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 : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 ... : last (118)

Author Topic

Bloodhands
hirr
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:38:00 - [121]
 

I'm strange, I kinda like the idea of true sec actually working like it used to work. CCP finally figured out they fk'd up null sec when they removed true sec from the equation and are trying to fix it. However, as many others have said, they need to make the crappy null sec still desirable.

One option would be better ore in crappy space, or more chances of incursions in bad null sec. Or, how about what all of null sec was extremely happy about when it was announced and royally ****ed about when it was removed before even being given was the treaties. Allow large power blocks to be blue with people in specific areas of space for logistics and home protection, but be neutral to each other in other areas.

Branch and Tenal residents aren't going to reset tribute residents because they couldn't get to there home if they did. Same goes for Period Basis. However, if you were to allow someone to be blue in a few key constellations for travel, and neutral in the rest of eve that would clear up many issues.

Take the NC for example, do you really think that Pure Blind residents want to be blue to Geminate residents? Simple answer is no. However they are because the only option is blue or neutral. There is no in between to allow someone to be blue in some regions or constellations.

Make the changes to true sec, but also let people pvp.

Klam
Amarr
FACTS on EVE
RED.OverLord
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:40:00 - [122]
 

Originally by: Weaselior
Originally by: Klam
I'm curious ... does anyone think this will meet CCP's expected consequences? I just read through every reply and have yet to find one that's completely or even mostly positive about this change. There's those that think it won't be the end of the world ... but so far NONE think it will meet CCP's stated goals for the change.

We as players will adapt to it and the majority will keep playing ... but ... If CCP really thinks it will impact the changes they expect ... and if they expect no subscription fallout from this they are delusional.


I hope players that were lucky enough to head to fan fest can make this clear in person.


i like it


Cool. Care to elaborate? I'd love to understand the logic behind the change more since CCP just said it will make things better without the reasoning as to why.

Ceras Phoenix
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:41:00 - [123]
 

I just spent like 15 minutes trying to figure out how you could make a situation in which nullsec is populated by tens/hundreds of smaller alliances and corporations, and everything I came up with still resulted in, "Well if you just set a large enough number of people blue and agree to work together, big power blocs will still control what they want to control."

Sov nullsec is not designed for "the little guy." The entire notion of owning space and the mechanics behind taking and controlling it are so far skewed towards large groups of players that there is literally no way to change it short of erasing untold years of design philosophy. Supercapitals as a class of ships would HAVE to disappear in order for small groups to have a chance of competing with alliances and coalitions. It's absolutely mindblowing what they think they can accomplish by changing something like this.

All this change means is that areas with low truesec are suddenly far more valuable, and are far more worth defending. Defense always being easier with large numbers, it's even more important to be part of a large coalition to ensure you can defend your low truesec.

If anything, this punishes small groups, because now even if the major powers shift towards deep nullsec, high nullsec is worthless, so you don't even get anything for your troubles if you do manage to capture the space.

The only thing I can think of is to make lowsec somehow claimable on a corporate level. That'd allow all the yarrr pirates and smaller groups to have regions they could have some control over and defend while leaving nullsec to the larger player groups. Small guy has a goal and a place to fight for and the big groups do, too. As Mittens said in the roundtables over and over, everything about human instinct says we should group up to protect each other. Given how hostile EVE is, there's every incentive for the DRF and DC and NC to all exist and nothing CCP can do is going to change that. They're just going to leave a rubble of stupid gameplay behind them while they try to artificially force us to play in smaller groups. It's not going to happen.

A much better option would be to slightly nerf 0.0- -0.2 (or -0.3) to not spawn sanctums and only spawn sanctums and to have the very deep nullsec (-0.7- -1.0) spawn super sanctums. Or just have escalations/faction spawns from anomalies in deep nullsec or something. A few people have mentioned this and it's worth repeating.

This is a massive mistake on CCP's part that achieves none of their goals and punishes thousands of average nullsec players who are trying to finance their gameplay. I can't believe it got far enough to make it to a devblog, but I would urge CCP to reconsider this, as it accomplishes none of your goals, and screws a lot of people out of trillions of isk worth of opportunity cost.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:42:00 - [124]
 

Originally by: Alice Katsuko
Yes, but pre-Dominion there were also fewer players living out of each system.


