open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: Those anomaly changes in full
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 ... : last (118)

Author Topic

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.03.27 17:15:00 - [871]
 

Edited by: Hirana Yoshida on 27/03/2011 17:22:31
Originally by: Sannye
...

Sanctum system was introduced to compensate for moon reshuffle and removal of statics .. had nothing to do with bills (roughly equivalent to Sov POS maint. costs).

Sov bills were however meant as a way to restrict the infinte sprawl we were/are seeing, it was assumed that costs would become so high that entities would naturally stop expanding once the threshold was reached ..
Sanctum system eliminates that threshold making the only limit how many idiots one can get to farm all day, but with human intelligence decreasing that number is quite substantial.
Originally by: bloody johnroberts
.. none of this was said by grayscale not 1 word. i wonder why hmmmmmm

Because of impotent emo-rage like we are seeing here on the forums.
Roundtables normally work by one having a rough plan for what needs to be raised, were they to mention an emo topic the roundtable would effectively have ended.
Originally by: Armaos
Moar Isk = More fun PvP...

Explain why it becomes more fun when all risk, consequence and challenge is effectively removed by unlimited ISK being available at all times and everyone are flying optimal ships 23/7.
Originally by: Evelgrivion
Actually, last time I checked, the number of dying ships has gone down, not up...

On the up side, the militias have been seeing an influx of high SP/ISK players who are fed up with bore-sec and are looking to get their mojo back -> Lot more quality engagements happening in lala-land.

Comment on blog:
Are the people behind these ideas going to look over the distribution of the super-systems?
There is a handful of areas that will become rather poor to say the least, but 1-2 systems will go a long way to creating a solid core for settlements.
PS: Get rid of the bloody moons already!

bloody johnroberts
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.03.27 17:20:00 - [872]
 

Originally by: Hirana Yoshida

Originally by: Sannye
...

Sanctum system was introduced to compensate for moon reshuffle and removal of statics .. had nothing to do with bills (roughly equivalent to Sov POS maint. costs).

Sov bills were however meant as a way to restrict the infinte sprawl we were/are seeing, it was assumed that costs would become so high that entities would naturally stop expanding once the threshold was reached ..
Sanctum system eliminates that threshold making the only limit how many idiots one can get to farm all day, but with human intelligence decreasing that number is quite substantial.
Originally by: bloody johnroberts
.. none of this was said by grayscale not 1 word. i wonder why hmmmmmm at fanfest round table on 0.0

Because of impotent emo-rage like we are seeing here on the forums.
Roundtables normally work by one having a rough plan for what needs to be raised, were they to mention an emo topic the roundtable would effectively have ended.
Originally by: Armaos
Moar Isk = More fun PvP...

Explain why it becomes more fun when all risk, consequence and challenge is effectively removed by unlimited ISK being available at all times and everyone are flying optimal ships 23/7.
Originally by: Evelgrivion
Actually, last time I checked, the number of dying ships has gone down, not up...

On the up side, the militias have been seeing an influx of high SP/ISK players who are fed up with bore-sec and are looking to get their mojo back -> Lot more quality engagements happening in lala-land.


fixed for you:))

Kievan Ariskana
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.03.27 17:23:00 - [873]
 

Probably said (more then) a few times:
Quote:
Expected consequences
Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space

Aren't they always looking for better places to settle? even without these fail changes?
Quote:
In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals

Look at the list a few post above me. What localized goals should they expect in Pure Blind, Providence, Fade and Cloud Ring?
Also looking at the "true sec" ratings on Dotlan I see most of Nullsec isn't much better then Low Sec.
Quote:
Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec

Adding more nullsec gives a better chance to this...for a time. Also changing the Sov Mechanics could improve this
Quote:
Coalitions will be marginally less stable

Why would they? Only thing that probably changes are the jump bridge routes which will f*ck logistics up for a week
Quote:
Alliances 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)

This is what Jump Bridges are good for.

