| Author |
 Topic Search
 Topic Options
|
Brids17 
Postmaster General
Joined: 30 Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1483 |
 Posted: 11 May 2012 at 03:18 |
That's not sandbox. That's bending the "rules" so that you can still kind of accommodate your playstyle but at the same time never really experience it fully.
If I wanted to have an all out war without everyone jumping in on me, I'd have to first find a willing alliance that agreed not to involve anyone else in it, make it clear to everyone else to stay out of it(good luck), make sure that nothing I did was seen as "bullying" or I'd have to face the wrath of the community and hope none of that fails. And so easily could it fail. All it would take would be on guy to complain to GC or one alliance or player to jump in because they think they should be part of it and then entire thing would come crumbling down.
That's just not sandbox. That's trying not to step on the pacifist communities toes all the while still not fully experiencing all out war because it would be a planned out setting between two hopefully trustworthy alliances that had nothing against each other. You have to cut yourself short and that's cutting the sandbox short. It's like I can build a sandcastle but I can't build towers or a moat. Sure, I still built a sandcastle but it's limited.
Edited by Brids17 - 11 May 2012 at 03:21
|
 |
lokifeyson
Forum Warrior
Joined: 29 Jul 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 211 |
Posted: 11 May 2012 at 11:05 |
its a sandbox...just a sandbox with other kids to play with...like at the park...lol
|
|
|
|
Myzel
Wordsmith
Joined: 19 Feb 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 101 |
Posted: 11 May 2012 at 11:09 |
|
If your idea of a 'sandbox' is being able to do whatever the hell you want without suffering any consequences to your actions, then no, this is not a sandbox game. No multiplayer game can be.
'Rules' and 'pacifist communities' aside, what it comes down to is realizing that even though you technically can do what you want, you are playing with other people. Playing the game the way you want will potentially cause other people to -not- be able to play the game -they- want. Your self-righteous claim to sandbox freedom would be at the expense of others. One way or the other, this is unavoidable, I think.
If you're one of those kids that likes to run through a sandbox stomping other kids' sand castles, you will surely find that the rest of the sandbox might not tolerate your presence.
Edited by Myzel - 11 May 2012 at 11:12
|
|
Durin the deathless
New Poster
Joined: 06 Feb 2012
Location: Sofia,Bulgaria
Status: Offline
Points: 38 |
Posted: 11 May 2012 at 11:33 |
 Myzel wrote:
If your idea of a 'sandbox' is being able to do whatever the hell you want without suffering any consequences to your actions, then no, this is not a sandbox game. No multiplayer game can be.
'Rules' and 'pacifist communities' aside, what it comes down to is realizing that even though you technically can do what you want, you are playing with other people. Playing the game the way you want will potentially cause other people to -not- be able to play the game -they- want. Your self-righteous claim to sandbox freedom would be at the expense of others. One way or the other, this is unavoidable, I think.
If you're one of those kids that likes to run through a sandbox stomping other kids' sand castles, you will surely find that the rest of the sandbox might not tolerate your presence.
|
Nailed it
That's exactly what I was thinking how to say.
|
|
Mr Damage
Postmaster
Joined: 01 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 598 |
Posted: 11 May 2012 at 12:50 |
|
He (or she) who has the bigger stick makes the rules, pretty simple.
|
|
Rorgash
Postmaster
Joined: 23 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 894 |
Posted: 11 May 2012 at 12:50 |
yea.... im sure he never played a single player sandbox game, usely things tries to kill you there aswell
|
|
Kumomoto
Postmaster General
Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2224 |
Posted: 11 May 2012 at 15:15 |
|
It is possible for a group of alliances to turn this into a Travianesque game. There is absolutely nothing in the game mechanics stopping it. What stops it is a community that doesn't like that style of play that organically grew here. And if you want to change this Sandbox, Brids, you need to be motivated and organized enough to make Illy conform more to your vision. You want change? Get off your rear end and affect change instead of whining about it. There is nothing stopping you.
|
|
Qaal
Wordsmith
Joined: 29 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 115 |
Posted: 11 May 2012 at 16:43 |
I think one of the main things that keeps Illy from being Travianesque--and one of the big reasons that it most definitely is a sandbox--is the lack of an endgame. Add an endgame of some sort, and you'd pretty quickly see all that stuff I learned to loathe in the T-game: players aggressively clearing their turf, relentless farming of weaker players, accounts with multiple owners being operated around the clock, etc.
