I was going to write a comments on Poetic's post today, but it got so long I decided to just make it a post of my own. You can read his original post here.
First, what is a sandbox?
Wikipedia defines a sandbox (in our context) as an "Open World [...] where a player can roam freely [...] and is given considerable freedom in choosing how or when to approach objectives."
Wikipedia further states that "in a true 'sandbox,' the player has tools to modify the world themselves and create how they play."
"The sandbox is a metaphor for real life. Nobody gets to go through life in a bubble. We are interacting with people every day, in some form or another, whether we want to or not. Interactions are inescapable. Like life, like EVE, in a sense."
"They want to play EVE as though it were a solo game. These are anti-sandbox people."
Actually, what is and is not sandbox behavior, in terms of game design, has nothing to do with player interactions. Minecraft is a true blue sandbox game whether you play multiplayer or solo. It changes nothing.
While it can be argued that more interaction creates more desirable gameplay, I do not think that you can redefine what 'sandbox' means, and then proclaim that people are anti-sandbox because they do not hold up to your version of it.
"what gets my goat are the people [...]who feel that they deserve their own little sandbox, and that they should be allowed to dictate all of their interactions with the rest of the playerbase."Is not saying that people should be more social, in and of itself a dictation of their interactions with the rest of the playerbase?
To not be allowed to dictate our interactions is to be forced or guided, which is the opposite of sandbox gameplay.
"Let's be honest."Okay. You champion non-consensual pvp, and yet you have chosen the most consensual pvp gameplay in EVE --Faction War. Not only do FW pilots have to actively sign up for a militia in order to engage in the consensual war, but due to the nature of FW plexes they can pick and choose their fights --running away if something threatening lands on their plex gate, and even determining what ship size they would prefer to fight by the size plex they choose to fight in.
You, as a Fweddit pilot, take it one step further by refusing to base in the warzone. Preferring your safe home in Egghlende to a warzone base that could potentially force you to fight to defend your assets.
You, are what people would call a hypocrite. The only non-consensual activity you really seem to want is that which you can inflict upon other people, while remaining in the safety of your own, very consensual situation.
1. There is no such thing as non-consensual anything in EVE. It's a video game for goodness sake, and as a sandbox, no one is forcing you to do anything. There are consequences for actions, and risk associated with various gameplay. The real debate is not about this so-called 'non-consensual' pvp, or about CCP ruining the sandbox by making a 'pvp-free' zone.
The issue is one of risk vs. reward.
I think the anonymous commenter on Poe's post may have had it right when he said that Poe is fighting windmills with his obsessive dialog against CCP removing non-consensual pvp from the game.
2. This being said, I do not think CCP should create a 'pvp-free' zone, or make high-sec perfectly safe for miners. But, nor do I think they will ever do that.
It has been my experience over the past few years that CCP likes to solve problems by introducing new and interesting gameplay. Creating a pvp-free zone might appease a certain set of people, but it's ultimately a passive approach that offers nothing of real value to the game. I'm not sure it would be CCP's style...
3. While I'm pretty hard on Poe in this post, I agree with the 'sense' of what he's getting at. I don't want EVE to become a cartoon. I don't want it to become 'easier' or less dark, or have little safe zones. But I think we need to step beyond the vagueness of raging about non-consensual pvp and throwing around sandbox jargon to make our ideas seem more legitimate.
We need concrete ideas. Concrete reasons why specific solutions could be good or bad. What is a SPECIFIC idea for something that could help player retention, or make the game more interesting to new players?
If we can't do this then we just become the 'them' that Poetic talks about:
" ... they create nothing, they give nothing to the game, nobody even knows they exist, except for their complaining."