# The CSM 13 Winter Summit Minutes are out **URL:** \ **Category:** Dev Blogs\ **Tags:** csm\ **Created:** [October 2, 2018, 8:37pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726 "2018-10-02T20:37:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 22
**Author:** ![Deka\_Obi](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/deka_obi/32/97791_2.png) [@Deka\_Obi](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Deka_Obi)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2018, 8:48pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/422 "2018-10-03T20:48:33Z")
> [@Arrendis](#): > > then one is thinking of a different issue than ‘does PLEX **generate** ISK?’ > > Please don’t try to put words in my mouth. In the same way one produces a GDP. As for words I wouldn’t do that the thanos quote is a meme not me putting words in your month sorry that you felt that is what I was doing. ---
**Author:** ![Mike\_Azariah](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/mike_azariah/32/512626_2.png) [@Mike\_Azariah](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Mike_Azariah)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2018, 8:48pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/423 "2018-10-03T20:48:40Z")
Do you agree that wardecs as they stand right now are Broken, Tora? Or are you trying to discourage change because you like they way they are, right now? m ---
**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, 2018, 8:51pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/424 "2018-10-03T20:51:57Z")
No, I mean that the issue of whether or not PLEX is a nonissue is putting words in my mouth. I never claimed that. PLEX can _encourage_ ISK generation, but it does not _generate_ ISK in and of itself. If you’re looking for a comprehensive, coherent approach to addressing problems, then being _accurate_ in your descriptions is important. So is recognizing that Serenity is a fundamentally different set of circumstances from TQ, especially where RMT is concerned, given that RMT is _allowed_ on Serenity, and a bannable offense on TQ. There is no activity on Serenity that _doesn’t_ contribute to RMT. ---
**Author:** ![Deka\_Obi](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/deka_obi/32/97791_2.png) [@Deka\_Obi](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Deka_Obi)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2018, 8:58pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/425 "2018-10-03T20:58:22Z")
Then we are we even page. And we both understand it encourages ISK generation but in its self doesn’t generate isk . How would you like to see removing it as a instrument of ill will? ---
**Author:** ![Nana\_Skalski](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/nana_skalski/32/489985_2.png) [@Nana\_Skalski](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Nana_Skalski)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2018, 9:01pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/426 "2018-10-03T21:01:22Z")
> [@Kuklo](#): > > Removing HS will fix everything Same could be said about null. 😂 No stuff, no problems. Hehehe. ---
**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, 2018, 9:08pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/427 "2018-10-03T21:08:04Z")
> [@Deka\_Obi](#): > > How would you like to see removing it as a instrument of ill will? I wouldn’t. In fact, I think PLEX is one of CCP’s major accomplishments. PLEX, after all, allows Player A to spend real money to get ISK, and Player B spends ISK to get… game time, SKINs, Services. PLEX, overall, makes the game healthier by allowing people who don’t feel like paying real money, but have a lot of ISK, to keep playing when they might otherwise decide ‘not worth the bother’. PLEX can _contribute_ to problems, but only indirectly. And those problem have _other_ causes—causes that can be addressed and corrected without damaging a useful tool that allows a small number of people to _voluntarily_ pay more for the game in order to indirectly subsidize friends (and even enemies) to keep playing. PLEX isn’t a non-issue, but at the same time, it is _not_ a cause. It’s net benefit, and if you want to solve problems, you address _causes_. ---
**Author:** ![Deka\_Obi](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/deka_obi/32/97791_2.png) [@Deka\_Obi](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Deka_Obi)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2018, 9:13pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/428 "2018-10-03T21:13:05Z")
So in my belief is that that null facets are to wide open. I would feel that a solution to use is to limit the hardware used to run anoms, so maybe gated anoms as some have suggested. Would you feel this to be effective? And do you feel this would affect Plex prices in a positively for average people? ---
**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, 2018, 9:17pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/429 "2018-10-03T21:17:37Z")
> [@Deka\_Obi](#): > > So in my belief is that that null facets are to wide open. > I would feel that a solution to use is to limit the hardware used to run anoms, so maybe gated anoms as some have suggested. > Would you feel this to be effective? > And do you feel this would affect Plex prices in a positively for average people? I feel it would probably be effective in terms of reducing the income across nullsec, but I don’t think it would do much to address income inequality between nullsec areas. In effect, what you’d do is you’d usher in larger numbers of AFK VNI-ratters, and probably drive the prices of PLEX _up_ as you spike demand. ---
