open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked Has Dominion Made Things A Whole Lot Worse In EVE?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 [3]

Author Topic

Merouk Baas
Gallente
Posted - 2010.02.09 12:04:00 - [61]
 

Dominion has changed things, and you've seen some of the effects but aren't recognizing the change.

First of all, you can't expect the result to be that all the alliances to fail instantly and miserably, that would be TOO BIG of a chance.

And second, you're not recognizing the signs. It is more costly to hold as much space as before, so alliances are either shrinking or leaving sov holes in their space. The "shrinking" doesn't happen just in terms of space, but also membership, because despite CCP's claims, it's impossible to cram 50,000 into a constellation and call it "the same". And the sov holes mean that some systems aren't covered by cynojammers anymore, creating some vulnerability to attack.

Alliances are in the process of restructuring themselves; if you expected it to be faster, I'm sorry but I'll disagree that that would have been a good thing.

Also, and this is amusing, you seem to expect some sort of great big green light telling you 0.0 is now available to the small alliances, heh. That's never gonna happen. If you're a small alliance and want a chunk of 0.0, go now, fight for it. Otherwise, what's going to happen is, the current alliances will move and take the best (most profitable) space, leaving the crap areas (far from empire, no moons, hard to defend) for all those who wait.

Yeah it's "easier to take space", but that's simply because the defenders don't bother defending it, either because it's too costly or because they don't want it. If the space is defended, it's almost impossible.

CommmanderInChief
Posted - 2010.02.09 12:06:00 - [62]
 

Edited by: CommmanderInChief on 09/02/2010 12:13:06
if i have to tell some of you ONE MORE TIME this isnt just about big alliance vs small alliances, this is just a small item in the BIGGER PICTURE..i will find out where you live and hit you with a big bat Very Happy (only kidding)

but enough already look at my whole post please.. WHERE IN MY POST DOES IT ALLUDE ENTIRELY TO BE AROUND SMALLER ALLIANCES? IT DOESNT!!!

and by the way its not a whine (why the feck when someone posts an observation its a whine?) its just my thoughts so please stop emorageposting, relax and have a normal conversation - please - ta very much..

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.02.09 19:05:00 - [63]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
Your post contains a number of unsupported implicit assumptions. The most obvious one is that "large" organisations are less able to co-ordinate a multi-front war than a coalition of smaller ones.
I was not assuming anything about particular ability of large organization to co-ordinate multifront war. In my theory, that ability is irrelevant. What is relevant is the amount/frequency of multi-front situations - not how individual parties cope with them.

Increase in offensive capabilities would increase confrontations between large and small alliances - it's simple as that. If some large alliance is so well organized and dedicated that it can effectively counter increased number of threats - more power to them. But they still lose on on the costs of defending things they don't really need to defend now. The job of game designer would be done - creating better environment for small entities to succeed. Assuming that's what the designer wants.
Originally by: Malcanis
There is only one real change that CCP could make to favour the survival of small alliances in 0.0, and it is one that they have already made: to increase the potential economic carrying capacity of a player sov system such that a single constellation could theoretically be sufficient to sustain an alliance.

Boosting potential of developing single systems encourages large alliances to allow more renters. It does not, promote independence of smaller alliances because sov warfare system does not allow small entities to inflict serious damage to wide area holdings of large entity.

Any adjustment of economic factors without touching the combat factors simply results in restructuring within the large power block, not decrease its power.

Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
IDLE EMPIRE
Posted - 2010.02.09 19:11:00 - [64]
 

**** posting is the only thing that has made eve worse, and boy do people love to **** post

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.02.09 22:36:00 - [65]
 

Edited by: Malcanis on 09/02/2010 22:38:00
Originally by: Ephemeron
Originally by: Malcanis
Your post contains a number of unsupported implicit assumptions. The most obvious one is that "large" organisations are less able to co-ordinate a multi-front war than a coalition of smaller ones.
I was not assuming anything about particular ability of large organization to co-ordinate multifront war. In my theory, that ability is irrelevant. What is relevant is the amount/frequency of multi-front situations - not how individual parties cope with them.

