Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 13:56:00 -
[61]
If CSM is here anyway, one question worth asking imo: I see alot of words about stuff that is wrong in 0.0 and everyone knows about (SCs, force projection, sov mechanics, etc), but is there actually a roadmap or something similar to fixing it, or is it something they put somewhere on the backlog that one day has to be fixed in the far future.
|
Pirokobo
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 14:02:00 -
[62]
Edited by: Pirokobo on 16/01/2011 14:03:37
Originally by: Dierdra Vaal * protection through jumpbridges: jumpbridges and deathstar POSes make travel (over possibly large 0.0 distances) essentially risk free
People can bubble the gap between bridges. They just don't.
Originally by: Dierdra Vaal * force projection: being able to move a large fleet quickly over big distances negates any strategical decisions on where to commit your fleet and trivialises distance in Eve
If that's their concern then fixing bridges alone won't do the trick because you can relay titans to the same effect.
I think the problem here is that IT Alliance is whining to the devs again that we're punching them in the face every day in Fountain and flying home to sleep in Deklein.
|
Dierdra Vaal
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 14:02:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Furb Killer If CSM is here anyway, one question worth asking imo: I see alot of words about stuff that is wrong in 0.0 and everyone knows about (SCs, force projection, sov mechanics, etc), but is there actually a roadmap or something similar to fixing it, or is it something they put somewhere on the backlog that one day has to be fixed in the far future.
There is (as far as we are aware), no concrete roadmap for fixing it. That said, CCP don't seem to plan anything more than 6 months (1 expansion cycle) in advance, and there seemed to be a lot of willingness - almost eagerness - to iterate on the 0.0 gameplay again.
So I can't tell you when it will be done, but I got the impression that 0.0 gameplay is has a reasonably high priority on the backlog.
* * * Director of Education :: EVE University * * * CSM1 delegate, CSM3 chairman and CSM5 vice-chairman
|
Pirokobo
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 14:08:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Pirokobo I think the problem here is that IT Alliance is whining to the devs again that we're punching them in the face every day in Fountain and flying home to sleep in Deklein.
Originally by: Dierdra Vaal ]there seemed to be a lot of willingness - almost eagerness - to iterate on the 0.0 gameplay again.
I stand by my position and further assert that you are oblivious.
|
Dierdra Vaal
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 14:08:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Pirokobo If that's their concern then fixing bridges alone won't do the trick because you can relay titans to the same effect.
I fully agree - and so did the rest of the CSM at the summit AND the developers. Again: we were not discussing the removal of jump bridges (and this was only hypothetical) as an isolated thing. It was part of a bigger force projection discussion we were having where we also talked about "jump drive spool up" and indeed we did talk about titan bridges.
Nobody at the CSM or CCP are advocating the isolated, complete removal of jump bridges. What the minutes show is that CCP is willing to consider significant changes to game mechanics - with the aim of making 0.0 a much more interesting and less static place.
Originally by: Pirokobo I think the problem here is that IT alliance is whining to the devs again that we're punching them in the face every day in fountain and flying home to sleep in Deklein.
The CSM that was present in the december summit (and was quite interested in considering these radical changes) did not include any IT alliance players. It did include however a Goonswarm pilot.
* * * Director of Education :: EVE University * * * CSM1 delegate, CSM3 chairman and CSM5 vice-chairman
|
Batolemaeus
Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 14:11:00 -
[66]
Hello my name is Batolemaeus and I approve of a removal of jumpbridges.
If capitals are nerfed at the same time. Otherwise it'd be just idiotic..
|
Pirokobo
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 14:17:00 -
[67]
Edited by: Pirokobo on 16/01/2011 14:17:52
Originally by: Dierdra Vaal The CSM that was present in the december summit (and was quite interested in considering these radical changes) did not include any IT alliance players. It did include however a Goonswarm pilot.
I am aware of the council composition.
