I will just throw an idea out there that this made me think of. I wonder if something could be built into the lore such that as corruption is gained, then the more people who are in the vicinity, the greater the chance that a god appears and wipes everyone.
I guess that would make atheism a meta build.
1
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
All these additional mechanics suggestions look like a trend to not have the community decide the rules of fair play and exercise justice but the dev`s to provide mechanics to control it..
...from sandbox to themepark to sandbox to themepark again.
All these additional mechanics suggestions look like a trend to not have the community decide the rules of fair play and exercise justice but the dev`s to provide mechanics to control it..
...from sandbox to themepark to sandbox to themepark again.
Creating rules for the game isnt what separates a sandbox from a theme park game.
Creating rules for the game isnt what separates a sandbox from a theme park game.
On that note.
I would like to point out that the terms "sandbox" and "theme park" as it relates to games has not set definitions. It seems like developers are content to call their games whatever they like.
To make matters extra confusing, Ashes is calling itself a "sand-park". Which I don't think is very helpful to anyone, considering how very few theme park elements are present in Ashes. It just gives people who have not looked at all of the systems in the game a false hope that the game might play somewhat like WOW or FFXIV.
Which is part of the reason behind this thread. I was hoping more people would be explaining what they thought Ashes was all about, when they stated why they think the game is or is not for them.
To make matters extra confusing, Ashes is calling itself a "sand-park".
What?
Intrepid using pointless marketing terms to describe this game?
Thus is a PvX, sand-park, hybrid combat MMO.
That should tell you everything you need to know about the game!
Yep, that is all they have ever told us. They have never gone into any detail on any of their systems or design philosophies.
I guess you think when they describe the game they should never use any generic terms and spend 10 minutes explaining every feature and system.
You are being silly.
Ok.
How have Intrepid defined PvX?
How have Intrepid defined sand-park?
I'd like a definition solid enough for there to not be any misconceptions left, please.
Sure, hybrid combat they have talked a bit about, but we still have dozens of posters on these forums that are expecting an all action combat system - because Intrepids definition is not nailed down (perhaps because the combat system is not nailed down, but just because there is a reason for something, doesn't mean we can't laugh at it).
0
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
To make matters extra confusing, Ashes is calling itself a "sand-park".
What?
Intrepid using pointless marketing terms to describe this game?
Thus is a PvX, sand-park, hybrid combat MMO.
That should tell you everything you need to know about the game!
Yep, that is all they have ever told us. They have never gone into any detail on any of their systems or design philosophies.
I guess you think when they describe the game they should never use any generic terms and spend 10 minutes explaining every feature and system.
You are being silly.
Ok.
How have Intrepid defined PvX?
How have Intrepid defined sand-park?
I'd like a definition solid enough for there to not be any misconceptions left, please.
Sure, hybrid combat they have talked a bit about, but we still have dozens of posters on these forums that are expecting an all action combat system - because Intrepids definition is not nailed down (perhaps because the combat system is not nailed down, but just because there is a reason for something, doesn't mean we can't laugh at it).
You are complaining about generic terms but seem to want them to use more generic terms to explain the terms they use.
They have explained most of their systems. While some of the details are not there, we know alot.
I guess i think it's weird because they have told us a lot. I'd understand making fun of making use of those terms if that is all they have said but it's not. It's like you are looking past everything they have told us and focusing on a few things they have said.
PvE, PvP, Sandbox and Themepark are generic terms.
PvX and sand-park are not.
I mean, all you need to do in order to see the confusion among players is look at this thread and the wide variety of people that think the game is definitely aimed directly at them (there is no way any one game can have both Dygz and George as their target player, as an example).
This thread wouldn't exist if that information was obvious or clear.
Intrepid have told us a lot - but a lot of what they have told us is meaningless in terms of understanding who the game is actually for.
Well its obvious and clear to me, but some people have specific questions that can't or haven't been answered yet so its understandable they're still on the fence.
But the people that know, know. Like hard-core know
I mean sure there's going to be people on the fringes that fall off because this system or that system or this feature doesn't turn out to be what they had in mind. But the general idea of the game is pretty laid out to me. So I know. It would take a radical deviation from the vision laid out for me to fall off.
It would take a radical deviation from the vision laid out for me to fall off.
This has happened before.
Look at raid content. There were early comments about how they would like to try and compete directly with WoW in terms of raiding.