Originally by: Super Whopper
Doesn't count NPC sov systems in each region
A: 0.0 to -0.2 (no sanctums/havens!)
B: -0.3 to -0.4 (probably havens but few or no sanctums)
C: -0.5 to -0.6 (slightly worse than now)
D: -0.7 to -0.8 (slightly better than now)
E: -0.9 to -1.0 (much better than now)

Code:
| Region | A | B | C | D | E | |
|----------------------+----+----+----+----+----+-----------|
| The Spire | 3 | 9 | 28 | 18 | 14 | DRF (d) |
| Cobalt Edge | 7 | 19 | 19 | 10 | 14 | DRF (d) |
| Malpais | 8 | 22 | 27 | 34 | 11 | DRF (d) |
| Perrigen Falls | 4 | 9 | 39 | 42 | 10 | DRF (d) |
| Etherium Reach | 6 | 13 | 37 | 34 | 10 | DRF (d) |
| The Kalevala Expanse | 6 | 16 | 19 | 17 | 10 | DRF (d) |
| Outer Passage | 12 | 22 | 15 | 28 | 8 | DRF (d) |
| Oasa | 12 | 16 | 24 | 24 | 8 | DRF (d) |

As you see, you haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about. You see all those area's with all those horrible systems? They're going to be empty.

Well done CCP, you're going to depopulate 0.0

Quote:
26 of the 34 regions have at least one system in this security band, with half having 5 or more.

Is it me or does this look like CCP's stealh nerf to fight the Ruskies for their systems. Rebalancing those high-end true-sec systems seems to be a better choice, not killing 4 regions mentioned earlier.

Personally I am still waiting for the removal of all Tech 1 Meta 0 modules from loot drops.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.03.27 17:26:00 - [874]
 

Originally by: Super Whopper

From SHC, where people do know what they're talking about.
...
As you see, you haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about. You see all those area's with all those horrible systems? They're going to be empty.



They weren't empty before. They won't be empty after.

-Liang

Shivalla
Gallente
Financial Removal
THE SPACE P0LICE
Posted - 2011.03.27 17:27:00 - [875]
 

Originally by: Super Whopper
Originally by: Shivalla
Dear lord what amount of tears you managed to pack into single post.

Dude seriously, pull your head out of your ***, and look at the big picture.

A) Change
B) Conflicts
C) Eve is dying
D) Has been for past 7 years.
E) NC is crap.
F) U mad?


You are mad, and so are CCP, literally.

I used to have 6 accounts. Now I have three. If this change is implemented I will drop another one or two.

So, there's one you missed:
G) Lose subscribers.

Did you look at the graph I linked or too busy trolling?

The Space P0lice on Dotlan: 0 Systems. Empire alliance whining about changes that won't affect them.

Keep trolling, though.


No no, I am not whining at all. I support this change completely. And I think you should indeed cancel your subscriptions. And sell all the chars aswell, to support your ISK making.

Trolling, well, that might be Cool

Clavius XIV
Auctoritan Syndicate
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2011.03.27 17:31:00 - [876]
 

Originally by: Furb Killer

Sorry Clavius but pre-dominion, which wars were fought over ratting grounds exactly?
..


Then why providence was populated and allowed for the large ammount of pvp, you should really talk to Hardin about this since he understands it. But it comes down to security -> more security = more pvp, less security = more NAPs + empty wastelands. Old providence had jump bridges everywhere connecting everything, allowing for reasonable response times against roaming reds and relative safe travel for the main inhabitants. More important every single system was cynojammed, also against black ops hotdrops. This provided safety for all pilots, safety attracts people, which allowed for the most diverse pvp environment in 0.0 ever.

And that is something that CCP (and many others) just dont seem to be able to grasp -> increase reasons for conflict also means more people want to shoot us -> we band more together to protect ourselves -> larger NAPs. More security -> more people in 0.0 with less reason to NAP everyone in 30 region radius -> more pvp.


I get this completely, the part you missed:
Originally by: Clavius XIV

I do agree that CCP really don't understand their game so this is a right change for the wrong reasons. The reason for the influx of people to 0.0 is not because there is suddenly more isk to be made there. The reason for the increase in 0.0 population is that current mechanics provide an incentive for the great powers to offer security in exchange for rental fees.



The real question: is a uniformly and completely populated 0.0 that encourages renters in every system to a superpower and makes any sov warfare escalate to super-block warfare more desirable than a more diverse 0.0 where there are some highly populated areas held by/rented by the most powerful alliances and some wastelands where less powerful groups fight over the scraps?

