open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New CSM Blog: CSM reports: Sense and Sensibility… and Spaceships
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6

Author Topic

Niccolado Starwalker
Gallente
Shadow Templars
Posted - 2010.10.28 00:14:00 - [61]
 

Originally by: CCP Fallout
The Fifth Council of Stellar Management recently visited our offices in Reykjavik for a new round of meetings. This is their report.


Good blog as always, but quoting Jane Austen is simply wrong! If you have to quote an author quote at least Leo Tolstoys War and Peace! Twisted Evil


Noun Verber
Gallente
Posted - 2010.10.28 00:14:00 - [62]
 

Without attribution to the CSM (who I assume wrote this), it reads like " You LIKED this, This PLEASED you" type commands

TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
Posted - 2010.10.28 00:51:00 - [63]
 

Originally by: Gerazon Kaern
I was saddened to see that the CSM didn't really fight the concept of vanity items to any significant degree. It has always been a stepping stone to more than that, for the simple reason that vanity items will not provide any significant income. A lot of games that started out with vanity items ended up with full blown microtransactions.

We argued in 3 separate meetings with 3 separate groups of people from CCP that micro transactions are a bad idea. I'm on the hard line "no MT" side of the issue because

a) I believe that Plex are not micro transactions. They are a mechanism for direct player trading of 30 days of game time. No isk is created or destroyed in the process.

b) I dislike the idea that content will be "held back" from normal expansions (as you mentioned) to bulk up any micro transaction store.


The position overall from the CSM was that the preferred option would be no micro-transactions at all, but if CCP want to "experiment" (note that I called bull**** on them attempting to call this "exploring") with micro transactions than vanity items only is as far they should go.

I expect more discussions on this during the December summit...

T'Amber
Garoun Investment Bank
Posted - 2010.10.28 00:54:00 - [64]
 



In support of the NO VOTES I have resigned from the CSM as 1st alternate
VOTE NO TO MICROTRANSACTIONS, KEEP EVE AWESOME!

LAST TALLY: NO 79.03% | YES 5.02% | COSMETIC ONLY 11.23% | OTHER 4.73%


MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
Posted - 2010.10.28 00:59:00 - [65]
 

Originally by: T'Amber


In support of the NO VOTES I have resigned from the CSM as 1st alternate
VOTE NO TO MICROTRANSACTIONS, KEEP EVE AWESOME!

LAST TALLY: NO 79.03% | YES 5.02% | COSMETIC ONLY 11.23% | OTHER 4.73%




you allready left and your character was bought.

we know this is bull****, he left the CSM because selling his account would mean someoe else would have a csm character. I'm reporting this post.

Virtuozzo
The Collective
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2010.10.28 01:35:00 - [66]
 

Edited by: Virtuozzo on 28/10/2010 01:49:37
Originally by: Camios

2. In my opinion the CSM should be more hard with CCP. Remember Kruscev saying "Niet" at the UN?




So, aside of detail points and general issues, it's pretty clear that this CSM did not yell at CCP. On the contrary.

There is a difference between yelling (omg broken go fix) and and making the effort to take it on with proper workflow, to go step by step, to strike a balance between doing things in a combination of informal settings and structured processes (get results).

This CSM 5 did so, relentlessly yes. Well, some of them, enough of them to carry the momentum. Sure there's been some cases of people wanting to just revive old social engineering methods which once upon a time chased plenty core CCP out of the game in the aftermath of those events (without it even yielding results during that age of social engineering) but while across the board they have been relentless, have executed the art of pressure management and have demonstrated to be willing to engage CCP very professionally, none of them has been yelling around.

Remember what happened to Krushcev after his shoe incident, yeah, he became obsolete and lost even the token support of his own pets. Very productive approach yes.

Thing with CCP is, that they are willing to engage and be engaged now. But there is a strong element of necessity to not just engage CCP as a whole (professionally, in collaboration, and goal AND process focused) but also to be willing to apply pressure management across a broad audience. Subscribers, their in and out of game communities, media and press alike. With the last really being a very unfortunate case of last resort, and should it be unwarranted CCP can very easily disprove such approaches and turn it into a marketing gain.

