Thursday, January 17, 2013

Good CSM, Bad CSM

CCP just released the minutes of the December 2012 CSM meetings. You may read the minutes at this link. In one of the meetings, while discussing wardecs, the participants engaged in a philosophical debate about what kind of game EVE should be, specifically in highsec. The CSM representatives and CCP employees who spoke during that exchange (from pages 66-70 in the minutes) made some very revealing comments.

In this post, I will highlight the heroes and villains among the CSM reps and CCP employees about whom we gained insight. As a disclaimer, this post should not necessarily be taken as an endorsement of the CSM reps who are presented in a positive light, since they may have "problem areas" on other issues. I'm merely writing about the portion of the minutes that jumped out and grabbed me.

Since thousands of people read this blog each day, it is my responsibility and privilege to influence elections in a positive direction. Regardless of whether I end up running for CSM, when we get close to voting day, I will conduct a thorough review of the candidates to let everyone know who deserves votes and who doesn't.

All quotes from the minutes are in italics.

THE BAD

Trebor Daehdoow

Judging by the minutes, Trebor is the chief villain of the CSM. He expressly and repeatedly advocates the removal of non-consensual PvP from highsec. According to Trebor, the wardec system is bad because people who get wardecced don't want to be wardecced. Instead, the wardec system should be for "mutual" wars only--like a corp-wide, honourable 1v1 duel. Speaking of carebears who find themselves on the wrong end of the wardec, Trebor says:
"They just use highsec for their logistics. Okay, so they get wardecced, and what happens? It just interrupts their regular game play; it's a griefing mechanic."
Trebor at least allows for the possibility of suicide ganking to exist in highsec, because it carries enough penalties to be rare:
"In the case of a suicide gank, they lose their ships and they lose sec-status. There is a cost to them. If they declare war on you, and except for the ISK cost, they don't lose their ships and they don't lose their sec-status. There's no risk."
The reader might be perplexed by Trebor's belief that aggressors can't be killed during a war. As he explains, the aggressor is usually much more powerful. Combat in such situations shouldn't take place, says Trebor. By the same logic, shouldn't we outlaw nullsec alliances from waging war to grab territory from their weaker neighbors, because there's an imbalance of risk? (Likewise, gate campers and pirates shouldn't exist, since their victims are always at a disadvantage.) But surely, you say, Trebor can't really be in favor of eliminating wardecs. I'm afraid so:
"90% of the time, the corp that gets wardecced just turtles up because they have absolutely no choice. They're outgunned and outmatched. Look at the wardec system, with all of the exceptions, and the rules for adding allies, and timers, and all that crap. What does that remind you of? What system that everybody agreed was awful did you just rip out of the game and radically simplify?"
Sorry folks, allowing combat in highsec is too complicated. Time to pull the plug.

Two step

Two step thinks along the same lines as Trebor. He begins the conversation on wardecs by complaining that there hasn't been a reduction in "random wardeccing and grief wardeccing" since the latest wardec nerf. Yes, another of your CSM reps thinks there's entirely too much aggressive PvP in highsec right now. The wardec nerfs haven't gone far enough, yet. And what does Two step have against "grief wardeccing"?
"The issue is that the sharks don't have real risk. If I'm wardeccing 5 man mission corps, and let's say they're the best 5 man mission corp in all the world, and they're really good and kick my ass, all I have to do is let the wardec lapse."
Two step is apparently among those who think wars should be fair fights--that aggressors should never pick on those whom they perceive as weak or defenseless. Note, again, the inconsistency: It's not "risk" if an aggressor can let the war lapse, i.e. dock up for a week. But if the victim of the wardec has to dock up for a week, that's griefing. And what ever happened to calling in allies? Isn't that risk, and an option for the defender besides docking up?