Now, maybe it is further along in the games development, and things are more set in stone making such changes less and less likely - but then maybe not, as well.
Thats one of those unanswered questions. Realistically I know its going to be very hard to compete with wow raiding. If they can pull it off thatd be great. But I'm in with the overall vision regardless. Games going to have far better content than wow even if its raiding isn't as good.
Maybe they will come up with something innovative to allow to open world raids to compete with WoW raids.
Can't happen.
The key thing with open world raids is that there is a limited number of them (usually 1 per week). As such, it is content that can support a good raid game - but it can't be the core content of a game that want's to be competitive with other games in terms of raids.
Some people have suggested that Intrepid could just have more than one spawn per week for encounters, but all that is doing is allowing individual guilds to gear up faster.
I know I'm super fucking late to the convo, but figured I'd throw this together:
I am not the target audience, but I have an interest in becoming one...if that makes sense?
I was/am (on break lul) a mythic raider in WoW. I've either get CE or clear most of the tier on mythic. I've gotten multiple rank 1 parses for Mistweaver monk (Healer parses are a mega meme tho XD, not really indicative of skill) and I consider myself to be a hardcore raider...when I don't get bored and quit...WoW burnout is real nowadays.
Every time a new WoW expac comes out, I get a flood of hype: "Im going to level up my professions this time, I am going to get high rated in PvP, I want to explore every zone and collect the mounts." But it just fizzles out so quickly since WoW's other content is boring to me. But I want, I really do, to be interested in professions, exploration, world pvp (I really love the idea of small-scale skirmishes 5-15 players off to the side of large scale battles). I wanna collect mounts, design a house, hell even RP for the fuck of it maybe.
I get Ashes does not and might not ever have substantial end-game raiding content. But Ashes looks to be the game to finally hook me into all the other content that I've kinda wanted to get into.
(Side note: If Ashes does really well, I would love to see a patch where Intrepid throws in a like, 4 boss instanced raid to see how it goes. But of course, that's just my bias :P )
Your post is exactly why I made this thread. I can tell we are slightly different MMORPG players, but not different enough that we don't have common ground.
Ashes having a focus on open world PvX means that crafting and the economy will always be relevant. So if crafting is something you want, it will always be meaningful in Ashes. The reason why nothing is bound in Ashes and gear needs materials to repair is to keep the never-ending conflict meaningful. Wars are not just fought over slight upgrades, but the supplies needed to even stay in the fight.
I think if you got mixed up with a good guild that was progressing and the guilds problems became your problems. You would be so focused on everything you need to do to make yourself and your guild more powerful. That you would not care about having a mount collection or exploring every zone. You would be too busy crushing it with an actual team of humans to care about end-games the way FFXIV and WOW have them. Things like instanced raids would not matter because your guilds dealings would be too important.
It really does feel like I am the man from Plato's allegory explaining things like trees and the sky to people who have only seen shadows on the cave wall. I am not trying to sound like an elitist or anything. I just truly struggle to find the words to convey how good real competitive open world games MMORPGs can be.
I get Ashes does not and might not ever have substantial end-game raiding content. But Ashes looks to be the game to finally hook me into all the other content that I've kinda wanted to get into.
(Side note: If Ashes does really well, I would love to see a patch where Intrepid throws in a like, 4 boss instanced raid to see how it goes. But of course, that's just my bias :P )
The idea that end-game is the focus, that the ''real fun'' is the end game, is a great part of what made mmo-rpgs so stagnant and... honeslty, garbage these last years.
Leveling can be the most fun part of the game if doen right.
WoW Vanilla proved it.
WoW classic proved it again.
When leveling isn't fun and people are paying to skip it... it's because you as a developer made a trash job at designing it.
The idea that end-game is the focus, that the ''real fun'' is the end game, is a great part of what made mmo-rpgs so stagnant and... honeslty, garbage these last years.
I would say that what has done this are developers not pushing out enough quality end game content.
There is nothing at all wrong with a game with an end game focus - unless the game doesn't have the end game content to support it.
You even basically prove this point by saying that leveling can be the most fun part of the game if done right.
If done right.
If end game is done right, it is the most fun part of the game, but both leveling and end game are shit if they are not done right.
There is nothing at all wrong with a game with an end game focus - unless the game doesn't have the end game content to support it.
Depends what you mean with focus.
