account that the latest version is from 2008, and that is, at it's core, the 1974 Edition. For instance the '94 printing I own compares and contrasts analog and digital computer models. It's not useless it's just more historical then directly informative on modern computers.

That said, let's now look at the article in question:

Quote:
The term [open world] is sometimes used interchangeably with "sandbox" and "free-roaming";[2][3] however, the terms open world and free-roaming describe the game environment itself and allude more to the absence of artificial barriers,[4] in contrast to the invisible walls and loading screens that are common in linear level designs. The term sandbox refers more to the mechanics of a game and how, as in a physical sandbox, the user is entertained by his ability to play creatively and with there being "no right way"[5] of playing the game.

Emphasis mine.

So by your own reference open world =/= sandbox.

Whether a thing is sandbox or not is not as simple as yes or no either. There is a spectrum of "sandboxyness." IMO Dues Ex (the first one, I haven't played the new one) gives a wider variety of methods to complete your objectives then Oblivion does. This, IMO, makes it more of a sandbox, even though it is more linear. SimCity would rate higher then either of those, and Minecraft pretty much tops the list.

So how does meaningful day/night apply to this?

It depends on the implementation, but if say Orcs have a higher chance to hit at night then the do during the day (light sensitivity), you may put off that assault on the orc tribe until daybreak, and instead engage in quests involving stealth which get a bonus in the night, or even go after some human foes. If undead only spawn during the night, and in dungeons, you need to actually plan ahead to farm zombie flesh and bone dust.

There are solutions to many of the obvious problems mentioned. Not being able to do something "right now" simply means you need to be versatile and plan ahead. There needs to as many options that benefit from each portion of the cycle as there are excluded. It also helps to keep bonuses and penalties low enough that they only affect the efficiency rather then making things prohibitively dangerous. Night cycles can not be allowed to occur at the same time everyday by simply offsetting the cycle from real time, or keeping the cycles short enough that it is still evenly split in any 2-3 hour period.

In other words it could, if properly implemented, encourage creative strategic planning and risk management. Rather then go to location, kill mobs, rinse and repeat.

Goblin Squad Member

Blazej wrote:


If the draw distance is 25' then it will have to worry about handling the one at 20', most likely 30', and probably 40'. Transmitting information over the internet isn't instantaneous so your client computer needs to be ready to draw anything that comes within your viewing range right away. For example, if you have your character moving forward, and a monster comes into view right at 25', then right then the server will send you the information about it's position, appearance, velocity, and so on. Then you will receive soon after, but because of network latency, that might mean you see it pop into existence when you are 20' away or even closer depending on lag and how fast your character is moving.

It would also be likely putting more pressure on the server because it would have to be aware of the distance from every character to every thing a every moment to be able to send that message out as quick as possible to the player. Normally, you might be able to just send the information for the area in general and let the client computer deal with the issues of distance of rendering (which is what the vision hacks rely on).

Blaze, thank for the input. I get that there are potential latency issues and the client might need to be aware of certain things before it can draw them. The point I'm trying to raise is the larger the draw distance, the more data both machines have to process and the more data the server has to send to the client. For example, if the draw distance is 50' then the client might need to be aware of objects out to 100' because ideally it wants to try to draw them when the player gets to 50' of them. If the draw distance is only 25' then the client would probably need to only be aware of things out to 50' because it doesn't have to try to draw them until they hit 25'. That's less data being transmitted between the machines and less data that needs to be processed. Dropping the draw distance should therefore INCREASE not DECREASE performance (assuming the data that needs to be transmitted exceeds the size of a single packet). Thus dropping the draw distance at night shouldn't really hurt performance.

