# First CSM Summit Meeting Minutes **URL:** \ **Category:** Dev Blogs\ **Tags:** devblog, csm\ **Created:** [September 27, 2019, 11:39am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/first-csm-summit-meeting-minutes/192645 "2019-09-27T11:39:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![Brisc\_Rubal](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/brisc_rubal/32/374307_2.png) [@Brisc\_Rubal](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Brisc_Rubal)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2019, 9:46pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/first-csm-summit-meeting-minutes/192645/302 "2019-10-02T21:46:11Z")
> [@Xucca](#): > > It’s still a detection after the moment the incoming entity decided to be a threat. That’s a fact. I think you’re missing my point - it doesn’t matter whether the person is a threat or not. There are activities that can be disrupted simply by somebody not being blue in the system. There are people who are that risk averse and they relied on that information to know when it was safe to rat and mine and when it wasn’t. They would always know who was in the system with them. That’s why cloaky camping is something people complain about. > [@Xucca](#): > > your presence is but it says nothing about you, not yet. But as an incoming threat, you already know what is going on in there, therefore, the detection instant is irrelevant. It’s a threat and whichever action as evasive or confrontative that could be, is an unpredictable decission, making it non-existing at that instant. Also a fact. Your presence and the fact that you’re not blue to them. That’s what they know. And if they see a local spike of a bunch of people, you can pretty much guarantee that’s a roaming gang and your intent is obvious. Hell, just knowing your name means they can look up your killboard, see what you like to do, and determine if you’re just some random guy in a taxi ceptor, or whether you’re a blops hunter about to drop stuff on them. > [@Xucca](#): > > If by meta you mean What I mean by meta is the “most efficient/effective tactic available,” which is what meta stands for. What I mean is that people figured out how to min max things, how to stay safe, how to avoid the bad guys, and the like and that made nullsec in a variety of areas extremely safe for them to make a lot of money. One of CCP’s goals was to disrupt that meta and force people to figure out a new way of doing things. They did that, for a time. There’s nothing contradictory about changing things - CCP does it literally all the time. Every balance change, every new ship added, every expansion, they all add things that change stuff up. This time, instead of adding something, they took something away. > [@Xucca](#): > > I have no opinion, unless specified. Your entire argument - that BO was bad - is your opinion, my friend. ---
**Author:** ![Xucca](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/xucca/32/373499_2.png) [@Xucca](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Xucca)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2019, 9:58pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/first-csm-summit-meeting-minutes/192645/303 "2019-10-02T21:58:45Z")
I always said BO was wrong but that’s not an opinion, it’s a fact. My opinion is that as exercise of doing things that can be good for the game and at the same time easier, it was Op Success. Anything needed or wanted to be done to the game can be tackled piece by piece which _in my opinion_ takes way longer, or by mimicking the environmental switch flipped for BO but for other purposes. I’m a constant advocate of that because EVE needs more practical, less resource consuming ways to develop because when they say that people who actually pay for the game are not near the 20 top priorities and everything is dumped on the effort of retention, something is wrong. At such pace, nothing good will ever reach us. ---
**Author:** ![Arrendis](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/arrendis/32/432594_2.png) [@Arrendis](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Arrendis)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2019, 10:13pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/first-csm-summit-meeting-minutes/192645/304 "2019-10-02T22:13:35Z")
> [@Brisc\_Rubal](#): > > But hey - fixing the problem of the faucets producing too much isk by shutting off the water is a legit strategy, isn’t it? No, it really isn’t. Because the faucets _had already been dropping_. But then Rise goes and says it’s all fixed and they may need to look at opening the faucets up wider. Without any _actual_ change to the underlying conditions (and no, the BO didn’t really amount to one), that’s a _ridiculous_ thing to say. Yes, _some_ people—not a huge percentage of the super-ratting population, mind you—changed behaviors to use cheaper, less profitable, and _far more easily-killed_ Rattlesnakes. More people in small groups left. More people in large groups _completely ignored it and kept going_. Even now, with the cyno changes, supers are safer than rattles. They’re a better ratting option. Just follow best practices, and stay alive. Or go rat in a Rattlesnake, and when you get dropped, die quietly. But open the faucets up again, and watch the Rattlesnake pilots switch back. At the same time, a chunk of those people whose activity has completely _stopped_… come _back_. And while that’s good for activity, it’s _bad_ for the way CCP’s reading their data. Because now the faucets are open wider, so they’re making more money than ever before. And then the MER shows massive spike in faucets, leading _again_ to CCP completely misreading the data. So no, Brisc, it’s not a legit strategy. A few cosmetic changes that push the overall needle down by depressing player activity isn’t helping. It’s just treating symptoms. And, y’know, sure, Tylenol’s great for a headache, but using it as your primary treatment for a brain tumor? Not legit. They need to address the _underlying issues_. Not the symptoms. ---
**Author:** ![Brisc\_Rubal](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/brisc_rubal/32/374307_2.png) [@Brisc\_Rubal](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Brisc_Rubal)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2019, 10:18pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/first-csm-summit-meeting-minutes/192645/305 "2019-10-02T22:18:32Z")
> [@Arrendis](#): > > They need to address the _underlying issues_ . What do you identify those as being? ---
**Author:** ![Xucca](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/xucca/32/373499_2.png) [@Xucca](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Xucca)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2019, 11:14pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/first-csm-summit-meeting-minutes/192645/307 "2019-10-02T23:14:25Z")
I apologize, too much info. I shall flash the flashy thing. Nothing happened. ---
**Author:** ![Kaylee\_Rayl](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/kaylee_rayl/32/130709_2.png) [@Kaylee\_Rayl](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Kaylee_Rayl)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2019, 11:39pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/first-csm-summit-meeting-minutes/192645/308 "2019-10-02T23:39:14Z")
> [@Arrendis](#): > > Well, in the case of the CSM, all you’ll ever have is what CCP say. The CSM can’t tell you what things they’ve actually stopped CCP from screwing up horribly, or even what things they’ve advocated for. So you won’t know what they _do_ . Unless I have fced along and flown with many CSM previously or actively to know to have discerning powers of words vs actions. Anyhow. Sure thing, CCP will do whatever they want, but the people also has leverage over the media (eg. INN, etc.), you should know better. With CCP brats doing whatever they want to our universe (though they own it, yeah), I believe the CSM also have some ability to shape the game (via controlled media) to the will of the people. We cannot invest years of time, money and dedication into shaping this universe and CCP’s the one having all the final say. CSM has to go beyond just being consultants and yes-men, they have to use whatever leverage the have to influence CCP. Now more that ever. ---
**Author:** ![Arrendis](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/arrendis/32/432594_2.png) [@Arrendis](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Arrendis)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2019, 12:12am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/first-csm-summit-meeting-minutes/192645/309 "2019-10-03T00:12:37Z")
The same thing they’ve been every other time I’ve gone over this in the last 3 months (and far longer, really): The faucets need to be tightened, yes. They are not the primary problem, though, so we’ll come back to them. The primary problem is that destruction’s too low. The big things don’t blow up. If destruction was more in-line with the faucets, the faucets wouldn’t be a problem at all. So destruction needs to come up. Destruction specifically needs to come up in the supercapital range, and it needs to come up in terms of actual warfare being waged. Without that, you can’t keep rewards at a reasonable level for the risk that exists in null. And before anyone decides to trot out the bullshittery of ‘null is too safe’, STFU and lemme 'splain: Null is dangerous. There’s no CONCORD. There’s no faction navies. Bubbles work. Hot-drops work. Bombs work. What safety there is comes from players. And players are very _good_ at providing that safety. As a result, the faucets get out of balance for a static, relatively safe environment with no appreciable levels of destruction. But the only reason the environment is safe is because the