**Author:** ![gnshadowninja](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/gnshadowninja/32/160500_2.png) [@gnshadowninja](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/gnshadowninja)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2018, 9:18pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/430 "2018-10-03T21:18:32Z")
> [@Dracvlad](#): > > You are wrong on this, the war dec is the issue as it is because there is no reason to fight back, just log out, what the changes will give is a reason to fight back and gang up and you get some decent content. You need to make a step in seeing what could happen if they go the way of the structure that the war dec is linked to and make it so that anyone war decked can shoot them. If you say so that’s your opinion. My eyes are wide open and I see clearly that linking structures with war mechanics will not make absolutely sod all difference other then to people who **want** to engage in that right now which is a minority, take one look at any of these war dec threads and no one wants to engage in the mechanics. Sure it may create content, it may get good fights, it may weaken merc’s at the start. Then people will get bored of travelling to high sec, doing 3 timers in odd timezones and were back to “war mechanics broken, player retention dropping” Getting late so this is my last post on the subject, as explained in my last post and fully agree with @nomadd79 this subject is way to open for interpretation until CCP sets a criteria of what they would like to fix. Then maybe your structure idea would work, or increasing cost idea, or limting decs or the other hundred ideas suggested but until criteria is set its all just guessing. ---
**Author:** ![Mizhara\_Del\_thul](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/mizhara_del_thul/32/486150_2.png) [@Mizhara\_Del\_thul](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Mizhara_Del_thul)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2018, 9:59pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/431 "2018-10-03T21:59:38Z")
Well, thing is, most wardecs out there gets roughly zero kills on either side. It’s a dec, half the participants dock up and the other half can’t beat the station tank. Supposedly, the data shows that those who did station tank for a week or so does not return when the dec is over. … this doesn’t actually say fuckall about wardecs being bad or driving players away. If they did, they’d return when the dec was over. The problem isn’t with the decs but somewhere else. Let’s speculate a bit: What if the wardec simply shows those players that they don’t really miss the dullardry and boredom of their pre-war activities? They simply realize they don’t miss doing it and so stop logging in to do it, when the wardec is over. If player retention hinges on the bears not realizing they don’t even like playing the game, then the wardecs are not the main problem and “fixing” them won’t “fix” Eve or player retention. Basically, the solution has to be making the game desirable to return to for them, which is a whole different kettle of fish. Not exactly easily achieved or even discussed, but the rough outline would have to be “incentivize broadening of horizons”, or perhaps even _punishing_ log-off tanking. Carrot and stick, rewarding staying active and defending yourself and punishing cowardice _might_ be enough to give the bears the broadened horizons needed to realize what the sandbox can be for them. … because honestly, if they stop logging in or being active even after the wardec is over, then these aren’t people you would have retained anyway, nor are they contributing to anything but CCP’s bottom line, and even that too short-term to really be helpful. Especially when their “meh, can’t be bothered logging in. I know the wardec is over but it’s just not fun anyway.” feelings spread to their friends and acquaintances who could have been potential newbies later on. tl;dr, people keep talking about player retention, helping Eve become more ‘newbie friendly’ and all that crap and it’s just plain _wrong_. Eve’s never not going to be shite and boring when it comes to the basic bearing, that’s just how it is. Fix the wardec system by all means, but don’t think that’ll solve anything. The solutions can only come by giving them far more incentive and a far more plain trail of crumbs towards the greater player interaction of Eve Online. THAT is what Eve does well. The Sandbox. The interaction between players. It’s its only real selling point, because on _every other aspect_ it falls short of all competition out there, and CCP will never be good enough that they can surpass other MMOs in bearing potential. ---
**Author:** ![Zar\_Myx](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/zar_myx/32/75333_2.png) [@Zar\_Myx](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Zar_Myx)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2018, 10:16pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/432 "2018-10-03T22:16:51Z")
I have seen some hisec corps who basically say, don’t play. If you give them kills, you are feeding them and in addition makes the corp killboard look bad which they believe attracts even more wardecs. I myself don’t think this way, but many do, especially in hisec. When leadership of a groups basically tells you not to play the game… that is real bad for the game. And again one more subtle push for an addition of spatial elements to wardecs. If these players could simply move to another constellation or region the leadership would not tell them stop playing. And they still feel part of the corp. Sure if they are real buttheads and found a real motivated enemy, they might have to move far and more often. ---