Meissa Anunthiel

Meissa didn't have as much to say, but from what he did say, his opinions reflected Trebor and Two step's. His main issue with wardecs is that they don't invite real combat, since the victims are forced to dock up. But wouldn't immunity from wardecs allow highsec players to have near-total safety? Meissa disagreed:
"You can always be out-marketed, you can always be suicide ganked..."
Of course, if we're going to end wardecs on the basis of aggression being bad, why not ban suicide ganking, too? As readers of MinerBumping have seen, highsec miners are petitioning us on the assumption that suicide ganking has already been banned. Meissa elaborates, pointing out that the people who get wardecced tend to be innocent victims, who should not be forced into PvP with more powerful foes:
"You're talking about being able to own POS's as one of the advantages to being in a player corp. How many of these corps that are decced have POS's? If it's 10%, I'll buy you lots of things. But it's not that. The vast majority of the groups are small. They're poor."
It's the same old line we hear time and again from the miners: If you want to shoot at someone, fight pirates in lowsec who want combat. Apparently the CSM members represent their constituency well. But it's not just CSM. There are those in CCP who share this view.

CCP Solomon

Solomon had a lot to say about wardecs. He's not a fan. He begins by joking that "it would be easier to just remove the wardec system completely", but I can forgive the joke. I object to the things he said in seriousness.
...Solomon explained...that the general idea has always been to develop a toolset where two entities could participate in mutual combat even in highsec space.
This might appear to be an innocent remark, since wardecs do include situations where both sides want to fight. But Solomon went on to say that the problem is, in the majority of wars, one side just stays docked up, and no kills occur. The point of wardecs, Solomon says, is balanced, consensual PvP:
"Should it be limited to each party's ability to engage and fight, though? I mean that's what we're trying to zero in on: That consensual, highsec engagement where it's mutual, and both sides have the ability to participate and cause losses and cause damage. That's the kind of thing we want to be moving towards and encouraging... If we're going to balance the system, you need to understand what the primary goal is that you're trying to satisfy. And is that you want mutual highsec engagements, or do I want a situation where one side is the complete aggressor, where the strong preys on the weak, and the weak huddle in stations?"
So far, the situation is looking pretty bleak for wardecs. After all the nerfs to aggression that have already been put in place, aren't things balanced yet? No, because carebears still occasionally die. It's like I said from the beginning. The carebears want to completely remove aggression from highsec. No more non-consensual PvP.

And yet, there are still those who believe in spaceships being able to commit acts of violence against other spaceships in highsec. Let's look at the bright side...

THE GOOD

Alekseyev Karrde

If Trebor is the villain of the CSM, Alek played the role of the hero. He strenuously defended the continued existence of wardecs. When the carebear caucus brought up the point about corps turtling up during a war, he observed that very often the wardeccers are small corps who force larger corps to dock up.
Alek pointed out this has little to do with strength or capability, but simply willingness to engage in PvP. "...you should not be able to play EVE in your own little world and not be affected by other players."
The carebears complained that even when the defenders do start to win, the aggressors will dock up, and no one can have any fun. Alek made another good point in response to that argument:
"But why do you care? You won! Why does it matter that they couldn't beat you, they fought, you kicked their ass, and that's EVE for you."
My favorite part was Alek's response to Trebor's observation about the highsec logistics people being wardecced.
"God forbid you actually defend your highsec logistics. Wow. That's soooo crazy."
At the very least, we have a CSM member who is willing to speak favorably of non-consensual wardecs. Proper EVE players should be concerned that we're at the stage where this is seriously being debated, though.

Seleene

To begin with, Seleene just let the conversation play out. But then, as if realizing for the first time how much the situation in highsec has deteriorated, he came to life.
"Wait a minute. Something just went off in my head here. You're literally advocating that the days of 'I am pissed off at these people and I don't care if they agree that I'm pissed off at them, I'm going to wardec them and rip their shit apart', is that what you're trying to get away from?"
NPC corps are immune from wardecs, but they lack certain advantages that player corps have. There was some talk about a third option (i.e. player corps that are immune from wardecs). I'll get to that again later, but Seleene wisely spoke against it.
Seleene took a moment to reiterate once again that this middle ground between the safety bubble of the NPC corp, and the rest of the hostile world, didn't make any sense. Seleene emphasized that there should be a clear choice between the two.
Seleene also got to put in the last word of the conversation, when Meissa bemoaned the fate of the "small, poor" corps that get wardecced:
"Well then maybe they need to get more friends and they need to learn to defend themselves better in a PvP game."

