# 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:** 19
**Author:** ![Daoden](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/daoden/32/271841_2.png) [@Daoden](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Daoden)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2019, 11:11pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/first-csm-summit-meeting-minutes/192645/363 "2019-10-03T23:11:12Z")
Isnt it pretty much already held by a few large groups. ---
**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, 11:14pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/first-csm-summit-meeting-minutes/192645/364 "2019-10-03T23:14:28Z")
Not as much as you think. Pure Blind, Tribute, Fade, parts of the east, Providence… There’s more that should be on that list, but they collapsed during the Blackout. ---
**Author:** ![Sgt\_Ocker](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/sgt_ocker/32/270881_2.png) [@Sgt\_Ocker](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Sgt_Ocker)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2019, 11:15pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/first-csm-summit-meeting-minutes/192645/365 "2019-10-03T23:15:24Z")
Not really, there are still a surprising amount of small groups hiding away in little pockets of space. Provi used to be a good example of this - Since BO it has sadly lost a lot of its small groups. ---
**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 4, 2019, 8:31am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/first-csm-summit-meeting-minutes/192645/366 "2019-10-04T08:31:44Z")
I see, you are out of rational arguments. For me the only way to break the numbers game is via “social pressure” on larger groups. Know, trust and motivate everyone in your group for the common goal, or fail. - resource depletion - penalize overfarming, bears have to agree on rules to not ruin the space for weeks/months - make supercaps a consumable for larger sov holding - tags instead of bounties, no auto-tax, increased interdiction risk - player gate connections only within one alliance’s space - ESI access to mails, wallets, market, jobs and other critical information only behind two-factor, so no third party has access to These being a bit of the stick part, to incentivize smaller groups, you can make it super easy mechanic-wise to flip and hold one system’s sov. But as soon as you own more, it becomes exponentially more difficult to flip and hold more. I know in this simple way it can be gamed, but other measures may prevent this. ---
**Author:** ![Cpt\_Soban](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/cpt_soban/32/367858_2.png) [@Cpt\_Soban](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Cpt_Soban)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2019, 9:18am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/first-csm-summit-meeting-minutes/192645/367 "2019-10-04T09:18:40Z")
> [@](#): > > It is becoming very difficult to be a game developer nowadays due to constant scrutiny and criticism from the outside world, saysCCP Hellmar. This often leads to being hesitantto make decisions and can be considered as a factor to some of the stagnation in EVE Online. - Hilmar And people out there (reddit) wonder why they rarely see CCP devs posting regularly, taking Q&A’s, or asking for player feedback when it’s 99% toxic rhetoric and salty whinging. Players demanded action on stagnation, they got a taste of it (no local) and it was weeks of constant complaints, doom and gloom, and “I’M LEAVING THIS GAME”. Then when it was pulled back- The pendulum swung the other way with (even today) constant doom and gloom “wah wah game is ded now”. If I were a dev/community member why the hell would I poke my head up and face that mess? ---
**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 4, 2019, 9:49am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/first-csm-summit-meeting-minutes/192645/368 "2019-10-04T09:49:46Z")
Quoting Hilmar? For real. He’s blaming players whine for game stagnation (sic!). Game developers develope the games not players. They should know what is wrong with their products and take actions respectively. Internet hate is not going anywhere. BTW what happened to all that ignored feedback CCP was given and didn’t take action on? Like ghost training for example? Players are fed, sick of hidding head in the sand. ---
**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 4, 2019, 12:36pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/first-csm-summit-meeting-minutes/192645/369 "2019-10-04T12:36:45Z")
> [@Tipa\_Riot](#): > > I see, you are out of rational arguments. Not at all. I’m simply describing the impression your previous posts have given. You continue that foolishness here. “Know, trust, and motivate everyone”, while claiming you’re not inherently opposed to large groups. Can I perhaps interest you in a little something called [Dunbar’s Number](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number)? Because that suggestion, right there, would mean functionally limiting groups to getting no larger than about 200 actual people. You _can’t_ know everyone in a group bigger than that. That’s what bureaucracy’s for. Everyone in the same corp can know one another, while the corp directors and leaders at the alliance level all know another. And it repeats at the coalition level, where the leaders and diplos of the various alliances know one another. You can’t trust everyone in a group larger than about 200 people, either. Not the way you clearly