EVE General Discussion

Wat

There is no structured and developer created content you must do to progress. Granted you could argue that running missions would be the closest non-sandbox content in game....especially that tutorial storyline, however tutorial doesn't count.

Restricting ships and skill base isn't a non sandbox feature.

A game doesn't have to be "garrys mod" just a bunch of crap with a blank field to be a sandbox.

It just needs to lack some linear or non linear structured content where the developers guide and determine your gameplay experience. Eve has that, its nothing but that. Just a bunch of content that you can choose to participate in.

Having progression isn't restricting the sandbox, especially when you have so many options as to how a ship is used, what ship is used, and what content that ship is participating in.

A thread like this is just as bad as all those Arche Age threads saying how that game is a sandbox because you can grow crap. Doesn't make sense and doesn't fit the bill.

Sandbox is a foundation on which a game is built upon. You can do garrys mod style and just throw in some props and say go at it, or do it like eve and place on that foundation activities and content....so long as that content is structured in a manner that forces you to participate in it to get to the good stuff...so to speak...

If this game had XP for kills as the means to progress you could make a stronger argument that you need to play certain content to access other content, however, all you need to do is subscribe for a while to access all the games content, you don't even have to play.

You raise some valid and interesting points, thank you for that.

Whilst I understand and agree with you that a totally 'blank canvas' with no parameters might make for a more chaotic, free form experience, we're all bound by the parameters that the developers choose to put into place.

Added content can add to the overall experience and in some respects, restriction of choice can 'engineer' outcomes that funnel players towards what the developers envision as a richer, more immersed experience.

Up until recently, I did quite a lot of mining and in my own mundane way enjoyed the limited logistical challenges of running a mini mining fleet with the aid of key broadcasting. CCP have decided to clarify on their interpretation of the EULA and implicitly state that key broadcasting will no longer be allowed. (I don't feel the need to discuss the reasoning behind CCP's decision to do so, it's just a clarification of certain parameters that were perhaps previously a little 'cloudy'.)

This has caused me to 'disband' my fleet and try different things within the game. A lot of people would say that this is a positive outcome as it funnels me towards a more diverse experience and I don't disagree with that in the broad principle.

Any time that the parameters are changed though, the confines of the sandbox element (that is cited as being one of the major plus points of Eve) are also changed.

That's the motive behind my original question.

Perhaps I wasn't very clear in phrasing it, so perhaps it might be helpful if I try to rephrase it in more expansive terms.

Game developers change the confines of the sandbox when they place (or alter) restrictions and this can channel players towards play styles/activities/outcomes that the developers envision. Whilst the developers might have a clear vision of what constitutes an immersive/rewarding experience, this might not fit in with the viewpoint of some players who might have a different vision of what constitutes an imersive/rewarding experience. Is this constant shifting of the goalposts in an attempt to channel players towards the developers' visions restricting players choices and having a detrimental effect on the sandbox element of the game, which CCP themselves are rightly proud of?

I hope this makes my intent behind the original post a little clearer.

Thanks for your input.

Regarding the ISboxed thing you refer to, it seems to me like CCP isn't changing WHAT you can do, only HOW. You can still run your mining fleet, you'll just have to manually click more. I don't see that your freedom within the sandbox has been restricted any.

There are no CCP-provided goalposts to begin with, so they cannot have been moved.

I've already made my views on that and how it affected me personally. CCP were kind enough to offer me a solution that meant I didn't 'lose out' financially due to their clarification, something for which I'm grateful.

I wasn't attempting to go over old ground with it and have no axe to grind over it, I was merely using it as an example of how changes can steer people in different directions. As you correctly say, it wasn't exactly a change. It was more of a clarification of policy but it still had the effect of changing the play styles of some people.

Although CCP give us glimpses of their long term strategies and visions for the future of the game, I don't feel we're privvy to some of their long term goals. We can speculate or try to make educated guesses (I'm more in the speculation camp than the educated camp) but I find myself wondering if we're being steered, what we're actually being steered towards, if you follow my drift.

