open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: Nullsec Development: Design Goals
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7

Author Topic

catinboots
Minmatar
Vintage heavy industries
Posted - 2011.08.16 06:43:00 - [91]
 

NO NO and NO

You are giving the nul sec alliances even more power and a bigger monopoly in industry
You are going to kill off alot of small coporations( 4to 8 people )
You are going to force more coporation into nulsec. As renters where they will be exploited by the big null sec alliances
You will kill off the solo industrial player and the solo mission runner
You will even create longer witing ques at research facilities

If these ideas are to get more people into nul sec it will not work, you are only giving the null sec alliances more power and a bigger sandcastle

In my opinion you will only scare away. Players
As a final note the risk vs reward theory , it is fine but this blog is about. All about risk and getting exploited by some idiots with nothing betters to do than playing eve

Bad idea. Very bad idea

Walextheone
The Red Circle Inc.
Posted - 2011.08.16 07:24:00 - [92]
 

Originally by: Zarnak Wulf
Originally by: dgastuffz
Originally by: CCP Soundwave
Originally by: Har Harrison
Interesting... When is low sec/FW getting some of this attention (it WAS promised...)


I'd love to move to lowsec after we're done with 0.0. First things first though.


so in lets say 6 years from now on are you kidding me?


Beat me to what I was going to say. FW and lowsec can't wait until after Comrade CCP's marvelous and farseeing 5 year plan.



Learn to think. A five year plan for nullsec does not mean that you can't have parallell plans for other areas like; low sec / highsec or whatever. Can't see CCP drop everything else in five year and ONLY focus on 0.0

Zarnak Wulf
Posted - 2011.08.16 08:36:00 - [93]
 

Originally by: Walextheone


Learn to think. A five year plan for nullsec does not mean that you can't have parallell plans for other areas like; low sec / highsec or whatever. Can't see CCP drop everything else in five year and ONLY focus on 0.0


I'm thinking just fine. CCP has a long history of ignoring issues for years. The nano nerf obsoleted electronic attack ships and started Gallente on a downward spiral - three years ago. That downward spiral turned into a freefall with the projectile buff which was a year ago.

Dominion - two years ago. No treaties that were promised. Very few upgrades if any.

Empyrean age - three years ago. Faction Warfare has stagnated since. Shall I go on? CCP has proven through many, many actions that they are more then happy to let us wait years for fixes.

Lunce
Caldari
Posted - 2011.08.16 09:00:00 - [94]
 

Edited by: Lunce on 16/08/2011 10:01:59

What the devs are doing by setting up a comprehensive 'wish list' for what they want 0.0 to be is fine. Throwing it out to the community for feedback is fine. But it's important that everybody understand that this feedback serves two main functions. First, it's a reality check on the devs vision, and secondly, all this feedback serves as a source of ideas that they can plunder and steal, then mold into their vision of EVE. It's invaluable.

It should not, however, be construed as design by committee (at least not by the EVE community), and the devs certainly should not be influenced by special interest groups and other whiners.

So far, the dev's 'wish list' shows a vision of EVE that, if implemented, has the potential to attract and hold many new players to EVE (which is what CCP wants and which is a positive for the community.)

The big problem with this whole redesign 'movement', however, is that changes so fundamental and sweeping cannot be limited only to nulsec. This same process MUST be simultaneously implemented in highsec, lowsec, and WH space. Otherwise the devs will find that they have ended up causing more problems than the ones they were trying to fix.

EVE is too big to try fixing piecemeal.

Jejju
Posted - 2011.08.16 09:28:00 - [95]
 

Edited by: Jejju on 16/08/2011 09:28:57
How does this relate to the upcomiong winter expansion focusing on nullsec?

This review of the design goals for nullsec is going to take at least a couple of months to complete.

If you wait until it is complete you won't have enough time to implement and QA the features in the winter expansion. On the other hand, if the features in the winter expansion are already being implemented, doesn't this undermine the fundamental review of nullsec?

