Right? Sandbox to me means that I can do whatever I want, I can tackle any problem in any way that I want, essentially freedom of choice. And I want to believe that this is the widely understood defining feature of a sandbox game.
So, I can sort of see why Gloria would make unique customization / items a core criteria of a sandbox, but I just have to disagree with the argument, that it’s defining features are freedom of choice, not customization.
I also think, hinging the quality of your sandbox game on customization is a very limited and rigid way of evaluating a game. Because then you could say that counter strike is more of a sandbox game than minecraft, because you have so many more options of customizing your equipment with skins, and so forth… and that’s obviously not a correct assessment.
It feels to me that you, @Gloria_Exercitus, are barking up the wrong tree with your criticism. To me, more spaceship and equipment customization is good of course, but I don’t see a link to the sandbox elements of the game, as in, impairing your freedom of choice to do whatever you want. To me, this is all just optional “fluff”.
But perhaps I am just ignorant, can never exclude that possibility. Do you want to explain why you see this particular aspect as so important for EVE being a sandbox game?
Perhaps the fact that I’ve operated and made stuff in a real sandbox…such as Second Life. Go into a ‘sim’ in Second Life and quite literally everything you see is player made. Every structure, colour, even the avatars themselves. The sandbox for a sim is a completely empty void. You have to quite literally build everything.
EVE, by contrast, is highly restricted. There are fixed ships. I can’t just conjure up a totally new ship out of some basic building blocks. And those ships have fixed limitations…micromanaged by endless nerfs and buffs. Sure, there’s a large range of permutations of fittings, especially for T3 ships, but if you consider something like a missile firing Tengu a good fitting ultimately won’t be hugely different from most other good missile bearing fittings.
I also would not confuse ‘open world’ with ‘sandbox’.
The ‘scope’ is not what makes a good sandbox. It is precisely the ability of players to create emergent imbalance ( and take advantage of it ) that is the real criteria. To some extent that exists in EVE in the form of corporations and ensuant skulduggery and war. But a good deal of emergent imbalance is countered by….’balancing’ this or that. That is a force going in the complete opposite direction….managing nerfs and buffs against some notion of things going ‘too far’.
I think you didn’t ever maintained a real sandbox. Yes, I mean the origin of the name ‘sandbox’, that thing where kids can play, with real sand in it.
Only a child believes you can just create it and then watch and let everyone do as he pleases. As an adult who has owned and maintained one I can tell you: No, that doesn’t work for long. Without some rules, control and intervention, it becomes a dirt pit pretty soon.
This wasn’t nearly as bad as it has been made out to be. Taxes on the market are pretty low, you’ll still keep the bulk of your income. Consequently I don’t see it as a nerf, just a minor modification. Of all the things CCP has nerfed in the gama, trading has had it the best.
That’s what Sanbox means to me, the freedom to play as you wish. Although the game’s world needs to accommodate that freedom and often it’s a limited Sanbox.
I agree with you there. EVE needs to be more…Sandboxy.
Yeah ! Bring it on. I don’t want Daddy making sure everything is ‘fair and balanced’ down to the nth degree in case some other kid yells ‘ hey…that’s not fair…and where’s my participation medal !’
T3 ships were a step in the right direction. But my ideal would be small modules and materials out of which one can create an entire ship….so one could quite literally design something completely new. The very first Gloria Galactica. Sure, there’d need to be natural constraints to prevent me fitting 45 fast tracking turrets and having an EHP of 25 million….but I don’t think it would need to be micro-managed.
It’s not really about the nerfs there is often no increment like 3% here and 5% there. Most of the time it’s a very radical change that changes the parameter of the game completly and that’s what i wanted to explain giving those examples. Some things take a really long time in Eve and while a few percentage can feel already huge if your min-maxing. Often the changes are very radical like the ore and rorqual changes for example. Many of those issues could have been fixed very differently but it always seems to be aimed to be solved in a way to also nerf the player. Hence it feels like manipulation.
It would be so much fun. It would really feel like your own ship. Can you imagine the gankees? They throw a fit now over a pre-made ship, your idea would make them go ballistic. That’s a river of tears.
You can construct your own ship in Empyrion but they end up being too blocky. I don’t know if coding ship crafting is even possible in EVE. Each ship has it’s own graphics file that has to interact with the environment and sound effects, not counting the calculations for damage and alignment. Now multiply that with the number of players who will build a ship, possibly every hour… I don’t think EVE would go that direction.
I often make my own ship fits, it feels like my ship.
When some options are outliers that make the sandox less varied because they outperform alternatives by such margins that people would be craxy to use anything else, it’s healthy for the variation in thr game if those options are nerfed.
The game gets more viable options, which is good.
Only people who abused the outlying strategy for as long as it lasted are nerfed, everyone else is happy.
No, EVE does not fall under the strict definition of sandbox.
It’s been called that mostly for promotional and merchandising but that’s mostly it.
It has indeed some sandboxy ways but that’s different from the need (or not) for nerfs and buffs. Those revisions are on another field.
You see that many feel affected by those revisions and the only peeps who can assess that are old fart$.
Because most of the posts here are right.. a nerf/buff comes as a response for a “required” balancing and then, only time shows, as it has in pretty much everything, that it was the wrong way.
But there’s seldom revisions to the revisions.. yeah.
Who in their right mind would even think that the revision was right? Only time tells.
To me, the mistake is to respond a popular demand with a popular demand. But it’s worse when it comes from individual scopes.
Someone disliked the drake fleets. I was there 3k y ago. Nerfed, yes!.. then..
Well, all of EEVE “needed” a revision.
As for the Drake… Very well, thank you.. it spins beautifully in the hangar.
Have fun bringing your kids to the hospital then, after they found drug syringes from some junkies that nobody cleaned up ‘because sandbox!’ or enjoy seeing them eating dogpoo because some jerk don’t want clean up his dog’s mess. Or just relax once they get beaten up by the bigger kids for fun.
There is no sandbox without someone watching over what happens there. And if nessessary, intervening. Every sandbox needs rules, borders and someone who steps in if things don’t go as is healthy for all who use said sandbox.
Exactly what Syz said. Don’t you engage in suspect hunting at Jita, iirc? You, more than most people, should know what happens if you give everyone the ability to build the most idiotic deathboxes humanly possible.
A: The game will be dead after two weeks.
To me then, it is good that they don’t let anyone do that. And I think it’s very shortsighted to criticize the developers for disallowing that. You got more than enough variety with all the existing ships and modules already, honestly. Besides, you only ever fly the Gnosis anyway, so what gives?
On the contrary. There’s really no sandbox if someone is watching over every little detail and specifying exactly what sand castle moulds must be used and precisely where the sand castles are built. It is you who have it ass backwards. The more you restrict a sandbox…the less of a sandbox it actually is.
No-one’s arguing for a complete free-for-all. It is simply being correctly pointed out that more restriction, especially micromanagement = less sandboxy.
