wow, didn't think I'll ever like a post and agree with someone from FA

It is just a vocal minority spamming the thread with one-sided nonsense. They are absolutely livid and afraid over the thought that EVE might get a little harder for them and that they might actually have to use their brain to get kills. The MSI is an excellent tool that will force aggressors to take risks for a change while simultaneously providing a much needed layer of protection for PVE ops. Adapt or die.

I can't decide if "Alts in Shuttles Online" is better than "OGB Alts Online".

Bullshit. Thats what you bear-rats have had for years. How do you think you are entitled to blow up another player that doesn't make any mistakes?

Why should aggressors have all the advantages? If anything, defenders should have the advantage. God forbid pirates should have to take any real risks, right?
Sorry kids, 100% intel days are over. Time to HTFU.

you guys know the forum has an option to "block" idiots or trolls, don't you?
in case you don't: click on the name of the guy/girl >hide posts, or something

I definitely agree that not all change is good, but I would strongly argue that some of the areas of value provided by good changes in a sandbox game are the opportunities for players to explore new forms of gameplay, discover how changes affect their current gameplay, and compete with each other to be the first to capitalize on those new tricks.

In that regard, disruption itself is one of the values provided by a good change to a game.

I also wholeheartedly disagree with your assessment that any of these additions risk causing exponential chaos or making EVE unrecognizable. They are new tools with which to interact with the sandbox (specifically to modify your local environment) and insuring that EVE players have access to a diverse and healthy "toolbox" is at the core of our job as caretakers of the sandbox.

As for specific concerns with the details of these structures, we do think that a lot of the points raised in this thread so far (including many of yours) are extremely valid and we think that the next iteration of the design should go a long way to addressing those specific concerns.

I've been chatting with the CSM about the latest iteration of the design since earlier this afternoon, and things are looking positive from that end so far. Current plan is to give the CSM (especially the North Americans that got off work more recently) some more time to look over and comment on the changes and then if all looks satisfactory I'll bring them to you all in the morning Iceland time.

Have a good night everyone.

They are allready nerfed into oblivion, so why not. Make sure there is no viable use cases left at all.

Here's my concern with the Mobile Scan Inhibitor (MSI). Won't it require roamers to bring a prober and an interdiction nullified ship wherever they go to (1) find and then (2) investigate every MSI? How does it help to force solo'ers and small gangers to bring these extra ships along wherever they go? I don't see how the tweaks you just announced help with the fundamental issue. How about making the MSI's into beacons to at least eliminate the need to bring probes wherever you go?

And here's the fundamental issue. The biggest obstacle to fun small-scale fights in Eve is ganks made possible by hiding a fleet's true strength. There are already a lot of ways to spring a trap on someone looking for a gf, do we really need another one? It seems the MSI will help people avoid fights entirely or help them set up ganks, neither of which are good for "fun" PVP.

Put yet another way, what are the envisioned applications of the MSI? To help PVE'ers avoid getting ganked? To help gankers hide until they can safely drop on someone? Or is there potentially a use that will help set up fairer fights?