These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

What is "Sandbox gameplay" to you? What do you mean when you say "A sandbox Game"

Author
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#1 - 2012-05-01 17:14:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Antisocial Malkavian
Editted the title to help the Goons and the Test below who couldnt figure out that "'Sandbox' game" didnt mean the literal sandbox but I am not SO mad that I hold illusions it will truly matter to them.

Im seeing the argument all over the "why is CCP supporting Burn Jita" https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=102842&find=unread and I think the Sandbox argument needs to be hashed out on its own, maybe for the better of the ppl that dont understand WHY CCP WANTS a game of this type and maybe be educated on what the term means if we are wrong.

"Sandbox" games to me are games where there are no goals set into the game itself other than to play the game or survive. My favorite example of this being Minecraft, where there is no point to the game if you cant have an imagination and cant bring yourself to build things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbox_game

Quote:
An open world is a type of video game level design where a player can roam freely through a virtual world and is given considerable freedom in choosing how or when to approach objectives... The term is sometimes used interchangeably with "sandbox" and "free-roaming" however, the terms open world and free-roaming describe the game environment itself and allude more to the absence of artificial barriers, in contrast to the invisible walls and loading screens that are common in linear level designs.


The following is what Ive always thought to be the best description of a sandbox game:

Quote:
The term sandbox refers more to the mechanics of a game and how, as in a physical sandbox, the user is entertained by his ability to play creatively and with there being "no right way" of playing the game.


What does the term mean to you in how you play the game? Please TRY (I realize its EVE-O and im showing my Malkavian side even asking) to be civil to each other and refrain from trolling each other's answers, thanks and have fun!

And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit.

Lucas Schuyler
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2 - 2012-05-01 17:21:12 UTC
Well, Eve already meets the criteria for all the definitions you posted, so I am not sure exactly what you are looking for here.

It is a sandbox because there is no linear progression, no structured play, etc. You sign into the game and it basically says "Here is a Frigate, here are some things you can do, now go entertain yourself."

However, to wax philosophical, I guess to me a Sandbox game is merely one where the players, collectively and individually, define the play experience, within the loose framework of the game's mechanics and systems.
XIRUSPHERE
In Bacon We Trust
#3 - 2012-05-01 17:26:34 UTC
One that doesn't mind me kicking sand into the face of some guy who just got done building his castle.

The advantage of a bad memory is that one can enjoy the same good things for the first time several times.

One will rarely err if extreme actions be ascribed to vanity, ordinary actions to habit, and mean actions to fear.

Diomedes Calypso
Aetolian Armada
#4 - 2012-05-01 17:27:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Diomedes Calypso
Is this an argument on semantics ? what the word Sandbox means as if there is a definitive definition for it ?

Or is it a discussion (vs an argument) of what different players would _like_ to have in a game they play ?


I would start the conversation in saying that EVE is not Only a Sandbox but a Sandbox of a persistant virtual world shaped by the player inhabitants.


If you don't buy into that definition that being a "Sandbox" isn't the limit of the goal of a player shaped world, there isn't much reason in going farther.

Not all sandboxes must be equal.. what type of sandbox do we want and what rules do we want.

Certainly I expect this to be a sanbox where stomping on each others sand castles and throwing sand is an expected part of the boys will be boys fun . If I wanted a placid, "no horsing around" sandbox I'd look elsewhere.



edit:

I'd also add that if you create a big sand box designed for large numbers of boys to run around and buld forts together in loose teams to go in groups to stomp on other guys sand castles and storm their forts and trhow sand balls at each other, it would could be a real hoot, but it would take away from it greatly if they suddenly had to restrain themselves from boys trying to play quietly in a portion of the grand mele grounds. When a boy that just stomped on anothers sand castle ran over to the quet area to catch his breath "in saftey" and to build some sand balls to bring back into battle it would definitely change the dynamics. If the "play quietly boy" was building sand balls and supplying them to combatants who'd take them out of the quiet area to throw at the combantants, that "quiet boy" is actually participating materially in the grand melee whether he knows it or not and shouldn't go crying when people find where he's hiding building weapons and gets a bucket of sand poured on his head.