Walextheone
The Red Circle Inc.
Posted - 2011.08.16 09:49:00 - [96]
 

Originally by: Zarnak Wulf
Originally by: Walextheone


Learn to think. A five year plan for nullsec does not mean that you can't have parallell plans for other areas like; low sec / highsec or whatever. Can't see CCP drop everything else in five year and ONLY focus on 0.0


I'm thinking just fine. CCP has a long history of ignoring issues for years. The nano nerf obsoleted electronic attack ships and started Gallente on a downward spiral - three years ago. That downward spiral turned into a freefall with the projectile buff which was a year ago.

Dominion - two years ago. No treaties that were promised. Very few upgrades if any.

Empyrean age - three years ago. Faction Warfare has stagnated since. Shall I go on? CCP has proven through many, many actions that they are more then happy to let us wait years for fixes.


We all know that many areas in this game have a dire need of an overhaul. I'm saying that that logic to think the plans can only be serial is faulty. With all possibility there will plans in parallel for different areas.

Clansworth
Good Rock Materials
Posted - 2011.08.16 10:21:00 - [97]
 

So, in summary, this dev blog is detailing your comprehensive analysis of the F&I forum topic list from five years ago?

Tobias Sjodin
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2011.08.16 11:16:00 - [98]
 

It's simple.

High stakes, high gain.
Low stakes, low gain.

If you don't like it, I'm sure there's another game you can shoot invulnerable structures and protest in a central market hub in.

CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2011.08.16 13:51:00 - [99]
 

Originally by: Ralavina
Hi CCP Fallout / Greyscale

To remove permanent marker from a white board, simply scribble over it with a normal board marker - the oils in the board marker will react with the permanent marker "ink" and you'll be able to rub it off with a normal board cleaner, without the need to use special sprays / cleaners.




Holy cow this works. Thanks Very Happy

Originally by: DigitalCommunist

Oh boy, like I haven't heard that one before. It's only been used by every forum posting carebear since 2003.

No, EVE is not going to die if it becomes harder. It will get even bigger. EVE is only alive today because it was ****-hard and people liked it that way. In fact, they loved it that way. It grew off that premise alone, despite being broken in almost every other way.


I don't follow your reasoning here; in particular I'm not clear how you're extrapolating the existence of a large audience for early-EVE-type gameplay in 2011 based on the existence of a small audience for it existing in 2003.

Originally by: Victoria Wolfe
From what I can tell, a good portion of this blog is focused on dragging high sec players to null. The reality is, most in high sec want to be there. It's no secret you can make way more ISK in null and in relative safety if you can get into a large power block.

Many in high sec play there because they don't want to PVP and/or are casual players who want a more relaxed environment. They may also be those who don't play often enough or seriously enough to want to be bothered living outside Empire space. So if you take away the principle past times of these people the result will not be a mass migration to null, but instead these players will get bored of the game and leave.

So my advice if you want to revamp, liven up, enhance null is not to do it to the detriment of the other areas. You won't get more people out there, you'll just get fewer people.


Yup, we're very much aware that a decent chunk of players aren't interested in nullsec, and we don't want to be looking like we're trying to force them to move (because that's pointless). What we do want to make sure of is that everyone who's even vaguely interested has a strong reason to try it out. Where exactly that balance lies is something we're still determining, hence (among other things) these blogs Smile

Originally by: Aineko Macx
Like others pointed out, it shouldn't be 99% self sufficient. Resources should be regionalized enough so that 0.0 to empire and 0.0 to 0.0 transactions need to happen. For T2 production this specifically means that moon type availability should have a strong regional bias (ofc demand should be roughly equal among the moon minerals in a given rarity class).


To be clear, that's 99% by volume and within a couple of regions, not just in one system. The exact percentage is up in the air, but the thrust here is that people shouldn't need to be hauling massive volumes of stuff like low end minerals back and forth as they are today. We want to keep the trade, but we'd like it to be in the area of a handful of freighters a month rather than in the area of a dozen a week.

Originally by: Diomedes Calypso
Quote:
•Accessible ◦Pretty much anyone with a little seed capital (~10m ISK) should be able to establish some small, semi-permanent presence in nullsec. Not everyone wants to get involved in nullsec, but every player that feels even a slight interest but never quite takes the plunge represents a failure of design that we should fix.


You ment 10 BILLION isk, didn't you?

