Is the "Freedom" of Eve its Inevitable Downfall?

Communications Center General Discussion
1

In Eve we, as capsuleers, are free. Free to choose our allegiances, our corporations, our friends, and our enemies. Yet I wonder if this freedom harbours a deeper issue… one that limits Eve’s growth in mainstream gaming realities.

Unlike games where one plays the hero, the saviour, the “Neo” of the Matrix. Eve sets itself up as a way to play the villain if one chooses. I believe this creates a certain reality that shoots itself in the proverbial foot. It creates a way to give absolute freedoms in gameplay design, but because of the reprehensible nature of having vile, villainous characters around, it also limits its growth, and subsequently market capture in terms of playability for the masses.

I have loved Eve, almost from day one, when I joined its ranks in 2003, a month after release. I have stayed the course for decades now, and played as both hero and villain in its ranks. I have posited to my in-game ‘friends’ and allies, and also enemies… or rather “fre-enemies,” many times that Eve has a weird place in gaming. What was disallowed as harassment, or ‘griefing’ in other popular titles, has always had a place in Eve Online. Ganking, piracy, scams, etc. This danger, or at least a sense of danger, has always been one of Eve’s greatest draws to me. The ganking subthreads have shown that navigating these dangerous spaces is what constitutes how to effectively “play” Eve for many capsuleers.

Is one of its greatest draws, also an Achilles heel to its success and developmental breakthroughs? Do we actually “shoot ourselves in the foot”? Or is this okay and necessary? Is Eve’s status as a fringe, or niche, game acceptable?

I have seen a lot of the pandering crowd that argues the ‘dumbing down’ of the game. Making it appeal to the masses for subscriptions and mainstream gaming, yet is this the Eve ‘path’? Or is it like life? Where true ‘freedom’ means that evil exists and where it will always maintain a foothold in some grimy backwater way because one can choose it fully, without remorse or consequence. Where it must exist to have the noble causes opposite to it, the avenues of camaraderie, friendship and trust as well.

What say you?

2

Freedom in New Eden is an illusion. We like to think we choose our path, hero or villain, but in reality it’s ISK that decides what’s possible. ISK buys ships, power, safety, reach… even redemption after failure.

We’re not truly free—we’re funded.

The capsuleer with deep pockets can afford to be anything: pirate, savior, industrial king, or all of them in the same week. The one without ISK? Their “freedom” is limited to survival and scraps.

So maybe it’s not freedom that defines EVE—it’s access. And ISK is the real gatekeeper

5 Likes
3

I believe that in a way, you have answered some of your own question.

This game is set up to be a sandbox. it’s not freedom. You are never free, but that is a philisophical discussion for another time.

There is a forked answer to this, so bear with me.

  1. If a player wants to portay a hero of any sort, there absolutely must be a villain. For this topic, Ganking, miners will set up the Ganksers as the great evil. However, Ganksters have valid points as well.
    1. Bots do exist, as well as “afk” mining. Both of these are bad, for several reasons. Bots gather in amounts that actual players will always struggle to keep up with. “AFK” mining is trash. They arent even playing yet are gathering resources. Both of these things, cause “deflation” or the lowering of the value of the goods. This actively Hurts those miners that arent botting or afk. It certainly hurts newbro’s that are being told by various people that they can become super ultra mega trillionaires by mining veldspar.
    2. Ganksters actually are providing a service to multiple types of players. Lazy bitter vets, fake “new” players and actual new players. A reminder, and a teaching lesson, that you are Not safe. You can build an illusion in your mind that you are safe, but that is not reality. You need to protect yourself, or you need other people to do assist in protecting you. You absolutely do not need a forced protection system turning this game into world of warcraft in space.
  2. Having a “bad guy” or “boogieman/woman” as it were, I do not believe limits the growth of this game. To highsec, nullbears are scary. To many nullbears, highsec scares their pants off. Gankster.. well I dont know what they “fear”. Miners, well miners fear everything that moves.

This is a double edge sword. EVE is not a young game. Many people may have started playing when they were young, but time has passed. Careers were built, families started. Sadly, Some players have passed onto their ancestors loving embrace.

This means that eve needs new blood. For new blood to come in, you have only a handful of real choices.

  • Make entry into this game much easier, to pander to the gaming consumers that have most certainly changed since the inception of this video game.
  • Remain as is, effectively shutting the doors for the majority of the video game consumer base.
  • shut down.

There is good and bad to the first two options that I can see. I do not see a good for the 3rd option.