Note, it strikes me that you've got a real problem with an engine if the communications between server and client can't keep up with a players (or objects) movement rate. At some point, you've got to have a cut-off of the data the server tries to send the client (even if that cut-off is some distance further out the draw distance), correct? I mean it would be entirely impractical for the server to try to communicate information about the position of every single object in the world to the client on each update...that would be an overwhelming amount of data to communicate. Now if the player (or an objects) movement rate exceeds the communication speed of the data-feed then a player or object that was in motion over a significant period would get to the point where the client wouldn't even have information about objects it was right on top of...because that information was backed up in the queue.... that strikes me as a real problem regardless of draw distances.

I would think that an engine would generaly be better served that it slowed movement down enough that communications would have no problem keeping up at what was deemed an acceptable latency....and that it made sure that it didn't have to send such a volume of data that communications were likely to get backed up. In that case, the client might need to know about things a bit beyond draw range...but not that much.

Also, I strongly suspect that the server does need to keep track of the relative locations of objects to one another...regardless. If it doesn't then it's not going to be able to keep track of what objects it needs to inform the client of....or things like the aggro range of mobs or which side of a wall something is on.

An engine that doesn't support that is going to be prone to alot more serious hacks then not just vision based hacks. Right? Things like, moving/attacking through walls, moving beneath the floor, attack from outside of attack or aggro range, etc. If the client is prone to hacking, then the server is going to need to keep constant track of the exact position of each object in the world relative to every other object.... in which case, the server knows what can be "seen" by the player in order to be acted upon.... and if the client tries to act upon anything that the player shouldn't be able to "see".... that should be a pretty clear red flag that someone is using a hack...shouldn't it?

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:
(Note that in another thread Ryan explicitly stated that while Skyrim was a very cool game...it was NOT a "sandbox"... which I think would imply he didn't believe Oblivion was one either.... though interesting I tend to feel that Skyrim is pretty darn "Sandboxy" for a SPRPG).

As I noted in that thread, Ryan doesn't apply his own definition of "sandbox" very well - he claims the difference between an open world and a sandbox is that a sandbox features persistence, but then claims that Skyrim isn't a sandbox despite its obvious persistence. I think we should probably stick to accepted definitions of terms rather than trying to redefine them (however poorly) for our own purposes.

Goblin Squad Member

GunnerX169 wrote:
So by your own reference open world =/= sandbox.

I never claimed they were one and the same.

Quote:
Whether a thing is sandbox or not is not as simple as yes or no either. There is a spectrum of "sandboxyness."

I very much agree.

Quote:
IMO Dues Ex (the first one, I haven't played the new one)

You should; aside from the handful of boss fights, it provides as many approaches to various objectives as the original (and also happens to be a pretty cool game in general).

Quote:

So how does meaningful day/night apply to this?

It depends on the implementation, but if say Orcs have a higher chance to hit at night then the do during the day (light sensitivity), you may put off that assault on the orc tribe until daybreak, and instead engage in quests involving stealth which get a bonus in the night, or even go after some human foes. If undead only spawn during the night, and in dungeons, you need to actually plan ahead to farm zombie flesh and bone dust.

I think you're really stretching this one; you're saying that meaningful night-time is sandbox-like because anything that is meaningful provides more considerations for your choice of action. That's fine, but it suddenly means that everything you add to the game makes it more sandbox-like. If you add something meaningful, the fact that it is meaningful means it influences your potential courses of action. I think this is a pretty poor way to define what features you can call sandbox, because I can now take your definition and run with it, applying it to games that are obviously very low on the sandbox-o-meter. For instance, the Total War series of games sometimes features the option to attack during the night. This has certain effects on how the battle is handled in terms of enemy preparedness and other factors. But the Total War series isn't much of a sandbox - it's a fairly straightforward strategy empire-builder. It's no more of a sandbox than Civilization is, or even Risk for that matter.

I think it would help the discussion if we didn't look at a feature's worthiness in terms of whether it's sandbox-y or not. Calling an individual game feature "sandbox-y" is sort of lazy to begin with and, as I've explained, probably not all that accurate anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zesty Mordant wrote:

glorious 40 gnoll trains in Blackburrow. It's these challenges that build memories, form friendships and alliances and for me make a great game.

