Okay, since the title may be lacking in...nuance, allow me to give some examples: (I'll also note in advance there are few true sandbox games that really give players a lot of freedom, mostly because big name developers - which Pantheon isn't going with - are afraid of risk and trying something new or, in this case, old...)
I should also note there are some other "just random things to think about" in here as well.
.
1) Buffing/etc other players:
In a MUD I played back in...geeze, 1996? Well, I was able to build a healing/buffing class due to the structure of the game. I actually liked chilling in the healer room and being able to cast heals/cures (poison, blindness, etc...that strangely persisted through death) on players that respawned there, as well as shields and various other buffs. I like that old games let you do this without any silly party restrictions and such. Newer games, though, seem to think this is a bad idea. In FF14, my White Mage can't cast the 30 min duration Protect spell on others. He can cast a temporary absorb shield, but not a standing buff. Why not? Is there some laws to the magic of the WORLD that prevents casting certain buffs unless the WORLD somehow knows that you are in a party with people? In real life, do you have to enter into some kind of contract "party" with a group of people before you can use bandages on them or something? Of course not, that's stupid (granted, the real world doesn't quite have buffs, but you get what I mean.) Likewise, WoW used to let players cast buffs - my Mage could buff people's intellect, regardless of them being in party with him, which could even help the odd Warrior level his weaponskills. Well, then weaponskills were removed...and so, too, later, was the intellect buff.
Why? Why can't I stand in a town center buffing everyone I come across and, if high level, cast AOE heals that just heal whoever happens to walk into range? There's another thread about not being able to use damage buffs on lowbies because "powerleveing is bad" or...something. Why should the game limit the players? Shouldn't the players, themselves, be the limiting factor? I hate running into a player in the field and trying to help them out, only to get the "that player is not in your party/raid" or "unable to attack target flagged by another player" messages. In real life, I'm getting my bandages on you or helping you fight, party or not! :p
NOTE: I can understand the odd thing that requires a group to combine their power for - some crazy ultimate attack or super "Limit Break" type of buff that everyone has to channel together, or using a portal or summon stone, perhaps. But for most things that the game treats as pretty trivial, it shouldn't be so limited.
Will the players be free to do these things, or will there be weird restrictions on us that prevent us from doing so?
.
2) Non combat actions/roles:
Things like a Ranger setting up a camp for the party to use, or some class that can make meals or foods for players. It's not a lot, but having a campfire to hang out with friends on a night is kind of a neat idea, especially if it gives them some buffs for the following day.
.
3) Levels that are few in number, but matter:
I'm tired of games having 50, 60, 80, 100+ levels before I get to "the actual game". Oh, sure, there are dungeons and even raids before then, but outside of twink PvP brackets, no one cares about anything until end-game. Why bother having the rest of the game at all? If the answer is "to learn your class", you don't need 130 levels to "learn your class". Further, it's not like all those levels bring with them skills or abilities. The average MMO class has between 15 and 25 abilities. You don't need 100 levels to learn them. You don't even need 50. The fact that some levels can give you more than one and that you start off with 2-4 means you don't really need more than 15-20 levels for a starting game. Further, if you have some high number of levels (>40, probably), any time you have an expansion, there's another 10+ levels! And then you get one of two things happening, either most of those levels don't come with new abilities (because you already have so many by expansion #5 anyway), or you get one every other level, which leads to mass ability bloat and, eventually, pruning.
Older games dealt with this by having spell/ability ranks, but this is largely a useless distinction since you don't use lower level spells once you have better ones in most cases. Some exceptions, like Vanilla and Burning Crusade WoW, had the lower level spells have faster cast times and/or lower mana costs, which made the lowest ranks useful in some niche situations (the Mage rank 1 Frostbolt to throw a quick snare on an enemy or a Priest using a low rank heal spell when low on mana or needing to get a clutch heal out fast). But, in the end, most of the time these spells are entirely eclipsed by more powerful versions, rendering them meaningless anyway.
Why bother with so many levels, anyway? If the levels simply take more experience/time to level through, then the same end result is achieved - suppose in the game with 100 levels and 20 abilities (average 1 ability per 5 levels), you instead only had 20 levels, but each took 5 times as long to attain? Volia! You've now avoided the obnoxious "level 100 badass" problem, "dead levels" where you gain no abilities, ability/button bloat where you have too many abilities to even map to your keyboard/controller well anyway, and produced a more elegant leveling system. Further, if you have an expansion, you can simply add 1 or 2 levels, with only 1 new ability or maybe 2 (out of combat is a thing, too!) and players will see this as completely reasonable. It also means that a player may not be max level, but can still potentially contribute to raids and fights since they aren't ridiculously underpowered. Maybe that level 18 isn't as optimal as having another level 20, but he's only lacking one or two abilities and a few stat points.