Hans Jagerblitzen

Hans didn't have too much to say, but in these dark days, we'll take what we can get. He spoke in favor of the continued existence of wardecs, since it allows a form of PvP where the number of combatants in a battle can be limited, as opposed to nullsec battles where giant fleets can be hot-dropped on top of you at any time. Hans had one other good comment, in response to the suggestion of a middle ground where people can hang out with friends in highsec without being eaten by sharks:
"But that's what EVE is. Being eaten by every other shark out there."
The CSM can be a force for good. When a member of the CSM explains to a CCP employee "what EVE is", the CSM is pulling its weight. But have things gotten so bad that no one in CCP stands in favor of the spirit of EVE?

CCP Fozzie

Fozzie only spoke up once, according to the minutes, but it was to say something intelligent.
"A wardec where only one side wants to be in it isn't any less legitimate than a bounty that only one side wants. We're not going to go to anyone and ask them if they'd like to accept the bounty placed on them."
A good point. Much of what happens in EVE is non-consensual. That's just the give-and-take of games in general. Sadly, it gave CCP Solomon the opportunity to offer this terrible response:
"But at least with the bounty system, Concord is still there to protect you. In the wardec system, it's not."
These are the kinds of conversations occurring between CCP employees who determine the fate of EVE.

THE MIXED

CCP SoniClover

I really wanted to put SoniClover in the good column, because he said some very encouraging things. Unfortunately, he also made one very troubling remark--so he's in the gray. Let's start with the good. SoniClover made an argument that I have been making for some time now, which is that highsec players can have a huge impact on the rest of the galaxy. Lowsec, nullsec, and wormsec people can't simply ignore them. All areas of EVE affect each other.
"...the higher economic impact that you are having, the higher the chance that other people will be interacting with what you are doing. You should never be able to have a huge economic impact on the game and become completely immune by the game mechanics, to be completely safe from others."
SoniClover took a strong stand against those who would remove all risk from highsec:
"And it seems that some are clamoring a lot for the game system to protect them. And we're trying to minimize that as much as possible. EVE is never going to give you complete game system security. And we're never going to go that route."
Now that's the kind of attitude we want from CCP. On the other hand, proper EVE players should be concerned that clamoring for total safety is reaching CCP's ears. It is as I warned you. And now for the comment that disqualified SoniClover from the good column:
"Maybe the solution is in giving players more choices in how to set up the risk they are putting themselves into. Right now you have two choices, you can be in an NPC corp, with taxes and lack of social identity, but it gives you immunity from wardecs. Or maybe you can form player corporations with all the economic advantages, and social interaction, but there’s nothing in between. There are no other choices. Maybe I want to form a group with my friends, and enjoy that social interaction, but not be able to be eaten by every shark out there."
This is the middle ground comment I was referring to earlier. The middle ground option would simply be a wardec-immune corp--like an NPC corp--with additional privileges currently available only to player corps. In other words, yet another big nerf to highsec aggression. One more step toward the carebear dream of a risk-free theme park. No thanks.

That's it. I realize that meeting minutes have the potential to be inaccurate, and I am a fair-minded gentleman, so if the minute-taker got you wrong, feel free to send me an EVEmail or leave a comment.

As for the rest of you, I hope that this was an eye-opening experience, and will serve you well when it comes time to vote. Many of the current CSM members will be standing for reelection this spring.

35 comments:

  1. "Maybe I want to form a group with my friends, and enjoy that social interaction, but not be able to be eaten by every shark out there."

    You know how you do that? You stay in your NPC corp and form an invite-only/password protected chat channel. There, problem solved. All the social interaction you ever wanted in a tidy little package.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is indeed troubling to hear that 'whether space-violence is good or bad' is a topic of debate. Still, our cause righteous, we march on to the beat of breaching mackinaws.

    -Pig

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'll start by saying I support the idea of allowing high sec fighting, allowing highsec ganking, scams, extortion and all those other things. I also support what minerbumping primarily stands for (encouraging ATK mining and getting rid of bots and bot wannabes).

    The wardec thing is more difficult though. It's all very well saying "you can get eaten by sharks, learn to fight", but if you have a corp with 100 members a combined few billion isk at their disposal, and you have a corp with 10 newbies and no more experience than a free destroyer or two, then that's just crazy. Sure it'll be a fast experience curve, and a fast bankrupter.