You can't forget about casting Eye of Zomm into the wall at the Mistmoore entrance and training the whole dungeon to the entrance. I miss games that make it feel like you actually achieve something when you go up a level. Not like the easy modes that most people play today.

I remember when dying in EQ meant about 8 hours of play time lost if you died and didn't get a res from a cleric. It was awesome when you had to run and find a cleric to res you because it would still be better than taking the death. Or when you have to run to you body naked after you were killed. That game made it difficult. It also typically groomed really good players.

Goblin Squad Member

I think the problem is that the term sandbox, when typically applied to table top RPGs, is strongly associated with old-school gaming. Sandbox RPG campaigns usually have a map (often with hexes) where the adventurers can explore. The GM prepares a few rumors about notable locations, has a wilderness wandering monster chart, and creates the adventures as the game progresses. In a sense it is more player driven, because the campaign unfolds primarily based on where the players decide to adventure. Kingmaker is the closest Paizo has come to publishing a sandbox adventure path. It is clearly contrasted with a linear story adventure path like Rise of the Runelords or Legacy of Fire.

But sandbox gets associated with a lot of "old-school" notions that aren't necessary to a sandbox. The game being difficult or realistic isn't necessary to a sandbox. Not that I'm saying there is anything wrong with an old-school feel for a game, I'm just pointing out that sandbox isn't code for old-school aesthetics.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think enemy behaviors and scripting are going to make the sandbox feel. Imagine you clear a ruin of the goblins infesting it, including their king. You can choose to settle the ruin and reconstruct it for your kingdom (this is something incorporated into the kingdom building rules in pathfinder). Alternately, you could just move on to the next ara, leaving them abandoned. If enemy AI is scripted to expansionist models, maybe a group of wandering Orcs now find the ruin. The longer they stay encamped here, the more they spawn new troops and some of them become more powerful, therefore re supplying the dungeon crawl, but with different creatures.

This is certainly programmable, and would definitely give more of a sandbox feel to the game that I think all of us would agree upon.

Eventually, this could lead to truly settled lands, where the danger of PvE is very low as the monsters have been cleared as land is settled. Then only the deep forests and heavy mountains are dangerous as they can't be built upon. ( idea only)

Cheers

Goblin Squad Member

deinol wrote:

I think the problem is that the term sandbox, when typically applied to table top RPGs, is strongly associated with old-school gaming. Sandbox RPG campaigns usually have a map (often with hexes) where the adventurers can explore. The GM prepares a few rumors about notable locations, has a wilderness wandering monster chart, and creates the adventures as the game progresses. In a sense it is more player driven, because the campaign unfolds primarily based on where the players decide to adventure. Kingmaker is the closest Paizo has come to publishing a sandbox adventure path. It is clearly contrasted with a linear story adventure path like Rise of the Runelords or Legacy of Fire.

But sandbox gets associated with a lot of "old-school" notions that aren't necessary to a sandbox. The game being difficult or realistic isn't necessary to a sandbox. Not that I'm saying there is anything wrong with an old-school feel for a game, I'm just pointing out that sandbox isn't code for old-school aesthetics.

I think you're spot-on with this. There is a lot of confusion over what people mean when they throw around the term "sandbox" (which is, again, why I tend to dislike top-level descriptors and prefer to focus on more concrete, individual features).

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:
Blaze, thank for the input. I get that there are potential latency issues and the client might need to be aware of certain things before it can draw them. The point I'm trying to raise is the larger the draw distance, the more data both machines have to process and the more data the server has to send to the client. For example, if the draw distance is 50' then the client might need to be aware of objects out to 100' because ideally it wants to try to draw them when the player gets to 50' of them. If the draw distance is only 25' then the client would probably need to only be aware of things out to 50' because it doesn't have to try to draw them until they hit 25'. That's less data being transmitted between the machines and less data that needs to be processed. Dropping the draw distance should therefore INCREASE not DECREASE performance (assuming the data...