If the parameters of the game are being subtly altered on an ongoing basis, is it being done with a specific purpose in mind that will result in a reduction of choice in order to make the game fit in with the developers' long term visions?

your words. they say nothing

ha. nice edit, but I meant the first time you typed 500 words with no substance https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5344495#post5344495

and you did it again in the post above this one. what was it I was supposed to hear, can you simplify it please. I can't hear something if I can't make sense of it in the first place. just give me the main points, and I'll refer back to your posts for the supporting reasons. thing is i'm not sure even you know what you were talking about.

I suppose CCP generally wants to steer activities towards conflict.

But player choice has only increased over the years in my view. Miners used to have a straight linear progression, now ship choice is more open ended. Freighters as well now have some choice over how their ship performs. T1 frigate lines used to have one superior ship per race, worth choosing above all others. Hisec exploration used to = Tengus Online, but they made probing so easy that it is trivial for a noob in a non-bonused ship to find a site. So ship choice and player age range has expanded significantly there. I suppose you could say they did remove some choice by banning T3s from the best sites in hisec. I don't necessarily agree with that change. But combined with easy probing it has created more diversity and activity. Or maybe that counts as adding a choice - use a T3, deal with low/null -or- don't use a T3 and chill in hisec. Likewise the removal of rats and viability of cheap T1 frigates for low/null data/relics has brought more new players out of hisec. They have the choice of the safety and intense competition and low rewards of hisec, or the danger and increased rewards of low/null. Skill levels aren't a hard barrier, and they no longer have to contend with rats, so players have more choice here, and at an earlier point than before. (they also added easier combat sites from hisec into lowsec so new combat explorers or ones who use frigates have a choice between high or low now.)

Being able to make these sorts of choices for your character and choose what activity you want to engage in, at what time, and at which point on the map... these are the things that make a sandbox game. Being able to clone button presses across multiple clients and make your overview pink really has nothing to do with whether or not the game qualifies as a sandbox.

Removing racial attributes, rebalancing ships and skills, T3s, mobile depot, removal of clone costs... Trend seems to be to enable more flexibility.

That new system, Thera or whatever it's called is precisely what he's talking about. Restricted mechanics to get controlled, predictable outcomes. Exactly the opposite of what CCP said they wanted to do.

Brave? Burning hundreds of little ships? Goon swarm when they started?

Yes it is somewhat possible but you can't really rely on it because you can just pipe bomb them away.

ECM isn't very effective because you can't really show effectively who you are jamming to other ECM ships only in your fleet., so the spreads can be good but it is always has a range of random and more so the larger the fleets become.

Then we get to bombers .... can be okay but you need a lot of them or logi just repairs away their damage while they go reload.

Essentially, with a finite number of players and pilots you get funnelled into alpha striking with Tengus or running Ishtars as a runner up.

Perhaps I've missed it then, but what other examples are there of CCP limiting our choices of how we play EVE? UI colors? I totally disagree that has anything to do with gameplay. Thera not allowing anchored bubbles? Consider EVE the sandbox and Thera the newly installed slide - just because you cannot use it as a swing does not mean your playing methods have been restricted or channeled. Newbies unable to fly capital ships? As a newbie who mostly flies cruisers and smaller, I've had some experience with capitals on the test server and the gameplay was remarkably similar. Caps and HACs, for example, can both be used for large scale SOV fights, ratting, missioning, small-gang fights, structure bashing, even transport if you choose, etc.

Again, as far as I can tell, like your ISboxer example nothing CCP has done in the past year restricts WHAT you can do in EVE, just some tweaks on HOW. Only if they did something like remove all NPC rats, remove PI, remove asteroids, remove player corps, remove the market and went 100% NPC sell orders, that sort of thing, would CCP be limiting how we play EVE.