faucets are open enough to make the effort of providing that safety, day in and day out, worthwhile. If you remove those faucets, you remove the people. We saw that in the Blackout. If you remove the people, you remove the safety. At which point, the cycle feeds back on itself and you lose more people, and on and on. And, since opening the faucets in order to offset this creates _more_ problems along the way, you have to be careful about how you engineer the tightening. So you need more destruction. You need more destruction in the form of _war_. Not the asinine skirmishing we’ve got going on, not the ‘one side might put up a little resistance, but then they just up and run away’ we’ve had basically since 2014, if not longer. You need _war_. Real war. Committed, bloody, no-quarter-asked-and-none-given war. Which means you need to fix the root causes for why nobody actually _commits_ to a war unless they know they can win. Which means fixing supercapitals, because we’re right back to: 1. If you want to hold space, you need enough of a supercapital fleet to beat the hell out of any subcap fleet that tries to take it from you. 2. If you want to have a supercapital fleet, you need to have space. 3. If you want to take space, you need enough of a supercapital fleet to beat the hell out of the defenders’ supercapital fleet. People _want_ to go to war. We like wars. But nobody is willing to _lose_ their supercapital fleet, because losing your supercapital fleet loses the war. And then it loses you the ability to even _be in_ the next war or two. At this point, it might put you in a position you can never recover from. Fix that[1], and wars happen. So destruction comes up. Which means the faucets aren’t so badly out of line. And to fix where they are… (told you we’d come back to this) Excavators. Excavators make as much as they do because they cost so much. Make the rogue drone controller thing drop more often. So they become cheaper. And then reduce the Excavator yield so a max-yield Rorq makes about 80% what a max-yield Hulk w/full boosts gets. Make it the damned boosting ship it’s supposed to be. On the ratting side, you adopt a very simple premise: you don’t go building massive amounts of high-value, high-tech infrastructure in a godforsaken post-apocalyptic anarchist hell. You want to build up your industrial base, that doesn’t jive with ‘look, endless hordes of rats to kill’. Make the mining upgrades and ratting upgrades mutually exclusive. It forces either a widening of the umbrella (which weakens it), or people have to pick one or the other, which reduces the faucets. Like I said: ain’t brain surgery. More like… ecology. Or economics. The non-voodoo kind. * * * 1. Hell, fix supers—fix them in a way that means you don’t _need_ a massive supercapital fleet just to take and hold space in null—and you open the door to smaller groups being more viable. Fix them in a way that makes them less of an uncontestable apex force, and they become part of the Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock that we’re _supposed_ to have out here, but we all know breaks down as soon as the meta solidifies, because it _stays_ solidified for **years**. The more the uber-dominance of supercapitals can be shattered, the better it is for the game across the board. Large groups don’t have to be so risk-averse. Small groups aren’t automatically without even a shred of a prayer. The potential to drop supers doesn’t squat like an angry Buddha over literally everything in null _and_ low. More destruction means more construction to replace it, meaning more economic movement in highsec. ---
**Author:** ![Brisc\_Rubal](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/brisc_rubal/32/374307_2.png) [@Brisc\_Rubal](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Brisc_Rubal)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2019, 12:41am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/first-csm-summit-meeting-minutes/192645/310 "2019-10-03T00:41:11Z")
Thank you for writing my next campaign speech. ---
**Author:** ![Arrendis](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/arrendis/32/432594_2.png) [@Arrendis](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Arrendis)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2019, 12:48am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/first-csm-summit-meeting-minutes/192645/311 "2019-10-03T00:48:56Z")
Feel free. ---
**Author:** ![Xucca](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/xucca/32/373499_2.png) [@Xucca](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Xucca)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2019, 1:09am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/first-csm-summit-meeting-minutes/192645/312 "2019-10-03T01:09:22Z")
Can I still believe in the environment? And dream about my bleeding SOV? It’s just an idea but it might work… And IMO, it would be easier. Ok it will not work for everything but could fix a bit here or there… Ok, nvm. ---
