Life in Solitude: Week One

My HiSec WormHole

I recently joined my friend's corporation, "Solar Winds Trade Conglomerate" (SW-TC). We live in Solitude and are slowly building positive relations with our neighbors. There are a lot of opportunities for PvP and making money out here. We are currently recruiting, with a focus on bold newbies. If you're interested, hit me up in game (Xuixien) or join our in-channel: SWTC Lobby.

Mining Blue Ice in 0.4.

"We've lived in wormholes together, right?"

"Yeah."

"So just... do that. Living in Solitude is basically like living in a wormhole."

"...oh shit this will work."

It's Actually Pretty Great. And Busy.

I've wanted to live in Solitude since my earliest days in the game. There was just something appealing about the idea of "homesteading" - about being on the "frontier" of civilized space, yet not beholden to any SOV holding entity or WH group. But logistics held me back; it's actually very difficult to be self-sufficient in EVE Online, and unless you have a group of players willing to harvest and produce everything, you're tethered to the trade hubs. Trade hubs which are 30 jumps away through LowSec and NullSec.

But time's are changing. It's an era of opportunities in EVE, and now that I'm more experienced in the game, I'm in a position to take advantage of these opportunities. Lucrative ores have moved to LowSec? That's no problem - I used to mine in a WormHole, mining in LowSec ain't shit. Those very same WormHoles mean I don't have to rely on NullSec for my Zydrine and Megacyte, and that Jita and Amarr are never more than a few jumps away.

I honestly don't know why miners are so upset over the distribution changes. Fly cheap, pay attention, gather a bit of intel: profit. I've only lost one ship so far, a Venture, and that was ninja mining on an Athanor that was manned - a stupid risk, but that's what Ventures are for. That Venture had already paid for itself 10x over before it got blown up. (Speaking of which: CCPlease, it's ridiculous that a Citadel can even hit a frigate, let alone volley it, with anti-capital missiles. Please iterate this balance, thanks!)

Arkonor and Bistot in a C1 WormHole.

The Day to Day

Life in Solitude isn't like life in Jerma was. My day to day activities are much more varied. I log in without a set plan for the day. I might do some HiSec mining, I might run some anoms to get an escalation, I might scout some LowSec Athanors to plan ninja mining operations. Today I'm setting up PI and building Epithals. In a short while I'll be starting a library of frigate, destroyer, and cruiser BPOs. Hopefully I'll be putting those to use, stocking our corporation which, hopefully, will begin to grow.

Unlike most of HiSec, the belts in Solitude aren't overharvested. Every day I warp to my usual belts and they are full of fat rocks. And the LowSec anoms are just amazing. A "Small Crokite Deposit" usually contains one 80k Crokite rock and one 70k Crystalline Crokite rock. At current market prices that's almost 2bil after compression. Large deposits contain many billions of ISK in ore. People are coming from all over New Eden to seize upon these opportunities, setting up refinery stations throughout LowSec Solitude. I've even spotted Rorquals at some of the anoms - understandably, they were all a little shy and warped to station shortly after I landed my Buzzard on grid. But hopefully we'll be friends soon! I'd love to mine alongside a Rorqual!

Solitude also presents many opportunities for explorers. Because of it's low activity, Solitude is a hub for relic, data, and combat sites. Our CEO regularly runs the HiSec anoms with a Gila while he's in class. He loots the Officer spawn should it appear, and then runs any escalations he might receive at a later time. It's very good ISK with a low barrier to entry.

There's a lot of opportunities in Solitude. With the changes coming to industry the traditional "small gang" ships (frigates, destroyers, cruisers) will be much easier to produce using HiSec/LowSec ores only. Battleships will be much trickier, but this is a lucrative opportunity: PI products and ice are about to become a lot more profitable. Ice and PI will be needed for producing fuel blocks, a necessary component in reactions, and PI will be needed yet again for certain components required for the production of battleships, capitals, and supercapitals. Savvy capsuleers would be smart to scope out LowSec systems with cheap POCOs and an appropriate array of planets for the production of robotics, mechanical parts and various P1s.

Preparing for PI/Fuel profitability.

SW-TC's Future

I want to see my friend's corporation grow, and he agrees: it's time to grow. Things are starting to happen; we are building relationships with our neighbors, and a nascent coalition is beginning to form, just now implanting itself into the uterine lining of Solitude.

I want to see new players enlisting, coming out to Solitude. I'm in the process of stocking a library of frigate, destroyer, and cruiser BPOs. With the coming industry changes, building these ships will be ridiculously cheap and easy. I would like to be able to provide newbies with free ships to go out and PvP in. I want to see people joining us in our mining operations, ninja'ing moons, and growing our industrial sector.

Currently SW-TC is looking for warm bodies to fill roles. We need experienced people, yes - experienced industrialists, experienced FCs, experienced combat pilots. But we also need newbies - newbies who are willing to step up and try stuff out. At the end of the day it doesn't matter if you're an old crusty vet or have only been playing for a year - we need people who "make things happen".

Contact me in-game: Xuixien or join our public lobby: SWTC Lobby.

Sociopaths Online?

You just like to kick puppies in real life, don't you?

Warning: Long and nerdy post ahead.

