Welcome to Jester's Trek.
I'm your host, Jester. I've been an EVE Online player for about six years. One of my four mains is Ripard Teg, pictured at left. Sadly, I've succumbed to "bittervet" disease, but I'm wandering the New Eden landscape (and from time to time, the MMO landscape) in search of a cure.
You can follow along, if you want...

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Things the CSM thinks

As I mentioned yesterday, since the second CSM "fireside chat" this year, the CSM has closed ranks and for all intents and purposes eliminated all daylight between individual members.  We are quickly and often reminded that the CSM is in essential agreement about the issues facing EVE, that there is no internal dissent between members, and any attempt to drive a wedge between individual CSM members will not work because they live in a world of agreeable happy sunshine and unicorns and bacon where even former foes like Mittens and Trebor hold hands and sing "The Hills Are Alive" while the alternate CSM members "ooh" and "aah".

Cough.  Sorry.  Got carried away.  ;-)

Anyway, point is: we're told that "the CSM" essentially agrees with each other on major issues.  As I said yesterday, this is a great political ploy for getting CSM6 members re-elected, but not so great from an accountability stand-point.  How is the voter to know which CSM6 members to vote for?  In the CSM December Summit minutes, we are told many many things "the CSM" thinks, but hardly anything at all that individual members think.  It would be useful to understand what individual CSM members think about the many controversial issues raised in the December Summit minutes, don't you agree?

With that in mind, I present you with a partial list of...

Things the CSM Thinks
  • Pilots -- most particularly super-carrier pilots -- should be given a "partial respec" of their skill-points (page 12).
  • The Naga is too powerful (page 13).
  • Super-carriers should be able to dock in stations (pages 13 and 17); and,
  • super-carriers should not be treated as "special snowflakes" (page 13).
  • Super-carriers should be given a super-carrier-specific mod for tackling other super-capital ships (pages 13 and 17).
  • Incursion Vanguard sites offer minimal risk (page 13).
  • Drones should just give ISK bounties instead of dropping alloys (page 16).
  • Alliances should be able to tax member ratting income (page 16).
  • Wars in EVE are driven by hatred and grudges rather than resources (page 16).
  • Fleets of Rifters should be able to tackle and hold down a Titan (page 17).
  • There both should and should not be a new class of capital ship specialized in tackling (page 17).(1)
  • There should never be new super-capital ships added to EVE (page 17).
  • Outposts should be destructible (pages 17 and 18).
  • There are multiple alliances which live in NPC stations, amass super-capitals, and hold high-value moons (page 18).
  • NPC station services should be destructible (page 18); and,
  • when destroyed, should not be repairable but should regenerate over time (page 18).(2)
  • Station service hit-points are at the right level (page 19); and,
  • they should not be a viable target for small gangs looking to force sov-holders to defend their territories (page 19).
  • Faction Warfare leaders should be elected (page 20).
  • Faction Warfare corps should be able to set the tax rates of NPC stations in low-sec (page 20).
  • Rewards in low-sec, particularly Faction Warfare rewards, are not high enough (pages 20 and 25).
  • There should be some sort of wormhole stabilizer to make invading w-space easier (page 20).(3)
  • Sleepers should attack POSs and/or pod people (page 20).(3)
  • Electronic Attack Frigates should be able to "impact" super-capital ships immune to e-war (page 21).(4)
  • Drakes should lose their shield resistance bonus and their kinetic missile damage bonus (page 21); and,
  • be given a rate of fire bonus and missile velocity bonus instead (page 21).
  • An Infrastructure Hub upgrade should be produced to further reduce POS fuel costs for sov-holders (page 24).
  • Sov bills are too high, and sov-holders don't receive any benefit from them (page 24).
  • Sov-holders should be able to build a module in their own space that hurts other people's sov space (page 24).
  • Null-sec is about hate and cruelty (page 25).
  • There is little enjoyment to be found in low-sec (page 25).
  • The contraband system should be removed (page 25).
  • Buying a PvP ship should be an investment that brings in ISK (page 25); and,
  • a destroyed frigate should provide less rewarding drops for those that destroy it than a destroyed battleship (page 25).
  • The person who destroys your ship should get 10-20% of your insurance pay-out for that ship (page 26), including if they gank you in high-sec (also page 26).(3)
  • Despite the fact CCP has a large number of assets for the NeX store, they should not be released at this time (page 30).
  • Players should be able to train more than one pilot per account by paying for this privelige with PLEXes (page 30).
  • Players don't care about their corporation logos (page 30); and,
  • they care about their alliance logos much more (page 30).
  • The unique attraction of EVE is "you can grief people" and "it's not a game for wusses" (page 32).

