A retrospective on government action (or how the community as changed)

1

Hey all,

I’m not writing this to reopen the debate on the actions of the last week but more so to give my thoughts looking back. I do not claim to have come up with all of this myself, it is the distillation of thoughtful conversation I’ve had with numerous players.

About me to esthablish my credibility when talking about things, I have played this game for 4 years, about half of that time actively. As such, I can have a reasonable claim to understanding the game and its community. Throughout this time, I have always been looking to do novel things and push the limits. This as been done through trade, loans and now politics.

Regarding what transpired in the last few days, I expected backlash but was truly surprised by the level of anger over what is frankly a minor plot. To see unimpacted players quitting simply at the toughts of what was done is making me reflect on the chasm between how I see the game and how a vocal portion of the community does.

As such, the main point I’m trying to make is that the community has fundemental changed in the last year or two, and it is bringing the game with it. Tolerance for competition is now non existant from a portion of the player base and I think it’s because the game itself and how it approaches new players as itself changed. When I started, loans didn’t exist, grants didn’t and the CX was sparse leading to more competition and real risk of overproduction.

Nowadays in comparison, a player starts by being given a free million for joining one of the main corp, they get access to near break even loans, subsidized material and can produce anything with much fear to overproduction. While all this is commendable, I think it is serving to retain a specific type of player and slowly overtime changing the composition of the game.

I find it telling that I received many messages of support (tho not necessarily agreement) from older player while the newer player where the most vitriolic. When newer player tell me this isn’t the game for that, all I can think is that they didn’t join the same game I did. While the game was about building your company, it is now more thought of by many as a communal economy builder than a business cim. I think that is fine, but when I see players discussing required feature, they seem to be more focused on enforcing that view than enabling different playstyles.

I think this is something worthy of dev consideration when deciding to respond or not to calls for change. They have every right to decide how to direct it but I think it’s a slope that can go unnoticed. I would also like to add that when people say it’s bad for new players, we were effective at recruiting new players despite all this, this tells me that while the super player friendly and cooperative community attracts a certain player, it actively punishes and pushes away another.

(PS: Just to clarify, not trying to say this is good or bad, simply trying to point out the perceived evolution of the community for it to be considered in future game decisions)

1 Like
2

So just to summarize how Celebdil looked from the pov of the peaceful players: It was a unprovoked hostile takeover with no realistic way to counter it or get the planet back and any planet could be the next target so anyone could be affected next. And also way more players have quit silently, also ones that aren’t on discord.

You don’t have to join any corp for this, you just need to go by your local organization to grab it. And this is also a competition: who can develop their region better.

The problem with that is the political system is barely functional to just keep planets alive, let alone politics or political PvP. I think nobody would have a problem with having PvP (political and combat) in this game if it would be opt in, for example outside faction systems. But for that the faction has to be able to claim systems. In fact many “new players” (including me) would be interested in that kind of PvP but not without proper systems in place.
The biggest problem with Celebdil was that there just wasn’t any way to conter it except locking down every other planet worth something. This would force the PvP playstyle on PvE players, something you complained about the other way around, just that here it would be a group of <20 people changing the whole game in their direction.

5 Likes
3

In hindsight, I think this was inevitable.

I am of the opinion that this is not a new evolution of the community, but rather a manifestation of two things: one, the growing playerbase, and two, the increased mechanics with which players can affect the universe. Since I joined the game 715 days ago, what has always struck me is just how much the player base is involved in the actual running of the game. This of course allows for actors (good, bad, neither) to try and turn the system to what they desire. Around when I first joined, the big drama was the player BraveCaperCat, who was performing rampant fraud and piracy. That was eventually resolved by molp, but it had a similar reaction to what had occurred recently: much outcry from the community, a sense of “oh shit, things are getting worse”, and generally a lot of anxiety. As the playerbase has grown, I see it as inevitable that more players would join who wish to challenge what is happening, and so we enter a new era of community development and discovery. At the same time, more has been added to the game, which has given players more opportunities to engage and turn the universe how they like. As such, I see the current situation as having been inevitable.

To address the root causes of the problem: molp. Unfortunately, molp is only one person, and as we are all (I hope) aware, the development of this game is slow and arduous. molp has to prioritize his time, and the sense I have gotten of his development style is to try and put everything out there first, then see what needs tweaking. As such, we are living in a universe that is still heavily under construction, meaning there are fundamental imbalances in game mechanics that allow for exploitation by motivated characters. We saw this readily with the First and Second Promitor Incidents, we are seeing it again with the Celebdil Incident, and I expect we will continue to see it as mechanics are developed and refined. I make this point for two reasons: one, that it is difficult to determine where molp’s priorities lie, and where he would like to see the game go, and two, that we should not expect massive change soon. This is going to be a long, slow process, and no matter how hard molp tries to direct the universe, we’ll find a way around it regardless.