There has always been a lot of talk in the EVE community about how certain players or playstyles are "sociopathic". In this article I want to use some clinical psychology and sociology to explore this, and see what conclusions I reach. Keep in mind however: human psychology and behavior is complicated such that very little is ever black and white. A single behavior means nothing. A pattern of behavior might indicate pathology or normal personality variance. And whether we engage in them or not, and whether we are willing to admit it to ourselves or not, we all have antisocial and sadistic tendencies. As Alexandr Solzhenitsyn said in the 20th century:

If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Alexandr Solzhenitsyn

Let's start with some basic definitional housekeeping:

• Antisocial: contrary to the laws and customs of society; devoid of or antagonistic to sociable instincts or practices.
• Prosocial: relating to or denoting behavior which is positive, helpful, and intended to promote social acceptance and friendship.
• Sadistic: deriving pleasure from inflicting pain, suffering, or humiliation on others.

Behavior is complex, and must always be considered within the context in which it occurred. For the purposes of this article, the context is social groups. In summary, antisocial behavior goes against group norms and is disruptive to the group, while prosocial behavior is in line with group norms and promotes group interest. Here's where it gets really complicated: people exist in multiple, complex, stacked groups. For example, myself. I am an EVE Online player, but I am also a:

• Human
• American
• Graduate student
• Son
• EVE Online Player
• The groups I'm part of in EVE.

The complicated part of this is when we consider identity salience: that is, how important or emotionally valent my membership in any of these groups happens to be for me. Being American may not be super important to me; but being a graduate student may be a crowning achievement, and I may heavily identify with and invest emotional and cognitive resources into that role. The TL;DR is: social norms + empathy = prosocial. Social deviance + low empathy = antisocial. But it all depends on the context of group membership.

"Sociopathy": Not Really A Thing (But Sort Of)

When you think of the word "sociopath" you probably have the image of someone with lifeless eyes and glib charm who goes through their life as some sort of criminal mastermind, manipulating everyone around them at all hours of the day, concocting plans and plans within plans for their own selfish benefit, with a callous disregard for the damage and pain they cause - or perhaps even deriving pleasure from the pain they cause. The reality is actually not quite as cinematic as Silence of the Lambs.

"Sociopath" is a colloquial term used to describe a set of antisocial personality traits, also known as "The Dark Triad", which are characterized by:

• Lack of empathy
• Machiavellianism 
• Egotism

Clinically, there is no such thing as "a sociopath" or "a psychopath", even though research is ongoing to better identify and understand these constructs. Just check the DSM-V or the ICD-10. You won't find them. You'll find many things which fall under the conceptual umbrella - the closest being antisocial personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder. But these are distinct psychopathologies and, taken individually, neither of them completely add up to what people think of as "sociopathy".

The image of the cool, calculating manipulator falls apart in reality: people with these Cluster B personality disorders generally don't function very well, as these disorders are marked by impulsivity. Impulsivity and long-term planning generally do not go hand in hand: antisocial and narcissistic personalities live in the moment, and while these individuals are manipulative, they are not "mastermind" manipulators. They don't play the long game. In fact, the manipulation they engage in is a defense mechanism and more reflexive or instinctual than it is masterfully planned out. Once their victim "breaks the code", so to speak, it's actually rather easy to see through and defeat.

Context, Context, Context

As I said before, what makes a behavior "antisocial" really depends on the context. Violence might be seen as "antisocial". But a soldier on the battlefield who kills an enemy and saves his comrades has just engaged in prosocial behavior. Tackling someone in football, a violent act, is not "antisocial" either - if the person you're tackling is a member of the opposing team. If you were to tackle your own team mate, in order to spite them for an earlier offense, or to take revenge on your team because you feel they don't show you the proper respect - this would be considered antisocial.

It all depends on an individual's identification with others - with a group. A player would be expected to have a high level of identification with their team, and to engage in behaviors that would be beneficial to their team (aka, prosocial). On another level, the player would also be expected to identify with members of the opposite team as football players, and to refrain from behaviors that would hurt them as football players (for example, purposefully tackling them in such a way as to cause permanent, career ending injury). Sports are competitive, but they are also cooperative: no one brings a basketball to a football game, after all, and baseball players don't tackle each other to stop a home run.

Antisocial people basically don't care about right vs wrong and don't care about hurting other people. They don't identify with belonging to any group - there is only them and their own ego. And because of this, antisocial people don't usually have very many friends. They lead lonely lives characterized by constant conflict; conflict within relationships, conflict with authority - and trouble with the law. They generally fall lower on the socioeconomic ladder and often turn to criminality (and more often than not, petty criminality - the kind that's impulsive and 'in the moment', such as randomly deciding to rob the corner store for the $50 in the till, and then end up in prison for 15 years because of it).

You Mentioned... Sadism?

At this point, it's important to make the distinction between antisocial and sadistic, since a lot of what gets tagged as "antisocial" behavior in EVE Online is better (though not very much so) defined as sadistic. Here's the difference: an antisocial person doesn't care whether they hurt other people, while sadistic person does care if they hurt other people - because they enjoy it. Sadism isn't to be confused with the satisfaction derived from an act of spiteful revenge or rubbing a victory in your opponent's face; one is reactive, the other is proactive. Context matters.

Antisocial people can be sadistic, and sadistic people can be antisocial - but these are separate and distinct constructs. For example, sexual sadists derive erotic satisfaction from inflicting pain on their romantic partners. But this alone does not make them "antisocial"; the majority of sexual sadists seek out consensual partners (sexual masochists) and negotiate boundaries and rules prior to engaging in these activities. As long as consent and boundaries are respected, this is not antisocial behavior - and in fact, a diagnosis of sexual sadism disorder requires that the fantasies be acted out on a non-consenting individual.

