# 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:** 55
**Author:** ![Tora\_Bushido](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/tora_bushido/32/382053_2.png) [@Tora\_Bushido](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Tora_Bushido)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2018, 6:38pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/1083 "2018-10-06T18:38:25Z")
I already talked to CCP about this months ago. 😉 Edit: Ahh Imperium News. Thanks, but I’m not the talking kind of guy. Am more an “in the background kinda guy” and like to write things down first. So I can think before I speak. ---
**Author:** ![Dracvlad](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/dracvlad/32/444126_2.png) [@Dracvlad](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Dracvlad)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2018, 7:05pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/1084 "2018-10-06T19:05:33Z")
> [@Arrendis](#): > > Did you get them to do it _twice_ ? Nope because I put a POS down to prevent the gankers from having a safe POS there. > [@Arrendis](#): > > Once again: Welcome to how war in EVE actually works. TZ tanking to prevent the other guy from being able to effectively form? Yeah, we’ve been complaining about it since Upwell structures went in. It’s not changing any time soon. The onus is on the attacker, the one starting the conflict in nullsec, my alliance is AU TZ, so our timers are set to when we are most active, when you kicked my alliance out of Delve you had to alarm clock. As you were the aggressor fine. For the war deckers the same thing, they are the aggressors, therefore they have to defend their structure in the TZ of the people they aggressed, they are the attackers. What is it that you don’t understand? It is quite simple… > [@Arrendis](#): > > The defender in a war is not the same as the defender in a battle. The targets of the wardec would be the aggressors in a counter-attack. You don’t get it at all, it is pretty obvious that the war decker is the aggressor so they have to engage in the TZ of the defender so therefore the structure has to be open to attack in the TZ of the war decked corp This is to prevent blanket war deckers from using TZ tanking so as to continue to blap passing stuff with no consequences. It is easy to understand… > [@Faylee\_Freir](#): > > Is there something oppressive about being in a war dec that is so scary that it literally kills the way you play the game? It is not a case of wonder why, it is a case of is to many players. If the numbers were so stark so as to make one CSM member think that war decs should be ended then it must be really bad. You just have to accept that, and they either have to adjust the balance or end war decs. I don’t want to see CCP pull the plug on war decs, but they might have to. ---
**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 6, 2018, 7:24pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/1085 "2018-10-06T19:24:47Z")
So War-Decs 1. Lack developer resources to address the game mechanic know as war-dec 2. Want a quick solution to fix the problem 3. Stats show it is a small portion of the players of the war-dec mechanic causing the issue, in proportion to players impacted. Then address the small group behind this. Inform them of a policy change. Insert warning/ruling, and annul existing war-decs they have. (teleport repeat offending into a shark-tank, flying corvette, similar to the botters for a dose of their own medicine - then ban). ---
**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 6, 2018, 7:32pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/1086 "2018-10-06T19:32:40Z")
> [@Penance\_Toralen](#): > > Then address the small group behind this. Inform them of a policy change. Insert warning/ruling, and annul existing war-decs they have. I don’t even know where to start with this comment… ill leave it to someone else :facepalm: ---
**Author:** ![Faylee\_Freir](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/faylee_freir/32/439750_2.png) [@Faylee\_Freir](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Faylee_Freir)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2018, 7:40pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/1087 "2018-10-06T19:40:33Z")
> [@gnshadowninja](#): > > I don’t even know where to start with this comment… ill leave it to someone else ![:facepalm:](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/original/2X/5/5cef807c35b9ea0163a2a5659715a7ac34f447f0.jpg?v=6) All my mental-sparring on the forums and on discord servers have prepared me for this very moment in time. I will be your champion, friend. > [@Penance\_Toralen](#): > > Then address the small group behind this. Inform them of a policy change. Insert warning/ruling, and annul existing war-decs they have. (teleport repeat offending into a shark-tank, flying corvette, similar to the botters for a dose of their own medicine - then ban). There is no policy change. What are you warning against? New players aren’t targeted in most cases of a Wardec. People aren’t even really targeting anyone anymore since the removal of the watchlist. There’s just putting a bunch of wardecs up and throwing a cast net into the fabric of space, hoping you catch something nice that came to Jita. ---
