What public identity?

Blog Banter 35: The Public Perception of EVE Online

Now approaching its tenth year, the EVE Online player community has matured into an intricate and multi-faceted society viewed with envy by other game developers, but is frequently regarded with suspicion by the wider gaming community. Is this perception deserved? Should “The Nation of EVE” be concerned by its public identity and if so how might that be improved? What influence will the integration of the DUST 514 community have on this culture in the future?

[Unrelated and random bonus question sponsored by EVE News 24: What single button would you recommend be included on an EVE-specific keyboard?]

EVE Who?

I read two mainstream computer magazines each month – both of which have gaming sections.  Over the last 6 years that I have been playing EVE – some 140+ editions, I have only seen EVE online mentioned once.  I’ve never seen it mentioned in the IT Tech sections of the couple national papers I read, or the occasional episode I catch of a computer games related TV show.  Whenever it has come up in conversation, next to none of my circle of friends, colleagues or acquaintances have heard of it.

World of Warcraft and franchises such as Halo, The Sims, Super Mario, Call of Duty, Angry birds and so on are frequently mentioned in main stream media.  While EVE might be technically respected and have a solid fan base, it seems pretty much unknown out of the MMO sphere.

 

Ah, that EVE

Those few people I come across in real life who have heard of EVE tend to show disdain for the game – it is too complicated, or the interface is too poor, or there is too much repetition and mouse clicking.  Those with interest might look wistful, but always seem to indicate that they just can’t imagine themselves spending the time and effort to really get into the game.

Even though I love the game and have played it for years, I don’t try and sell it to my friends.  I know it requires a learning curve and effort, in an environment that is often unforgiving and immoral, that most of them won’t appreciate.  My friends who did play have moved on, only able to go a couple years before it just required too much effort for a more casual gamer to progress further.

The small public identify EVE does have seems to be that it is a deep and complicated game that isn’t for everyone.

Still – it seems to be profitable with a slow but steady organic growth, so maybe there isn’t really an issue.

 

Sell EVE

When EVE is in the MMO media, it seems to be for two reasons.  First is a level of fascination at the politics and scope of the events which occur in game.  While good, I am not sure how many new players it encourages.  It is not as if they can pick up the game and be instantly involved.  They generally have to work through an apprenticeship which can take years.

The second reason to see EVE in the MMO media is for less savory drama – player revolts, CCP mess ups, the Mittani’s faux pas and so on.  Such drama is not good.  People play games for fun and to escape – and such coverage suggests EVE might be more hassle than it’s worth.

A common theme – from me as well, is that to make EVE more appealing to the masses, CCP will have to make changes which would likely break what makes the game special in the first place.  The age old suggestions of making things less complicated, or cutting down on the ability to grief and be nasty.  While I was going to ramble on in the same vein, one word in the previous paragraph jumped out at me – fun.

If CCP want to increase their subscriber numbers, they should focus on making all aspects of the game fun.  It seems obvious, but I have found many aspects of game play are interesting to research and get working, but then are almost immediately boring.  You don’t even have to master it before mining, PI, most of the PVE content and so on are no longer fun.  I am not sure how you fix that – but that should be a goal.

 

Dusty EVE

Dust might throw a spanner in the works.  I have no real interest in the FPS genre, and I don’t follow it in the media.  The numbers suggested as having access to the free DUST download via their PS3 however are just mindboggling.  If CCP manage to pull off a half acceptable game, they could have a huge number of gamers exposed to the EVE world.

What they will find is not just the same maps to play over and over – the maps they will influence instead cover thousands of solar systems and tens of thousands of planets.  To be successful they need to work with player corporations and alliances.  The environment has longevity and consequence to it.  I don’t envision large numbers of those players then deciding to subscribe to the space ship component, but if the game manages to get into the mainstream media more often, then those unique people who could carve a niche out for themselves in EVE might have an easier time finding the game.