mean, trusting them based on direct social cohesion. It simply doesn’t work. Trust at scales larger than that comes from enlightened self-interest, as does motivating them. And that’s _clearly_ not what you’re advocating… _because that’s how it already works_. So either you’re saying the status quo is _good_, because that’s what you’re arguing for, or you have an inherent problem with large empire-building groups. There ain’t no middle ground, I’m afraid. And your suggestions, again, either fail on the basis of human nature and direct experience, or _literally_ are what we’ve already had, and didn’t do a damned thing to convince people to hold less space. Here: > [@Tipa\_Riot](#): > > resource depletion - penalize overfarming, bears have to agree on rules to not ruin the space for weeks/months Or, you know, they go nomadic. We already move half the damned supercapital fleet every two weeks to hoover down moons in Querious, Fountain, and Period Basis with multiple full fleets’ worth of Rorquals. We’ve already seen the way PL used to utterly oppress people when _they_ were nomadic. Do you think having Goonswarm moving like a plague of locusts across nullsec would be a _good_ thing? Do you honestly think that anyone who wants to hold sov would even _bother_ playing the game if the Imperium was inevitably going to swing through their space and destroy everything they have, just so we can consume their resources and move on? They wouldn’t. It would not be worth the effort. > [@Tipa\_Riot](#): > > make supercaps a consumable for larger sov holding Already addressed. Telling your customers ‘yeah, you’re effectively going to have to pay more for the same return’ doesn’t retain customers. It drives them away. > [@Tipa\_Riot](#): > > tags instead of bounties, no auto-tax, increased interdiction risk Introduces additional complexity and tedium without any actual improvement or expansion of options. Again, it’s just going to make people decide ‘you know what, I don’t need to pay for a game that throws more utterly pointless busy-work in my path’. > [@Tipa\_Riot](#): > > player gate connections only within one alliance’s space Literally exactly how things worked with the old jump bridge system. That is how things worked when the CFC owned 40% of null, N3 owned 40% of null, and the DRF owned 18% of null. Didn’t exactly work to keep footprints small, did it? So, you know, direct experience says this idea doesn’t help. > [@Tipa\_Riot](#): > > ESI access to mails, wallets, market, jobs and other critical information only behind two-factor, so no third party has access to Again, you’re just introducing needless complexity and curtailing peoples’ ability to coordinate with one another for… nothing. What’s the _immediate_ improvement this, on its own, offers to players who now have to do a lot more data transfer manually, themselves, just to maintain the same level of coordination? None? Congratulations, more needless roadblocks == fewer customers. Your sticks are bad. Also… > [@Tipa\_Riot](#): > > to incentivize smaller groups, you can make it super easy mechanic-wise to flip and hold one system’s sov No, you can’t. _Either_ it’s super easy mechanic-wise to _flip_ one system’s sov, **or** it’s super easy mechanic-wise to _hold_ one system’s sov. Because if it’s super easy to flip it, it ain’t super easy to hold it, and vice versa. Someone had to be holding it when you flipped it. FFS, you can’t even manage to be internally consistent in a _single sentence_. > [@Cpt\_Soban](#): > > If I were a dev/community member why the hell would I poke my head up and face that mess? Leaving aside the whole conflation of dev/community member like they’re the same thing, why would a dev poke their head into dealing with the community? Cuz it’s their _job_. The ones who don’t have that as part of their job? They shouldn’t. They should leave it to the ones who do. ---
**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 4, 2019, 2:21pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/first-csm-summit-meeting-minutes/192645/370 "2019-10-04T14:21:00Z")
> [@Arrendis](#): > > would mean functionally limiting groups to getting no larger than about 200 actual people. Exactly. I would see that already as a very large group of people in a video game. > [@Arrendis](#): > > _Either_ it’s super easy mechanic-wise to _flip_ one system’s sov, **or** it’s super easy mechanic-wise to _hold_ one system’s sov. What I meant is upkeep cost for the sov, not a defender bonus, although it might be possible to arrange that. Just give it to small sov holders. If you lose a concrete system again, just grab the next one from a big alliance. ---
**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 4, 2019, 2:37pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/first-csm-summit-meeting-minutes/192645/371 "2019-10-04T14:37:37Z")
It’s not. The large raid guilds of the 40-man era had more, to say nothing of the old 72-man EQ raid days. And EVE? Even groups like LowSechnaya Sholupen, who don’t tend to hold sov, but rather hunt in small packs all throughout southern lowsec, have more than 3x Dunbar’s number. You are demonstrably ignorant of what a ‘large’ group is, especially in EVE, as well as how groups work. Perhaps you should actually get out in the ecosystem and get some experience dealing with people. You might even end up _not wrong_ once or twice. > [@Tipa\_Riot](#): > > What I meant is upkeep cost for the sov, not a defender bonus, although it might be possible to arrange that. Just give it to small sov