**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 6, 2018, 9:35pm UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/1088 "2018-10-06T21:35:49Z")
> [@Dracvlad](#): > > Nope because I put a POS down to prevent the gankers from having a safe POS there. So you only had to attack the POS once? It wasn’t stronted? Well, then congratulations on finding a bunch of idiots to fight. > [@Dracvlad](#): > > The onus is on the attacker, the one starting the conflict in nullsec, my alliance is AU TZ, so our timers are set to when we are most active, when you kicked my alliance out of Delve you had to alarm clock. I’m well aware of your alliance’s timezone. Fawlty was one of our primary AUTZ FCs, and a generally decent guy. And yes, we were the aggressors. However, if we’d come in and dropped a structure to stage out of while we attacked your space (which, you know, we _did_), **we** , not you, would have set the vulnerability timer, even though we were the aggressors in that war. The defender _of the structure_ sets the timer. You would not have been able to force us to defend our stagers in your TZ. This is true, **even though** we were the aggressors in the war. The war-dec corp may be the aggressors in the conflict, but they will be the defenders of _that structure_. You can claim I don’t get it, but I’m not the one arguing for _literally the only structure in EVE where the person attacking the structure gets to set its vulnerability timer_. And by the way, if the attacker _did_ get to set the timer, the wardec corp would just declare war on _their own alt-corp_ and make sure to keep the RF timer set to a TZ where their real targets aren’t active. ---
**Author:** ![Dracvlad](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/dracvlad/32/444126_2.png) [@Dracvlad](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Dracvlad)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2018, 5:53am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/1089 "2018-10-07T05:53:43Z")
> [@Arrendis](#): > > So you only had to attack the POS once? It wasn’t stronted? Well, then congratulations on finding a bunch of idiots to fight. Ah, of course it was stronted and went through a reinforcement cycle, they came along for the final timer, the initial hit was my corp and it was defended poorly. > [@Arrendis](#): > > I’m well aware of your alliance’s timezone. Fawlty was one of our primary AUTZ FCs, and a generally decent guy. And yes, we were the aggressors. However, if we’d come in and dropped a structure to stage out of while we attacked your space (which, you know, we _did_ ), **we** , not you, would have set the vulnerability timer, even though we were the aggressors in that war. You are talking about Citadels, I was not in his alliance when that went down. The sov which you were after was the defenders TZ. > [@Arrendis](#): > > The defender _of the structure_ sets the timer. You would not have been able to force us to defend our stagers in your TZ. This is true, **even though** we were the aggressors in the war. The war-dec corp may be the aggressors in the conflict, but they will be the defenders of _that structure_ . You can claim I don’t get it, but I’m not the one arguing for _literally the only structure in EVE where the person attacking the structure gets to set its vulnerability timer_ . The attacker as in the war decker is choosing to aggress the defender in the TZ in which they play so it makes sense that the vulnerability of such a structure links to the defenders TZ as defined by the TZ logged into the system for the corp or the lead corp of the alliance. Otherwise the structures will not work because the aggressor can just plonk them down like SBU’s in effect and CCP got to understand that this system did not work. > [@Arrendis](#): > > And by the way, if the attacker _did_ get to set the timer, the wardec corp would just declare war on _their own alt-corp_ and make sure to keep the RF timer set to a TZ where their real targets aren’t active. Because it looks like the structure will be dropped **for each war** from what Jin’taan said, however if it is a general all in one structure then it has to be vulnerable all the time and single shot too. If they do decide to make it subject to reinforcement timers then it will not have the desired affect. So at this point it has to be a structure put down for each war. ---
**Author:** ![Nevyn\_Auscent](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/nevyn_auscent/32/255124_2.png) [@Nevyn\_Auscent](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Nevyn_Auscent)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2018, 5:59am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/1090 "2018-10-07T05:59:12Z")
> [@Dracvlad](#): > > Ah, of course it was stronted and went through a reinforcement cycle, they came along for the final timer, the initial hit was my corp and it was defended poorly. This is a perfect way to prove your entire point wrong you realize. You got a bunch of newbies to come along for a risk free bash where you had already established it was risk free and could inform them of that. They didn’t contribute meaningfully and they didn’t achieve it themselves. That’s utterly different from what you are claiming will happen with these structures. And again, there is no way that the structure will not have a reinforcement timer. ---