    Of course that isn't actually a problem with the system, it's a problem with the wardeccers picking on corps they know they can stomp all over in their sleep. So perhaps if you want to stop ccp nerfing wardecs even more, you should remind big corps to stop abusing the system for stupidly easy kills.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The 10 newbies can stay in the employ of an NPC corp, while using a shared chat channel to coordinate activities, if they are not ready for the rigors of war.

      Delete
    2. "I also support what minerbumping primarily stands for (encouraging ATK mining and getting rid of bots and bot wannabes)."

      Minerbumping primarily stands for keeping nonconsensual PvP in Highsec - as Alekseyev Karrde said, "...you should not be able to play EVE in your own little world and not be affected by other players." It's not about getting rid of bots. Everybody is already against botting, and that's not a point of contention.

      "if you have a corp with 100 members a combined few billion isk at their disposal, and you have a corp with 10 newbies and no more experience than a free destroyer or two, then that's just crazy."
      100-man corps don't wardec 10-man corps, unless they're paid a lot of money to - it's just too boring for the larger corp. As noted in the CSM minutes, it's usually a smaller corp attacking a larger corp.

      "Of course that isn't actually a problem with the system, it's a problem with the wardeccers picking on corps they know they can stomp all over in their sleep. So perhaps if you want to stop ccp nerfing wardecs even more, you should remind big corps to stop abusing the system for stupidly easy kills."
      The strong attacking the weak happens everywhere in EVE, it's in the nature of the game. I hope people can disabuse themselves of the notion that every fight must be 'honorable and fair'. CCP may as well put a stop to gatecamping and roaming gangs that prey on ratters.

      Delete
    3. I said bots and bot-wannabes. I believe they're called bot-aspirants by MB.

      In the case of small vs large, then sure let it be. But that's not always the case. Sometimes the big does pick on the tiny just for the hell of it. The "strong vs weak" argument doesn't work when the strong are vets who want to shoot in highsec and the weak are a few players that are a couple of weeks old trying to be social.

      Wardec is not the same as gatecamping and roaming gangs. You can learn to escape gate camps, and learn to spot gangs coming so you can escape. With wardecs you either have to sit in for ten minutes, or if you're a small group vs a big group, potentially lose your ships over and over. Now if the attacker has only bought one or two ships then learning to swarm is good. But if they've bought their fleet then you're buggered until the wardec expires.

      Wardecs are fine. Wardecs praying on the very weak or the novice is not, in my opinion.

      Delete
    4. ^ I don't know why I said 10 minutes, I obviously meant sit in for a week.

      Delete
    5. "Wardec is not the same as gatecamping and roaming gangs. You can learn to escape gate camps, and learn to spot gangs coming so you can escape. With wardecs you either have to sit in for ten minutes, or if you're a small group vs a big group, potentially lose your ships over and over."

      You can drop corp to evade the wardec. You can hire allies. You can avoid wardeccers in the same way that you would avoid hostiles in lowsec and zerosec.

      "Wardecs are fine. Wardecs praying on the very weak or the novice is not, in my opinion."
      If players, even very young players, choose to band together and enjoy the advantages of a Player Corporation, then they must accept the risk of being wardecced. Unless a large corporation has a very special interest in attacking a particular group of newer players, avoiding them is easy - you can disband your corp repeatedly until they lose interest. Wardecs applied to corporations with newer players is fine, just like shooting newer players who wander into lowsec is fine. It's up to the new player to learn how to deal with it, and grow from the experience.

      Delete
    6. I actually can't think of anything to disagree with most of those points. Well done.

      Except "avoiding them is easy - you can disband your corp repeatedly until they lose interest". That's similar to eve sending you a message "x wants a war, do you accept?", except more hassle.

      I guess my main point is I don't necessarily thing new players should be forced into either hiding, quit and reform, or forced pvp. Yes I realise eve is seen as a pvp shooty game, but I don't feel "hey we have decided that we can shoot you in highsec for the next week. Feel free to shoot back if you've managed to scrape enough knowledge and isk together to buy some destroyers" is a good way to encourage new players to stick around if they wanted to learn other things first.

