So, some clarification, extending from the above, and some suggestions that I hope may be constructive.

Regarding PvE:

(1) Scaling missions for the various departments, hand-in-hand with commensurate, balanced rewards.  This includes both the rewards for the actual activity and any "tokens" or other such rewards.  As the "level" of the mission increases-- from a backstory POV as the agent is able to accomplish more for the Syndicate, against tougher opponents (corporate or Nian), the rewards increase.  From a top-down planning point of view, it would be good for the Devs to have the maximum reward in mind, so as to avoid inflation if the tree of choices is made longer.

(2) Missions for solo play are useful even for those used to groups-- the group is not always available.

(3) Group missions should have a different dynamic-- they are not just solo opponents x 3 or x5.  Is there a use for certain types of specialists in the group, for example?

(4) Decide if the mission heirarchy ends on Alpha and there is a completely different one for Beta, or if one gets to a certain point in the Alpha heirarchy and then the missions diverge-- there may be an "Alpha endgame missions" path and a "proceed to Beta" path, for example.

Regarding PvP:

People have vastly different ideas of what constitutes PvP.  Some think in terms of arena deathmatches.  Some think in terms of conditions for victory.  To some, blobbing an enemy is cheese and cowardice.  To some, expecting an opponent to "fight fair" is naive.

How do you make everyone happy?

You don't.

A reasonable middle ground might be to have the potential for as many types of conflict as possible: small bot, heavy mech, solo/small group, large group.  In reality, this may strain development resources.  The other answer is to define the constraints upon PvP-- or the lack of constraints-- fairly clearly for players, then build the best possible game structures and venues for it, and then roll the dice and see if your community embraces it.

In my opinion, "loss" of some sort if necessary, or there is no feeling of triumph or gain when you win.  However, the cost of doing PvP needs to be balanced against the amount of effort needed to get back to the PvP again.

Another factor is that sandbox games and any MMO with replenished, infinite resources of raw materials and in-game cash (e.g. from missions) will inevitably undergo inflation.  If different segments of the player community do not have equal opportunity to work with inflation, the dynamic of your PvP will change drastically over the months and years also: some players will be able to afford to PvP at the new higher prices; others will not.

@Arga, thank you for weighing in.  From what I have seen by perusing these forums, you tend to have balanced and insightful comments.  Not saying  that I agree with 100% of them, but the point of discussion is that many heads can bring more wisdom to the table-- we hope.

I quite understand the pseudo-economy of the game.  You are quite correct; both in this one and EVE it is driven almost solely by destruction.  I would like to see more creative drives, but that tends simply to mean maintenance for structures and the like, if they are not options for destruction themselves.

Perhaps the arenas could charge an entry fee and buy modules or bots from the manufacturing community.  Or, perhaps, the balance in the relative importance of PvP as almost the sole money sink could be otherwise diluted.

The trouble is that, with endlessly renewing resources, there is inevitable inflation and markets will collapse unless there is also consumption.  Is there something else that would entertain players of a "whole world" simulation, that could also consume resources?  Perhaps lots of resources?

Granted, that would have to be developed, but I am brainstorming alternatives.  The obvious, easier one is to corral a bunch of people into playing the game that want to go out and blow up their mechs. And who, somehow, can afford to.

Incidentally, if you check my OP, I was hoping that the arena would stimulate players into getting more into open-world PvP, not detract from it.  It was to be targeted at newer, low-EP, less experienced people.  Perhaps seeing that really, all you lose is the bot, would prompt them to get into PvP more as they got an income going.

Or how about this: is there a way that we could get the equivalent of EVE's "Red versus Blue" corps going?  Low pressure, rapid-turnaround, relatively inexpensive PvP, where your corp and your alliance's future does not depend on it?  The regions where that occurs show a bonanza for the economy.  Hundreds of ships are destroyed every day, and even hundreds of light bots in this game adds up to a resource sink that would create demand.

That, too, needs people, though.

And that, of course, is one reason that these discussions get so heated: different definitions and people talking about totally different questions.

If the definition of sandbox is: "Every player is part of one server, one scene, one storyline" -- and that's it -- then a great many people read a lot of "and" into the definition, so that "sandbox" becomes their version of what it should be.

If we accept the above definition, then Perpetuum is a sandbox game essentially because it has everyone playing in the same world, period.  The various gameplay mechanics, types of play, set-up of islands, etc., may contribute to the "feeling of being in a sandbox", but are not part of the definition.

So, what we are really taking about seems to be: what toys do we wish to play with in the sandbox?  And do we need to worry about making the sandbox inviting enough to attract people that like different toys, or do we cater to a narrower selection in favour of certain types of play?  If we want to play with blocks, do we want people in the box that would rather play with action figures?  Or dump trucks?  Or do we shoo them away, to keep our low-population blocks game "pure"?

I'm "new" in that I have only had the game for a month.

I heard about it before it even got off the ground in beta, while in EVE.  One of our corp members (European member) found it-- alas, he did not say how-- and posted the link.  Sadly, it was more to point and say, "Well, whom did they get this idea from, hmmm?"

