open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: Sovereignty--Breaking the Chains
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 ... : last (23)

Author Topic

Nidhiesk
Posted - 2009.09.10 16:03:00 - [361]
 

Originally by: Zastrow J
the "stargate maintenance fee" is just another way to describe switching upkeep costs from buying fuel to liquid isk. It's just a silly roleplaying thing.

The mechanics all sound fine to me, but I'm waiting to hear the actual cost and effort required for each of the upgrades so I can start passing out the pitchforks and torches. Remember the cost:benefit and most importantly WILL IT BE WORTH IT?


Thats exactly what I thought too. whats the cost of all this. And since you pay for the "gates". what kind of control will you have ?

Gertrud ToD
Terrorists of Dimensions
Electric Monkey Overlords
Posted - 2009.09.10 16:04:00 - [362]
 

Originally by: The Mittani

basically alliance-level income works out alright, but for the regular fleet pilots in an alliance, there's not much reason to be out in nullsec. if the 'development' bonuses only help alliance-level income, that doesn't help the imbalance for the fleet pilots.



Hello,
i understand that the 0.0 world of eve can be harsh to single players sometimes,
so i came up with the perfect scheme for you to make some extra isk.

good-natured as i am i took the freedom of buying one copy of the mining
skillbook for you, you can claim the contract at any time in the next two weeks.

welcome to eve, and have fun on your journeys.

Steve Thomas
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2009.09.10 16:08:00 - [363]
 

Originally by: CCP Abathur
Hello thread!

The Infrastructure upgrades themselves were left intentionally vague in my Dev Blog because listing every potential upgrade we are considering would require another blog by themselves.

The beauty of this system is that even after Dominion launches we can literally 'plug in' new concepts, balance them against current upgrades and then assign them a proper value in terms of required investment.

When Dominion launches, you will have what we consider the best candidates to promote the concepts outlined in the blog and will continue to iterate in future expansions.


We are not allowing 'standings' to allow you to determine who uses your gates.

While we are still looking at allowing 'capital' systems and them having some extra benefit(s), the day of invulnerable starbases is over in Dominion.

The following are balancing changes we are seriously considering:

We may open the doors to allowing more than one outpost to be anchored/built in a sovereign system.

Cyno Jammers will be one of the more expensive Infrastructure upgrades and may only be anchorable in systems where you have sov and own a station.

Jump Bridges may no longer allow ships with a jump drive to use them. There has been some debate about just flinging them to a random Class 6 wormhole system but I lost that argument with Greyscale (who is decidedly more sane than I). Note - if implemented, Jump Freighters may escape this rule.

SPACE .


Hmmm

I wonder how mutch of the upgrading you will be allowed to do in empire and Low sec/FW space. . . Especaly FW Space! Muaaaahaaaahaaaahaaaaaaaaaa! Twisted Evil

Originally by: CCP Whisper
Pet a kitten?.
Hands away from MY Kitten if you want to keep them.

XXSketchxx
Gallente
Remote Soviet Industries
Posted - 2009.09.10 16:13:00 - [364]
 

Originally by: Gertrud ToD
Originally by: The Mittani

basically alliance-level income works out alright, but for the regular fleet pilots in an alliance, there's not much reason to be out in nullsec. if the 'development' bonuses only help alliance-level income, that doesn't help the imbalance for the fleet pilots.



Hello,
i understand that the 0.0 world of eve can be harsh to single players sometimes,
so i came up with the perfect scheme for you to make some extra isk.

good-natured as i am i took the freedom of buying one copy of the mining
skillbook for you, you can claim the contract at any time in the next two weeks.

welcome to eve, and have fun on your journeys.


This is either a very nice troll...or a clueless pubbie. I'm honestly not sure

Jadal McPieksu
Posted - 2009.09.10 16:18:00 - [365]
 

Originally by: Ukucia
Originally by: Misinomer
Key strategic questions for the end result of this patch: -

1. Will the change allow any corporation/alliance not blued to one of the 5 main 0.0 entities to hold/use 0.0 space?

No

Depends on implementation. It's quite possible to structure the system so that it's not profitable for the large alliances to "hold" as much space as they currently do. That opens the space up to others. But there hasn't been enough details yet to come to a conclusion.