**Author:** ![MB\_ThePhotographer](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/mb_thephotographer/32/373722_2.png) [@MB\_ThePhotographer](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/MB_ThePhotographer)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2019, 1:34am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/first-csm-summit-meeting-minutes/192645/313 "2019-10-03T01:34:52Z")
Why do I even try… Now if I could only get CCP to read this. > **[THE 7 QUALITIES OF A NOBLE IDEA](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/7-qualities-noble-idea-olumuyiwa-oludayo)** > > Every change agent has moved from imagination through action and implementation to manifestation. They know that their reputation is never built on an intention rather it is enhanced by action. ---
**Author:** ![Olmeca\_Gold](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/olmeca_gold/32/353637_2.png) [@Olmeca\_Gold](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Olmeca_Gold)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2019, 1:45am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/first-csm-summit-meeting-minutes/192645/314 "2019-10-03T01:45:08Z")
> [@Arrendis](#): > > People _want_ to go to war. We like wars. But nobody is willing to _lose_ their supercapital fleet, because losing your supercapital fleet loses the war. And then it loses you the ability to even _be in_ the next war or two. At this point, it might put you in a position you can never recover from. > > Fix that[1], and wars happen. How do you “fix that”? More destruction is literally everyone’s consensus about what this game needs. The problem is how do you achieve that. Until anyone has anything in mind about that preaching destruction is moot. ---
**Author:** ![Arrendis](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/arrendis/32/432594_2.png) [@Arrendis](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Arrendis)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2019, 2:10am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/first-csm-summit-meeting-minutes/192645/315 "2019-10-03T02:10:13Z")
> [@Olmeca\_Gold](#): > > How do you “fix that”? > > More destruction is literally everyone’s consensus about what this game needs. The problem is how do you achieve that. Until anyone has anything in mind about that preaching destruction is moot. Well, @Olmeca_Gold, here’s the issue: the CSM can _either_ say ‘how do you fix it?’ **or** they can say ‘CCP has heard every idea. Our job is to push them on priorities’. Because those two messages are directly contradictory. You want ‘how you fix supers’? Sure, I can give you _that_, too. After all, I wrote it up in the _[same damned article](https://imperium.news/why-the-nullsec-blackout-wont-fix-eve/)_ I already quoted: > [@](#): > > So how can CCP provide reasons for the large groups to risk their big toys? There’s a few different options: Make them easier to get, make them less necessary, or my favorite: blow them the hell up. > > #### EASIER TO GET > > This is the fastest and easiest of them for CCP. It’s also the worst and stupidest way to address the problem. But it will address the problem, so we should look at it. If you make it easy to get the really big things, people will use them. They’ll lose them to one another in droves. People like explosions. It’s kind of a no-brainer. > > It will also horribly penalize newer players. They will need to put in close to 3 years of skill training just to be able to reasonably contribute in null. Smaller groups will get shafted, too, because they’ll be facing more supercapitals. > > How screwed the litttle guy gets is already an issue: to own supers, you need a keepstar. If you can’t defend a keepstar, you can’t own supers. If you don’t own a lot of supers, you can’t defend a keepstar. > > You wind up with a decidedly mean-spirited bootstrap problem. Yes, small groups could use a smaller structure and simply safe-log, but that adds another layer of disadvantage: the big groups not only have more people, with more supercapitals, but those characters can dock up and fly something else. The small group has its highest-SP characters locked away from every fight. > > Making supers cheaper and more disposable might allow the small group to use and lose theirs, but that probably won’t make them more likely to. They won’t want to lose what little force they have—especially considering that right now, the only way to build supercapitals is to own the space you need supercapitals to hold. > > #### LESS NEEDED > > This is less pants-on-head than accelerating supercapital proliferation would be, but there are problems here, too. The only way to really make these things less necessary is to make them less of an ‘I WIN’ button. But if you make them less useful, then everyone who’s already gotten them will be