Elite Dangerous is not a sandbox
- Thread starter Sisyphus
- Start date
- Status
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
They will use force of numbers and financial muscle to reward or punish those who wish to trade in areas under their control (I still think that a couple of hundred / thousand PCs pretending to control a single planet of a couple of billion inhabitants to be farcical) to ensure that others conform to particular acceptable behaviours - taxes, tithes, etc..
Groups of players have some advantage over others. Large groups of players have a much larger advantage. Unbalancing the game with respect to opportunities and threats for different group sizes would be an unwelcome outcome.
Remember, Elite was a single player game - incorporating multi-player into the game mechanics is not going to be without difficulty and differing opinions. It should not be forgotten however that the Kickstarter was funded by a group of people largely due to their fond memories of the original game and its sequels. To fundamentally change the nature of the game by allowing massive force / financial multiplication would, I expect, not be well received by most of the Kickstarter backers.
No, the first part of the discussion was your definition of what a sandbox game was, followed by a complaint that the game - which, remember, is still in Alpha - didn't meet that criteria. And then you went back and edited it. I have plenty of patience when it's warranted, but after reading 20-odd pages of foot stamping and teeth-gnashing, it's worn thin.
yes!!!
Sorry, but your post smells like troll. There is no written in stone definition of what a sandbox, also known as open world, game is. See the definition on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_world
Open world / sandbox means nothing more that you get an open, non-linear space you can play in. For example "Just cause 2" haven't had anything else than shooting and buying some weapons, it's still a sandbox game. GTA is a sandbox game, Mafia as well, Skyrim as well. None of them has capital ships (or anything similar) and a player driven economy, that's something that is pretty unique to Eve Online.
To me it looks like you simply try to enforce a pretty silly comparison of Eve Online with Elite Dangerous for whatever reason. Maybe you just want to fly ships first person in Eve? Well, play Eve Online, you don't get first person control there but everything else you obviously want.
Last edited:
Oh I don't know, suppose the old dog in me is old enough to have seen this kind of rolling SA community forum warfare stuff played out time and time again on other forums. The pattern and smell is always the same.
Also as you know, the SA are always looking for a new home to play in. You think if ED can be turned to a community numbers game there aren't going to be verbose characters turning up time and time again to make that turn happen?
As I say, seen it all before ... ED is no different, if they can convince the devs or at least divide the community here they'll be trying it. Why? Because it is what they do and this forum stuff is merely part of that conversion exercise.
First, thanks for your well thought out post.
Yes, groups can become bullies. (*Looks around*). but that's online gaming for you, isn't it? Right now groups can take down any individual in combat. What you're really saying is that groups can make restrictive regulations and impose controls by force, in a way that makes the game less enjoyable. I think you have a very valid point there, but don't you think that problem could be mitigated by balancing game mechanics? For example, let's say a group says that they will set tax rate to 100% for everyone but themselves - maybe the game should give them the natural consequences of doing that - they get no outside trade, their economy suffers. Thus, COOPERATIVE group play can be encouraged, instead of destructive.
As for the legal obligations to the kickstarter funders - you may or may not have a point there. I have no clue how obligations to funders works... So, you may be right. But I would still like to explore the idea if you don't mind.
Me too I'm sure it's going to be marvelous. I'm just hoping that it's gonna be more than 30h marvelous
We'll said! I couldn't agree more, regardless of what pigeon hole it gets plonked in.
You underestimate the sheer dread that a lot of people have on here that other people will band together and be mean to them. You may not realise this, but many of the things you would like to do in game are not long-term goals you would like to work towards in an epic sci-fi universe. But just new ways to be mean to them. Personally.
I will disagree with the OP wholeheartedly.
1) Crafting... I would argue that crafting exists in Elite in the same way that weapon crafting exists in Skyrim. In Skyrim there are let's say 100 predefined weapons. Crafting then involves applying characteristics and magical attributes to the weapon to make it unique and deal a certain amount of damage. You can then also name your weapon. But you cannot invent a completely new type of weapon, shape it using some tools in the game creating a completely unique 3D mesh. If this is the benchmark for sandboxiness then Elite fares pretty well. In Elite you choose from a number of types of ships (ok you don't build it - I'll grant you that), you give it a name, you make it unique by outfitting it with weapons, sensors, beacons and other devices. In future version you might even apply custom decals and such. This is pretty sandbox-y if you ask me.
2) Market manipulation. Player influenced market fluctuations exist in Elite as well. Granted a single player cannot influence the market as much as his or her ego would want, but, if anything, this is more realistic and even more sandbox-y. Organize a group of a 1000 players with Lakon 9s to synchronize their trading and you might make a dent in the game market. Just like in real life, to make changes on a macro scale, you need to be a charismatic and influential leader, not just have delusions of grandeur and "fleet" of your own ships earned through pay-to-win or by playing 24/7.
3) No player driven empires/capital ships. Same as previous point. This isn't a megalomaniac strategy game, this is a pilot/spaceship simulator. You can have an empire only by allying yourself with many other players.
4) Career options. You list 3 but I can think of a number of other ones: Search/rescue, transport, covert ops/intelligence gathering, mining, race participant. These are just some off the top of my head that I know existed in previous versions of Elite and would most likely make it into ED as well. Ultimately, there is no way of knowing right now how many more career paths will exist in the game and you will never be limited to just one career either.
