|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7778
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 13:56:00 -
[1] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:admiral root wrote:Nullsec can't be fixed in isolation to the rest of the game. This.
That. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7784
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 20:35:00 -
[2] - Quote
Tesal wrote:Tippia wrote:Tesal wrote:Or they get blobbed by a super coalition of 15,000 people and get kicked out of null and all their industrial slots go to the enemy. That's been more the case in recent history. No, it really hasn't. If nothing else because there are no industrial slotsGǪ At least with a proper null backbone, there would be something easy to target to break that coalition apart. Right now, there's very little that can be done along those lines. The only way to beat a super coalition is with another super coalition. A Goon or Test industrial backbone would be extremely difficult to harass or pick apart. You are willfully ignoring the problem.
It might be "extremely difficult" to pick apart a Goon or TEST industrial backbone in their space, but it would be a damb sight easier than doing it right now, because that backbone is safe in hisec. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7784
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 20:44:00 -
[3] - Quote
Tesal wrote:Tippia wrote:Tesal wrote:The only way to beat a super coalition is with another super coalition. That's because the current flawed implementation only gives you one thing to attack: the fleet of that coalition. You're facing military power head-on so of course you're going to need massive military power to do so. If they are given strong incentives to do more than stock their ships out there, you are at the same given more things to disrupt to ensure that their military power loses its staying-power. It might be difficult to harass or pick apart, but that's a vast improvement over being impossible to harass or pick apart, which is what we have at the moment. So which do you prefer? Super coalitions that can only be attacked head on because all other ways are rendered mechanically impossible, or super coalitions that can be attacked through a number of means, many of which will require a whole lot less in terms of direct striking powerGǪ? I prefer not to give the super coalitions more power than they already have.
We're in agreement then: the supercoalitions should be creating their ships and wealth in 0.0 where it's vulnerable. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7853
|
Posted - 2013.02.26 08:53:00 -
[4] - Quote
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:I merely say rebalance the industrial capacity of all the regions around their ship and goods consumption rate. That is the definition of fair. Newbies can still manufacture to fuel highsec conflicts and whatnot and nullsec industrialists will be called upon to fuel nullsec wars. The problem with universal outsourcing of industry to highsec is that it pits newbie industrialists against the most advanced and resource-rich industrial operations in EVE. I disagree. One of the core mechanics of EVE economy is trade - trade between various parts of the game. By separating manufacturers, you reduce an important drive to keep trade lanes open and (relatively) safe.
OK, let's swap the relative amounts of production in hi-sec and 0.0. We'll do ~95% of production in 0.0, and that production will have to supply hi-sec. Thus preserving the volume of "trade" which you think is the most important factor, right?
Right?
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7884
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 11:52:00 -
[5] - Quote
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:Malcanis wrote:Caitlyn Tufy wrote:I disagree. One of the core mechanics of EVE economy is trade - trade between various parts of the game. By separating manufacturers, you reduce an important drive to keep trade lanes open and (relatively) safe. OK, let's swap the relative amounts of production in hi-sec and 0.0. We'll do ~95% of production in 0.0, and that production will have to supply hi-sec. Thus preserving the volume of "trade" which you think is the most important factor, right? Right? Nope, not at all. The majority of isk destruction happens in null - if you offer full access to optimal industry there, you would make large coalitions largely self-sufficient and eliminate another conflict driver. I'm looking to increase this conflict driver by effectively forcing players to travel and secure routes through hostile territory. That's why I don't believe all the industry should be placed into null or wormhole space or whatever. It's also why I believe that stationary rewards are a bad idea - by moving them around, you make major players pursue them, bringing them in conflict with other entities in game. Simply put, I believe null is far too stable for what it's ment to be, a chaotic "wild west" of EVE, where players are thrown into the whirlwind while rushing for gold that everyone wants to get their hands on. Meanwhile, high sec is supposed to be "the old world" - a place where you may find steady income, but where competition and high taxes may drive your business down.
Hi-sec is supposed to be the starter area....
I think it's ridiculous to constrain hi-sec under that long outdated assumption, but it's just as ridiculous to constrain 0.0 with the equally outdated "wild west" concept.