upset. > > At least… that’s the thinking. Most of the people who have these things now have them because they need them. Sure, the big DD volley is fun, and it’s great to watch someone else’s big thing explode, but supercapitals are slow, ponderous lumps that take forever to align. Worse, there’s always some idiot who fell asleep, or isn’t paying attention. In a battleship fleet, someone’s not aligning, you leave their ass behind and tell them to file for SRP. With supercaps, people are more likely to feel like they need to wait for the idiot. Entire fleets can get held up because one guy in a Wyvern fell asleep after 8hrs of heavy tidi, and the FC is trying to get a corpmate who can track down a way to contact the pilot. > > And then there’s tidi. Supers make more of it. They’re big things with lots of bits. The game has to look at collisions across the whole range of the ship’s hit box. The client has to render all the little bits. More fighter squadrons means more crap for the engine to track and update on everyone’s overview. Sure, the 64-bit client has helped with this, but not on the server-side issues. > > Honestly, once you get past the ‘I am the biggest thing in space’ nonsense, supercapitals are more boring than cruisers. > > #### JUST BLOW THEM UP! > > **#DeathtoAllSupers**. > > Seriously, just blow ‘em up. Introducing supercapitals to the game without a clear and consistent vision for how these things would relate to the rest of the ship tree when they hit saturation numbers was just stupid. It was a mistake, and it should be undone. CCP should give people a massive event that only ships with jump drives can take part in, get them all blown the hell up, and then have CONCORD revoke all the licensing for BPCs. At that point, refund the SP, and let the biggest thing players fly be carriers and dreads. At least until CCP figures out how to actually balance supercapitals against the rest of the game. > > Another way out would be to radically change supercapitals, so they’re not even the same things they are now. That can have the effect both making them less necessary, and removing them. The new roles could be less essential for taking and holding space in null. And it would remove supercapitals as we know them. CCP could even give everyone the option for that one big brawl before the changes go in. Send them out with the biggest bang in gaming history. Thousands of supercapitals could die in a day. But what would that ‘new role’ look like? > > #### A FOURTH WAY? > > One idea that’s been batted around in a few areas goes as follows: Make them into mobile bases. Return supercarriers to the ‘mothership’ idea: jump-capable vessels that move slow, warp slow, and have little to no offensive capabilities. But they do have the ability to dock subcapitals. Dozens of battleships. Hundreds of smaller hulls. A single supercarrier could provide a beachhead. A supercarrier fleet could be a legitimate invasion force. But only because of the other players docked up inside. The supercarrier itself would represent almost no threat. > > At the same time, titans become something similar: jump-capable emplacements. As they undock, they have jump drives, solid defense, but no offensive capacity as a ship. The pilot pushes a siege-like button, and the titan’s a station until it comes out of siege. In station mode, it has lots of defense, and a good amount of offense. No warp drive. No sublight drive. And they can’t enter station mode within 100km of another titan in station mode. But they can dock everything up to normal capitals, and carry cloning services. They become another component of an invasion force, or a supplemental defensive screen: put a few titans around a station under siege, and force your enemy to go through those first. > > But we all know they’re not going to do any of those things. So they’re not going to fix the stagnation in null. Seriously. There are ways to fix supers. But they require _actually fixing supers_. You have to make them _not what they are_. You can’t just twist some knobs, tweak some numbers, or whatever other boilerplate phrase is going to come out of CCP’s mouth before they decide that, like carving out ‘Same Fleet, Same War’ exemptions from CONCORDOKKEN, it’s ‘too hard’. **Break** what they are now. It’s necessary. Because what they are now is _poison_. ---
