It’s understandable that the thread ‘The real reasons player population is declining,’ originally posted back in January 2018, eventually got locked due to its age. However, what truly stood out, and is still relevant today, was its provocative opening.
That section immediately tried to shut down discussion by labeling any potential disagreement as ‘trolling’ or ‘nasty remarks.’ Honestly, that kind of approach often tells you more about the person writing it than anything else; when someone tries to control the conversation like that, it often feels like they’re not super confident in their own arguments and are trying to stop anyone from poking holes in them.
Despite the original thread being closed, I felt it was important to open a new discussion to address some of the points raised in it, as many of those same misconceptions are still shared by new players today and fundamentally misunderstand EVE Online.
The author’s immediate warning to “trolls,” trying to label any disagreement as “nasty remarks” or a “mental thing,” often suggests someone isn’t entirely confident in their own arguments and is trying to control the conversation from the get-go. But a strong argument should be able to stand up to criticism, not try to deflect it before it’s even made.
Since the original thread is closed, I wanted to open a new discussion to address some of the points raised, as I believe they fundamentally misunderstand EVE Online.
- Basic Ethics or Morality
The idea that EVE Online’s content directly or indirectly “encourages” bad behavior, like smuggling or using narcotics, really misses the mark. We’re talking about a science-fiction video game, not a moral instruction manual. Including elements like these is about creating a rich, often harsh, fictional universe with varied gameplay mechanics, not promoting real-world crime. Most players can easily tell the difference between actions in a game and real-life ethical conduct.
As for concerns about children, EVE is generally rated for teens and up. If a parent allows a young child to play a complex and often brutal game like EVE without understanding its themes, that responsibility falls on the parent to monitor their child’s activities, not on the game developers to censor content appropriate for its intended audience.
- Fairness
The claim that EVE “tolerates, favors, and actually encourages every bad behavior” is a misinterpretation of a player-driven sandbox. EVE doesn’t pick sides; it provides tools and consequences. When a player uses a cargo scanner to target a haul, that’s a tool. When a hauler loses their ship, that’s a consequence of the risk inherent in EVE’s economy. The game isn’t “siding” with anyone; it’s simply allowing players to engage with the core mechanics of conflict and risk management.
The author’s personal experience of being “ganked” after admitting they “got too casual” highlights a player error, not a game design flaw. EVE rewards vigilance and understanding risk. Demanding anti-target-lock or heavy armor on transports in high-security space would break the game’s balance. High-sec isn’t “safe” because you can’t die; it’s safe because there are consequences for aggressors (CONCORD). CONCORD’s presence creates a significant cost for ganking, preventing rampant, consequence-free aggression. The idea that this is “biased against” players who just want to conduct business ignores the fundamental risk-vs-reward balance that defines EVE.
- Cynicism
The argument that EVE “mass breeds cynicism” by making it hard to trust people is a critical misunderstanding of the game’s depth. The challenging environment where trust is rare makes genuine alliances and friendships in EVE far more meaningful. Learning not to blindly trust every stranger is a key survival skill in this universe, not a flaw.
The permanence of loss, where ships and modules are “GONE” when destroyed, isn’t a negative; it’s what gives EVE its incredibly high stakes. The fact that losing a battle or a ship hurts financially and emotionally is precisely what makes success so satisfying and large-scale battles so epic. That “tough luck, get used to it” mentality isn’t malice; it’s part of the game’s culture, encouraging resilience and learning from mistakes rather than expecting hand-holding. If a player expects a game where there are no real consequences for their actions or miscalculations, EVE simply isn’t that game, and it doesn’t pretend to be.
- The Lie of it being any kind of “Simulation”
The author’s argument that EVE is “NOT a simulation” and would “favor the lawful players” if it were, completely contradicts itself. A truly immersive simulation of a lawless, cutthroat space frontier wouldn’t inherently favor “lawful” players; it would reflect the complexities and dangers of such an environment, which absolutely includes piracy and ganking. The author isn’t asking for a simulation; they’re asking for a utopian, simplified game world tailored to their preferred playstyle.
Furthermore, the author describes EVE’s core loss mechanics when complaining about not having “actual death” – acknowledging that losing a ship, its modules, and the “ego loss” that comes with it are high stakes. In a video game, this level of permanent loss is as close as you can reasonably get to “death” without making the game completely unplayable for most people. The game provides these significant deterrents, and players who thrive in EVE understand and accept them.
- The Simple, Obvious Solution that would work, but will never happen, and why…
The proposed “simple, obvious solution” to “bias the game toward the lawful and well behaved players” isn’t simple at all; it’s a fundamental re-design that would completely destroy EVE’s core identity. EVE is defined by its player-driven conflict, emergent gameplay, and the freedom for players to choose their own path, whether that’s peaceful industry or ruthless piracy. Removing the motivation for conflict would remove a massive part of what makes EVE unique and engaging for its dedicated player base.
The author correctly points out that this won’t happen because players are “conditioned” and “too many people in the game who like doing unto others.” This isn’t a problem; it’s the appeal of a true sandbox. CCP makes money because they’ve created a unique, high-stakes, player-driven game that appeals to a specific audience. Suggesting they lack “morality” for not destroying their own game by alienating their core player base to cater to a very different preference is misguided.
Ultimately, it seems the author is asking EVE to be a completely different game, rather than understanding and appreciating the unique experience it already provides.
What do you think? Feel free to jump in with your own thoughts on these points, or anything else from that original thread.