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7884
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 11:54:00 -
[6] - Quote
Yonis Kador wrote:Though I'm sure the low-sec, gate-camping lobby would love to see dozens of freighters loaded with expensive goods passing by daily, the suggestion doesn't alter the reality that some of these ideas aren't just game-altering - they're potentially game-breaking. But debating this particular point is kinda silly, as CCP will never force all of high sec into low to manufacture goods. High sec pays their salaries and I'm sure they're keenly aware of the value those players represent.
YK
It's been said a few times, but I'll say it again just to help you out personally: the aim isn't to "force" anyone anywhere, it's to stop people being "forced" into hi-sec if they want to produce anything except supercaps or ratting ammo.
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7888
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 13:31:00 -
[7] - Quote
Yonis Kador wrote:Oh, thanks Malcanis, but I've never assumed that (and stated as much.) I was replying to the guy above me but didn't quote his remarks.
You know, this is a complicated, multi-faceted issue with implications that affect everyone. Its not the kind of thing you just poke a stick at to see what happens. I just wanted to point out that some of the suggestions presented would be hugely game-altering. And while someone like me may stick around because I'm devoted to EVE, depending on how severe the changes alter gameplay, the same probably can't be said for all.
I wanted to add too for Lin Suizei that engaging players isn't dependent upon corp membership. There are many definitions of social within the context of EVE. Players who contribute to the forums, chat in player channels, facilitate emergent content, attend player events - in-game and out, and those who duel, are plenty social and none of those things are dependent upon the number of folks in their corp.
YK
Well I can't answer for other people's bad ideas and posts, but why not focus on the ones that aren't spiteful "wreck hi-sec" jibes.
As you can surely admit, hi-sec production professions receive massive subsidies, and hi-sec and 0.0 production is nowhere near balanced, as evidenced by the fact that virtually all production takes place in hi-sec. Where hi-sec NPC facilities are perfect and effectively free, it's not possible to make null based production competitive unless CCP either charge hi-sec producers realistic fees or directly subsidise 0.0 producers by literally paying them to make/invent/research. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7888
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 13:34:00 -
[8] - Quote
Skeln Thargensen wrote:no one is forced to manufacture anything, since there is a fully functioning market.
I can understand that it's difficult living in null without facilities close by but should it really be easy?
No one's asking for it to be easy. We're asking for it to be equally viable. We're willing to accept increased risk, difficulty and effort, as long as that's rewarded with sufficient comparitive advantage to make it worthwhile.
You ask if null should be easy: a fair question
You should also ask if hi-sec should be profitable. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7890
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 13:36:00 -
[9] - Quote
Takseen wrote:Lin Suizei wrote:Aren Madigan wrote:new players wouldn't have a place in industry everything ends up more expensive while screwing everyone not in those border regions for something that the industry system was never meant to be balanced around. Why should a new player be able to compete in industrial enterprise with players who have invested ISK, time and effort into building well-oiled industrial empires? This is like saying a new miner in a Retriever should be able to compete with a seasoned bot-aspirant with 100+ accounts and Orca boosts - he shouldn't. A new miner can compete with the multiboxer(bot miners don't exist, don't be silly) because he has no operating costs beyond his time invested, even if he's earning way less per hour, and there's always a demand for more ore. A newbie industrialist would have a much harder time if station slots were reduced or fees increased too much, because he may not be able to make a profit at all. So they'd need some protection to get started. Much like Novice plexes and the frigate buffs helped get newbies into FW pvp.
On the other hand if the tens of thousands of alts of 0.0 players left hi-sec to produce in 0.0, then massive amounts of hi-sec facilities might be freed up, allowing new players better access, lower office rentals, etc. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7900
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 22:49:00 -
[10] - Quote
Yonis Kador wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Quite the opposite. Putting a cap on how large you can expand your manufacturing operation in highsec incentives the non-casual industrialist, the wholesaler, the guy who crushes the newbie indy with cumulative wealth and razor thin margins, to move out where manufacturing resources are more plentiful, which is where ship consumption is more plentiful. This frees up highsec manufacturing, and more importantly the highsec market, for the casual gamer. Nicolo, I do not agree. No amount of incentivization will prod risk-averse players to suddenly become risk-takers. YK
Would you go into 0.0 if Zydrine was a billion ISK per unit?