**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 7, 2018, 6:04am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/1091 "2018-10-07T06:04:56Z")
> [@Dracvlad](#): > > The sov which you were after was the defenders TZ. And we had stagers from which to attack. _Those_ structures, not yours, were analagous to the wardec structure you’re talking about. The structures that correspond to your structures would be the cits and refineries owned by the _target_ corporations… which, certainly, are on a timer they get to set. The _aggressor’s_ structure, however, is **not**. > [@Dracvlad](#): > > Because it looks like the structure will be dropped **for each war** from what Jin’taan said Jin’taan offered no details in the minutes. He tossed out a broad, featureless idea. And even though there’s been a lot of projection here about what form it will take, a)none of that information is part of the CSM minutes, and b)there’s no indication that CCP has said ‘we’re gonna use that idea’. Trying to move past ‘there’s a structure involved somehow’ is rampant speculation and totally baseless. > [@Dracvlad](#): > > So at this point it has to be a structure put down for each war. At this point, it’s a ‘hey, what about a structure being involved?’ ---
**Author:** ![Dracvlad](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/dracvlad/32/444126_2.png) [@Dracvlad](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Dracvlad)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2018, 6:05am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/1092 "2018-10-07T06:05:06Z")
> [@Nevyn\_Auscent](#): > > This is a perfect way to prove your entire point wrong you realize. > You got a bunch of newbies to come along for a risk free bash where you had already established it was risk free and could inform them of that. They didn’t contribute meaningfully and they didn’t achieve it themselves. That’s utterly different from what you are claiming will happen with these structures. The guy had already defended it but not very well, it was not risk free and they had no concerns at losing ships. And DPS is important, it all goes into the pot to making it happen quicker. In current speak it is making sure you hit the damage cap and have enough DPS to stop the repair cycle. And it is not different to what I claim will happen. Some people will be doing their best to make sure that these newer corps and alliances will have the help to enable them to give it a go. And this is again what Eve is, people developing the new players to be able to compete. I had wanted to start a hisec coalition but realised that without any meaningful vulnerability for the war deckers it would not work, now we have it, well if CCP follow through then it is possible to develop. > [@Nevyn\_Auscent](#): > > And again, there is no way that the structure will not have a reinforcement timer. Which is why it can be a structure per war dec and linked to the TZ of the defending entity. So all good if it is. ---
**Author:** ![Dracvlad](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/dracvlad/32/444126_2.png) [@Dracvlad](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Dracvlad)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2018, 6:08am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/1093 "2018-10-07T06:08:32Z")
> [@Arrendis](#): > > And we had stagers from which to attack. _Those_ structures, not yours, were analagous to the wardec structure you’re talking about. The structures that correspond to your structures would be the cits and refineries owned by the _target_ corporations… which, certainly, are on a timer they get to set. > > The _aggressor’s_ structure, however, is **not**. This will not change anything in terms of the issue and it will fail as an idea. It does not matter how it is in other areas, it is in fact whatever CCP decides it should be. And the attacker has to fight for the right to aggress the defender and this makes sure that they have to. > [@Arrendis](#): > > Jin’taan offered no details in the minutes. He tossed out a broad, featureless idea. And even though there’s been a lot of projection here about what form it will take, a)none of that information is part of the CSM minutes, and b)there’s no indication that CCP has said ‘we’re gonna use that idea’. Trying to move past ‘there’s a structure involved somehow’ is rampant speculation and totally baseless. We will see. > [@Arrendis](#): > > At this point, it’s a ‘hey, what about a structure being involved?’ We will see. ---
**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 7, 2018, 6:19am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/1094 "2018-10-07T06:19:02Z")
> [@Dracvlad](#): > > And the attacker has to fight for the right to aggress the defender and this makes sure that they have to. And if they do this, how do you think low and null respond? Take your time. Think about it. Highsec doesn’t have to deal with TZ tanking. They can attack an enemy structure in _their_ preferred TZ for a kill. Is that going to go over well? ---
**Author:** ![Dracvlad](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/dracvlad/32/444126_2.png) [@Dracvlad](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Dracvlad)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2018, 6:29am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/1095 "2018-10-07T06:29:10Z")
> [@Arrendis](#): > > And if they do this, how do you think low and null respond? Take your time. Think about it. Highsec doesn’t have to deal with TZ tanking. They can attack an enemy structure in _their_ preferred TZ for a kill. Is that going to go over well? As I said the objective is to give the defender something to do possibly within their capability which ends the war. As hisec is a more casual place for more casual players CCP has to define the mechanics to deal with that. So it is aimed at hisec first and foremost. In terms of nullsec, perhaps it would be advisable for a different structure that the war deckers can use for sov owning alliances which they can set the TZ for themselves and has reinforcement timers. CCP could easily do that, but for hisec entities they should do it as I say. I say this from the point of view that the war dec system is not bad, it is just what the players developed into on both sides. For my part it is designing the mechanics to enable the players to change things by changing the balance. A lot of people fail to understand this type of issue, which is why we are in the mess we are now. People have been well aware of this issue for many years, and CCP have only just worked it out? Seriously… ---
