EVE General Discussion

I've noticed a trend in how we (humans) disagree or argue over specific issues. The Nature vs Nurture debate is a well known example, whereby one side makes an argument in their favour (nature) and the other side, keen to pull in supporters, disregards it and makes an equally strong case for their viewpoint (nurture). If I asked you, which of the two it is, I'm sure you'd all, rightly, tut and say it depends on which characteristic I'm asking about; it's a bit of both. Yet for years there were respected scientists digging their heels in, standing in their corner, lashing out at any and all counter-argument and firmly affirming their point of view.

What has this go to do with EVE?

I am not a super active player, but I have been here and there since 2006 and I love EVE as an idea, a concept and a game. The trend has always been there, I think its a standard default for any disagreement, but I believe that the next 1-2 years could hold EVE's future in the balance. So I wanted to make this thread and throw out my theoretical musings.

It has all happened before.

I will mention it, it's a text book example. Walking. In. Stations. Yes. Obviously CCP promised us the earth and instead gave us a cage – we've moved on from that. Following it there was a very vocal group stating that WiS should never resurface again – there are numerous threads each year and in each one I've looked at, someone will say something to the effect of “EVE is FiS, WiS has no place in the game”. I'm not knocking that general viewpoint (I tend to agree, mostly). The trap is that by default these people take a very strong stance (stood right in their corner; no compromise). Often the person making the thread has made a simple suggestion (“wouldn't it be cool to walk around our hangar”), but the counter-argument comes in, full force, and slates WiS in all its forms. The original poster finds themselves defending the entire ambulation concept and we all end up in the corner, duking out the age old nature vs nurture debate. (Please don't think I'm railling on FiS proponents, it's just a good, well known example of the trend.)

More recently we have the Make it Simpler vs Dumbing it Down argument. Clones were removed – all hail World of EVE. Attribute points are looking at the axe – This is now a game for 5 year olds. It's not that the anti-dumb group don't have a point (again, I agree, mostly), the game is hard, it is meant to be hard, but it isn't meant to be stupidly hard.

The answer, as in Nature vs Nurture (as in 99% of these types of debates, I find) is that it depends; it's a bit of both. WiS would be cool, if it added to the value of FiS and didn't detract from core gameplay. Removing some of the barriers to entry will provide more players, as long as it doesn't erode core gameplay. It's a balance, it's always a balance.

Standing in a corner, just stating that same argument over and over again, lashing out at any encroachment on that pure belief is ultimately foolish.

I did say the future of EVE hangs in the balance, didn't I?

Fanfest approaches. Nearly final build of Valkyrie? Release date even? Dust turning to more dust, perhaps, but then, Legion arising? The topic of debate comes to inter-connectivity. The EVE-Dust link, albeit in the minimalist of forms, was a technical achievement and social experiment; many players lament it and I've seen the comments “EVE should stand alone”.

I can't help but see the echoes of the past here. Once more, the viewpoint is not invalid in itself, I happen to agree (mostly). But CCP stand on the brink of something that could be exceptional, one of the first truly immersive experiences – a true living world built on more than static portraits and space ships.

I guess my point is, be open to a little compromise, not every little change will destroy the game that is EVE, it may even improve it. And maybe, just maybe, the ideals that you hold in your head are actually wrong – I know mine nearly always are.

Tl; dr version pleeez

Try the last paragraph, though I recommend reading the ones before it first.




I'm not entirely sure how we got to that conclusion, however, to quote Death, EVERYTHING IS DYING.

I'll be honest, I have only every taken part in one formal debate. So the in's and out's of debating are lost on me.

I'm not talking about the process of debating per se, I'm talking about solutions. Currently in the UK the government is trying to reduce our budget deficit, our welfare budget is the greatest expense, so that is being cut. All the opponents to this (the less well off, those empathetic to those same people, the oppositions parties etc.) point at the government and say they are stealing food out of their mouths - how dare they cut any money at all, the government is then put on the back foot and is left defending the entire policy of budget cuts. We move from whether £80/week is enough, or if it should be £90 to whether the government is evil money grabbing monsters. The debate loses focus, everyone sticks to their guns and defends their position zealously, the fact that a middle ground solution would work out best for most people is lost.

Taking a positions is key, yes. Obviously some people favour different things. I'm not saying you shouldn't have a preference. I'm saying that believing your preference is right (regardless of any evidence) and then arguing for a pure form of that preference (No WiS whatsoever) - regardless of any compromise - is not helpful. In my experience, a compromise between two distinct views is nearly always the right one.

Objective analysis has little place in the real world of real people. Emotion, belief, morals and justness are critical; I don't advocate the blind machine weighing up pro's and con's. I advocate people bringing their view to the table, but being willing to take on board the points of the other side, moderate their position and thus work towards the compromise that works best.

My post was simply highlighting that in some of the key debates in EVE, the forums head towards the corner fighting and I'd hate for the potential of EVE to be ruined by a fear of compromise.

On the contrary, I'm saying debate is essential. Without the open and honest discussion of different points of view, how would you work out where the suitable compromise is?