.
4) More on ability bloat, will we see fewer abilities and room for expansion:
In the classical and simple sword and magic style games, there were ranks of abilities. You had your black magic user with his fire, ice, and lightning line of spells, each of which had several ranks, and then random utility spells like the ability to turn people into frogs, and then, of course, their capstone ultimate ability. Fire 1 at level 1, Fire 2 at level 5, Fire 3 at level 10, and Flare at level 15, for example.
In modern games, though, it seems developers are too quick to throw everything into the game. In it's second true expansion (since 1.0 was basically a different game), FF14's Black Mages already have Flare and Fire/Ice 4. What will they add in the next expansion? Fire 5? Thunder 7? There's no real room for growth without them removing or pushing the level on the existing spells around. Like maybe taking Flare away from the level 50 Black Mages and giving it to them at level 70 instead - which just makes them feel weaker since they "lost" an ability they already had, but with no real in-game explanation (and if there is an in-game explantion, they're still "losing" an ability that they simply relearn.)
Sometimes, less is more. As I said above, the average class has 15-25 abilities in an MMO, and, really, they only use 5-10 of them on a consistent basis or in a given fight. The rest are niche abilities that basicaly never get used, lower ranked abilities that also never get used, or out of combat abilties, which are kind of a stand-alone thing.
Along with levels discussed above, would it not make more sense to hold back on those abilities for future expansions? So what if the black mage, capping out at level 20 in the launch "vanilla" of the game only gets Ice and Thunder 2 and MAYBE Fire 3? That's just meaning they have something to look forward to in the future - avenues of growth. A level 20 adventurer means you're already more powerful than most people on the planet, but you're not a demi-god yet, and there's nothing wrong with that. Not only that, since the "vanilla" game is based around max level black mages only having Ice/Lightning 2, Fire 3, Toad CC, and level 2-3 conjuring of food/water, the game works just fine. And it also means Fire 3 can have a nifty special effect and look badass in its own right, and when Flare eventually comes out two expansions later, it feels truly epic when you first cast it at...level 28!
It also has that wonderful "bitter vet" rose colored glasses down the road. "Yeah, I remember when I started the game - did you know there wasn't Fire 5 yet? Hell, there wasn't even Fire 3! We had to wait for the first expansion just to get that!"
In Eve online, there are players that remember being in the game before the largest of ships were added to it, and that's not something that people complain about, it's more of a cool "I was into this before it was cool, and we walked uphill both ways in the snow" type of thing, which isn't really a bad thing and tends to given games and their communities history and character. It also has a true feeling of progression for a game that is planning to be around for 10+ years, because there are a lot of things to add "down the road" built in. It also shows a far reacing/forward looking design to build in space for future growth, and serves the purpose of not having to have a "stat squish" or "ability pruning" later, since those things are planned for already in the long term trajectory of the game's development.
...and it does dovetail nicely with having fewer levels, which is also a good thing.
.
5) Will lower level abilities be useful, not just "level padding":
By this, I mean will Fire 1 still be useful when you have Fire 4? Or was it just an ability to give you at level 3 that you never use again after level 9 when you get Fire 2?
While this tends to be truer with healing classes than dps ones (cure 1 tends to have a purpose in most games, even when you have other healing spells, because it does a certain thing, whereas your other heals do different things - a HoT, an absorb shield, etc), I'm just curious what the plans are. It's even worse (in a way) if the different ranks have different names - "Ricarco's Fireball" being weaker in every way than "Tomentaro's Fireball" - since that just adds confusion and...not really anything else, since anyone using Ricardo's after they have Tomentaro's is "doing it wrong".
This goes back to whether there are spell ranks or not, and that itself goes into "level padding" - where a game has so many levels that you introduce abilities/spell ranks people will ignore once they have the better version of the spell...simply so that people learn something at those levels to make them not seem pointless...this also goes into the "have fewer, but more meaningful, levels argument above"; everything's related!
It's okay to have spell ranks if they actually have uses - the rank 1 Frostbolt being a quick ice blast that is low mana cost and fast to cast to quickly put a root on an enemy or the fast, mana cheap heal that the Cleric can throw out in a clutch situation to allow the tank to survive long enough for him to prepare and cast a more powerful heal - but if they're just level padding...why?
