PCGAMER, the Gods of EVE and the engaged devs

I've read this PCGAMER article and my problem with CCP community engagement became clear: "[EVE is] a whole universe in and of itself, where players, rather than the developers, call the shots. No other MMO has managed to pull it off." This is how EVE is seen. This is how EVE should be. And this is what everyone who actually plays knows to be bullshit. A year ago most of the galaxy was in the hands of the N3/PL coalition, most of it rented out via B0T and NA. This mega-empire fell without a single shot fired, when developers changed the jump ranges. Other patch announced and the Emporium abandoned half of its land. The patch was implemented and they started to lose even this concentrated land and their men shown exhaustion. A patch with passive node regen saved their remaining empire. All these political changes that dwarf the fall of BoB happened without a single shot, just by the actions of developers. Sure there was player agency - or the threat of it - that facilitated the changes, the entosis mechanic isn't a problem to the Emporium if MoA isn't using it, but I claim without doubt that if the game code remained the same as it was in 2014 summer, B0T and NA. would still own most of the galaxy, S2N would still exist, NC. would still be bigger killer than MoA and the Emporium would still own Fountain and would still be called CFC.

EVE is unique in that competitive players play it in various ways. In WoW, League of Legends or World of Tanks, every good player attempts to play the same, optimal way and the one who does it better wins. It's not like there were all-jungler teams in LoL. Therefore any change affects everyone the same, so there is no disagreement between players about development. If a champion is op, everyone agrees that it's op and everyone wants it to be nerfed, since it would be present/banned in every game, resulting decrease of diversity without anyone getting advantage. On the other hand the top 2015 killers of EVE: Goons, PL, CODE and BRAVE play very-very differently, so a game balance change can hit one very hard while having no effect on the others. For example the change to stop criminal pilots from docking in highsec would likely kill CODE, while the removal of faction police would double its kills without having any effect on PL or BRAVE and moderate on Goons.

This means that developers maintain full control of the EVE politics via mechanics changes that favor or unfavor playstyles, therefore the alliances playing those styles. How can it be stopped and control given back to players? It cannot - unless they stop developing EVE besides bugfixes and graphics which is surely inacceptable. This means that the devs - like playful Gods or merciless nature - can rise and smash powers at whim. It's like a meteorite hitting the North American continent, making Russia the strongest power overnight. It's not fair, but it's random and not the work of the Russians. I'm sure that the surviving Americans wouldn't be mad at the Russians and find their place in the new, Russian dominated World, some even ending up as Russian-allied soldier.

On the other hand imagine if president Putin was seen talking about meteorites with God over a beer! I'm pretty sure that the surviving Americans would launch every ICBM they have left. He could tell all day that he spoke on behalf of all mankind and against meteors, not a single person would believe him. This is how EVE players see the devs, the CSM and especially Goons who seem to have very intimate connection with CCP, especially with the community team. Unlike the people who are stuck with God or nature, the players are an uninstall away from getting rid of the game devs. Not like there aren't any other games out there. The elephant in the room is the Document of Shame: the Goons made an open, written statement that demanded nerfs that benefit them and CCP delivered, implementing the most anti-"cold and unforgiving EVE" change ever. After the Document of Shame "Goons dictate to CCP", became "obvious truth" from conspiracy theory.

My gut reaction solution was stopping dev influencing by disbanding the CSM, forbidding devs from talking to players, making CCP totally unapproachable, unreachable. Something that might work, but at a large cost since customers of all services value being engaged. Fans don't go to Fanfest to see devs only at the stage giving corporate bullshit. It's hard for me to understand why would someone want a beer with Falcon (or a beer at all), but I have to accept that most players would - and by extension that his beer offer to me was probably an incompetent attempt to reconcile instead of another attack.

So how to fix this disaster without making CCP unengaged? By the following rules:

• Mechanics changes (that are not just polishing a few ships or the UI) must aim for increasing playerbase. That's a goal that every player must accept as valid, even if it hurts his playstyle. So when announcing a change, it must be explained how this will lead to more players.
• A mechanic change that can't even hope to get more players must not be made, especially not if a vocal minority calls for it. Those players are guilty in trying to influence CCP to do their bidding instead of just learning to play. "It would be cool" or "it would add depth to the game" are not acceptable reasons to do something that will destroy alliances and evict players from their hard-earned place. Because every serious change will.
• The "increases playerbase" must not be blanket statement. It must contain numerical target metrics that are objectively reached or not.
• After a fixed time (like three months) the change must be revisited and evaluated if it increased the playerbase or not. If it failed to, it must be reverted. This way players who are hit by the change don't quit, as they know that they only need to survive three months and the change can be gone.

Here is an example (please don't argue with the example):

• Announced mechanic change: "Corps without space assets can opt out of wardecs"
• Explanation: "It's known that players joining corps are much more likely to stay in EVE. We hope that more corps will be out there recruiting if they fear no wardecs, so more highsec players will be in real corps (other zones are unaffected by the change)."
• Numerical goal: currently 20% of the highsec players are in a "real PVE corp", 35% are in NPC corps, 40% in corps that appear to be altcorps or maximum 2-3 players real-friend/family corps. Our goal is to significantly increase real corp membership. We also identified that 5% of the highsec players are in corps that actively wardec others. We'll monitor their activity too to see what we'll lose. [All numbers are right out of my butt]
• [Fast forward 3 months.]
• Dear players! We are happy to announce that the wardec changes worked! In the past 3 months the membership of real corps increased from 20% to 26% and the increase is continuing. It seems that almost all of it came from players who used to be in altcorps. NPC corp members are largely unaffected, they either want to be solo, or they are farmalts with no need to play with others. Many wardeccers left after the changes were announced, before the patch, but we are pleased to see that their numbers have increased since than and seems to be stabilizing around 3% as they found their way to keep wardeccing corps with assets. So the changes are deemed successful and stay!

With this design rule it would not matter if the change was influenced by Goons or others as it must pass an objective criteria. Their influence would only mean that a good change gets developed faster if Goons suggest it. Also, the CSM would no longer be a problem but a formal place for such influence. It wouldn't mean that a Goon-suggested change wouldn't be Goon-serving, but it would also be a game-serving one, so everyone else would have to accept it and live with it.