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7904
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 07:28:00 -
[11] - Quote
Yonis Kador wrote:The value of Zydrine is already 150x the value of Tritanium. It won't work.
YK
But Crokite isn't 150x the value per m^3 of Veldspar.
So answer the question: would you go to 0.0 if Zydrine was 1 billion ISK per unit? Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7904
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 07:52:00 -
[12] - Quote
Zarcan wrote:Malcanis wrote:Yonis Kador wrote:The value of Zydrine is already 150x the value of Tritanium. It won't work.
YK But Crokite isn't 150x the value per m^3 of Veldspar. So answer the question: would you go to 0.0 if Zydrine was 1 billion ISK per unit? You're equating a relatively easy mineral to aquire with a quantity of money that everyone aspires to. You cannot compare these two. The only way that zydrine would be 1bil isk per unit is if it's demand was sky high and supply was practically non-existant; which won't happen, therefore, your point doesn't have much relevance to anything at all. People can make a lot of money in nullsec doing exploration; not 1bil per unit, but in the hundreds of millions for a good rader/mag, so your question is somewhat answerable already: I will only go into nullsec and risk losing my ship if I have enough money in reserve to feel comfortable losing a ship, which is logically why Highsec has to offer a decent amount of money in the first place.
It's not about the realistic likelihood for Zydrine being that price, it's about the OP making absolute statements. I want to know if he really believes what he says or if he's just thinking in terms of "everyone knows" cliches that he hasn't really thought about. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7904
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 11:17:00 -
[13] - Quote
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:Malcanis wrote:Hi-sec is supposed to be the starter area....
I think it's ridiculous to constrain hi-sec under that long outdated assumption, but it's just as ridiculous to constrain 0.0 with the equally outdated "wild west" concept. Oh, I absolutely agree, I'd hate to see high sec die like starter zones die in other mmos. I'm just saying that making everything better in null will end up badly for high (and low/WH caught in between the struggle)...
I flatly disagree. When you have ~60-70% of the game population crammed into a zone that's only ~15% of the game area, then there's a prima facia case for rebalancing right there. More specifically, when 95% of productive activity takes place in hi-sec, then it's even more obvious that there's a straight up imbalance. The situation we have now is that making hi-sec too good has ended up badly for 0.0, and that imbalance needs to be addressed.
I don't want to see hi-sec cored out. I want to see hi-sec populated by people who like being in hi-sec, not people who are 'forced' to operate there because it's uneconomic for them to operate elsewhere. Equally, I don't want to see people 'forced' to operate in 0.0 because it's not economic to operate anywhere else. Unless a profession is intrinsically tied to a sec zone (eg: wardecs are by definition a hi-sec profession), then that profession should be viable in as many parts of the map as possible. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7904
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 11:22:00 -
[14] - Quote
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:[quote=Malcanis]
To get back to the game's null, imo one of the key problems of null nowadays is how sov functions and what happens if a small group comes in to have a shot at risk/reward. Have you lately seen a small alliance park themselves into a random system and try to claim it? All hell breaks lose, until the new guy is either forced to bend over to one of the larger "protectors" or to get the hell out. So how is a small industrialist supposed to compete if high sec is made worthless compared to null? In my opinion, you first need to allow the small guy to survive in null, then you can talk about moving things there.
To answer your question: the small alliance survives in null by engaging in player politics, and building relationships with the groups already there. Every single large group in 0.0 is desperately looking for new alliances that aren't completely terrible to occupy the space they control. Your hypothetical new alliance can get space from either the CFC or the HBC pretty much by asking for some.
A small industrialist can also join an existing alliance. The meme that 0.0 players "hate" industrialists is simply untrue. What 0.0 players hate are parasites who expect to be able to use alliance resources and give nothing back (ie: people who think they can treat player alliances like NPC entities). Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7904
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 12:48:00 -
[15] - Quote
Daniel Whateley wrote:I got an idea... harder ded's that require carrier and dread support ? :).... Failing all that, make DED's more frequent in nullsec again, i used to find 4-5 in the same system a day (none dropped anything ofc cause im unlucky) but now its like "your lucky to find 1 ded in the whole constellation..."