If you mean that there is where the replayability is and since replayability is the most important part of a game the end game is the most important, then we agree.
If end game is done right, it is the most fun part of the game,
We're going in the realm of the subjective here.
Arguably the end game is going to be more stale than leveling, which for many excludes it as being the most fun part.
Its also a subjective status because leveling is usually the honeymoon you have with a game so there's that too, to consider (although it often goes well into the post max-level period).
Either way, my point was that ignoring leveling was a huge mistake done by modern mmo-rpgs.
Absolutely, I think you worded it exactly right. I feel like AoC has the opportunity to provide solid content that will wrap me up in it and have me enjoy, especially with a solid guild/group of friends.
It really does feel like I am the man from Plato's allegory explaining things like trees and the sky to people who have only seen shadows on the cave wall. I am not trying to sound like an elitist or anything. I just truly struggle to find the words to convey how good real competitive open-world games MMORPGs can be.
No worries, you're not sounding elitist. I feel like it just sounds like you are a huge fan of this type of MMO style and you want others to get to experience something you really enjoy as well. At least, that's how I took it XD.
I def think I could have lots of fun even without a heavy PvE scene. Although I am thinking of adding a thread trying to see how people would like some bits of end game PvE implemented if it were to be added (I think it's going to be a lot of "what-ifs" and hypothetical situations though haha, as obv we stated, PvE would be a lot lower on the priority list of development concerns).
1
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
PvE, PvP, Sandbox and Themepark are generic terms.
PvX and sand-park are not.
I mean, all you need to do in order to see the confusion among players is look at this thread and the wide variety of people that think the game is definitely aimed directly at them (there is no way any one game can have both Dygz and George as their target player, as an example).
This thread wouldn't exist if that information was obvious or clear.
Intrepid have told us a lot - but a lot of what they have told us is meaningless in terms of understanding who the game is actually for.
How is PvX and sandpark not generic terms if those others are?
If PvP and PvE are generic, then i don't know how PvPvE aka PvX is not. Same thing with sandpark, if themepark and sandbox are generic, then how is sandpark, a genre that exists between those two extremes not also a generic descriptor.
Once again, they have also told you more than just PvX and Sandpark.
It's like you going to a mechanic, the mechanic saying "There was a leak" and then going on to explain the details of the leak, explaining exactly where it is. Afterwards, you go to your buddies and start mocking the mechanic for saying there was a leak because of how generic the phrase is, completely ignoring the details they told you afterwards.
Ashes has a lot of features. I don't think it's crazy to think there are people who might like some and not others. Dygz is here because despite the features he doesn't like, there are other aspects of the game he likes.
I'm pretty sure the info is clear. If there is an issue, it's that people don't have experience with the systems they are implementing. To even start to understand how the game is played you have to factor in how the systems play off each other.
So you want them to use more generic terms to define the audience of the game? That is kind of silly and comes across as some weird way to gatekeep. As i said when talking about dygz, there are many features in the game. People might like some while not liking others. At the end of the day, just let people play the game. If they like it, cool, if not, also cool.
Some quick reality checking to make sure everyone is on the same page:
"The developers anticipate max level should be attainable in approximately 45 days if you play roughly 4-6 hours per day"
Napkin math puts that at 225 hours of play time to hit max level. If dedicated players are going to be putting in 1000 hours of playtime, that's around 1/4th of their experience. If dedicated players are going to be putting in 10,000+ hours of playtime, that's ~1/40th of their experience.
How is PvX and sandpark not generic terms if those others are?
Define them.
I'm pretty sure i did.
When it comes to PvX, It's either PvPvE or player vs anything. I'm not sure what more you want. If PvE means player verse environment and pvp means player vs player, how is it hard to understand pvx is player vs both environment and player.
While i agree sandpark is a little weirder and is more of a term we use because of people's bias for both sandbox and themepark games but i also don't see it as being a hard thing to understand if you can define the two others. Sandbox is a game focused on player freedom and agency, you are free to do what you want. Themepark is focused on curated content i.e. linear questing and progression. A Sandpark is a game that has elements of both, usually using themepark elements to get players into the game and then give them the freedom of the sandbox.
Archeage is a sandpark if you want an example, at least thats what the devs were trying to make.
How is PvX and sandpark not generic terms if those others are?
Define them.
I'm pretty sure i did.