I had close to 15 million after week 2 in the game running and salvaging the sisters of eve in mostly a t1 frigate (needed to come back for the last couple, but the isk figure still stands for the point up to there)


Great. Why shouldn't you be able to build your own little hangar in nullsec in your first month?

Mnengli Noiliffe
Posted - 2011.08.16 14:07:00 - [100]
 

I think after the NeX store fiasco CCP got angry on all the carebears who refuse to buy all the virtual clothing and decided to get rid of them once and for all.

I approve.

Only niche players who only want to pvp should play this game. servers are overstressed by all the carebears running the silly missions all the time. That hardware is needed for the other projects so EVE population needs to decrease by several orders of magnitude.

Overall, this is a positive direction towards core 5% player base's best interests.

Dante Edmundo
Posted - 2011.08.16 14:32:00 - [101]
 

Edited by: Dante Edmundo on 16/08/2011 15:50:21
On removing T2 production from hi-sec:

I'm not going to spend hours each day trying to build items only to have some adolescent dweeb blow it up for
giggles. And not all of us want to play Eve as part of some COLLECTIVE to be assimilated into - run by
power hungry neurotic Alliance leaders (who have inside dev friends) to make nul-sec the one and only viable
option to play Eve.

There is a reason why so many players T2 manufacture in hi-sec, so they don't waste their
game play time. If you think game players enjoy spending hours working on making stuff
only to have it easily destroyed without profit, that is seriously reetarded.

There are other ways to make nul-sec more enticing - rather than forcing hi-sec manufacturers
to build there at gun point. One idea is to introduce more minerals and ship types into
the game - that belong to nul-sec. When is the last time any major new ships were introduced
in this game - or mineral types? Instead - years have been spent on Incarna - and we got a
pretty "Captains Quarters" that slows down half of the players machines to near unusability.

T1 production only for hi-sec is just - silly ... If you want to make nul-sec better place to play, then
make it a better place to play - but don't do it by ruining the game for players who
have worked hard in setting up a manufacturing base in hi-sec - and work hard in maintaining hi-sec
production.

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2011.08.16 15:17:00 - [102]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Great. Why shouldn't you be able to build your own little hangar in nullsec in your first month?

I like this.

Has CCP been thinking about the idea of cynos scaling to fleets? You have various sized wormholes that destabilize after a certain mass passes through them. Why not various sized cynos that do the same? Small, medium, large, perhaps XL.

Apollo Gabriel
Mercatoris
Etherium Cartel
Posted - 2011.08.16 16:17:00 - [103]
 

I'd like to throw this out there one more time ... please change the way local intel works guys. I'm all for a we own this system to X level, so we get intel, but why does everyone? If you want more conflict remove the intel of local, it works great in w-space, lots of spontaneous pvp.

Apollo Gabriel
Mercatoris
Etherium Cartel
Posted - 2011.08.16 16:19:00 - [104]
 

Originally by: catinboots
NO NO and NO

You are giving the nul sec alliances even more power and a bigger monopoly in industry
You are going to kill off alot of small coporations( 4to 8 people )
You are going to force more coporation into nulsec. As renters where they will be exploited by the big null sec alliances
You will kill off the solo industrial player and the solo mission runner
You will even create longer witing ques at research facilities

If these ideas are to get more people into nul sec it will not work, you are only giving the null sec alliances more power and a bigger sandcastle

In my opinion you will only scare away. Players
As a final note the risk vs reward theory , it is fine but this blog is about. All about risk and getting exploited by some idiots with nothing betters to do than playing eve

Bad idea. Very bad idea


as long as theft remains as simple as it is, and prevention tools as weak as they are (you mean I can't lock my orca!) Corps will remain small.

Dmitri Krylov
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2011.08.16 16:30:00 - [105]
 

One thing that would be good for any pilot would be a mechanism such as eve metrics had. Just like checking into the Wall Street Journal or logging into Morningstar, pilots looking to do business can get information on market activity and trends. I know the market windos have some information but this is really lacking. If there was no need for this kind of information then there would have been no need for players to create sites like eve metrics, eve market, eve central market and so on. This is an important tool that reflects RL business practices.