holders. If you lose a concrete system again, just grab the next one from a big alliance. Anything you set up for a ‘small sov holder’, a large sov holder can pull off without difficulty. Worst case, we spin up an alt-corp and set it up as a ‘small sov holder’ while still administrating the damned thing ourselves. In literally _all of human history_, there has never been a problem that a large group could not solve better, faster, than a small group. Even when a small, focused group for specifically dealing with a problem is preferable, the larger your group, the _easier it is to find the people needed to be in the small group_. That is why human civilization _exists_. Stop trying to invent a perpetual motion machine, and work with the landscape of human behavior that you’re _going_ to have to work with. It’s the only one you’ll get. People will always behave like people. ---
**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 4, 2019, 2:47pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/first-csm-summit-meeting-minutes/192645/372 "2019-10-04T14:47:05Z")
> [@Arrendis](#): > > Anything you set up for a ‘small sov holder’, a large sov holder can pull off without difficulty. Worst case, we spin up an alt-corp and set it up as a ‘small sov holder’ while still administrating the damned thing ourselves. Have fun with dozen of mini alliances where the mechanics actively prevent those working together. No player gates in between, no standing, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Abe\_Rollin](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/abe_rollin/32/272864_2.png) [@Abe\_Rollin](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Abe_Rollin)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2019, 2:48pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/first-csm-summit-meeting-minutes/192645/373 "2019-10-04T14:48:40Z")
> [@Arrendis](#): > > What safety there is comes from players. If blackout has show us anything - it is that safety does NOT come from players. In null it has become evident, due to the response to BO, player safety comes from the free intel provided by local. It is true that larger entities with the manpower were able manage BO more effectively and respond to threats as they occurred (as they could before BO) but the drop in their player activity shows a distinct lack of trust in said player provided protections. ---
**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 4, 2019, 2:56pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/first-csm-summit-meeting-minutes/192645/374 "2019-10-04T14:56:37Z")
> [@Abe\_Rollin](#): > > If blackout has show us anything - it is that safety does NOT come from players. > > In null it has become evident, due to the response to BO, player safety comes from the free intel provided by local. > > It is true that larger entities with the manpower were able manage BO more effectively and respond to threats as they occurred (as they could before BO) but the drop in their player activity shows a distinct lack of trust in said player provided protections. Do you realize that you just contradicted yourself? If the larger entities were able to manage BO more effectively, what resource did they have that the smaller groups did not? More people. More players. Yes, there was some attrition. That doesn’t change that basic fact. Local is a tool players _use_, but the safety itself is provided by _players_. Local doesn’t drop supers to save someone. Local doesn’t coordinate response fleets. Players’ ability to provide security was slightly reduced without Local, but what provided the security—what there _was no security without_—was, as you have indicated right there, _not_ Local. It was _players_. > [@Tipa\_Riot](#): > > Have fun with dozen of mini alliances where the mechanics actively prevent those working together. No player gates in between, no standing, etc. Welcome to the age of the ACL, player-owned channels, and out-of-game coordination. Once again, I strongly encourage you to get even a tiny bit of experience with the things you’re talking about. You might _like_ being right, from time to time. ---
**Author:** ![Abe\_Rollin](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/abe_rollin/32/272864_2.png) [@Abe\_Rollin](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Abe_Rollin)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2019, 3:03pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/first-csm-summit-meeting-minutes/192645/375 "2019-10-04T15:03:30Z")
Players, Players, Players you say … and yet the facts show activity dropped. What was in place before BO was not enough to cover the loss of the number one player protection free intel from LOCAL Edit - Spin it what ever way you like the fact remains if BO was not a problem for you then you would’nt be complaining about it ---
**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 4, 2019, 3:34pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/first-csm-summit-meeting-minutes/192645/376 "2019-10-04T15:34:45Z")
> [@Sgt\_Ocker](#): > > Sorry mate but unless Olmeca is prepared to post his findings - It is no different to CCP saying “Eve is in good shape and has a bright future They are on reddit and I already made fun of him for them. As for the rest, this was totally different from putting diesel in a gas engine. CCP didn’t know the result, and given how often we’ve surprised them with how we do things they don’t expect, I don’t think it’s reasonable or fair to say that blackout was an obvious mistake. They tried something. It didn’t work. They rolled it back. That is how we want them to iterate. ---