It is visible that there are results, both in CCP's approach as well as attitude and openness. That is very commendable, very much so. And yes, internally they have a lot of work to do in order to adjust the organisation, metrics and methods alike. And yes, CSM s a whole is still pushing for more results that are really visible in game, but it does look like this winter's expansion will start showing those. Well, except for this Incursions thing which is like a big empty closet, the incarna gameplay challenge and the trap of microtransactions and basically just approaching those from an old style format of "hey let's do this, gonna be awesome, we can experiment with it, in a live product, and see how it goes" (seriously, those days ended when CCP grew beyond startup).

What is important to realise, is to be wary of the same mistake CCP made. Do not confuse process with outcome. An expansion is just one step along a process, it's an outcome, but part of a larger process. The last few years have seen how segmented and disjointed that has become, creative spark is a questionmark there. But these are things which Hilmar as CEO addresses in full openness and honesty. Unlike most companies, so this really is something to appreciate. And yes, something to monitor, the next 6 months will be interesting.

The CSM is in a similar situation where process can very easily be confused for outcome along the way, and vice versa. We want X, Y, Z, and we see that this requires lots of work and even change at CCP, but sometimes the outcome depends on the entire big picture process to be completed.

That is frustrating, but these minutes do show insight into how that works and how the pieces become visible. They also provide more transparency, which to Jane & John Doe cpsuleer is often missed from many CSM members. A shame, but understandable, it is a volunteer job, even if it is visible that (pretty much like EVE itself) that to make it work it really is a job. It can be fun, but that is as it should be with the best of jobs, but still hard work.



Kaltooth
Amarr
Posted - 2010.10.28 01:58:00 - [67]
 

Has there been any discussion made on possibly forming a dedicated 3rd team just to work with balance? They can work on one item per expansion or however, but could also combine with team gridlock for larger tasks (such as rewriting missile behavior code). A good bit of discussion with some of the systems not being iterated on is things like hybrids, AF losing their way, rockets (getting fixed), etc. A dedicated team will also mean a group that has a better understanding of the core mechanics so you don't face blunders such as the infamous target painting a pos/supercap situation. They can also help with input from team gridlock on new features to prevent situations such as the current problem of super carriers able to fighter bomb their counter (according to devblog - hics) and fighter missiles spamming up the cpu cycles.

I ask because currently balance is more of a sledgehammer approach more than anything. It swings, it connects, and things move in ways unintended. Six months later, attempt (maybe!) is made again and might swing too far once more. A dedicated team that can work on finessing the numbers would help as well.

Virtuozzo
The Collective
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2010.10.28 02:25:00 - [68]
 

Originally by: Kaltooth
Has there been any discussion made on possibly forming a dedicated 3rd team just to work with balance? They can work on one item per expansion or however, but could also combine with team gridlock for larger tasks (such as rewriting missile behavior code). A good bit of discussion with some of the systems not being iterated on is things like hybrids, AF losing their way, rockets (getting fixed), etc. A dedicated team will also mean a group that has a better understanding of the core mechanics so you don't face blunders such as the infamous target painting a pos/supercap situation. They can also help with input from team gridlock on new features to prevent situations such as the current problem of super carriers able to fighter bomb their counter (according to devblog - hics) and fighter missiles spamming up the cpu cycles.

I ask because currently balance is more of a sledgehammer approach more than anything. It swings, it connects, and things move in ways unintended. Six months later, attempt (maybe!) is made again and might swing too far once more. A dedicated team that can work on finessing the numbers would help as well.


Inclined to agree with the opening for that. maybe even necessity. Especially since everything is always so fragmented in approach.

But this comes down to an interesting question.

What is EVE. Is it a game about life in another universe, or is it a game about spaceships. You could say even if EVE started out with the intention of being the first, it has been so long for anything further to materialise to really fill that up, the perception reigns that EVE is about spaceships.

Personally I think EVE can be a complete universe in every aspect and possible niche suitable to translate from this place to that virtual place. But not the way it has been doen thusfar. In the current state, core gameplay has been compromised on. You could say cheap shouts like "never change a winning team", or similar shouts, you could always say don't try to turn your cashcow into another beast before you've succesfully figured out a way to keep getting the awesomesauce.