No. It may make the map completely useless (very little "officially sov flagged") but alliances value geographical buffer zones more than anything else. If we have a major alliance huddled in 5-10 systems and another small alliance sets up shop next door, 3-4 jumps away, they will be vaporized unless they are blue (= pets or allies).

The only way this new system and the further-in-the-future Treaty system may change things is to give us bigger (in "number of alliances" if not "number of pilots") powerblocks controlling that same space, but they will be napped and/or in master-pet relationship. You just can't have a considerable pile of reds 3-5 jumps away and still run any "carebear" stuff or really build 0.0 infrastructure.

If you can improve space enough (high end ratting everywhere you want, high end mining, plexing.. whatever the best 0.0 space offers today) it could make lot of currently worthless 0.0 space worth something but you still won't find any 0.0 space that you are free to park your new alliance in. You either have to take it by force (Sov or no sov) from the current landlord, or you have to pay for it. Sorry.

I'm sure you have all seen the picture comparing high sec, low sec and 0.0. In 0.0, everyone must kiss Don's pinky ring, or become a new Don (non-trivial, requires deep pockets, lots of PvP thugs and some skill in diplomacy).

Quote:
Quote:

2. Will the changes encourage 0.0 Alliances to stop being so paranoid and actually recruit corps (that do not have a 100% pvp character roster)

No

Except that the whole 'treaty' system could allow them limited rights to part of their empire without bringing in the actual corp. Again, there has been nowhere near enough details to come to a conclusion.



If the treaty system is done well, it could bring the new age of pet alliances/corps. Of course you can get 0.0 space even today - it will just cost and you have have some brain cells and able to follow the rules set by your landlord and able to pay the rent. Just contact any major alliance and ask for rates :D


ITTigerClawIK
Amarr
Galactic Rangers
Galactic-Rangers
Posted - 2009.09.10 16:19:00 - [366]
 

after reading this blog i REALLY do like what i see so far but what my main question/concern is.

now that there will be a maintenance fee for the amount of systems controlled, what will the "Entrance" level of system control be like, hopefully nothing to steep.

Roemy Schneider
Vanishing Point.
Posted - 2009.09.10 16:23:00 - [367]
 

hummm R.I.P true-sec...?

AmechWorrior
Origin.
Black Legion.
Posted - 2009.09.10 16:28:00 - [368]
 

Edited by: AmechWorrior on 10/09/2009 16:31:13
Edited by: AmechWorrior on 10/09/2009 16:30:27
Thank you for some more details.

But could you explain what will be done to limit or dissuade large alliances from makeing a bunch of smaller alliances to control the large amounts territory "like they do now" while limiting costs.

I ask this because I assume one of the reasons of changeing the sov mechanics was to enable the vast amounts of unused/empty space that is currently just (edit: it bleeped me for some reason) trap-ed in the large alliances to be freed up for use. So more alliance can hold space instead of a few holding most of the space. If this is not a reason could you please explain what you expect will be the case.

Sophie Daigneau
CAPITAL Assistance in Destruction Society
Posted - 2009.09.10 16:29:00 - [369]
 

Originally by: Zastrow J
the "stargate maintenance fee" is just another way to describe switching upkeep costs from buying fuel to liquid isk. It's just a silly roleplaying thing.

The mechanics all sound fine to me, but I'm waiting to hear the actual cost and effort required for each of the upgrades so I can start passing out the pitchforks and torches. Remember the cost:benefit and most importantly WILL IT BLEND?


Fixed that for you.

Snake O'Donell
Gallente
Core Impulse
Posted - 2009.09.10 16:31:00 - [370]
 

Originally by: zenox paradox
Originally by: Snake O'Donell

I know its hard to believe, but YOU could live in 0.0 if you really wanted to. Therefore your point is moot.


Snake, I've lived in 0.0 for some time (this is posted on another toon on my account, not an alt) but the whole 0.0 thing isn't what is was set up to be. In an earlier post somewhere someone had it spot on, it was about corps creating their own empire outside Empire. It's just been taken to the nth degree now as very few corps/alliances can compete.

I'm not whining, I know you guys work hard to keep your soverignity (I've been there, I've literally got a wardrobe of T-shirts) but ask yourself if it's fun anymore? It's gone downhill in my view, especially since the moon mining and R64 stuff. It's started to become more enjoyable with WH and stuff but waiting in a gang of about 200 for another gang of 200 to come through your gate and have a gankfest? Come on, you might as well go and play Command & Conquer!!!