Feel free to use this list as a guide-post for your questions for individual CSM members running for re-election.  Oh, and one more that's just fun: "the CSM" thinks fire is hot and it burns (page 30).

Finally, it's worth noting that "one" CSM thinks that high-sec income should be nerfed whenever possible (page 20), but that "other members of the CSM were quick to object to that suggestion."  Guess "the CSM" doesn't agree on every single thing after all.

(1) And I thought I was good at simultaneously believing two incompatible things at once.
(2) I'm quite sure that sov-holders definitely would not create daily blobs designed to knock out these services in NPC stations in their spheres of  influence.
(3) Only "some" of the CSM think this.

(4) Titan-nerfing Sentinel is a go!


  1. Why people even vote for the CSM is beyond me. If CCP want to understand it's users feelings on specific topics they should create a polling system, where each account gets a vote. It would provide a useful sanity check to the agenda driven bullshit the CSM spew.

    1. Creating a polling system would not only not solve any issues, it would raise suspicions as many polls most companies put out have a pre-determined outcome and they craft the questions to fit that outcome.

  2. So if I'm reading this right, "the CSM" thinks holding sov in null should be even more powerful and lucrative, and all other regions of space and styles of play should be nerfed. That about right?

    1. The thing is, currently sov has no value. With the anomaly nerf, there is no good reason to bear in 0.0. You can make more money, and it's safer, in high sec doing Incursions. They're more fun, too. And because alliance income is tied to moons, which have nothing to do with sov, you're better off holding moons and no sov at all. Alliances currently hold sov because it's fun to fight big wars. It's the only reason goons fight, that's for sure. But that only goes so far, sov needs to have some sort of value to provoke more conflict and encourage new people into null.

  3. " It would be useful to understand what individual CSM members think about the many controversial issues raised in the December Summit minutes, don't you agree?"

    A big YES! It's asinine that CCP/CSM allowed the minutes to go out without the differentiation of which CSM members supported which items.

  4. Standing on the Edge of the Earth... (look into this new future face)

    Thats why CSM votes and campaigns are very important to be taken seriously and not just a way to get Alliance members "in a cool chair" to get CCP make "features" to them (like Vuk if I am not mistaken). Also CCP should make real surveys (not like last time) to know what really the players think, and maybe trow a implant to make sure people get interested.

  5. One point: Carole did correct us about the "The CSM" thing. Her CSM did that too, mainly because it was hard to identify a dozen people's voices from a monophonic sound stream.

    Another point: the lack of any comment from CSM about *who* made the suggestion about wormhole stabilisers indicates that the person who made the suggestion is probably embarrassed that they made the suggestion. Because I dislike the guy and his community so much, I'm convinced that it's the one who promised not to talk about stuff he doesn't understand. But he's an ex-lawyer so I'm guessing not talking about everything as if he was an expert is impossible for him. Thus the hush-hush: someone got caught out derping and now it's a case of turtling up and hoping that comment just goes away.

    Anyone who is serious about trying to understand faction warfare without actually playing faction warfare should just hit the forums and research all the posts by Hans Jagerblitzen, along with having a good read of the threads he's posted in more than once. Hans strikes me as being a particularly sensible FW player.

    I'm definitely on the side of having FW occupation mechanics swapped out for "sovereignty lite", but I also want sovereignty lite to look more like FW does today. I want all sovereignty and occupation mechanics replaced with one system, for player and NPC alike. The empires should have TCUs and IHUBs just like the players do. The NPCs get access to a CONCORD rapid response relay beacon, but that's the only difference between player and NPC sovereignty rules under my ideal system.

    Perhaps I should write a blog about the December Summit myself.

    The unique attraction of EVE is that it is Everyone Vs Everyone, all the time. There are some rules in hisec to make PvP less likely, but it still happens. Some people call this "griefing", but it is what it is.