Mynxee
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2010.10.28 02:25:00 - [69]
 

Edited by: Mynxee on 28/10/2010 02:38:08
Originally by: Camios

    [*]Fix lag (you yelled at CCP and it worked)





Well, Virt pretty much nailed it but the tl;dr version is this:

No, we did not yell. Nine people yelling won't make a blip on CCP's radar. We DID discuss the lag issue with CCP, provide irrefutable evidence of its existence, engage in civilized discussion, then report dutifully to the community in many venues about that conversation (and others). The community then did the yelling. In numbers and in ways that had a huge impact on getting CCP to sit up and take notice.

Sure, it's often necessary to hold a hard line on key issues and be emphatic when making points. But yelling in business meetings is not usually the most effective approach to encouraging change. It's much more productive to apply process and engage in discourse like intelligent adults, using the right tools to ensure that the message isn't lost or abandoned..and that the momentum of key messages is maintained.

As one example, CSM5 adopted a policy early on to conduct most of its discussions in our internal forums for ease of access and keeping up with various topics. This has more than doubled the number of pages in that forum since we took office. Those many threads we have going on enjoy a lot of participation by CCP dev team members. That is the result of politely and persistently requesting that CCP engage there and conducting ourselves in a way that encourages them to stay, with mutually respectful treatment that can still tolerate debate and differences of opinion while getting points across quite clearly.

Some people say process in a volunteer council is overkill...but hey, as stakeholders, CSM does influence to some extent how CCP invests its resources. Given that, we are obligated to do our work in the most responsible way possible...which leaves no choice (in my view, anyway) but to apply at least some process.


Haseo Arashi
Posted - 2010.10.28 03:47:00 - [70]
 

Originally by: Mynxee
Edited by: Mynxee on 28/10/2010 02:38:08
Originally by: Camios

    [*]Fix lag (you yelled at CCP and it worked)





Well, Virt pretty much nailed it but the tl;dr version is this:

No, we did not yell. Nine people yelling won't make a blip on CCP's radar. We DID discuss the lag issue with CCP, provide irrefutable evidence of its existence, engage in civilized discussion, then report dutifully to the community in many venues about that conversation (and others). The community then did the yelling. In numbers and in ways that had a huge impact on getting CCP to sit up and take notice.

Sure, it's often necessary to hold a hard line on key issues and be emphatic when making points. But yelling in business meetings is not usually the most effective approach to encouraging change. It's much more productive to apply process and engage in discourse like intelligent adults, using the right tools to ensure that the message isn't lost or abandoned..and that the momentum of key messages is maintained.

As one example, CSM5 adopted a policy early on to conduct most of its discussions in our internal forums for ease of access and keeping up with various topics. This has more than doubled the number of pages in that forum since we took office. Those many threads we have going on enjoy a lot of participation by CCP dev team members. That is the result of politely and persistently requesting that CCP engage there and conducting ourselves in a way that encourages them to stay, with mutually respectful treatment that can still tolerate debate and differences of opinion while getting points across quite clearly.

Some people say process in a volunteer council is overkill...but hey, as stakeholders, CSM does influence to some extent how CCP invests its resources. Given that, we are obligated to do our work in the most responsible way possible...which leaves no choice (in my view, anyway) but to apply at least some process.




Sorry, but that is tl;dr

I support the CSM in their views on Micro-transactions

I originally opened the PDF to look for anything new/informative about
incarna or incursion. and there was really nothing new or impressive spilled.

I am dissapoint.

SwissChris1
Playboy Delivery Service
S E D I T I O N
Posted - 2010.10.28 06:17:00 - [71]
 

I love how the devs don't have bad-word filter Razz

Quote:
"We love when people call bull**** on us".


+1

Vuk Lau
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2010.10.28 06:50:00 - [72]
 

Originally by: Mynxee
Edited by: Mynxee on 28/10/2010 02:38:08
Originally by: Camios

    [*]Fix lag (you yelled at CCP and it worked)




No, we did not yell.