You are correct that decreasing the draw distance should increase performance. However, although Onishi was using the words I am, I believe that we are describing the same glitch caused by a significant amount of latency and not knowing what was in the area around your possible render area.

GrumpyMel wrote:
Note, it strikes me that you've got a real problem with an engine if the communications between server and client can't keep up with a players (or objects) movement rate. ...

That is true and often games do exactly what you suggest and apply limitations to the game based on the limitations of the technology. But there are limitations to this. Players will expect to walk at a walking pace, run at a running speed, and when their horse switches to a gallop that they move even faster than that. You can work a design in that helps the issue of data transfer and latency, but the biggest reason I brought it up was because, in your suggestion, it reduced that knowledge to only what was in your render area. Obviously a character shouldn't have to know the position of every single thing in the game at every update, but they do need to know more than what they can see at the moment.

GrumpyMel wrote:
In that case, the client might need to know about things a bit beyond draw range...but not that much.

Specifically, for the case of having darkness in the game, if a character can quickly pull out a light source, then even if they were in the dark, their computer would need to know where everything is around that player so that they will be able to see it as soon as the light source is out.

GrumpyMel wrote:
Also, I strongly suspect that the server does need to keep track of the relative locations of objects to one another...regardless.

That is true for somethings, like creatures using AI, however your suggestion required more than that, it required the distance of every player character to every other player character, creature, or object in the world to determine if it was the exact right time to send the drawing information to the player's computer.

GrumpyMel wrote:
An engine that doesn't support that is going to be prone to alot more serious hacks then not just vision based hacks. Right? Things like, moving/attacking through walls, moving beneath the floor, attack from outside of attack or aggro range, etc. If the client is prone to hacking, then the server is going to need to keep constant track of the exact position of each object in the world relative to every other object.... in which case, the server knows what can be "seen" by the player in order to be acted upon.... and if the client tries to act upon anything that the player shouldn't be able to "see".... that should be a pretty clear red flag that someone is using a hack...shouldn't it?

I'm uncertain why you believe the lack of constant knowledge of every relative position would open it up to all of those potential hacks.

Relative position doesn't deal with movement through floors or walls. In that case, the server just need to know the position of the character, which it already hast to maintain, and check for itself if the player is allowed to move there. There are problems with it, but relative positions doesn't help it.

Attacking from outside attack range is an easy one. While it is a problem to know the exact relative distances from each player to everything, it is easy in comparison to check to see if a player is within attack range when they perform the attack.

Similarly, if one is trying to act on something one can't see, it is easy enough to detect if it clearly is not visible. If it is outside viewing range it is easy to check the distance when the action is performed. If it is behind a wall, there are also tests to check to see if there is a wall between you and the target.

If someone is attacking something that they can not see, that is a red flag that something funny might be going on (either cheating or they might just be lagging enough that they moved to a different place since the last message to the server).

But I don't believe that in the case presented for darkness, that people are really calling for utter pitch black as opposed to just making it very dark and hard for people to see the area around them. In that case, if someone is performing a graphical hack, they would still be attacking things that they would normally be able to see, only barely if they had the darkness.

Goblin Squad Member

Blazej wrote:


GrumpyMel wrote:
Note, it strikes me that you've got a real problem with an engine if the communications between server and client can't keep up with a players (or objects) movement rate. ...
That is true and often games do exactly what you suggest and apply limitations to the game based on the limitations of the technology. But there are limitations to this. Players will expect to walk at a walking pace, run at a running speed, and when their horse switches to a gallop that they move even faster than that.

Odd that I generaly feel foot movement rates are unreasonably and unnaturaly fast in most MMO's I've played...especialy in terms of sustained movement....or movement in dangerous/unexplored areas.

Blazej wrote:


Specifically, for the case of having darkness in the game, if a character can quickly pull out a light source, then even if they were in the dark, their computer would need to know where everything is around that player so that they will be able to see it as soon as the light source is out.

