These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Quicksand box?

First post
Author
Kellie Dusette
Division 13
#41 - 2014-12-26 15:54:14 UTC
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
It's an hourglass, the sand that falls out of your box falls right into my box.

Shocked

Lugia3
Lazerhawks
L A Z E R H A W K S
#42 - 2014-12-26 16:00:18 UTC
Rain6637 wrote:
Yes and yes.

The UI is being handled improperly with an emphasis on Form over Function.

The specialization has always been too harsh regarding prerequisites and barrier to entry.

EVE was a solid idea back in 2001, and what you're seeing is an unwillingness / inability to explore away from that.

damn fanboys. if you can't see ways EVE can improve, you shouldn't be talking in threads like this.


Wat

"CCP Dolan is full of shit." - CCP Bettik

Jenshae Chiroptera
#43 - 2014-12-26 17:35:18 UTC
Rain6637 wrote:
The core gameplay fallacy, involving space ships shooting each other. It's directly connected to the problem of why... EVE can't break the ceiling of subscription numbers, at 1/10th, 1/20th, 1/50th of other MMOs. .


Ah. Are you sad that we can't meet up in our Captain's Head quarters? If you really need a snuggle, we could meet in Second Life! P

Joking aside, I don't think requirements are the biggest hurdle to success. Waste of Web for example has what? 90? Levels these days?
I have said it numerous times, I think Waste of Web was so popular because it was the MMO that could run on almost any machine and be played by any idiot. It leads you by the nose, you can cheat your way past the boring stuff and it is a button mashing nuisance.
.... and I tried to like it. Really did; because my one ex played with their RL friends but I had found a better game before it. People kept asking to boost me because they needed a good tank and couldn't understand that I actually wanted to play through the content.

Part of EVE is sitting there with a cheap ship that you scraped off the side of an asteroid, station or gate and sticking some guns onto it with duct tape.
I still have my fail fit frigates and such that survived the early days. I dust them off and fly them time to time to see just how far I have come and give me an indication of how far I will probably keep going.

Sure, you can buy your way forward from the outset but I don't imagine those players stay long. When they find their titan or what ever ship gets nerfed, they will have a whine, then rage quit because they lost their "godmode" and can't keep being super uber.

So, okay. Let's say that EVE dumbs the game down. All you have to do is shoot something, pretty much anything and get ISK because one of the empires likes it and pays you for your "work". There are no requirements on the ships. We all have perfect skills. No need to fit your ships because they come pre-made with the best setup. Just pick up loot for a bonus upgrade to your ship.
Then essentially, you would have a first person shooter without the first person controls.
.... and you would compete directly gainst the titans that already have the market share of the mentally challenged.. Mean while you have lost the player base that like to think a bit and want to feel they achieved something.

At that point, you probably have to shut down your game.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Equinnox Dethahal
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#44 - 2014-12-26 18:40:30 UTC
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.
Vyl Vit
#45 - 2014-12-26 21:07:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Vyl Vit
skandra Kishunuba wrote:
Vyl Vit wrote:
How has this thread not been locked yet? I shall take this opportunity to say:

Your metaphor sucks, just like quicksand. I guess it was difficult to resist - sandbox ... quick...nevermind. It hurt bad enough the first time. Unless of course you consider that quicksand keeps pulling you back in, and in that regard I don't see how that's so hyper-critical an observation, how ever unintentional.

The deeper point this raises is the psychological question having to do with the need to publicly declare one doesn't like something, as if the one declaring amounts to enough for that declaration to be of note. Unfortunately for us all, none of us measure up to that standard where our opinions have become more than just like a-holes (since everybody has one.)

Even so, thanks for sharing whatever it is you thought you shared, OP. It was real, man.


Public 'declarations' become public debate when other parties interact and provide further input.