I of course wish now that I had jumped into Perpetuum beta then and there, but I was playing several game already and didn't see the need for what was then perceived as an "EVE clone".

So: why did I come to the game?  I found the old link in my bookmarks, surfed it, and saw that the game had just gotten to the end of its first year.  Sadly, I missed all the hoopla of the tournament and the easter eggs near last Christmas.  If there had been any sort of ad blitz, that likely would have gotten a lot of people more interested-- nothing like a tournament and possible freebies to get people to try a game.  Still, I came in even without the freebies.

What got me to take the chance was the PPAT ad in the corp section.  That convinced me that the community itself was interested in seeing the game grow, and in getting newer players comfortable, much like E-Uni did in EVE along time ago.  Why did I stay when the initiative could not continue?  Because I had made contacts with a variety of corps already by then, and was able to move into one with good folks.

Now that I am playing, when people ask me if this game is just EVE reskinned, I tell them no: apples and oranges.  There are obvious similarities, but this is not the same game.  Any intelligent developer learns from the mistakes of others and tries to incorporate good ideas.  That has been the case since Meridian 59, The Realm, Ultima Online and EQ1 (yeah, I am that old).

However, there is a danger: I do not mind reading a lot of stuff.  People that will not read forums and hate any ad that isn't just explosions in their faces may never get past the "meh, just another..." stage.

So, if the point of this thread, as seems likely, is to decide upon ways to popularise the game, I am all in favour.  I would highly advise that advertising be able to point new prospects to a supportive new player experience and to a way of inspecting the various corporation agendas ASAP, however.  You want the trial to bring them in, not scare them off.  It's fine and fun being an "elite niche market"-- but such games are very fragile, as well.

Game Theory Hat On:

I like the idea of small groups/small corps being able to move to the Gamma Islands, but a certain other game with vast tracts of open "wild space" has been trying to do that for years and it hasn't worked.  The big ones just grab more space and have roaming fleets to defend them.  Some may rent space, and various have more draconian or more generous "sharing" or "renting" plans, but frankly, if they put a big effort into grabbing it all, they expect to be able to profit from it, and fair enough.

That brings it back to the game infrastructure and the game population.  Certainly lots of space may reduce crowding until the player population grows-- but then again, see above.  Unless there is enough space that even a large corp would be spread too thinly to take it all, there may be no population-driven benefit.

In a sandbox game, it is usually anathema to have any mechanic or infrastructure that is perceived as "player-directING" rather than "player-directED".  This is, of course, an illusion.  There is always a limited menu of options from which to choose.  However, providing plenty of drama and possibilities for player-driven conflict tends to obfuscate that: artificial complexity can also be used as an easier substitute for actual depth.

So: what are some options that could be implemented that leave it up to the players as to how to react and to play, yet which do stimulate a desire for a large population to try out the Gamma Islands?  If Perpetuum can figure that out, then it will defintely have one up over the other sandbox.  PvP will be part of it, but economy and other relationships will be what makes it endure.  (Yes, PvP is a relationship.    )

One thing that I will be intrigued to hear about-- or to see at implementation-- is simply the geography of the implementation.  That will have a huge effect on what the Beta Islands end up becoming, as well as the 1st and 2nd order relationships between the Gammas.  There would be a huge difference simply in linear links radiating outward, compared to branching links.  How many entrance/egress choke points there are is another factor.  For example, the perceived value of a Gamma "cluster" or "region", or even a single island, should include how easy it is to access, and therefore how easily it can be invaded, defended, and how easily it can communicate with large markets.  Links will definitely be one of the island "resources", especially if not all islands are created equally from the link standpoint.

As a corollary, if Perp will ever include other modes of transport in the future: flight, water surface, subsurface tubeways, whatever-- that may heat things up and introduce more choices and dynamism.

The issue that of course crops up is balancing the worth of trying to build things up, versus the worth of destroying them.  While the "epeen" and "just want to see things explode" camps will always want to destroy stuff, because that's an obvious ego-stroke, there still has to be incentive to see things being created.  Large wallets are not enough; numbers become boring after a while.  The power-ego-rush of claiming chunks of territory is one thing, and the sense of accomplishment of building outposts/fortresses/whatever, with useful facilities and factories, is another.

Devising how to let things be accomplished, at the same time as letting things be destroyable, is another thorny issue with which other games have wrestled.  Destruction drives the economy forward.  If it is the only thing which does, then the game is doomed to become just another mech shooter-- and there will be too much competition in that department.  More on that in another thread, "How can we support Perpetuum in the Year of the Mech?"

Interesting.  I did switch over from blue corp to yellow corp missions within a 24 h period, but there may have been a server downtime in there, as I play GMT-5.  So, unsure whether I should have been affected.

I definitely could switch between divisions within the same corp, as I have run combat, industry and gathering all at the same time.

I would agree-- being able to run missions for different corps would likely make it worth the travel time, though right now I even balk at time lost to try to split between Alpha-1 and Alpha-2 island missions.