That's a very good point you raise, although in reality I don't see it as too much of an imposition to allow the computer a few moments to get sufficient information to increase the render distance. If you note, in reality it generaly takes a moment or two for peoples vision to adjust to rapid changes in lighting. It's one of the reasons why warships used red lighting on thier bridges when operating at night under combat aditions, why sentries are generaly advised to avoid looking at bright light sources when on duty at night and why things like flashbangs are so damn effective.

Blazej wrote:


I'm uncertain why you believe the lack of constant knowledge of every relative position would open it up to all of those potential hacks.

Relative position doesn't deal with movement through floors or walls. In that case, the server just need to know the position of the character, which it already hast to maintain, and check for itself if the player is allowed to move there. There are problems with it, but relative positions doesn't help it.

Ok, I see your point here...it's not going to need to constantly keep track of relative position...but it will need to be able to calculate it at any given point. Such as whenever it does a check to determine whether the 2 objects are able to interact with each other in a meaningfull way that involves distance, orientation or LOS, correct? And I imagine such checks are very frequent during combat situations. So there must be some capacity to handle those cacluations efficiently?

Blazej wrote:


But I don't believe that in the case presented for darkness, that people are really calling for utter pitch black as opposed to just making it very dark and hard for people to see the area around them. In that case, if someone is performing a graphical hack, they would still be attacking things that they would normally be able to see, only barely if they had the darkness

Right, and at this point, I think you guys may have convinced me sufficiently that I'm resigned to the fact that the graphical hack may be an insurmountable technical hurdle. Although I do note that there are quite a few games that do utilize darkness or limited vision...possibly they are running something like Punkbuster or some other monitoring program that is looking for other applications running on the client that might be interacting with the client in suspecious ways.

In any event, assuming for the sake of arguement that it's not practical for PFO to try to counter the graphical hack. I'm wondering if there might be some other ways for the engine to mechanicaly simulate some of the effects of limited vision. One way might be to reduce the draw range from day to night. It strikes me that people who are able to hack the client to be aware of things outside of render range during the night...are going to have that same ability during daylight...as the client will still need to be aware of things beyond render range during broad daylight in order to have enough time to put them on screen when they come into range... thus reducing the absolute render range during night (but not making night unseeably dark) won't give hackers an advanatage that they don't already have during the day.
Doing that would still represent some of the effects of night, in that you can't see objects from as far away as you can during the day.

Another effect might be to simply impose a check when interacting with the object, just like the server does when it has to check if it's in range to attack with a melee weapon or spell or if it's being attacked through a wall. The server needs to calculate the distance between the objects with such interactions anyway...and it should be fairly easy for it to know what the characters absolute range of vision SHOULD be given thier current lighting.... thus if they aren't supposed to be able to see it, the server might not be able to stop them from KNOWING about it...but it should be able to stop them from targeting or interacting with them, correct?

It's not perfect, but it should simulate some of the tactical effects of combat at night or with limited vision.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:

...

Another effect might be to simply impose a check when interacting with the object, just like the server does when it has to check if it's in range to attack with a melee weapon or spell or if it's being attacked through a wall. The server needs to calculate the distance between the objects with such interactions anyway...and it should be fairly easy for it to know what the characters absolute range of vision SHOULD be given thier current lighting.... thus if they aren't supposed to be able to see it, the server might not be able to stop them from KNOWING about it...but it should be able to stop them from targeting or interacting with them, correct?

It's not perfect, but it should simulate some of the tactical effects of combat at night or with limited vision.

map files are always stored locally. that's why light/distance hack work. all information is available locally.

however, objects are placed dynamically. server sends information which objects player can interact with. that's why stealth always works as invisibility. client is not sent information on stealthed object.

imo, day/night could make objects be visible from different distances. a torch would make someone visible from far away, but it could provide short range bonus to stealth detection.


Hi Scott,

Somewhere in the posts above you submitted this link and that link. Would you kindly extract from those links what you feel defines a "Sandbox" game or more specifically a "Sandbox" MMORPG? Feel free to expand upon definition with your own words to help clarify.