EVE should continue along happily enough regardless what happens with Dust.  If Dust is successful however, it could have a huge impact on the EVE subscription numbers.  It will be interesting to see.

 

Bonus button

I was going to say a drone launch button – but that becomes more complicated once you have multiple drone types.  I use a Logitech G110 keyboard, and the EVE key macro I use the most is [CNTL] W (to select all).  It’s boring, but still gets used in lots of places even after the loot all button was added.

 

A list of participants (that will be updated by the owner as time permits) can be found here:

http://freebooted.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/blog-banter-35-public-perception-of-eve.html

Do we really need the hassle of Online Spaceship Politicians?

Blog Banter 34: The Rise of the Spaceship Politicians

The polls have just opened closed for the election of candidates to occupy the 14 seats on the 7th Council of Stellar Management. To kick-start a topical CSM-themed banter, CCP Xhagen – fierce champion of freedom of speech and in his words, “the guy that gets yelled at when the CSM dudes do booboos” – has offered this question:

“How would you like to see the CSM grow, both in terms of player interaction and CCP interaction?”

I did not vote for this year’s CSM. I tried. I tried to read the statements of each candidate. I tried to follow the various interviews that were given. I tried the candidate comparison tool. In the end it just took too much time and effort.

Don’t get me wrong, I like the idea, and I think in certain ways the CSM has been useful. It is worth having, even if I don’t think it has anywhere near the power it thinks it does.

Why was it such a big job to just understand what each candidate stood for? I wanted a concise summary from each of them – but instead I more often found a few inane comments or propaganda images that said nothing, or promises that they could never deliver. If there was a detailed message, it was often spread across 100 blog and forum posts, scattered to all corners of the Internet. It seriously takes much less effort to research and understand the candidates I can vote for in my local Council, State or Federal elections.

So to start with – I would like the CSM to grow by having it easier for players to identify a candidate that they are happy to give their vote to:

. Candidates had to get a certain number of likes before they were included on the ballot paper. I am not sure if it is possible, but it would be nice if people were not able to give their “like” vote to more than one candidate. Maybe that will cut down on some of the numbers.  Otherwise increase the number of likes people need to generate.

. Ask candidates to label themselves against one or two areas of primary interest – such as Empire, Carebear, Null Sec, Faction Warfare, Pirate, Null Sec, Low Sec, Wormhole, Manufacturing, Trade – whatever. Have this on their Campaign thread title, so that voters can save some time by just focusing on the subset covering the areas most important to them.

. Provide a template for use in the first post of each Candidate’s forum campaign thread which prompts a certain number of standard questions, to help in comparing them

. Provide a standard search link for each candidate that lists all their forum posts

. I know this may seem silly, but for each account which votes put them into a raffle. The prize doesn’t have to be big – a PLEX, or a set of the freely given away ships, or something else which helps encourage people to vote.

The second reason I did not vote was because I couldn’t shake the malaise that the process was mostly pointless. Too many of the seats on the council would be controlled by power blocks whose members did not need to read up on all their options, they instead could just mindlessly vote for whoever their Alliance told them too.

There is a quote I’ve always appreciated – based I assume on a better known comment attributed to Thomas Jefferson.

“A democracy is where 51% of people live, and 49% die.”

I hope CCP understand the current mechanism isn’t perfect, and that the CSM does not actually represent the “average” player. For example the CSM 6 chair was combative, derogatory towards CCP and most other players, and literally endorsed behaviour aimed at harming the game experience of as many people as he could.

I hope also however that CCP understand that they have not shown over the years that they fully understand what the average player wants to get out of EVE.

The CSM should be looked at as a somewhat unique opportunity for the developers and a subset of enthusiastic players to get together, bounce ideas and get feedback. It is worthwhile, but not the be all and end all. Over the last year I felt that it was in fact some of the threadnaughts on the forums, discussing new ideas – such as the one on the Player Owned Custom Officers, which provided the CCP developers with a clearer picture of where the general player base was coming from.

