exactly if you must fight a war where the bullits come from behind you turn around and fire a missile straight back… (great… isn t it )
Annnd we are back to making no sense.
It looks like you are looking for evidence that it is not not happening. Which is not evidence that it is happening.
indeed.
thank you …for a moment i was thinking i made a smart remark 
Most of your ideas could probably work, and it’s a mystery that for 15+years, CCP hasn’t taken that “all the above” approach in that time.
However, given that CCP develops new content very slowly, these are some of the parameters the devs were seemingly looking for when creating the Abyss:
- Content busy players can log on, play for up to 1/2 hour, then log off.
- Timed content to ensure play ends within parameters
- Higher risk/reward ratio, even for high sec (to possibly to increase thrill and/or sense of achievement)
- Fast paced game play
- Wide variety of enemy types and AI for maximum challenge and learning opportunities
- Ship/fit requirements that can handle almost any situation (Fits that lean more towards PvP-ish)
- Guaranteed ship/pod destruction upon timer completion, and large jumps in difficulty for higher tiers, to increase risk (destruction balances economy and introduction to sense of loss)
- Impossible to escape before timer ends or completion of objectives.
- Impossible to receive assistance (no additional multi boxing or corp help)
- All rewards are in form of loot drops only
The first point was probably highest importance in the design. The rest of the parameters may have been desired for PvE players to learn more about combat mechanics, much of it missing from other forms of PvE in high sec, which in theory could ease players to feel more comfortable in taking on PvP.
As I mentioned before, I agree with OP that Abyss doesn’t match up with sandbox design. But there are few other ideas, if any, that could meet all those parameters. And regardless, in the end, the Abyss seems to have succeeded in providing content that matched some players requirements and enjoyment, and seems to have retained popularity even up to now.
Abyssal space is here to stay, accept it, keep in mind Eve is over 17 years old and player counts are in decline
That is reality
The old Eve is not coming back
Let’s not forget multi boxing is the bane of Eve and when one player leaves those player count numbers drop harder, they cannot absorb multiboxing players leaving
I wasn’t clear on it, but I also agree that Abyssal content (and Triglavian in general) was a good development and has been good for the game. It didn’t achieve the most ‘EVE-centric’ type goals, but the goals it did achieve, which you listed, were reasonably well done and effective for the game. The destruct-on-timer mechanic is probably my key ‘bad design’ complaint about Abyssals.
We could even use another feature or two that achieves much the same goals. I’m not complaining about Abyssal content, more focusing on the notion that CCP needs to apply some creativity to actual sandbox game design, more engaging PvP, and more flexible encounters.
I should also point out, again, that you and the OP are referring to ‘sandbox’ design when you’re actually discussing open world PvP, or at least non-solo play, design mechanics.
‘Sandbox’ is about giving players tools and choices to decide their own goals in the game and how they go about meeting those goals. CCP is trending farther away from that design principle since about 2009 in my opinion, which was (in my view) when they started making adjustments to the game to get players to play the way CCP wanted them to (ie, spending more money and generating large news-making battles).
What you and the OP refer to as ‘sandbox’ is actually about leaving players exposed to encounters from other players and available for some sort of interaction.
I think this is what he tried to translate: Iemand van van zijn sokkel stoten
It is not.
it is when they leave, Eve cannot absorb the multibox player churn
No it is what anti social people do in a team based game.
People who insist that the whole game should be solo able are the bane of EVE.
I am not talking about gameplay, I am talking about when they leave, obviously when a player that runs 10 accounts, that means 1 player leaves, 10 accounts go, it amplifies the drop in player numbers when they leave.
We know we are ignoring it. Do you have any idea how many times we have heard that EVE cannot withstand group X or Y leaving?
Player numbers are in decline, see previous chart, it’s trending DOWN, not UP
And you KNOW why?
We got a real live one here 
You probably think there are many players with 10+ accounts. I think it is not. Wasn’t there a chart once which showed that by far the most people have 1 or perhaps 2 accounts and very few 3 or more?
I saw the old numbers regarding account density, circa. 2015. have they been updated?
That still means when 1 player leaves, 2 or 3 accounts go with them. Still an amplified loss.
Now, adjust the player count chart to those % of account density.
So the player count is is showing higher than reality, so reduce it by a large factor then if say 80% have 2 or 3 accounts.
circa. 2015 density
By that logic the next person to stay for a year brings 10 accounts and wrecks your curve