You didn't - though at least now you have tried.
When it comes to PvX, It's either PvPvE or player vs anything. I'm not sure what more you want. If PvE means player verse environment and pvp means player vs player, how is it hard to understand pvx is player vs both environment and player.
This definition would have every online game I have ever played be considered a PvX game.
A game with both an arena and a raid is a PvX game by the above.
If Intrepid wanted Ashes to be a PvPvE game, why did they not use that instead of PvX? PvPvE is a term that a few games have used - including ESO. PvX is simply a way to try and distance Ashes from those games - which then forces us to have to ask what exactly is it about those games that Ashes is trying to do differently in order to need to create that distance?
We don't know, because we have no real idea what Intrepid mean by PvX - so we can't compare that to games that are PvPvE that Intrepid is trying to create that space between.
Perhaps someone should ask Steven what the difference between PvX and PvPvE is - and if nothing, why he didn't just stick with a term that has been in use for years and is somewhat understood.
While i agree sandpark is a little weirder and is more of a term we use because of people's bias for both sandbox and themepark games but i also don't see it as being a hard thing to understand if you can define the two others. Sandbox is a game focused on player freedom and agency, basically go do what you want. Themepark is focused on curated content i.e. linear questing and progression. A Sandpark is a game that has elements of both, usually using themepark elements to get players into the game and then give them the freedom of the sandbox.
Archeage is a sandpark if you want an example, at least thats what the devs were trying to make.
I'm aware that Archeage attempted to call itself a sandpark game, but it did an equally bad job of defining what that was.
The game had an incredibly linear leveling progression, and had a single path to gear once you hit the level cap - and no real content other than getting that gear. In their case, "sandpark" became little more than a marketing term to explain why they never spent any development time on new content (that game received less new content in 4 years than EQ2 received yearly - over a decade after release).
Thing is, I have also seen other games (EQN, specifically) that called themselves a sandpark that basically had a plan of building a complete sandbox game, and then adding full themepark content to it. This is vastly different to what Archeage did (or tried to do, or claimed to have done), and was what Steven made it seem like Intrepid was aiming for with Ashes back in 2017 - 2019.
This is why these terms are not good terms to use. They are not defined in any way, shape or form.
Comments
I guess that would make atheism a meta build.
...from sandbox to themepark to sandbox to themepark again.
Creating rules for the game isnt what separates a sandbox from a theme park game.
On that note.
I would like to point out that the terms "sandbox" and "theme park" as it relates to games has not set definitions. It seems like developers are content to call their games whatever they like.
To make matters extra confusing, Ashes is calling itself a "sand-park". Which I don't think is very helpful to anyone, considering how very few theme park elements are present in Ashes. It just gives people who have not looked at all of the systems in the game a false hope that the game might play somewhat like WOW or FFXIV.
Which is part of the reason behind this thread. I was hoping more people would be explaining what they thought Ashes was all about, when they stated why they think the game is or is not for them.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
What?
Intrepid using pointless marketing terms to describe this game?
Thus is a PvX, sand-park, hybrid combat MMO.
That should tell you everything you need to know about the game!
Seeing this...
It really is no mystery at all to me that there are so many denominations of a single religion from one book...
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
Yep, that is all they have ever told us. They have never gone into any detail on any of their systems or design philosophies.
I guess you think when they describe the game they should never use any generic terms and spend 10 minutes explaining every feature and system.
You are being silly.
Ok.
How have Intrepid defined PvX?
How have Intrepid defined sand-park?
I'd like a definition solid enough for there to not be any misconceptions left, please.
Sure, hybrid combat they have talked a bit about, but we still have dozens of posters on these forums that are expecting an all action combat system - because Intrepids definition is not nailed down (perhaps because the combat system is not nailed down, but just because there is a reason for something, doesn't mean we can't laugh at it).
You are complaining about generic terms but seem to want them to use more generic terms to explain the terms they use.
They have explained most of their systems. While some of the details are not there, we know alot.
I guess i think it's weird because they have told us a lot. I'd understand making fun of making use of those terms if that is all they have said but it's not. It's like you are looking past everything they have told us and focusing on a few things they have said.
PvX and sand-park are not.
I mean, all you need to do in order to see the confusion among players is look at this thread and the wide variety of people that think the game is definitely aimed directly at them (there is no way any one game can have both Dygz and George as their target player, as an example).