I see no issue with public debate. Indeed, public debate can sometimes result in positive outcomes, although this often depends on whether those that do engage choose to merely respond with their own public declarations, choose to employ derision as a tool, or maybe even just sit back, say nothing and hope public declarations fades into public apathy and thus, implied public compliance.
You forget one thing: Opinions are like...oh, I said that....You post something on the order of; I like sleeping facing the wall, but this place makes me face the hall. Then - we debate? I think you miss the point of the responses you're getting in one major vein. Say something of significance, maybe that will stir debate. If it doesn't, don't blame us. There.
I mapped it out for you.

Paradise is like where you are right now, only much, much better.

skandra Kishunuba
Have I Got Moos For You
#46 - 2014-12-26 21:25:05 UTC
Equinnox Dethahal wrote:
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.
skandra Kishunuba
Have I Got Moos For You
#47 - 2014-12-26 21:32:30 UTC
Vyl Vit wrote:
skandra Kishunuba wrote:
Vyl Vit wrote:
How has this thread not been locked yet? I shall take this opportunity to say:

Your metaphor sucks, just like quicksand. I guess it was difficult to resist - sandbox ... quick...nevermind. It hurt bad enough the first time. Unless of course you consider that quicksand keeps pulling you back in, and in that regard I don't see how that's so hyper-critical an observation, how ever unintentional.

The deeper point this raises is the psychological question having to do with the need to publicly declare one doesn't like something, as if the one declaring amounts to enough for that declaration to be of note. Unfortunately for us all, none of us measure up to that standard where our opinions have become more than just like a-holes (since everybody has one.)

Even so, thanks for sharing whatever it is you thought you shared, OP. It was real, man.


Public 'declarations' become public debate when other parties interact and provide further input.

I see no issue with public debate. Indeed, public debate can sometimes result in positive outcomes, although this often depends on whether those that do engage choose to merely respond with their own public declarations, choose to employ derision as a tool, or maybe even just sit back, say nothing and hope public declarations fades into public apathy and thus, implied public compliance.
You forget one thing: Opinions are like...oh, I said that....You post something on the order of; I like sleeping facing the wall, but this place makes me face the hall. Then - we debate? I think you miss the point of the responses you're getting in one major vein. Say something of significance, maybe that will stir debate. If it doesn't, don't blame us. There.
I mapped it out for you.


Sure, everyone has an opinion and likes/dislikes.

It would be a dull life if everyone liked the same things and agreed on everything.

I've tried to expand on my original post to try and clarify the question that I was posing.

If folk want to comment on it, ignore it, troll it, whatever, that's their choice.

What you deem to be insignificant might not seem so to someone else, but that's down to personal viewpoints and as I wrote, it'd be dull without individuality in the world.

Thanks for the advice.
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#48 - 2014-12-26 21:50:26 UTC
skandra Kishunuba wrote:
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.

Black Ambulance
#49 - 2014-12-26 22:45:14 UTC
skandra Kishunuba wrote:
I first started playing Eve due to it being recommended to me by a friend.

One of the big selling points was the sandbox element of the game, being free to do a multitude of different things without being hemmed in too far.

Since I started playing, it seems to me that this sandbox element has been gradually eroded by small steps.

Things like tying in ships to particular, specialist roles, thus forcing pilots to be limited in their choice of ships they can fly effectively for a particular role.

Another example is the recent changes made to the UI, where before the changes it was possible to personalise elements of it to make for a more individual experience. Now we're limited to predefined schemes that can't be personalised and the experience is just more generic.

Is the sandbox slowly turning in to a quicksand box where freedom of choice is being stifled?



definition of Eve online's sandbox : CCP play the sandbox and you are paying them to play it. (re-balance of weapons/ships/modules, changes to UI, change to game mechanics etc)
skandra Kishunuba
Have I Got Moos For You
#50 - 2014-12-26 22:53:00 UTC
Eli Stan wrote:


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?
Jenshae Chiroptera
#51 - 2014-12-26 23:05:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
skandra Kishunuba wrote:

You raise some valid and interesting points, thank you for that.
Whilst I understand and agree with you that a totally 'blank canvas' ...