Thanks and Happy Holidays,

-Zesty

Goblin Squad Member

Zesty Mordant wrote:

Hi Scott,

Somewhere in the posts above you submitted this link and that link. Would you kindly extract from those links what you feel defines a "Sandbox" game or more specifically a "Sandbox" MMORPG? Feel free to expand upon definition with your own words to help clarify.

Thanks and Happy Holidays,

-Zesty

"The term sandbox refers more to the mechanics of a game and how, as in a physical sandbox, the user is entertained by his ability to play creatively and with there being "no right way" of playing the game."

A game offering multiple approaches to objectives, and multiple orders in which those objectives can be tackled, and perhaps even the ability to define your own objectives is a sandbox game. The stronger these elements are within the game, the more of a sandbox it is.

GTA 4 is a sandbox, because it offers an open world with plenty of objectives to tackle and - aside from a main story - the ability to choose the order in which they are tackled. You are also free to interact with the world in an unstructured way (by which I mean outside of the mission or activity framework).

Skyrim is a sandbox, because it offers an open world with a lot of objectives to tackle, all of which are at your leisure and optional, beyond the opening hour or so. You are also free to define your own objectives, because interacting with the game world does not require that you take part in any kind of structured play framework. You certainly can explore the world through the various available quests, but you can also just start walking and exploring whatever you happen to come across.

Is this clear? I think the definition I shared above, along with the two examples I've given, are shared by the gaming community at-large.


Scott Betts wrote:

Spoiler:
"The term sandbox refers more to the mechanics of a game and how, as in a physical sandbox, the user is entertained by his ability to play creatively and with there being "no right way" of playing the game."

A game offering multiple approaches to objectives, and multiple orders in which those objectives can be tackled, and perhaps even the ability to define your own objectives is a sandbox game. The stronger these elements are within the game, the more of a sandbox it is.

GTA 4 is a sandbox, because it offers an open world with plenty of objectives to tackle and - aside from a main story - the ability to choose the order in which they are tackled. You are also free to interact with the world in an unstructured way (by which I mean outside of the mission or activity framework).

Skyrim is a sandbox, because it offers an open world with a lot of objectives to tackle, all of which are at your leisure and optional, beyond the opening hour or so. You are also free to define your own objectives, because interacting with the game world does not require that you take part in any kind of structured play framework. You certainly can explore the world through the various available quests, but you can also just start walking and exploring whatever you happen to come across.

Is this clear? I think the definition I shared above, along with the two examples I've given, are shared by the gaming community at-large.

Conversely, neither of those games are a sandbox in the way that SimCity or Minecraft are. SimCity gives you a set of tools and a world to play with. There is no distinct right way to play, even if there are optimal paths. There isn't even any point at which you "win." I think this is more the direction some of others are coming from.


"Scott Betts wrote:

"The term sandbox refers more to the mechanics of a game and how, as in a physical sandbox, the user is entertained by his ability to play creatively and with there being "no right way" of playing the game."

A game offering multiple approaches to objectives, and multiple orders in which those objectives can be tackled, and perhaps even the ability to define your own objectives is a sandbox game. The stronger these elements are within the game, the more of a sandbox it is.

GTA 4 is a sandbox, because it offers an open world with plenty of objectives to tackle and - aside from a main story - the ability to choose the order in which they are tackled. You are also free to interact with the world in an unstructured way (by which I mean outside of the mission or activity framework).

Skyrim is a sandbox, because it offers an open world with a lot of objectives to tackle, all of which are at your leisure and optional, beyond the opening hour or so. You are also free to define your own objectives, because interacting with the game world does not require that you take part in any kind of structured play framework. You certainly can explore the world through the various available quests, but you can also just start walking and exploring whatever you happen to come across.

Is this clear? I think the definition I shared above, along with the two examples I've given, are shared by the gaming community at-large.