I can see arguments both ways. Certainly if you goal is just to get the maximal number of pilots in 0.0 you will have more people in 0.0 with the current renter model. If the goal is a diverse and vibrant 0.0 with smaller level sov conflicts that don't automatically escalate into super block warfare -- variable value space combined with mechanics that make it "generally not worth the bother" for powerblocks to get involved is the way to go.


Arnakoz
Posted - 2011.03.27 17:33:00 - [877]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren

They weren't empty before. They won't be empty after.



just like low-sec, right!

Cyrus Doul
E0 Corp
Posted - 2011.03.27 17:34:00 - [878]
 

Link to spreadsheet form of scrapheap chart

For those of you that don't mind clicking links, here's the graph in a Google spreadsheet.

To get the numbers i took:
<-.2 at -4 sites as that removed all havens and sanctums
-.3 to -.4 at -2 sites which leaves havens but no sanctums
-.5 to -.6 at -1 for 2 havens and 1 sanctum
-.7 to -.8 at +1 for 2 haven 2 sanctums and the extra
-.9 to -1.0 at +2 for 3 and 3

If my numbers are off on those if someone wants to tell me what the proper numbers more likely are per field I can change it pretty fast

TLDR with that system losses of high end sites are
DRF 30% loss across 15 regions
PL 26% loss on one region
NC 57% loss across seven regions
CAAASEROL 50% loss across seven regions
Nulli Secunda 33$ loss on one region
DC 48% loss across 3 regions
Ev0ke 93 percent loss on one region

Marconus Orion
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.03.27 17:34:00 - [879]
 

The inteligence in this thread reminds me of this.

Good time for a Spaceballs clip regardless! Cool

... you know your going to watch the whole clip, and possible any related ones. Razz

Arnakoz
Posted - 2011.03.27 17:42:00 - [880]
 

Originally by: Cyrus Doul
Link to spreadsheet form of scrapheap chart

For those of you that don't mind clicking links, here's the graph in a Google spreadsheet.

To get the numbers i took:
<-.2 at -4 sites as that removed all havens and sanctums
-.3 to -.4 at -2 sites which leaves havens but no sanctums
-.5 to -.6 at -1 for 2 havens and 1 sanctum
-.7 to -.8 at +1 for 2 haven 2 sanctums and the extra
-.9 to -1.0 at +2 for 3 and 3

If my numbers are off on those if someone wants to tell me what the proper numbers more likely are per field I can change it pretty fast

TLDR with that system losses of high end sites are
DRF 30% loss across 15 regions
PL 26% loss on one region
NC 57% loss across seven regions
CAAASEROL 50% loss across seven regions
Nulli Secunda 33$ loss on one region
DC 48% loss across 3 regions
Ev0ke 93 percent loss on one region


yeah, i was just looking at pureblind (http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/Pure_Blind#sec) and figured out it would be worthless as a whole.

how about this - we call all 0.0 to -0.4 systems "low sec" and get it over with. they would be about as popular.

Shivalla
Gallente
Financial Removal
THE SPACE P0LICE
Posted - 2011.03.27 17:46:00 - [881]
 

Originally by: Cyrus Doul
Link to spreadsheet form of scrapheap chart

For those of you that don't mind clicking links, here's the graph in a Google spreadsheet.

To get the numbers i took:
<-.2 at -4 sites as that removed all havens and sanctums
-.3 to -.4 at -2 sites which leaves havens but no sanctums
-.5 to -.6 at -1 for 2 havens and 1 sanctum
-.7 to -.8 at +1 for 2 haven 2 sanctums and the extra
-.9 to -1.0 at +2 for 3 and 3

If my numbers are off on those if someone wants to tell me what the proper numbers more likely are per field I can change it pretty fast

TLDR with that system losses of high end sites are
DRF 30% loss across 15 regions
PL 26% loss on one region
NC 57% loss across seven regions
CAAASEROL 50% loss across seven regions
Nulli Secunda 33$ loss on one region
DC 48% loss across 3 regions
Ev0ke 93 percent loss on one region


Very good math! Awesome!

