EVE General Discussion

Democracy sucks?

Don't forget it will also have multi crew ships that require different people engaging in different jobs all being integral to the survival of said ship.

And that the Bengal carrier is nearly 1 kilometer in length..... that's a hell of a run.

Simply put, even if SC is half of what the man claims it's going to be, EVE will be left behind by many.

the numbers don't lie... it's already happening.

No one is saying EVE is just going to drop dead and stop existing. But it will take a huge hit in subs.

The issue isnt the 4/10 obvious null platforms. Its that you know for a fact that none of the other candidates DONT have other alts. It is the silent alts and where they are found that unfortunately skews this fact. This is the major issue with gaming versus real life politics. It is also an issue in a lot of other factors in Eve itself but atm we will deal with the political arena.

The misrepresentation stems from the ability to have alts and where those alts are, what mains they feed isk and stuff too, and their general political alignments. Not just on the CSM but as a whole. Its why trying to find and destroy high sec alts, high sec alt corps or neutral freighter or hauler pilots is such a big part of the game. This is simply being transferred over in a very unique way to the political arena with the CSM being the largest, most visible head.

This is a very intriguing issue, that of the alt and the virtual world making it easier to "hide" oneself, that MMOs in general have created, especially in single shard universes like Eve is where what we do effects so many others in a ripple effect. Its sociopolitical influence is astounding and a really big issue in real life. Think recounts and multivoters and fake vote casting in an electronic age.

For me this facet of Eve is so amazing to study and look at. And it covers everything, not just sociopolitics, that people come up with by "gaming" the system in these respects.

I'm going to pretty much stop you right there, because peak NA time beats 40k players on the weekends regularly. You pulled that 30% number out of your rectal cavity. Markets are in no way stagnant unless you're staring at the market for Rifters and nothing else.

The game is fine, the only thing that's dying is everyone reading these hilarious attempts at explaining that the game is dying since 2004.

So far the score is:

"Eve is dying": 0

CCP:

If they don't vote or don't do anything at all to improve the situation, then they have no right to complain in the first place.

People that can't be bothered taking a few minutes to vote don't need their interests represented. It's obvious they don't care.

Three points and you are wrong on all of them! Well done!

If it ain't broke,
don't fix it.

Vic is basically correct. If the goal of the CSM is to form a representative body of the players of the game to provide feedback and insigght into game development it has completely and utterly failed. Most players are not leaders of large groups, or quasi-famous FCs, nor are they popular third-party developers or streamers who do not have to worry about income given their stream of referral income. Much of the activity that goes on in this game is not represented by these players that make up the council, even in a token fashion, and if that is the purpose the body then the manner in which it is formed, and the institution itself is completely broken.

That said, I have come to the conclusion that CCP doesn't really want a representative body in the CSM, or at least can't come up with a better way to form one. They are happy with the CSM being made up of the most engaged players and their figureheads, and to be selected by the popular will of the player base. This is of course perfectly fair, but by its nature heavily favours players that have organized into larger groups. This gives some validity to the idea the views of the CSM reflect the broadest will of the most engaged players, but it also freezes out those less engaged, or who play the game in a way that involves less people, people who also pay subscriptions. In fact these types of interactions with the game may even be in the majority in terms of total play-hours, but done in smaller groups or solo, so end up not meriting representation.

I too have no solution, but I find it strange that CCP would want to mix the in-game power struggles for imaginary space and resources with the real-world development of the game. The reality is that just because you can win a popularity contest does not mean you have useful input to offer to the development of the game, nor even that you represent anything more than a cohesive voting block, N+1 in size of another group. It therefore is of dubious value as a conduit to the players, and I think at this point I might just check out entirely. I can point to many obvious problems of proposed changes that were completely overlooked by recent CSMs with no experience in non-nullsec game play (at least as far as I can tell from the incomplete access to their interactions with CCP we are afforded).

The only plausible workaround that comes to mind is to increase the depth of the CSM to 20 or whatever to broaden the diversity. In recent years there have been many non-nullsec candidates that have come very close, only to miss by a few positions from being on the CSM. But for whatever practical reasons, CCP went the other way and shrunk the council further solidifying access and control to the largest groups in the game.

Whatever. I am resigned to the fact that the CSM is going to be a reflection of the in-game strength of player groups and not representative of the type of game play that goes on in Eve Online. As long as CCP is well aware of this and views the CSM in this light there is no problem. Many of those elected work hard, do have experience elsewhere than nullsec, and do their best to improve the game and interact with the players which is great, but representative of those players it is not. If CCP wants that, some major reform is necessary if they want to have a representative number of their more non-nullsec focused customers on the CSM.

How are CSM members appointed each year?

This thread is a complaint about how the CSM doesn't represent the whole playerbase. I agree, but it's still a democratically elected group of individuals.

Or is it not?

The PVE bit wasn't specifically aimed at you but more a reply to Kirell and others like him. EVE's PVP is more than F1 smashing, anyone who's experience doesn't extend beyond that should probably leave the clown alliance he's in. It'll be a different skill set obviously, some people prefer the more direct pvp (as in Elite) while others prefer the more RTS-like style of EVE. I play both and enjoy both for different reasons.


Don't forget that SC will be heavily instanced and that, just like Elite Dangerous, you can opt out of "online play/pvp" altogether. It's effectively Freelancer with 3D interiors and an online option. Its economy won't compare to EVE's, its instancing will limit how and how many people will be able to interact with each other. So again, what makes EVE stand out is its non-instanced concept and the freedom of choice in regards to the types of interactions you can have with other players. SC, while sounding to be really cool, will not be on par on those things.


On top of that, right now we don't know a whole lot and there's mostly just talk about concepts and ideal situations, Roberts has always been good at talking the talk. Until the finished game actually does as promised (or does what people hope/expect it to do) I'd say to be careful with the hype.