      I go pvping now, but for the few few weeks of play I wanted to understand how other aspects of eve worked so that I have better knowledge into navigation, trade hubs, markets, ship types, the value of isk etc before I go head first into pvping with someone who can name every ships stats off the top of his/her head.

      If you never want to combat then eve really isn't for you. But forcing either hiding or combat on someone who hasn't even figured out what all the buttons do, simply because they wanted to do stuff with other players, seems wrong.

      Delete
    7. Player corporations have some advantages over NPC corps. You pay for those advantages by being subject to wardecs.

      Eve University has published a good set of procedures for carebear corps under wardec, I suggest emulating them.

      If you don't want to deal with this, as others have suggested, have everyone drop to NPC corps, have password protected chat channels, and use contracts to handle distribution issues.

      Delete
    8. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    9. if they wanted to get rid of bots they would target asteroid fields. bots never ice mine because of the shitty isk/hour. only those without keystroke automation would ice mine, because they're afk and not bots.

      Delete
  4. I support the idea of player-owned non-wardeccable corps. Bearcorps. Goblin had some good things to say about this recently, and I agree with his reasoning. "If your goal is safety then not playing alone is making a mistake. I can't tell how much it is a bad design." Just so. Either CCP should eliminate the ability to be safe altogether (not a bad idea), by tossing newbs out of NPC corps after a month or two. Or they should allow bearcorps so that at least highsec dwellers are not atomized to get their prized safety. This keeps them in the game longer, hopefully long enough that they can graduate out of the desire for continual safety.

    Nony above makes the point that bears can use the existing NPC corps as their own private bearcorp. This may be true, but for the most part, they don't. Because they are newbs, right? They don't know how to make a private channel. And also because building your own corp, even if it is just a little bear corp, is fun. You are building something. It's nothing like being in an NPC corp.

    Now, I do recognize one big downside of the bearcorp idea: slippage. In my opinion the tax bite for bearcorps should be large, and its privileges should be small. But there will be a natural tendency for bears to lobby CCP to give them more. And that may end up making the bearcorps too good.

    Still, I do think the general idea is sound.

    Maybe this makes me a heretic...

    ReplyDelete
  5. When I first started playing EvE 7+ yrs ago, I like many was the carebear extraordinaire and didn't wish to shoot another player at all, EVER. Fast forward 6 months and I'm in my first player corp that gets war dec'ed. We decided to fight and I'm so glad we did.

    This 'butterfly effect' put me on the path to PVP which in turn drove me to join into nullsec alliance activities, which then turned into me becoming a fleet FC, that ultimately led me into becoming a co-captain playing in tournament teams and making it to the semi-finals (which if you haven't flown in the tourny for me personally that's the ultimate PVP rush).

    I think there's some carebears out there that possibly are protesting this before they actually try PVP. They might just find like I did that it's quite fun and something you're actually good at over time.

    The war dec system might not be perfect. However, I for one am glad that it is there or I probably would have quit EvE long ago for lack of excitement.

    Just my 2 cents.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think there should be an option for free mutual-agreed wars, not only between corps but between individuals. Sort of like limited engagements, except they last longer and you don't have to steal or activate a killright to start them. Non-mutually agreeable wardecs should continue to cost isk.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is supposed to be implemented with the next expansion, according to the minutes....

      Delete
  7. I wrote about the necessity of the middle ground just recently. http://greedygoblin.blogspot.hu/2013/01/11-csm-votes-for-sale_14.html

    The problem is that NPC corps are already safe from wardecs (and awox). 1-man corps are already safe from both (you just close down when decced and move to another). We can agree that CCP will never take that away or newbies will be camped on the school system undock.

    What does real player corp offer that 1-man corp can't give? Not much. My main is still in the Science and Trade Institution and I see no reason to join any player corps. If you look closer, the ONLY benefit the real player corp have is a chat channel and a simplified standing list. Joining a player PvE corp in highsec is simply a mistake. Because of that, only morons start highsec PvE corps which teach newbies nothing and usually end up in being smashed in a war or by awoxer.

    So before we touch the wardec question, we must answer a more fundamental one: are corporations have a purpose in highsec PvE?