Sandbox or no, there will always be reactions to actions. Make your choices, take your chances, I guess.
|
|
Brids17
Postmaster General
Joined: 30 Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1483 |
Posted: 11 May 2012 at 18:30 |
Myzel wrote:
If your idea of a 'sandbox' is being able to do whatever the hell you want without suffering any consequences to your actions, then no, this is not a sandbox game. No multiplayer game can be.
'Rules' and 'pacifist communities' aside, what it comes down to is realizing that even though you technically can do what you want, you are playing with other people. Playing the game the way you want will potentially cause other people to -not- be able to play the game -they- want. Your self-righteous claim to sandbox freedom would be at the expense of others. One way or the other, this is unavoidable, I think.
If you're one of those kids that likes to run through a sandbox stomping other kids' sand castles, you will surely find that the rest of the sandbox might not tolerate your presence.
|
I'm not saying that there should be no consequences, I'm saying the consequences shouldn't be as extreme as they are. You raze one guy's city and suddenly they raze all of yours. It's just not proportionate to what you have done. Everyone goes "justice" mode and before you know it you're basically a newbie again. I can't think of any other sandbox game that had a community that would punish you so harshly for aggressive actions.
As it is, we almost rely on some new guy who doesn't know what the community is like to come in and start trouble so we can get some kind of action. I've played the game for nearly two years and I've never had an army (aside from NPC) attack my cities. Never. That's how one sided every altercation I've ever been in has been. So sure, it may have the potential to be a sandbox game but if you play aggressively, don't expect to play for very long.
Calico_Jack wrote:
yea.... im sure he never played a single player sandbox game, usely things tries to kill you there aswell  |
Some enemies coming to kill you is a little different than 30 players coming to siege you out of the game. That's a game where combat isn't fun and so you try to avoid it, which in single player games, is a sign there's something significantly wrong with the difficulty level or the combat.
Kumomoto wrote:
It is possible for a group of alliances to turn this into a Travianesque game. There is absolutely nothing in the game mechanics stopping it. What stops it is a community that doesn't like that style of play that organically grew here. And if you want to change this Sandbox, Brids, you need to be motivated and organized enough to make Illy conform more to your vision. You want change? Get off your rear end and affect change instead of whining about it. There is nothing stopping you. |
I can't think of a single aggressive style alliances (not even necessarily the picking on smaller players kind, just an alliance with an aggressive tone) that wasn't eventually piled on by multiple alliances and sieged out of the game. And yet you expect me to go out and somehow succeed where everyone else failed? I doubt even H? could do that if they wanted to.
And that's aside the point, I don't want the game to be a free for all, war 24/7, death and destruction for all. I just want to be able to have a war or even a small scale fight and not have the 400 NAPs and Confeds choose a side and then wipe out the other alliance. Even if one alliance has fair terms, like lets say 1 city sieged for each player involved, the 10 other alliances that got involved are going to have terms too, which is why it usually turns into a siege them out of the game fest.
Besides Kumo, there have been several H? members who have expressed a desire for an equal challenge. H? is more than able to split up into two alliances and be the equal challenge for each other but I don't see that happening. That's something that just your alliance could do, and probably wont do. So it's really not like I'm the only one who wants something but either isn't doing it or in this case, doesn't have a clue how to.
Let the wall of text commence! =D
|
|
scaramouche
Forum Warrior
Joined: 25 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 432 |
Posted: 11 May 2012 at 18:37 |
Createure wrote:
I'd say anyone can play in any way they like... they just have to realise that any action might have various reactions (from other players)... same as real life I guess. |
This I think, about sums it up just right.
|
|
Tweet
Sandbox o Illy