Update Number #6 CSM post Summit

I guess you want to include the T3 cruiser changes that made cyno dropping more ‘difficult’ by ‘forcing’ people who fit a cyno to have a weaker buffer tank?

I have no idea what you’re talking about. I’m pretty sure there’s no such thing as “non-consensual PvP” in any place where cynos are possible, because everyone keeps telling me that I need to go to those places because that’s where the real PvPers are, instead of doing my usual griefing of defenseless rookies (i.e. null-sec players when they aren’t in “PvP mode”) in high-sec.

I am guessing at some point recons with cynos had a patch that adjusted their EHP down. As for why he’s using double quotes to indicate his disdain over this adjustment, I have no idea. As someone very anti-highsec-ganking he clearly isn’t getting dropped on in high sec. Cynos aren’t a thing there. At all. He would have to be a nullsec person capital krabbing or rorq-- you know what, nevermind, it’s all making sense now.

By the way Eloken, it is nice that you are able to remember more than one cherrypicked example. We’ll all keep waiting for you to post something that continues either of the two well-cited posts (“People want some form of response from the developers, even if its not what they want to hear”, List of all piracy/PvP changes) above that reflects earnest and sincere understanding of those points. It would really stink if you kept forcing people to make well-cited arguments and then you repeatedly never responded to those.

CCP Zulu. Microtransactions. 2011 Riot?

Neural Remaps, Now available in store.

It is almost like the words that come out of CCP HQ are not exactly set in stone.

The 8 golden rules are more ‘guidelines’ than actual ‘rules’ as the only means of enforcement is a weak social contract of sorts.

The Main AFK Cloaky thread was an excellent example of years long argument espousing the righteousness of a utterly broken mechanic many said would never change. The endless pages asserting the hordes of AFK cloakers were engaged in legitimate gameplay and all it took was one tiny deployable to shut it all down.

Silcence is implicit approval of the status quo. Where would EVE be if people just accepted $90 monocles and buying a Retriever for $15 off the NES?

I put the whole chain of conversation together for you, to illustrate for all readers that you are arguing in bad faith. One minute you demand that CCP themselves say something, and the next minute you decide „actually it doesn’t matter“ when given primary source evidence that doesn’t suit your worldview.

The rest of your post is just more of the same.


Thank you for linking all of those together. Is it not possible to ask CCP to acknowledge an issue, while accepting that some changes had to wait for incumbent personalities blocking improvements to move on?

No, it is not. Are you calling “CCP Swift” an “incumbent personality”? Do you really believe ganking only still exists because of specific people at CCP, and your plan is to simply wait for them all to quit? This is irrational. Your post begs the question to begin with by asserting a false premise as true (“ganking is an issue”) and then leaps beyond into “I’m just going to wait for specific CCP employees to quit”.

None of that train of thought, absolutely none, is rational. The thread I linked together is:

  • You: “CCP please tell me anything, even if it’s not what I want to hear”
  • Me: give that factual evidence to you
  • You: “nevermind, these specific CCP employees just need to move on, and then I can get to hear what I want to hear – which is The Truth!”

That’s the conversation as it has unfolded. If you can’t deal with facts and where they lead, don’t ask for them.

1 Like

Not necessarily quit, just wait for their influence to be diluted so ‘more impactful’ solutions can move to the forefront. I spent years watching corporations slowly die due to suffocation from relentless war declarations they had no hope of contesting. Eventually CCP made changes, if only this had occurred sooner there would be at least a few hundred more people still in the game. Pounds to peanuts someone at CCP knew well before the CSM started asking questions that the mechanic was broken and stunting the growth of EVE. Ganking is follow the same lethargic route.

If ‘ganking is an issue’ is to be taken as false, how does that reconcile against the fact CCP changed the rules to remove alpha characters from ganking? Is it not also an EULA violation to biomass gank alts and recreate new characters to avoid negative standings? Two pretty big changes for a non issue issue.

If you wait by the river long enough, the body of your enemy will float by.

Look around you. There are less gankers now ( players, not alts ) than 5, 10, 15 years ago. The safe spaces to hide in are becoming fewer. Get with the program, find new gameplay.

I’m not a ganker, so „done“.

The two changes were non-issues to begin with, just as ganking itself is a non issue. It didn’t impact ganking gameplay and ganking still exists. That’s how it reconciles.

Thanks for the hot tip, I will await yours then. I’ve counted numerous nameless anonymous forum alt bodies float by these past several years.

1 Like

Any ETA for CSM18 summit minutes release?


Archaic rule before the advent of alphas


Fundamentally though, Kell’s right. CCP is going to continue chipping away at these features. Other companies will do that as well, with their own games. Open-world PvP is going to go extinct, not just because it’s a niche feature, but also because it’s not in line with the evolved hard-line progressive ideals dominating today’s social landscape. At some point, you have to concede that your defeat is impending and inevitable. Take solace in the fact that once you’re defeated and marginalized out of existence, the ones who win will also have to face this kind of struggle and experience the same kind of loss when once-former allies within their movement splinter off due to their own disagreements and wage their own campaign against the weakest targets they can find. Until then, try to do as much damage as you can on your way out, because when you finally lose, you’ll be given no quarter, regardless of how much compromise you tried to offer during the struggle.

So you figuratively are a ganker. Might as well act like one too.


So, it’s the game that changed for a modern demographic, not the griefer/ganker mentality?

Ganking drama can be mitigated if you introduce modules that allow people to escape from ganking. So ganking doesent have to be banned. But there has to be modules that can protect against it.

For example a module that protects against fit and cargo scans? Or a higher tier ECM module that breaks all locks on you. Or maybe a higher tier warp core stabilizer that actually prevented you from being warp scrambled. Or just a module that enveloped your ship in a cloud of smoke that made you hard to track for a while but also made it hard for you to track others when its released. OR something else

Since they are modules players have to make compromises when they fit them. Thats the whole idea behind ship fitting. But you are not allowed to fit against ganks for some reason.

I think ganking as an emergent game play can be countered or avoided by other emergent gameplay only.

There are in-game tools:

  • The Map - can show ship kills in a system along your route. It should ring your bells.
  • Contacts - adding contacts with a label and bad standing immediatelly shows in overview or local when in gate cloak. You’ll see them more clearly.
  • Cloak up - and scout in advance your route. Try to keep low profile
  • Fleet up - and watch each other 6. I’ve noticed long ago solo game play is limited to specific activities only and if you want to make impact you have to organise. “This Is The Way”
1 Like

Hey there!

We do hope to release them in April. However, we’re also exploring the possibility of releasing two versions of the CSM 18 Summit minutes, given how much information was discussed about the upcoming expansion.