The CSM 13 Winter Summit Minutes are out

[Arrendis]

@Brisc_Rubal

It’s time folks start shifting out of should-we-fix-this mode into how-do-we-fix-this mode.

Yeah, but understanding the causes of the problem is part of how you fix it, man. If you don’t understand what the causes are, you can’t address those causes. It’d be like trying to use supply-side economics to fix the 2007 downturn, when we had massive amounts of oversupply and factories sitting idle because there was insufficient demand.

Identifying the problem doesn’t let you fix it until you know what the causes are. It just lets you address the symptoms. Why is just a war dec enough to drive players out of the game? Well, they stop playing for a week on that alt. Ok. Why aren’t they playing on another alt? Why aren’t they coming back, after? These are all important facets of the problem that can’t be addressed without understanding what all of the causes of their behavior are.

Yes, CCP have ‘the data’. But we’ve also seen, in the past, that they misread their own data, and don’t have the wherewithal to really extrapolate player behavior and motivations from the data points they collect. I could ask you for a lot more detail in precisely what data they have—and that information might seriously allay the concerns that they could be misreading it—but you can’t tell me, and we both know that.

@Brisc_Rubal

I’m still trying to figure out why it matters whether you trust they’ll come to the right conclusions.

Because we don’t. That’s just it, Brisc, given the evidence we do have… there is no reason to trust that they will come to the right conclusions. Given comprehensive data, I trust Aryth and Innominate to be able to interpret it, because I know they’ve demonstrated that ability in the past. I trust you to do it, cuz being able to understand that sort of thing and extrapolate is your job, and you’re successful in your job. But I don’t know that the data being presented to you is comprehensive, or that you guys are the ones doing that analysis.

From the minutes, it looks like they presented you data and conclusions based on that data. Not conclusions that amount to ‘this is how we plan to fix it’ but conclusions at the level of ‘so this is what we believe the causal relationship to be’. And they might be right. But they’ve a long history of not being able to interpret that data, so we’re skeptical.

But even though we’re skeptical, we’re trying to offer ideas about how to fix the issue as it’s presented to us. That’s all we can do. And I know it’s frustrating when you’re hearing a lot of ‘why should we trust this?’ I get that. But EVE players don’t hedge their bets about CCP’s data interpretation skill because we want CCP to be wrong. We do it because it’s the pattern of observed behavior we have to go on.

And it’s not that we think they’re ‘massaging’ the data… just that they’re wrong… because they have been. Often. Entosis on interceptors wasn’t going to be a thing, remember? Natural decay wouldn’t be needed. Drone spam wasn’t a problem. The Ishtar wasn’t wildly overpowered. The Ferox “nerfs” had a measurable effect. There’d never be more than 4 or 5 titans in the game. Battleships were 3 years away at launch. Nobody would live in wormholes.

So… yeah. We’re a little skeptical. We want them to get it right. Nobody here doesn’t want that. We’re just… often-burned, you know?

[Buoytender_Bob]

CCP needs to get their Comunity Relations Department right on this matter!..oh, that’s right.

The large drop in HS population over the last 5 years (and I showed in another thread using Dotlan numbers it is not just anecdotal evidence) can be blamed on more than just the current Wardec mechanics. However, an emergency fix to the WD mechanics is the easiest fix for CCP atm. Later fixes would add a granulation/graduation to PC corps that ties a gradual increase to available structures and capabilities to an increase to being available to be a war target. Longer term fix would be the addition of newer HS content generators that create activities around what the long term HS players have requested.

[Teckos_Pech]

@Brisc_Rubal

I think that’s a tough argument to sell.

Is it? Lets look at this story?

@Iowa_Banshee

One day a griefer pops into system and bumps his orca away from his drone & steals them - he calls the the griefer a ratbag. Then his 6 man corp is at war with a 65 man corp part of the CODE alliance with 600+ members and 50 corps. A fleet of bashers arrive and destroy all his Athanors.

He feels helpless and there is nothing he can do to stop it. Last time I saw him logged on was August 5th - Of the dozen or so people who used to log on and chat with him - I’ve only see 1 or 2 of them.

That player put alot of assets at risk. When that risk bit him on the ass he quit. Eve has traditionally been a game where if you take a big risk there are players who will take advantage of it. Did he stop and reflect on the risks he took? Did he consider ways he might have mitigated that risk?

