dorotea said:I agree that being unable to get quest rewards because your level goes up can be ...less than ideal. My earlier comments applied only to what individual mobs dropped when they were killed e.g. 20 copper pieces or a hog's intestine or the like. If a level 1 pig drops a low value item (by mid-game standards) but a class with good area attacks can kill every pig in the starter zone in one minute it may be worthwhile (and totally safe) for a level 20 to make life totally miserable for starting players by taking all the pigs.
Attracting new people is important - the last thing a game wants is to make the first 10 levels a miserable hyper-competitive experience. People are usually happiest with less pressure as they learn the commands and basic strategies. I stand by my opinion that at least in landscape you do not want higher levels to be able to wreck the new player experience so easily.
Obviously a high level can always come in and kill the pigs but if he or she gets no reward whatsoever it is clear that this is just griefing low levels and calls for discipline. If the high level gets - cumulatively from a lot of kills - decent money or decent experience not only do you encourage game-wrecking behavior but no punishment is possible or desirable - they are doing what you encouraged them to do.
Combine level one mobs dropping loot for a level 20, level one mobs aggroing on level 20s so that it is easy to round up dozens or scores of mobs fast, and the training mechanism letting the high level move the mobs to where low levels are farming and then let all the mobs go and you have a recipe for a nightmare for any new player. Any time a greedy or bored level 20 is in the mood either the level 2 players have nothing to kill or they get repeatedly wiped by 20 mobs brought over to them.
Yes you want people to learn to pay attention to the environment and realize that what other players do matters to them but not this dramatically.
I have no fondness for level 50s doing this in a level 30 area either but I focus on starter areas because initial impressions are critical and what happens there will affect the game population and subscription revenue a lot more than what happens at level 30.
By the way, one way to ease the problem of people needing or wanting items but the bosses that drop them are now too much lower level than they is to use a bad word ((blush)). Instances. Have some bosses in instances and have them reset to the level of the group coming in. Or even have them non-instanced but reset their level to that of the first character getting into combat range. I see a lot of problems and abuse with the latter, however.
I get your point and I'm absolutely agreeing on the experience side, lowcon should not give any experience as they aren't a challenge. But there is no reason for them no give loots, there is a lot of reason why you would like to farm a lower area, and if the world is big enough you shouldn't be restrained from it by artifical mechanics (IE : no drops). I believe you had a very bad experience with griefers and hope to include mechanics to block them, and while they can be a chore, should the world fell irreal because it's impossible to farm safely and you are forced to fight even-con even if you are unable to get a group in your timeframe ?
As a rogue in EQ, my soloing was the worst possible. No front damage, little damage reduction, little HP and no recovery / escape mechanic, absolutely no regen outside of bandages. But sometimes I could fight green con mobs in distant areas (in the middle of the ocean) to gather components for poison crafting. If they dropped nothing as green cons / light blue, how could I farm them ? I couldn't even kill more than 5 next to next because my life would drop and I would need to bandaid (I had no invigorate chestpiece back then).
How could I farm thoses components otherwise ? the area was desert and no one came here except for the same reason, and since poisoncraft was really underappreciated, it was more a hobby I liked to do and sustain with money than a true goal, but it kept me occupied when I wasn't about raiding or grinding something else. Really, the world shouldn't scale differently when you level up, ennemies are trivial and give you no experience as they are too easy for your newfound skills, but they aren't empty, unarmored, and unarmed.
I think people are over-generalizing.
If a player ticks up one level and instantly every npc around them goes green and instantly non-aggro, that is ridiculous.
from an older previous MMO that I will not name I will detail:
- Once you outlevel an npc their color drops. Green at first and then gray as your level increases higher. The XP drops and then stops for those NPCs as does their aggro range to you. But they will still attack.
- Green and gray no longer drop anything "farmable", for anyone to loot. Essentially a "Trivial Loot Code". Thus defeating higher levels farming lower zones.