1) Crafting... I would argue that crafting exists in Elite in the same way that weapon crafting exists in Skyrim. In Skyrim there are let's say 100 predefined weapons. Crafting then involves applying characteristics and magical attributes to the weapon to make it unique and deal a certain amount of damage. You can then also name your weapon. But you cannot invent a completely new type of weapon, shape it using some tools in the game creating a completely unique 3D mesh. If this is the benchmark for sandboxiness then Elite fares pretty well. In Elite you choose from a number of types of ships (ok you don't build it - I'll grant you that), you give it a name, you make it unique by outfitting it with weapons, sensors, beacons and other devices. In future version you might even apply custom decals and such. This is pretty sandbox-y if you ask me.
2) Market manipulation. Player influenced market fluctuations exist in Elite as well. Granted a single player cannot influence the market as much as his or her ego would want, but, if anything, this is more realistic and even more sandbox-y. Organize a group of a 1000 players with Lakon 9s to synchronize their trading and you might make a dent in the game market. Just like in real life, to make changes on a macro scale, you need to be a charismatic and influential leader, not just have delusions of grandeur and "fleet" of your own ships earned through pay-to-win or by playing 24/7.
3) No player driven empires/capital ships. Same as previous point. This isn't a megalomaniac strategy game, this is a pilot/spaceship simulator. You can have an empire only by allying yourself with many other players.
4) Career options. You list 3 but I can think of a number of other ones: Search/rescue, transport, covert ops/intelligence gathering, mining, race participant. These are just some off the top of my head that I know existed in previous versions of Elite and would most likely make it into ED as well. Ultimately, there is no way of knowing right now how many more career paths will exist in the game and you will never be limited to just one career either.
1- if you get upset by what i wrote, don't read it and ignore me.
2- if you are going to read it anyways, read it all the way through - at least the first post. You will notice that that definition was abridged.
You are not an original Elite or Frontier player, I can read it quite clear.
Yes, I think many look to Eve and fear that ED could become like that if large groups were to attempt to take over. With the small instance sizes I don't think that would be possible but that fear is still there and very real.
Last edited:
Think its more a matter of being from the generation that can't imagine an adventure and use their imagination, but has to get everything served
Perhaps you are right... if so, then let's drop the idea for empire building (for the sake of the argument) - what about other features such as crafting ships and weapons? What about a player dependent economy? Not merely a player influenced economy? Those would go some way to add hours to gameplay. (sandbox elements)
It's well known that Wiki is not always right.
Given that limitation then the definition of a sandbox game is as follows:
LINK
The examples you gave of Skyrim, AD&D*, EVE and ED, only Skyrim could be classed as a sandbox game due to the editor that you can use to manipulate the world. All the others you mentioned are "open world" games with rules and boundaries. Better examples of sand-box games would be Minecraft & Space Engineers.
Your definition IMO of a sand-box game then is not correct.
I don't class ED as a sandbox game but an open-ended game where, within the confines of the rules, you're free to do what you want. You can't manipulate the galaxy (move planets around) which means it's not strictly a sandbox game.
The only important part to me though is simply "Is ED fun to play" as at the end of the day how you class it is not as important as whether you enjoy playing it or not.
*I believe you were talking about the RPG which isn't a video game but a set of rules that a GM uses as a framework to set the scene for players
Given that limitation then the definition of a sandbox game is as follows:
LINK
The examples you gave of Skyrim, AD&D*, EVE and ED, only Skyrim could be classed as a sandbox game due to the editor that you can use to manipulate the world. All the others you mentioned are "open world" games with rules and boundaries. Better examples of sand-box games would be Minecraft & Space Engineers.
Your definition IMO of a sand-box game then is not correct.
I don't class ED as a sandbox game but an open-ended game where, within the confines of the rules, you're free to do what you want. You can't manipulate the galaxy (move planets around) which means it's not strictly a sandbox game.
The only important part to me though is simply "Is ED fun to play" as at the end of the day how you class it is not as important as whether you enjoy playing it or not.
*I believe you were talking about the RPG which isn't a video game but a set of rules that a GM uses as a framework to set the scene for players
ok, so what's your point?
what is the significance of Elite: Dangerous meeting your own personal arbitrary definition of being a 'sandbox game'?
Does this have implications beyond your own cranium that the rest of us should be aware of?
If you declare that Elite: Dangerous IS a sandbox game, should I perform some action or declare 'victory' or 'defeat'?
If, on the other hand, your analysis determines that Elite: Dangerous is NOT a sandbox game, is there something important I need to do? slit my wrists and bleed out in the bathtub?
what is the significance of Elite: Dangerous meeting your own personal arbitrary definition of being a 'sandbox game'?
Does this have implications beyond your own cranium that the rest of us should be aware of?
If you declare that Elite: Dangerous IS a sandbox game, should I perform some action or declare 'victory' or 'defeat'?
If, on the other hand, your analysis determines that Elite: Dangerous is NOT a sandbox game, is there something important I need to do? slit my wrists and bleed out in the bathtub?
- Status