CSM9 Report: Week Twenty Six

Back home at long last. Been a long trip offshore and it’s nice to be back in the virtual saddle once again. Let’s discuss the events of the past seven days in the land of CSM…


It was promised that you would have the Minutes in your hands by 31st October and I confidently predicted here and elsewhere that we would hit that target. You can read them here and if you have the time, I suggest you should. Before we go into what some of the key takeaways were from my perspective, I’d like to state here that I wasn’t just blown away by how quickly CCP turned around this set of Minutes, I am hugely impressed by how much made it through their screening process. Very little is cut out. Something else I’ll point out is I made every single session remotely with the exception of one (I was voting in the Scottish independence referendum) and I was very pleased with that. One thing I will note is, despite how good Microsoft Lync is, it is a lot more difficult to be in and involved in the minute-by-minute conversation than someone who is physically sat at the table in Reykjavik. As you will see from the Minutes, it certainly isn’t impossible but you do need pick and choose your moment a little more. Of course, when I felt it important, I made sure I was heard (space fedoras anyone?). But here are the key things people seem to be discussing around the Minutes and the information contained therein…


So for those of you who haven’t read the Minutes, the key information here is that if you shoot a corpmate in high sec, you can expect a rapid and violent response from our friends in CONCORD. This news has created some consternation both within the CSM and the playerbase at large. Some consider this a continuation down the ‘slippery slope’ that is making Eve safer, particularly in high sec. I can empathise with this position to a degree but I also listened carefully to what was said by CCP to CSM9. We all know that PCU is down. We know from CCP Seagull’s interview here on CZ that Eve is far from rude health. I am not saying Eve should be dumbed down to accommodate new players but for me, this is one change I can live with. Eve is hard and always should remain so but this change is one concession that is likely worth it. Some players disagree with me. Some CSM members disagree vehemently. I’m not 100% sold but let’s see how it plays out.


The null sec discussions were always going to be fascinating. We’ve seen the fallout with the jump changes but another key part of the discussion is sovereignty. The key quote from Fozzie is here:
CCP Fozzie: We are down to two systems we’d like to look at. We’re looking at prototyping two different high level options. The two are a very occupancy based system and a extremely freeform sovless system where it is cut down to the bare necessities and all the infrastructure is independent of each other. I have my own thoughts on this one and you can read CSM9’s questions and thoughts on it in those sessions. I would love to hear your opinions on which of the options presented you would prefer and why. Either mail me directly or drop a comment below. Of course, in relation to this, Greyscale had arguably the best quote of the entire Summit:
CCP Greyscale: We do not want to make anything ever again that cannot be blown up.


The Team Security session was one I had specifically requested with CCP Leeloo to cover the thorny issue of the legality of Isboxer with the relevant devs. This session ended up going over a whole heap of fascinating (and mostly understandably NDAed) stuff but did eventually swing around to Isboxer and the issue with bombers. Key quote regarding duplicating inputs is here:
CCP Peligro: So that’s input duplication right? Whether or not that’s a breach of section 6-b is a bit of a grey area, it’s not clear cut. I don’t see us sanctioning it though, but it is something I’d like input from you guys on. I will be providing feedback of course. Especially given…

Bomber Changes

The original changes slated for an appearance in Phoebe where in cloaked ships decloak one another have been put on hold indefinitely. Fozzie stated the new changes as follows: We’re also going to be removing some of the earlier increase in signature radius and shifting it to a penalty on the bomb launcher itself. The T1 bomb launcher will add +10m signature radius and the T2 will add 12m. We’re increasing the capacity of the T2 bomb launcher to 300m3. The Focused Void Bomb will have an explosion radius of 5000m, 1000m more than originally proposed. Both the new bomb and new interdiction probe will be made available exclusively in the Syndicate LP store. The new interdiction probe will be delayed slightly as we’ve run into some graphical issues with it that we’ll need more time to properly fix. All of the above means that Isboxing bomber fleets will be viable once again. I should note here that my issue with Isboxer is purely that it allows one dude to perfectly pilot a fleet of however many bombers all launching their bombs simultaneously. I’ll be keeping a close eye on this one to see where it goes because I still believe Isboxing bomber fleets are going to be an issue and it’s not a situation I am entirely comfortable with.

Brain in a Box

Brain in a Box is important to the future of Tranquility. You should now all be aware that one of the main devs behind the project, CCP Vertias, has now left the company and a few of you expressed some concern to me that the project may be seriously curtailed or delayed. CSM Prism X has gone out of his way to provide a detailed explanation on the forums as to where exactly BIAB is now at and how the project is progressing. I know Steve is in and around this one a fair bit but it’s all mostly way over my head. Tl;dr – soon(TM).


Phoebe hits tomorrow and you should be aware that it’s an extended downtime expected to be around two and a half hours. CCP has done a cool wee ‘in-development’ video you should go watch. For probably the last time I’ll ever need to say this, make sure and set a long skill queue! And I think that’ll do us this week. I’d love your feedback on the questions I asked above and if you have any of your own for the next report, hit me up!
Tags: awox, csm, csm9, isboxer, minutes, phoebe, sov, sovereignty, summit

About the author

Xander Phoena

The good looking, funny, intelligent member of the team, Xander set up Crossing Zebras with Jeg in April 2012 mainly because he was talking too much about Eve on his other podcast. Playing the game for almost five years, Xander still has absolutely zero clue about how to actually play Eve but somehow still manages to talk a good game.

  • Razordreamz

    ISBoxer breaks the game on many levels and really just needs to be done away with. When I go on roams into null I frequently see people with the same name and numbered like: james001, james002 etc. And I don’t mean just 3 or four, but 20+ in some cases.
    I know CCP loves the income from these but it makes earning isk in the game very easy, and of course we all know about the bomber wings of ISBoxers.

  • Messiah Complex

    I very much want to see the “NO SOV” solution come to pass. I would love to watch EVE’s players adapt to the absence of artificial barriers to what they can do in any given solar system. That would literally be an evolutionary shift. If CCP can just trust its players — give them that degree of freedom — then the future of 0.0 will be blissfully unpredictable.

    • Razordreamz

      You realize null used to be this way before they added sov mechanics. Granted there were no jump bridges, and jump drives back then either, but it really wasn’t that different to now. Actually the jump drives probably changed the face of null the most.

      • Messiah Complex

        I didn’t realize that. But I’m also working under the assumption that even with a ‘no sov’ system, you’ll still be able to build most of the current sov structures. The only structures that will be deprecated are the TCU and the SBU. Everything else will be independently buildable (and destructible).

        CCP also needs to completely revamp 0.0 income to make ‘no sov’ work, but that’s another topic.

        • Nullis

          Trying to get mission runners, industrialists etc. into defence fleets, to respond to CTAs has produced some pretty divisive situations and propaganda. Ugly and frustrating fail cascades on both sides. Occupancy should help to undermine the result of these kind of caste system dependancies, or the remedies: police state tactics aka participation links. Imo upping occupancy invisibly as a component of a nullsec alliance’s health/vitality will lead not only to unity, but a more entire and compiling game

  • Anon

    Yep, definitely in favor of no sov, that would make life to much more fun/ chaotic

  • Kamar Raimo

    When I quit EVE I very much hated everything that had to do with sov and I would immediately have said “burn it all down.” Now I am a bit more relaxed in my attitude and I can appreciate why there is a sovereignty system to begin with. I fully agree that it should change to a more occupancy based model that can be messed around with but there should be something like it. If there isn’t then the difference between sov null and NPC null becomes too small and I’m not sure that’s a good thing because both areas have their own style of organisation and play and it diversifies the game to maintain such differences.