I’d like to conclude with my own opinion on recent events, as well as my hopes for the future of the game. I was directly affected by both the First and Second Promitor Incidents, and have suffered at the hands of one who decided to attempt emulating that idea. What made that so bad was the callousness and recklessness with which the actors chose to act. Many have likened this game to a sandbox, and what happened there was the equivalent of a small child trying to jump on as many sandcastles as possible. I have less of a stake on Celebdil, but I imagine the sentiment there is the same. Having said all that, I actually fundamentally agree that this game needs more conflict. Part of that comes from the lack of “engagement” this game generates on its own. Part of that comes from the fact that there is very little in this game that cannot be solved with copious amounts of money. Some form of PvE and (possibly, though I hesitate), PvP combat would I think breath life and energy into the game. Add in some true mega projects, like terraforming, and you suddenly are looking at a far more dynamic and interesting game. HOWEVER. My caution is what has been repeated time and again: make this optional. New players should not need to worry about people like me seizing their production or bankrupting them due to fees. I think it would be reasonable to make faction space “safe”, and force the players who want those mechanics to duke it out on the fringes. Whatever does end up happening, I trust that molp will be receptive to feedback, so keep it coming, but beware of pointless arguments that do not help development.

In 15 days my company will reach exactly 2 years in age. In that time I have made it my goal to interact with as many mechanics as possible. I took very little money when I started, have not participated in CORPs except for in temporary and limited positions, and as a whole have tried to act as a steward for the parts of the game I like best. Like I mentioned before, part of the joy I had in finding this game was the level of community input and control. But I also found it amazing that extremely knowledgeable people would devote professional level time and energy to helping run and maintain the game. My hope is that we do not lose sight of the immense potential the game has, in favor of smaller, snappier mechanics. It is far easier to destroy than to build, and so it is in the building we find power and strength. I ask that whatever is advocated, we not lose sight of that.

5 Likes
4

To add to the point of making faction space safe and the fringe not, this is effectively the current system.

If we take Celebdil as an example (not to reopen that debate but because I think it’s illustrative of my original assessment), it is a fringe planet. The current rules on the book allow for much more agressive action while the faction space limits effectively protects it by making even max taxes meaningless. People protest 120/pioneer but in all effect it’s négligeable.

But my point is that in a universe that became so peaceful as now, it never occurred to newer players that Celebdil was out of faction and vulnerable. So when that event happened, it sent shockwaves. The community changed from under the game and demands the devs to change that game to suit them. And because the change was so gradual, most player never experience anything other.

The game as it is played now by the most invested and vocal player is one of community building and newer player development. That is fine and great. But I don’t see it as incompatible with what happened at Celebdil. The real issue from my point of view seems to have been the shock it sent to players that only ever experience the current universe of abondance, not the one of limited resources of before.

A final example I gave in the discord that I think is illustrative of the change. When I first started playing, everyone was saying this is EVE without the combat. Contrasted to today, I was told about a 100 times, this isn’t EVE go play EVE.

(I will note once again to avoid any argument that I’m not advocating for one vision or the other. Just trying to illustrate how the community vision of the game is shifted and in turns shift what is considered acceptable or not, in a way that newer player with no fault of their own don’t have the time in the game to see)

5

I think this is also very illustrative of my point about how the way the game as changed and why competition is so poorly received.

A new player that joins today and stays is very likely to do so throught those programmes. Their experience is of community help and those who stay are more likely to enjoy that. Over generations of players, it gradually shifted to what we have now.

But the game is way wider than the experience a few players decided to have of training and developing their regions. Yet the game is being pulled in that direction by the players, so much so now that it is unthinkable to have hostile action. For many players “this isn’t that game” and “the vision for the game as change”.

What I’m trying to point out for future dev action and features is that the community is alive and changing the game. And therefor their intervention need to consider if this is were they want to bring the game.

(I’m not saying we should go back, that the community and game have moved on from how I play it is fair and I can’t single handidly hold it. I just considered the insights gained in the last few days/week to be worth sharing)

One could argue that a group of <20 influencial and vocal player is doing the same thing in enforcing the “let’s develop our region view”, one could even push it to they themselves engaging in bribing players with grants… In effect, that kinda is the whole argument here. That players are pushing the game in the direction they wish. And as such, dev intervention should keep it in mind.