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.


Put an adapted version of that post in the original one in order to curb circular discussions.

The game is constantly being developed. This means it is in flux and the parameters will change. Sometimes the sand box is in a shadow of a building and in other seasons it is hot as hell.

Edit: There are funnels. Some activities have a better profit to risk factor than others. Some ways of trying to get attention and being a brat are easier.

Miners and industrials are essentially designed to be shot and their roles are still important enough in the game to force people to fly them.
As such, I try and remove all the fun from people that exploit that deliberate weakness, that I can.
I only undock for combat when I have an overwhelming force, zero to little chance they will escape. Otherwise, I will do my best to warn everyone well in advance and deny them any kills. I have two computers. I just AFK on one and play on the either while the brats have a tantrum because they were denied the kills they felt entitled to reap. They forget that we all in some way pay or generate a subscription for CCP.
I think CCP forgets that too sometimes.

When I was in high sec and there was a war, we didn't need to disband. I would paint a big target on my back and get the enemy to station camp me. Waste loads and loads of their time, while I played an alt on the other computer. Throw out some comments in local from time to time, let them believe that they had me trapped.

Further edit: You can check my kill board. There should be only two pod kills and that was in vengence for someone they jumped, so check related kills. (Oh! Thinking about it there might be some other pods but that is assisted drones, I didn't pull the trigger on them)
Otherwise, I have not shot miners, pods or industrials. When I go out to PVP I do it knowing I will probably die or I will try find a good fight.

The only time I feel anything, a vindication when we slaugher a group is when it is few pests that have invaded us.

I sometimes feel alone in this.
Does no one else try to buck the trend and keep it civilised? Bit like, "spare the women and children when at war".
Does no one else find it distasteful to take such easy pickings just becase you can?



vv None so deaf as those who do not want to hear. Blink

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Rain6637
Simulacra and Simulation
Goonswarm Federation
#52 - 2014-12-26 23:13:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Rain6637
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
verbal jell-o.

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.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#53 - 2014-12-27 01:21:59 UTC
Rain6637 wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
verbal jell-o.

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.


Innate decency.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Unezka Turigahl
Det Som Engang Var
#54 - 2014-12-27 01:29:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Unezka Turigahl
skandra Kishunuba wrote:

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?


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.
Rain6637
Simulacra and Simulation
Goonswarm Federation
#55 - 2014-12-27 03:52:27 UTC
wouldn't a range of lower skilled ships help with gudfights and the everyone-is-tanky problem
knobber Jobbler
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#56 - 2014-12-27 08:23:09 UTC
Sol Project wrote:
It's not "element of a sandbox". This isn't ArcheAge.


EVE ONLINE symbolises the very definitions of MMO and sandbox.



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.
Sol Project
Shitt Outta Luck - GANKING4GOOD
#57 - 2014-12-27 08:31:53 UTC
knobber Jobbler wrote:
Sol Project wrote:
It's not "element of a sandbox". This isn't ArcheAge.


EVE ONLINE symbolises the very definitions of MMO and sandbox.



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.

Allowing the anchored bubbles and capitals would make it even more predictable.

Ladies of New Eden YC 117 by Indahmawar Fazmarai

Warning: NSFW! Barely legal girls in underwear!

Diana Kim > AND THIS IS WHY THE FEDERATION MUST BE DESTROYED!!

Jenshae Chiroptera
#58 - 2014-12-27 16:17:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Rain6637 wrote:
wouldn't a range of lower skilled ships help with gudfights and the everyone-is-tanky problem


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.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#59 - 2014-12-27 16:23:33 UTC
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them.

The Rules:
5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#60 - 2014-12-27 16:46:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Eli Stan
skandra Kishunuba wrote:
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.


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.