You could of course create sandboxes with rules limmiting fighting...but people came here expecting a racaus fight and dampening the rules would change the unique thing they came to enjoy. We've come to a sand fighting beach on purpose.. maybe searched high and low for the only sand fighting beach around and yeah, we'd resent if some people came over and demanded it have rules like the other beaches so we couldn't have the fun we were looking for.

.

Riley Moore
Sentinum Research
#5 - 2012-05-01 17:28:17 UTC

A game infested with vag-inas full of sand.

Large volumes of highly researched Ammo, drones, charges and ship bpo's. Biggest BPO store in EVE! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=445524#post445524

Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#6 - 2012-05-01 18:47:18 UTC
Lucas Schuyler wrote:
Well, Eve already meets the criteria for all the definitions you posted, so I am not sure exactly what you are looking for here.

It is a sandbox because there is no linear progression, no structured play, etc. You sign into the game and it basically says "Here is a Frigate, here are some things you can do, now go entertain yourself."

However, to wax philosophical, I guess to me a Sandbox game is merely one where the players, collectively and individually, define the play experience, within the loose framework of the game's mechanics and systems.


Ill help

Ranger 1 wrote:
Or to put it in even more basic terms.

A "Sandbox" doesn't mean you can do what you want.

A "Sandbox" means you can TRY to do what you want, but there are no guarantees.

If what you want to do in the sandbox conficts with what another player wants to do, it's up to you to try and prevail.

The sandbox won't sort the issue out for you.


One defintion

Quote:
Xython wrote:
A few reasons why they support it.

1. EVE is a Sandbox. That means there is no official rule requiring people to play nice or even be civil to each other. CCP has upheld this belief through thick and thin, albeit with some recent missteps (the 180 on the Boomarang tactic, for example). Simply put, they don't really "support" it per say, they support the rule framework and the culture of the Sandbox that allows us to do it if we want.

2. EVE is unique amongst the MMOs because it is a Sandbox. It is literally it's biggest selling point. No other MMO comes even close to offering what EVE offers -- and stories like this are perfect examples that CCP can point to and go "You can't get that experience in WOW."

3. The EVE Economy is absolutely ******. Years of RMT, of Botting, of "free" minerals have done an absolute number on the economy. While CCP would never directly intervene, they certainly welcome player self correction. Goons attacked the Gallente Ice fields not because it would **** off highsec kids -- well, not entirely so -- but because our logistics guys looked at the economy as a whole and realized that the entire economy is based on a few hundred people cheating using ice bot accounts. That's ****** up, and you don't have to be a Goon to agree. Ice needs to be moved to lowsec or even Nullsec, and moved fast.

4. The risk/reward balance between Highsec and Nullsec is even more ******. Hulkageddon, the Ice Interdiction, Burn Jita, these are all symptoms of a bigger disease -- the death of the PVP Ecosystem in Nullsec. This is going to be hard for some Highsec players to understand, but there are Nullsec players who do enjoy Mining, Crafting, and other Logistics roles. Hell, The Mittani originally was a miner. The problem is, with botters and other cheaters, as well as the flood of "Nullsec Minerals" coming from other sources (Drone Poo, Refining, etc) there was literally no reason to ever mine in Nullsec. It just didn't make any sense at all in comparison to mining in Highsec, even with the minerals being slightly less valuable.

5. EVE is, at it's heart, a PVP game. Everything in EVE is a zero sum game, save some Isk Faucets that CCP are desperately trying to plug. Everything you do in EVE is either working with (in temporary partnership) or working against other players. Crafting, Mining, Market Shinanigans, even if you never fit a gun to your ship, you are PVPing.

7. Highsec players feel they are too safe. Simply put, there are those out there who read the warnings and thought that they were bunk, because Jita's a "safe" system. They were wrong. If you want to be safe in EVE -- fit a tank. Get a friend to fly a combat ship or a logi ship with shield reps to keep you safe. Don't just think you can streak naked across the Jita sky carrying a huge sack of money and holding a sign saying "Bite me, Goonies" and not expect to be mugged.

