EVE General Discussion

Jen, an Alliance being able to squeeze out more votes
speaks to the spirit of "strength in numbers" that is characteristic of EVE.

If others wanted changes they are interested in seeing, shouldn't they try to do the strength in numbers thing, too?

Ah, Apologies, I mistook your meaning.

No, well naturally a few moments of clicking and dragging in the vote screen won't yield the same results as a full year of persistent and consistent advocacy. But in looked at from a cost:benefit perspective, it's extremely profitable.

Hisec contains the overwhelming majority of players in EVE. Amongst these, hisec aggressors may be vocal, but they are a statistical minority.

How can <5% of the population cow or blob the 95%? In a game where you can't die, and are not burdened by the legacy inequalities of inheritance and genetics, the only reason the 95% may not be voting or forming large, unassailable alliances is their apathy.

Do you think my evaluation here is incorrect?





Thank you. It is a reflection of how I feel.

I wish I could understand what you meant, Blue.

I think the apathy has a root in repeated failure.

LOL - vote for Goons to "fix" highsec - meaning more wealth for Goons, and an even more boring game. It's like hiring an armed robber as a security guard. The best thing for the game would be a sharp curtailment of the influence of nullsec power blocs - an enforcement of antitrust laws in nullsec, and a breaking up of the major coalitions. That would be a real CSM platform....but for now, just make sure to not vote for anyone who the goons support.

High sec mining? Sabriz and Mike. They disagree on most stuff, but both are interested in seeing high sec improved in their own way.

I'm going to guess that of the majority of players that don't vote, don't vote because of much the same reasons many Americans (of which I am one) do not vote (I'm working on that last part). Issues concerning the game are complicated, and any given general issue has a lot of nuance and changing any small bit could have potential consequences that reach far and beyond the scope of that one topic. Much like real life. So, it takes a long time or a lot of experience to build up a wealth of knowledge about the game to understand most (but never all) aspects of any given single area. So when representatives stand up and talk about changes, it's neigh-impossible for the common capsuleer to understand the significance and consequences of their range of proposals and ideas. And that's not even taking into account the time necessary to study and truly understand the nuances of the proposals each one puts forth.

There's a lot of information to know, a lot of bias on the individual level, a lot of gaps in knowledge on the individual level (note: that's nobody's fault, this is a complicated game which is one of the selling points), and a lot of uncertain theorizing on long-term effects.

End result? People may care, but they can't invest the time enough to understand what the candidates are really talking about, the consequences of their proposals, how realistic each idea is for implementation, and top that off with a general sense of apathy for "CCP doesn't listen to us anyway", and you have a situation where there's a lot of implied disincentive to vote. Lots of work, doesn't matter, why bother?

I thought you wanted people to take the list seriously?