I think CCP have missed the point here. It shouldn't be about making 0.0 more accessible, it should be about making it less valuable. Throw the odd Ark roid into a 0.9 system, have an mission outpost drop a T2 BP copy randomly.


Can I have some of what you are smoking please? It has to be some good ****. You are so offbase its not even funny. You are right that the balance is severely messed up, and you have it backwards. Level 4 missions in thier current form are more profitable than ratting in all but the best -1.0 systems in 0.0. Mining in the vast majority of 0.0 is no better than in high and low-sec, and is even less profitable than running missions(you can get more mineral from reprocessing loot from missions than from mining in an hour). The only real places that 0.0 really shine are the pirate faction missions(available in npc space only)and r64 moons. As far as R64 moons, they make money on a corp/alliance level, therefore the majority of the time none of the members of the corp see any isk from them. There is a reason why I run missions in high-sec to make my money, and why a large number of people in 0.0 have high-sec mission alts. Please do the research before you make wild ass assumptions that have no basis in fact.

Marlenus
Ironfleet Towing And Salvage
Posted - 2009.09.10 16:34:00 - [371]
 

I'm really looking forward to the unspecified "you can improve your space" improvements. Of course, I'm worried that the possible improvements will be pre-nerfed and not very useful. Folks have argued that if they are very good, there will be no point in fighting over space, just turtle up and improve your own instead.

There's a simple solution to that: make the improvements sufficiently persistent and/or captureable. Then it's: "Nice little system you got here, I think we'll keep it." Voila -- a reason for fighting over space again.

In short, it would be a shame if taking space away from someone required (or resulted in) destroying or resetting all their space improvements back to the natural state. Hopefully CCP won't do that.

ElvenLord
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.09.10 16:53:00 - [372]
 

Originally by: Zastrow J
the "stargate maintenance fee" is just another way to describe switching upkeep costs from buying fuel to liquid isk. It's just a silly roleplaying thing.

The mechanics all sound fine to me, but I'm waiting to hear the actual cost and effort required for each of the upgrades so I can start passing out the pitchforks and torches. Remember the cost:benefit and most importantly WILL IT BE WORTH IT?


ehm, you should really start reading a bit more carefully

Originally by: CCP Abathur
Next, while we are moving starbases away from the actual claiming mechanic, we are not taking away their basic functionality in day to day operations. Things like Jump Bridges, Cyno Jammers, Cyno Beacons and Capital Ship Assembly Arrays will continue to require the use of starbases to operate. Just as with the current mechanic, there will be prerequisites to meet as each of these structures will be part of the new Infrastructure system.


Fuel bill stays, maybe it will be lowered a bit (lets say few unnecessary DS), but you will still need them for use of all modules and production tide to them, not to mention if you by any chance own a Supercapital you will have to keep some pure DS so they have a place to live (unless, see bellow). All in all, it seems we will pay more, just that no one knows how much more.

Originally by: CCP Abathur
While we are still looking at allowing 'capital' systems and them having some extra benefit(s), the day of invulnerable starbases is over in Dominion.

Originally by: Zastrow J
Furthermore I can see a lot more people (nync) camping beacons with a cyno alt and a single plat-insured tackling dread waiting to gank JFs as it becomes harder to build beacon networks or jam systems to keep him away


I guess with removal of "invulnerable" POSs and limitations to jump bridges, building, parking (even for few minutes), or even flying of supercapitals just got 100x more riskier, and if we add on that announced titan nerf, those things become not even worth of mentioning. Are you finally removing them from game in Dominion or is this just an intro to it?

XXSketchxx
Gallente
Remote Soviet Industries
Posted - 2009.09.10 16:53:00 - [373]
 

Originally by: Steve Thomas


Hmmm

I wonder how mutch of the upgrading you will be allowed to do in empire and Low sec/FW space. . . Especaly FW Space! Muaaaahaaaahaaaahaaaaaaaaaa! Twisted Evil


Try none. Since this expansion is about 0.0 sov space revamp and upgrading that space...


Sira Pekara
Posted - 2009.09.10 16:57:00 - [374]
 

Some of the things are good - some interesting - and some simply not logical.

