3 ms·
I disagree about "quite" since almost every game mechanical statement in it is incorrect. I'd suggest focusing on the lack of social rules in the game, which al
by caylus 6y ago
I disagree about "quite" since almost every game mechanical statement in it is incorrect. I'd suggest focusing on the lack of social rules in the game, which allow for completely unrestricted scams, corporate espionage and treachery.
It might end up illustrating the opposite point though, since players who lose everything to these scams are often surprised and driven away, which is the opposite of what social networks want. In comparison, the possibility of losing a ship to a pirate is pretty clearly advertised.
To complete the analogy, I would think social networks should try to prevent the dogpiling and cancelation effect that shock and destroy people, while allowing them to be occasionally exposed to different opinions. Unfortunately it seems the opposite is more often the case, as in EVE.
- pfraze 6y agoThe way to handle something like this is to turn the "surprised and driven away" into "prepared and motivated to solve it," which is what the anecdote conveyed^1. You give players tools to counter-act negative outcomes, and, in the case of social media, you do your best to make tools which amplify truth, signal, and positivity. Suicide-ganking sounds like it needed something like a cooldown timer on picking up loot in high sec. ^1 Trying to move the conversation back into the useful territory - I'll concede the anecdote is likely to be wrong, since you know more about EVE than I do.