I am also aware that this company has been caught with its own employees holding positions of power within one alliance, ALTERING THE ****ING DATABASE for the benefit of that alliance, spawning special events after giving forewarning to that alliance, and then scrambling sov mechanics when that alliance got evicted from space it had held for two years.
To be clear, I'm not bitter, I'm really more amused. I'm just highly skeptical of CCP's motives.
|
Dierdra Vaal
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 14:25:00 -
[68]
Edited by: Dierdra Vaal on 16/01/2011 14:25:12 If you think that IT alliance (still) controls your game, even with CCP's draconic internal affairs department, then I don't think any logic of mine can change your mind :(
* * * Director of Education :: EVE University * * * CSM1 delegate, CSM3 chairman and CSM5 vice-chairman
|
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 14:27:00 -
[69]
Finally CCP is admitting their faults. I wish they grew a pair and said the game didn't need all the supercapitals, too. While carriers are to be restricted in some way.
Get rid of all this **** and let us have fun. ---[center] Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist |
Pirokobo
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 14:39:00 -
[70]
Edited by: Pirokobo on 16/01/2011 14:41:13 Now, as for LEGITIMATE ideas as to bridges, there are a bunch of possibilities CCP could do.
They could limit bridges as they are to in-region links only. This would have the effect of slowing down travel a bit by forcing people to gate between regions.
They could limit bridges to one bridge per system, perhaps with a range boost. This would encourage alliances to place bridges such that they get the most "mileage" out of each one. It would almost certainly encourage the construction of new stations as the geographic value of space is reassessed.
They could make the operation cost of bridges increase faster then linearly with the length of the bridge chain. Another interesting mechanic, one which would target the very long chains in the north.
They could adjust the cost based on how many bridges an alliance has online. Same effect as the previous idea, but probably easier to implement.
|
|
Marlona Sky
Global Criminal Countdown
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 14:58:00 -
[71]
There are three things that are facts:
1) The removal of jump bridges will not be the only adjustment CCP will make to balance the current situation in 0.0
2) CCP won't make any changes unless they can present it as an expansion instead of a patch to start the healing now. It will be at least six months.
3) There will be players who can't or won't adapt to the change and will move back to high sec.
|
Marlona Sky
Global Criminal Countdown
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 15:02:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Pirokobo Edited by: Pirokobo on 16/01/2011 14:41:13 Now, as for LEGITIMATE ideas as to bridges, there are a bunch of possibilities CCP could do.
They could limit bridges as they are to in-region links only. This would have the effect of slowing down travel a bit by forcing people to gate between regions.
They could limit bridges to one bridge per system, perhaps with a range boost. This would encourage alliances to place bridges such that they get the most "mileage" out of each one. It would almost certainly encourage the construction of new stations as the geographic value of space is reassessed.
They could make the operation cost of bridges increase faster then linearly with the length of the bridge chain. Another interesting mechanic, one which would target the very long chains in the north.
They could adjust the cost based on how many bridges an alliance has online. Same effect as the previous idea, but probably easier to implement.
All of your ideas do either nothing or very little to change the situation. Removing them completely is not only the easiest but also the best way to help fix the problems.
|
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 15:06:00 -
[73]
Edited by: Destination SkillQueue on 16/01/2011 15:06:54
Originally by: Pirokobo <snip>
They could make the operation cost of bridges increase faster then linearly with the length of the bridge chain. Another interesting mechanic, one which would target the very long chains in the north.
They could adjust the cost based on how many bridges an alliance has online. Same effect as the previous idea, but probably easier to implement.
Balancing a thing on cost alone simply doesn't work. It is only a delaying tactic at best and even then favors the people who have money to spend disproportionately. If some situation is unwanted, it simply needs to be prevented from happening. Since the issue is making force projection more difficult and time consuming, it has to be done in a way, that you can't simply buy your way around it.