Sure we can all point at CODE. and call them jerks, but to ignore the substantial risk this player took on is to miss part of the problem.

@Brisc_Rubal

It presupposes that there is something more effective than logging off that lets the defender remain in their group of friends and not be subject to getting killed over and over with no meaningful way to fight back or stop it.

Well…isn’t there? You are presupposing that players have zero recourse when faced with a war dec. Is that true? Take the narrative above about the guy who lost his athanors…was there nothing he could have done? Nothing at all? What if he had a corp for his athanors, but his miners were all in NPC corps? He encounters CODE. but do they know to dec his alt that runs the athanor corp?

@Brisc_Rubal

That’s what I mean when I say that the meta is docking up and logging out for these guys - it denies the war deccers content and loot, which are two things that you can guarantee will get a group redecced and it ensures that the defender doesn’t lose any assets.

EVE has always been about risk vs. reward. Perhaps the failing is in helping players figure this out sooner rather than later. If you don’t want to take the risks then you need to be willing to forgo the rewards. Or if you want to go for those rewards then you have to accept the risks. And it is up to the player to mitigate those risks as best they can.

@Brisc_Rubal

Fighting back, especially by groups who are relatively young (a few months in to a year or so), is unlikely to gain these guys anything - thanks to neutral logi, the difficulty in finding war targets with nothing to protect or defend, and the relative skill gap between these players - so why do it?

This is going to be true no matter how you tweak the mechanics. It gets us back to the behavioral aspect you keep dodging. I really am not sure there is any tweak you can do to war decs that will entice players in HS into “fighting back”. Suppose there are players who are fine with combat PvP…what happens to these players in game? My guess, since I haven’t seen the data, is they go to LS, NS, wormholes or join war dec corps/alliances. Thus, if players are self-selecting the ones left are those who are not interested in combat PvP. Tell me how we can tweak mechanics to induce players who do not have any interest in combat PvP into wanting to try combat PvP?

@Brisc_Rubal

The smartest move for them is to dock up and stop playing for a week. And for folks who have not yet been bitten by the bug, or found a group of friends that will stick together through this stuff, they can easily get distracted by a dozens of other games, space sims or MMOs or both, out there that they can play instead. So they do. And then they stop logging in to EVE.

Absolutely. But the issue is likely a people problem and cannot be fixed via mechanics. That is there is probably no way to get people interested in war decs who are not alrady interested in them. At the same time if players want to reap rewards they should face risk. Part of the problem, IMO, is not helping players realize these kinds of things. Or we nerf the rewards if you want to remove the risk.

@Brisc_Rubal

We don’t want the best mechanic to defend against a war dec to be logging off (and regardless of those who claim dropping corp is a better mechanic, folks shouldn’t have to quit their group of friends or abandon a cool name, reputation or logo because they got decced) and right now it is.

That would be wonderful. But I doubt you can do that without something like a “Social Corporation” which means you can have your group, your logo, name, etc. but nothing else. Allowing HS players to dodge war decs and still have the benefits of anchoring various structures will likely yield bad results. And if player ignorance is part of the problem, then how do we remedy that? If a player decides he doesn’t like those restrictions and wants to anchor structures then he gets decced and his strategy is to log off and let his structures dies…well aren’t we in the same mess?

@Arrendis

But I don’t know that the data being presented to you is comprehensive, or that you guys are the ones doing that analysis.

To be clear, no data is being presented. Results are being presented. And those results depend on the methods and analysis. If the latter is flawed, then the former very well could be as well.

[Iowa_Banshee]

My myopic friend, the Price = FEWER PLAYERS IN EVE

[Arrendis]

@Teckos_Pech

To be clear, no data is being presented. Results are being presented.

To us. No data is being presented to us. The CSM were shown the data.

[Iowa_Banshee]

He played for 2 years, had built something up and with his friends had a niche in EVE, a place where they could hang out and chat.

If he had been attacked by a corp with 9 - 12 members maybe he puts up a fight, maybe it would be fun but a 60 man corp, a Dozen structure killers with back up … Forget getting ECM jammed out of a fight that’s “NO AGENCY” - They didn’t just kick over his sandcastle they stomped him into the ground and made him move inland

I could let him know - but he’s not coming back, by now he’s invested in another game where he wont be gang-banged and several of his group are not coming back either.