- Running through a group of greens or grays may still aggo but not if you keep a safe distance. And that distance is much less than if they were yellow or red.
- Grays ability to damage you is greatly reduced, and your ability to damage them is much superior, so they offer little challenge.
- Faction still applys regardless of difficulty. So farming for faction is a reality.
VR is obviously still going to be tuning most of how this works for a while to be sure. They may even have it working this way to make it easier for players to run in and test against NPC's appropriate for their level. Which makes sense.
So I am sure it is not functioning as intended currently. At least I hope not. :)
zewtastic said:I think people are over-generalizing.
If a player ticks up one level and instantly every npc around them goes green and instantly non-aggro, that is ridiculous.
The odds of this happening are extremely low. Not only would it require every NPC in that area to be the exact same level ... but it also assumes that the player leveled up from the lowest XP gain possible (mobs that are 1 level away from being green) -- sounds really farfetched and unlikely to me.
((How could I farm thoses components otherwise ? the area was desert and no one came here except for the same reason, and since poisoncraft was really underappreciated, it was more a hobby I liked to do and sustain with money than a true goal, but it kept me occupied when I wasn't about raiding or grinding something else. Really, the world shouldn't scale differently when you level up, ennemies are trivial and give you no experience as they are too easy for your newfound skills, but they aren't empty, unarmored, and unarmed.))
Logically you are, of course, correct - the player's level cannot possible affect whether a pig has an intesting (or any other drop that can be sold for cash). This is one of those unusual situations where I give a higher priority to impact on the game - normally I am gung ho to maintain logical consistancy.
Over many years in many MMOs I have seen that higher level characters coming into low level zones and killing the mobs generally discourage if not outrage the lower levels that need those mobs to do a quest, get basic gear, or get from level 2 to level 3. So I will quite stubbornly stick to my argument that the game mechanics shouldn't encourage this.
As to your EQ rogue that solod very poorly - I hear you. I have played classes like that - the healer in DAOC for example (a Midgard class). IMO no class in Pantheon should be that weak. More to the point the cut-off beneath which you get no xp or loot should be more than one or two or five levels. A mob should be a LOT weaker than the character before the trivial enemy rules cut in. But sorry - at some point I think there should be trivial enemy rules that totally bar getting any loot or any experience.
This does NOT mean preventing a character from completing a quest and getting quest rewards - this refers solely to individual loot drops from a kill and individual experience rewards from a kill and I wouldn't mind at all if trivial enemy rules did not apply inside dungeons.
I am concerned about open world mobs and especially in the lower levels. To the point where if VR is not disposed to having trivial enemy rules I urge them to make an exception up to e.g. mob level 10 just as many of us have urged that death penalties be ridiculously trivial at low level. Let newcomers get an idea how things work but let them have a chance to experience and love the wonder that will be Pantheon before experiencing some of the necessary challenges in their full rigor.
MauvaisOeil said:@dorotea Frankly I've never seen behaviors like you're saying, over a 18 years long MMO "career", except a few occasions on a PVP server but thoses guys weren't killing our pigs, just us.
I have to agree. I've played probably close to a dozen MMOs and never had much of a concern with higher level players killing low level mobs with impunity. Many MMOs these days make use of open tagging, too, which means anyone who hits the mob gets loot credit.
What is an almost universal problem in MMOs, however, is inflation in the low level crafting market. Imagine how much worse it would be if only low level characters could farm for low level mats (and if you happened to level up too far while in the midst of your attempt to farm... too bad, so sad). That does NOT sound like a positive addition to the game at all.
I think the point of this being an open world game is being lost on some of us... once a mob is on you, it is on you until one of you dies or zones. A lot of people are also assuming that people won't abuse the game mechanics.