Increase in offensive capabilities would increase confrontations between large and small alliances - it's simple as that. If some large alliance is so well organized and dedicated that it can effectively counter increased number of threats - more power to them. But they still lose on on the costs of defending things they don't really need to defend now. The job of game designer would be done - creating better environment for small entities to succeed. Assuming that's what the designer wants.



There is no reasonable game mechanic that would allow a small alliance to hold space in spite of a large one, assuming that both were reasonably well run. Yes, by all means a coalition of small alliances should do so, but what is the difference between a well-coordinated coalition of small alliances and a single large alliances? It's just another powerbloc, playing the game on an equal level.
Even large alliances only hold space because of their association with other large alliances. There are no "solo" large powers in EVE. You seem to be under the impression that "pets" aren't "real" alliances or space holders. But fundamentally, everyone is a 'pet' on one level or another.

Originally by: Ephemeron

Originally by: Malcanis
There is only one real change that CCP could make to favour the survival of small alliances in 0.0, and it is one that they have already made: to increase the potential economic carrying capacity of a player sov system such that a single constellation could theoretically be sufficient to sustain an alliance.


Boosting potential of developing single systems encourages large alliances to allow more renters. It does not, promote independence of smaller alliances because sov warfare system does not allow small entities to inflict serious damage to wide area holdings of large entity.

Any adjustment of economic factors without touching the combat factors simply results in restructuring within the large power block, not decrease its power.


Again, you seem to be under the impression that the natural or proper state for a small alliance should be an independant power, beholden to no-one. That is a completely unrealistic and pernicious expectation. Saturday morning cartoons promote the idea that the brave, plucky underdog deserves to beat the big, entrenched power. Maybe he does deserve to, but in EVE he also has to earn it.

De Guantanamo
Posted - 2010.02.09 22:44:00 - [66]
 

Originally by: HeliosGal
More wormholes from high sec and low sec and other 00 into 00 space.
More 00 space
Sliding scale for sov cost
What happeened to comets with moon goo waiting ......
more 00 space and factional warfare for pirate factions
I like the idea of more risk or a timer for moving cap ships or a increased fuel cost depending on the amount jumping through a single cyno ( more jumps higher fuel cost)



ohgod, you're off your ban?

back under the bridge please troll

Sprilk
Posted - 2010.02.09 23:00:00 - [67]
 

Originally by: Catherine Frasier
Originally by: Nooma K'Larr
If eve is ever to become "chess-like" then the answer is to limit the sizes of alliances. This will force the creation of more smaller alliances fighting for space.
I am mortified to find myself in agreement with you, but I do agree.


Before there were "alliances" people still made alliances... all that will happen is groups of smaller alliances will just become partners and you will still have hte massive powerblocks you have now. Reducing alliances sizes will do absolutly nothing. You dont need an offical gameplay mechanic to work together under one organization. It was easily done in the past and would easily be done in the future.

Just point out that the idea will do nothing.

Jiminy Krickett
Posted - 2010.02.09 23:38:00 - [68]
 

This sport is about overwhelming force. The "unused space" isn't unused. Could it not be a buffer zone? And so what if it's taken just because it can be? Second place is just the first loser in any case.

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.02.09 23:46:00 - [69]
 

Edited by: Ephemeron on 09/02/2010 23:48:41
Originally by: Malcanis
There is no reasonable game mechanic that would allow a small alliance to hold space in spite of a large one, assuming that both were reasonably well run. Yes, by all means a coalition of small alliances should do so, but what is the difference between a well-coordinated coalition of small alliances and a single large alliances?
To answer the question: the difference is in the number of independent players. A sov warfare system that heavily favors the defenders encouraging new small entities to join existing power blocks, while a system that favors the attacker encourages some of those people to form their own little power blocks with other like minded small entities.

Of course there can't be any reasonable game mechanic that would allow small alliance to hold territory that large alliance can't take. But the main idea is that even if the large alliance takes it, holds it for a while, and moves away to fight elsewhere - a patient small alliance can retake the territory right away. This sort of sov "ping pong" has happened many times in EVE history. Somebody who is determined enough can keep retaking his territory.. unless the defensive side of warfare is so strong that a large defensive entity can always counter attacks from small entity - even when the attack began while they were far away.