So in summary – make it easier to find someone to vote for, understand its limits, and keep the developers posting in the forums.

A list of participants (that will be updated by the owner as time permits) can be found here:

http://freebooted.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/blog-banter-34-rise-of-spaceship.html

Blog Banter 33: “The Capsuleer Experience”

Like mana from Valhalla (yes I know I’m mixing my religious metaphors), the latest Dev Blog by CCP Legion asks questions which make for perfect Blog Bantering. To quote him “…we want to make the first days, weeks and months in EVE enjoyable and not just something ‘you have to plough through in order to get to the good stuff’” and the newly formed Player Experience team will focus on “…where and why people lose interest in EVE…”.

“We invite you to pour your heart (or guts) out and tell us what you think is good or bad with the current new player experience and what you think could be done about the problems.”

 

 

There is no real way for me to answer this properly. I’ve been playing EVE since 2006, and the last time I tried the new player experience was in 2009. Even if I gave it a run through again now, my perceptions would be tainted by the weight of my experience, and a preference towards how I play the game.

So instead I’ll throw out a couple of thoughts and ideas, some based around the various blogs I read, some from my own vague memories. Quite plausibly and embarrassingly – some of these might already be in place.

I think new player retention would be helped if they are given better tools to picture the size and scope of the New Eden environment, and their location within it, an easier way to focus on long term skill plans, and more education and some tweaked partial protection from the griefers and scammers.

Specifically..

. The in game star maps do not do a good enough job of conveying where you are in the universe, or where you can go. Even now I remember feeling somewhat lost when I first started the game. It wasn’t until I first laid eyes on Ombey’s excellent maps that I “got it”. The star maps could be improved, or new players pointed at resources like Dotlan or Ombey.

. In the early days it was easy to lose focus when it came to planning for your character. While the certificate planner goes part of the way, EVE still lacks an EVEMon like skill planner. Once I started using EVEMon my goals in game stretched out much further into the future.

. When I pass through starter systems I am often appalled by the number of griefers hassling the new Players. In many respects there is no skill, challenge or profit to be made from what they are doing. How do you even describe them – without eliciting some bizarre smug smile upon their face? While I don’t really want some artificially protected environment just for new players, there are ways in which CCP might make life a little easier for them –

- Encourage or allow new players to move their tutorial training to quieter systems

- I am not sure if it is possible or not, but it would be nice to see EVE keep track of pilots who kill new players, and have a pop up warning “This character has killed x new players in the last month. Are you sure you want to interact with their can?”

- Much clearer and easier to understand aggression mechanics

- Very cheap discounted insurance in the first month

- I am not sure what warnings are given to new players about scams – but I would like to think they are given the sort of information provided in a post I linked to back in November – http://eveprincessbride.wordpress.com/2011/11/21/walkthroughs-of-some-common-local-channel-scams/

- In the first few weeks or so, give them an automated Price check when they are buying or selling something, a pop up warning such as “This price is 50% higher than the Jita market average, are you sure you want to proceed with the purchase?”

- Within the first month, allow them to do a single skill re-spec – where they can take a skill they trained but now realise wasn’t want they wanted or needed, and reverse it for the SP.

The idea of this hodgepodge of suggestions is for some better education, some automatic warnings for the more silly things they might do, and a slight safety net with cheap insurance and a skill reversal.

The only thing I would say about the idea of new player retention, and it was touched on in one of my recent posts, is that you do not actually want to retain all new players. It is ok to allow a level of natural culling for those who are simply unsuited to the game. It is not for everyone. You just want to try and keep those who could fit in long term, but who fail to get over that very hard initial hurdle of their new player experience.

 

A list of participants (that will be updated by the owner as time permits) can be found here:

http://freebooted.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/blog-banter-33-capsuleer-experience.html

Blog Banter 32: “Non-Consensual Combat Restrictions”

This month’s Blog Banter comes from Drackarn of Sand, Cider and Spaceships. He has foolishly chosen to poke the hornet’s nest that is the non-consensual PvP debate. Whilst you read his question, I’ll be finding a safe place to hide.