Examples:
I pay for stargates but can not control it? Why that? Blocking stargates would bring some new possibilities as CovertOPs frigates could "hack" them, jump in unseen and call BlackOPs via CovertOPs cyno into the blocked system. Because of hacking the stargate, CovertOPs would not been shown in local until it uncloaks or lightens the cyno. So this would not be carebear heaven but it would bring in complete new possibilities.

It's the same unlogic thing as it is with jumpbridges.
I fight for my home-space and suddenly my own jumpbridge refuses to port me to an other system. Why?
Funny thing because cynogenerators do not have this problem.

Even in ancies times people were able to open/lock their doors as they wanted and an intruder had to break them in some way.

I find it very sad, that there is no locical explanation for such things. It's simply "gameplay" - but a game with the complexity of EvE should not relay on "gameplay" - it should have logical reasons for as much as possible.

So in my opinion this is again a nice try - but parts of it will still not fit into the EvE universe.

Tobias Sjodin
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.09.10 16:59:00 - [375]
 

Edited by: Tobias Sjodin on 10/09/2009 16:59:06
Would still very much like to know what will happen in the transition from current state to Dominion, for instance to todays sovereignty.

Without a transition, there will be no sovereignty at all. So will alliances have to immediately start claiming the same old space, or what?

I don't care about the little plug-in modules or how nifty the new claiming thingymabobs are. I want to know how you will transition from old to new.

Zastrow J
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2009.09.10 17:02:00 - [376]
 

Edited by: Zastrow J on 10/09/2009 17:02:27
Originally by: Elvenlord

Fuel bill stays, maybe it will be lowered a bit (lets say few unnecessary DS), but you will still need them for use of all modules and production tide to them, not to mention if you by any chance own a Supercapital you will have to keep some pure DS so they have a place to live (unless, see bellow). All in all, it seems we will pay more, just that no one knows how much more..


the goonswarm fuel bill will be reduced by 80% or more than it is now. We fuel a lot of towers just to keep systems safe from spam. These towers will be able to be pulled down now. (hundreds of them) The point of my post was that just because our new upkeep costs are called "stargate maintenance fees" does not mean we get to actually manage stargates, deny traffic, etc.

actually why am i bothering to reply to this postghuahguaghaughaughuahg

Smyrk
Gradient
Electus Matari
Posted - 2009.09.10 17:04:00 - [377]
 

If you want to open up 0.0/sov warfare to smaller organizations, maybe it would work to use w-space as a gateway to smaller-scale sovereignty areas. If there were pockets of k-space only accessible through w-space, with no connection to existing k-space, you could put some fairly minor restrictions on them and open up the sovereignty system there. Disallow capital ship assembly arrays and large control towers, and make sure the best moon mats are not available. The mechanics of wormholes will ensure that it's not practical to bring huge fleets into this space, so you could get sov warfare at a smaller scale.

Mioelnir
Minmatar
Cataclysm Enterprises
Ev0ke
Posted - 2009.09.10 17:05:00 - [378]
 

If technically feasible, I'd vote for a combat-capital exclusion for the normal jumpbridges and a new capital jumpbridge suggested above with the limitation that at least one of its endpoints has to be in a station system.

Offlining/Onlining jammers to get caps in is just a PITA tbqh and a bit of homefield advantage should be awarded in that you don't have to jump in your caps after the enemy took down the jammer.

Gehnster
Gallente
RED SUN RISING
Posted - 2009.09.10 17:06:00 - [379]
 

My town owns its main street and keeps its maintenance up but that doesn't mean it gets to decide who can use it and who can't. Just like if you have a sidewalk in front of your house you need to shovel the snow off of it.

ElvenLord
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.09.10 17:09:00 - [380]
 

Originally by: Zastrow J
the goonswarm fuel bill will be reduced by 80% or more than it is now. We fuel a lot of towers just to keep systems safe from spam. These towers will be able to be pulled down now. (hundreds of them) The point of my post was that just because our new upkeep costs are called "stargate maintenance fees" does not mean we get to actually manage stargates, deny traffic, etc.

actually why am i bothering to reply to this postghuahguaghaughaughuahg


Have you considered that your dyspro/prom income might disperse too from a simple fact they will not be worth as they are atm? You might need to use those towers for blasphemy, like reactions.