You can think of suicide gankers who antagonize their victim in Local and mail as sadists, and their victims as willing, consensual victims. And this is a completely cogent perspective if you accept that undocking is consent to consensual non-consenting PvP. You don't want to get blown up, but you consent to the game of cat and mouse where, as the mouse, the possibility of getting eviscerated is very real. So no: suicide gankers are not sociopaths or even antisocial as such. EVE Online might just be a healthy outlet for their drives.

So now we've gone out in the weeds a little bit. I've distinguished between the colloquial use of the term "sociopathy" and the clinical use of the term (there isn't much of one) and defined "antisocial" and "prosocial". I've also mentioned two personality disorders which are antisocial - antisocial personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder - and I drew a distinction between antisocial behavior and sadistic behavior which can be, though is not necessarily, antisocial. Now I'll do my best to tie it all back to EVE. But first we have to understand the purpose of play, and by extension, social games.

Just What are Gamers Doing All Day?

All the social mammals engage in play, most notably as younglings, but even as adults. Rats play. Monkeys play. Puppies and kittens play. And human children are very playful, starting as babies when they knock their sippy cups off the table and giggle about it. Why do animals play? From a Piagetian perspective, mammals play because it is important for their physical and neurological development. Play is basically practice for future behaviors, and is species specific. Kittens love to chase string - practice for future hunting behavior. Young canines rough each other up - practice for future dominance disputes.

Children play to learn how their bodies work and to become more coordinated and, as they get older, to become socialized. Socialization is when play becomes games: tag, cops and robbers, etc. At a very young age, children can follow the rules of the games they make up together, but they can't tell you what those rules are. As they grow older and their cognitive development becomes more complex, they begin to be able to explicate the rules and, later, as they start to get really advanced, they can explicitly negotiate on the rules. Social games prepare children for life; because life is basically a gigantic social game of negotiated rules, roles, and responsibilities. Adults play social games to keep their skills fresh. To stay "in practice".

EVE Online is basically the adult version of the sorts of games children play. EVE Online is a massive simulator full of possibilities. While the real world of adults in the flesh is often restrictive and stultifying, New Eden presents a land of opportunities where players can explore different ways of being in the world. People who are normally nice and sociable in real life can try out what it's like to prey on others as a pirate. Others who may suffer from crippling social anxiety can find a safe avenue for socialization and some may even grow to become FCs or lead their own corporations.

EVE Online is a fairly social game. It's hard to get anywhere as a solo player, or to even avoid interacting with other players - even though there are a few solo endeavors (exploration and missions, for example - there's a niche for everyone!). To adapt to a harsh environment (and also because it's what humans simply do), players organize themselves into groups; either groups recognized by game mechanics such as corporations, alliances and fleets, or "meta" groups that exist in chat channels, Discord servers, and forums.

The groups players form have their own objectives, aims, and norms. One norm might be trash talking in Local. Another norm might be e-Bushido. As long as a person is acting within the rules of the group, and as long as they and behave in a way that aligns with the group's goals and interests, then that person is engaging in prosocial behavior - even if the interests and goals of the group are suicide ganking newbies in Perimeter. It's a bit tribalistic, right? My SOV holding alliance versus your SOV holding alliance. I'm free to shit all over you if I want, and it's not antisocial. But as soon as I start disrupting my own group and taking advantage of them, it's antisocial.

I will say that again: if you're part of Fake Alliance, and  you act within the established social norms and rules of Fake Alliance, then you are not behaving in an antisocial or "sociopathic" manner, even if Fake Alliance's sole MO and reason for existing is to make life a living nightmare for everyone else - precisely because of group identification. And you cannot say that Fake Alliance is "a group of sociopaths" because, by definition, antisocial people would have a very difficult time of establishing a large, cohesive group with a singular vision and a set of social norms and rules. They would be just as apt to kill each other as they would be to kill their enemies. And this is exactly what happens in the real world among criminal organizations such as street gangs and oppressive dictatorships; the level of backstabbing, betrayal, and in-group murder is astounding.

Like all social games, EVE Online has rules. Some of these rules are emergent, and come from the players: "never fly what you can't afford to lose", for example. Other rules are implied via the game mechanics. For example, the delay between illegal aggression and CONCORD's response in HiSec: the implication is that any ship, anywhere, can be blown up at any time. You are not entitled to safety, except when docked in an NPC station. You agree to this rule by playing, even if you whine about it on the forums.

EVE Online is a game we play voluntarily. When we play EVE Online, we agree to the rules of the game, and those rules are: EVE is a game where players are free to engage with each other with few restrictions. People can steal from you, suspect bait you and blow you up, suicide gank you, or evict you from your wormhole. Players are free to manipulate, lie, cheat, and steal their way to the top. You have this freedom as well - or you can choose to play the nice guy. EVE is a cooperative competition between groups, just like football - except the rules state that you can bring a baseball if you want. Or a Howitzer. This is the "metagame", the "metarules".

So, Sociopaths, Right?

The TL;DR of this massive wall of text is: no, probably not. While there are toxic personalities in EVE Online (I've encountered a few), the chances that any given player - even the player who suicide ganked your Retriever and told you to get fucked in Local - is a sociopath are exceedingly low - especially if they are part of a cohesive group with internal norms and expectations. They're most likely a normal human being who is either sublimating their aggressive and sadistic tendencies, or, just trying out what it's like to be a dick to someone. At the very least, they're a person who is playing the game of EVE Online within the well established, community generated rules and norms.

