EVE Information Portal

The CSM is an elected representative body, and as such any change implementation sought, recommended, and most certainly approved/implemented absolutely MUST be made public, and most certainly IS NOT voluntary disclosure by the CSM members.

I assume this is just the ignorance of the dev that put together the blog, but seriously, name the CSM members making the proposal along with the justification in the actual blog now please. Don't make us read random forums or have to go digging to find out. The CSM members are there because they have been elected and should be given the due credit or criticism for their recommendations. It's not like they were part of an anonymous testing group, or a few concerned pod pilots that came forward from the shadows.

Make it so, now please.

I would be ok with the reduction of c5-npc nullsec if the safety of all nullsec and lowsec was compromised by a change to how local function so that ratters still have fear of getting hit by anybody.

Probably the easiest and most direct way would be to change local system chat to local constellation chat.

The average region has about 10 to 20 constellations and 6 to 12 systems in each constellation. So instead of instant Intel per system, it would be instant Intel per constellation. You can't tell where in a constellation a person is, you just know they are somewhere there. Gates can be monitored, instant anon clockers can hunt, all pve in a system doesn't stop because 1 anonymous person logged into the system. Risk is brought back, a greater voice is created, hunting of larger groups spans between the constellation vs just the system. Hunting and roaming with groups increases because now when you enter a empty constellation, you know it's empty, and when you enter a busy constellation, you know people are there.

You change local to constellation chat, where a plus 1 doesn't cause everybody to insta warp to a pos.. I'd be ok with the spawn changes.

You wouldn't have a whole constellation of ratters docking up or running to POSes, you'd have them running to Faction Warfare, High Sec SOE missions or High Sec Incursions....again....

S199's are not that prevalent, and are no harder to collapse than a N432 or K162 to C5.

Really, who is giving you this information, or are you guys literally blind and dumb?

I rarely find an S199 when I go to nullsec. Most wormholes are C5's, followed by C1-2-3's, and very, very rarely a B499 or N944. So, great, you are cutting down on S199's which are already quite rare.

Good work on making pirate detection arrays more efficient. You know whatthe hardest part about ganking caps in nulsec is? When there is 60 anoms in system, it's hard to filter through for the Hubs and Sanctums past all the abandoned low-grade chaff. Ratters best protection is having more sigs in the list, more green dots on the overview, because it's harder for a hunter to find them amngst the debris.

So, good work, CCP. Nullsec is now confirmed a giant farm, and wih sov timers coming to the API, the number of landholders will shrink.

How surprising, another gewn buff.

20 Nyxgewnbots ratting in a cynojammed pocket in now officially a thing.

I thought CCP will never go through with the gewn proposal of more anoms, I believed that much favor was ridiculous even for CCP. But no, I see now that there is no favor CCP won't do to their masters.

Please reconsider the anomaly changes. I am asking this as a nullbear living in -0.1 system. This creates a huge PvE favor to one alliance, and while intentions might've been good, the implementation is unacceptable.

So all those soon to be ok systems in Branch (that might see 1 person active in them a day) are still off the table without a blue tick next to your name..
Shame - that space could be put to good use by smaller groups.