[Whitehound]

@Iowa_Banshee

My myopic friend, the Price = FEWER PLAYERS IN EVE

You wish this was so, don’t you? Fact is rather that this one player, with his 6 alts, has provided fun for a lot of others. What’s the price for that?

This one player is the sacrifice you’ll have to make for having a good game.

[Arrendis]

It’s not a zero-sum game. You don’t have to burn people out to provide fun for other players. You don’t have to be a group of petulant, entitled bullies running around being douchebags to people in the low-conflict areas of the game. That’s what LS and NS are for.

It’s really telling that you think being abusive to people in Highsec is ‘a good game’.

It must be really sad to live in that brain. I hope it gets better soon.

[Brisc_Rubal]

@Teckos_Pech

That player put alot of assets at risk. When that risk bit him on the ass he quit. Eve has traditionally been a game where if you take a big risk there are players who will take advantage of it. Did he stop and reflect on the risks he took? Did he consider ways he might have mitigated that risk?

Sure we can all point at CODE. and call them jerks, but to ignore the substantial risk this player took on is to miss part of the problem.

He put a lot of assets at risk, yes. Did the other guys? No - they were fighting a one man six-toon corp with no real meaningful way to fight back, other than perhaps hiring mercs, which doesn’t happen often anymore. He certainly couldn’t fight back on his own. So how could this guy have responded to this war dec in a meaningful way?

@Teckos_Pech

Well…isn’t there? You are presupposing that players have zero recourse when faced with a war dec. Is that true? Take the narrative above about the guy who lost his athanors…was there nothing he could have done? Nothing at all? What if he had a corp for his athanors, but his miners were all in NPC corps? He encounters CODE. but do they know to dec his alt that runs the athanor corp?

If he’s not a PvPer and he’s not got combat ships, what could he do? Hire a mercenary? He’d need to be able to find them to do that. If he doesn’t know how to do that, then he’s got no other options other than to dock up. Yes, he could put the athanors into a holding corp, but CODE usually is pretty good on intel, and would have likely figured it out. Even if he didn’t there’s really nothing he could do PvP-wise to impact that outcome.

@Teckos_Pech

EVE has always been about risk vs. reward. Perhaps the failing is in helping players figure this out sooner rather than later. If you don’t want to take the risks then you need to be willing to forgo the rewards. Or if you want to go for those rewards then you have to accept the risks. And it is up to the player to mitigate those risks as best they can.

I agree, but the risk vs. reward needs to go both ways. It doesn’t. That’s part of the problem. There is almost no risk for these guys to war dec this guy and his solo corp.

@Teckos_Pech

This is going to be true no matter how you tweak the mechanics. It gets us back to the behavioral aspect you keep dodging. I really am not sure there is any tweak you can do to war decs that will entice players in HS into “fighting back”.

Absolutely there is - you provide them with an incentive to fight back that makes it worth it, and you provide them with a victory condition that’s achievable for a smaller group. Do that, and you’ve got a pretty powerful reason to not just dock up. It becomes lucrative to not do that - as lucrative or more than just doing what they were doing.

@Teckos_Pech

But the issue is likely a people problem and cannot be fixed via mechanics.

I’m not willing to assume this is the case without trying to put something together to try to fix it.

@Teckos_Pech

Allowing HS players to dodge war decs and still have the benefits of anchoring various structures will likely yield bad results.

I agree. I think if we go the social corp route, it has to be tied to some restrictions that make it worth the risk to get into a traditional corp.

[Whitehound]

@Arrendis

It must be really sad to live in that brain.

Now look at you! I’d say you wouldn’t mind sacrificing me if it meant it more players. Funny how this is, isn’t it?

[Arrendis]

@Whitehound

Now look at you! I’d say you wouldn’t mind sacrificing me if it meant it more players.

You’d be wrong. It’s not a zero-sum game. There’s no reason to ‘sacrifice’ some players to placate others.

[Nana_Skalski]

This thread

[Whitehound]

@Arrendis

You’d be wrong. It’s not a zero-sum game. There’s no reason to ‘sacrifice’ some players to placate others.

Of course there is. No game is for everyone. Every game has it’s group of players, and those who don’t like to play them have their reasons and these players, who don’t want to play them, are also the sacrifice.

[BIade_Runner]

Well, if by that you mean less sociopaths and former abused children who transfer their aggressive mindset on others, then yes.

[Teckos_Pech]

@Iowa_Banshee

He played for 2 years, had built something up and with his friends had a niche in EVE, a place where they could hang out and chat.