And what is your point there? That you might need to go a system over from your station to do your ratting and plexing? Oh wait, you're busy putting up a station in that system too....

Quote:
There's a reason why decent pre-Dominion alliances had ship replacement programs.


While many alliances said they had ship replacement programs, I always found that unless you were sucking the FC and/or alliance leader off you weren't gonna be getting anything at all replaced. So basically: no they didn't.

Quote:
Basically, CCP is arguing that by nerfing the income of individual players in certain regions, they will create incentives for players to fight over those more valuable systems.


Thought I'd fix that for you.

-Liang

Mcrager
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:42:00 - [125]
 

For once i will post with my main on the forums . ccp listen closely , this change is possibly one of the dumbest things i have seen in eve history. why do you insist on making nullsec less profitable than highsec? there is a reason its profitable , its dangerous. i would make more isk running missions in relative high sec safety than i would be living out in 0.0 after this change. i hope this becomes a threadnaught and something or someone hits you over the head and you notice how bad this idea is.

Ashaai
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:43:00 - [126]
 

This is the same account as Ceras Phoenix, but bugger, wrong character. Guess I have to biosmass that alt when I get back home.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:45:00 - [127]
 

Originally by: Mcrager
why do you insist on making nullsec less profitable than highsec?


It isn't now, it wasn't before, and it won't be then. Furthermore, you seem to be forgetting that CCP is adding plexes to 0.0 as well as nerfing high sec mission running. Rolling Eyes

-Liang

Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:50:00 - [128]
 

Originally by: Klam
Originally by: Weaselior
Originally by: Klam
I'm curious ... does anyone think this will meet CCP's expected consequences? I just read through every reply and have yet to find one that's completely or even mostly positive about this change. There's those that think it won't be the end of the world ... but so far NONE think it will meet CCP's stated goals for the change.

We as players will adapt to it and the majority will keep playing ... but ... If CCP really thinks it will impact the changes they expect ... and if they expect no subscription fallout from this they are delusional.


I hope players that were lucky enough to head to fan fest can make this clear in person.


i like it


Cool. Care to elaborate? I'd love to understand the logic behind the change more since CCP just said it will make things better without the reasoning as to why.


our space is really good

DeLaRefe
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:50:00 - [129]
 

Most ******ed idea ever. You want people to move? Re-shuffle tech moons. Nerfing 0.0 plexes will only make average player A LOT less interested in 0.0 and perhaps in eve in general.

Florestan Bronstein
24th Imperial Crusade
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:54:00 - [130]
 

only difference will be which systems will be available for rent and which will be reserved for own use.

Cailais
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:54:00 - [131]
 

Originally by: Master Gotama
Originally by: Cailais
Originally by: ukiyo e
Less desirable space will become empty again as nobody will want to live in or purchase upgrades for a system that has no resources. Smaller alliances will be pushed out of 0.0 because they won't be able to afford the ships to defend their space, and defending that space won't be worthwhile anyways. This is a horrible decision.


Sorry what? If the space isn't worth defending, surely its not worth attacking? If its not worth attacking why do you need loads of isk to buy ships to defend it?

Your post makes 0 sense.

C.



hi, you must be new here. in EVE, people attack you to see your ship explode. people defend space because it is valuable. see the difference??


2006. The argument here is why people attack 'space' - i.e with the aim of conquering a system. If that system has limited perceived value then it aught to follow that it wont be attacked with the intent of capturing that space. If the attacker has no financial motive or desire to gain that space then obviously its completely irrelevant what the value of that space is.

C.

Anitta Blake
BSC LEGION
Split Infinity.
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:54:00 - [132]
 

so ccp thinks we will fight over Havens and Sanctums


guys get a grip one of the biggest cap fights so far this year was in a 0.2 system
Battle Summary for Uemon, 2011-02-14 19:04 - 02:44

22 Titans lost + 11 Supercarrier add to that 500+ other ships killed

so want made Uemon so special that 1200+ would want to fight over suffering lag, black screens for hours only to load in new clone with a loss mail.

a outpost NO its low sec you can take a NCP station

oh must the Havens and Sanctums no you can upgrade NCP space

so what was it all over well only one thing that matters to 0.0 alliances that Uemon has one Technetium moon.