  6. Here's a thought, why not just hire a court reporter to transcribe these sessions and then just redact the parts containing sensitive information about upcoming changes?

    Also do you plan an additional article wherein you explain why these selections were chosen and why, presumably, you disagree with them?

    1. Having a dedicated stenographer present is something that comes up after every CSM summit and for some (silly) reason has never been done.

      As for why I chose these particular points? Most of them are controversial to one EVE population or another. Nothing more complex than that, really. A wormholer can ask a potential CSM candidate how they feel about stabilizers or sleepers podding people, for instance.

  7. I'm not going to pick through all of those, but several of them were from the wh/fw session that I wrote the minutes for, and I know them to be incorrect.

    Faction Warfare leaders should be elected (page 20).
    Faction Warfare corps should be able to set the tax rates of NPC stations in low-sec (page 20).

    These were both proposed by CCP, and were not universally approved of by the CSM. The minutes don't actually even say what we thought of them, which is my bad.

    I also explained my system of "The CSM", "Some CSMs", "A CSM", which was certainly used for the FW/WH session.

    I also object to "Rewards in low-sec, particularly Faction Warfare rewards, are not high enough (pages 20 and 25)." What we (the CSM as a whole) said in both cases was that the risk/reward ratio was off for lowsec. In both cases, we suggested lessening risk, because there is a *huge* gap between highsec and 0.0, and lowsec is way too close to 0.0 level of risk.

    Also, Mara, you are wrong about who proposed the wormhole stuff. I'm letting the person in question speak for themselves, but I am not letting the wrong person get smeared for something they didn't say.

    1. Thanks for clarifying that Two Step. That's comforting.

    2. When I read a long list of changes to make SOV more valuable (it has a value btw try building supers without it...). And make living in null NPC harder.

      And then see a CSM member comment risk in lowsec should be reduced alarm bells start ringing.
      I get the distinct impression from this CSM you really just don't care about small gang PvP and are almost resentful of the existence of the lowsec piracy lifestyle.
      Am I reading to much into this? Or do I really need to get worried that I can't blow up a ratting cruiser in my trusty Rifter anymore in the near future if the CSM has it's way?

  8. Hans Jagerblitzen on the CSM minutes: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=670627#post670627

  9. re: station services should not be a viable target for small gangs looking to force sov-holders to defend their territories (page 19)

    Actually the minutes read,

    "CCP asked if they should be turned into a target for small gangs, with lower EHP; The CSM said no."

    No comments are made about forcing sov-holders to defend their territories - and if it was, it's not in the minutes, so how did you hear about it?

    1. Disabling station services with a small gang in an attempt to force the defenders to undock has been part of the "farms and fields" strategy for small gangs forever.

    2. My point was that those words are yours, not the CSM's, at least not according to the minutes. For all intents and purposes, that line is not "what the CSM thinks", but "what Jester thinks the CSM thinks". If I didn't know better I'd say you're manoeuvring to make a run at CSM7.

    3. Going from "CSM said station services should not be a target for small gangs" to "CSM doesn't think sov holders should be required to defend themselves from small gangs" isn't really that much of a stretch.

      What this has to do with Jester "making a run at CSM7" is irrelevant. Ripard Teg ran for CSM6, it's not really a stretch to assume that he might make a run for CSM7.

      Lord knows Ripard/Jester/Garth has communicated far more frequently and more intensely with the player base than any of the CSM have individually or together. He'd be good for the CSM.

      Jester for CSM, dammit! He's got my votes.

    4. Direct quote out of the minutes: "CCP asked if station service hitpoints are too high. The CSM said they are fine, as they are supposed to be difficult to disable. CCP asked if they should be turned into a target for small gangs, with lower EHP; The CSM said no."

      I don't think my summary is very far off, tbqh.

  10. two step posted in more detail about the wormhole stuff on his blog. Good read.

  11. One of the things that makes wormholes unique is that they represent 0.0 profits for small groups. You cannot rat all day without exploring other people's space (which limits isk generation nicely) and the risk of PVP any time *without* local puts another cap on daily income. Simply put; either you dedicate several alts to watching connecting wormholes/keeping combat probes out/etc or every ship must have some PVP ability built in.

