EVE Information Portal

Really, I can contort most, if not all potential game changes to benefit us with enough wordplay. That being said, so can most people, but few have my ability to actually peer outside of the vignette that confines them to paint everything in a particular light.

max reactivation will be capped at 12 hours

Well done !

Without listening to a(ny) of the goons and others, or that (in game) poser Mittens,

you will not nerf the Interceptors ship roles into the ground, e.g. bubble nullification


Voting for UAxDEATH seems to pay off, or at least his fellow russians in game rioting



Even after that less then stellar hosting of CCP/CSM Round Table: Jump Fatigue compared to previous CSM Townhalls,

you are still listen to constructive player based feedback, and implementing them asap, +1 CCP Fozzie & co


Regards, a Freelancer

PS: CSM Little Things - Jayne's List

You know, come to think of it, why not limit entosis link to battleships and larger?

It would solve two problems at the same time: trolling and general uncommitted behavior will cease, and battleships will gain a stable role in the new sov system. It may also serve as incentive to bring capitals, since capitals can be used against battleship fleets.

Because wormholes are a thing.

Each Command Node is independent of the others; They are captured independently and will regenerate independently. So it is answer (b) - if a ship is currently capturing one node, any other nodes that are being left alone will regenerate towards the defender.

I am disappointed at the way this balance pass is handled. There are no doubts that all items in this announcement needed some tweakings, but CCP is swinging the pendulum way too far, when their processes are all designed to iterate with smaller touches.


Forbidding interceptors from Entosis is a significant step back from the original design goal. It also helps the established powers more than anybody else, so this is a one sided balance pass.

The reduction of maximum speed to 4k was a good step (even if stasis effects should have been based on current max speed and not theorical max speed). Why ban entosis on interceptors, where other cheap frigates can reach 4k and keep the entosis? because they do not have the nullification property. So this is clearly their nullification properties that set the interceptors apart from the other frigates, trigering this heavy handed removal.

The capability for an interceptor to travel safely in all of null space is something the established groups do not want to loose, as it is a great complement to the 10 jump clones they can already have per toon. This is the less visible power projection tool that the game still has, and it favors largely the bigger groups, veterans and power players groups.
By choosing an entosis ban for intys over a rework of their nullification capabilities, CCP has caved into delivering a tweak that is mostly benefiting current ñull sec sov holders. If interdiction nullification of interceptors had been nerfed, all play styles would have been affected in some ways, while achieving the goal needed (i.e. making it more difficult to bring entosis behind enemies defense lines).


The regeneration of uncontested assets was another needed tweak to the Aegis Sov. Some groups out there are skirmishers, with no intent of taking sov. Other groups are sov holders, and the tediousness of restoring sov via entosis after skirmishes has been highlighted previously and is an obvious issue.

A first pass to cut down the nodes in half as well as slightly reduce the time it takes to entosis nodes and station services has been done in Galatea. This second pass introduces the regeneration of assets in favor of the defender. This is fair and expected. But what is completely out of whack are the times introduced in that pass! The regeneration is too fast. In less than 6 hours after nodes spawning, a system can revert to normal after an attack!

This will kill the sirmisher play style, to the delight of current sov holders. Without skirmishers we are going to go back to the stagnation of the blue donut. The rapid regeneration of assets will make any effort to entosis as a skirmish tactic useless, as there will be no real need to intervene for the defender. Everything will go back to normal in a day or two, maybe three, without lifting a finger.

The timers should have been set to provide at least a few week long disturbances to the sov owner, with a much much slower regeneration to start with, and a clear benefit of being active to entosis assets back. Furthermore, by announcing such short times, CCP is shooting themselves in the foot and not taking advantage of their iterative capabilities. It is better to start with higher numbers that are slowly adjusted based on data and actual in game behavior analysis rather than going with low numbers, as increasing these numbers after announcing them is psychologically more damaging to the overall approach.
I understand CCP may have been burned by the voices out there that called for nerfing the ishtar faster, and it took a few months to get it right, but the "I told you so three months ago" are just vociferous individualities that should be ignored as extreme. Someone will always say the right thing X months before the others, but identifying the right balance for the majority among a very large number of forecasters can only be done by measured adjustments each time, followed up by data and in-game behaviors analysis over time.


I kept the reduction of max Jump Fatigue from 30 days to 5 days as the last bit of disappointing changes coming up. Again, the numbers are swinging too far in the low side. Nobody reasonable contests that the 30 days jump fatigue was a mistake. Economically, it also prompted accounts to be unsubbed for the duration of one month, probably leading to financial losses for CCP. But the concept of jūmp fatigue has been proven to benefit the game in general, at the expense of a minority of multi-alts veteran power players. There are no doubts capital piloting is the end-game, and getting a player off their capital ships for 30 days was overkill. But changing it to five days and letting players again spam capitals unbridled every week will be detrimental to the game, and kill the current fragile changes that have started to take places. Again, why not try reducing it to 14 or 15 days and see how it goes first?!


I do not know if this approach to balance is specific to a single team or reflects on CCP as a whole. I hope someone at CCP still has the power to make sure the balancing does not start to swing widly again. My impression is that these changes, if the numbers are kept as they are, will singlehandely remove all the skirmishes potential that is a valid play style for the 50mill to 100mill skill points players that do not want to simply be an income stream for some other older player.
Skirmishers are the only way in game that smaller entities can nip at larger ones to slowly weaken them. Kept as it is announced, this update will make skirmishing a waste of time and resources.

This seems resonable

there are multiple example in history where small group skirmishers brought down a seemingly unstoppable giant over time.

Tne minutemen of American independance wars are such an example. I am sure the british generals at the time were wondering why tney did not bring up any regular troops against them so that they could squash them more easily with their superior military might....

your real goal with such side note is to insert mechanics in the game that will prevent these skirmishers to grow up until they can become a full force threatening your interests in the first place.

What some see as skirmishing is easily labelled as trolling by others. This depends on your viewpoints and personal interests.

What contortion, what word play, you gutted Fozziesov in less than one month with your whine-naught and it seems CCP wants to make sure you get another shot because this thread reads:

"Have we gutted Fozziesov but you can post here anything else that annoys you in the slightest and we'll cut that out as well."

By month two, Fozziesov will be a nullsec wide joke, CCP will have suffered yet another loss of face as it grovels for your stamp of approval on what will ultimately be a waste of programming time.