Actually, a good rule of thumb would be, if a player-made site is offering a popular service (Dotlan, EVE Central Market, Eve Marketdata) then that's probably a weak point in the game. I know some of these designers tried to get CCP to take sites over or run the same software. Eve Metrics did this. CCP just didn't believe it was needed and that was foolish. It's already built and already works. Use it. Player bases tend to make some really awesome stuff. Just look at games like Red Orchestra as an example, voted one of the top 100 games of all time by PC Gamer. Most of the content was player designed and produced.


Dmitri Krylov
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2011.08.16 16:44:00 - [106]
 

Also, nullsec industry is hampered by RL reasoning. This is an ugly comparison so I'm sorry if people get offended. I'm not trying to offend by using a RL comparison. However, nullsec industry is stupid for several reasons. The biggest would be the risk to production and supply for no real reason. I would not build an ammunition factory in Lybia. I would build it in Italy and ship it to Lybia. Thus highsec manufacturing/shipping/low or null sec sales for the bulk of the market. Military weapon shows do not take place in Somalia. They take place in secure areas where the sale orders are then taken. Nobody builds sidewinder missles in Afganistan. They just build IEDs with materials that are readily available, If that "factory" is lost, it's just moved to a different house. There isn't any set up involved. Lose a Boeing plant and you are out of the fighter business.

Dmitri Krylov
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2011.08.16 17:01:00 - [107]
 

Lastly, markets in nullsec are hampered by a couple factors. It's difficult to limit sales to just your Alliance or corp without contracts. It can be done, but it isn't very secure or efficient. A separate market board would be nice. POS's and stations have security settings that limit market availability. Also the various corp and alliance settings limit availability.

The biggest issue though also goes to RL examples. You never sell a tank you can't destroy or missles you can't shoot down. Thus, the best weapon on the market will alway be "pretty good" but not the best. The weapons you sell will probably end up being used against you. This chokes availability and selection. I think the recent supercap debacle in the North is example enough. They made lots of money selling such tanks that they couldn't destroy. Those same tanks burned the NC to the ground. Smart marketing means nullsec will always be crap for shopping and nothing will change that. No matter what CCP does, these things will not change. EVER.

Byron D
GoneMental
Posted - 2011.08.16 17:09:00 - [108]
 

Screw all that, when are we getting fedora hats on nex ? I wanted to buy a monocle, but without a fedora hat it's simply no fun.

Lady Zarrina
Posted - 2011.08.16 18:41:00 - [109]
 

So let me get this right, you want null sec to be the best place for everything BUT T3 production. You guys really need to start understanding your player base. I fully understand making null sec desirable, but as I have said before it does not have to be the best for everything.

How many people actively search out places like somalia, sudan or congo to set up important manufacturing or trade hubs. Seriously CCP, what is this failtastic fasination with null sec manufacturing and trade hubs. Null sec should be fun and exciting, focus on that. You need to do lots of work there.

Dmitri Krylov
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2011.08.16 19:11:00 - [110]
 

Fedora hats? Truly, a gimp hood would be the hottest selling item in this game. Short of d*ck goggles that is.

As for the other regions being sought out (like Somalia) I agree. They are sought out as trade hubs, but not factory settings. Still making ammo in Italy and shipping to Lybia in every scenario. Sure somebody might try to build an ammo factory in Lybia, but that just leads to news footage of HUGE explosions in the war zone.

Manfred Sideous
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2011.08.16 20:12:00 - [111]
 

Dear CCP ,



I really like where you are going with these blogs. Alot of bitter vets are passing off these blogs as alot of talk and no substance. I can somewhat agree with this statement however im a optimist. With that said I think optimism is fading fast with the community. I cannot stress enough that this next expansion be a major step back in restoring the trust with the community that CCP gets what its customers want. Get it right and I think Eve will thrive and grow once more get it wrong and I think the final nail in the coffin will be cast.



With the above said these past few blogs have shown that you are finally listening to us . That CCP is REALLY trying to think about things organically from a players perspective. This seems to be a clear change from trying to release some new and shiny feature in hopes that it will capture attention. Design milestone and technical achievements are cool for a company to look upon as a measurable achievement. However us the paying customer usually don't share the same view. We want to log into a immersive environment where we have liberty to do a multitude of things and the game mechanics cultivate interaction at every level.


Here is my list of top problems.