    Both keep isk/hour lower than 0.0. And both are incredibly fun game mechanics.

    Wormhole space, especially lower-class space, cannot sustain more than a small gang's worth of active players. Your individual wormhole represents an hour or two of playtime per day, which you can bank for a couple days before some entrepreneur steps in and does your sites for you. If you have 5-6 people in a class 2, you'll be invading neighboring holes every day looking for new sites. Some days you get a payday. Some days you get nothing. This has a dampening effect on wormhole population.

    A stabilizer will allow for roving PVP groups to overwhelm wormhole inhabitants. Maybe not in a C5/C6, but in C4s and below the lack of content means that there needs to be some sort of artificial restriction on the size of an invading force. Without it wormhole dwellers simply become prey to low/nullsec griefers.

    If you want to encourage wormhole PVP and make it feel less empty, make wormhole-wormhole connections easier to find than ladars. Heck; you could even have a dedicated (non-covops) ship that would make wormhole-wormhole connections appear like anomalies. Instead of spending an hour or two every day *before doing any fun activity* you could rapidly scope out today's neighbors, look for targets, and all of a sudden your wormhole isn't a private bubble any more; it's a system in a constantly shifting constellation, with both c1/c2s and empire space links or c5/c6s and dangerous predators only a couple of jumps away.

    1. This poster clearly knows nothing about wormholes higher than C3.

    2. Tough though it is, and sure I can tell the poster lives in a lower class WH, I cannot say he is incorrect in a lot of his points. Class 5's & Class 6's cannot sustain more then 2 dozen active pilots comfortably, and statics become desperately important, and the more you bring in the less you get.

      I mostly agree with Two-Step's blog post on this issue, Wormholes are not hard to assault you just have to think differently from a roaming gang and expend time and energy gathering forces (not a bad thing) I wouldn't want roves of 0.0 or even other WH inhabitance stabilising our WH's.... The whole risk to them is that they may be jumping in their fleet and not being able to get back, it's that committal that makes engagements more exciting and more tactical in nature.

      What people are really complaining about is the fact you can't drop in and ruin someone's day when it suits you, you have to plan and co-ordinate, and so you don't get many roaming griefing of WH's and that is a good thing as well.

      Also, WH space is definitely more inhabited then you think, nearly every connection we get has a POS and people living in it (even if they are in a different TZ to us and offline)

      And although I would have less objection of having a module that stabilises a WH time wise (ie can extend a 16hr WH to a 24 hr one, if you need to hold the door open just that little bit longer, for a cost of course) I would be opposed to stabilising Mass restrictions, because, WH corps basically get to claim sovereignty in the truest sense of the word, over something that current 0.0 basically prohibits.... The ability for non-alliance, smallish corps, who are willing to put in significant effort and capital to establish and hold territory and get all the ISK benefits of that territory, by extension the need to defend it successfully with good tactics and small numbers at a high but acceptable risk.... WH stabilisers would basically be opening the door with a sledge hammer and will totally break the delicate balance by making wormholes much less effort, yet still good isk.

    3. "I mostly agree with Two-Step's blog post on this issue, Wormholes are not hard to assault you just have to think differently"

      What you are seeing here is another permutation of the "they are making money while not in player null-sec and its not fair" argument. It has been tried with L4's,L5's,FW,WH,Incursions even in NPC null (look at the CSM minutes)

      WH corps took the chance and by trial and error found ways to live successfully in W space. Sure it looks easy now to the "gimme gimme" crowd but it wasn't when it was pioneered.

      As in real life this game will always be plagued by the unexceptional masses clamoring for the rewards of the exceptional without actually putting in any work.

  12. That does not make his post wrong, Steph. You seem to be rather negative today.

    1. I'm always negative. That's how I roll.

    2. "I'm always negative. That's how I roll."

      Pity. There are studies that show that a consistent negative outlook in life decreases life span.

      I will miss your posts...

  13. 90% of those suggestions are outright terrible. So terrible I think Mittens is just trolling the playerbase.

    1. ...as opposed to every other time Mittens has opened his mouth.