8. If you fell prey to the Goons in Burn Jita, you deserved it. CCP (and Goons!) literally did everything they could to warn people not to fly big ships in Jita. We announced it a month ahead of time. There were hundreds of threads premptively complaining about it before we even began. And CCP put a warning up on the freaking login screen, which bent the spirit of the Sandbox. Simply put, if you did get ganked, you had no excuse. EVE is a multiplayer game, and ignoring the entirety of the playerbase outside of spreadsheets is not the spirit of any MMO.


Another (not the same) definition

hmmm not enough characters more...

And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit.

Alhezhar Alabyd al-Mu'minin
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#7 - 2012-05-01 18:47:50 UTC
Something to pass the time until Diablo 3 goes live Twisted
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#8 - 2012-05-01 18:48:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Antisocial Malkavian
Asuri Kinnes wrote:

You do know, right, that Security Status of systems and pilots, aggression mechanics (and Hi/Low/Null) were added? That "in the beginning" there was only mining and shooting each other? There may have been belt rats (I'm pretty sure there were - but not 100% - older players will have to correct me on that if I'm wrong).

But there was *no* "hi-sec".

CCP have added them over the years to accommodate a larger player base - but CCP is fully aware that other players *CAN* block you from doing x, y or z activity and have actually coded that specifically into the game.

CCP *added* an 11% corp tax to the NPC corps to encourage players to not congregate there, but instead encourage those who it bothered, to leave those corps and either join existing corps, or form their own (and I would LOVE to see the numbers on that, as I don't believe it produced the intended results...)

CCP recently buffed Destroyers (pretty much across the board), even though those same ships are *VERY* popular with "gankers" because of the high return on DPS/ISK spent - were you aware of that?

So really, CCP is fully aware of the game mechanics, and have pretty much specifically made a game, wherein we can be interfered with, or interfere with others. In effect saying to each and every player (not specifically saying, but rather saying with the actual structure of the game):

"Yes, this *is* a pvp game, as almost *every* activity you engage in, can be interrupted by another player, or players".

That is what the game is designed for.
Kurai Kihaku wrote:
There are those that refuse to PvP because they simply do not have the time for these things. PvP requires a hefty time investment and lots of dedication. You need to buy all necessary items on the market, then you need to fly your ship to the place where the fight wil take place just to get it blown up and be forced to start the whole tedious process over again. All for a few seconds of excitement, and hours of grinding to make the isk back required to purchase a replacement ship and all items required. I happen to be one of those that find their satisfaction in other things, such as mining rocks while watching TV or modifying orders on the market during evenings before going to sleep. Am I suddenly not allowed to do so becuase some maniac out there in control of a large virtual corporation with too much free time thinks I should change my activities to PvP?



Mining is an activity taken place outside of stations and so is therefore an activity that *can* be interrupted and interfered with by other players, by design. There are steps you can take to minimize the overall risk of actually having to confront another player (or be confronted by) - but it *cannot* be conducted purely "solo" (in the sense that no one *can* bother you) because of the mechanics that CCP have put in place, on purpose.

Let me ask you this, when you modify an order, why do you do that? I imagine you do that to place your (buy or sell) orders in a more positive position to be filled. But you do realize that while doing so, your interfering with another players ability to have *his/her* orders in that same position?

You're actually engaging in PvP here (player conflict within the structure of the game sandbox walls). It may *not* be all "blasters and lazors" - but it *is* pvp in the modern sense of the word.


Welcome to Eve!
Big smile


another (I assume the poster would say the original version)

It was really Ranger1's post going "sandbox isnt what you think it is" that made me think to post it so see WHAT people THINK IT IS

And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit.