Risk should always match reward - Currently it does not 0.0 should be the beacon that most players are lured to for income potential. If you think about how we as humans lay out our societies you will notice that Eve is completely different. In real life rural areas ( 0.0 ) are where resources are collected/grown/harvested. Whereas cities (low/high sec ) are commerce centers and production centers. The MAJOR majority of resources as in 85% should stem from 0.0 or wormholes. Whereas 85% of commerce & production should be in low/highsec. Trying to create realistic commerce in 0.0 is unrealistic as demand sets markets. However 0.0 isn't a open market due to "not wanting hostiles having access to your stations or not wanting to aid a enemy". The goal should be to create lots of interaction between zones. Because with this interaction comes opportunity for loss / gain / pvp / diplomacy / metagame. Thus is how humans have crafted society for millenium's .



Stacking penalties - It is one of the greatest features of Eve. It defines how we fit our ships etc it places reasonable and artificial limits on things that we as players would otherwise abuse. This should extend to most facets of the game. Bigger should not always be better. It is my view that If you have a very large alliance you should have lowered attributes in other areas. Less standings , weaker structures , logistics should be harder for larger organizations as they have a larger pool of players to accomplish these task.

My idea on how to accomplish this in a fair and balanced way is a by assigning organizations a pool of points with many things in which to allocate those points. Organizations will have to make conscious choices on how they allocate those points based on there structure or organization there needs and desires. Examples would be a large organization would allocate more points into allowing there alliance/corp to include more characters. A smaller sov holding alliance might put points into how many positive standings they have to pool strength with other like minded organizations. Or a organization might place more points into increasing the defenses of their sov. As in POS's with greater defense capabilities or hardened sov structures etc. Perhaps a organization is more interested in resource harvesting & collection perhaps they would points into that area that would allow their mining harvesters to collect more ore. Nomadic entities might put points into making there capitals use less fuel or have better range.

The overarching point of this mechanic is it allows diversity and specialization. Instead of bigger is better mentality. Organizations could reassign points at a cost as needs change.

Dmitri Krylov
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2011.08.16 20:26:00 - [112]
 

Actually, I'm one of the bitter people you speak of. I would love to see CCP get on track with EVE and fix stuff. I'm not even worried about any big improvements if they just went and fixed some of the stuff that's been broken for years. I don't have faith in that anymore though. I have a little hope that they might, but not faith. I hope it does get better but as it is tomorrow is the last day of my last subscription so I wish you best of luck!

Lunce
Caldari
Posted - 2011.08.16 20:31:00 - [113]
 

Originally by: Manfred Sideous
Dear CCP ,

Risk should always match reward - Currently it does not 0.0 should be the beacon that most players are lured to for income potential. If you think about how we as humans lay out our societies you will notice that Eve is completely different. In real life rural areas ( 0.0 ) are where resources are collected/grown/harvested. Whereas cities (low/high sec ) are commerce centers and production centers. The MAJOR majority of resources as in 85% should stem from 0.0 or wormholes. Whereas 85% of commerce & production should be in low/highsec. Trying to create realistic commerce in 0.0 is unrealistic as demand sets markets. However 0.0 isn't a open market due to "not wanting hostiles having access to your stations or not wanting to aid a enemy". The goal should be to create lots of interaction between zones. Because with this interaction comes opportunity for loss / gain / pvp / diplomacy / metagame. Thus is how humans have crafted society for millenium's .


This!

Dex Ironmind
Posted - 2011.08.16 20:36:00 - [114]
 

Edited by: Dex Ironmind on 16/08/2011 20:48:15

I disagree with this RISK should match reward philosophy as applied here. I like what the poster above me quoted.

The suggestion that NULL is much more dangerous than HI or LOW is flawed. The deep recesses of NULL are extremely safe for those who are living there in their alliances. You are more at risk of getting blown up in JITA or RENS than you are there. So, to the RISK v. REWARD mentality as set forth makes the game and development seem very NULL centric right now. It suggests that NULL is the endgame and that every player should end up in NULL. Does a sandbox really have an endgame?

Balance the sandbox, don't slant it toward null. Isn't the idea of a sandbox to let the players build it. CCP should just give us cool toys to play with in the sandbox. All this NULL-centric focus that has the FIS space team currently occupied seems to resonate of a "herding" mentality. They may say it is not, but that is the only logical conclusion to draw.