Who wins? Sure, I might convince more people to my point of view and win the debate, but what then? Winning a debate and making things better are not the same thing. Coming back to the topic of EVE:

If the anti-WiS people 'win' the debate and we don't have WiS, who wins? If the compromise (whatever that may be) would make EVE more accessible, more fun, more immersive, then without it, the game is poorer. Who wins? Many debates happen in a vacuum (including this one) - they affect nothing. Does it matter if I convince more people that Britain should invade the USA? No, because that won't affect policy. That, by extension, makes this thread a bit pointless and I recognise that, but within the world of EVE there is power in the masses and therefore I think it's important to raise.

Besides, there doesn't have to be a 'winner' and a 'loser' - both can 'win' by working together to get that compromise. This proves my point, humans are inherently programmed to protect what is theirs, you go in to a debate wanting to 'win' it, to prove yourself right - even if that means the eventual solution is a poorer one. Debates should be for airing personal opinion, to spot the flaws in theirs and patch the holes in yours and as you do that, you will naturally draw towards the compromise.

On the side note of Britain - you're over-extending the argument - the government isn't attacking the whole system, they aren't changing the promise. They are just cutting it back because there is no money. That's my point, yes, they may be doing too much, yes they may be doing it in the wrong way, but no, it isn't the end of the world.

the problem alot fo vets have with "making the game more accessible" is that it sets a precident (**** i cant remember how to spell that right now) and gives CCP an incentive to make changes that ARENT good.

for instance, lets say they make some changes in an effort to get more casual players into EVE, they then realize that gets ALOT of players, who complain that other aspects of the game arent equally as casual, now CCP could tell them to deal with it, possibly lose a couple of them over it, and not get a whole lot more casuals, or the finance guys in charge coudl say "hey, we doubled our playerbase with thsoe casual changes, why are we even trying to keep the old guys around, burn it down", and then we end up with the same thing that happened to Star Wars Galaxies, the developers were told to change the game to suit a more casual crowd attuned to a different type of MMO, and in the process not only alienated and sometimes outright evicted most of their longer term players, but in the end sank the game into the bowels of digital hell as well. (RIP SWG, you didnt deserve the NGE travesty)

Take economics for instance. Economics is numbers. Numbers are facts. You get all sorts of theory. Then, you end up with the facts. There's no debating whether you're holding a pence in your pocket or not. It's either there, or it isn't. Some people say it's debateable why it's there, or isn't. With economics, however, experience has taught us that too is a matter of facts, and this debate is an endless torture to find who is willing to state the actual facts. Because, how an economy is structured has a direct effect on who gets how much money. "Vested interests" abound.

Simply put, you can't trust anyone with a dog in that fight. They're never doing to deal with any fact save, "This puts a pence in MY pocket. This does NOT." Getting them to care about YOUR pocket cannot be achieved through debate. That's usually reserved for deathbead conversions or strange moments just after being struck by lightning. The entire reason why Britain and France made the move to overt "social welfare" states is because of the disasters visited upon them with blinding regularity by "unbridled capitalism." This is a debate that has nothing to do with the numbers. Using the numbers to have the debate is therefore flawed, and quite possibly self-defeating.

A chemist would not debate the correct mix of chemicals to create a compound. Should rational, educated people see one doing so, he would immediately be called-out for it. Yet, we continue to "debate" economics as though it's a form of philosophy, rather than whether a child can get food, or not - whether people can afford this so-called "advanced" health care, or not.

My point isn't to argue the European Union's economic woes...why Britian held onto the British Pound for instance, and does that have anything to do with the wider discussion...it is to point out that some things are not subjects for debate, and when people treat them as if they are two things happen. 1.) People get pi$$ed off. 2.) Nothing gets done.

Not surprisingly many things in EVE have these qualities, as this environ can be said to be a simulator. There are some things, (people will tell you) that if they are changed will benefit certain people but not all people. Here, that means 'sploding ships, or not 'sploding ships - as well as ISK in your pocket...or no. You may notice, and I find this commendable with our bunch here, the debate most often hinges on whether a proposed change affects everyone or just a few. (That shows a certain regard we like to claim isn't here.)

At this point I would remind you of the subject line of your OP.

Ah! But, to adopt YOUR view I have to concede some things CAN be compromised and this I will not do!

You see? You phrase all this as though it is irrefutable fact. All children have a right to an education? Where does it say that? There are those who insist only those who can rightfully afford an education have the "right" to one. What makes your opinion a fact, and theirs "wrong"?

WiS - some people love this idea and want to see it expanded. Why do you say it would ruin the game if done wrong, when you've never seen it done, and we have only your opinion as to what is "right" and what is "wrong"? And, this word "meta", your gaming slang...what does it MEAN? I'll wager you have one meaning, and your 733T cousin has another, if we get you in different rooms and ask.

Humanity tends to fight to death over opinions, not facts. No one is going to argue don't fix your flat tire. In fact, if they can most people will pull over and help you. If your car's out of gas, most people will give you a lift to a station, not shout arguments for or against running out of gas as they speed past.

End of EVE people are like End of the World people. They can't tell you what EVE is, or what the world is. But, they talk anyway. I don't debate these people. If that's digging in my heels, fine. That's what I do.

TL; DR of all previous posts pleeeeeeez