If it bothers you - if it really upsets you and you think it needs to be changed - you are the socially deviant variable and you should probably reconsider why you're playing EVE Online and whether or not it's the game for you.

The AFK Orca Debate

A recent debate on the EVE forums about the possibility of Orca and Rorqual changes inspired this post. Unlike my Future Visions: Mining post, this article will take a deeper look at the Orca, which is currently having a bit of an identity crisis. Is it a solo mining platform, or a fleet support ship? How do we encourage active gameplay while balancing it's mining capabilities and avoid rendering it just another ship that you relegate to alts? These are not easy problems to solve and will probably require a complete mining overhaul.

Before the moon changes last year, AFK Orca mining was prevalent in HiSec space. In the part of Domain I call home there were half a dozen moons available to mine each day, and at all hours of the day there were dozens upon dozens of AFK Orcas lazily orbiting gigantic Spodumain rocks with 'Augmented' mining drones. I knew they were AFK because I would bump them out of drone control range. Over time, the Orcas would lumber back to the rock they had been orbiting, but their drones would not begin mining again for long periods of time - often over an hour.

With the changes to moon mining and what the player base has been calling 'Scarcity', AFK Orcas are somewhat less prevalent, but still ubiquitous. Despite reduction in asteroid size AFK Orca mining is just as effective and doable as it was before. Here's some proof:

These are the results of a test that Scipio Artelius ran, comparing the AFK-ability of the Orca vs a solo Skiff. As you can see, the Orca required 4x less attention than a mining barge. Scipio did not need to attend to his client for a whopping 20 minutes until he reset drones. But the Orca can go AFK even longer - all a player has to do is find 5 rocks of Veldspar with 100k units in them. This will allow for 45 minutes of AFK time. And these rocks are not rare for those willing to put in a small amount of effort to scout at range from the trade hubs.

Interestingly, what Scipio also found was that an AFK-ish Orca had approximately the same yield as the solo Skiff. So the next time you see an AFK Orca in the belt, each drone assigned to a different rock, remember that the player - who isn't even there - is making the same amount of ISK/hr as a solo exhumer and with 350k EHP.

Players are naturally upset at CCP Rattati's commentary about how CCP wants to rework the way Rorquals and Orcas function. Some comments made by players include the following:

• AFK Orca mining is a myth. AFK Orca mining never happens.
• If you leave your Orca AFK for longer than 5 minutes, you come back to idle drones.
• Orca's require more APM than barges.
• The Orca is an aspirational ship for solo miners.
• The yield is so low it's not worth it.
• The cargo fills up too fast to AFK.

Let's pay no mind to the fact that many of these statements are contradictory. Here are some actual facts about AFK Orca mining:

• The Orca's drones deposit ore straight into the massive ore bay of the ship: 187,500m3 at max skills. Mining with T2 drones and max skills yields 1,021m3 per cycle. 187,500m3 divided by 1,021m3 = 183 mining cycles to fill the ore hold. At 60 seconds per cycle (not including travel time), that's 3 hours before the hold is full. 
• The APM of Orca mining depends on the size of the rocks. With the largest rocks available in HiSec an Orca can go AFK for 45 minutes.
• AFK Orca mining does happen. Check out southern Domain. You'll find AFK Orcas in the belts and at moons. They are conspicuous. 

The Orca: A Future Vision

From the perspective of a HiSec player, Orcas are fairly oppressive. Even a modestly skilled character can boast 300k+ EHP in an Orca - and the EHP only goes up from there as tanking skills improve. The Orca also has a massive 187,000m3 ore hold, a modest fleet hangar, and a ship maintenance bay that can hold 2 barges. It's one of only two capital ships allowed in HiSec, can put out 500 DPS with drones, gets a bonus to remote shield reps, and can mine as effectively as a solo exhumer while being mostly AFK.

While it makes sense for the Orca to be a badass - after all, it is an Industrial Command Ship - the current iteration of the Orca promotes AFK, low-attention, low-engagement, and low-risk gameplay. I instead propose the following vision for the Orca. The purpose here is to provide meaningful choices to players and to make the Orca an actual fleet command ship that needs to be actively flown. As I said before, this is spitballed based on the Future Visions post I made earlier regarding mining. Without further adieu: 

• Basic Changes
• Ship Maintenance Bay increased to 1.2 million.
• Add a clone bay.
• Industrial Command Ships bonuses (per skill level):
• 15% bonus to ore hold capacity.
• 3% bonus to Mining Foreman Burst effect and duration.
• 3% bonus to Shield Command Burst effect and duration.
• 10% bonus to Drone hitpoints and damage.
• Role Bonus:
• Can fit 1 Operational Mode module.
• Can fit 3 Command Burst modules.
• Operational Modes
• Prospect Mode - Reduces all resistances by 80%. Per ICS level:
• 1% bonus to Mining Foreman Burst effect.
• 40% bonus to Drone mining yield.
• Emergency Mode - Renders Orca stationary. Per ICS level:
• 1% bonus to Shield Command Burst effect.
• 15% reduction in Remote Capacitor Transmitter activation cost
• 15% reduction in Remote Shield Booster activation cost

The Orca will remain a badass - but there will be tradeoffs for the badassery. First of all, the Orca can function much as it does now - it can still be used in "Standard Mode" to provide the same mining buffs to fleet mates (and even sports increased shield buffs) and use it's drones to mine (though not as effectively as it does now, since that's 90% of the problem with the ship). 

