What is Wrong with Eve: Part 2


Yesterday's truth-bombs sure drove some people crazy. One of the biggest issues I have writing in this magazine for 11+ years is that for some people a post, like yesterday's, might be the first one they have ever read. Or read in a long time. For me however, these past 11+ years are all the same thread. That post yesterday? I've written those words before, in various forms, over the past decade. Several times. I didn't say anything new that I haven't said before. I organized it differently, changed the context, but those words have been written - by me - before in these pages.

I assume a tremendous amount when I sit down to write a new post. I have to, otherwise the preambles would be fourteen paragraphs long. Years ago I got criticized for even attempting short pre-emptive preambles in my posts, so I stopped doing them all together. I don't like introducing myself and the nearly 3,000 post history of this magazine every time I sit down to write. Nor should new readers be burdened with having to know all that history either. Catch-22. Rock, meet hard place.

So I have to make some assumptions. Which I do not enjoy having to do. And yes, I know how dangerous those can be. But I do like to assume that people who read these words are educated, intelligent, and passionate about Eve Online. I also assume they at least have a passing knowledge of who I am, I didn't just wander in off the street. I have a long, complicated, and deep history here that goes back almost 13 years now. If you have made it this far you've just read three paragraphs of preamble. It wasn't fun was it?

And no, I obviously didn't mean all former players hang out on Reddit/Forums and bitch about Eve Online. Because that is obviously not true. A lot do though. More don't. Many people who I consider my friends do not play Eve anymore. Some will return. Some won't. But I will always consider them my friends. Some literally, out here in the real world. Real friends. I didn't think I needed to say that yesterday, but I suppose I did. So I'm saying it now.

Another truth-bomb then.

Brace yourselves. You may have noticed that I lost the CSM16 election earlier this week. You may have also noticed that I recently proposed a different way of putting the CSM together. This was meant as a thought-starter, to get things moving along a new path. A path I believe would result in a much more diverse, intelligent, and more representative CSM. This proposal was quite popular. Nearly 25,000 people have read the post since it was posted. I'm sure some of those are multiples. Null sec people hate the idea. Brisc hates the idea. Which is not surprising since he benefits from the system as it is constructed now.

Thing is, the CSM being built in a way to allow Null Sec domination is seen by many players as a result of just how popular and weighted NS is compared to other areas of the game. Given how much we talk about NS, how much CCP sucks NS weiners, and how often NS wars get into the media - I think most players assume that NS is just a huge percentage of the people that actually play Eve Online.

That is just simply not true. In fact, it is grossly not true. Take a deep breath now because I am going to blow your mind here in a second.

Are you ready? Depending on which CCP Ghost or CCP Quant data year you want to look at, and they all vary slightly from year to year - generally speaking 75-80% of all Eve players live in High Security space. 10-15% live in NS, 5-10% in LS, and about 1-2% in WHs.

Most of you are going to start that thing were you quibble about alts, industry, and whatnot. And you are not wrong. It can be difficult to pin down exact numbers. No doubt. I live primarily in Low Sec, and yet I am currently in a NS station, and two of my own alts (on one account) are in HS. It is complicated.

But it isn't 60% + or - complicated.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

That's the thing about assumptions though. They are often wrong.

PS: I didn't do a lot of digging for supporting data here, I've sat through enough Ghost/Quant presentations to know the data like the back of my hand, but here is some charts from 2015 that might help. They don't change much year to year anyway. I'm sure you know how to Google.


  1. First, I don't benefit from the existing system. I've made the existing system work for me. Regardless of what the rules are, folks will find a way to win.

    And second, it's not that I hate the idea. It's just that I've seen a dozen versions of it over the years, I don't think it works, I don't think it necessarily will create better outcomes, and the downsides to it outweigh the upsides. You are correct when you say you make a lot of assumptions, because your assumptions are driving this proposal and many of them just don't hold up to scrutiny. The idea that having specific people who call themselves specific things will lead to a more diverse, "intelligent" (really?) or representative group belies the fact that in the end, organization will still win elections.

    If readers equaled popularity, then RonUSMC would have been elected handily - his CSM forum post was by far the most read (his had 5700 views), and others who didn't win, including you, Arsia and Uriel had 3k+ views. Readers means readers.

    I think the vast majority of EVE players recognize that most EVE players live in highsec. I think they also recognize that elections are won not by where most people live, but by who turns out to vote. You can change the rules all you want to try to create scenarios where less popular candidates can eke out a victory, but that also assumes that nothing else changes, and we know full well that the groups that currently have figured out how to win under the current system will figure out how to win under any other permutation.

  2. I think you’ll find these posts are part of a series that will conclude tomorrow.

    - RJ

  3. Here are some revised 2019 numbers from CCP where they tried to adjust for the flawed methodology that gave us the 85% that has been used so badly for so long.



Post a Comment