EVE General Discussion

Regarding your comments about political debate, in Britain we operate a system of adversarial politics quite deliberately as a check on government and to facilitate debate.

There are perhaps two comments related to eve in this thread.

I'm not sure it is entirely off topic.

Look at how discussions about the CSM unfold, particularly when people kick off over representation, bloc voting and intel leaks. FunkyBacon's recent comments about being more effective as a member of the community rather than a space politician don't strike me as particularly shocking.

Perhaps that's due to being part of a nation IRL renowned for voter apathy where we are almost institutionally cynical regarding our politicians and 'the system'. It doesn't align with the attitude of the Americans I talk to ingame, so there's certainly a disparity in expectations between demographics. I know it must be difficult for the people involved with the CSM ingame, but it's intriguing to monitor for those who have an interest in politics, particularly where it mirrors real world concerns.

I've just finished a course on American History 1775-1877 and found the early debates over appropriate systems of rule brought up something that might be applicable here too. The founding fathers (I think Jefferson in particular) stressed the need for political parties in opposition and competition as a means to stop absolutism. It makes me wonder if the CSM should adopt specific party agendas; right now they have individual platforms and it looks as though a lot of their dialogue is about achieving consensus. Maybe it shouldn't be, and there should be formal avenues for argument. Obviously they aren't appointed to 'rule' us as such (lol) but there might be merit to formalising specific agendas as platforms which can be promoted to CCP.

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.

Problem with those tiny little changes is, that none of them are a problem if you look at them isolated. But over time a pattern starts to emerge for an individual player and he starts to accumulate those changes.

With every additional pattern matching change, the player will be alerted and at some point he starts to evaluate the impact of this change on the fun he gets from his personal style of gameplay. Once this stage is reached, the player will start setting boundaries to what kind of changes are still acceptable. Cross too many of those limits and he will reevaluate his subscription(s).

There are perhaps two comments related to eve in this thread.

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.