6

I think, fundamentally, competition should be in the markets, optimisation, efficiency, time-to-market, and cartels.

However, I do not think political competition is useless, nor undesirable. (if planet X has lower fees, but higher Operational cost, vs planet Y with higher fees and lower costs, there exists a useful, meaningful distinction, and add planet Z that has no centralisation, just personal contribution, you have a third element).

Where I think the most recent outcry has originated is A) in the aggressiveness (the rate of change) , B) in the exploitation, C) the asymmetry of the power dynamic.

A) this is mechanical asymmetry; the ability to set sudden, rapid changes in policy, where base establishment can take a month(s). The mechanics of politics should be as slow, if not slower, than the development. I have proposed multiple ways to address this, including No-Confidence Secret Ballots, delayed-affect/-approval Motions, and relative changes rather than absolute changes to policy.

B) The use of developed/institutional planets for radical reform, rather than new/early-adoption planets. This is a player base issue, not a mechanical one, which is where the emotions are coming from. ‘We’ve had this planet run this way for so long and get back stabbed by governance’ This to me feels like legitimate gameplay, if indecent. Purpotrators cannot build their own competing system, they must destroy others, if you will.

C) unilateral control of policy, without meaningful mechanical recourse, leads to an unplayable dynamic. Eve is often used as a parallel here, but there are many mechanical ways to process/address these emergent gameplays. For example, reinforcement timers allow for evacuation (which can be pirated), faction/independent stations allow unlimited persons (assets cannot be ransomed; we have strict limits on planetary plots), theft/corruption can be handled via eviction/violence. In PrUn, one cannot meaningfully move their entire operation away from a hostile scenario, as the scarcity is a core gameplay mechanic, as no doubt you and others have realised, trying to capitalise on it.

Fundamentally, mechanically, the GOV system is built for governance to provide services at the cost of providing them, and maybe a bit of extraction in reward for providing those services. What the GOV system does not allow for, is hostile takeover, which is what has been experienced. Mechanical intervention is necessary in some respects, in either case, to solidify the desired playstyle. Certainly, there is more the player base can do to permit alternative playstyles, but so far it is coalescing around the former, not the latter

2 Likes
7

Personally I believe you just got outcompeted.

Your point is that the community now is not as “competetive” or “friendly” towards that “competition”. And yet, many of the things you list are symptoms of healthy competition in the ingame economy:

  • New player grants, first implemented in the ANT region, helped drive a healthy and dedicated playerbase inside faction space, streangthening the CX. This was then copied by other factions as a successful model.
  • Low interest rates show a competetive banking sector, not some charity.
  • High CX volume leading to lower individual impact/risk is also a sign of an active and competetive market, in general i believe lower CX volume is more of a sign of weaker player competition.

Now let’s evaluate if your “competition” in the governing sector was successful. For that I will use approximate profits, as that metric is likely the most important here.
Let’s consider ACTO as a counter example. While ACTO is not a real corp, it does have real control over a good share of ANT planets. It is expanding in broad terms and people see the success and want to immitate it. With ACTO governance those planets continue providing useful services to their customer (inhabitant) base, generating positive relationships and therefore further expansion allowing for further projects (like the hardware store).

FOXV in its lifetime controlles/controlled 4 planets:
They were thrown off promitor for violating the (spirit of the) TOS, and had to pay all their revenues (including illegally claimed gate fees) back later due to a hostage situation.
They bribed their way into celebdil, and got a strongly worded mention from molp, loosing valuable members and the planet, without making back the money they lost to reddead.
finally they conquered SB-838a, as revenge on reddead, which reinforced the general consensus that this playstyle was more about griefing than providing anything useful. With that takeover they still didnt make back all the lost money, and are likely to loose the next election because only the FOXV drones vote for their governments (since, i repeat, everyone else experiences the behaviour as griefing).
The only planet they have held for a longer time is a space rock akin to a private planet which was not developed before they settled it (afaik).

In summary their far too aggressive and unsecure playstyle in the governance sector generated FOXV a loss of approximately 5-15m, made molp ban multiple of their suspicious accounts, and made him likely follow up with more consequences as time and planets couped go on.
This point has also been formulated wonderfully by Evov, a very old (ingame) and experienced player, which I will paste here:

Here’s the rules of common sense.