  • Make Entery Easier: The good for this is that perhaps some of those consumers will turn into players instead. This is a technical game, with a lot of things to learn. I believe that this will appeal to people that might not yet know it appeals to them. The bad of this is that bitter vets do not like change. And, let’s be honest, change for the sake of change is stupid, and perhaps there is a perception that too many people simply want change for the sake of change, or to pander to demographics they just rather not deal with. Again, EVE players have been aging, like a fine wine, or perhaps like one of those cheeses I can’t afford.
  • Remain as is; The good to this is, obviously, the doors will be revolving endlessly. Sure, some people will come try it, maybe. I think perhaps a lot of the “new” players are actually just “new” alts. If we assume they are actually new, the revolving doors will keep revolving, people will come, get their precious whatever blown up and rage quit. Some might even stick around. The bad to this; eventually everyone is going to die in real life. Maybe less morbid, eventually players are going to just get bored and find other things to do. Perhaps things with less time sink, less money sink, and less complication. The bad part of this leads to the 3rd option, which i do not like. I like this game. I may not like some people, I may have a real issue with some things. But, overall, I like this game and community. I don’t want it to die out.
2 Likes
5

I agree with this, though I do slightly disagree with your why.

Yes, isk and its procurement and distribution do change the aspect of the game significantly for those who have, as opposed to the have-nots. Much like real currency and the disparities of the rich and poor in real life. Yet there is more than isk as to explain why some “white knight” and others villainous routes go. There is a freedom in choosing, even when isk does appear to be an extreme factor in deciding what to entertain profession-wise.

What I do agree with is that isk funds skillpoints or SP in game. And that DOES fundamentally change what a capsuleer can accomplish in game. So in that sense I do believe we are funded. I do believe SP is the penultimate currency in game to any player. It creates a system by which we can do anything our hearts desires and since the addition of SP for isk transactionally, through the many means of obtaining it, it allows all those facets you speak of to come to fruition for those who have SP. It might really be in essence a differentiation of how one looks at things though.

What I really disagree with is the nature of the beast of CCPs involvement as a producer, creator, purveyor of the game itself. I believe that in essence this is “CCP’s” game. You can argue Pearl Abyss now too in the long run as the new owners. But in this nature we are bound to the world CCP provides, its rules, legislations, vision and drive will create the proverbial “sand” to the sandbox and always limit the play of capsuleers, whether by direct design or emergent gameplay that is ultimately allowed or disallowed.

Nice thoughts though and thanks for your ideas on Eve’s “freedom.”

6

You have replied to a lot so forgive me if I only respond to some of it. I do value your response and take on things.

Yes, I guess I have led the answer in some ways yet I believe it still remains open to discussion in regards to the freedoms we do have and how that is sustained within the sandbox that is Eve. I alluded to some of it in my response to Tharshe Bloes as to my feelings. Yet I certainly do agree with you that freedom is an illusion, and yes it is a deep debated discussion for certain. :smiling_face_with_horns:

I do agree that diametrically opposed opposites must occur to truly sustain meaning within the Eve universe. Good and evil must always remain as opposites of the coin to ensure neutrality within the game. And I think that CCP does a fairly good rendering of that neutrality with only some failings here and there, though mostly do to meta and balance issues. And though I wouldnt lump bots or botting into the mix so quickly, yet I do believe botting is bad for the game itself. Though the ideals of “bot aspirant” behaviour is what I might call an emergent gameplay syndrome all its own to create a very unique gameplay option of not only bot hunter but also targets some aspects of legitimate gameplay created as a sidenote for roleplaying purposes.

This I am curious of though. As well as your ideas as to why Eve hasn’t gone mainstream in a more remarkable way?

You kind of begin to answer some of the questions with your last quote reply in the 3 pronged answer you gave: citing the changing consumer base/static world gameplay/shutting down. Though I agree that some change is necessary, I fully believe meta changes and shakeups will provide lifespan extensions to the game, I dont believe that pandering to anyone in such a large degree is wise nor do I agree that staying ‘status quo’ would be healthy either.

I would tend to disagree to the idea you state that having a villain doesnt limit Eve’s growth. I think the very nature of Eve is exactly its own downfall and keeps it niche but I also don’t believe that is a bad thing as it has also created its longevity for those who can accept the dark, edgy nature of the dystopian world. Like ‘Mad Max’ there are only so many that can accept, live and thrive in such an atmosphere. I feel most of humanity wants the glorious, “heavenly,” kumbya-like realities. Or as the Matrix movie puts it: "Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world? Where none suffered, where everyone would be happy. It was a disaster.” Real life is dark, gritty and unforgiving, and so most want to see the upside rather than face the harsh realities that are the true human nature with regards to mankind’s freedom of choice: that to have a Mother Theresa on earth, one must also accept the gravest villains as well. That balance must be maintained. I think the limitation is a human one. That the mind cannot accept the truth. But again, this ideology is a definite, deep and involved discussion best suited for other times and places.