**Author:** ![Arrendis](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/arrendis/32/432594_2.png) [@Arrendis](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Arrendis)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2019, 3:02am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/first-csm-summit-meeting-minutes/192645/316 "2019-10-03T03:02:49Z")
And for the record, @Olmeca_Gold: If you want greater expansion on this, actually going into it in depth and detail, I can give you that. However, I _do_, personally, tend to at least _hope_ that CCP already has the ‘ideas’. They just need to be pushed on priorities. And right now, the priorities should be: Break supers _horribly_ so they can be fixed with a clean goddamned slate, and make Faction Warfare something that actually encourages _loyalty_ to a faction, provides solid engagement for players when other players aren’t around, and pushes back against the nonsense of hostile structure spam. (Points 2 and 3 of that, btw? Diamond Rats. Let the bastards clear structures if they’re not owned by the right Militia. Use what amounts to Navy FOBs to provide PvPers with PvE that isn’t complexes, where coordination and social play helps, and a few capsuleers can help out the Navy to seriously oppose much larger numbers.) ---
**Author:** ![Olmeca\_Gold](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/olmeca_gold/32/353637_2.png) [@Olmeca\_Gold](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Olmeca_Gold)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2019, 3:13am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/first-csm-summit-meeting-minutes/192645/317 "2019-10-03T03:13:35Z")
The problem is to get people risk and lose expensive stuff. None of the 4 approaches you just quoted achieve this. The first one would make them nonexpensive. The second, third and fourth approaches remove the need of undocking/risking them. I’m just saying that too many minds are already working on the problem of how to fix capital menace and the problem of nondestruction. Imho this is a situation CCP entrapped themselves with injectors/Rorquals. They know it might as well be the most important problem of Eve. So unless anyone has an original idea people pointing at the problem adds nothing to the conversation. The issue is really really deep and complex. For 5 years CCP has selected toward players who play to own assets, over people playing for doing things in assets. Now that the asset acquirers reach to the endgame (of owning most stuff they want), they are bored. The assets they own are extremely anti-content and are stagnating the game. If CCP invalidated capitals today, the people who play to own assets would be upset and some would leave. If they don’t do anything, the people who play to do things in assets and the people who play to own assets but who have reached that gameplay’s ending will keep being bored. I haven’t seen “ideas” neither from CCP nor from CSM or anyone else that can significantly address this issue. > [@Arrendis](#): > > Well, @Olmeca_Gold, here’s the issue: the CSM can _either_ say ‘how do you fix it?’ **or** they can say ‘CCP has heard every idea. Our job is to push them on priorities’. Because those two messages are directly contradictory. I don’t agree with the statement that CSMs only job is pointing at priorities. ---
**Author:** ![Arrendis](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/arrendis/32/432594_2.png) [@Arrendis](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Arrendis)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2019, 3:27am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/first-csm-summit-meeting-minutes/192645/318 "2019-10-03T03:27:15Z")
> [@Olmeca\_Gold](#): > > The problem is to get people risk and lose expensive stuff. None of the 4 approaches you just quoted achieve this. The first one would make them nonexpensive. The second, third and fourth approaches remove the need of undocking/risking them. Well, here’s the thing: As long as they’re strategic assets that the group cannot _afford_ to risk, they will _not_ risk them. Because people do not risk the thing they can’t affort to risk. “Don’t fly what you can’t afford to lose”, you know? This is that, writ large. And because the only thing that can oppose these things when they _do_ undock is _more of them_… you just get into a feedback loop where they keep getting built, they keep not dying, so you **always** need to be getting more. So, if you want people to risk and lose expensive stuff? We risk and lose ‘expensive’ stuff all the damned time. What we don’t risk and lose is large numbers of supercapitals. And that’s what’s needed: supercapitals need to die. They need to die in numbers. Wars need to be committed to, and that’s not going to happen if you can only oppose supers with supers. > [@Olmeca\_Gold](#): > > The issue is really really deep and complex. For 5 years CCP has selected toward players who play to own assets, over people playing for doing things in assets. It’s been longer than that. And the people who play to own the assets _do_ want to _do_ things with those assets. But they want the things they’re doing to be _worth_ the effort it took to get those assets. People don’t want to feel like ‘I spent 8 years getting to this point, and I just lost it all’. They don’t want to feel like they _wasted_ that time. Because the more effort they had to put in to getting the thing, the more they value the thing. That’s human