That's because news spreads fast and more people are aware of them. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7949
|
Posted - 2013.03.03 15:58:00 -
[16] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote: No, highsec should be like mount olympus, where the gods (CONCORD) preside over their heavenly realm.
All the nullsec dogs can scratch in the dirt like the violent animals they are.
EvE is not for unique snowflakes who demand total and radical changes to the same mechanics that worked allright for everyone for 10 years. If CCP will do anything it'll be slow and conservative baby steps. Deal with it, you knew EvE's rules when you signed in, or at least you learned them within the first months. If you didn't, then EvE might not be the game for you. hold on back up...what mechanics have worked well for 10 years? Enough mechanics to allow EvE to be one of the few 10 years old MMOs looking forward to the next 10.
Yet CCP have never balked at removing NPC crutches once the player economy proved it was capable of handling the load; NPC buy orders for minerals, NPC goods, etc. Why would it be so conceptually difficult to transition the player economy away from NPC manufacturing facilities? Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7949
|
Posted - 2013.03.03 15:58:00 -
[17] - Quote
Apelacja wrote:hs has only incursion. still null has it to. Missions in null are mor eprofitable then hi - 5 times more.
You're running missions in null, right?
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7953
|
Posted - 2013.03.04 08:01:00 -
[18] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: EvE is not for unique snowflakes who demand total and radical changes to the same mechanics that worked allright for everyone for 10 years
lol EVE is rife with total and radical changes demanded by players throughout its entire 10 year history Buff those mining barges even more please. Barges and even the whole tiericide are a tiny nugget of dust compared to the sweeping consequences of flipping upside down whole regions economy.
"If we change things, then things will change! That would be terrible!"
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7956
|
Posted - 2013.03.04 12:25:00 -
[19] - Quote
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:Frying Doom wrote:... we need a NPC facility price rise... Why? Aren't NPC facilities available to everyone?
They're not available to industrialist in sov 0.0 or W-space.
So in over half the map, no, they aren't. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7956
|
Posted - 2013.03.04 13:00:00 -
[20] - Quote
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:Malcanis wrote:Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:Frying Doom wrote:... we need a NPC facility price rise... Why? Aren't NPC facilities available to everyone? They're not available to industrialist in sov 0.0 or W-space. So in over half the map, no, they aren't. So, the can do it... it is open to them. They choose not to go where it is available. If I want to Moon mine, I have to go where it is availableGǪ why should industrialist be different?
There are plenty of moons in NPC space. You can't moon mine in W-space though. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7956
|
Posted - 2013.03.04 13:01:00 -
[21] - Quote
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:Stray Bullets wrote: CONs Would make it impossible for the casual player to compete with a dedicated and indy focused player/corp/alliance....
Sound like a very bad change.
It's also meaningless strawman nonsense. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7957
|
Posted - 2013.03.04 14:19:00 -
[22] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Frying Doom wrote: It really is not that hard to mine in a systems store the stuff and do one or 2 jumps in a freighter I do it every couple of days as where I am a lot of the systems get mined out. or do you want that fixed so they are never ending?
And if you are moving through so many systems a day that to be in its proximity you would need to move it 4 times a day, you are barely mining now.