If he had been attacked by a corp with 9 - 12 members maybe he puts up a fight, maybe it would be fun but a 60 man corp, a Dozen structure killers with back up … Forget getting ECM jammed out of a fight that’s “NO AGENCY” - They didn’t just kick over his sandcastle they stomped him into the ground and made him move inland

Yes, but he put in space assets that seem more in line with a much larger group of players. He put a tremendous amount of assets at risk…without any real hope of defending it. Do you think he realized the degree of risk he took on before hand?

@Brisc_Rubal

He put a lot of assets at risk, yes. Did the other guys? No - they were fighting a six man corp with no real meaningful way to fight back, other than perhaps hiring mercs, which doesn’t happen often anymore.

Risk is not symmetrical. If I take on lots of risk it usually means the other guy(s) aren’t.

Let me put it this way. Suppose I take on lots of risk. A massive amount. Why should you suddenly face massive amounts of risk because of my foolishness and imprudence?

@Brisc_Rubal

If he’s not a PvPer and he’s not got combat ships, what could he do? Hire a mercenary? He’d need to be able to find them to do that.

People are rationally ignorant…how do you propose we solve this problem so that we can reduce player attrition…especially due to their own foolishness and imprudence?

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but my guess is that the player in this particular narrative was completely unaware of his risk. To then get angry at others for his poor choices based in part on ignorance is understandable…but also wrong.

@Brisc_Rubal

Yes, he could put the athanors into a holding corp, but CODE usually is pretty good on intel, and would have likely figured it out.

Okay so you are assuming there is no way for certain players to mitigate risk. You have set up a position that dogmatic and impervious to any counter argument. Well done.

@Brisc_Rubal

Even if he didn’t there’s really nothing he could do PvP-wise to impact that outcome.

Yes, but putting 6 athanors is space…with a 6 pilot corp (all of them alts) and a dozen or so buddies, is like something a much larger group of players should have done.

Let me ask you this…

When you make yourself and easy target in EVE what happens to you? My answer is you get shot at and often times blown up.

@Brisc_Rubal

I agree, but the risk vs. reward needs to go both ways

No it doesn’t. If I take on lots of risk why should you suddenly face lots of risk. This view is quite simply wrong. Again, think of it as an “easy target”. They tend to get shot at and destroyed. So either you are advocating for the removal of this aspect of the game (which would include way, way more than war decs) or this view of risk and reward is inaccurate.

@Brisc_Rubal

Absolutely there is - you provide them with an incentive to fight back that makes it worth it, and you provide them with a victory condition that’s achievable for a smaller group.

And what incentive might that be? You are arguing for unicorn here. A perfect solution that is so vague and nebulous to be useless…in fact it does not even exist.

As I suggested, combat PvP oriented players already have avenues open to them and they likely self-select…thus we are dealing with players who are far less interested in combat PvP. I really do not think you can provide an incentive to these players to give it ago generally speaking. You might entice a few, but the bulk may not want to do it at all.

[Whitehound]

@BIade_Runner

Well, if by that you mean less sociopaths and formed abused children who transfer their aggressive mindset on others, then yes.

Sure, whatever you want to call PvPers, please, do go ahead and call us the worst of the worst. If this is what it needs to keep you at it then we’ll make this a sacrifice, too.

[Arrendis]

There’s a difference between acknowledging that not every game is a good fit for every player and ‘sacrificing’ them.

[Whitehound]

@Arrendis

There’s a difference between acknowledging that not every game is a good fit for every player and ‘sacrificing’ them.

For you, but not for me. I find it’s honest to see players, who cannot or don’t want to play a game, as a sacrifice. It is our loss no doubt, but it is also their decision.

[gnshadowninja]

@Brisc_Rubal

you provide them with an incentive to fight back that makes it worth it

@Brisc_Rubal

He certainly couldn’t fight back on his own.

@Brisc_Rubal

he’s not a PvPer and he’s not got combat ships, what could he do? Hire a mercenary? He’d need to be able to find them to do that. If he doesn’t know how to do that, then he’s got no other options other than to doc up.

See, if you re-order it it basically says what we have been trying to say this whole thread.

[Yiole_Gionglao]

Some “posters” just come here for this. They circle-post quoting each other about bullsh*t and nothing of use comes until the thread gets closed. Then they go find another thread to do exactly the same over and over again. The pathetic nolifers.