I know I have only answered some of your ideas. And again thank you for them.

2 Likes
7

Game was developed by gen-x for gen-x gamers.

That’s the generation who grew up preparing for nuclear apocalypse.

And that is the meta answer for that meta question.

1 Like
8

I’m glad I didn’t reply, I stopped typing and pressed discard.

This, this is way better than what I was going to post. Well put.

I just want to add, the ISK effect on us, we let ISK dictate our behavior and gameplay. No matter how much you think you are immune, you are not.

9

You mean they gonna let us nuke each other outta space?! Woah! I can put money on that…

10

You are not a savior in Counter Strike, Battlefield, Fortnite, LoL, World of Warships,….

1 Like
11

This continues to be the big misconception, and purely the result of that new growth not properly knowing exactly what they are getting into when they create an account for this game.

That new growth are coming from those hero games you mentioned…..games that have created a precedence that all games follow the same rules. This game does not. On the average majority, they find out harshly that eve is closely knitted like real life. You have a safe haven, you have a plan for the trip, you enter areas that you dont know and could be dangerous, etc.

I can tell you as well, being a player thats also been here a long time…and have seen this game change into many small iterations of itself, producing some of the most dangerous and vile players that many of us have run into….as well as the friendliest also. Im sure all those players have a newbro story to tell and the mistakes they made. They learned and improved. Im sure even back then, there were folks complaining about being interacted upon without permission. Even with that being said, the game had a healthy population then, as it does now.

Eve will always be here. It will grow…..maybe slowly but it will grow. This game will always produce the villain….nothing will stop that….villains are a very integral part of this game. Instead, the new growth needs to accept what game they are playing.

2 Likes
12

I’ve been playing so long and made so much ISK that I’ve basically ascended to a level where politics bore me, loss doesn’t bother me and I can do basically anything I want or pay someone else to do it. I still do my trading and stuff though because it’s my thing. That’s all.

1 Like
13

Is the “Freedom” of Eve its Inevitable Downfall?

No.

1 Like
14

EVE players are so full of themselves nobody responded the OP.

Then this hero came and solved it. Man EVE is surely full of surprises.

1 Like
15

Speculation.

Until the “downfall” of Eve, it is pure speculation discussing what it’s downfall will be.

Have fun, but pointless discussion IMHO.

1 Like
16

Lol !….well its on par with someone being vile and villainous for taking a pawn in a game of chess.

‘You took someone’s pawn ? That’s a hate crime !’

3 Likes
17

There was never any “freedom” in the game. We are all a slave to effort. ISK while not irrelevant means you just have more to lose.

1 Like
18

Yet in these games, you are the “main character.” Less so in the multiplayer portions, but in the single player, where you control success or failure as that main character, which is also synonymous with the idea of the saviour, hero complex in many other games.

At least that is the idea I was shooting for. As for that there are games where you arent Im certainly sure there are examples.

19

I do agree with this one on even a personal level as I too had no idea what our group of online friends were getting into, or that it would last for over 2 decades for me!

This might be the reason for its growth in some respects as well. The counter-culture idea of being able to be the villain might be the reason for its longevity. Even the idea of the “successful” psychopath. Like those in business as CEOs, surgeons, etc., could lead these personality types into a game like Eve continuing its growth simply as the worlds population and the percentage of those personality types increases.

Personally, I always liked the dangerous aspect of the environment in Eve due to the players. I was greatly disappointed when CCP went the way of the abyss, where NPCs created the danger rather than players themselves, but thats a side note for another discussion.

Thank you for your discussion.

2 Likes
20

I think its less the idea of taking a pawn. Because the set rules of chess, or other games, dictate that you absolutely need to take pieces in order to ensure victory. Whereas in Eve, you can be a total white knight, hero character OR choose to live in such a way as to be the villain. The villainous actions are not dictated by the game’s format in such a harsh way as to become necessary, but only encouraged by the freedom of choice, at least in my opinion.

I think it resonates with the ideas Christine Creed shared about the disconnect between new and older players regarding the fact that such brutality can and will happen, and is even encouraged by the game design’s freedom-of-choice aspect in Eve.

Now don’t get me wrong, I absolutely love the freedom Eve gives us, though I do think that freedom is manufactured and therefore not true freedom at all, as some other posters have talked about, and I believe that being the villain is fundamentally necessary in a game like Eve. I still remember my first times going “rogue” in Eve online with fond memories.

21

This really could be argued on a lot of levels. When free choice is mandated by an entity, in this case CCPs game design, are the choices made inherently “free” at all? But that is an existential and philosophical argument about real freedom and draws on the free will vs. determinism debate.

Thanks for your thoughts.