So, not only an EvE player is meant to have a totally higher learning and access curve by having to buy POS and set it up but ALSO buy 1.5B worth of freigther just to slowly approach competitiveness? To me it seems an endless flowering of terrible idea after terrible idea. Not at all you will notice I made a differentiation between a part time industrialist and a full time industrialist. Can I do what I do now with an indy ship, yes but it would suck more so do I need a freighter, no but I do love the time it saves me from the capital I out laid. So here is a question for you on capital and skills, can a 1 day old newbie mine and manufacture on the level competitive with yourself? By your argument he should be able to without higher skills or any out lay. There's a definite difference between having to skill up to an Iteron plus production efficiency 5 vs having to grind standings (and thus done missions or paid a good amount to get them or get a POS corp from 3rd party), having to buy the POS "hardware" including some hundreds of millions in labs and misc structures plus fielding what it takes to keep it fueled plus buying a freighter just to carry stuff to it. The former takes a couple of days, the latter a year+ or more. And all of this just to be at the *baseline*. I know I could easily join your side: I own my own JF, multiple freigthers, used to have my own BPO research service and still today I have multiple POSes scattered between my alts. I also have 3 or 4 alts with standings to deploy a POS any time. I have both faction POSes and BPOs to make POSes but also all the labs and several accessory POS structures (guns, neuts, ecm etc., I like my POSes to be a b!tch to attack). I have like 80B worth of BPOs and only because I don't want to buy more. Even then, I'd hate to only see my self interest being rewarded while the "lessers" are left in the mud, struggling and unable to grow at a rewarding rate. If a new player joins EvE they already have that nasty feeling of "everybody is a vet, I will never compete", by implementing all those ideas of yours that feeling would become solid reality. As I said several times, I play multiplayer games since the '90s, I have seen so many of them fail for much less. All the failed games (that did not start doomed at day zero already) at a certain point became stale. All the failed games at that point had an established "elite" or "vets community". Those demand the game to be turned as they wish, they are always right, they always know the game inside out and far better than the developers! All the failed games had developers blindly implementing what they were demanded. All the failed games started losing new players, the only ones who can keep the players turnover from going negative over time. At a certain point there's just the "vets" left and they have everything and are bored and then quit themselves and the game folds. Now EvE is at a turning point, also due to the most terrible sov mechanics and due to ancient shortcomings slowly cumulating and causing issues. And now EvE got their "elites" both in null sec and the forums and they demand the game to be changed to suit them. And they are infiltrating the CSM and the forums and 3rd party blogs and pressuring CCP to go their way. Well I have witnessed too many debacles to let this one go ahead like this. If CCP will come up with the next NGE it won't be because I did not warn them and everyone I can. Because in the end it's not the "vets" or the "elite null seccers" who command the game but the totality of the players, which they don't represent at all but a very loud and self centered minority. I know some changes ARE in order but not like this. They have to mesh in and slowly turn the game, not to re-format EvE to another game fast, it will just be the umpteenth shock that coupled with the obsolete "pay per sub" business model (plus the crysis) will just cause a snowball game desertification process. Just no!
The voice of privilege speaks. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7959
|
Posted - 2013.03.04 17:28:00 -
[23] - Quote
Buzzy Warstl wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:I haven't said I am against improving areas of the game (0.0 industry). Except that you have, because you're refusing to accept a nerf to highsec. You can't improve 0.0 industry without nerfing highsec. That's what this entire thread has been about and it's been demonstrated repeatedly. Pretending that something must be torn down to make something else better is the sign of a serious lack of imagination, or a simple desire for destruction.
Pretending that equalising two unequal things equates to "a simple desire for destruction" is flat out dishonest.
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7962
|
Posted - 2013.03.04 18:49:00 -
[24] - Quote
Buzzy Warstl wrote:Malcanis wrote:Buzzy Warstl wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:I haven't said I am against improving areas of the game (0.0 industry). Except that you have, because you're refusing to accept a nerf to highsec. You can't improve 0.0 industry without nerfing highsec. That's what this entire thread has been about and it's been demonstrated repeatedly. Pretending that something must be torn down to make something else better is the sign of a serious lack of imagination, or a simple desire for destruction. Pretending that equalising two unequal things equates to "a simple desire for destruction" is flat out dishonest. Well, tell me what you can make in highsec that you *can't* in nullsec. For the number of nullsec players, if all there was to be made was things that can be made and used in highsec there would be quite adequate manufacturing capacity. But the simple truth is that there are things that can't be made in highsec, that can't be made in station manufacturing slots even in nullsec, and that are higher priority goods for nullsec manufacturing than the items that can be made in NPC highsec stations. Yet somehow nullsec manufacturing is inferior. Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.
Are you familar with the concept of "overhead"? Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7972
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 09:52:00 -
[25] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Arcosian wrote:My thoughts for fixing null:
1. Lower cost to build outposts and allow them to be built on any planet in nullsec systems. Yeah that's what we need! EVEN MORE SOV GRIND.
Outposts aren't related to sov.
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
|
|
|