I'm not saying wealth shouldn't matter or enable you to buy some advantage. I'm sure more money will still enable you to use alternative solutions to alleviate the issues you face, but easy, fast and long range projection of your entire military might has to come to an end with the upcoming changes one way or the other.
|
Pirokobo
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 15:18:00 -
[74]
Edited by: Pirokobo on 16/01/2011 15:26:21
Originally by: Destination SkillQueue I'm not saying wealth shouldn't matter or enable you to buy some advantage. I'm sure more money will still enable you to use alternative solutions to alleviate the issues you face, but easy, fast and long range projection of your entire military might has to come to an end with the upcoming changes one way or the other.
As long as NPC nullsec exists it's possible to project power pretty much anywhere with relative impunity.
Consider:
When SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO flattened Atlas Alliance's house of cards, we didn't have jump bridges.
|
Marlona Sky
Global Criminal Countdown
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 15:37:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Pirokobo As long as NPC nullsec exists it's possible to project power pretty much anywhere with relative impunity.
Consider:
When SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO flattened Atlas Alliance's house of cards, we didn't have jump bridges.
Wow. I didn't realize SOLODRAKEBAN did it all by themselves. It is nice to see one alliance take on another alliance without calling for backup from 20+ other alliances on their blue list.
I tip my hat to you good sir. Now to deal with all those false reports of who was involved and to find that Atlas Camera guy who apparently faked the live feed showing dozens of alliances vs. just Atlas. I wonder how he did it?...
|
Dr Cheeto
Minmatar Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 15:44:00 -
[76]
Edited by: Dr Cheeto on 16/01/2011 15:44:47
Originally by: Marlona Sky
Originally by: Pirokobo As long as NPC nullsec exists it's possible to project power pretty much anywhere with relative impunity.
Consider:
When SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO flattened Atlas Alliance's house of cards, we didn't have jump bridges.
Wow. I didn't realize SOLODRAKEBAN did it all by themselves. It is nice to see one alliance take on another alliance without calling for backup from 20+ other alliances on their blue list.
I tip my hat to you good sir. Now to deal with all those false reports of who was involved and to find that Atlas Camera guy who apparently faked the live feed showing dozens of alliances vs. just Atlas. I wonder how he did it?...
Way to miss the point entirely.
Entire 0.0 alliances can move PvP ships and pilots across the universe for remote deployments using NPC lowsec. For example, the SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO deployment against Atlas, the TEST deployment against Catch, etc. We had a majority of our pilots in Catch within a weekend, and thanks to jump clones, we were able to maintain a presence in Deklein.
|
Massive Dragon
HAIL DRAGONS
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 15:52:00 -
[77]
removal of jumpbridges is fine, nerfing of jumpportals on titans is also a good idea.
this game is meant to be brutal dark and dangerous. if you would rather play something with less risk you can always try another game?
the positives that will come of nerfing instant travel are as follows:
1. breaking of insentives to form enourmous bluelists 2. limiting ability of enourmous gangs of slower ships to be faster than smaller faster ships (long needed buff to roaming) 3. encouragement of increasing value to certain regions (closer regions to empire being more desirable - more conflicts between alliances) 4. much more meaningful logistics (particularly in maintenance of large regions of space - encouraging alliances to limit themselves to what they NEED rather than whatever they feel like taking at the jump of a bridge and the tap of the batphone) which in turn will encourage more entites to move into 0.0 space and provide more content.
people who are opposed to this are generaly people who benefit a great deal from having such a ridiculous mechanic or people who cant remember the old days before jumpbridges, when it was actually a challenge and fun to be part of an alliance.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 16:13:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Dr Cheeto Way to miss the point entirely ...
Is that not whole chest beating example not an argument that speaks FOR the removal of bridges in their current form?
Sounds to me like they are not actually required but are rather a luxury or convenience if you will. But once we have established that is all they are then the decision becomes even easier as they (along with Tit bridges) are directly responsible for the prevalence of blob-warfare, bloated NAP lists, bloated null entities .. essentially everything that breaks null. - The bad far outweigh the good (ie. good = convenience).