I did yell, on more then several occasions :(

Dierdra Vaal
Caldari
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2010.10.28 10:02:00 - [73]
 

Originally by: Vuk Lau
Originally by: Mynxee
Edited by: Mynxee on 28/10/2010 02:38:08
Originally by: Camios

    [*]Fix lag (you yelled at CCP and it worked)




No, we did not yell.



I did yell, on more then several occasions :(


I thought those were pleasure moans Embarassed

sorry vuk

Camios
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2010.10.28 10:35:00 - [74]
 

Ok ok, I know that the CSM did a very professional work with CCP. This is an amazing effort, and I think that the playerbase will recognize it as CCP did.

Of course yelling at CCP from day one would not have achieved such a goal.
But while the whole CSM tries to discuss constructively with CCP with a lot of commitment, I don't see the same level of commitment on CCP side.

I mean, after several CSMs and polite and constructive discussion sessions, CCP is going to build another expansion on Incursions with the false excuse that "there is no group PVE" in EVE. Another shiny thing. And the CSM has some good proposal about revamping the old mission system.

There is something wrong and everybody know it. CCP should listed to the CSM not only about "low hanging fruits", but about the vision on the good old things. A revamp to the bounty system (in the terms discussed by the CSM) will make much more to EVE than Incursions.




Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2010.10.28 11:09:00 - [75]
 

Originally by: Camios
I mean, after several CSMs and polite and constructive discussion sessions, CCP is going to build another expansion on Incursions with the false excuse that "there is no group PVE" in EVE. Another shiny thing. And the CSM has some good proposal about revamping the old mission system.

While I can appreciate your sentiments, I think it's important to keep in mind that a company of CCP's size cannot turn like an Interceptor. For example, AFAIK quite a bit of prep work for Incursion was done before the June summit.

Yeah, we all wish CCP would align to our bookmark faster, but at least it seems to be turning in the right direction. Let's hope that continues.

Mynxee
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2010.10.28 11:10:00 - [76]
 

Edited by: Mynxee on 28/10/2010 11:55:05
Originally by: Dierdra Vaal
Originally by: Vuk Lau
Originally by: Mynxee
Originally by: Camios

    [*]Fix lag (you yelled at CCP and it worked)




No, we did not yell.



I did yell, on more then several occasions :(




That was yelling? Oh. By yelling I meant...high volume raging tirades. I thought you were just being stern. Wink

Originally by: Camios
But while the whole CSM tries to discuss constructively with CCP with a lot of commitment, I don't see the same level of commitment on CCP side.

I mean, after several CSMs and polite and constructive discussion sessions, CCP is going to build another expansion on Incursions with the false excuse that "there is no group PVE" in EVE. Another shiny thing. And the CSM has some good proposal about revamping the old mission system.

There is something wrong and everybody know it. CCP should listed to the CSM not only about "low hanging fruits", but about the vision on the good old things. A revamp to the bounty system (in the terms discussed by the CSM) will make much more to EVE than Incursions.


Incursion was already on the drawing board when we discussed it at the June Summit. While CSM expressed the opinion that the game didn't need a new PVE feature at this time when so much other existing content was in need of fixing and/or iteration, there are no doubt many factors to which the CSM are not privvy that drive CCP's decision to go forward with a given feature. I sometimes wonder if--since it was derived from the Sansha events conducted in-game--Incursion got a lot of support inside CCP because it was viewed as a potentially easier-to-implement "expansion-sized" feature and thus less likely to suffer from the typical "feature shrinkage" that seems to happen in more ambitious (or less well thought out) features. Who knows. Whether we like it or not, or want it or not at this time (and many do, let's be honest)...we're going to get it.

The point is, CCP is a big ship. Influencing course corrections takes time. Sometimes ya gotta use a brick to the captain's forehead, sometimes more subtle measures work better. Sometimes opposing winds defeat all such efforts. That is just the way it is. However, it's clear that the CSM is being heard, engaged, and involved in decisions that affect the game. The lines of communication with CCP are open like never before. Hopefully that continues into CSM6 and beyond. That really depends on who gets elected and how they choose to conduct themselves, though.


Nareg Maxence
Gallente
Posted - 2010.10.28 11:30:00 - [77]
 

Boy, I'm really starting to dislike the Drake..