.
6) Out of combat is a thing, too, ya know:
...so, what to do with some of those levels and what other abilities to have? Again, don't overdo it - button bloat is still a thing, even if not in combat - but will there be out of combat abilities? Campfires, portals, tradeskills, etc., there are a lot of options to give players something to do other than fighting, or when not fighting. This also helps with the social aspect of a game if players can set up camps, built mini bases, bring in supplies, and so on. Granted, there's a limit to what all can be done, but there's no reason not to have these things if they're possible.
Some can be utility - a mage/cleric/etc casting a glowing light for people to use in a dark dungeon if they don't have a torch or want their hands free for weapons/shields, a levitate spell to travel over spike pits/traps (bonus points, negates earth damage! ...but at the cost of increasing wind damage taken...) These can be related to dungeons and such, but not be required to progress, just useful in some situations. And as long as they're spread in some way across classes - a Druid can't make a glowing light, but can give temporary Intravision to party members, which while not QUITE as good in terms of seeing can also let them see heat signatures of stealthed enemies! A Shaman's spirit walk can allow players to walk across spike traps without taking damage, but doesn't have the earth/wind thing of a Cleric/Mage levitate, has a shorter duration, and must be cancelled by physical/melee players before they can do damage to enemies - then it's not a huge problem.
There can also be some overlap between abilities that have some out of combat and some in-combat effects - for example, the levitate spell being useful for avoding traps and also for avoiding earth (floating) and reducing lightning (no path to ground) damage, while making you take increased damage from wind element attacks and suffering knockback from heavy bash/blunt weapon attacks, and maybe making your physical attacks weaker (since you can't plant your feat to deliver swings as well). Likewise, Amplify Magic, making you take more magical damage, but also gain boosed magical healing, while having no effect on physical damage taken or given, and Dampen Magic, making agressive magic on you weaker in both damage and duration (for CC/DoTs), but also reducing the amount of magic based healing that you receive.
.
I've been reading through some of the old EQ spell lists, and there are lots of abilities that seem to fit into - at least in some way - a lot of these categories. And the leveling/number of abilities/freedom of players to buff/heal/support others (in party or random strangers met in the field) just makes a lot of sense and is a fun addition to a game.
...not expecting any answers on any of this, but...just some stuff to think about.
1) I'd love to see people buffing other people. VG didn't have so much of this but it did have the diplo buffs which were cool. Rather a player sitting around a city buffing everyone, players would go to cities and use the diplomacy feature and produce city wide buffs that any player can come and get. Maybe both of these or an evolution of both of these or an evolution of just one of these but I feel pretty confident that there will be some form of players buffing other players in some shape or form. The team has stated many times they want community to play a big role in Pantheon.
2)Combining 2 and 6 with out of combat roles and gameplay; I'd like to see this involved HEAVILY. One of the reasons why EQ was so sticky was because of how much stuff players could do outside of group combat. The concern here though is a lot of what EQ did wouldn't entertain players these days so the devs will have to think of ways to engage players outside of combat. You will hear me refer to VG a lot because it's my favorite MMO and one of the games that Pantheon is evolving from, and VG had a few things to do outside of combat like crafting (which is a given basically in ALL MMOs, but it also had housing and diplomacy). Pantheon has an opportunity to set itself apart from other MMOs with how it handles this section of the game but it really has to knock it out of the park. And diplomacy is a great example of what is possible with Brad and Co.
3)I get bothered by the whole 100 levels thing too and have suggested to do away with levels entirely. Use a skill system similar to how Elder Scrolls handles leveling where you don't get xp doing stuff like killing monsters and completing quests but rather you get xp towards your skills when you use them. But not many people around here seem to care for something like that so who knows, maybe they'd prefer less levels...maybe not.
4)This is where we disagree. I LOVE having lots of abilities and I WILL agree that getting 100s of abilities but only using 10 of them is dumb and a waste of resources. In VG though by level 50 you had bars on bars of abilities but actually had use for all of them. I prolly had 3 to 4 hotbars filled with abilities and macros and used every single one. And I loved it. I mained a bard and had a bunch of skills to pull with and then a few more to complete my CC ability. I had support skills along with my songs and song book. Then I had my dps skills and combat abilities. I also had a pally who had just as many skills and used them all as well. I will say the pally had a few more useless skills than the bard but there weren't many.