    If the corp have a purpose, it's obvious that this purpose must be defended by them against others. But if it has no purpose and it's just for socializing, why can't we let them? Or do you suggest that corporation invites are just traps like the infamous "free stuff for new players" cans?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For missioners, player corps have real value. They offer shared ownership of wrecks and cans, allowing salvaging and looting with 2+ players. But more importantly player corps allow them to not pay 10% tax on bounties and mission rewards. Advanced missioners normally don't salvage anyway.

      It is true that player corps offer nothing tangible to miners or traders.

      Personally my feeling is that CCP should increase the disadvantage of NPC corps as follows: add 0.25% extra sales tax and 0.25% extra brokers fees. This will serve to drive miners and traders out of NPC corps, while not reducing the income of casual players very much.

      Delete
    2. The mission taxes and your suggested sales taxes can be dodged by being in a 1-man corp.

      Delete
    3. Galdius:

      To expand on Gev's statement: Trader alt grinds rep with owner of trade hub, then makes a one man corp with zero sales tax, and never undocks.

      Players either contract, or in-station trade ( no fees there ) stuff they need to sell.

      Most of your taxes and fees just went away.

      Delete
  8. For me personally, the purpose of a player corp is to operate a highsec POS for research. A fringe benefit is easier moving of stuff between alts. But to reduce the chance of a wardecs (and the need to shut down the POS), the corp has to keep a low profile, limiting the activities of the members. So the corp members can't do a lot of fun things without risk, and the need for out-of-corp alts. I find it quite manageable under the current game mechanics and wouldn't want a change. To quote Ben Franklin, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

    ReplyDelete
  9. Honestly think people are reading way too much into this. CCP aren't going to get rid of hi-sec wardecs, people.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think Jamesie is a wittle afraid that his precious Eve will become friendlier to casual players.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Jamesie" has quite clearly stated where he thinks CCP might try to take hisec and why it would be a bad thing for EVE all around. His posts on themittani.com are not tough reads. Disagree on those points if you want, but none of those have anything to do with being unfriendly to "casual players" (a pointless term, by the way).

      Becoming friendly to new players means improving the new player experience, NOT gutting what EVE is about by allowing them to stay in a safety bubble for their entire life in EVE. Nobody in MB is arguing that NPC corps should go away or that rookie systems should be anything but sacrosanct. This is about year old toons, nullsec alts, and massive logistics corps being able to operate with increasing impunity in a game where everything that happens in hisec has a huge effect on the rest of the game too.

      Delete
  11. No wardecs in empire?

    Remove manufacturing and research facilities, bring back meta 0 rat drops to empire with tags instead of meta 1+ drops.

    Its what wars are fought for not necessarily by those with the guns but not every war dec is a griefer corp - easier to awox anyway.

    This CSM meeting is possibly the scariest as it might be the turning point for Eve's future identity.

    If I wanted inconsequential theme park pvp I'd play world of tanks more often.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I've embraced my Hero mantel whole heartedly.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Maybe they should revamp how easy it is to create your own corp. Or maybe design a balance of corps (not making things soft skinned, but encouraging combat regardless to security space).

    Like, a balance of X amount versus X/Y amount... not to exceed 10% of either #. While it could be ok for 100man corp to dec a 90man or 110man corp. Or incur a "rating" as to the combat effectiveness of a corp.

    So regardless if your 10 or 100 in your corp, your ship/skill balance of members would have a rating that would put you in a caliber (only for deccing purposes I guess).

    I dunno, I see what's being said, but maybe the delivery is off.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hi James,

    My name is Rory, otherwise as known as CCP Solomon within the EVE community. Thanks for taking the time to write these words and sharing your opinion of the recently published CSM minutes.

    If I may speak to a few of your points, firstly regarding mutual high sec pvp. Hans made what I thought was an excellent point about the war dec system being an enabler for organisations who want to engage in mutual CONCORD sanctioned conflict, free from the interference of others. You only need to look at the popularity of groups like RvB to see that this play style is clearly something that many EVE players want and enjoy.

    In response to this I posed the question of whether the CSM deemed this to be the primary goal of the war dec system. In the second quoted excerpt I move on to offer an alternative goal to the CSM, to enable those strong pvp entities to prey on the weak, those who have no chance of defending themselves and give them a proper taste of what EVE is all about.