Lets use BRK as an example "assuming" that the combat mechanics will be similar to EQ1. A level 60 tank (that can't invis or stealth) walks into BRK to meet his lvl 15 buddy that recently started and is in the lvl 25-30 area of the map. Everything that he walks past attacks him, but he just keeps walking because the enemies are hitting him for less damage than his HP is regenerating. 5 minutes later, the entire dungeon is following this guy swinging and missing 90% of the time or hitting him in his raid armor for 1-2 damage and he has lost a total of 300 of his 2,000 HP... he then turns around and kills the whole dungeon in a matter of seconds, leaving the 40 other players in BRK waiting for respawns... then it turns out that he is a jackass and decides to repeat his actions because he can.
In that scenario (that people would toatlly do just to troll) if someone wanted to grief a whole dungeon at least the other players would be able to compete if the lvl 60 player had to at least engage the enemies and continue to hold agro while running around collecting more NPCs. Aaaaaaand, if loot and money dropped from these low level NPCs for the level 60 there would be nothing the devs could do but politely ask the player to "share" with the other players in the area because the lvl 60 player is a paying customer just grinding easy cash/loot or traveling to see his friend... then traveling back out, then forgetting something for his friend, then traveling back out etc.
I think the devs have the right idea in this category. I think the alternatives would be having a "leash" distance for NPCs to follow and then whipe agro or group/raid instancing and none of us (most of us) really dont want that.
Edit: I'd like to add that I too have witnessed Dortea's experience in MMOs with high level character annihilating low level stuff just because they can and they know it will upset/discourage lower level players. This is called trolling :(
Zorkon said:I understand the annoyance gray con mobs aggroing on higher level players.
And high levels "disrupting" lowered levels play.
I don't understand how throwing the "dumb it down" switch by making them non-aggro could even be considered as a solution.
I hope Pantheon to be an open world where other players actions, both good or bad, actually has an effect on the world around me.
Did you play EQ? High level toons ran past non-xp mobs easily, do you really want a level cap player who is transitioning from one zone to another to train all the level appropriate folks at the zone line? Thats a recipe for disaster.
Darch said:Edit: I'd like to add that I too have witnessed Dortea's experience in MMOs with high level character annihilating low level stuff just because they can and they know it will upset/discourage lower level players. This is called trolling :(
Report for griefing and be on your way. It doesn't happen often enough to justify the negative impacts on player economy and one's ability to keep up with gear/crafting/etc. I think having mobs not aggro when they wouldn't give XP is a perfectly reasonable situation.
Darch said:I think the point of this being an open world game is being lost on some of us... once a mob is on you, it is on you until one of you dies or zones. A lot of people are also assuming that people won't abuse the game mechanics.
Lets use BRK as an example "assuming" that the combat mechanics will be similar to EQ1. A level 60 tank (that can't invis or stealth) walks into BRK to meet his lvl 15 buddy that recently started and is in the lvl 25-30 area of the map. Everything that he walks past attacks him, but he just keeps walking because the enemies are hitting him for less damage than his HP is regenerating. 5 minutes later, the entire dungeon is following this guy swinging and missing 90% of the time or hitting him in his raid armor for 1-2 damage and he has lost a total of 300 of his 2,000 HP... he then turns around and kills the whole dungeon in a matter of seconds, leaving the 40 other players in BRK waiting for respawns... then it turns out that he is a jackass and decides to repeat his actions because he can.
In that scenario (that people would toatlly do just to troll) if someone wanted to grief a whole dungeon at least the other players would be able to compete if the lvl 60 player had to at least engage the enemies and continue to hold agro while running around collecting more NPCs. Aaaaaaand, if loot and money dropped from these low level NPCs for the level 60 there would be nothing the devs could do but politely ask the player to "share" with the other players in the area because the lvl 60 player is a paying customer just grinding easy cash/loot or traveling to see his friend... then traveling back out, then forgetting something for his friend, then traveling back out etc.
I think the devs have the right idea in this category. I think the alternatives would be having a "leash" distance for NPCs to follow and then whipe agro or group/raid instancing and none of us (most of us) really dont want that.
