Maxine Stirner
   |
Posted - 2005.06.03 01:22:00 -
[1]
I'm always saying that it is the lack of collective symbols, or characterizable imprints on the local environment, that influences the way people, especially strangers, in EVE treat one another.
A ship is not a symbol, except of the atomized individual, thus it is the foundation of no political characteristics in EVE. Hence my general apathy towards module or combat mechanic changes. Guns and the like are nothing more than communication mediums. What's really import is what they and their author are trying to say, and the context in which they are speaking.
Anchored, unloggable, and perhaps vulnerable objects are lasting. If they are the product of mutual ownership and responsibility, then they are epicentres (or sepulchres) of political concerns. Realistically, all political dialogue and abstractions exist only between conscious human beings, however, in the vicissitudes of an online or textual environment, these tendencies require a material catalyst (in the form of intangible though experiencable pixels at least).
What is needed to affect participation of individuals (let us cease calling them "players") is to make them discerning. This means they will have to recognize other individuals by their needs rather than as largely irrelevant objects. Without this fundamental communication, EVE devolves into a game of whack-a-mole. In order to encourage or perhaps enforce this, individuals require contingencies. They have to feel the need to be a part of something, or to have their fates tied to something, preferably something of substance to a chosen community. If this is a tangible, semi-permanent, and preferably somewhat unique sort of collective symbol, you have the foundation of narrative interaction between groups of people.
The best collective symbols I can concieve would be sprawling starbases or anchored depots, probably with ongoing maintenance or slow construction needs not to mention defense concerns. The best logistical way I can concieve of to implement this without overloading the server is having a skeletal system that responds when elements of it encounter interaction. An section of contruction could be targetted and hit with some sort of analysis tool and several targettable npc-esque motes could spawn within or around it necessitating some kind of player response. The aggregate result of this behavior could change some basic variable on a spreadsheet denoting the depot's useful attributes. These sorts of mundane and non-spectacular elements are necessary to flesh out a virtual world. The pinnacle of inconsequentialist development in EVE would arive when spaceships could go through a umm.. shipwash machine and come out without a filter overlay on the model.
But as to more substantive concerns, people's behavior towards one another will change dramatically as they encounter new needs rather than new opportunities in EVE. If they are psychological needs, then they will be even more powerful if also more difficult to catalyze. The end goal is to encourage a vast portion of the participants to no longer view the existence of other participants as objects, points, or as irrelevant or unnecessary. Too much independence leads to a lack of self-definition. People need an impetus towards rebellion to substantiate their presence in a political environment moreso than they need the actual solipsistic freedom.
Eve has shown us that all persons attain equality in the face of death, but there is also the hidden lesson that all can share in rebellion as well as exile.
Also, the 504 internal server error is a wicked conspiracy against the loquacious.
|