**Author:** ![Penance\_Toralen](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/penance_toralen/32/244089_2.png) [@Penance\_Toralen](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Penance_Toralen)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2018, 11:09pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/433 "2018-10-03T23:09:07Z")
It me paraphrase that entire scenario. “We surveyed the player-base for the types Apples that are consumed. This has enabled CCP to determine there is no allergy to Orange Juice amongst players.” Meanwhile in certain corners of the community went into hyper-mode and declared that Citrus Kool-Aid should be compulsory. The question was whether Suicide Ganks (not war-decs which at question now) drive away players. It cannot be answered by asking Active players, the response has to come from players that have left. But it seems that the Belligerents are so desperate for validation, the obvious flawed argument is clung to like a life-line. Let me you and anybody else give a business statistic; 0.04% of clients that are dissatisfied with the produce/service will feedback why they dissatisfied. So the exit survey tacked onto the end of this piece is worthless. ---
**Author:** ![Deka\_Obi](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/deka_obi/32/97791_2.png) [@Deka\_Obi](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Deka_Obi)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2018, 11:30pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/434 "2018-10-03T23:30:55Z")
That sounds like a positive to me in regards to the nonsubstainable aspects we currently face. If we can also side this with PLEX sells around pay periods as suggested by the CSM. We can then handle the issue of VNIs though I am not sure it will be needed till we have data. But we do know supers are not viable CCP has been telling this to us for years. ---
**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, 2018, 11:51pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/435 "2018-10-03T23:51:27Z")
> [@Deka\_Obi](#): > > That sounds like a positive to me in regards to the nonsubstainable aspects we currently face. It shouldn’t. More multi-boxing AFK VNIs and AFKtars to make money just means more _afk_ money. More ISK for less actual effort. And distributing it to more accounts means it’s harder to really impact anyone’s bottom line. Instead of stopping 1 carrier, you have to stop 4-6 subcaps, probably in different systems. The carrier pilot has to be paying attention and actively interacting. The multiboxer w/Ishtars _doesn’t_. So congratulations, you’re rewarding people for not playing. > [@Mizhara\_Del\_thul](#): > > even _punishing_ log-off tanking. “Punishing” log-off tanking only has an effect when/if they log back in. At that point, you’re actively pushing people away from the game. > [@Mizhara\_Del\_thul](#): > > tl;dr, people keep talking about player retention, helping Eve become more ‘newbie friendly’ and all that crap and it’s just plain _wrong_ . Eve’s never not going to be shite and boring when it comes to the basic bearing, that’s just how it is. Defeatism Online isn’t a game _anyone_ should be playing. I’m glad CCP isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![zluq\_zabaa](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/zluq_zabaa/32/19011_2.png) [@zluq\_zabaa](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/zluq_zabaa)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2018, 12:00am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/436 "2018-10-04T00:00:09Z")
> [@Arrendis](#): > > Do you think this doesn’t happen in EVE? I’m just curious where you stand on this, as I run a sub-org within the Imperium that specialized primarily in flying Logistics ships. Similarly, there are organized groups that specialize in other roles: Linkswarm, Recon, Scouts, GSOL (true logistics work, not fleet tenders), Bomberwaffe, BlackOps, and so on. I think it does happen. Not in every group and certainly not to the extent the Imperium or rather Goonswarm is doing it, but it happens everywhere a little bit at least. I’m not sure to what extent it happens in Highsec though. I have some lose acquaintances, friends of friends, there who try to do it all by themselves and pretty much fail. Collaboration is just stronger when it comes to economy. I think it is also something that people may group around in the first place, although it seems that what you are doing is mostly happening after people already grouped and then it needs a few guys who can strategize and run things for other people to understand how much better it is to work together than doing it alone. I’m curious if economical motivation to join groups is more often the idea to have the freedom and safety to do stuff or if understanding the efficiency of collaboration/group-work is the primary of such motivators. > [@Arrendis](#): > > These happen most often when that group or nation appears to be largely unopposed, or its populace feels no real connection to ‘opposing’ those external to them… or when their attempts to define an external ‘other’ are contested by other members of their society. In these cases, the rise of an external threat almost always causes an abandonment of internal tensions until that threat is dealt with. Yeah, but as a rule of thumb I’d say this: if the external threat is indeed something that can be dealt with, it wasn’t a real threat in the first place. We see it in EVE a little bit, but to a much much greater extent in real life: there is no honor in war, there is no joy in a dead-serious confrontation where both sides are equally strong. So these kinds of threats that can be dealt with, could often be cases like this: ![](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/original/3X/0/d/0d25e64723a1ae3e123032379b07d7449330f333.jpeg) > [@Arrendis](#): > > Sure, but that happens largely when people don’t feel like they have the ability to ‘get more friends’. Yeah sure. I wouldn’t like to overly generalize here, because I have zero meta-data about the people who become inactive after a wardec. However, the “get more friends” part could often be a feeling as you suggest, but sometimes also a choice. Amongst those who chose it, there are many possible