“A quick view of the Eve Online forums can always find someone complaining about being suicide ganked, whining about some scam they fell for or other such tears. With the Goons’ Ice Interdiction claiming a vast amount of mining ships, there were calls for an “opt out of PvP” option.

Should this happen? Should people be able to opt-out of PvP in Eve Online. Should CONCORD prevent crime rather than just handing out justice after the event? Or do the hi-sec population already have too much protection from the scum and villainy that inhabits the game?”

 

I recently answered this question in my “Is Hi-Sec Broken?” posts **, so will cheat and copy some of that here:

I regularly hear people in my corporation lamenting the fact you can be suicide ganked, or Can flipped, or have war declared on you.  You can imagine what the attitude towards Hulkageddon is!  For some they just don’t understand why people would want to, for others they want to be safe to do whatever they fancy. 

I love the fact Hi Sec is not 100% safe.  The three main reasons:

. It fits the EVE backstory.  Life for the vast majority of the populace in EVE is harsh and very unfair.  Read the EVE Chronicles, have a look at how many crew your ships require, and contemplate the number of them which have died over your career.  Did you give them a second thought?  An arbitrary safe zone where there is no risk at all just does not fit.

. It is part of what gives value and consequence to your actions in EVE.  When you undock a ship, you put it at risk.  If you lose it, you suffer a financial set back.  This is what puts value around your efforts to generate ISK.  The old saying “easy come, easy go” sort of explains my mindset here.  If your life in Hi Sec is 100% safe and easy, the value of your achievements (and the game itself) is diminished.

. It generates game content.  I adjust the way I play EVE to reflect its danger.  I always align to a station when mining; keep an eye on local; balance the value of what I haul etc.  Read a sample of the EVE blogs to see how many stories are generated by the danger that resides in Hi Sec.  Take that away from the game, and it will be far poorer for it.

As it is, if you take the time to educate yourself and are careful in how you play the game, you can avoid most non-consequential PVP. 

While I don’t think Hi Sec should be made safer, I also don’t think it needs to be made more dangerous.  There has to be room for people to try and limit the risks, and accept that margin of danger they cannot eliminate.  To help in that acceptance, I would like to see some of the more annoying aspects of Empire PVP be tweaked and finessed.  Idea’s as I have mentioned before, such as:

. I’d like it to be possible to sell, auction or transfer kill rights to someone else.  This is particularly useful for those with no practical way of exercising the right themselves, but still wanting the option of revenge.

. I would like it to be possible to have a limited War Dec on individual pilots in Non-Player Corporations.

. Docking games make Empire PVP too safe.  I would like to see something similar to the changes to the log off mechanism copied over to docking.  If someone is actively being aggressed – they shouldn’t be allowed to dock.

. Make aggression rules far more obvious and clear.

. Look at the faction police response times for pilots with very low sec status who board ships in space while in Empire. 

. Make Shield Dec’s illegal

. Allow the option for aggressors to put a ransom amount on a War Dec, which if paid to them invalidates the war.  (Have this be immediately effective if shooting has not begun, or within an hour or so if it has.) 

. Allow mercenaries or allies to join under the umbrella of an existing war – on the side of the defenders.  This will go active either when the original war does, or after a shorter period of time, such as 6 hours, if it is already active.  This shouldn’t count in the calculations of how expensive the War Dec is.   Make it easier for those being targeted to gather help, or conversely give the aggressors more targets.

This is a random mixed bag of ideas impacting both sides of the fence – but the basic concept is to try and move away from using game mechanics to manipulate Hi Sec PVP, and put the emphasis back on game play.

 

A list of participants (that will be updated by the owner as time permits) can be found here:

http://freebooted.blogspot.com/2012/01/blog-banter-32-non-consensual-combat.html

 

** The full posts can be found here: Is Hi-Sec Broken – Part 1 and Part 2