Circle of logic

"Ckingera;c-2097714" wrote:

"littleMAC77;c-2097703" wrote:
The difference is sandbox mode is additional work effort that will be regularly utilized by a minority of existing players. Having you game run on older dervices may directly benefit a small group, but that is so that more players can play the game at all. Two very different ideas between new content that doesnt advance your roster for a small group, and allowing more people to play your game.

I personally don’t care about a sandbox mode, even if a lot of people do, but I like the idea of a guild PvP to substitute or something more casual to play and learn. Also littleMAC77 i see a lot of people, who I assume are moderators, keep repeating that “a small group of people want sandbox”. Is there a poll or any community facing analytics available somewhere that reflects this? I legit hear this A LOT. Yet from my scope of the community, which is small yes but still an alliance of 13 guilds, it’s a resounding yes for sandbox or something similar. Typically I’m hearing the message “the few are just loud” or “people who like the game don’t post on forums it’s just complainers so that’s why we see it so much”. Can you provide any insight on how CG or its forum mods came to the conclusion? Please don’t take that as a jab or me trying to argue. I just was curious :)

I cannot speak for any data CG may have, but they always reference their analytics when making decisions so they have something they feel says it would not be engaging for the majority.

Personally, from my own interactions among the community, i feel that a sandbox mode would be used by many in the community...for like a week. This game is played by many people, and the forums, your alliance, my alliance, and reddit are a very small subset of that group. While many are not opposed to such a mode (I would love it for occasional testing), the chances the average player (who make up the majority of the playerbase) interact with a mode that provides no roster advancement is low.