Edit: I'd like to add that I too have witnessed Dortea's experience in MMOs with high level character annihilating low level stuff just because they can and they know it will upset/discourage lower level players. This is called trolling :(
The same player tab cycle trought all mobs with an instant dot or debuff spell and he does roughly the same with only two keypresses per mob. Don't make it like it would solve any situation, non aggro mobs remain pullable at will and troll players will remain troll players.
Ok so you witnessed the same bad behavior, I agree it's possible our experience can differ, but how many time did it happen over the years and how much time did you get completely blocked over your total playtime ? It it really more than 0.1 or 0.01% of the time ?
I don't like the idea of outlevelled mobs dropping loot. People will abuse it to farm items to salvage because they're too lazy to harvest while ruining the dungeon for at level groups. I played EQ2 from launch and never once got no quest reward or xp because the quest was grey con,you also got the ding for killing a grey quest update mob. There may also be problems with high level characters doing this if there are easy faction gains for killing low level mobs.
Because XP-leveling opens up new content for you, it's imperative that it also effectively "closes down" content by trivialising it as you out-level it. Otherwise, low-level players suffer when high-level dittos interact with "their" content; it doesn't matter if the high-levels have bad intentions or not. I have read all the arguments for the opposite point-if-view, and I acknowledge some of them as real concerns to be adressed, but my position remains the same.
I would hate to be in an appropriate-level group on the first floor of Black Rose Keep, slowly progressing with care and deliberation, only to have the experience interrupted repeatedly by people passing on their way to the upper floors. No malicious intent needed, just a little carelessnes. In fact, from what we've seen there would be no way for the high-levelers to get to "their" content without agroing low-level mobs and causing chaos on the first floor. Pantheon is different from most other MMO's in that the zones will be mixed and open, and this calls for other means of level separation. Likewise, it would be frustrating to be exposed to insanely unfair competition while hunting/skinning rat pelts.
I honestly don't care if high-levels can no longer benefit from low-level content. They've had their chance and have a lot of other stuff to do now. If your crafting is much lower than your adventuring, you chose it to be so; wipe your eyes, hunt something appropriate and go trade it on the market. The chance that it would cause inflation (as @Naunet claims) is not greater than it causing deflation if high-levels were allowed to speed-farm.
So, my vote goes to: No agro when the level difference reaches a certain level and progressively poorer loot and XP upto this point (probably with the exclusion of quest loot).
Don't forget that EQ1 already had a simple version of disposition in regards to this. Undead creatures would ALWAYS attack a player no matter the level difference. Even a level 1 skeleton would attack a fully geared max level character. The idea being of course that Undead have no concept of fearing death and also does not have the intelligence to realize that the enemy is far stronger than them. They just see a warm body and gleefully attack. Skeletons actually giggled while fighting you.
Oddly enough, they never seemed to bother any of the NPC's walking around though :-)
As for 'Green' vs 'Blue' etc... Pantheon already has a larger range of colours than EQ1 did. There is 2 different shades of blue (Light and Dark) and they have yellow and orange for targets only a little higher than you. It wouldn't be a stretch for them to add 'light green' for those targets that are far below you, rather than 'dark green' for targets that are slightly below you and may still attack even though you don't get exp anymore.
There is also the disposition stuff... People talk about Alarmists. But there may also be 'Guards' who are duty bound to protect their local, vs lounging soldier who just happens to be in the area and not duty bound to protect it. The lounging soldier may take a look at you and say "No way am I attacking that guy!" whereas the 'Guard' will say "Tell my mother I love her..." and start praying as he moves to engage.
Bronsun said: All levels of NPC should do the same damage to players no matter what level the player is.
Yes logically it shouldn't matter what level difference there is between the player and enemy. The damage from a hit should be calculated from the weapon (or fist/claw value) being used (+ or - stat bonuses, such as strength, etc...). If a level 1 is using a Flaming Sword of Doom, it shouldn't matter what level the target is. If he hits... it hits for the value range for that weapon. If the sword hits for 100-130 damage, it should be the same on a level 1 enemy as it would on a level 50 enemy.