Really wanna mine with an Orca? Introducing Prospect Mode - making you an effective miner and mining booster, BUT it also renders you vulnerable to attack, reducing your EHP to that of a Porpoise. And you won't be very effective in assisting fleet mates should a combat situation emerge. You can AFK mine with drones, but you're gonna have a bad time.

Fleet under attack? With Emergency Mode, the Orca becomes an effective shield command and logistics platform, and if you have multiple Orcas they can cap chain off each other. With their low scan resolution, their low speed and long align times, rendering Orcas stationary in this configuration would preclude them from competing with logistics cruisers and Nestors.

If the mechanics of mining itself became adaptively dangerous as I envisioned in my earlier post and fleets were required to form up and harvest these hard anoms, then Orcas would play crucial roles not only as ore drop off points and boosting ships, but as logistics platforms that serve to keep the fleet alive. It would also make Orcas a ship that was actively flown, with something for the pilots to actually do, and solve the problem of AFK Orca drone mining.

Future Visions: Mining

Jerma 0.5 < Nashar < Domain
Amarr Empire

You're piloting a Procurer, the member of a 10 man mining fleet currently preparing for a mining operation. The system of Jerma used to boast 17 asteroid belts, filled with large rocks of Veldspar, Scordite, and Pyroxeres. Now they were gone, replaced with dynamically spawning asteroid belt anomalies. Times were getting tough, and resources were harder to acquire. Onboard probe scanners had indicated the presence of a rare and lucrative type of ore anomaly - a "Jackpot" deposit which contained high yield ores - and the Director of Mining of your corporation wanted to get an op going.

There was just one hitch: in addition to being a lucrative "Jackpot" deposit, it's danger level was rated at "Catastrophic". This was not a site where a few Covetors and a hauler could set up shop. This required a coordinated fleet effort - or people would die. You had made the attempt before, just a few weeks earlier, when you were just another one of the sad, lonely pilots who mined the paltry scraps at the new belt anoms, which spawned around planets. But these new ones spawned in the deeps pace between planets.

You remembered that day. It was only a "Dangerous" deposit, and you thought you could handle it. But your shields were ripped away in seconds, and you were lucky to escape with structure damage. But now you were part of a local corporation, part of a team - and you were going places.

The blue star of Jerma cast a glaring reflection on the hulls your fleetmates' ships, which were gathering outside of a deadspace pocket near Jerma VI. As they floating around you - 2 Orcas, 8 Procurers, and a Noctis - their shield hardeners highlighted each ship in a translucent blue. The FC's voice broke the silence:

"Orca One, are you ready?"

"Ready."

"Orca two, are you ready?"

"Roger."

"Fleet, are you ready?"

"Ready." "Yessir." "Lets gittir done sir."

"Fleet - align to Catastrophic Jackpot. . . Take fleet warp. Orcas, cap chain up on landing."

The anomaly comes into view at the end of the swirling warp tunnel; a red miasma of toxic dust clouds, electrical discharges, and flying chunks of rock, all of which would apply periodic environmental damage to ships on site. The sun visibly dims as you land on grid; the stars and golden nebulae of Amarr space fading into pitch black.

"Cap chain established, mining boosts active."

"Shield boosts active."

"Entering Prospect mode - mining boosts amplified."

"Fleet mining ledger recording."

You look around you at this strange new world you've stumbled upon. Flashes of electricity briefly illuminate large deposits of Veldspar, Scordite, and Pyoxeres, each with the prefix "Jackpot". Containing the normal DNA of their species, the discription of each asteroid noted a 75% increased mineral density. Jesus, you thought to yourself, that Veldspar yields 700 units of Tritanium... and there's... 500,000 units of it.... Your money trouble was about to be over. You watched as over a dozen blue mining lasers began to drill into the rocks.

Until your shield alarm blares in your ears. Your shields are taking damage and depleting at a rapid rate.

"Start locking Skiffs. Alphabetical; Orca One takes top, Orca Two takes bottom."

"I'm taking serious damage here."

"Stay calm. Reps landing no-"

"CHECK CHECK CHECK, zero point beacon forming, type... 4?"

"Okay clear comms, we haven't seen this one before."

About 50km off the starboard bow of the lead Orca, a small beacon had appeared. Within moments it had expanded and turned into what appeared to be a wormhole; a violent vortex of angry red and black energy. As you watched, ships began to pour out of it, each with the dangerous ♦ symbol next to them.

"Diamond Blood Raiders - I need an Orca in Emergency Mode *right now*. Fleet, drones out drones out drones out. Anchor on the Orcas. Broadcasting primaries."

A bubble of energy burst from one of the Orcas - you think it was Two - enveloping the fleet. Your shields, which were already being amplified by the shield links, became even stronger. Emergency Mode increased the effect of Command Bursts, as well as improving the amount of shields that could be regenerated with remote reps - but, as with Prospect Mode, this rendered the Orca stationary.

"Emergency Mode active."

The battle began, warp scramblers from the Blood Raider rats rendering several Procurers unable to escape. A swarm of drones surrounded the first rat, and began to wear it's HP down. The incoming damage was hard for the Orcas to keep up with, and several times you watched your HP dip into armor. That would have to be repaired after the battle, when the fleet was cleared to launch armor rep drones.

