LETTER TO CCP Volume 2

LETTER TO CCP - Volume 2
This letter has a different subject in focus than before. New subject:
We have been through this … Scarcity

How much do we know about scarcity and how this affects human psychology and the community mass except the reflections we have all been exposed to in-game day by day.
This is a game, a leisure activity as players every decision matters. Homo economicus in a fictional world.

Every human being has limited cognitive power to process happenings inside and around them. When we dedicate energy and focus on one thing we eventually use less energy on other things. Tunnel vision is real … it is not only something we see in 1v1 fights in space.

When human being begins to deal with scarcity, researches show that there is an enormous impact on peoples cognitive capacity. Tunnelling and increased attention on maintenance and dealing with the effects of scarcity begin to spread like cancer on the other areas of life ( in our case game ) and it starts a chain reaction.

These cognitive shifts begin to take effect on human behaviours. People who play for survival with a little wealth take their share from impediments far more than people who have higher welfare conditions.

Scarcity has clearly far more negative effects on person adaptations skills, cognitive processing and lead them to tunnelling.

CCP 's Scarcity Strategy in a video game has results on players cognitive behaviours, their decision making process as homo economicus, perspectives and handlings.
CCP created a solution bound to be a failure. Because Scarcity not only affects the objects in space but also affects the player bases mindset. And create a vortex pulling everything even more down the hole. And throw woods to the fire of all unwanted social biases inside the community and any leadership should avoid them by all means.

IT is a game people play, earn the win. thrive fun. To do that: They make DECISIONS.
Negativity Bias comes to the table when we irrationally weigh the potential of losses and negative outcomes more than that the positive outcome.

People don’t like change because the current situation makes sense to them and CHANGE requires bandwidth to adapt to them. Scarcity is the best tool to drown human beings cognitive bandwidth and prevent it use enough energy to change their thought process. That’s what we called DECLINE BIAS which is another social Bias you are feeding into EVEcommunity.

And thus all at the end feeds BACKFIRE EFFECT. while with a negativity bias, people weigh their losses more and act according to that in the decision-making process… And as decline bias ( also you can call “in old days bias” people begin to stick even more and be more preoccupied with these old days and people begin to hold tighter to these instead of redirecting cognitive energy bandwidth to adapting. SO we are on the tunnel…

Scarcity strategy limits the cognitive bandwidth of player base… and chain reaction to BACKFIRE EFFECT. We are all human. And this is human nature. Players already in high welfare status either lost little or create even more wealth in this process. As well known predicted mechanic. this hit the worst middle and entrance lvl player base heavier than the top richest player percents. Since they have far larger marge and slack factors to play around with.

Scarcity Strategy feeds the RISK AVERSION!

Success measurement should not only pull the number of sources in New Eden to healthy levels but at the same time include maintaining the number of players thriving in that system and gain even increase the active player numbers and provide satisfying gameplay. IF one side fails … you cannot talk about any success.

All these factors are well researched in behavioural economics and there are many effective strategies developed to tackle these in the last 10 years especially. Get some help. Please.
to be continued…
bluelysian

First one: Letter to CCP - #186 by bluelysian
read up materials for those who are interested: Real Economist Takes Lessons From Virtual World in EVE Online - WSJ
For people who still think this data is my personal opinion there is a lot of research from universities based on data provided by the CCP Games that conclude the value of this data as parallel to real-life behavioural economic aspects.
Description Scarcity: SCARCITY | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary
The psychology of scarcity
Scarcity Definition and Why It’s Important in Business | Indeed.com
Scarcity in the context of this OP approaches the subject as a strategy used by CCP in Eve online virtual economy

Important Addition: I do understand and acknowledge that CCP make these changes for games long term health . I do not challenge this intention in this post prior one and the future posts. I do challenge the tools / strategies accuracy , functionality , effectiveness ( with minimising drawbacks ) to reach these objects.

5 Likes

This is a game, a leisure activity as players every decision matters. Homo economicus in a fictional world.

How does Player behaviour in the massively multiplayer online game EVE Online may reflect world country context?

1 Like

in before lock

1 Like

I’ve not read this but does it per chance translate to “I want to be able to afk without downsides and make my numbers go up”?

2 Likes

NO, it doesn’t.

1 Like

Ah now I realise why I couldn’t read it.