Originally by: Malcanis
Again, you seem to be under the impression that the natural or proper state for a small alliance should be an independant power, beholden to no-one. That is a completely unrealistic and pernicious expectation. Saturday morning cartoons promote the idea that the brave, plucky underdog deserves to beat the big, entrenched power. Maybe he does deserve to, but in EVE he also has to earn it.
I don't think in terms of absolutes, it's too easy to simplify people's ideas in those terms. What I want is to shift game balance slightly in favor of more people choosing independence.

For example, if 9 in 10 new alliances think of merging with existing power blocks, I want to change it so just 6 in 10 choose to merge, while remaining 4/10 choose to try form independent powers. Independent entities can still choose to ally themselves with power blocks, but the key note here is that they would not be forced to pay tribute/rent.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.02.10 00:34:00 - [70]
 

I'm sorry but I think you're still being naive. If space becomes relatively easy to take, then what will stop larger alliances from crushing their smaller neighbours in an afternoon? A large alliance can afford to lose a station or two if they have half a dozen more. A small one will have lost all they had.

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.02.10 00:53:00 - [71]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
I'm sorry but I think you're still being naive. If space becomes relatively easy to take, then what will stop larger alliances from crushing their smaller neighbours in an afternoon? A large alliance can afford to lose a station or two if they have half a dozen more. A small one will have lost all they had.
You describe current situation. If any independent small alliance tries to make POS, a large alliance can easily come and destroy everything, put their own POS and leave. The small alliance has no chance of retaking their lost system. The End.

On other hand, with different offense/defense balance, that small alliance can successfully attack the POS of that large alliance, soon after it leaves. Then it can either put their own POS there, or wait until large alliance comes back to put their POS, which can be killed over and over - until either the small alliance gets totally obliterated in pvp or large alliance concedes that land as something they didn't want anyways.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.02.10 01:03:00 - [72]
 

Originally by: Ephemeron
Originally by: Malcanis
I'm sorry but I think you're still being naive. If space becomes relatively easy to take, then what will stop larger alliances from crushing their smaller neighbours in an afternoon? A large alliance can afford to lose a station or two if they have half a dozen more. A small one will have lost all they had.
You describe current situation. If any independent small alliance tries to make POS, a large alliance can easily come and destroy everything, put their own POS and leave. The small alliance has no chance of retaking their lost system. The End.

On other hand, with different offense/defense balance, that small alliance can successfully attack the POS of that large alliance, soon after it leaves. Then it can either put their own POS there, or wait until large alliance comes back to put their POS, which can be killed over and over - until either the small alliance gets totally obliterated in pvp or large alliance concedes that land as something they didn't want anyways.


But you're not answering my question: what stops large alliances using the mechanic to equal advantage? And by "equal" I mean "Ha Ha Superior Numbers!"

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.02.10 01:27:00 - [73]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
But you're not answering my question: what stops large alliances using the mechanic to equal advantage? And by "equal" I mean "Ha Ha Superior Numbers!"
I did answer it in various forms: nothing, and that's not something I want to achieve.

Large alliance can still kill whatever it wants. The only thing changing here is whether or not small alliance can destroy assets of large alliance

Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2010.02.10 01:34:00 - [74]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
But you're not answering my question: what stops large alliances using the mechanic to equal advantage? And by "equal" I mean "Ha Ha Superior Numbers!"

I'd say he's got it backwards.

To give the small guys an advantage you need to make it easier to defend, and harder to attack. Basically it goes like this:

Only way you're going to survive as an independent entity is if the larger alliances around you decide it's not worth their time to uproot you. If the effort to kick you out is great enough there will be a limit to how many times they'll bother doing that for some space they're not really using, especially if there's 6-7 other similar entities around doing the same.

We all know there is a lot of fallow space around, so small entities have no need for conquering space they just need to stealthily set up shop. As such making it easier to attack is in no way beneficial to them. Also attacking the larger entity completely counter to what they should be doing, that is to stay as quiet and unobtrusive as possible.