  1. Recognize that you can cheaply and efficiently get a large number of people to dump many permits onto a planet to gain control over it. I looked into this a long time ago, I can’t remember the numbers but I worked out how many core modules I could fit onto a HCB and what it would cost. The cost is trivial.

  2. Recognize that there really isn’t any viable defense against this type of zerg attack.

(this is where it seems Euu’s cognitive process has stalled)

  1. Recognize that if it’s profitable and effective and can’t really be defended against, it’s a matter of time before many people start doing it, and most productive planets get converted into wastelands.

  2. Recognize that wasteland simulator where it’s impossible to build anything anywhere clearly isn’t the type of game most of the players want, or that the devs are intending to make.

  3. Understand if this strategy gets used - it will get patched/fixed/outlawed before any meaningful profit is gained. It will take time to generate profits from jacking up taxes. Too long.

  4. Recognize that the most likely outcome of these behaviors is → Game rules changed, minimal profits, everyone hates you forever.

  5. Calculate → Not worth doing. Only negative long term outcomes. ← This is where the majority of the player base gets to eventually.

(Source: Discord)

Meanwhile, in ACTO, governors have been earning a stable wage governing planets successfully and with broad voter support, meaning, turning a profit.
While of course no direct competition happened, it is telling that while one model went a good margin into the red and has no long-term prospects, the other has been working successfully before, during, and after the whole debacle, with no signs of trouble ahead.

In summary, perhaps you should consider whether what you were doing was competetive, or if your failure was up to being outcompeted, before complaining about missing competetiveness.

5 Likes
8

I’m hesitant to respond as I want to avoid a decent into endless arguments

But about the being outcompeted, I dont think this can be argued. What stopped it was only and directly Molp commenting on the devlog. We got only a few days to put things in place once open. This is why that shift I’m trying to explain is pertinent to consider. With that action, it reinforces it.

It itself it can be fine, if what I did isn’t wanted, the devs can stop it. But it also serves to validate amd reenforce a type of gameplay at the expense of another

9

I think this kinda thing should be allowed but with caveats. It needs to be counter-able where it gives the planet habitants enough warning beforehand (no dropping bases last second to vote), it needs to be less of a monetary payout short term so taking a planet for a single term and draining the account instantly isnt an option, and needs to be harder to do the more people on the planet that it will effect (kinda goes with part 1).

I also think the game would benefit from a type of conflict zone where people can fight over planets that are dedicated to this purpose instead of planets people have their long term bases on (many people play this game for chill vibes and it ruins it). In this dedicated space i propose a new resource/s that is tied to a system that people want like planet improvement or such. Then we have a risk reward system in place for this conflict zone and the ability to fight over planets in this zone. (probably add in for these planets the ability to whitelist players or evict players, and only in this zone). We could have this area be only accessible through colony ships as a opt in system.

10

You misunderstand the point. Your governing strategy specifically forced the devs hand, which made it an uncompetetive strategy, as I quoted from Evov before:

This point has also been formulated wonderfully by Evov, a very old (ingame) and experienced player, which I will paste here:*

Here’s the rules of common sense.

  1. Recognize that you can cheaply and efficiently get a large number of people to dump many permits onto a planet to gain control over it. I looked into this a long time ago, I can’t remember the numbers but I worked out how many core modules I could fit onto a HCB and what it would cost. The cost is trivial.

  2. Recognize that there really isn’t any viable defense against this type of zerg attack.

(this is where it seems Euu’s cognitive process has stalled)

  1. Recognize that if it’s profitable and effective and can’t really be defended against, it’s a matter of time before many people start doing it, and most productive planets get converted into wastelands.

  2. Recognize that wasteland simulator where it’s impossible to build anything anywhere clearly isn’t the type of game most of the players want, or that the devs are intending to make.

  3. Understand if this strategy gets used - it will get patched/fixed/outlawed before any meaningful profit is gained. It will take time to generate profits from jacking up taxes. Too long.

  4. Recognize that the most likely outcome of these behaviors is → Game rules changed, minimal profits, everyone hates you forever.

  5. Calculate → Not worth doing. Only negative long term outcomes. ← This is where the majority of the player base gets to eventually.

(Source: Discord )

11

directly addressed by Molp

This is where my theory of relative (%based) changes to policy comes in. If it takes many government cycles to adjust policy to an unacceptable level, there will be more opportunities for the consumer (plot holder) to object, and instate different governance.