**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 4, 2019, 3:41pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/first-csm-summit-meeting-minutes/192645/377 "2019-10-04T15:41:05Z")
> [@Sgt\_Ocker](#): > > Obviously thousands of players disagree with you but you like everyone else are entitled to your opinion I am not saying they should have left it in the game. I’m saying the sign goals behind it weren’t completely stupid, which many seem to think is true. Those people are wrong. > [@Sgt\_Ocker](#): > > And that is where the similarity ends (and should have stayed) - Wormholes don’t have fixed entry points, they don’t have cyno’s, they don’t have a lot of things that Nulsec does. Which is why it was so poorly received by the player base. By some parts of the player base. Not sure why not ha isn’t fixed entry points or cynos would make WH safe easier to deal with no local, though. If anything it makes it harder. But I can see that having local and it becoming a crutch for so many would result in issues adapting when it was taken away. > [@Sgt\_Ocker](#): > > Local is the perfect intel tool because CCP gave players the tools to use it that way. Chat channels are a tool? > [@Sgt\_Ocker](#): > > Look at the “isk faucets” in the six months leading up to BO - They had been steadily declining. All BO did was show how vulnerable some regions ( those without Bloc protection) are. Activity in some regions barely registered, while others (where Blocs reside) showed drops but still produced well above “the average” for nulsec. > > If CCP has any understanding of nulsec and how it is played should have had a pretty good idea of how the players would react. Obviously they don’t understand nullsec. At least not the empire builder part because they can’t have any real experience with it. I agree that the faucets were declining but this was the biggest hit to the faucets. And I think the complete drop off in some regions was more bottinf related than small groups just not logging in. ---
**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 4, 2019, 3:45pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/first-csm-summit-meeting-minutes/192645/378 "2019-10-04T15:45:29Z")
> [@Olmeca\_Gold](#): > > I don’t agree with the statement that CSMs only job is pointing at priorities And you’re wrong. You are not a developer. Let them develop. Tell them what needs to be developed. That’s the job. ---
**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 4, 2019, 3:46pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/first-csm-summit-meeting-minutes/192645/379 "2019-10-04T15:46:45Z")
Of course activity dropped. Activity dropping doesn’t mean players weren’t providing security. It only means that some people felt that the security players provided once they were deprived of the tool that is Local was insufficient. The BO wasn’t a problem for me. I was the guy actively encouraging people to let CCP try things, to give them a chance. My problem is how CCP’s utter failure to understand people, and inability to clearly communicate in an effective way, caused a major degradation in the willingness of players to give them that chance. When it was _just_ the Blackout, some folks left, yeah. But look at those facts you’re talking about. Look at the [**actual numbers**](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JuJ7-9MsHsFmVJknxxh48FFAp74II_InAhwoBpebalM/edit#gid=0). What do we see? We see a large hit on the first weekend. That’s the system shock, the initial ‘WTF izzis bullshittery??’ that’s inevitable. Any time you make a significant change, you’ll see a shock like that. Then we see things start to recover. Not completely, but that second weekend, we actually do recover _most_ of the losses of the first weekend. Some of that is hunters coming back to the game. Some of it is bots adjusting. Some of it is krabs hearing from their friends ‘nah, it’s ok, you just have to be alert’ and deciding to give it a try. Then the July 24 TiS interview happens. It’s not released until the 26th, but yeah, people started to get wind of what was said even before it was over. Matterall’s a nice guy, but he runs a shop that leaks slightly _more_ than a bullet-ridden sieve. That’s when Hilmar’s statements about the ‘Chaos Era’[1] hit. More importantly? That’s when the paying customers start to hear things like the CEO saying that the devs don’t know what’s going to happen, _and shouldn’t try to understand it_. That’s when people hear the CEO **literally** throw the entire development team under the bus for the last 5+ years of work. And we start losing people again. Pretty much _immediately_. Go look at the EVE-Offline charts. Look at the difference between Jul 24 and Jul 25. What kills the recovery _isn’t_ the lack of Local. It’s _Hilmar_. It’s the goddamned CEO of the company telling his customers that CCP is just throwing crap at the wall with no idea if any of it is any good. And he’s promising changes ‘every week’… Changes that _don’t actually happen_. What does the damage to PCU is nice, normal, old-fashioned investor uncertainty. If you tell your customers you don’t know what’s going on, if you give them the impression that you don’t have the first frickin’ clue what you’re doing… they don’t trust you. And if they don’t trust you, they stop paying. They stop investing their time. They go do something else where they can at least feel like ‘ok, there’s a plan here’. People aren’t coming back