And now we all know why NC is so ****ed. Suprisingly nobody from Evoke has been cryin that much.

Illectroculus Defined
No Bull Ships
Posted - 2011.03.27 17:48:00 - [882]
 

I wholeheartedly support these changes, I remember living in northern catch & providence back before Dominion and at no time did I find myself thinking that I needed piles of high end anomalies to make money. And back then that was the most populated 0.0 region in the game.

Now.... I'd also love to see the Sov Fees and effort required to raise indexes linked to the truesec status, so if you have crappy systems you can pay less to concord for those upgrades and work a little less hard to raise indices.


Cyrus Doul
E0 Corp
Posted - 2011.03.27 17:54:00 - [883]
 

Originally by: Shivalla
Originally by: Cyrus Doul
Link to spreadsheet form of scrapheap chart

For those of you that don't mind clicking links, here's the graph in a Google spreadsheet.

To get the numbers i took:
<-.2 at -4 sites as that removed all havens and sanctums
-.3 to -.4 at -2 sites which leaves havens but no sanctums
-.5 to -.6 at -1 for 2 havens and 1 sanctum
-.7 to -.8 at +1 for 2 haven 2 sanctums and the extra
-.9 to -1.0 at +2 for 3 and 3

If my numbers are off on those if someone wants to tell me what the proper numbers more likely are per field I can change it pretty fast

TLDR with that system losses of high end sites are
DRF 30% loss across 15 regions
PL 26% loss on one region
NC 57% loss across seven regions
CAAASEROL 50% loss across seven regions
Nulli Secunda 33$ loss on one region
DC 48% loss across 3 regions
Ev0ke 93 percent loss on one region


Very good math! Awesome!

And now we all know why NC is so ****ed. Suprisingly nobody from Evoke has been cryin that much.


Providence has 3 systems with ratting over 10k per day kills. only one of them is owned by evoke. the other two are the ewoks (renters). Also I bet evoke is holding the space so CVA can not. And finally provi had never really been about the ratting. More so it was the proximity to high sec to bring mins in and build supers to sell. Its not the alliances that are going to be complaining as much as it is the single members. no one is going to want to live in <.5 as the level 4 missions that your empire alliance has are worth the same.

Merkus Letifer
Gallente
Everset Dropbears
Posted - 2011.03.27 17:56:00 - [884]
 

Edited by: Merkus Letifer on 27/03/2011 18:00:56
Edited by: Merkus Letifer on 27/03/2011 17:58:03
So...Grey,

Was it all lost as soon as we started forming coalitions in EvE?

Blues are going to be blues...gray is gray, red is red!!! Nothing will change that, unless you set us a trap right?

Please, tell us really! Who told you to post such a travesty! It's beyond repair now...

Anyone else up there sober enough to tell us the real reasons behind this whole mess.

And how are you going to fix 0.0 once again? Was it, or is it really necessary to start messing with the little sheep's only income to try to "inflict change" on the big a** power blocs?

Hit the reset button.

I for one am all about second chances.

And when all else phails, "well we still have our *o* accounts!!"

07

bloody johnroberts
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.03.27 18:02:00 - [885]
 

Edited by: bloody johnroberts on 27/03/2011 18:06:46
this is not about 1 0.0 alliance its every 0.0 alliance is affected and the only ones that are saying yes to these poorly thrown together (FIXS) are empire corps i have a suggestion

lets nerf mission running in low sec

see that hate mails rolling in
ps
and as you will see this will hurt the small 0.0 alliances more than the power blocs the small contested areas will go back nothing

tempuskai
Hooded Underworld Guys
Order Of The Unforgiving
Posted - 2011.03.27 18:02:00 - [886]
 

So, here I have recently joined a small alliance, out in null sec, just getting our feet on the ground, and now its all for nothing (in a 0.19 ts system), thanks! Back to high sec then......

Kalle Demos
Amarr
Helix Protocol
Posted - 2011.03.27 18:09:00 - [887]
 

Originally by: tempuskai
So, here I have recently joined a small alliance, out in null sec, just getting our feet on the ground, and now its all for nothing (in a 0.19 ts system), thanks! Back to high sec then......