This is also assuming the target has no armour, or that armour is not going to effect (ie Reduce) damage from a hit.
If armour just effects the 'chance to hit' and does not effect the 'damage from hit'. Then the above should apply.
But if there is the suggestion that armour also reduces the incoming damage as well. Then it only makes sense that an enemy with high level magic armour would get hit for less damage than with low level crappy armour. But in this case, it's not the actual level of the enemy effecting the difference, but rather the armour that the higher level enemy will likely have.
((I think the devs have the right idea in this category. I think the alternatives would be having a "leash" distance for NPCs to follow and then whipe agro or group/raid instancing and none of us (most of us) really dont want that.
Edit: I'd like to add that I too have witnessed Dortea's experience in MMOs with high level character annihilating low level stuff just because they can and they know it will upset/discourage lower level players. This is called trolling :())
1. I am glad you changed none of us to most of us. I definitely want a leash distance - mobs chasing all the way to a zone line even if they are "assigned" to guard an area on the opposite side of the zone is totally unrealistic. I can't even *remember* a MMO outside of EQ where the mobs chased forever outside of dungeons. In dungeons permachase is much more common.
2. Perhaps I was very unclear - if so, apologies. I too have rarely seen high levels killing mobs in low level areas to just for "fun" or to grief low level players. I am not worried about it - obvious griefing can be punished by GMs and is not a reason to have otherwise undesired game mechanics. I never intended to imply griefing when I said I have often seen high levels making it almost impossible for low levels to go about their business.
My reference was to situations where killing low level mobs benefitted the high levels and they were doing it for legitimate gain, not to hurt anyone. Yet the result to low level players was the same as if it was griefing other than the fact that it couldn't be stopped by a GM.
This might occur where there was some title or quest reward or deed for killing a certain number of enemies or a certain type of enemy and the game gave credit regardless of level differences.
This might occur where the game did not have trivial loot or xp rules.
This might occur where the high level was grouped with a lower level and the game mechanics allowed the low level to benefit although he or she was just being carried by the high level - perhaps on auto-follow.
This might occur where mobs aggrod any level player and the high level was going about his or her legitimate business harvesting nodes.
This might occur in a game where animal or plant drops were used for crafting and a high level was legitimately skilling up a low craft level - nothing wrong with getting to high adventure level and then starting to craft though it is not my own preference.
Is it very common? No not at all. But over many years and many games I have seen it quite a bit and more than once seen heated debates on game forums over what can or should be done to prevent it. So it came to mind as something to discuss in the context of whether trivial loot rules were desirable and in the context of whether *very* outleveled mobs should aggro.
I wouldn't say it was a good reason to do something that would hurt the game - it isn't *that* common at all. But I personally like trivial loot rules and very low level mobs not aggroing - perhaps because my first long-term MMO had both of those features.
Again as mentioned above - this is *purely* in the context of landscape mobs I am expressing no opinion as to how dungeons should work. Many games have totally opposite aggro rules in dungeons.
Jabir said:Because XP-leveling opens up new content for you, it's imperative that it also effectively "closes down" content by trivialising it as you out-level it. Otherwise, low-level players suffer when high-level dittos interact with "their" content; it doesn't matter if the high-levels have bad intentions or not.
This simply doesn't happen in most MMOs to the degree people seem to want to claim. Closing off low level content also means that as you level, the game gets smaller and smaller - a horrible idea.
dorotea said:This might occur where there was some title or quest reward or deed for killing a certain number of enemies or a certain type of enemy and the game gave credit regardless of level differences.
Honestly, easy solution here - to receive quest credit or credit toward an achievement, the player must be synced down to a level where the mobs are no longer grey. (Though I completely disagree about the loot aspect - I think they should always drop loot regardless.)
If mobs don't drop loot... How the heck do you expect a player to go back and level their crafting? How do you expect someone to go back and maybe farm mats to make some coin because they're not strong enough to take on valuable stuff at their current level or above? How do you expect someone to catch up in gear if they fall behind? How do you expect someone to go and experience old content they missed while leveling?