XXSketchxx
Gallente
Remote Soviet Industries
Posted - 2009.09.10 17:09:00 - [381]
 

Originally by: Tobias Sjodin
Edited by: Tobias Sjodin on 10/09/2009 16:59:06
Would still very much like to know what will happen in the transition from current state to Dominion, for instance to todays sovereignty.

Without a transition, there will be no sovereignty at all. So will alliances have to immediately start claiming the same old space, or what?

I don't care about the little plug-in modules or how nifty the new claiming thingymabobs are. I want to know how you will transition from old to new.


While no exact details have been posted, it has already been posted by one of the devs that current infrastructure will provide some cross over benefits to the new system. Additionally, dev above posted that things like cynogens/cynojammers/jbs will all still be tied to POSs, so I can imagine some of those will stay intact at least to some degree.

Stop getting so damn worried. More info is going to come and I highly highly doubt that they will just do a "hehehehe FFA, take what space you can get chumps." Obviously they are working out some sort of transition....

and again, as I stated earlier...its called foreplay...enjoy it

I'm sure they are. Sitting in Iceland laughing at us while we squirm, trying to overcome their powers of intense titillation...

Thebro Nobrunder
Schrodinger's Renegades
Posted - 2009.09.10 17:17:00 - [382]
 

If you could close a stargate then you could block off a huge portion of the map by locking relatively few gates. This would be very bad. Now having ways to improve the security of your space is still a great idea.
Gate guns, npc patrollers etc...

Even being able to close a gate would be fine as long as you could hack it or blow it open.

ArmyOfMe
Hysera.
Posted - 2009.09.10 17:42:00 - [383]
 

Originally by: CCP Whisper
Originally by: Professor Dumbledore


rabid frothing of the mouth.




Could I recommend that before you make more such constructive comments you go for a walk and get some fresh air? Pet a kitten? Go watch a romantic comedy or listen to a Richard Marx album? Internet spaceships are serious business but they're not worth having an aneursym over. Honestly.


LaughingLaughing

Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
Posted - 2009.09.10 17:44:00 - [384]
 

Originally by: Ukucia
Originally by: Misinomer


4. Will the patch encourage 0.0 war? Will it push the 5 power blocs in 0.0 into attacking each other?

No

Depends on implementation. Let's say the devs do make it not profitable to hold vast expanses of empty space. So some of the larger alliances split up into smaller alliances that nominally work together. K, that would result in no real change. Unless there's major bonuses for working in your own alliance's space, and penalties for working in another alliance's space. So now the multi-mini-goons are disconnected from each other. Time passes, and the various entities don't feel like a cohesive unit anymore. Eventually, you end up with separate alliances with their own goals, which might not quite fit in with the overall group's goals.

Think Canada and the US. They're definitely close friends, but Canada does have it's own politics and does some things the US really doesn't like.




That is very unlikely for two reasons. First it goes against the sandbox ideal. You would have to put massive amounts of artificial restrictions on the players to achieve anything, so such a system will likely not be implemented. Any negatives from operating in other peoples space always comes from the players themselves and it should remain so.

Secondly, even if it was put into the game, established alliances have developed mature communication methods, that allow circumvention of any communication limitations. Even some insane in-game limitations can be overcome and will be, especially since people would be quite aware of the risks it posed. Cohesion isn't guaranteed in todays system either and good corps and alliances are used to maintaining and encouraging it. People might even take any restrictions as a challenge and be even more determined to maintain cohesion against CCPs outside efforts to disrupt it.

War will propably be more common though, if smaller entities can inflict damage on big entities. Even if they can't remove sov directly, it would help, if they can cause significant financial strain without the need for massive capital fleets. The limit for an alliance would be the ability to semi-actively(semi since some military infrastructure is available) defend space.

This is what we sort of have now, but it favors defensive forces too much and non-capital fleets have lost importance, reducing the pressure that ambitious empire dwellers could create otherwise. Removing pos grind and changing capitals(hello titan nerf) will help to change things. Such a limit is natural and you can't metagame your way around it. Just the pressure caused by constant outside forces trying to cause trouble would keep things more lively and create space for new alliances to be crated.

What ever happens I'm exited to see how CCP plans to handle things and what things they are planning to add to it later. At least the new system is more adjustable, so it might not take several years to change it when the inevitable problems become apparent.