Moons make power blocks strong not a few Sanctums this is not the FIX you are looking for CCP


Leelo dallasmultipas
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:55:00 - [133]
 

Uhm, this is Bull#$%&?
Yeah,total BS CCP, come on.
This is going to cause more conflict, to be sure, but it'll just be more of the BLOB and more of the AFK Campers. Which is ****.
The "less valuable" space will not be more accessible to newer alliances, no, they wont want it, it'll be useless... So instead of making nullsec more accessible and more diverse, you'll make it unpopulated... Please tell me that you aren't looking to fill up Empire more than it already is?
There is wisdom in saying: "Don't fix something that isn't broke", so leave well enough alone leave 0.0 with upgrades and sanctums. THE WHOLE POINT OF 0.0 IS THAT IT IS UPGRADEABLE....
"CCP Greyscale is excited about the changes coming to anomalies."
I AM NOT.

Zonomar
Krait Corp
Fidelas Constans
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:56:00 - [134]
 

This is a poor choice by CCP to downgrade much of current nullsec.

Enhance the lowest sec systems, do not nerf any.

Klam
Amarr
FACTS on EVE
RED.OverLord
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:56:00 - [135]
 

Originally by: Weaselior
Originally by: Klam
Originally by: Weaselior
Originally by: Klam
I'm curious ... does anyone think this will meet CCP's expected consequences? I just read through every reply and have yet to find one that's completely or even mostly positive about this change. There's those that think it won't be the end of the world ... but so far NONE think it will meet CCP's stated goals for the change.

We as players will adapt to it and the majority will keep playing ... but ... If CCP really thinks it will impact the changes they expect ... and if they expect no subscription fallout from this they are delusional.


I hope players that were lucky enough to head to fan fest can make this clear in person.


i like it


Cool. Care to elaborate? I'd love to understand the logic behind the change more since CCP just said it will make things better without the reasoning as to why.


our space is really good


LMFAO ... oh that's awesome. Thanks for the reply.

Sem Nan
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:57:00 - [136]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Mcrager
why do you insist on making nullsec less profitable than highsec?


It isn't now, it wasn't before, and it won't be then. Furthermore, you seem to be forgetting that CCP is adding plexes to 0.0 as well as nerfing high sec mission running. Rolling Eyes

-Liang


You either:

1- Are a goonswarm member, with ship reposition of doom policy.
2- Are a macroer with 5 accounts running BELTS 23.5/7
3- Fund yourself selling plexes
4- Are a corp leader or alliance director
5- Are Greyscale's alt.
6- Live in -1.0


Some math:
-0.2 to 0.0 systems with an average of 10 belts gives you 10 to 15 battleships every 20 minutes, with low bounties. You therefore make between 3 to 5 mil isk every bounty cycle. On high-sec doing missions you can do double that with an cookie cutter raven. If you use a faction BS, grind LP for BPC's and an alt with a noctis you can easelly do 1 plex every two days with very little actual grind.

Belt ratting on true -0.2 to 0.0 WAS far less profitable than missioning, STILL is far less profitable than missioning and WILL STILL BE far less profitable than missioning. Damn son, unless you're belt ratting alone on -1.0 systems, even that is still less profitable than high sec missioning.

Here is a bit of advice, for real. Don't argue with that. I've never seen SO many people agreeing on something on these forums, and you are trying to swim against the current.

Pyrostasis
Caldari
TDK Industries
Bi Winning Alliance
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:58:00 - [137]
 

As a CEO of a small corp thats currently just getting its feet wet in 0.0 in a smaller alliance I can say that this will have the exact opposite effect of what you are planning.

Currently we've been throwing everything we have into getting setup out here, getting our logistics to empire setup and solidifying our areas of space and now you throw a wrench in all of that.

All the money we just threw into this area is now more or less worthless. This change will as others have said do more to flat out kill smaller alliances and corps in 0.0 than the enemies we've been fighting.

