false. your social rules are imagined to begin with, and self-imposed.

"A scrub is a player who is handicapped by self-imposed rules that the game knows nothing about. A scrub does not play to win."

^interceptors and destroyers being OP is also a separate issue from skills. whether someone has the skills or not, you flat out dislike them.

I would vote for you if you wouldn't have to go public with your real life ...
... destroying my illusion of you being a sexy redhead with black lipstick.

Too bad.

did you know Sabriz hates babies?

I like the skill requirements. Love them. It is a filter for the impatient, which is often the immature. I hate interceptors and destroyers, one is a free ticket to skip past a control mechanism for little cost and time and the other is far too much damage for little cost and effort.

So you want every newbie with a credit card to jump into a Titan?
Delayed gratification makes for more appreciation and spreads people across ships some what instead of having everyone in a Tengu or Ishtar.

any player with a credit card can currently buy a character and ISK for a titan. I can't believe you're running for CSM.

wait. yes I can.

wonderful communication. thank you.

so wait, you want to grant new players high end content in less than a month? im glad you make such a good argument.

its ok rain, we are all glad you derailed the OP's thread. to the OP, what is the problem? you dont like that roles ship hull?

its tiring seeing the forums filled with complainers. play a different game FFS.

No! Really?! Even baby seals?

so wait, you want to grant new players high end content in less than a month? im glad you make such a good argument.

its ok rain, we are all glad you derailed the OP's thread. to the OP, what is the problem? you dont like that roles ship hull?

its tiring seeing the forums filled with complainers. play a different game FFS.

It's an hourglass, the sand that falls out of your box falls right into my box.

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.

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. .

Hourglass = the shape your lovely young body would have, if Erica fed you proper.

Hourglass = the shape your lovely young body would have, if Erica fed you proper.

let's just get rid of the skills completely and be over with it

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.

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 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.

Egg = the shape your head has.

*bites your neck to feed properly*

Ahhhhh.....

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.

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?

I knew you'd bite.

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.

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.

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.