What pains me is the limited memorized spell book Pantheon is using. 10 spell slots is more than what EQ had at the beginning but I'm gonna feel slightly disheartened because I'm going to miss all my hotbars from VG AND Rift. I had a ton in Rift too. But I will manage, I'm really hoping that with leveling up we can gain a few more spell slots to memorize like EQ had with AAs. I'd love for 12-15.
5)I like this idea. I'm sure we will get utility spells and support spells at lower levels that won't necessarily rank up and be one-off spells that we have use for throughout the game. Invis and levitate and etc etc I like the idea of not having ranks for spells where you continually get new spells that throw away your old spells Why not just have the spell increase in power as you level. At level 3 you get instant heal. Level 10 an AoE heal and so on and so forth. You don't need AoE heal rank 1, 2, 3, 4, just have AoE heal increase in power as you level and do away with all those ranks. This way you use every spell you get for your entire lifetime as that character and you don't have 4 versions of each spell in the garbage because they no longer serve any purpose.
1. Yes. Definitely. Let players interact in and out of groups and guilds in whatever way feels natural to the game
2. (and 6) Yes.
3. I agree. There is too much emphasis put on levels to measure a character’s worth. Skills and game play are the true measure.
4. I do like lots of abilities. There must be an intelligent way on skills being available depending on situations so you don’t get “button bloat”: abilities become invisible in situations where they are not applicable; tree systems where you choose a root then a specific effect; buttons visible depending on the stance, equipment being used, etc. These (and other systems) could all be used to have an intelligent control mechanism that allowed for lots of abilities but not lots of screen space being taken up by displaying everything, all the time.
5. Kinda agree. It’s always nice getting new spells and better versions of spells. But maybe the answer is that the spell is just better and not replaced. It becomes more powerful, larger aoe, more persistent, affects more targets, etc. Add spell variation as you gain ability. Don’t make a Level 1 heal no longer of use, have the Heal available from level one and amend it as you progress.
6. See 2 (but yes).
NoobieDoo said:4)This is where we disagree. I LOVE having lots of abilities and I WILL agree that getting 100s of abilities but only using 10 of them is dumb and a waste of resources. In VG though by level 50 you had bars on bars of abilities but actually had use for all of them. I prolly had 3 to 4 hotbars filled with abilities and macros and used every single one. And I loved it. I mained a bard and had a bunch of skills to pull with and then a few more to complete my CC ability. I had support skills along with my songs and song book. Then I had my dps skills and combat abilities. I also had a pally who had just as many skills and used them all as well. I will say the pally had a few more useless skills than the bard but there weren't many.
What pains me is the limited memorized spell book Pantheon is using. 10 spell slots is more than what EQ had at the beginning but I'm gonna feel slightly disheartened because I'm going to miss all my hotbars from VG AND Rift. I had a ton in Rift too. But I will manage, I'm really hoping that with leveling up we can gain a few more spell slots to memorize like EQ had with AAs. I'd love for 12-15.
I'm with NoobieDoo on this one. I want to be able to use any of my spells at any given time. I think it allows players to play more creatively, utilizing all aspects of their skillset. I feel like only having 10 abilities will lead to a boring rotation...123 123 1234 12345! Also, if there are only 10 abilities available at any one time, players will decide that a certain set up is the "best". We will then "HAVE" to use that particular setup to be successful in a raid/harder content. Thanks, min-maxers. :)
In VG, there were lots of abilities, and with access to them all, it allowed players to improvise and sometimes squeak through a fight that would ordinarily have been lost. We we able to play to the fullest abilities of our class. It allowed us to use seemingly inconsequential spells in ways that added extra layers to combat, deeping it and making it more interesting.
This goes triple for PvP, by the way.
The more sandbox the better. Your ideal sandbox game sounds a lot like what I hope PROTF will be like. I was just making this point on another thread, but the less restrictive they are on what we can and can't do then the happier I am. I was always happy with the balance early EQ found with a lot of these things.
1. Yes please, I very much enjoyed buffing other groups in EQ.
2. Yes.
3. Agreed. Fewer levels, with each level taking longer and being more substantial.
4. Mixed. I enjoyed collecting a ton of spells, but agree on numbering of spells. Too much too fast. I would prefer a spell being almost OP when you first get it, and as you grow into it, it starts to be come less impactful against higher lvl mobs. Just when its about past its usefulness, you get an upgrade and it starts over again. Having power progression too smooth and linear is boring, and attributes to having a million levels of "Fire", per your example. Abilities that level up with you are also equally boring and uninspired.