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.10.28 11:33:00 - [78]
 

I'm still struggling to understand how, after over 4 years since the project started, CCP still haven't decided what we're going to be able to actually do in Incarna. For the love of God, tell us you're sandbagging us. Please tell us that.

I mean guys, come on - you're supposed to be releasing this thing in the next 8 months, you've had 70 devs working on it for god knows how long, and at least some working on it for much longer than that, you had a semi-working Demo in 2008, and you STILL haven't even got to the point where you've decided what's going to happen?

What? The? Hell?


Bomberlocks
Minmatar
CTRL-Q
Posted - 2010.10.28 11:46:00 - [79]
 

On page 16, in response to a question about what Incarna will be:
Quote:
CCP could not offer any concrete answer to these concerns as nothing has been decided in regards to the gameplay and availability of Incarna


If I remember correctly, it has been 4 (four) years since CCP first came up with the concept of Incarna, and yet there is currently neither a plan for gameplay, nor is there any concept?

WTF?

I would love to know some answers to the following?


  • What was CCP doing in those 4 years?

  • Why was there such a strong push towards getting Incarna out by mid 2011 if you don't even know what you're going to do with it???

  • Why was lag ignored until the player rage in June when subscription numbers started to drop,and why did CCP go so heavily into denial about it?

  • How did CCP come up with such a strong motivation for the original 18 months eve development delay in order to get Incarna and Dust out when they had no idea what they were actually going to do with it?



I appreciate the open minutes and the fact that CCP seems to be finally taking the CSM and the player base seriously, but the recent disaster with the optional optional optional patching mess up doesn't make CCP look as if they have learned much from their mistakes and these summit notes make me wonder if CCP isn't so overwhelmingly overestimating their own abilities in having so many big plans which they are obviously not coping with that they're well on the way to ruining their company?

Yldrad
The Dandy KillerS
Posted - 2010.10.28 11:46:00 - [80]
 

Edited by: Yldrad on 28/10/2010 11:49:17
Edited by: Yldrad on 28/10/2010 11:48:28
Originally by: Bomberlocks
  • What was CCP doing in those 4 years?

  • Making the graphics engine.

    Baneken
    Gallente
    The New Knighthood
    Apocalypse Now.
    Posted - 2010.10.28 11:54:00 - [81]
     

    Micro-transactions per se aren't bad as long as you provide something that:

    a) Isn't necessary to "get well" in the game such as extra inventory space, extra XP, removing lvl cap etc.
    In EVE this equals extra-SP and extra-remapping for plex.
    b) Don't provide same things that are already in the game these are items like players made inventory "bags" which need hours of grinding in EVE this would mean any item that that equal faction/officer/hard to get loot as that would be an immediate biatch slap those who can't afford RL money for such things.

    What can be provided with micro-transactions are for example:
    a) a room with a view for incarna (a room with a windows instead of regular c-lass near the engine room).
    This room won't allow you to actually 'see' outside the station merely a cosmetic thing.
    b) allow ownership of a kiosk, bar, gambling hall etc. for incarna (monthly fee perhaps, I'm hovering on edge about this my self).
    c) Faction stickers and a black paint job for your navy mega. :P

    so in short micro transactions are all and good as long as we're all still on same and equal footing when it comes to game mechanics.

    Catari Taga
    Centre Of Attention
    Middle of Nowhere
    Posted - 2010.10.28 12:01:00 - [82]
     

    Originally by: Bomberlocks
    I would love to know some answers to the following?


    • What was CCP doing in those 4 years?

    • Why was there such a strong push towards getting Incarna out by mid 2011 if you don't even know what you're going to do with it???


    Incarna is just a spin-off of their other games which will have the actual gameplay. We basically just get the engine as far as I see it so far.

    Louis deGuerre
    Gallente
    Malevolence.
    Posted - 2010.10.28 12:02:00 - [83]
     

    Looks interesting, admit I skimmed trough the notes this time but :

    1. Why is the Catalyst in-game model messed up for, what, 5 months now ? On the live server ? That's just sad. Crying or Very sad

    2. If you're going to add difference in icons between AB and MWD why not do it for BPO and BPC right away also ? People have only been asking for that for what ? 7 years ? ugh

    3. More game-fixing, less micro-transacting Evil or Very Mad

    4. The Tyrannis 1.1 release is a dismal failure. You really, really need to get better at Q&A. The player base is getting tired of being (ab)used for testing.