However I don't really see independent alliances flowering much, as those who could pull off such a tactic more likely than not already know some people in larger alliances. Thus it will be easier to just make a deal for some unused systems.

Oscardoodle
Amarr
Posted - 2010.02.10 01:34:00 - [75]
 

yes

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.02.10 01:47:00 - [76]
 

Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab
I'd say he's got it backwards.

To give the small guys an advantage you need to make it easier to defend, and harder to attack. Basically it goes like this:

Only way you're going to survive as an independent entity is if the larger alliances around you decide it's not worth their time to uproot you. If the effort to kick you out is great enough there will be a limit to how many times they'll bother doing that for some space they're not really using, especially if there's 6-7 other similar entities around doing the same.

We all know there is a lot of fallow space around, so small entities have no need for conquering space they just need to stealthily set up shop. As such making it easier to attack is in no way beneficial to them. Also attacking the larger entity completely counter to what they should be doing, that is to stay as quiet and unobtrusive as possible.

However I don't really see independent alliances flowering much, as those who could pull off such a tactic more likely than not already know some people in larger alliances. Thus it will be easier to just make a deal for some unused systems.
This idea could work, but there would be several major problems:
1) all the "good" systems would be taken by large alliances, even if it takes them a lot of effort to take it
2) amount of pvp conflicts gets reduced due to extreme defensive advantages - fewer attacks, more boring game.
3) The choice for allowing competition rests entirely in the big alliance leadership. They choose whether to bother attacking or not. Small alliance have no choice, they just hope nobody notices them and try to be as stealthy (insignificant) as possible. Which is rather degrading in my opinion.

I am for war, chaos, and destruction.

Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2010.02.10 02:18:00 - [77]
 

Originally by: Ephemeron
1) all the "good" systems would be taken by large alliances, even if it takes them a lot of effort to take it

With an I-Hub, "good" systems are the ones where few people fly through. True-sec is not really such a large factor post-Dominion.

Originally by: Ephemeron
2) amount of pvp conflicts gets reduced due to extreme defensive advantages - fewer attacks, more boring game.

Well, real wars these days aren't anywhere close to as boring as what d*ckstar shooting was. There should be ways to balance this such that large alliances can't steamroll 10 systems held by small alliances in a day, while still allowing small alliances to wage wars of conquest amongst themselves.

Originally by: Ephemeron
3) The choice for allowing competition rests entirely in the big alliance leadership. They choose whether to bother attacking or not. Small alliance have no choice, they just hope nobody notices them and try to be as stealthy (insignificant) as possible. Which is rather degrading in my opinion.

My corp has lived that life since we moved into 0.0 the first time, and I would describe it as a challenge that builds character. Degrading is a word used by those with too much e-honor. ^_^

Originally by: Ephemeron
I am for war, chaos, and destruction.

I'm actually kinda hoping we'd get a complete breakdown in the the south and everyone attacking Immensea. It's too damn quiet down here and it's getting on my nerves.

Tulisin Dragonflame
Posted - 2010.02.10 02:22:00 - [78]
 

Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab
Originally by: Malcanis
But you're not answering my question: what stops large alliances using the mechanic to equal advantage? And by "equal" I mean "Ha Ha Superior Numbers!"

I'd say he's got it backwards.

To give the small guys an advantage you need to make it easier to defend, and harder to attack. Basically it goes like this:

Only way you're going to survive as an independent entity is if the larger alliances around you decide it's not worth their time to uproot you. If the effort to kick you out is great enough there will be a limit to how many times they'll bother doing that for some space they're not really using, especially if there's 6-7 other similar entities around doing the same.

We all know there is a lot of fallow space around, so small entities have no need for conquering space they just need to stealthily set up shop. As such making it easier to attack is in no way beneficial to them. Also attacking the larger entity completely counter to what they should be doing, that is to stay as quiet and unobtrusive as possible.

However I don't really see independent alliances flowering much, as those who could pull off such a tactic more likely than not already know some people in larger alliances. Thus it will be easier to just make a deal for some unused systems.