  14. "The person who destroys your ship should get 10-20% of your insurance pay-out for that ship"

    This has to be the most absurd idea ever.
    So the insurance company would actually pay the person who destroyed the property they had insured?!
    I suppose you have to be a ganker to find any logic in that.

    On a more serious note, what strikes me in the whole "gankers vs. carebears" debate is that - as far as I can see - only one side keeps trying to shove their vision of how the game should be played down everyone's throats and, furthermore, is attempting to get CCP to change the rules to directly increase the enjoyment and profits that are gained from their particular play style, at the cost of all other players.

    Disregarding any actual arguments being made - such as they were - this alone is reason enough for me to reject most of their ideas out of hand.

    1. Considering the recent change (no insurance in highsec, nearly complete, 'legal' opt out from war-decs - see EVE-UNI) and the continuous talk over the years about 'opt out' buttons and complete pvp protection in highsec, you seem to be a little confused. It's the 'indy' side that wants to shove its way down our throats, constantly trying to make EVE 'safer'. In general, the 'ganker's' position has over the last few years can pretty well be summed up as 'don't fuck with our sandbox'.

      As for the payout, you're right that it makes no sense from any kind of RP perspective. On the other hand, it would add some profit to actually getting into fights. With the current mechanics, most PvPers do PvE content, scams or suicide ganks to fund their PvP. If making a profit from actually shooting at eachother was viable, you would probably find suicide ganking and scams less common.

  15. Gotta say that the "FW Leaders" has been tried before, in an unofficial capacity in the caldari militia. It did not work. Direct quote from someone who was there described it as "Some members of the STPRO tried to setup a "governing structure" back in 2008. End result? A decent number of l33t pvpers said "fuck you" and some went as far to say "if you keep trying to provide wider organization and direction we are going to wardec you." This was despite those trying to do the organizing and such saying "it is only suggestions" and "you are welcome to take part in the organizing.""

    It's also making them too much like alliances. Militia's are not alliances, they are a collection of loosely affiliated corps all working for the same people (their respective factions). Organization would not be a bad thing, but trying to do it by making a few people 'the boss' will not work. Militia corps are infamous for being independent and hard to organize, so telling them that "this person is now your leader, do what they say" is not the best way to get them to cooperate :p

  16. There seem to be alot of bitching and moaning about the CSM minutes (as per usual). What i see and feel when reading the comments on various EVE-O forums (failheap, eve-o, etc etc)
    Is that the players dont want a balanced fun game that everyone can enjoy. They want a game that is balanced for them, in other words. "Buff my client, but nerf every other client to hell"
    Mittens might be smug, and thorn in the side of alot of players.
    but whomever says he has done a bad job as chairman of the CSM can just biomass his character right now!

    1. I see the "bitching and moaning" as a positive sign that intelligent and engaged players are advocating for their own "little slice of heaven" in the game they love so much.

      Contrast this with players leaving in droves like last summer. Its a matter of perspective I guess.

      As far as Mittens goes, he has done a decent job. Those that say otherwise, in my opinion, fall into one of several camps:

      1-are rabid "contrarians"

      2-despise him because he is the King of the Lepers

      3-loathe his arrogant,off-putting public persona and penchant for self-aggrandizement

      4-feel contempt for him on a personal level due to his oft-stated and quite bizarre political views.

      (this is just what I have heard :) )

      To me The Mittani is just what Eve needs...a polarizing figure that we all love to "hate".

      I hope he goes away soon...

  17. I honestly could care less what 'the csm' thinks. After all, 'the csm' 1- doesn't care what I, as a player think, 2- has turned into a political puppet show...as cicero said (paraphrased) 'give the publicans bread and circuses, and they'll be content to let you abuse them all you wish' and lastly, 3- the csm is ONLY concerned with their own particular gameplay, as if no other one exists, or is legitimate. the process needs to be restructured, and to be honest, I believe the entire csm mechanic has outlived its usefulness. When the chairman can be elected on the vote of one alliance, then I have to believe the system is broken.

    Scrap the current 'Cult of Shouting Minority' system and poll the playerbase directly. Hell, give me a screen at login saking 'how do you feel about supercap balance?'... at least then, if I choose to say 'don't give a rat's arse', then I was asked.

