It's like I've said: Sandboxes are an interesting study in psychology. They are a game, so in the end, very few people hold to ideals or morals. Mainly, people do what is easiest and most effective. More people come in and continue to flood the people who might have some ideal about being skilled or moral about not wanting to cause grief out.
The thing is, the game will always reach an end. It's like the Nash equilibrium. How do we stop that? Seasons? Dunno. Do we need to stop that, or do we need to just have political shake ups occasionally? I think we need a game that is fun to play haha.
People will always bear out the rule set, though, and reach an end of stagnation. The end will always end up sour, but how quickly it becomes sour is up to the quality of the rules and theory that lead there (imo.) We see what we have now, and I'd say it's awful.
I enjoy rolling around and interacting with people, but the people who are into this game in more than a casual hardcore way, I think, are abnormal beyond what you would want from a gaming population. It's not even about the game being hardcore or grindy or whatever. It's just about what kind of people would want to stay on this game and zerg each other all of the time.
More siege, full loot, more actions, more tools... create an economy, which can also be a representation of game health. I feel like MO should go that path, even if the game is flawed and has ping issues. Make a game that has a complexity in how all the variables (players) interact with each other, not just mega zerg a v mega zerg b with rat c trolling.
My Friday POV!