    5. Programmers going emo because playerbase rages on forums: HTFU Twisted Evil Seriously, we all think CCP devs are superhot sexy RazzEmbarassed Now fix our game Wink





    Bomberlocks
    Minmatar
    CTRL-Q
    Posted - 2010.10.28 12:05:00 - [84]
     

    Originally by: CCP Explorer
    ...While CCP did not have a focus on these issues as a company until late June this year,....
    You don't know how angry this makes me. You yourself were claiming back in June how hard CCP had been working on lag. I actually saved the whole thread in a PDF. Would you like me to show this to you?

    Honestly, this, especially since your own boss has finally admitted how little you cared and how it only changed when the player outrage grew to huge volumes and players started deserting your company en masse, is simply pathetic.Rolling Eyes

    Stop making excuses already. That train left the station back in June.

    Bomberlocks
    Minmatar
    CTRL-Q
    Posted - 2010.10.28 12:17:00 - [85]
     

    Edited by: Bomberlocks on 28/10/2010 12:20:46
    Originally by: Virtuozzo
    ...
    Remember what happened to Krushchev after his shoe incident, yeah, he became obsolete and lost even the token support of his own pets. Very productive approach yes.

    Kruschev didn't lose support from his own side for banging his shoe at the UN. He lost support for chickening out over Cuba.

    P.S. Wall-of-text < concise statement.

    Bomberlocks
    Minmatar
    CTRL-Q
    Posted - 2010.10.28 12:36:00 - [86]
     

    Originally by: Mashie Saldana
    Quote:
    When an infestation get stronger or isn‟t cleaned out several negative things will happen on a system wide scale. There will be a bounty tax applied to all bounties acquired in the system, the Sansha fleets will cyno-jam the system, and other annoying things will happen. The idea is to create a strong incentive to clean up the system. The infestation will however not be permanent to the system, it will move after one week restoring the system to normal. There will most likely be one Incursion per region at any given time.

    Just let them spread like a wild fire, add one more system per week until they are cleared out. Imagine massive swats of macro controlled 0.0 becoming sansha taxed so they get 0 bounties. Laughing

    I'm surprised that no one has brought up the possibility of use/abuse of this mechanism by players yet. If an infestation reduces armour hitpoints, for instance, then it's a good idea to fly shield tankers, or, if the infestation reduces tracking, then you go for missiles or speed/sig tanking etc.

    There's quite a lot of opportunity for meta-gaming with this stuff if they have a big effect.

    Eskalin
    Minmatar
    Evolution
    The Initiative.
    Posted - 2010.10.28 13:03:00 - [87]
     

    Edited by: Eskalin on 28/10/2010 13:09:33
    I say YES to micro tranys. please put the final nail in eve's coffin (for me at least). the fact that ccp even brought this up demonstrates how out of touch they are with the player base. so vote yes and encourage me and other bitervets to stop paying that $30 a month that has just become a knee-jerk reaction, a futile hope that if i pay enough and train enough that the magic dev fairy will sprinkle fairy coke on the code and fix the lag/bad game design. yeah i mad. i mad at iceland game company who forgets who pays for their trips to ibeza and hookers while their not fixing their game.

    bitter bitter bitter rabble >=(

    edit: word filter doesn't like the word for Bolivian nose candy

    Jowen Datloran
    Caldari
    Science and Trade Institute
    Posted - 2010.10.28 13:09:00 - [88]
     

    So Incursion on the 16th of November? I will note that down.

    Trebor Daehdoow
    Gallente
    Sane Industries Inc.
    Posted - 2010.10.28 13:30:00 - [89]
     

    Originally by: Vuk Lau
    I did yell, on more then several occasions :(


    I have uncovered exclusive video footage of Vuk yelling at CCP during the June Summit. Many Bothans died so you could see this.

    Hemmo Paskiainen
    Gallente
    Posted - 2010.10.28 14:07:00 - [90]
     



    Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6

    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