    And yes, I called it a Cult of Shouting Minority, because despite them being so vocal.. the representation does NOT represent the average eve player. Most of them, in every alliance Iv'e talked to have realized that the csm is much like congress...they'll say anything to get elected, then as soon as it's all said and done, and they get their postings and the trip to iceland to settle back and get cozy with the devs, the people they 'represent' are suddenly an afterthought...unless they threaten to revolt.

    1. How about you actually read about the different persons, and what they represent, and then try to get the ignorent people interested.
      It is like every other election, people dont vote, but then have the balls to complain as they are being buttfucked.
      Its actually quite mindboggling to see alot of the anger coming from the players towards the CSM when alot didnt even vote. I cant remember the voting numbers right now, but iirc it was below 50%.
      If you vote, then yes one can bitch and moan, how much one cba to. But if you dont care, which i can honestly say, not many highsec players do. Then just stop bitch and moan.

      Highsec has 67% of the playerbase, they could easily take over the CSM if wanted to, problem is getting them involved.
      And in all fairness, i spent over 1½ year of gametime in highsec, doing whatevs, and now im in 0.0. And without even breaking out an anecdote or two, highsec is incredibly boring.

    2. I don't actually disagree with you. I've voted in every csm election for the last 4 years, and every time. every single one, the candidates have turned out to be just as corrupt and dare I say it... useless as the ones before. I stand by my comment that they are a political tool, and that, when it boils down to it, they'll say and do anything to get elected and get their freebies, while leaving the rest of us to hang.

      I agree that highsec needs to get involved, and I'm still voting this year, even though I find it a pointless exercise. Next year, I probably won't. I'll kick back and watch the universe burn.

      I work to get my corpmates, my friends and even my enemies to vote so we can make some claim to actually putting in the work to try and change the system...BUT, it's bought and sold and paid for by the massive powerblocs that are the first to scream that anyone else BUT them gets goodies from CCP.

      I said it before, I'll say it again:

      Dear CCP;

      Paper's fine, Nerf Rock.


  18. The paraphrasing of 'bread and circuses' belonged to Juvenal, rather than Cicero. My apologies.

    iam pridem, ex quo suffragia nulli / uendimus, effudit curas; nam qui dabat olim / imperium, fasces, legiones, omnia, nunc se / continet atque duas tantum res anxius optat, / panem et circenses.

    Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses

  19. If they polled all players at the log-in screen Eve might be a a very different place.

    I saw a statistic that said 80-85% of the player-base resides in Hi-sec. If they all were plugged in to the process who know what would happen??? Probably nothing I would be interested in but, that said, I think we should find out.

    I don't like that 0.0 power blocs decided to use their influence to take over the CSM. I don't necessarily think that they have done a bad job, its just that I don't like the way they got elected.

    Jester should run. My only fear is that he is pulling a Senator Palpatine on us... :)

    1. Nice. That actually made me laugh out-loud.

  20. I decided to write a blog of my own to explain some of my thoughts and shamelessly used Jester's list as a baseline. Have a read! :)


  21. Those who care enough about the game to vote get CSM representation. Nullsec players are hugely outnumbered, but we have taken the few seconds to register a vote for a CSM representative. Hearing complaints about goons caring enough about the game to participate in democratic process is stupid.

    Players who are so casual that they can't be bothered to vote for CSM don't deserve a voice anyway.

    Spend less time whining and more time organizing. (HTFU)

  22. As a wise man once said, 'context matters' ;)

  23. what i learned from this shitty blog is that jester is still bitter about losing in csm5, and that mara is a badposter

    1. I didn't run for CSM5. ::kisses::

    2. Careful Mittani...

      "Arrogance and rudeness are training wheels on the bicycle of life -- for weak people who cannot keep their balance without them." - Laura Teresa Marquez

    3. What I learned from this comment is that Mittens is a self-centered douche....oh, wait, I already knew that.

    4. I learned that "this shitty blog" has three CSM's posting in it postering. Strange how they all seem to not care but feel the need to validate themselves.

    5. CSM don't care - except when they *DO* care... CSM wasn't going to comment on things they weren't sure of . . . except when the *DO* comment on thing they don't know about (Wormhole stabilizers?)

      Mittens calling other people names? LOL - He's a lawyer!


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.