reasons again, with the extremes on both sides being the decision to play EVE hardcore small-team mode and the delusions of grandeur of small-highsec-corp leaders who can’t stand the idea to not be the boss anymore. > [@Arrendis](#): > > I think it’s more than that, but also exactly what you say with the first sentence of this graf: people don’t want to lose everything. But by that, I don’t mean ‘lose every fight’. I mean ‘lose all their stuff’. In other games, you lose a match, you start the next match with all your stuff. You don’t lose your gear if a WoW Battleground or Arena goes badly. You don’t lose the ability to field a tank or ship in World of WarWhatevers between rounds. > > People in EVE can (not all of them do) learn to play for keeps, and take that very seriously, because _you can have your stuff taken away from you_ . And they don’t like having stuff taken away from them[1]. Yeah exactly. > [@Arrendis](#): > > … mean that once the cyno is up, everyone’s sitting waiting for 5 minutes because the destination system is in heavy time dilation already. And god forbit you’re the second capital fleet coming in, because the 2-10 second difference in when your guys click ‘jump’ means that fleet that’s had forever to spot your cyno is waiting for you to come trickling in. > > It _would_ mean battleship fleets bring a couple of Nestors along, though, so they can jump immediately… and then pull their guns out of cargo to fit them. Yeah I know my shot at a proposal is not something that could be implemented for the reason you mention and others. It’s about generally questioning the workings of the cyno module and finding a way that makes the gameplay around it more interesting. For mid-sized and larger engagements there is already the cyno inhibitor that kind of works, but for smaller gangs or people who look for solo fights in belts it’s not very practical (too large, anchors too late etc.). To reconnect that thought to what has been said before about losses: I think there are many people kind of “happy” with losing their ships in a fun fight, but not so many people who are happy to lose their ship after assuming they have a 1v1 and it became a 20v1. This happens a few times and the person will stop looking for that kind of 1v1 fights and either join a blob as well or run Claw gangs (welp) or similar stuff. ---
**Author:** ![Jenn\_aSide](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/jenn_aside/32/384682_2.png) [@Jenn\_aSide](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Jenn_aSide)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2018, 1:08am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/437 "2018-10-04T01:08:14Z")
Man, Dozens of posts about what to do with anomalies. I think the fixes are as simple as: -Add Warp gate that doesn’t allow Capitals and above in -Scatter random Large Collidable Structure/ Objects between 20 and 50km of npc spawn point (100mn drone ships hate those) -Add random spawns of Neuting Towers (won’t hurt players at the key board, absolute murder for afk ratters). Surely this is less work and less chance of messing up other parts of the game than what people keep suggesting here, right? ---
**Author:** ![Litsea\_Reticulata](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/litsea_reticulata/32/328016_2.png) [@Litsea\_Reticulata](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Litsea_Reticulata)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2018, 1:18am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/438 "2018-10-04T01:18:07Z")
> [@Rivr\_Luzade](#): > > leaving the ships as is Who says a fix necessitates changing the ships? Maybe the problem is with the areas of space that contain 11 havens and 7 sanctums 24/7. In another thread I’ve made the suggestion that anomaly respawn timers should be increased, rather than a ship change that alters its performance in both PvE and PvP activities. ---
**Author:** ![Litsea\_Reticulata](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/litsea_reticulata/32/328016_2.png) [@Litsea\_Reticulata](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Litsea_Reticulata)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2018, 1:20am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/439 "2018-10-04T01:20:49Z")
> [@Brisc\_Rubal](#): > > You missed the part where I asked Larrikin if bounties were sustainable and he said no. Is this in relation to bounty mechanics, or the volume of bounties generated? ---
**Author:** ![Litsea\_Reticulata](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/litsea_reticulata/32/328016_2.png) [@Litsea\_Reticulata](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Litsea_Reticulata)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2018, 1:25am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/440 "2018-10-04T01:25:32Z")
> [@Brisc\_Rubal](#): > > It’s off the charts. The MER indicates quite a lot is off the chart. When the rorqual changes were first announced they seemed quite fair, though mining is the one activity which scales and players took advantage of this. One Active Industrial Core per asteroid field… ---
**Author:** ![Litsea\_Reticulata](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/litsea_reticulata/32/328016_2.png) [@Litsea\_Reticulata](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Litsea_Reticulata)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2018, 1:30am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/441 "2018-10-04T01:30:35Z")
> [@Rivr\_Luzade](#): > > Yes! Give us a self-destruction button for structures already! Whenever “The Jugde” says anything I think “Allow citadel ownership to be locked like blueprints and allow daily withdraw limits on corporate wallets”. [Previous page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726.md?page=21) [Next page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726.md?page=23)