Given the above definition, doesn't WoW qualify as a sandbox game? There is no right way to play WoW and users can certainly play it creatively and entertain themselves while doing so.

GTA certainly has sandbox elements but other wise it's a mostly linear game. The last one I played was San Andres, I actually quit playing that one because I was having difficulty completing a mission and eventually got tired of driving my car for 5 minutes to the area where the mission started to try again. There was no way around the mission and I couldn't progress in the game any further until I completed it. Not a hallmark of a sandbox game if you ask me.

To me, Minecraft epitomizes the term "sandbox" at its basest elements.

Goblin Squad Member

GunnerX169 wrote:
Conversely, neither of those games are a sandbox in the way that SimCity or Minecraft are. SimCity gives you a set of tools and a world to play with. There is no distinct right way to play, even if there are optimal paths. There isn't even any point at which you "win." I think this is more the direction some of others are coming from.

It may be, but the term "sandbox" is typically applied far more broadly than merely to build-a-thing games.

Goblin Squad Member

Zesty Mordant wrote:
Given the above definition, doesn't WoW qualify as a sandbox game? There is no right way to play WoW and users can certainly play it creatively and entertain themselves while doing so.

I'd argue that there actually are right and wrong ways to play WoW. The WoW play experience is actually fairly structured. Because of the limitations the leveling process places on your ability to experience certain areas at certain points in your "career," there actually end up being a fairly finite set of paths you can take to progress in the game. Similarly, most quests have very straightforward approaches. Towards the end-game, things do open up a bit, and the world certainly can be seen as more of a sandbox at that point.

Quote:
GTA certainly has sandbox elements but other wise it's a mostly linear game. The last one I played was San Andres, I actually quit playing that one because I was having difficulty completing a mission and eventually got tired of driving my car for 5 minutes to the area where the mission started to try again. There was no way around the mission and I couldn't progress in the game any further until I completed it. Not a hallmark of a sandbox game if you ask me.

And yet it's considered a sandbox game, even making some top 10 lists. Note that being unable to complete the mission did not prevent you from interacting with the game world. You simply couldn't unlock further mission content. Nothing stopped you from driving around and doing whatever.

There are a couple salient points I'm trying to make, here.

1. Sandbox games are not rare, and are becoming more and more the norm. The degree to which you emphasize the sandbox elements of your game is what is important.

2. A lot of the features people are claiming are "sandbox features" are not at all inherently sandbox features - friendly fire, for instance, has nothing to do with whether a game can be considered a sandbox or not. I think people are trying to call them "sandbox features" because it gives them an avenue to push for their inclusion: "If you want this to be a real sandbox game, you have to include friendly fire!"

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:

"The term sandbox refers more to the mechanics of a game and how, as in a physical sandbox, the user is entertained by his ability to play creatively and with there being "no right way" of playing the game."

A game offering multiple approaches to objectives, and multiple orders in which those objectives can be tackled, and perhaps even the ability to define your own objectives is a sandbox game. The stronger these elements are within the game, the more of a sandbox it is.

GTA 4 is a sandbox, because it offers an open world with plenty of objectives to tackle and - aside from a main story - the ability to choose the order in which they are tackled. You are also free to interact with the world in an unstructured way (by which I mean outside of the mission or activity framework).

Skyrim is a sandbox, because it offers an open world with a lot of objectives to tackle, all of which are at your leisure and optional, beyond the opening hour or so. You are also free to define your own objectives, because interacting with the game world does not require that you take part in any kind of structured play framework. You certainly can explore the world through the various available quests, but you can also just start walking and exploring whatever you happen to come across.

I see your point SB, the fact that searching for Sandbox in Wikipedia brings up Open World is perhaps an illustration of a broadening (in the linguistic sense) of the term. In my opinion, this broadening has occurred specifically because of the lack of true sandboxes...so developers make claims to every element possible to associate with this unicorn. Then, the whole game gets labeled as such as people begin to think that is what the term means...and they would be correct because language is not rigid. If I can convince everyone that WoW is the perfect sandbox...then sandbox will equal the features of WoW.