CCP... Greyscale ... quit trying to herd us. Give us better toys and content that allow us to play in the sandbox as we see fit. Drop the herding mentality. Go after BOTS, especially those buried in NULL that are inflating the economy and making supercaps and titans seem like rifters and drakes. Make the tools better. Continue to improve the UI. Give us cool, new content. New combat ships, ship classes, and such would be great. Even add new missions that are less predictable and more dynamic. Add more dynamics to the sandbox overall, to every aspect of the game.

Do this, and you will add more players to EVE in general, which is not just good for NULL, but for all sectors of space. Frankly, I think if you fix the bridge to NULL - that being LOW sec, you will also go a lot further in wetting an appetite for NULL content. However, this NULL-centric concept is very unbalanced. Make your updates about something for everyone and you will please a lot more of your player base.

Dex was here. Cool

Dmitri Krylov
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2011.08.16 20:44:00 - [115]
 

There should never be an absolute in any system like there is no absolutes in RL. The potential should be greater for singular events that create huge rewards but not with bsolute certainty. Sometimes things don't always go as planned. Columbus landed in America but thought he was in India. His crew was just about ready to kill him and turn back.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be better, just not certain. That's the adventure part! Otherwise you're just grinding missions in nullsec.

High, low and null security areas should never be exclusive to themselves anyway. Then it just gets stupid and boring. If null has full industry then where is all the planned fighting at gates? No need for shipping that much. If high sec has everything then no need for low or null. Low sec already has nothing really good in them and we can already see the effect of that.

By not making each area self supportive then you get movement and trade. It makes for an economy that permits many ways to get rich and lots of ways to choose poorly. That supports everybody's game style. It also continues the drive to control areas for industry AND traffic AND access all because of movement.

Ranka Mei
Caldari
Posted - 2011.08.16 20:52:00 - [116]
 

◦ It is critical that some low-effort, decent-reward solo activities are available to players in nullsec. This class of content gives players a reason to stay online if nobody else is around, and it's only by getting people to stay logged on that it stops being the case that nobody else is around.

Guess all y'all shouldn't have nerfed my unprobable Tengu then. :P

Amber Villaneous
Posted - 2011.08.16 22:15:00 - [117]
 

Edited by: Amber Villaneous on 16/08/2011 22:15:25
Originally by: Mnengli Noiliffe

Only niche players who only want to pvp should play this game. servers are overstressed by all the carebears running the silly missions all the time. That hardware is needed for the other projects so EVE population needs to decrease by several orders of magnitude.

Overall, this is a positive direction towards core 5% player base's best interests.


I think my sarcasm detector is malfunctioning. That was sarcasm, correct?

Rainus Max
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.08.16 22:24:00 - [118]
 

Cool start (I hope)

Out of curiosity how much of this are you hoping/aiming to get in the winter patch? Are we going to get anything significant or just tweaks?

Herping yourDerp
Posted - 2011.08.17 05:43:00 - [119]
 

Edited by: Herping yourDerp on 17/08/2011 05:50:26
so highsec becomes worthless and low and nullsec get all the good stuff.

how do i unsub again? i dont wanna be in nullsec coalition borefest and i dont really like the idea of living in a lowsec pirate hangout.

highsec it fine
give lowsec more to do
nullsec just needs coalitions to break down

also
Nullsec should depend on low/null/wormholes for vast amounts of minerals.
T2 should be possible in nullsec, maybe make datacores have a BPO..
nullsec already gets good bounties, thats fine
nullsec supplies faction/deadspace loot
lowsec supplies capital ships
lowsec depends on highsec for low end minerals and nullsec for high end minerals
lowsec stations should sell drug BPCs ( isk sink)
highsec needs the rare mods to fit on missions boats
highsec needs the high end minerals to make ships of there own
highsec has a lot of players that dont use all their ammo, so they sell it cheap, which null and lowsec players can buy in vast ammounts.

wormholes provide the rare ores and rare items for t3.. i think they are fine the way they are atm.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.08.17 05:50:00 - [120]
 

Originally by: Herping yourDerp
so highsec becomes worthless
Based on what?
Did you read the blog?


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7

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