This whole thing is just an offshoot of last years discussions about Eve space being too small and too cramped .. well no **** Sherlock, what do you expect when we have both static and mobile teleportation systems available.
|
Ryan Starwing
Gallente Cryptonym Sleepers Test Alliance Please Ignore
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 16:21:00 -
[79]
Edited by: Ryan Starwing on 16/01/2011 16:26:13 Edited by: Ryan Starwing on 16/01/2011 16:25:47 Edited by: Ryan Starwing on 16/01/2011 16:24:04 White Tree 4 csm, and were the hek is the upvote key.
Who would want to travel 30+ jumps for a fight sov will probly never flip again. If you guys want sov to flip more make it a bit easier to attack removing jb wont do that sov mechanics need to change.
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 16:26:00 -
[80]
What do people think of placing a cap on the amount of mass worth of ships that can travel through a JB during any one day, or a reactivation delay based on the type / mass of ships that have recently jumped through? That might cause the owners to use them a bit less indiscriminately. Also opens up some new griefing tactics (oh look, I jumped my freighter through, and now the network's choked for a few hours).
Better yet, tweak them so that they're relatively easy to incapacitate and more difficult to defend. --- 34.4:1 mineral compression |
|
Pirokobo
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 16:29:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
Originally by: Dr Cheeto Way to miss the point entirely ...
Is that not whole chest beating example not an argument that speaks FOR the removal of bridges in their current form?
Sounds to me like they are not actually required but are rather a luxury or convenience if you will. But once we have established that is all they are then the decision becomes even easier as they (along with Tit bridges) are directly responsible for the prevalence of blob-warfare, bloated NAP lists, bloated null entities .. essentially everything that breaks null. - The bad far outweigh the good (ie. good = convenience).
It does not logically follow that because jump bridges make it easy for alliances to cover vast distances in the span of minutes that they have a causal relationship with large coalitions.
There were massive bluelists during the ASCN and LV wars, and both of those preceded Revelations II.
|
Rudgier Thorrin
Blyskawica
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 16:34:00 -
[82]
Edited by: Rudgier Thorrin on 16/01/2011 16:37:23 What I love most about this issue is how CCP always wanders why carebears don't want to move from highsec to null, create special bonuses for living there (system upgrades spawning lucrative PvE sites) and then makes it a logistical nightmare to get there.
Quote: Don't blue everything within 30 jumps then
Being a carebear and part-time industrialist myself I don't give a damn about fights - in fact I enjoy that the closest blob of enemies is far away. I care about being able to sell my product with a profit, rather than having one or two stations ten jumps away with a limited market available, because my alliance will tear itself apart and instead of a few thousands potential customers I'll have three-four hundred at best, given I'm even able to get to them at all without being blown up.
Now my problem is that EVE is becoming less of a game and more of a job you have to do, aspecially in 0.0. You need ISK to fuel the POS, replace ships, pay the sov bill etc. And the money-making activities are becoming more and more a boring chore: PI is a clickfest, missions/anomalies are always the same boring stuff (a damn script can do it, and they do), production - you click and it does itself for a week and don't even get me started on mining. And there's more - POS management is horrible, corporation management is even worse (no words can describe my horror when I saw the member roles tab) and now on top of this all they want to make me waste even more time when I want to sell something.
Maby I sound like crying or something, but that's because my favorite game is turning into a job I have to do for a few hours to get to the fun part...
|
Massive Dragon
HAIL DRAGONS
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 16:45:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Ryan Starwing Edited by: Ryan Starwing on 16/01/2011 16:26:13 Edited by: Ryan Starwing on 16/01/2011 16:25:47 Edited by: Ryan Starwing on 16/01/2011 16:24:04 White Tree 4 csm, and were the hek is the upvote key.