Well played CCP you got the kill mail on quite a few "small frys" today.

Tito Sajic
Secret Squirrel Readiness Group
Wildly Inappropriate.
Posted - 2011.03.25 21:59:00 - [138]
 

April First is fast approaching...

Mina Scalleto
Posted - 2011.03.25 22:00:00 - [139]
 

Haha of course I don't support this. The MANY sound reasons why have been posted. But honestly why even have 5 pages of unsupport when the reality is that ALL of this will fall on deaf ears. When we get another dev blog stating "We hear what your saying and this is what we're doing to meet at a point that makes everyone satisfied.", wake me up.

Some guy working at CCP that sits behind a screen looking at isk numbers, that doesn't play the game like the vast majority of subscribers, is probably getting a big pat on the back for some "revolutionary" idea he thought up.

How about asking the CSM what should be done instead of telling your fanbase "How it's going to be, period."?

Khamal Jolstien
Caldari
THORN Syndicate
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2011.03.25 22:02:00 - [140]
 

Originally by: Mina Scalleto
Haha of course I don't support this. The MANY sound reasons why have been posted. But honestly why even have 5 pages of unsupport when the reality is that ALL of this will fall on deaf ears. When we get another dev blog stating "We hear what your saying and this is what we're doing to meet at a point that makes everyone satisfied.", wake me up.

Some guy working at CCP that sits behind a screen looking at isk numbers, that doesn't play the game like the vast majority of subscribers, is probably getting a big pat on the back for some "revolutionary" idea he thought up.

How about asking the CSM what should be done instead of telling your fanbase "How it's going to be, period."?


Don't ask the CSM, ask the players. The CSM was silent when asked aboutt jump bridge removal and are no where near representative.

This dev blog demonstrates an absolute failure in design that even students wouldn't make. CCP, hire better devs.

Ishina Fel
Caldari
Terra Incognita
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2011.03.25 22:02:00 - [141]
 

Hmmm.

You know, Greyscale, I don't really /dislike/ this change per se. I am simply not convinced it will have the effects you want to achieve.

Remember that the three largest forces that govern player behavior are the following:

a.) The path of least resistance. If a player wants to make money, and available nullsec doesn't look like it's worth it, he will not start a fight over it. That would be too much of a hassle. No, he'll just run missions or hunt wormholes instead.

b.) Force of habit. You've lived in this station for years. You paid to have it constructed, paid for all the upgrades and those of the system as well, put up a dozen POSes, your entire corp's assets are here, each planet is full of PI installations, every member has all their ships here. Even if the system suddenly sucks, people will be loathe to leave.

c.) Boredom. In nullsec, a war is not started over resources. No, the big powerblocks clash because both sides want to blow **** up for entertainment. Because ratting and mining all day is tedious, and PvP gets the heart racing. That's the driving force of conflict.


All I can see your proposed change achieving is to entrench the big powerblocs even more firmly into their space, because small entities need to invest even more effort into raising capital to pay for an invasion (because the ISK/hour ratio of their space sucks) and the defender has to spend even less time to raise capital to defend (because their space's ISK/hour output is phenomenal). In fact, in the time they save, they will grow bored and go out in fleets, stomping the small entities into space-dust and further hampering their efforts to raise and maintain capital.

You will get not conflicts over resources, but rather one-sided steamrolls.

Xeneda
Posted - 2011.03.25 22:03:00 - [142]
 

Unclaimed space is all that will remain apart from the few systems actually worth holding and upgrading... WTF CCP. GIVE US A BREAK FROM YOUR STUPID IDEAS.

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2011.03.25 22:03:00 - [143]
 

Edited by: Furb Killer on 25/03/2011 22:07:06
Edited by: Furb Killer on 25/03/2011 22:03:16
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Camios

  • Having space worth less than empire 0.5 mission hubs is not good




  • Sov nullsec was just as good or better than mission running before Dominion. Since Dominion it's been nothing but your average nullsec resident ****ting more raw ISK than pimped out pro mother****ers in high sec get through mass market PVP.