And if a smaller alliance "stealthily" sets up shop right in the middle of a major regional vein, then what? They're going to have to be uprooted. Boosting either side in combat is not the way to go. Instead, they should incentivize more alliances working together synergistically. The vast majority of folks looking to move out into nullsec aren't there to carve a chunk out of someone else's territory, just live there and use the resources, these people should be welcomed and not seen as a nuisance or just something else to shoot at. I do think this is what Dominion has tried to achieve, but it the results seem a bit lacking so far.

Ben Derindar
Dirty Deeds Corp.
Posted - 2010.02.10 03:01:00 - [79]
 

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The solution to 0.0's current problems is to nerf long distance travel.

Jump clones, jump freighters, jump bridge networks, anything that allows people and/or their stuff to easily cross the galaxy from one side to the other at reduced risk. Mechanics like these are what allow people to congregate into such huge blobs in the first place, because they can come from so much further away in every direction. And that's just silly.

Nerf travel, nerf it to the point where people begin to decide it's too much effort to travel ten regions to the daily lagfest. Then alliances would effectively be limited to warring with their closer neighbours, which renders galaxy-spanning NAP lists redundant. Combat across Eve breaks down into multiple smaller conflicts, making things much easier on the servers. Meanwhile gaps begin to open up in 0.0 where the bigger alliances can no longer be bothered imposing themselves so far away from home, and there are your windows of opportunity for new parties to get their feet wet without fear of being immediately curbstomped by literally anybody, from anywhere on the map, simply for the sake of padding their own killboard statistics.

But first things first. Nerf travel.

/Ben

CommmanderInChief
Posted - 2010.02.10 11:56:00 - [80]
 

firstly thank you for the constructive posting, and make this an actually interesting debate.

One thing is history i think, there are the main powerblocs IT, -A-, Atlas and NC, and the Drones.
NC hasnt changed for years really its always been MM and Razor as the core alliances, then adding pets like MH, WI, Pure, Iron etc
Bob now IT was always a major power, but again had alot of pets, -A- and Atlas really benefited from Bobs demise to be fair. Once goons went to Delve, -A- and Atlas joined forces to take the rest of the space, so now they have lots of pets.

So is this going to be the norm now? that these major blocs effectively own eve and everyone becomes a pet? Seems so..

but why is this? well really its because they had the advantages of being here first, when no one else was. I remember having only 8000 members online at once, no super caps, no T2 ships defo no Titans as such blah blah..
As soon as these came available the large alliances had made so much money from moon gold and the T2 BPOS in the past years (and still are especially areound T2 BPOs) they effectively had a massive and yes unfair advantage over the next generation of eve players. They could instanltly buy all the new shiny toys, titans, super caps, yada yada in large numbers, and still have change and then still have the large income to cover that.

This is one of the problems, new alliances have to become pets or meatshields as basically they did not have the same advantages, they can be instantly squished if they stepped out of line, we have seen this so many times in the past year. Alliances instantly disband in times of even the smallest issue, they simply cant compete. I mean for example look at IT alliance, they took a few months off, with no real income from space and still managed to come back, have the ISK for a massive fleet and win..you couldnt do that now.

This seriously worries me that these early allainces have had such had an advantage that they will effectively control eve for years to come..this is why i think on another note having a single eve universe is not a good idea, new people simply dont get the same advantages anymore, and thats why so many leave.

Sad but true..if you really think about what im saying you know its true.

Admiral IceBlock
Caldari
Northern Intelligence
Posted - 2010.02.10 13:44:00 - [81]
 

Travelling in EVE equals gay and should be changed.
- Increase jump clone cooldown 48 hours.
- Add jump delay to capitals, kinda like hyperspace in homeworld; it takes time to enter/exit jump. (this also nerfs "lulz-hot-dropped-overwhelming", which is good?)
- Limit jump bridges to industrial ship only.
- Limit jump bridges to non-station systems only.
- Make titan jump portal pop up on overview system wide.
- Make travelling to region jump gates take time; say put all jump gates leading to another region 500 au away.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.02.10 13:47:00 - [82]
 

Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab
Originally by: Malcanis
But you're not answering my question: what stops large alliances using the mechanic to equal advantage? And by "equal" I mean "Ha Ha Superior Numbers!"

I'd say he's got it backwards.