Who would want to travel 30+ jumps for a fight sov will probly never flip again. If you guys want sov to flip more make it a bit easier to attack removing jb wont do that sov mechanics need to change.
|
Dr Cheeto
Minmatar Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 17:16:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
Originally by: Dr Cheeto Way to miss the point entirely ...
Is that not whole chest beating example not an argument that speaks FOR the removal of bridges in their current form?
If the argument is "jump bridges promote large bloc-level coalitions spanning several regions, so we're considering removing them," then "we can deploy halfway across the map without the damn jump bridges" is an argument which would reduce the removal of jump bridges from a bloc-breaking change to a simple annoyance with no real purpose or goal.
|
Antihrist Pripravnik
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 17:43:00 -
[85]
Edited by: Antihrist Pripravnik on 16/01/2011 17:45:04 Thank you, Dierdra, for taking some time to write an answer to this thread. I know that it was a hypothetical discussion, but if the community haven't reacted the way it did, that hypothetical suggestion would have become something more.
If you have plans to change 0.0 warfare, you can not forget that entities, such are alliances and coalitions, are not the only layer of existence in nullsec. You can't just forget that individual players live in that space too... individual players make those alliances and coalitions, they are not a minority of some weird guys that like to do stuff in their own way, they are the basic fibre that makes a nullsec alliance exist. Many players in 0.0 like to be self-sufficient: we take care of our own supplies and don't always like the alliance production monopoly in our local space because it makes some items very expensive.
The only way to bring more PvP in 0.0 is to make stuff cheaper than it is now. That's why I sometimes make or buy stuff in empire in bulk and sell it in my local region with marginal profit - just as much to cover JF fuel costs and extra 2-3% for the effort. The price of those items are at Jita level or just a couple % higher - much like any empire non-trade-hub prices. If you nerf the logistical network so that you can't (relatively) easily transport supplies from empire, you'll only make prices jump to the level that I don't want to PvP any more. Relatively low local prices of items in nullsec are like that ONLY because of developed logistics network. Nerf that and you'll have yourself an inflation in 0.0 that many simple alliance members can not keep up with.
Since PvP is the biggest reason why I moved in nullsec in the first place, guess what I will be forced to do to be able to support my play style. And no, no matter what some economist from CCP might think deep inside his capitalistic mind, I will NOT pay real money to buy PLEXes so I can afford to PvP at over-inflated nullsec prices. Gameplay wise, I will not sit in Hulk and mine to be able to make stuff locally - IF I could make the stuff locally in the first place because of very limited amount of public manufacturing slots and the absolute inability to anchor my own production POS in alliance held space. If I wanted to mine low-end ore, I would have stayed in highsec. If I wanted to mine high-end ore, I would have moved to wormhole space. My point is, I don't want to mine at all (make a survey and see if this is the general case for the majority of nullsec residents).
Utopian type of nullsec space where stuff is produced locally does not exist and it never will. It's because of the mentality of nullsec based players, NOT because of logistical networks.
|
Jason Edwards
Internet Tough Guy Spreadsheets Online
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 17:46:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Dierdra Vaal
Instead of having large NAPed coalitions controlling vast amounts of space (in part due to force projection and jump networks), why not work towards a 0.0 with many different factions? Where the people you pvp against are right next door, and you can safely ignore people who live on the other side of the galaxy? Where you have more small scale fights that don't immediately get hotdropped by a few bored supercarrier pilots?
The inability to move subcaps quickly across regions would serve to make capships just that much more impossible to stop. It would end up being titan chains instead of jumpbridge chains. The big coalitions suddenly still have the same force projection and the small guys have absolutely no chance of stopping anything. Moreover, it would just mean 50 csaa go up before changes and get those titans building.
Moreover, if you also nerfed cynos to make caps and titan bridges projection more difficult. The requirement to NAP everyone doesnt change at all. It only means you sometimes cant be there to help your friends. NAP = Non-aggression pact remember. NAP != actually helping them fight.