    -Liang

    Probably trolling, but anyway:

    The only way the sov nullsec we are talking about here was better than mission running before dominion was exploration. Nice and fun, if you want 0.0 to be an empty wasteland, an entire 0.0 region cant support more than a handful of people continiously running exploration content. The vast majority has to survive on belt ratting and anomalies. The systems we are talking about here have horrible belt ratting too that doesnt come close to lvl 4 missions, and now with this change the same for anomalies. So the average ammount of people a certain ammount of space can support goes down by at least a factor 10. Everyone else is better off running high sec missions.


    Next, how would this possibly generate conflict? Because all those people want the good systems? Lets take the NC as example. We have alliance A, alliance A wants better space. Now alliance A (1k people) can attack the NC (50k people). Only chance they have is that NC laughs themselves to death.
    So alliance A got horribly outblobbed, didnt achieve ****, and isnt anything further. What they will do however would work: Alliance A joins a large powerblock (so most likely NC or DRF atm), and says: hai guys, we like some space. Powerblock says: we have no space, but look there, they got nice space, they only got 10k pilots, we'll take it, then you can live there.

    The TL;DR, if you add more reason for people to shoot each other, they will band together more to protect themselves against people who shoot them. Because in the end it is all nice that you got a reason to shoot someone, but that also means 349,999 people got a reason to shoot you.


    Regarding those who complain ships used in 0.0 are too expensive (serious t2 cruisers and t1 BS mainly, if you complain about that look at WHs, they all fly in faction BS and t3s there for pvp, only expensive ships in 0.0 are not financed by sanctums, well not player runned sanctums at least with very few exceptions), when we were all using drakes you were complaining about that.

    But yeah we can go use t1 cruisers to fly cheaper. And get completely owned by those who use high sec mission running alts who can afford normal pvp ships. And some botters to add to that.

    Tex Raynor
    Posted - 2011.03.25 22:06:00 - [144]
     

    One of my NC officials asked us in alliance mail to literally rant on this thread since it apparently "is aimed directly at us the NC, the North".

    Although proud member of WI., I fully support this change. It brings value to systems we control other than their geographical location.

    - Tex Raynor

    javer
    4S Corporation
    Morsus Mihi
    Posted - 2011.03.25 22:08:00 - [145]
     

    Originally by: Furb Killer
    Never go full ******. Serious this is even by :CCP: standards ridiculous.

    Quote:
    Firstly, we've evened out the upgrades so each one has four sites in it now, rather than five in the first and four in the rest. We're also retaining a mix of the sites that we're aware are regarded as "filler" by high-end players, for several reasons: to act as genuine filler so the earlier upgrades in some systems aren't empty; to give newer players resources they can use without much competition; and to give people running anomalies a little more safety from marauding enemies.

    1. That is no reason they stay when you get more upgrades, why not just always 8 sites that increase in usefulness with higher level upgrades for example.

    2. That is no reason to put 80% useless.

    3. Yes because it is really safety that they first go looking in hubs and ports for our tengus. If they are that ******ed they arent a danger, everyone knows only havens and sanctums are actually used by targets of roaming gangs.

    Quote:
    In terms of the high-end sites that high-end players are after - Havens and Sanctums for normal factions, and Hordes for drones - the break-even compared to the current system's maximum of four is around the 3rd and 4th band (-0.5 to -0.8 space), which are -1 and +1 respectively. Below this, things get worse (0.0 to -0.2 systems won't get any high-end sites after the change), but the -0.9 to -1.0 band can potentially gain an extra six top sites with full upgrades. 26 of the 34 regions have at least one system in this security band, with half having 5 or more.

    Anyone who can tell me how much systems fall into each band?
    On first look this would mean 25% of all space is absolutely useless after this change (0.0 to -0.25), but i think more than 25% of 0.0 falls into this category. Creating an empty wasteland, good job CCP.

    Quote:
    Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space

    Yep, I wouldnt be surprised if we do that since all our space is suddenly useless.

    Quote:
    In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals

    If by more conflicts you mean some short blobs to evict all smaller alliances since we need now more lebensraum, yes.

    Quote:
    Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec

    You actually think they will be allowed to take the useless space? It just becomes buffer zone for us, even if they take it, useless space is kinda useless.

    Quote:
    Coalitions will be marginally less stable

    LAWL, you are truly idiotic. Serious go speak with Hardin (current CVA executioner), since he explained it best. But it comes down to simple fact: the more things you add to give us 'conflict', the more we band together to protect ourselves against it. In the hypothetical situation we would want other space (i am just a grunt, so dont take anythin for granted i say), we can do two things, ask our allies for better space (either from them or blob some poor alliance), or we can attack our allies, which CCP assumes we will do. Even if we completely ignore the BFF part and that we like hugging each other, what would be a better choice: Outblob some poor people with 50k group to get some space, or reset our BFFs to fight a 49k group then to take their space. Yeah was thinking that already, we stay BFF.

    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)

    Hello CCP, welcome to jump drives/bridges, you know those things you added long time ago to your game.



    +1 and im old enough that my funds isn't derived of moon goo or ratting any more
    beside who/what the heck did consequence analysis on this design plan?

    whoever it was needs a serious kicking followed by re-education to gm? maybe he would land on par with current customer (dis-)service represen..

    EI Digin
    Caldari
    Dreddit
    Test Alliance Please Ignore
    Posted - 2011.03.25 22:08:00 - [146]
     

    As a member of a large, successful alliance that holds a region with both high and low truesec, I can safely say that I didn't want those sanctums anyways. We have so many systems that we can't possibly have a member in every sanctum, scattered around the entire region.

    Now that there are more high-level sanctums inside of a single, worthwhile system, we can all pack together into the rich constellations, making it easier to sc**** up home defense fleets, and limiting the amount of random solo/small group pvpers floating around now-worthless pipes, who have to travel many jumps through unpopulated systems only to get slaughtered by a 50 man gatecamp.

    I will enjoy the upcoming sov fights that people will bring to us, because they have nowhere profitable to live.

    Furthermore, I will enjoy the tears that come from alliances that live in "filler" space that is now worthless, because now not every single system in nullsec can be immensely profitable.

    I feel bad for all of the blood, sweat, and isk people have put into worthless systems though. Such a waste.

    Katsura Kotonoha
    Caldari
    GoonWaffe
    Goonswarm Federation
    Posted - 2011.03.25 22:09:00 - [147]
     

    Thumbs up. Not a drastic enough change, but it's a step.

    Terianna Eri
    Red Federation
    RvB - RED Federation
    Posted - 2011.03.25 22:10:00 - [148]
     

    Originally by: Liang Nuren
    We afforded faction fit pimp **** before sanctums, you know.


    I didn't.

    Spin it any way you want it - it's easier, safer, and more profitable to just have a jump clone back in empire than it is to run bad anomalies in 0.0, let alone try to take better (LOL) space from alliances that are both larger and better funded. Is it possible to kick someone out of their better space and take it? Yes, of course. But just going back to Empire is not only easier, but probably more lucrative anyway.

    P.S. Nerfing players' personal incomes only makes them less inclined to risk ships. Enjoy even more incentives to fly in huge, risk-free blobs.

    VeloxMors
    Posted - 2011.03.25 22:11:00 - [149]
     

    Originally by: DeLaRefe
    Most ******ed idea ever. You want people to move? Re-shuffle tech moons. Nerfing 0.0 plexes will only make average player A LOT less interested in 0.0 and perhaps in eve in general.


    I second this. This seems like one of those drug induced ideas nobody gave ANY thought to whatsoever before posting. What about all the isk we blew upgrading current systems under the current functionality? What is wrong with the current system? What is this ACTUALLY trying to accomplish? All this would do is force people to abandon their current systems, fight for a few days/weeks/months over new ones, then everyone will settle into their new space, and all it will have done is wasted players' time and isk.

    FFS CCP, there's plenty of broken crap in this game to fix, why are you wasting resources on **** like this?

    Vivid1
    Posted - 2011.03.25 22:12:00 - [150]
     

    I hope you (ccp) have something coming out in our "less desirable" system's or your going to be causing alot of havac for my "small corp" who just recently cambe back to null partly because of what you just took away.

    I suggest a new thinktank.


    Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 ... : 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