And during it all, the fleet continued to mine; targeting NPCs with drones, cringing as their shields fell, moving ore between bays, and applying heat to shield hardeners when primaried. The rats would come in waves; there would be a few minutes of respite before another wave came again, during which time the fleet topped off on cap and armor reps.

You'd been bored in EVE, but not anymore.  You had a corp and a fleet of good pilots. Through the corp, you had access to higher level gameplay - more dangerous, but more lucrative. As the Noctis landed on grid to loot and salvage the wrecks - a lucrative prospect in and of itself - you thought about how different the game was when you played with other people. After a short while, a Providence came and began loading itself with ore from the Orcas. Hundreds and hundreds of M3 of high yield Veldspar, Scordite, and Pyroxeres.

As the fleet was standing down and getting ready to warp back to station - to deliver the ore to each pilot based on what the fleet mining ledger had recorded - you breathed a sigh of relief. "Are they all like that?"

"Oh no, it depends on what you bring on grid. They're adaptive, but we haven't quite figured out how the escalations work. And they get much worse in LowSec and 0.0. That's the worst HiSec has to offer though, and we did fine with 2 Orcas and Procurers. Most of the ones we find out here are Calm and Standard. Those mostly do environmental damage, but you have to pay attention because that damage adds up quick and a beacon can still drop. We mostly run them with Porpoises. We have a guy who even multiboxes them."

This was a future vision of the EVE That Might Have Been.

Reducible Complexity: Standings and Haulers

EVE Online is a complex game, and this is what I love about it. And CCP keeps adding new things to the game, which increase the complexity. However, not all the complexity is meaningful. As a scientist I'm a big fan of parsimony. We can break EVE's complexity down into two categories: meaningful and meaningless. Reducing meaningless complexity is beneficial. It creates parsimony, removes clutter and frees up cognitive resources so players can attend to what is meaningful: gameplay. In this post I will argue that the NPC standings system and the current iteration of Industrials contain meaningless, and hence reducible, complexity. These systems can be made more parsimonious.

NPC Standings

What were NPC standings used for in the past?

1. Accessing higher level missions: Still relevant. 
2. POS Anchoring: Now obsolete.
3. Jump Clones: Now obsolete. RIP Estel Arador Corp Serves.
4. Refining Yields: Mostly obsolete with Athanors and compression.
5. Locator Agents: Potentially useful.

Looking at this list it seems NPC standings don't do much these days. They allow access to mission levels, modify NPC station refining, and allow for locator agents. Open up your character sheet and go to your standings. What a mess. The UI is ugly and it's filled with hundreds of entities. What is this adding to the gameplay? I would argue that, in modern EVE, absolutely nothing. It's a big cluttered mess that doesn't do that much beyond missioning, FW, and the odd locator agent. It can be simplified.

Imagine if your NPC standings looked something like this instead, with neat little dropdown menus:

• Amarr
• Amarr Navy
• Imperial Shipment
• Joint Harvesting
• 24th Imperial Crusade
• Minmatar
• Republic Fleet
• Freedom Extension
• Minmatar Mining Corp
• Tribal Liberation Force

How much simpler is that? There aren't a dozen corporations for each faction and dozens of agents for each corporation. You just have the faction standing, plus corps for security missions, courier missions, mining missions, as well as Factional Warfare. Much simpler. Parsimonious. This will also be beneficial for retaining newbies because there will be less clutter and information in the UI, making EVE a bit less daunting for them. LP stores and locator agent stuff can be adjusted accordingly.

Haulers

Industrials are another mess in EVE. Each race has it's own haulers, which makes sense. But what doesn't make sense is the absolute mess between Amarr/Caldari haulers (size vs align time) and Gallente/Minmatar haulers (size vs align time vs specialized bays).

Specialized bays make sense. The specialized ore bays on the Rorqual, Orca, and Porpoise ensures that these ships aren't used as suitcases and reserves that role for freighters and industrials. Specialized bays also allow for a choice; you can haul a lot of this 1 thing, or you can haul a moderate amount of anything. But splitting them up by faction makes no sense.

I propose that every faction just gets two haulers: one big and slow, one small and fast, with their respective T2 variants. For specialized cargo bays the Ore Industrial skill could be put to use by introducing specialized Ore Industrials for hauling the bulkiest things in the game - PI, ore, and minerals. In addition to this, there could be specialized cargo bay expanders, either split by type or general, that would allow players to expand the specialized cargo bays.

Players will have the option to use their racial haulers and to specialize into the Tech2 variants or to use Ore Industrials at either level I or or level V. And there's an opportunity for some very beautiful new, modern looking ships to be added.

Simple and parsimonious.

Identifying Toxic Personality Traits

Learning how to identify toxic leadership styles can improve your enjoyment of online games.

I would like to preface this by saying that there are no "good" or "bad" leadership styles or personality traits. As someone who works in a field closely related to psychology, we tend to think of things in clinical terms; is a behavior adaptive, or maladaptive? Is it functional, or dysfunctional? Does it cause distress and disability, or not? From the perspective of evolutionary psychology, many things we don't like about other people - arrogance, deceitfulness, manipulativeness - can nevertheless be adaptive in certain situations. It's best to think in terms of competing strategies, each of which has it's time and place, which exist on a spectrum of being adaptive (healthy) and maladaptive (pathological). Things can also be analyzed on a group level or an individual level; a behavior might be adaptive for the individual, but harmful for the group, and vice versa. In this article, I hope to provide readers with information that they can use to find the right play environment for themselves.