NAPing everyone so you dont have anyone to fight nearby is so you can pve safely. If your ignorant idiotic pipedream of 0.0 of having enemies everywhere were to happen. It would obliterate anyone from pveing. ------------------------ To make a megathron from scratch, you must first invent the eve universe.
|
Batolemaeus
Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 17:48:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Dr Cheeto
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
Originally by: Dr Cheeto Way to miss the point entirely ...
Is that not whole chest beating example not an argument that speaks FOR the removal of bridges in their current form?
If the argument is "jump bridges promote large bloc-level coalitions spanning several regions, so we're considering removing them," then "we can deploy halfway across the map without the damn jump bridges" is an argument which would reduce the removal of jump bridges from a bloc-breaking change to a simple annoyance with no real purpose or goal.
No. It means that we have to rethink the problem of easy force projection. Bridges are a part of this problem. I think nobody is seriously believing that removing jbs will solve all problems.
However, (once again) a discussion is needed about the ease of travel and force projection, the reliance of 0.0 from empire and the lack of features for self sustainable 0.0 economies, sov warfare and how it should be about occupation rather than renting from concord and countless other topics that are impacting eve as a whole.
|
Antihrist Pripravnik
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 18:12:00 -
[88]
Edited by: Antihrist Pripravnik on 16/01/2011 18:16:26 Edited by: Antihrist Pripravnik on 16/01/2011 18:12:24
Originally by: Batolemaeus
Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik Utopian type of nullsec space where stuff is produced locally does not exist and it never will. It's because of the mentality of nullsec based players, NOT because of logistical networks.
Gonna disagree with you there. I, too, sell lots of stuff in Tribute. I got my spreadsheets too. And my spreadsheets tell me that it is _a lot_ cheaper to import than to produce locally. By a factor of 5-10. It's especially daring with ships which would force me to mine veldspar in 0.0. Mine. Veldspar.
T2 goods would force me to import no matter what since the goo just doesn't grow here.
What is needed, as I wrote above, is a complete rethink. Part of this is the problem that production in 0.0 is just bad. I can supply more ships by scouting a charon full of stuff (if we ignore jf/rorquals/compression/alloys/bridges) through 0.0 with better isk/h than if i tried to mine and produce it.
If there was a way to acquire bulky minerals in 0.0 itself at a competitive level, I'd do it. And I don't think I'm alone there.
Ok, and how about separating industrial JB network from combat one (only industrials would be able to use it)? Maybe even allow one exit point of it into lowsec (maybe being the key word)? At the first look, it makes supply easier, stuff cheaper, game becomes more versatile (defending industrial JB network and convoys) and you can experiment with combat JB network to balance power projection without hurting local economy and you get another ISK sink (fuel for industrial JB network).
Just a hypothetical discussion, not an actual suggestion.
edit: Yes, I'd do it too if I had the mineral supply, but the question is where would you do it? In a limited amount of manufacturing slots in stations that will be queued up as soon as the change hits TQ or in a POS that you can't anchor or maintain yourself because of the alliance policy of no personal POS-es (understandable for security reasons)?
|
Batolemaeus
Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 18:21:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik you get another ISK sink (fuel for industrial JB network).
That is not an isk sink. The money just goes to the ice mining macros.
Personally, I wouldn't mind radical cutbacks to the ease of transportation both within 0.0 itself and on the routes leading into and out of 0.0, as long as accompanying changes also enable local production at a level at least competitive to a freighter convoy full of ships and t2 mods from empire.
That would mean measures to lock down a system properly, ways to refine at pos more easily, being able to acquire minerals at competitive rates and make them into stuff and being able to produce the necessary moon goo without having to rely on goo produced on the other side of the galaxy.
|
Pirokobo
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
|
Posted - 2011.01.16 18:23:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Batolemaeus That would mean measures to lock down a system properly
Alliance controlled gateguns.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |