I don’t believe I have ever replied directly to another “peer’s” work on this website and I hope that you do not take this as an act of aggression on my part toward you. I’ve honestly never shared any thought or opinion on anything you have said, nor am I too keenly familiar with the position you occupy in Eve social media. I know that you have both fans and detractors and I seek no ideological collusion with either ends of the spectrum. Instead I only seek to share a humble opinion concerning your article that I imagine some would agree with, at least in part.

The first element that your article touches upon is the concept of popularity and its importance. And while I agree that it is wonderful to have people playing Eve, the focus on popularity would have a disparaging effect on Eve Online. The changes you have suggested would make Eve popular in the same way Middle School is made popular by the confused girl that developed early and has decided to misuse her assets. I’m sure for some little boys algebra class just became much more interesting, unfortunately in spite of the classes’s raison d’etre. Likewise implementing methods to make Eve more popular should not be done at the expense of what Eve is.

You argue is that the problem with Eve is that we cannot trust our fellow teammates and that other games have ways to sort of force that trust. Well first off, no trust that is forced is real trust. So if we look at trust as a virtue in the same manner we would look at friendship, love, and patience, trust is not something that your parameters would create.

When you play your WoT game, it isn’t trust in your teammates that makes you feel assured they won’t shoot you in the back. It’s the parameters of the game. When I provide vital intel to another party, or decloak and engage an opponent, it’s trust that I have that those other parties will pull through and accompany me on my task.

As someone that’s helped create and run a small corp, and can say with no shame, had imploded in on itself in large part due to issues that may have been avoided or at least resolved by some of the mechanisms you had suggested, I can say I am still against said mechanisms. I enjoy the idea of not out right knowing. The unpredictability of it all is the appeal that draws everyone to this game. “Eve is real” because when you don’t force virtues such as trust, when they present themselves, they really are authentic. Give me rare and authentic trust over a false mechanized version any day.

You give the example of what the president can or cannot do. I’m not sure the example is a very good one. A president is not the “CEO” of a country. CEOs in Eve act more like dictators. So in effect someone like Saddam Hussein COULD indeed do specifically those things. If you are asking for tools in the alliance/corp mechanisms that would allow for a more democratic structure, that’d be something else. But the choice should always be left there.

The draw and appeal of Eve is its unpredictability and the freedom of choice. This is way I was against the recent change on the EULA concerning people and their alts. While I can’t say I’m the most trusting person in Eve or other wise, I do appreciate the those authentic moments of actual trust. So for me, it isn’t that I am one of those people that would get upset over such changes because it would make it more difficult for me to scam or betray people. I have yet to find a good enough reason to act in that manner. But to me it is because it is only with a true freedom of choice that we see authentic, and not mechanized trust.

Leave it unpredictable and wild, it makes it kind of interesting.

– Seraph IX Basarab