This whole concept is completely alien to me. Not once in any MMO I've played have I thought, "Gee, I really wish low level mobs didn't give anything to higher level players."
[edit] Oops, sorry for the double post. Meant to edit in.
If people are worried about higher level people farming lower lvl bosses for loot to sell...then make those items no drop? I mean that will make crafting a lot more viable if most of the gear you can buy is from crafters. Or you can have two different loot tables...one that is tradeable and another that changes that item to account bound when you have a character in your group, or solo, that is X levels higher than the boss., so if you are going to lower level areas to farm gear its mostly for your alts. So there are ways to mitigate it without making it instanced.
I like the "fight or flight" approach that was brought up by MauvaisOeil and Wandidar where mobs might flee from higher level characters. It would have to be a constantly evaluated decision, where disposition and all nearby targets are considered. If you're halfway through a fight to the death with a reasonable foe, you'll probably try and finish it before running. So what might happen if this were implemented?
1) Weak NPC's would react to high level players rather than ignore them. This adds to the logical consistency of the game world. It just doesn't make sense that someone would ignore the greatest threat to their lives.
2) Weak NPC's would be more difficult to kill. This is the whole reason why fight or flight is an evolved behavior. If you run away and hide, whatever is hunting you might not pursue you for some reason. If weak enemies flee when you get close, it makes it more difficult to round them up and murder them for their valuables.
3) Mob pathing may be erratic if high level players walk through or hang out in a low level zone. The mobs would run and hide and might push them into nearby lower level players just trying to hunt.
4) It would make helping low level friends or powerleveling slightly more annoying. The low level players would have to fight the npcs for long enough that their fight behavior takes over before the high level players come by. This is probably a non-issue if mentoring is done well.
5) High level players might be able to abuse this by corralling low level mobs, but I don't see how it would ever be more abusable than the status quo of tagging a mob and it follows you forever trying to kill you.
There are certainly unforeseen consequences (especially when it comes to situations where there are players of multiple levels nearby), but I like the concept of having fight or flight and enemy disposition deciding how NPCs behave.
in EQ, I don't recall the grey mobs being and issue as far as "passing" content. Most dungeons tended to have a tighter level range that you weren't going to be a high level player running through untouched on your way to the boss, at least not in a dungeon you had any right to be in.
Grey mob bypassing was more of an outdoor zone thing.
Jabir said:Because XP-leveling opens up new content for you, it's imperative that it also effectively "closes down" content by trivialising it as you out-level it. Otherwise, low-level players suffer when high-level dittos interact with "their" content; it doesn't matter if the high-levels have bad intentions or not. I have read all the arguments for the opposite point-if-view, and I acknowledge some of them as real concerns to be adressed, but my position remains the same.
Wait, I missed that. It's complete non-sense. The viability of the game is based on how you unlock content when growing your character, but not at the cost of anything else. Which game, and especially which playerbase would accept to be expelled from a "range" of content because they are too high now. How can they get revenge of ennemies ? Casualy visit areas of a dungeon they missed in early levels and testing different nameds ?
That's probably amongst the most limitative proposition I've seen here, and it would severly hinder the experience of players as much as their feeling of accomplishment throught leveling. It's as bad as thoses games that sync you in every area you go, making your levelling completely useless and underwhelming. Why do you take a level ? To unlock new areas or to overcome encounters ?
That type of set up wont work anyways. Dungeons are going to have a huge level range. So unlocking areas would just be dumb. This is going to be sandbox for a reason. I do see that you can probably mitigate the higher levels farming lower level stuff by shards, which they talked about. But they probably thought it through and will implement other stuff. I do think going down the no drop loot in the 20 or 30+ levels is a good way to deter higher levels from farming bosses 20 levels lower than them to for gear to sell. But I can also see how people wouldn't want that. So not quite sure what is going to happen.
Pantheon is not aiming to be a sandbox, it only takes some influence from the idea.
