I want to state upfront that although I have been in this game a couple years, I hesitate to post this criticism because I simply am not qualified to know that it is fairly on target for sure. I do feel it presents a fair perspective from the newer and less fully experienced player.

I do read the patch and related notes from CCP, and my observation is based on them, and not the forums.

It really seems questionable whether the rebalancing/changes done by CCP has been, and is presently, based on enough objective data. By this I mean I question whether CCP is doing enough to make sure all the changes it seems to constantly be making are truly based on sufficient and correct data, rather than emphasizing haste to make changes over and above making sure it will get it right, rather than have to waste yet more resources on correcting what it corrected, rather than targeting those resources to things that really need attention.

In one patch they will balance or rebalance something like medium rails only to then have to correct that action in a future rebalance. I mention this particular one because it is the most recent. If you read the most recent developer post about this - see http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/balance-changes-coming-in-scylla you will see a chart posted to show how over-powered CCP made medium rails and to support the change to now nerf them back in line.

In that same chart you can see how overpowered heavy missiles once were, and how now they seem to be the weakest. Medium rails are not an isolated example. If you need an example about things other than weapons consider all the resources that went into industry teams....

I believe CCP is trying to get things right, and eventually will, but is going about it in too rushed a manner. I wonder if it has fallen victim to the philosophy that more change is inherently better than less change. I wonder if it feels unless there is constant change, players will lose interest in its game.

I respectfully suggest that CCP should consider being more restrained in making changes to the game, which is already one of the more complicated and challenging to learn games, without having to deal with change for the sake of change.

Expected consequences
GÇóSome alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space
GÇóIn the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals
GÇóNewer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec
GÇóCoalitions will be marginally less stable
GÇóAlliances will have to choose more carefully what space they develop, where their staging systems are, and so on (low truesec systems generally tend to be in strategically inconvenient places)