because ‘oh, Local’s back’. They’re coming back because they’re _cautiously_ optimistic that CCP’s given up on the chaos nonsense. And it’s only _cautiously_ right now because absolutely nobody from CCP has given them **any** communication to tell them if the half-assed chaos crap is continuing or not. > [@Brisc\_Rubal](#): > > They tried something. It didn’t work. They rolled it back. That is how we want them to iterate. But not how we want them to _communicate_. Because they’re not communicating. And if Vegas is more of what we got in Berlin—more lack of communication and vaguary—this will _not_ go well. * * * 1. Chaos. Chaos is _good_. The game needs chaos. The game needs a whole lot of upheaval. You know what doesn’t need to be chaotic and uncertain, with lots of upheaval? **CCP**. Seriously, if Hilmar’d talked up the Chaos Era while making it seem like CCP had a _plan_? Totally different response. To do chaos right _needs_ a lot of planning on the part of the developers. Ask any tabletop GM: you need to know what curveballs you’re going to throw. You might not know how players will react all the time, and if you’re being honest, you know your players **will** surprise you… but you need to know what _you’re_ going to do. Then, when the players react, if something you don’t anticipate happens, you look at what you’ve got planned and decide how to get the players there, or if you need to shuffle some things. But at no point do you _look_ surprised. You never let them know you weren’t ready for it. Hilmar didn’t just let players know ‘wow, that reaction surprised us’, Hilmar told players ahead of time ‘WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT WE’RE DOING!! YAY!’ And that’s just shooting yourself in the dick. That’s not chaos. That’s ineptitude. ---
**Author:** ![Circumstantial\_Evidence](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/circumstantial_evidence/32/399551_2.png) [@Circumstantial\_Evidence](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Circumstantial_Evidence)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2019, 7:01pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/first-csm-summit-meeting-minutes/192645/380 "2019-10-04T19:01:15Z")
> [@Arrendis](#): > > > _Tipa\_Riot:_ > > resource depletion - penalize overfarming, bears have to agree on rules to not ruin the space for weeks/months > > Or, you know, they go nomadic. We already move half the damned supercapital fleet every two weeks to hoover down moons in Querious, Fountain, and Period Basis with multiple full fleets’ worth of Rorquals. We’ve already seen the way PL used to utterly oppress people when _they_ were nomadic. Do you think… Ex-[CCP Greyscale certainly agreed with you](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/first-csm-summit-meeting-minutes/192645/68), in 2011. But perhaps some of these nomadic operations, enforced by “procedural distribution / regeneration” game changes to be less predictable than what you do now, would result in a greater spread of your forces in an effort to collect as much of the goodies as possible. Other entities might see smaller groups of your capitals that they might think they could take on, made more possible by changes to that fleet brought by rumored planned nerfs and/or upkeep costs. Or everyone sits at home, all the resources go to Jita, everyone bloodlessly sells what they have and buys what they need, to fuel wars for other purposes or just asset collection / stagnation that Olmeca Gold fears. CCP giving Jita 4-4 a facelift suggests they don’t plan to force it obsolete, any time soon. ---
**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 4, 2019, 7:19pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/first-csm-summit-meeting-minutes/192645/381 "2019-10-04T19:19:54Z")
> [@Circumstantial\_Evidence](#): > > But perhaps some of these nomadic operations, enforced by “procedural distribution / regeneration” game changes to be less predictable than what you do now, would result in a greater spread of your forces in an effort to collect as much of the goodies as possible. It wouldn’t result in that, no. There’s simply no reason we’d intentionally spread ourselves thin enough to be at risk like that. Far easier to just systematically burn down everyone else’s space, over and over again, until they give up. I mean, it wouldn’t be a _good_ move, in the long run, but human nature is human nature. Path of least resistance says burn everyone else out, so sooner or later, yeah, that’s what all the big groups will settle on. And the biggest super fleet wins, in that scenario. ---
**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 4, 2019, 7:24pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/first-csm-summit-meeting-minutes/192645/382 "2019-10-04T19:24:17Z")
> [@Tipa\_Riot](#): > > resource depletion - penalize overfarming, bears have to agree on rules to not ruin the space for weeks/months It may be like with BO. People won’t adapt if they have no content to play (resources to mine) and just won’t login or going nomadic. Every change will hit the wall beacuse over the years CCP cater to wrong crowd. BO showed it. Chaos era is over which is good imo, but developers will be more carefull knowing PCU may drop faster tgan they think even when there is SP event going. [Previous page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/first-csm-summit-meeting-minutes/192645.md?page=18) [Next page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/first-csm-summit-meeting-minutes/192645.md?page=20)