Brad/Aradune:
As for sandbox vs themepark I hear you but let me give you my quick thoughts (I'm pretty sure I've posted in the past in more detail on this too):
I'm all for the 'ideal' of having a total sandbox. But I don't think we're there yet, being able to offer to the players the ability to create content, mechanics, etc. And without that, e.g. a sandbox game without players being able to make real change and contribute real content I think a purely sandbox MMO will face some serious challenges.
That said, you guys all know we are against total themepark games too, even feeling we went too far with VG (quest hubs, etc.).
So this may be interpreted in different ways by different people (which is fine -- just post a reply/question and I'll try to clarify) but here goes:
You create a sandbox and then you put a 'themepark' in that sandbox. That way your foundation is there both for 1. more sandboxy play to evolve before and after launch and 2. you can put other themeparks into your sandbox without bringing down a house of cards.
What I'm getting at there and have posted about in the past is our desire to, especially post-launch, offer additional advancement paths. We're of course starting with the basics (would be foolish not to): awesome combat/hack-n-slash combined with some pretty cool questing ideas (perception, etc.). Bottom line: Pantheon at launch is an awesome PvE adventuring MMO.
...
Bottom line though: A pure sandbox isn't really a game. Pantheon is definitely influenced by our desire to head in the sandbox direction, but a pure sandbox is not what we're looking for. Rather, while you shouldn't feel you're on rails, going through quest hubs, forced to follow 1-2 paths, etc, there's still Pantheon the game that sits within the sandbox foundation. Then, by making sure we have such a foundation, we can not just vertically add content (expansions, new regions to explore, new classes and races, etc.) but also horizontally begin to offer advancement paths beyond your typical adventure focus.
Iksar said:Pantheon is not aiming to be a sandbox, it only takes some influence from the idea.
Brad/Aradune:
As for sandbox vs themepark I hear you but let me give you my quick thoughts (I'm pretty sure I've posted in the past in more detail on this too):
I'm all for the 'ideal' of having a total sandbox. But I don't think we're there yet, being able to offer to the players the ability to create content, mechanics, etc. And without that, e.g. a sandbox game without players being able to make real change and contribute real content I think a purely sandbox MMO will face some serious challenges.
That said, you guys all know we are against total themepark games too, even feeling we went too far with VG (quest hubs, etc.).
So this may be interpreted in different ways by different people (which is fine -- just post a reply/question and I'll try to clarify) but here goes:
You create a sandbox and then you put a 'themepark' in that sandbox. That way your foundation is there both for 1. more sandboxy play to evolve before and after launch and 2. you can put other themeparks into your sandbox without bringing down a house of cards.
What I'm getting at there and have posted about in the past is our desire to, especially post-launch, offer additional advancement paths. We're of course starting with the basics (would be foolish not to): awesome combat/hack-n-slash combined with some pretty cool questing ideas (perception, etc.). Bottom line: Pantheon at launch is an awesome PvE adventuring MMO.
...
Bottom line though: A pure sandbox isn't really a game. Pantheon is definitely influenced by our desire to head in the sandbox direction, but a pure sandbox is not what we're looking for. Rather, while you shouldn't feel you're on rails, going through quest hubs, forced to follow 1-2 paths, etc, there's still Pantheon the game that sits within the sandbox foundation. Then, by making sure we have such a foundation, we can not just vertically add content (expansions, new regions to explore, new classes and races, etc.) but also horizontally begin to offer advancement paths beyond your typical adventure focus.
Brad states his thesis in the first line.
"I'm all for the 'ideal' of having a total sandbox. But I don't think we're there yet..."
As he says, it's an 'ideal'. So is the speed of light, but we probably will never achieve that either. You just try to get as close as possible.
If a game was truly a sandbox it would be chaos I expect. Probably unplayable, and likely a massive toxic troll griefer world.
Given the somewhat small budget and studio size. I suspect Pantheon will not get close to the 'ideal'.