2 Likes

Looking at things from a developer perspective:

Don’t get me wrong, I think considering player psychology is important when making design decisions, however, that does not mean that they shouldn’t have implemented scarcity. Of course, I think they ■■■■■■ up by creating the need for scarcity in the first place. However, I support their decision to address unsustainable economic activity, and to take steps to prevent future problems down the road. Sometimes, unfucking things, and working towards a greater future reward, requires short term sacrifices. And I’m glad that CCP didn’t kick the can down the road any further, because I have no doubt that that would have just made the required solution that much worse.

Looking at things from a player’s perspective:

Oh no, not adversity in my brutal, full-loot PvP! Whatever shall I do?
  • Chase new strats and opportunities. Benefit greatly from changes of all types, whether they buffs, nerfs, or something in-between. Come to enjoy and look forward to change.
  • Stop playing to accumulate wealth or shiny stuff. Live within my means, whatever that may be. Realize that nothing is forcing me to grind for shiny ships or wealth, and that neither is required to be competitive or have fun.
  • Change nothing, and complain about how CCP is ruining the game.

0 voters

1 Like

I don’t always get all the points in your posts due to what I presume are translation difficulties.

I do agree that events like “Scarcity” hurt the smaller groups and entities more than the large wealthy ones.

It’s also kind of hilarious that CCP introduced the scarcity era with “Abundance breeds Complacency and Scarcity breeds War”.

After all, CCP created the abundance era with endless easy nullbot ISK farming and the Rorq and Orca changes, among others. And they were certainly complacent about taking 5+ years to fix these issues.

As the OP has said though, scarcity hasn’t led to ‘war’ but rather to less play, less risk-taking and less destruction. People seeing a reduction in their assets don’t suddenly decide to go out and gamble them on a losing proposition (which is what Eve PvP is, in general).

I also agree with the points that people resist change because they’re familiar with the current situation and don’t want to adapt to a new one. You can see this every time I suggest that EVE PvP should be improved and made more engaging.

The so-called ‘PvP’ crowd (mostly just high-sec carebears who like to gank while remaining safe from attack themselves) who like things just the way they are and don’t want to adapt, immediately start screaming that I’m mad and hate Eve and don’t know how to play and I should probably just leave EVE because there’s no way to make me happy. And oh btw “people PvP every day” so therefore everything is fine, please leave it all alone.

Scarcity is more likely to breed risk aversion than conflict, but at least it’s (supposedly) over for now. We’ll have to wait and see if CCP will ever understand the one true core economic principle: “people will seek gain and avoid loss”. So long as they keep PvP a primarily losing proposition with little to gain for the average player, then PvP will always be a minor activity in EVE.

3 Likes

i agree

From your developer perspective with lack of skills, education and understanding of behavioural economics prevent you to see more effective and positive strategies and methods. And makes you accept this implementation as viable. even necessary.

Here is the difference someone knows both sides and I know the myriad of techniques from neanderthal primitive lvl to the more advanced modern and updated effective methods in behavioural economics, social psychology.
You know what did they implemented. And you believe that was necessary … But in positive science … it was not necessary. was not effective. and was not positive.

‘To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail’ (Abraham Maslow )

Sometimes a reset is needed, even if it hurts almost everyone in the process. Short term bad, long term good.

And that speaks FOR CCP in this case: they are willing to weather the storm/rage because they see a future benefit, that means they’re looking ahead and have long term plans. That’s WAY better than only thinking short term cashing out.

2 Likes

image

“The concept of loss aversion is certainly the most significant contribution of psychology to behavioural economics.” — Daniel Kahneman, Nobel Prize Winner (Behavioural Economics)

Kahneman was also one of the authors i suggested to CCP in my previous post

.https://www.pnas.org/content/116/24/11699

I can give hundreds of research and analytics that proofs scientifically Scarcity has no good for the purpose CCP intended as a result.

I don’t think anyone has ever used so many words to call me an idiot before.

3 Likes

https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/137099/

Pay-off scarcity causes evolution of risk-aversion and extreme altruism

NOT conflict and war. Whoever in CCP come with this brilliant idea and motto . should be evaluated his professional competencies again.

I am not an enemy. I love this game I love this community. and I want this company to thrive better in future.

And I do my best to break down some totally groundless sentences you all humming and mumbling unconsciously, endlessly and make people believe.

I agree, I want REAL scarcity, not hyperbolic non-scarcity

Some things… I cannot express in a direct way on the forums.

Mostly because I try hard to seal any leaks and crevasses in a futile attempt to deter derailments, trolling and biased deviations.