To give the small guys an advantage you need to make it easier to defend, and harder to attack. Basically it goes like this:

Only way you're going to survive as an independent entity is if the larger alliances around you decide it's not worth their time to uproot you. If the effort to kick you out is great enough there will be a limit to how many times they'll bother doing that for some space they're not really using, especially if there's 6-7 other similar entities around doing the same.

We all know there is a lot of fallow space around, so small entities have no need for conquering space they just need to stealthily set up shop. As such making it easier to attack is in no way beneficial to them. Also attacking the larger entity completely counter to what they should be doing, that is to stay as quiet and unobtrusive as possible.

However I don't really see independent alliances flowering much, as those who could pull off such a tactic more likely than not already know some people in larger alliances. Thus it will be easier to just make a deal for some unused systems.


One major flaw in your idea is that - by definition - the major spaceholding alliances are composed of people who do have the patience to conduct sov wars.

domitesting
Posted - 2010.02.11 09:40:00 - [83]
 

The problem is the major alliances DO NOT want to make a deal, do not want to rent space, to be honest its pathetic how much ppl get upset if you kill one of their rats! seriously..
they want everything to themselves, cos it gives them a h*rd on, by feeling all powerful! sometimes ppl take this game too seriously

Catherine Frasier
Posted - 2010.02.11 11:37:00 - [84]
 

Originally by: Admiral IceBlock
Travelling in EVE equals gay and should be changed.
Gay:
  1. having or showing a merry, lively mood

  2. bright or showy

  3. given to or abounding in social or other pleasures

  4. licentious; dissipated; wanton

  5. homosexual

  6. of, indicating, or supporting homosexual interests or issues

Which one of those is travelling in Eve equal to?

domitesting
Posted - 2010.02.11 14:08:00 - [85]
 

Originally by: Catherine Frasier
Originally by: Admiral IceBlock
Travelling in EVE equals gay and should be changed.
Gay:
  1. having or showing a merry, lively mood

  2. bright or showy

  3. given to or abounding in social or other pleasures

  4. licentious; dissipated; wanton

  5. homosexual

  6. of, indicating, or supporting homosexual interests or issues

Which one of those is travelling in Eve equal to?


posted by one of the above maybe? i think we all know what he meant..sorry if he hurt your feelings...bad iceblock

Zewron
Amarr
Posted - 2010.02.11 19:52:00 - [86]
 

I enjoyed reading this thread. A lot of thought out posts discussing the pinnacle of EVE's problems. The only thing missing is a reply from CCP to clearly define their stand on the ultimate issues raised by the posters (such as the travel nerf, and the implacable advantages old alliances have over new ones).

But then again CCP are probably aware of that fact that they are neck deep into **** on these issues, and it has gotten to the point where they cannot control, contain, or change these things, which unfortunately represent the backbone of EVE game mechanics.

I am afraid the game has gotten out of hand for CCP, the only thing they seem to be able to do is minor changes, fix lag (maybe) blah blah. CCP is at the mercy of EVE at this point, and not the other way around.

ChickenOfDoom
Posted - 2010.02.11 23:53:00 - [87]
 

I just came to point out that its entirely possible to live in 0.0 without the consent of the local residents.

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.02.12 00:04:00 - [88]
 

Originally by: ChickenOfDoom
I just came to point out that its entirely possible to live in 0.0 without the consent of the local residents.
It's fairly easy to live in the NPC regions with stations. But if you can't dock anywhere for 20 jumps around, it's hard to live.

And if you place any expensive POS, it'll get blown up in a week or two

Barton Foley
Posted - 2010.02.12 04:52:00 - [89]
 

Originally by: Decimus Octavius
Perhaps whole new 0.0 regions that have rich resources, multiple empire routes and are capital & super capital free zones.


Sounds a hell of a lot like w-space to me, except for the 'no caps' part. And we all saw how densely populated w-space has become after almost a year in existence.

What I'm waiting for is the introduction of Treaties, like CCP initially promised for Dominion. Those will (hopefully) make renting space much easier. Yes, still pet alliances, but access to 0.0 will be much easier to obtain.


Pages: 1 2 [3]

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only