As a clinical therapist, I am fascinated by the social aspects of online gaming. The internet provides an anonymous or semi-anonymous low-consequence environment where people are free to act as disinhibited agents, a phenomenon known as The Online Disinhibition Effect. ODE has been a focus of increasing research, particularly among socially withdrawn youth and adults who report that it's easier interact online than in person. There are many reasons a person may be socially withdrawn. One reason is social anxiety, and research has found evidence that interacting via the internet reduces feelings of anxiety. Another reason is anti-social personality traits, in particular low impulse control, emotional reactivity, and fragile or reactive self-esteem. While socially anxious individuals withdraw because they fear the possibility of rejection and negative appraisal, persons with these anti-social traits socially withdraw because of actual rejection and negative appraisal.

Note: having anti-social personality traits is not the same as having anti-social personality disorder. Current thinking in psychology points to most things existing on a spectrum; that is, we all have anti-social personality traits, some more so than others, and the delineation between "normal" and "pathological" is no longer as clear as it once was, taking into account a multitude of contextual factors involving cultural norms as well as individual distress and disability. In other words: it's not a problem unless it's a problem..

Of all the online games, EVE Online has proven to be the best place place to study the human condition. With very few official rules regarding gameplay and player interactions, almost anything goes - almost. People with anti-social or toxic personality traits have a low attrition rate in EVE compared to more popular games like WoW or Final Fantasy XIV, where players can have their accounts actioned simply for being rude. But as we all know by now, EVE online isn't that handholdy.

We've all seen the videos of FCs raging on YouTube. It's often funny from an outsider perspective. I knew it was a thing that existed in EVE, but it was not something that I'd experienced in a particularly salient way. Sure; I've been in groups which contained toxic people, but I never played with them very much. I've been in fleets when an FC got mad, or had to tell people to shut up and clear comms. That's not a problem, as these are usually transient events in the grand scheme of things. Most of the FCs I've flown with have been either very chill, or very entertaining. I'd never encountered an actual ragemonster - someone who just seemed addicted to being angry - until my last corp.

Things started off okay. But over time I began to notice a certain irritable sensitivity in our FC. During our structure bashes we were told to call out jams. But every time one of our logi called out jams, the FC responded with a huff and a sigh: "It's fiiiinnnne you're gonna get jammed, just get the cap chain back up when you can." As the week went on, he was becoming increasingly snippy, over increasingly trivial matters. People were starting to complain when he wasn't around. Our fleets, which had been chatty and fun, were becoming quieter. 

Below are two brief interactions that I had with the FC the night I dropped corp. I've left the situational details out, as they're not particularly relevant. Of interest here are the personality dynamics. My statements are the ones without quotes:

• "Why the FUCK are you warping?"
• Excuse me? 
• "Why are you warping off?!" 
• I'm just breaking his jams so I can land a few rep cycles on the Nestor.
• "Get your ass back here NOW, I did NOT give you permission to warp off! If you're gonna do that shit you might as well just drop fleet and get the fuck out of my corp. You do NOT warp off as logi when someone's getting shot." 
• How can I rep if I'm jammed? 
• "It doesn't matter, you fucked up the cap chain." 
• How am I transferring cap if I'm jammed? 
• "Just shut the fuck up and do what you're told."

Later, as the fleet was standing down:

• "Sorry about going off like that."
• Hey don't worry about it. Just try to relax a bit. Stuff like that will make people not want to come on fleets.
• "You know what?? I don't give a FUCK if you don't want to come on my fleets. I don't need logi putting people at risk by warping off when they should be repping and fucking up the cap chain."
• I was jammed. That doesn't make any sense.
• "You know what does make sense is you can get the FUCK OUT OF MY CORP."

Yikes! Online disinhibition + some maladjustment issues = toxic, hostile leadership. I could not dock up and drop corp fast enough. Notice the prolific use of "I" statements. There is no "we" here. For this FC, the group is simply an extension of his volition. He wasn't so much concerned about a fleetmate dying as he was about how it would look to suffer a loss to an enemy. You'll also notice how very mild corrective feedback was met with a reflexive and automatic hostile response: he has no need of anyone who would disagree with him or criticize him in any way. It may seem like he's acting in a decisive and confident manner, but in reality this response is born of defensiveness and narcissistic fragility: he can't handle criticism, so he just makes people who criticize him unwelcome.

See if you can identify some of the of toxic leadership on display in the vignette:

• Arrogance: Arrogant and egotistical leaders are not open to constructive criticism or feedback. They interpret anything less than praise as a personal challenge, and respond with reflexive and automatic hostility. Egotistical leaders are self-centered and put themselves before the group, only helping the group as it serves their own ends. They cannot handle being wrong, dismiss disconfirming or contrary opinions, and behave in a punishing or threatening way towards subordinates who "step out of line".
• Irritability: Under toxic and irritable leadership, organizations become stultified and individuals do not feel free to act with agency or to try innovative approaches to problems. Autonomy and independent thought are discouraged or outright punished. The group becomes an extension of the toxic leader's personality and will.
• Authoritarian: "My way or the highway." Authoritarian approaches have their time and place, but in general research has shown that authoritarian leadership is less effective in the long-term than more egalitarian leadership styles. Authoritarian leadership styles promote distrust, rebellion, reduce individual identification with the group, increase turnover rate, and slow innovation. In short: authoritarian leadership styles have a chilling effect, leading to stagnation under a harsh status quo.
• Blame: Toxic leaders take all the credit, and pass all the blame to subordinates. If things go well, it's because of the leader's efficacy. If things do not go well, it's because subordinates didn't do their jobs properly.