That doesnt even make sense, besides theres more ways to make isk in 0.0, botting isnt the only way

mkmin
Posted - 2011.03.27 18:10:00 - [888]
 

I like how the thread has now reached the point where 3-4 people are spamming meaningless walls of text. Everyone who has anything real to say has said it. Now it's just 3-4 people making noise. Thread ended with some pretty clear opinions about 10 pages ago, anything else is just noise.

Cyrus Doul
E0 Corp
Posted - 2011.03.27 18:11:00 - [889]
 

Originally by: tempuskai
So, here I have recently joined a small alliance, out in null sec, just getting our feet on the ground, and now its all for nothing (in a 0.19 ts system), thanks! Back to high sec then......


Don't feel bad. you will start seeing the large alliances shrink too as corps realize they can not make anywhere near as much. not just from all their crap systems. But from that the few good ones that they will have will be so overpacked its still not worth it on a single player basis. This patch seems to be made to make all small groups leave since level 4 and safe is worth as much if not more then 0.0 like yours.

The end goal of this is to make super manufacturing even more worthwhile then it already is. And moon goo doesn't change. On another thought i guess we could all break out hulks. If our ratting is getting nerfed we can at least make the disparity between drone space and every were else much much closer by mining and dropping min values though the floor.

Blitzzer
Posted - 2011.03.27 18:18:00 - [890]
 

Not happy, this will not work. Null sec population is growing, and trust me, is anthing but boring! This will just create large areas of empty space as corps leave as its not worth staying in poor income/hight risk/large hassle space!

I hope that this patch does not go ahead as is!

Arnakoz
Posted - 2011.03.27 18:22:00 - [891]
 

Originally by: Cyrus Doul

The end goal of this is to make super manufacturing even more worthwhile then it already is. And moon goo doesn't change. On another thought i guess we could all break out hulks. If our ratting is getting nerfed we can at least make the disparity between drone space and every were else much much closer by mining and dropping min values though the floor.


but since all those players aren't making as much they aren't replacing ships as often.

again, this is a BAD idea, and will resulting in most of null being as used as lowsec. it may even attract more folk to lowsec considering they then wouldn't have to worry about sov/upgrade/outpost costs. common null == new lowsec. ftl.

Cyrus Doul
E0 Corp
Posted - 2011.03.27 18:33:00 - [892]
 

Originally by: Arnakoz
Originally by: Cyrus Doul

The end goal of this is to make super manufacturing even more worthwhile then it already is. And moon goo doesn't change. On another thought i guess we could all break out hulks. If our ratting is getting nerfed we can at least make the disparity between drone space and every were else much much closer by mining and dropping min values though the floor.


but since all those players aren't making as much they aren't replacing ships as often.

again, this is a BAD idea, and will resulting in most of null being as used as lowsec. it may even attract more folk to lowsec considering they then wouldn't have to worry about sov/upgrade/outpost costs. common null == new lowsec. ftl.


Yeah i get ya. If you want another fun sheet to see how much the markups on all capitals are Cyrus's capital production sheet - public Ive got most the pages locked cause google doesn't have individual cell locking like real excel. but if you play with the green fields in the control page then go look at the ship of your choice you can see what it cost to build at the bottom of the Price Column

Arnakoz
Posted - 2011.03.27 18:38:00 - [893]
 

Originally by: Cyrus Doul
If you want another fun sheet to see how much the markups on all capitals are Cyrus's capital production sheet - public


meh, just use http://www.evetools.net/


Jita Bloodtear
Posted - 2011.03.27 18:49:00 - [894]
 

Because you locked my thread. because it was receiving too much support. I'll come here and simply state it.

This is a fail change.
This is the lazy easiest way out.
This is a big disappointment to 0.0 alliances.

All that you stated in planning to accomplish here... will never happen.

You want to nerf ISK sources, and that's a noble goal. So let's do it, let's make this change, BUT let's remove level 4 missions from empire and place them solely in lowsec.