4 Likes
12

Agree there but people haven’t complained to the devs about the production fees, only the establishment fee in the case of Celebdil as it has no counterplay. Taxes just have to be sit out for the term (though some impeachment system would help to counter that). Even 500 is in a somewhat reasonable frame, if it would be way higher people would probably have complained about that too. The current max realistic limit is at ~3000 as at that point the taxes are about the same as the profit from a average PIO base (taxes are calculated weird so it is a very big ~) so at that point it would be “throwing people off the planet”.

Well, the planets in faction space are limited so the plot issue would become way more dramatic very soon and at some point the game would lock itself down because all PvE plots are used. And there is also no good ALO tap in NEO faction space. The best (and only) would be YI-059b which needs TSH and HSE while having about the same yield as Celebdil.
So the faction space would need to be able to expand to cover critical planets and secure additional living space for the PvE people.

Both is true:
“This is EVE without combat” is people meaning the economy
“This isn’t EVE go play EVE” is people meaning the “everything is allowed” part of EVE

These things combined I would like to see a “PvP vs PvP vs PvE player” system where PvP players fight against each other while the PvE players/factions have to claim new systems from the PvP players and also securing them. But in a way that is biased towards the PvE players so that it doesn’t make sense to attack long established back water planets but front line planets can be taken back by PvP with enough investment (PvE has no base establishment fee “wall” so there need to be other things that help defend it).
Another thing could be something like a “Warlord council” doing the same as a faction gov for factionless minus faction specific things. So they could limit taxes to levels that make sense … or don’t. Leave that in the hands of the players. The election there could be by “power”, like how many planets a corp controls or something like this. Or the corps will be the “faction gov” of their own area including local rules and coloring the map.
There are so many systems that could allow interesting and proper PvP but none of them are in the game yet.

Many people would be interested in competitive play (be it fight over markets, or territory with military assets or other ways) but it needs to have systems and counter systems in place and needs to be opt-in so that people that don’t want to participate (at all or just at that time) aren’t force to be a part of it.

13

So I am still definitely a new player, and I am amongst those that understood this to be a fairly chill vibes economy Sim. I honestly have so far perceived a lot of the governing aspects to be kind of a secondary portion of the game, with industry/production/trading the primary portion.

This is the part I don’t really understand: in what way are the various recent political maneuvers ‘competitive’? By that I mean this: it feels to my little experience that the giants in the game are capable of throwing these big tactical nukes at each other, and the majority of players, such as myself are caught in splash damage. The vast majority of players have <10 bases. (See the base count graph on Yet another PrUn tool )

To me, these big attacks are kind of… simplistic? Suffice it to say I wouldn’t find that type of competition interesting. Having corps alternate planet takeovers seems more brute-force than befits this game.

In light of that, I would like to ask @Shrewdsun1 this question: Acknowledging that the game has changed over time, and that competition/conflict has been deemphasized, what type of response or pushback to FOXV’s political maneuvers would make you smile, and say, “hmm, interesting” and start planning your next move? Where would you like to see competition, and how can that be accessible to all players (who want it), not just those who can afford a fleet of HCBs?

This question is certainly not meant to be hostile, rather, I personally feel that the desire for competition, combined with the lack of competitive outlets, have led to this result. We may just need more tools in the toolbox, and as has been said above, that will only happen with time, molp-willing :folded_hands:

Edit: I forgot that I wanted to tell this story: one of my favorite experiences in EVE was when I was snooping in very deep waters (where I didn’t belong yet) and my ship was destroyed literally before I knew anyone else was in the system. The other player then messaged me, and was like, “oh hi, you’re new, aren’t you?” And we had a very pleasant chat, and I got lots of tips.

The moral of this story is that competition need not breed animosity. If you watch chess grandmaster, after a game, they will frequently discuss the game, and both learn and be better opponents in the future. I hope that any competition in this game can foster the same type of attitude.

5 Likes
14

Hey thanks for the response,

While I don’t share the vision that what we did isn’t competitive, I don’t necessarily want to go all over it again. But to answer your question quickly, I think that the response could have been other corps doing the same; then we can have a fight over production planets. This being said, as the dev as stated it isnt their vision, no point arguing about it.

As for it not breeding animostiy, I fully agree. To me, this forum post is the Prun version of shaking hands and discussing the game. One thing that very much surprised me in all of this is the level of anger this all generated. Even now that it is well and done, iv got some players chasing after me in chat (and in game) to push me out. That wasn’t the goal but I guess that one part where I was naive, thinking we could have competition but have it friendly…