There is a more traditional definition of sandbox that refers to the lack of objectives at all, except for player driven ones. Like in a sandbox, one is free to create the world handed to them as they see fit. I played with my soldiers and/or cars in my sandbox by dividing them up into teams and having conflict of my choosing...or we could all be friends and just build a cool city in the sand. I agree that most attempts to make sandboxes have also included the idea of an open world, but I think that stems more from the desire to give players maximum freedom, not because open boarders are a requirement (and quite frankly free range is the easiest way to create an illusion of freedom and choice...but it is only an illusion without the ability to build or interact in some PC-driven meaningful way with all that space).

To your post above, even using your definition (or wikipedia's, but the one you quoted) I do not see how "The term sandbox refers more to the mechanics of a game and how, as in a physical sandbox, the user is entertained by his ability to play creatively and with there being "no right way" of playing the game." and "because it offers an open world with plenty of objectives to tackle" are equivalent.

I found this for an alternate perspective. I am not sure I agree with this author that harsh death penalties are necessary (I would have to hear their rationale for that statement...they may simply be stating the fact that "sandboxes" typically do have harsher DP...in which case I cant disagree), but I tend to agree with the rest.

EDIT: fixed some stuff.

Goblin Squad Member

KitNyx wrote:
To your post above, even using your definition (or wikipedia's, but the one you quoted) I do not see how "The term sandbox refers more to the mechanics of a game and how, as in a physical sandbox, the user is entertained by his ability to play creatively and with there being "no right way" of playing the game." and "because it offers an open world with plenty of objectives to tackle" are equivalent.

"Because it offers an open world with plenty of objectives to tackle" isn't my definition, though. It's also important that you be able to approach those objectives from a variety of angles, in a variety of orders, or even ignore those objectives entirely and still find a compelling game world to interact with. And the examples that I mentioned do just that.


Scott Betts wrote:
I'd argue that there actually are right and wrong ways to play WoW. The WoW play experience is actually fairly structured. Because of the limitations the leveling process places on your ability to experience certain areas at certain points in your "career," there actually end up being a fairly finite set of paths you can take to progress in the game. Similarly, most quests have very straightforward approaches. Towards the end-game, things do open up a bit, and the world certainly can be seen as more of a sandbox at that point.

Right, I could also argue that there actually is right and wrong ways to play GTA. The GTA play experience is actually fairly structured. Because of the limitations of the advancement process places on your ability to experience certain areas at certain points in your "career", (as a thug) there actually end up being a fairly finite set of paths you can take to progress in the game. Similarly, most quests have very straightforward approaches. Towards the end of the game, things do open up a bit, and the world certainly can be seen as more of a sandbox at that point.

Scott Betts wrote:
And yet it's considered a sandbox game, even making some top 10 lists. Note that being unable to complete the mission did not prevent you from interacting with the game world. You simply couldn't unlock further mission content. Nothing stopped you from driving around and doing whatever.
Scott Betts wrote:
It's also important that you be able to approach those objectives from a variety of angles, in a variety of orders, or even ignore those objectives entirely and still find a compelling game world to interact with. And the examples that I mentioned do just that.

In the example I was siting, I could only approach the mission from a single angle (like most, if not all GTA mission), or in a variety orders, and while I suppose yes I could ignore the mission entirely it wouldn't have left a very compelling game world to interact with (It was fairly early in the game). I can only drive around a very limited area of San Andres running over granny's and b!%&# slapping ho's for so long.

In contrast, with WoW if I couldn't complete a quest I could A. Get others in the game to help. B. Work on leveling up so I could complete it myself. C. Drop the quest and move to other quests or do a number of other things.

In comparison I'd say that WoW is more "sandboxy" then GTA under the wikipedia definition.

201 to 250 of 370 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / The Dark of Night All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.