Despite all these negatives, many authoritarian structures still exist, and seem successful. Why? One reason is social capital and efficacy: some toxic leaders are charismatic and, frankly, get things done (at least in the short term). Due to efficacy they tend to build up a certain respect, especially since they grab the credit for themselves. Authoritarian leadership also appeals to people with low self-efficacy. It's a chicken-and-egg problem: are low efficacy people drawn to authoritarian leaders, or do authoritarian leaders promote low efficacy in their followers?

The Achilles heel of authoritarian leadership is that subordinates are willing to stick around only insofar as the group is doing well and the benefits outweigh the cost of dealing with a toxic environment. Subordinates in authoritarian regimes do not have high levels of trust towards leadership. As soon as the benefits no longer outweigh the costs, subordinates leave - or they rebel and attempt to usurp leadership positions. This is why authoritarian institutions are unstable and tend to collapse suddenly and are prone to coups: nobody likes an authoritarian - not even other authoritarians - and as soon as a better option presents itself, it's seized upon.

I want to outline the better option for people who are currently looking for a corporation in EVE. Here's some traits of healthy leadership:

• Humility: Benevolent leaders demonstrate humility; they see themselves as part of the group, and display high levels of group loyalty. They want the group to succeed, even at personal cost. They have an egalitarian leadership style and take personal interest in the group's wellbeing. This promotes high levels of trust and loyalty amongst members. Leaders who lead from a place of humility view themselves as servants to the group. Thomas Jefferson called these leaders "citizen servants".
• Stability: Healthy leaders are the rock that the group can depend on. No matter how bad things get, they maintain a positive, optimistic outlook. Even during failures, healthy leaders do what they can to maintain group cohesion and look for new opportunities. They are approachable and don't make members feel like they have to walk on eggshells.
• Egalitarian: Because they have high levels of humility, healthy leaders realize that they don't know everything will not always make the correct choices. They are open to others taking the initiative and innovating. They are open to corrective and disconfirming feedback. They are more willing to share power with others, fostering leadership qualities in their members. This improves group morale and slows leadership burnout.
• Credit: Leaders with high levels of humility and a positive orientation towards the group are almost allergic to praise. Instead, they take personal responsibility for failures and ask themselves "what could I have done differently?" Jocko Willink refers to this as "extreme ownership" (see also, here.) Positive leaders are liberal with their praise, giving credit to group members for their positive contributions.

Groups with healthy leadership tend to be fun environments where players don't feel like they're "walking on eggshells". Members feel free to take the initiative, innovate, and come up with their own solutions to problems, promoting a sense of self-efficacy. This leadership style promotes group loyalty, trust, and longevity. It's of interest to note that some autocracies in EVE are successful in the long-term, and this seems to be because they buffer their membership and the Supreme Soviet with egalitarian leaders. The Big Boss is a dick, but your immediate manager is a pretty nice guy.

Of course, these traits exist on a continuum. No leader is "purely" toxic or healthy, and no one behaves in a stereotyped manner. Even toxic leaders have their shining moments, and healthy leaders their bad days.

Finding Positive Leadership Environments

If you're cognizant of these leadership styles and are looking for a more positive environment, here are some things to watch for when you're deciding whether or not the corporation you're in is a good fit for you. I always recommend an initial low investment period when joining a new corporation. Keep a low profile and just observe what happens. Don't jump all your stuff out on day one. Bring just enough ships to have fun, so you don't have to go through the pain of logistics again.

• Criticism: How does leadership respond to criticism? Do they take it personally and argue? Do they say things like "if you don't like it get the fuck out of my corp"? Is leadership willing to apologize when they've been rude, and accept corrective feedback on that sort of behavior?
• Mistakes: How are mistakes and failures taken? Is leadership's first response to blame someone? Do they get angry and yell at people? Or does leadership instead calmly look for solutions and provide instruction?
• Frame: In what terms does leadership speak? Do they speak in terms of "we" or in terms of "I"? "We need people in Guardians." vs "I need more Guardian pilots in fleet."
• Accommodation: How accommodating is leadership towards the fact that you have a life outside the game? Do they have participation requirements? While not necessarily a problem, participation requirements can be a red flag: over time, authoritarian and toxic leadership styles lead to lower participation levels. Participation requirements could be a way that leadership is compensating for this (in an authoritarian way, not surprisingly).
• Rules: Every group has rules, both unspoken and official. Authoritarians tend to make rules frivolously. Healthy leadership has the minimum necessary amount of rules. How imposing are the rules of the group? What restrictions will membership in the group impose upon your playstyle?
• Credit: Pay attention to what leadership says. Do they praise group members? Do they tell people when they did a good job or had a good idea?

Leadership are the figures that membership rallies around. They have a huge influence on the culture of the group, setting precedents for what's considered acceptable behavior and what isn't. Toxic leaders promote toxic environments. While I am always a proponent of building resilience, there is a fine line between having a thick skin and putting up with abuse. Hopefully this guide will help you know what to look for as you search for a home in New Eden.