**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 7, 2018, 6:38am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/1096 "2018-10-07T06:38:46Z")
> [@Dracvlad](#): > > In terms of nullsec, perhaps it would be advisable for a different structure that the war deckers can use for sov owning alliances which they can set the TZ for themselves and has reinforcement timers. CCP could easily do that, but for hisec entities they should do it as I say. Forget war decs. Null v null warfare. Low v null warfare. Low v low warfare. Highsec doesn’t have to put up with an aggressor timezone tanking. Everywhere else does. How do you think those players react? ---
**Author:** ![Dracvlad](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/dracvlad/32/444126_2.png) [@Dracvlad](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Dracvlad)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2018, 6:44am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/1097 "2018-10-07T06:44:22Z")
> [@Arrendis](#): > > Forget war decs. Null v null warfare. Low v null warfare. Low v low warfare. Highsec doesn’t have to put up with an aggressor timezone tanking. Everywhere else does. How do you think those players react? I have explained it pretty well. If you want to go down a train of thought come out with it, spit it out. ---
**Author:** ![Nevyn\_Auscent](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/nevyn_auscent/32/255124_2.png) [@Nevyn\_Auscent](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Nevyn_Auscent)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2018, 6:47am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/1098 "2018-10-07T06:47:53Z")
> [@Dracvlad](#): > > I have explained it pretty well. If you want to go down a train of thought come out with it, spit it out. Short version. Jita riots. Along with burn highsec as well. ---
**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 7, 2018, 6:51am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/1099 "2018-10-07T06:51:00Z")
> [@Dracvlad](#): > > I have explained it pretty well. If you want to go down a train of thought come out with it, spit it out. They’ll be ganking everything that moves in highsec, _en masse_, without wardecs, in suicide catalysts. They’ll be doing that until CCP gets the hint that favoring one section like that at the expense of the more organized sections of space is probably very bad for their bottom line. It won’t be _our_ toys we’ll break. ---
**Author:** ![Dracvlad](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/dracvlad/32/444126_2.png) [@Dracvlad](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Dracvlad)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2018, 6:51am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/1100 "2018-10-07T06:51:04Z")
Well do it then, and threaten to de-sub while you are at it. I want war decs to continue, I do not want them removed. I have seen this issue for a long time, but never wanted war decs removed from the game. But please riot and throw your toys around over game balance, it will amuse and sadden me at the same time. ---
**Author:** ![Dracvlad](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/eveonline/user_avatar/forums.eveonline.com/dracvlad/32/444126_2.png) [@Dracvlad](https://forums.eveonline.com/u/Dracvlad)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2018, 6:59am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/1101 "2018-10-07T06:59:21Z")
> [@Arrendis](#): > > They’ll be ganking everything that moves in highsec, _en masse_ , without wardecs, in suicide catalysts. They’ll be doing that until CCP gets the hint that favoring one section like that at the expense of the more organized sections of space is probably very bad for their bottom line. That is a weird statement to come out, before you said that nullsec have no interest in hisec war decs and now you say they will be rioting over it. You seem all over the place with your views. Keep going with this train of thought as I find it interesting… ---
**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 7, 2018, 7:04am UTC](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726/1102 "2018-10-07T07:04:42Z")
> [@Dracvlad](#): > > That is a weird statement to come out, before you said that nullsec have no interest in hisec war decs and now you say they will be rioting over it. Nullsec has no interest in highsec war decs. Nullsec (and lowsec) have a great deal of interest in coded systems that would make things easier for them getting implemented and then denied to them. Two separate issues there. They won’t care about how the structure relates to highsec war decs. They’ll care that highsec got something new and shiny that makes a defensive war less of a pain the butt, and nobody else did. And as a result, they will punish the people who got the new shiny. Because this is EVE, where 99.9999999% of the players are mean. [Previous page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726.md?page=54) [Next page](https://forums.eveonline.com/t/the-csm-13-winter-summit-minutes-are-out/110726.md?page=56)