This thread wouldn't exist if that information was obvious or clear.
Intrepid have told us a lot - but a lot of what they have told us is meaningless in terms of understanding who the game is actually for.
But the people that know, know. Like hard-core know
Look at raid content. There were early comments about how they would like to try and compete directly with WoW in terms of raiding.
Now, maybe it is further along in the games development, and things are more set in stone making such changes less and less likely - but then maybe not, as well.
Can't happen.
The key thing with open world raids is that there is a limited number of them (usually 1 per week). As such, it is content that can support a good raid game - but it can't be the core content of a game that want's to be competitive with other games in terms of raids.
Some people have suggested that Intrepid could just have more than one spawn per week for encounters, but all that is doing is allowing individual guilds to gear up faster.
I am not the target audience, but I have an interest in becoming one...if that makes sense?
I was/am (on break lul) a mythic raider in WoW. I've either get CE or clear most of the tier on mythic. I've gotten multiple rank 1 parses for Mistweaver monk (Healer parses are a mega meme tho XD, not really indicative of skill) and I consider myself to be a hardcore raider...when I don't get bored and quit...WoW burnout is real nowadays.
Every time a new WoW expac comes out, I get a flood of hype: "Im going to level up my professions this time, I am going to get high rated in PvP, I want to explore every zone and collect the mounts." But it just fizzles out so quickly since WoW's other content is boring to me. But I want, I really do, to be interested in professions, exploration, world pvp (I really love the idea of small-scale skirmishes 5-15 players off to the side of large scale battles). I wanna collect mounts, design a house, hell even RP for the fuck of it maybe.
I get Ashes does not and might not ever have substantial end-game raiding content. But Ashes looks to be the game to finally hook me into all the other content that I've kinda wanted to get into.
(Side note: If Ashes does really well, I would love to see a patch where Intrepid throws in a like, 4 boss instanced raid to see how it goes. But of course, that's just my bias :P )
Your post is exactly why I made this thread. I can tell we are slightly different MMORPG players, but not different enough that we don't have common ground.
Ashes having a focus on open world PvX means that crafting and the economy will always be relevant. So if crafting is something you want, it will always be meaningful in Ashes. The reason why nothing is bound in Ashes and gear needs materials to repair is to keep the never-ending conflict meaningful. Wars are not just fought over slight upgrades, but the supplies needed to even stay in the fight.
I think if you got mixed up with a good guild that was progressing and the guilds problems became your problems. You would be so focused on everything you need to do to make yourself and your guild more powerful. That you would not care about having a mount collection or exploring every zone. You would be too busy crushing it with an actual team of humans to care about end-games the way FFXIV and WOW have them. Things like instanced raids would not matter because your guilds dealings would be too important.
It really does feel like I am the man from Plato's allegory explaining things like trees and the sky to people who have only seen shadows on the cave wall. I am not trying to sound like an elitist or anything. I just truly struggle to find the words to convey how good real competitive open world games MMORPGs can be.
I hope this reply is helpful in some way.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
The idea that end-game is the focus, that the ''real fun'' is the end game, is a great part of what made mmo-rpgs so stagnant and... honeslty, garbage these last years.
Leveling can be the most fun part of the game if doen right.
WoW Vanilla proved it.
WoW classic proved it again.
When leveling isn't fun and people are paying to skip it... it's because you as a developer made a trash job at designing it.
There is nothing at all wrong with a game with an end game focus - unless the game doesn't have the end game content to support it.
You even basically prove this point by saying that leveling can be the most fun part of the game if done right.
If done right.
If end game is done right, it is the most fun part of the game, but both leveling and end game are shit if they are not done right.
Depends what you mean with focus.
If you mean that there is where the replayability is and since replayability is the most important part of a game the end game is the most important, then we agree.
We're going in the realm of the subjective here.
Arguably the end game is going to be more stale than leveling, which for many excludes it as being the most fun part.
Its also a subjective status because leveling is usually the honeymoon you have with a game so there's that too, to consider (although it often goes well into the post max-level period).
Either way, my point was that ignoring leveling was a huge mistake done by modern mmo-rpgs.
It appears like AoC won't do that.
Here's hoping.
That is subjective, 100%.
All I did was point out that the best part of a game is the part of the game that is made the best.
