@Puck
I know puck, but that's akin to playing TF2 where a bunch of your team is near a bunch of the other team and you have to make the best of what you have and rely on the features of the other team members. It's not an intrinsic complexity of the system itself, it's the open interaction that makes it complex at the moment. Yes, I know there are some complex to use features in EVE and that there are enough to appeal to almost every type of player.
When I played EVE and I did it about 4 times, one of which lasted months and months, I played as the mean missile artillery (minmatar? I think) frigate. If I remember correctly, my ship had either 6 or 7 missile racks, nearly one for each occasion. We played in large teams normally and I was the guy responsible for picking out runners (They get hurt, align to run, they get missiles up their ass before that happens) and wearing down shields with those anti-shield missiles. I'm not saying that bit wasn't fun, it was fun even when losing, but that's team pvp. Team pvp is fun in nearly every game there is. The problem when I was left alone with the game. It was boring and so annoying the fun bits didn't feel worth it.
About the financial articles on the EVE market, it's because the eve market runs in a localized open bid system, which is a pretty simple system that allows for complex interactions. It mimics the real [stock] market, which is simple by design. So it's no wonder people write articles about it, it's a good reference to the real market. I doubt there's a way to actually create a complex market unless you started adding multiple currencies with player ran exchange ratios, player ran banks, loans, governments dictating stupid rules, and so on. I know there were player loans and banks but I don't remember it being actually in the system as well. (actually took a few loans back in the day)
The AO thing was a bit of a joke, I confess, but it's one of the MMOs I actually enjoyed and played for years. The complex bits of AO aren't really available to new players, sadly, and a lot of it isn't available to free users either. it mostly has to do with the crafting of implants and forcing your character to wear items he otherwise wouldn't be able to, yes with a bit of wrangling help and implant planning. Basically being a
munchkin. One of my hacker (forgot the name of the class) characters was level 100 wearing level 180 equipment for example, that took a lot of work and money. The tower wars is also something that took a lot planning to pull out right and then there was the city building and alien raiding, but those elements are also present in EVE in one form or another. The problem with AO is that it if you have the paid version, you can do some special grind where you basically form a group with a kite and go kill stuff you otherwise couldn't normally, getting levels really fast. I guess it's one of the perks of paying for the game, but it creates some discrepancies. The other problem is that PVP is really lacking, even with the towers and the new expansion, it's a bit sad.
@The cash-gold issue & CCP money hunger.
I don't care really care about cash-gold conversions and as long as there's player skill involved, it doesn't bother me. In fact, it's gratifying when you kill someone who spent real money in equipment, with your common equipment. As for CCP I've always said and will always say that the skill system in EVE is a scam. It's there to make people keep on paying and as much as someone can say "You can buy game time with in game money so it's free!" It's not, someone else paid for that, so CCP got monies anyway to support the scam skill system.
But that goes for a lot of MMOs where you have super fast fun leveling at first and then boom, slow down, gotta work work work to get a level. It's their way of lengthening the game and force people to play longer. Meanwhile, I'm a firm believer that making sure people have fun would make them stay instead. EVE is just a lot more blatant and stupid about it. If they actually sold the skills for money and let you upgrade it instantaneously, I think it would be a more honest stance since that's basically what it is.