Ezekiel Sulastin
Gallente
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.09.10 17:47:00 - [385]
 

Edited by: Ezekiel Sulastin on 10/09/2009 17:46:57
Originally by: Jack Gilligan
That's all well and good, but it'd be nice if you guys realized that releasing incomplete generalities like this dev "blog" full of cataclysmic generalities with few (almost no) specifics is far FAR worse than detailing "this is our plan A at the moment, if it proves unworkable, we'll come back with plan B".


This. Good God, this. Did you fire your customer relations department a few months ago, CCP? It sure as heck feels like it ...

Gartel Reiman
The Athiest Syndicate
Advocated Destruction
Posted - 2009.09.10 17:49:00 - [386]
 

Originally by: Roemy Schneider
hummm R.I.P true-sec...?

There's no reason to assume that's the case. Current true-sec ranges from 0.0 to -1.0; let's assume that you can effectively improve your truesec with upgrades by (up to ) 1.0 sec, then sure, you can get any system to at least -1.0 truesec; but the ones with better native truesec would now have -2.0 truesec and even better rats and ore etc. than can be accessed now.

It makes sense really - an upgrade that would improve rat spawns will improve rat spawns. So if one system is better than another when neither have it, it will still be better when both have it.

What it does mean, though, is that to a limited fashion you have the ability to sculpt your system(s) to emphasise the elements that you want from them. I like the comparison to something like an RTS (or probably something more like Civ), where if you go fully carebear you'll have a very rewarding system with very underdeveloped defenses, and just get it taken from you. On the other hand you can harden the system to attack, at the cost of not getting as much economic/infrastructure benefits.

At least "building units" is theoretically free if you can persuade enough self-funding players to join your corp! Smile

Zastrow J
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2009.09.10 17:52:00 - [387]
 

Originally by: Ezekiel Sulastin
Edited by: Ezekiel Sulastin on 10/09/2009 17:46:57
Originally by: Jack Gilligan
That's all well and good, but it'd be nice if you guys realized that releasing incomplete generalities like this dev "blog" full of cataclysmic generalities with few (almost no) specifics is far FAR worse than detailing "this is our plan A at the moment, if it proves unworkable, we'll come back with plan B".


This. Good God, this. Did you fire your customer relations department a few months ago, CCP? It sure as heck feels like it ...


if they're too specific people will do ******ed things like buy up all of the market for certain moon minerals and run around flailing their arms and screaming. Of course being too vague means we can't give any valid feedback until its potentially too late to dodge the iceberg

scotty551
UK Corp
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2009.09.10 18:13:00 - [388]
 

Sov system needed changed for sure but what is going to happen on patch day ? Is everyones sov going to be reset making once invulnerable systems vulnerable to attack ? Will alliances lose their sov 4 security and what will happen to super caps being built in those systems when evrything changes ?

This is the info the people who already work hard to defend and maintain their little bit of 0.0 need to know.

What we don't want to find is on patch day everything gets reset and we find we need to rebuild our space all over again to make it as secure as it was before the patch. Its not just about keeping the space but its also about ensuring our assets in that space a still safe and protected during the sov change stransition period.


An Anarchyyt
Gallente
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.09.10 18:18:00 - [389]
 

Originally by: scotty551
Sov system needed changed for sure but what is going to happen on patch day ? Is everyones sov going to be reset making once invulnerable systems vulnerable to attack ? Will alliances lose their sov 4 security and what will happen to super caps being built in those systems when evrything changes ?

This is the info the people who already work hard to defend and maintain their little bit of 0.0 need to know.

What we don't want to find is on patch day everything gets reset and we find we need to rebuild our space all over again to make it as secure as it was before the patch. Its not just about keeping the space but its also about ensuring our assets in that space a still safe and protected during the sov change stransition period.




Here's a hint: You can look for the posts with the blue bars rather than needlessly ranting and pre-emptiveley whining.

Aelena Thraant
The Executives
IT Alliance
Posted - 2009.09.10 18:28:00 - [390]
 

I think in general these are good ideas. I'm worried about the Super Caps that are in the queue when this goes live due to the usual lack of a date far enough away to know. (And no I don't build Super Caps though if anyone wants to give me a Nyx I wouldn't turn it down).

What about 0.0 NPC Space? ie Fountain Core, Venal, Curse, Etc. Are we going to be able to do anything there are will they stay static?


Pages: first : previous : ... 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 ... : last (23)

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