Cyrus Doul
E0 Corp
Posted - 2011.03.27 18:50:00 - [895]
 

Originally by: Arnakoz
Originally by: Cyrus Doul
If you want another fun sheet to see how much the markups on all capitals are Cyrus's capital production sheet - public


meh, just use http://www.evetools.net/




Yeah. but that thing doesn't allow for customization of the production of the parts. It just buys them off market then runs it though the print. A built from purchased mins avatar at component me 0 with a me 100 avatar print only cost 36 billion like your capital power generator says it cost 7.2 billion. built from mins it is 5.7 a unit. when you need 500 units that's a discrepancy of 750 million in that part alone...

Also this sheet is actually more of a copy of my production sheet that I use. thats why on the actual ships there are rows like have and in build...

Amber Villaneous
Posted - 2011.03.27 18:53:00 - [896]
 

OH FFS!

CCP please make an unequivocal statement that the EVE universe is OMG not real!Shocked
That CCPhf is OMG a real business!Shocked
That ALL changes to the EVE universe (the not real part) are based on and will be made in accordance with a business plan (the real part).

Then lock this ridiculous and meaningless threadnought, our thoughts and opinions of the EVE universe (the not real part) have nothing to do with CCphf's (the real part) investor's bottom line.

There threadnought nullified ended squashed have a nice EVE day.

Arnakoz
Posted - 2011.03.27 18:56:00 - [897]
 

Originally by: Jita Bloodtear
Because you locked my thread. because it was receiving too much support. I'll come here and simply state it.



yeah i thought that was BS. how is a petition any different than a suggestion? if lots of people sign it then its obviously a good idea.

as for level 4's.... lets not. the only thing all of this is going to accomplish is making RMT botters that much richer relitive to the rest of us, since our access to isk will be that much lower.

to me, more isk == better. makes the desire for RMT less, makes people more ballsy/ready to replace ships... makes EVE go 'round in general.

Cyrus Doul
E0 Corp
Posted - 2011.03.27 19:00:00 - [898]
 

Originally by: Arnakoz
Originally by: Jita Bloodtear
Because you locked my thread. because it was receiving too much support. I'll come here and simply state it.



yeah i thought that was BS. how is a petition any different than a suggestion? if lots of people sign it then its obviously a good idea.

as for level 4's.... lets not. the only thing all of this is going to accomplish is making RMT botters that much richer relitive to the rest of us, since our access to isk will be that much lower.

to me, more isk == better. makes the desire for RMT less, makes people more ballsy/ready to replace ships... makes EVE go 'round in general.


I was just going to say that. Am talking to some friends in nulli right now and they answered this doesnt effect us. we get our isk from mastercard. Either though GTC or RMT. This whole thing could still be a money draw from ccp. I'm good at financials but i think we would more need Akita T or one of the other market people to give response in this regard.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.03.27 19:03:00 - [899]
 

Originally by: Arnakoz
to me, more isk == better. makes the desire for RMT less, makes people more ballsy/ready to replace ships... makes EVE go 'round in general.


Just like printing a whole bunch of money is better right?

Arnakoz
Posted - 2011.03.27 19:05:00 - [900]
 

Originally by: Cyrus Doul
Originally by: Arnakoz
Originally by: Cyrus Doul
If you want another fun sheet to see how much the markups on all capitals are Cyrus's capital production sheet - public


meh, just use http://www.evetools.net/




Yeah. but that thing doesn't allow for customization of the production of the parts. It just buys them off market then runs it though the print. A built from purchased mins avatar at component me 0 with a me 100 avatar print only cost 36 billion like your capital power generator says it cost 7.2 billion. built from mins it is 5.7 a unit. when you need 500 units that's a discrepancy of 750 million in that part alone...

Also this sheet is actually more of a copy of my production sheet that I use. thats why on the actual ships there are rows like have and in build...


you can change the PE/ME - its near the picture of the item on the individual item sheet. you can't change the prices (yet). but to a degree you shouldn't need to, as since you could have otherwise sold those mats for the prices used, the profit for the end item is still the profit. as for the shopping list, i agree. i requested that he add an export feature, so we could dump the info into an excel spreadsheet and perform our own magic on it. though, something that checks API for items owned like eveHQ PRISM wouldn't be a bad idea. just not sure who all would be willing to give a website that info.

but back on topic!! this change sucks! it would make common null worth less than lowsec. thus would be as empty as lowsec is now. probably more so. dont do it!


Pages: first : previous : ... 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 ... : last (118)

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