nature. > [@Olmeca\_Gold](#): > > If CCP invalidated capitals today, the people who play to own assets would be upset and some would leave. They would. But if they get _compensated_ in some way, some experience that says ‘hey, this thing you spent all that time and effort getting into, here’s the payoff’, then they’re not going to be as upset. It’s never going to satisfy everyone, but that’s what happens when you go 10+ years of just ‘twisting knobs’ and letting the game develop in ways the developers themselves don’t actually understand. And while the way the issue presents itself now _is_ complex… the very core of it _isn’t_. Supercapitals cannot remain as they are. That’s the bottom line. If they remain as they are, they smother all attempts to do _anything_ else to fix the game. People want reasons to use their stuff. They _need_ reasons to _lose_ their stuff. And that means those things _cannot_ be something they can’t afford to lose. Because the things groups can’t afford to lose, they won’t risk. ---
**Author:** ![Jeremiah\_Saken](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/jeremiah_saken/32/266740_2.png) [@Jeremiah\_Saken](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Jeremiah_Saken)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2019, 6:31am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/first-csm-summit-meeting-minutes/192645/319 "2019-10-03T06:31:40Z")
That is why there must be a cap and upkeep for them. They must be vulnerable to anything below BS. They mustn’t be injected, CCP made them end game content and this should never happen. They should be strategic in conquering space (rock, paper, scissors) it would be easier to take down structures with them but they would be vulnerable to smaller hulls so they need protection. ---
**Author:** ![Arrendis](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/arrendis/32/432594_2.png) [@Arrendis](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Arrendis)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2019, 7:57am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/first-csm-summit-meeting-minutes/192645/320 "2019-10-03T07:57:55Z")
Except they’re not endgame content. There _is no endgame_. I have a supercapital. It’s not my ‘endgame’. I use it when I need to, but I far prefer to use my Zarmazd, Logi-Loki/Legion, and a number of other ships that are more active, more kinetic. Supercapitals, rather than being ‘endgame’ are really more… a necessary evil. In the larger scheme of things, they move slow, they align slow, they generate a massive amount of TiDi when they fight… it all adds up to ‘they’re _boring_’. I’ve done endgame content in other MMOs. If your endgame is _boring_, you might as well just close up shop. ---
**Author:** ![Tipa\_Riot](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/tipa_riot/32/443513_2.png) [@Tipa\_Riot](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Tipa_Riot)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2019, 9:08am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/first-csm-summit-meeting-minutes/192645/321 "2019-10-03T09:08:40Z")
What we need is new gameplay everyone wants to play which requires to expose supercaps with lots of supercaps dying, either from PvE or PvP … e.g. have a weather effect in that play which allows bombers to one shot a super with their bombs. Make it so you lose sov, when you don’t sacrifice supers to bob … whatever. The more sov, the more risk (uber-linear). A small sov area should require only a few supers (or none, if it’s only one system) with low risk of dying. Combined with efforts to reduce benefits of coalitions, like making ansiblex gates sov/alliance local only. Don’t allow alliances to set standings to each other ingame, etc. Next: game designers go to work. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Jeremiah\_Saken](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/jeremiah_saken/32/266740_2.png) [@Jeremiah\_Saken](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Jeremiah_Saken)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2019, 11:27am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/first-csm-summit-meeting-minutes/192645/322 "2019-10-03T11:27:53Z")
CCP thought even if people inject into them capital will be used, generating content and ecosystem will autobalance somehow which nothing like this happen. There is still mindset that bigger is better. There won’t be good solution without bloody either to assets or playerbase. How do you think CCP should act knowing that Imperium alone has 10k of them and new are in build? There are no good solution to the problem other than flipping the table. It’s not like ad 5% here and there. [Previous page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/first-csm-summit-meeting-minutes/192645.md?page=15) [Next page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/first-csm-summit-meeting-minutes/192645.md?page=17)