    It's a time consuming and arduous task to balance game systems when the users are so divided about what the function of the system should be. It was great to have an opportunity to canvas the opinions of the CSM on what they thought were the goals of the system, we gained invaluable insight that we will absolutely take into account when next looking at the war dec system.

    Now, there is also an element to this dialogue which doesn't come across very well in text. On the whole, I felt the that the opinions of the CSM were quite one sided in favour of the stronger entities (usually the aggressors) that use the war dec system to prey on the weak.

    I don't have any problems with this opinion whatsoever, infact this risk is part of what makes EVE unique and I have no interesting in jeopardising that. However, I do feel very strongly about the CSM's responsibility to make the opinions of all EVE's players heard. There are a good number of players out there that find being on the end of an aggressive war dec to be an unpleasant thing, the kind of the thing that makes them log off to go and play another game. The point is not whether this opinion is right or wrong but rather that the opinion is heard as part of an open and transparent debate on the subject.

    Which brings me to my final point. It is of absolute paramount importance that people reading the CSM minutes keep in mind that they are reading a word for word transcription of a debate on any many subjects within EVE. Few decisions are made at the summit, nothing is committed to a development schedule and the people present do not have the final say on what features and changes go into development. The purpose of the summit is to understand the issues of the day, entertain ideas, gather as many opinions, angles and sides of an argument as we can. Only by doing this groundwork will we be equipped to make good decisions on what is best for EVE at this time and in the future.

    I agree, some of these opinions are controversial, and I absolutely welcome them all in the name of enlightenment and deeper knowledge on the subject. I am also happy to have them printed word for word in the minutes, I have no interest in censorship on this topic.

    However, this does put a certain responsibility on the reader to understand what they are reading, an open debate on the subject that considers all opinions without necessarily taking them on board. Taking opinions out of context, mistaking the opinion of one person as the voice of CCP and assuming their opinion is the final word on the future direction of EVE is potentially damaging to the process.

    Participants may become reluctant to speak on a subject for fear of incurring the wrath of the community or unwilling to present a standpoint that goes against the grain for similar reasons. If I may be so bold as to say this is a situation that I think nobody wants.

    Anyway, if you've made it this far, I take my hat off to you. Thanks for reading and keep up the great with the blog.

    Cheers,
    Rory.





    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello CCP Solomon. Thank you for taking the time to post your comment. The possibility of the meeting minutes "losing something in translation" was one that concerned me, so I appreciate the extra input.

      Delete
  15. CCP forgot to fire CCP Solomon when they were getting rid of all the chaff after Incarna.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is probably the stupidest thing you could've posted after CCP Solomon's post. In fact I bet you didn't even read it. I'm not trying to insult you or anything, its just best if you let the miners make comments like that.

      Delete
    2. Oh I did read it, I am not convinced that it is genuine after the 2+ year long trend of CCP making highsec less risky. It certainly could be true that CCP Solomon is playing the devil's advocate in this case but, until this trend changes or I see some evidence that this is all being done to actually balance the game then I'll be happy to recant that.

      Delete
    3. The real problem is they sacked a lot of great people only to replace them with worse people a year later, while keeping the shitty employees.

      Delete
  16. I'm in favor of all player corps being subject to aggressive war-decs. At the same time, I'm also in favor of adding more risk to these wardecs.

    Really, undocking your ship should be risky... anywhere... you should always be aware that someone can suicide gank you, that your corp may be wardecced, or that something bad may happen to you.

    Really, a griefer corp wardeccing a Newbish PvE Corp doesn't have a lot of risks. I don't know what the solution is, but the "middle ground" does NOT necessarily mean war-dec immunity... Options might be:
    -- Limit the ability of an aggressor to disengage... War-dec someone, and you may be stuck in a war you cannot win against them and their allies for a month...
    -- Allow for more allies..
    -- Allow for sudden allies... Perhaps create pacifist corps.. that can flag wardec aggressors as suspects if they shoot first... These corps may not own a POS, may not declare war, may pay some "concord protection" or whatever...

    In the end, we want mechanics that don't result in "docking up for a week", but instead result in ships in space, ideally blowing up on both sides...

    ReplyDelete

Note: If you are unable to post a comment, try enabling the "allow third-party cookies" option on your browser.