Absolutely, I think you worded it exactly right. I feel like AoC has the opportunity to provide solid content that will wrap me up in it and have me enjoy, especially with a solid guild/group of friends.
No worries, you're not sounding elitist. I feel like it just sounds like you are a huge fan of this type of MMO style and you want others to get to experience something you really enjoy as well. At least, that's how I took it XD.
I def think I could have lots of fun even without a heavy PvE scene. Although I am thinking of adding a thread trying to see how people would like some bits of end game PvE implemented if it were to be added (I think it's going to be a lot of "what-ifs" and hypothetical situations though haha, as obv we stated, PvE would be a lot lower on the priority list of development concerns).
How is PvX and sandpark not generic terms if those others are?
If PvP and PvE are generic, then i don't know how PvPvE aka PvX is not. Same thing with sandpark, if themepark and sandbox are generic, then how is sandpark, a genre that exists between those two extremes not also a generic descriptor.
Once again, they have also told you more than just PvX and Sandpark.
It's like you going to a mechanic, the mechanic saying "There was a leak" and then going on to explain the details of the leak, explaining exactly where it is. Afterwards, you go to your buddies and start mocking the mechanic for saying there was a leak because of how generic the phrase is, completely ignoring the details they told you afterwards.
Ashes has a lot of features. I don't think it's crazy to think there are people who might like some and not others. Dygz is here because despite the features he doesn't like, there are other aspects of the game he likes.
I'm pretty sure the info is clear. If there is an issue, it's that people don't have experience with the systems they are implementing. To even start to understand how the game is played you have to factor in how the systems play off each other.
So you want them to use more generic terms to define the audience of the game? That is kind of silly and comes across as some weird way to gatekeep. As i said when talking about dygz, there are many features in the game. People might like some while not liking others. At the end of the day, just let people play the game. If they like it, cool, if not, also cool.
"The developers anticipate max level should be attainable in approximately 45 days if you play roughly 4-6 hours per day"
Napkin math puts that at 225 hours of play time to hit max level. If dedicated players are going to be putting in 1000 hours of playtime, that's around 1/4th of their experience. If dedicated players are going to be putting in 10,000+ hours of playtime, that's ~1/40th of their experience.
You can't say that for sure. That's what would make it innovative, after all.
Define them.
I'm pretty sure i did.
When it comes to PvX, It's either PvPvE or player vs anything. I'm not sure what more you want. If PvE means player verse environment and pvp means player vs player, how is it hard to understand pvx is player vs both environment and player.
While i agree sandpark is a little weirder and is more of a term we use because of people's bias for both sandbox and themepark games but i also don't see it as being a hard thing to understand if you can define the two others. Sandbox is a game focused on player freedom and agency, you are free to do what you want. Themepark is focused on curated content i.e. linear questing and progression. A Sandpark is a game that has elements of both, usually using themepark elements to get players into the game and then give them the freedom of the sandbox.
Archeage is a sandpark if you want an example, at least thats what the devs were trying to make.
A game with both an arena and a raid is a PvX game by the above.
If Intrepid wanted Ashes to be a PvPvE game, why did they not use that instead of PvX? PvPvE is a term that a few games have used - including ESO. PvX is simply a way to try and distance Ashes from those games - which then forces us to have to ask what exactly is it about those games that Ashes is trying to do differently in order to need to create that distance?
We don't know, because we have no real idea what Intrepid mean by PvX - so we can't compare that to games that are PvPvE that Intrepid is trying to create that space between.
Perhaps someone should ask Steven what the difference between PvX and PvPvE is - and if nothing, why he didn't just stick with a term that has been in use for years and is somewhat understood. I'm aware that Archeage attempted to call itself a sandpark game, but it did an equally bad job of defining what that was.
The game had an incredibly linear leveling progression, and had a single path to gear once you hit the level cap - and no real content other than getting that gear. In their case, "sandpark" became little more than a marketing term to explain why they never spent any development time on new content (that game received less new content in 4 years than EQ2 received yearly - over a decade after release).
Thing is, I have also seen other games (EQN, specifically) that called themselves a sandpark that basically had a plan of building a complete sandbox game, and then adding full themepark content to it. This is vastly different to what Archeage did (or tried to do, or claimed to have done), and was what Steven made it seem like Intrepid was aiming for with Ashes back in 2017 - 2019.
This is why these terms are not good terms to use. They are not defined in any way, shape or form.