Amanda Holland
Doomheim
#9 - 2012-05-01 20:10:47 UTC
lol it sounds from the video im painfully suffering through that CCP may see the sandbox differently

"This "adapt or die" attitude is nothing new to EVE, but we want to give it a constant rhythm that is a bit more under our control than in the past"

control =/= sandbox

ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) vroom vroom motorcycle CCP to the sandbox: "This "adapt or die" attitude is nothing new to EVE, but we want to give it a constant rhythm that is a bit more under our control than in the past"

Spurty
#10 - 2012-05-01 20:17:01 UTC
A place where you run around stomping on people's sand castles until they no longer build them.

No one is building castles now, so you build a load yourself and wait.

Wait for others to come stomp on your castles so you can stomp on the stompers.

While you wait, you play other games becuase as serious a business as this is, it's just another game

There are good ships,

And wood ships,

And ships that sail the sea

But the best ships are Spaceships

Built by CCP

KrakizBad
Section 8.
#11 - 2012-05-01 20:19:24 UTC
I disagree with all those who say the sandbox is a box filled with sand. I think it is more like a box MADE of sand. I might be wrong though, I'm both social and I don't sparkle.
Talon SilverHawk
Patria o Muerte
#12 - 2012-05-01 20:26:49 UTC
Sandbox is whatever the poster that quoted it wants it to be.

One man's sandbox is another man's quicksand (don't look at me like that making this up as I type)


Tal

AFK Hauler
State War Academy
#13 - 2012-05-01 20:33:53 UTC
If you define the sandbox as being what you make of it, then it is YOUR sandbox, and not mine.

If I define the sandbox and being what I make of it then it is MY sandbox, not yours.

Trying to define what a sandbox "is" only serves to prove ignorance of perspective.

Asking others to define what the sandbox "is" is asking for perspective on your ignorance.

You cannot define "sandbox" without perspective.


Each player has their own sandbox, and we play in what we make of it.

The mentality that [another] sandbox is the "correct" sandbox, and I must play [another] way is destroying the philosophy of a "sandbox."

At the same time there is no independent sandbox for us to personally define. Therefore, the "sandbox" concept is a contribution to the collective, which is the current model driving the game content we all enjoy. However, you still have control over the perspective to the contribution in this collective. - You can change your sandbox to affect to collective -


Otherwise it's a box, filled with sand.
Alhezhar Alabyd al-Mu'minin
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#14 - 2012-05-01 20:35:09 UTC
In real life a lot of sandboxes have pee in them too.
Edward Anthony Cullen
Doomheim
#15 - 2012-05-01 20:55:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Edward Anthony Cullen
KrakizBad wrote:
I disagree with all those who say the sandbox is a box filled with sand. I think it is more like a box MADE of sand. I might be wrong though, I'm both social and I don't sparkle.



WTB pale, sparkly skin. Put it on the NeX CCP

Talon SilverHawk wrote:
Sandbox is whatever the poster that quoted it wants it to be.

One man's sandbox is another man's quicksand (don't look at me like that making this up as I type)


Tal



But the OP quoted like 4 different sandboxes -.- which one is the right one
Flakey Foont
#16 - 2012-05-01 20:56:45 UTC
Without a box it's just sand.
Edward Anthony Cullen
Doomheim
#17 - 2012-05-01 20:57:37 UTC
Alhezhar Alabyd al-Mu'minin wrote:
In real life a lot of sandboxes have pee in them too.



and cat poop
Alhezhar Alabyd al-Mu'minin
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#18 - 2012-05-01 20:57:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Alhezhar Alabyd al-Mu'minin
Flakey Foont wrote:
Without a box it's just sand.



And yet without the sand it still remains a sandbox--curious, no?
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#19 - 2012-05-01 21:05:11 UTC
It's sand. In a box. Many people experience irritation when there's sand in their box.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.

yopparai
ASTARTES CORP
Hashashin Cartel
#20 - 2012-05-01 21:40:40 UTC
To me it means that anyone can try to build & defend their own sand castle the way they like it, & anyone can try to knock down anyone else sand castle in a way they like to.

Yopp
12Next page