But hey… I’m not the OP here, so here it goes:

There is a lot of energy invested in amazingly useless stuff that can --and indeed have-- impacted EVE sometimes to a point that they have percolated to the real, negatively reflecting on the game’s performance as a business.

I don’t think it’s healthy to list such accidents.

I really recommend whoever in charge to exercise care, go out there if you don’t play the game, revise your stamina levels --perhaps the time has come–, listen to colleagues --they are not telling you, but you’re wrong and they know it–, fire whoever is pushing “la vida loca” --EVE is a punchbag but we are seeing some tear caused by imbecile interventions–, hire people who DO play the game --not YOUR game–…

But I don’t think it’s just a question of establishing a path to correction… maybe what’s really needed is to re-aligning the investment in energy everyone sees being applied against the punchbag, for the recommendation, the advise is here because those interventions reflect an absolute lack of direction in consonance with this game’s identity, complexity and uniqueness.

So, ok… don’t do what I recommended, don’t fire anyone and forget about listening. Just stop it with the punchbag! Believe me, it makes you money --more money–.

2 Likes

Dude!

What Scarcity?
I felt nothing. And I’m a peasant with a forgotten stash of some billions.

1 Like

No, actually, it says “CCP needs to do better than this if they actually want to improve the game”. Sadly that doesn’t fit your “carebears suck, PvPers are the master race” narrative so it’s not surprising you didn’t understand it.

Theoretically this is the case. CCP always says they’re doing things to theoretically, “improve the game”. In fact, the nullbot AFK ratting for endless ISK, the Rorqual, and Orca changes etc., were all made to “improve the game”.

You can make it the “player’s fault” for “not properly adapting” and “instead choosing to do nothing but complain”, but the fact is, if the game economy gets bent out of shape, that is on CCP and not the player.

You keep trying to make it about the “players” because a few dozen whiners come to the forum to cry about something. That’s much less than 1/10th of 1% of players.

Look at the current changes. A couple dozen whiners, and everywhere else, miners saying “I’m mining much more than I used to”. Less than a week in and virtually everyone has adapted and is making more than before. And they’re less gankable while they do it, for the most part.

I see a number of posters “drinking the sugary solution” and buying in to CCP’s devblog words without properly evaluating the actions and results. Much like CCP themselves.

So tell me, and please use references to actual statistics like the MER or published CCP data, just what did Scarcity “fix”? Why is the economy ‘unfucked’ by making less gankable miners mine more?

What portion of the game is made better by less production, expensive ships, less destruction, more mining, increased Null ISK farming, and fewer players logging in?

Because to me, all I see is CCP, as usual, making a lot of noise about “fixing” the things that aren’t the real issues of the game, but are easy to make changes to. And leaving core elements of the game (like PvP) to rot.

1 Like

Holy wall of text Batman! In any case your premise is way off base and you can’t compare the psychological / cognitive effects of real life scarcity to the game.

Scarcity in real life is real and death in real life is permanent. In the game even during “scarcity” there are still unlimited resources you just have to grind a bit harder to produce anything. If your don’t “work” in the game you aren’t punished at all whatsoever. Irl you must provide for your basic needs to survive hence the tunnel vision.

I don’t agree with CCP’s notion that scarcity breeds conflict in the game. If you must grind harder then that brings risk aversion. Since resources in the game are limitless and there isn’t much difference between one area of space to another there is no reason for conflict other than boredom. In real life scarcity brings conflict yes because if you starve your dead. If your country runs out of stuff for it’s citizens it’s dead. Thus people and countries are motivated to compete for the limited resources for survival first and then power via control next. Eve doesn’t have that element.

4 Likes

Ok… hold it there…

Please leave an open window to the fact that the introduction of such alterations as Scarcity might not come from a backed up instance and just the byproduct of “Residual Self Image”, selfishness, routine, “Lemme show you who’s the Boss” --or pseudo-bravado–, etc.

Because, TBH, I absolutely guarantee that NONE of such axioms in economy, finance and all the washers, nuts, keystones, shims, rope, glue, elbow grease AND direction… were included in the recipe for making the decision.

And maybe someone just woke up with a brilliant idea of just doing it and see how it goes.

I think you are very clever. NOt everybody has to know everything in this world. That is actually my point there when I say CCP needs to get help. This is raising star of business sector atm. Frontiers already begin to use this stuff…

I do watch your videos and some of the writing… just in awe and I m no way in the world to get things together as you do in a very refined and striking way …

1 Like