5. I think there will always be a certain amount of "level padding" with spells, especially damage spells for casters. However, other things like bind affinity, gate, portal spells, buffs, etc would always be useful. Even low lvl dmg spells can have niche uses, like mob tagging for pulling.
6. Agreed.
Amsai said: I more or less agree with everything people are saying. I don't feel really strongly one way or another about ability bloat. And I am actually in favor of a limited hotbar. I will however say that EQ was not a sandbox and neither will this game be one. I didn't sign up for a sandbox. I signed up for an old school style themepark. That does mean that it has a lot more sandboxy influence than the modern super streamlined travesty of MMOs we see today. But they aren't sandboxes. I want classes, I want quests, I want a certain amount of structure. I just don't want it to be streamlined and game-ified to hell and back. So please stop saying sandbox. Because any expert in the gaming industry would not classify EQ or Pantheon as sandboxes. If you need to call it something then call it a Sandpark or a Themebox.
In my opinion, I wouldn't call EQ a themepark or sandbox either due to the simple fact that when a new character was started, they were given a note to see a class master and then that was all the instruction that was given. The rest was up to you. I feel the newer games that hold your hand and lead you from one quest hub to another represents the themepark nature much better. I'm hoping we can move away from quest hubs and just worlds to explore and grow into.
@OP I also played a couple MUDs that did lots of buffing for both PvE and realm PvP called Darkness Falls and Darkness Falls: The Crusade. Both of these had extensive buffing before heading out into battle or even to preserve a body before attempting to resurrect it. Which was also dependant the person's level in comparison to the person being rezzed.
In regards to spell bars I myself prefer more of a DnD feel to meming spells and not having them all available at once.
Also whoever is looking for an old school MMORPG that is doing a skill based system, they should check out Saga of Lucimia.
To clerify:
- When I'm saying less abilities, I mostly mean this in the sense of every ability you have being useful for something, and not having a lot of abilities that you never ever use because there's never a reason for it. I gave a few arguments for spell ranks (where they basically have niche uses, even when you have mostly moved on to bigger and better spells), and my secondary concern is that if you have too many abilities early on - like at a game's launch - it heavily limits your ability to grow the game or have expansions over time. You simply run out of abilities to add and you have to start getting rid of abiities to reduce "bloat". This is why I _AM_ a fan of environmental/out of combat/limited combat use abilities. I also like the idea of some classes having more direct and streamlined rotations for players that want to play the game but not spend ten years learning to min-max their characters, while also having classes with in-depth rotations for players that really want to min-max and exceed the average output with their expertise.
I'm really fine with all of that, but again, there are a lot of games where there are a lot of abilities and they just aren't useful. At best, they add needless complexity (keep this DoT up and make sure to have 5 stacks of this debuff up at all times or you gimp your own damage), and at worst, they're just a bloated spellbook where you really only use 3-5 of your abilities and the rest are just there for show.
- When I say sandbox, I'm refering to something that isn't themepark. WoW and FF14 (and I love that game, but still) are examples of themepark MMOs. You don't really explore - indeed, when you can't find a quest objective within 5 minutes, it becomes really annoying. The game is designed to get you to the level cap and then run you through instanced dungeons (dungeon finder of some kind or another), and then throw you into raids. All the time between starting a character and going to your first end-game raid is spent walking between ! marks, ? marks, and occasionally a sparkly plume of what can only be magical farts hovering over quest objectives.
Skills and abilities now come to YOU (in both games, you automatically learn new abilities on level up, though FF14 still has some abilities you have to quest for, I don't believe WoW does), and you basically march through the game with your hand held from start to end.
Quest hubs at far flung outposts I'm vaguely okay with, but people should be able to go out to where they want and find those hubs or even quest objectives on their own. You shouldn't have to be on a quest to "collect 20 bear asses" in order to loot "bear asses". If you have them and you happen to find the quest givern wanting them, you can just give him the items and complete it on the spot (FF15 does this, and I find it really amusing - "Why yes, I DO have that rare tomato you're asking me for...what are the odds?")
I don't mean this to mean a pure skill based game - like EVE Online, though I do like games like that, too - so some structure in terms of classes and such can still be a sandboxy game. What sandbox means to me is you're not on rails. It's like playing X-Wing or TIE Fighter vs Rogue Squadron or Star Fox. You have specific missions, specific levels, but in X and TIE, you can fly freely wherever you want, whereas with Rogue Squadron or Star Fox, you're in a "tunnel shooter" where you fly through levels and aim where you shoot, but you don't really get to fly your ship.
What else I mean about themepark is where the abilities are designed to be used in only certain ways and in certain situations. WoW, for example, has removed abilities (like Paladin Divine Intervention) because players figured out how to cheese some boss mechanics. In my mind, a sandbox MMO wouldn't do that. "Oh, our players figured out how to make this encounter easier using a trick? Huh, good on them. We'll just make the bosses able to deal with that in the future. Enjoy your victory, mortals...it will be short lived!" If players come up with creative uses of abilities and skills, a sandbox would let them.
A themepark, on the other hand? "You may only cast Protect on your allied party. You may use an AOE heal in a city, but it only heals your party/raid members. You may cast your AOE damage ability, but it caps at 5 targets. You may kite that big mob, but it will leash 30 feet from its spawn point."
A sandbox would let you buff anyone, anytime, anywhere that you wanted to. An AOE heal in a city would make your screen explode with green numbers. An AOE damage ability would make it explode with red numbers (note, you can have diminishing returns above caps on spells, maybe with some special abilities that "break" this damage cap, but artificial limits are stupid). And if you want to try your luck kiting that elder demon to the capital city...haha, good luck with that, he does spit instant cast fire, you know?
.
I think/feel/hope Pantheon has more in common with sandbox games than with themepark games. If you want to call what I'm talking about a hybrid, you can, but it's semantics. I think the point of what I was asking for was clear, but if it wasn't before, it should be now. :) Sandbox doesn't mean no structure (even EVE has some areas of linear progression), it just means the game isn't run on rails and there aren't a lot of artificial limits placed on players (not NONE, just not a lot).
We typically describe Pantheon and other games like EQ/VG/SWG/Rift/WoW etc. to be themepark games in a sandbox environment as there are rides, entertainment, quests, and paths to follow if you choose to or you can ignore them and do your own thing, within an open world space.
Hey Kilsin. But aren't some more themepark (and less sandbox) than others? WoW for example is rather themepark now, whereas SWGs at one point was significantly more on the sandbox side of the scale. I'm just curious where you guys are aiming for with Pantheon. But it's kinda hard to measure that, I guess, isn't it? Like if 0 is sandbox and 10 is strict linear themepark...but I guess there are so many variables that would go into a measure, it's kinda hard to fit it into a simple scale. :)
I'm just hoping for something a little...less linear and more open/freeform. :)
Renathras said:Hey Kilsin. But aren't some more themepark (and less sandbox) than others? WoW for example is rather themepark now, whereas SWGs at one point was significantly more on the sandbox side of the scale. I'm just curious where you guys are aiming for with Pantheon. But it's kinda hard to measure that, I guess, isn't it? Like if 0 is sandbox and 10 is strict linear themepark...but I guess there are so many variables that would go into a measure, it's kinda hard to fit it into a simple scale. :)
I'm just hoping for something a little...less linear and more open/freeform. :)
It is hard to say as there is no set scale to base it on but I know we are going for a more open approach with fewer quests/rides and more about quality content and allowing the player to choose their own path/adventure without being lead around by the nose with a sparkle trail or "?'s" and "!'s" everywhere but it is difficult to explain without giving things away so I will have to leave you with that small amount of information, unfortunately ;)
I'm all for less raids as long as the other content is compelling. Generally there is always an absolute maximum amount of content you can do in a game, and on a linear scale raiding is at the top of that, so it's naturally where people gravitate after a long content cycle.
I don't like the idea of overdoing sandboxiness because it tends to remove the sense of accomplishment, in my opinion. To an extent, some linear progression is almost intrinsic in the human positive feedback loop. Nicer cars, bigger houses, pay raises, etc. are very common goals. Of course some people are less materialistic than others but I'd be hard pressed to find someone who didn't enjoy moving up a stepping stone as opposed to constantly turning a new leaf.
EQ was about the right balance, to me. EQOA as well, and Vanguard less so. Vanguard was just a pinch too linear, although that didn't generally become a thing until KDQ. The early game experience in Vanguard was comparable to EQ honestly, at least in terms of content diversity. I really wished we could have seen a lot of those unfinished areas fleshed out. Anyone who played EQ knew that killing things in LGuk was quite a few stepping stones above UGuk. However, the same level ranges could be satisfied by other similarly leveled content as well which gave a feeling of sandboxy diversity but preserved the sense of progression.
That isn't a knock against horizontal progression necessarily, though. It is a valid method of making content as long as it isn't overdone. On an 0-10 themepark-sandbox scale, I think 3-4 is a good place to be, although what that constitutes is highly subjective.