EVE Search - Kali: Local Nerf

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Kali: Local Nerf

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 :: one page

Author	Topic
Laendra	Posted - 2006.08.17 16:29:00 - [151] I would like to hope that the alliance that has sovereignty claimed and held in the system will still have full contents of Local, regardless of any nerfs.... -------------------
Pille Dufrais	Posted - 2006.08.17 17:03:00 - [152] Originally by: Laendra I would like to hope that the alliance that has sovereignty claimed and held in the system will still have full contents of Local, regardless of any nerfs.... absolutely - I mean big alliances could really do with yet another boost with a nerf to anyone attacking them or not in an alliance
thiefkiller3	Posted - 2006.08.17 17:08:00 - [153] reasons Local will not get nerfed: 1) It will make people head toward higher sec space, not toward lower sec. Getting more people toward low sec/0.0 has been a stated Dev goal for a long time. 2) It is likely to crash the "independent" t2 component market as POS managers will simply offline/takedown the POS's they cannot defend. 3) It will advantage the mega alliance t2 manufacturers/POS managers (interesting to note that members of lg alliances with 0.0 sec access are screaming the loudest for local nerf) 4) It will unbalance pirating as a career 5) It will inflate the high end Empire min. market feel free to add your own opinions....
Veelok Harbingers of Sarrow	Posted - 2006.08.17 17:12:00 - [154] I always viewed local as the com-beacon channel that most sci-fi stories/novels/universes have. Your passive scanners and communications array pick up the signals transmitted actively by everyone else's communications array. Now, it'd be cool if a pirate could go dark off this array by modifying his communication array. But, this would make him an outlaw and concord would kill him or fine him (if he even COULD enter high sec) for not following regulations. This way the miners could still chat and warn other miners about a problem pirate, but as a tool it wouldn't be AS useful. Communication is ALWAYS used as a tool. Knowledge is power after all ;)
iqplayer Caldari Dragon's Rage Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.17 17:47:00 - [155] I think most of the people that keep whining about this change have absolutely no idea of the changes it would cause to current game mechanics. Removing or changing the local that we have now would affect every single person in game, for both good and bad. Note: I actually would favor a change to local, but only if systems to replace most of it's functionality were implemented first. To people saying the 'big' alliances are overpowered - you mean because your 5 man fleet can't destroy the whole alliance? I think you need a reality check - 5 people, or 10 people, or 100 people even, should stand no chance against 1000 or more. Yes, I argue vehemently that alliances need more tools to make them stronger, because at the moment there is very little that an alliance of 1000 people can do to track down just a single hostile with cloak inside their sovereign space. I know that ASCN spent days chasing a hostile using this exact setup - and while one of our gangs eventually got the kill, the only reason they got it was because the pilot made a stupid mistake (and for all I know, he probably lagged out). The changes to 'pilots in local' on the map already favors fast moving attackers with almost no benefit to defenders - I'd have rathered they removed it completely than to give such a one sided benefit. As others have mentioned, mining especially is a labor intensive job that is limited to just a few areas in 0.0 with ores worth harvesting. Now, Oveur did allude to changes in that system as well, and making mining a worthwhile endeavor in most 0.0 systems would help even out the changes that removing local would make - but not totally, because you still have to have a station (or refine at the joke that is a POS refinery). Defenders should have an advantage. Someone who is willing to spend billions to build up their space should be far better off than an attacking fleet that's put a few hundred mill tops into their attack. Alliances who have spent months building their assets should have ways to defend them against attackers. It's just like the argument around skillpoints.... do you really think a month old character should be able to do all the things that a 3 year veteran can? If they could, where would the benefit of sticking with Eve and building your character for 3 years be? The group that would benefit the most from removing/nerfing local would be the small ganker gang who runs/logs off as soon as they meet resistance. Yes, they'll encounter some 'disadvantages', but the scanning systems that are in place now in Eve are sufficient for that task. On the other hand, I'd love to see anyone try to defend a mining party for 4-5 hours using the existing scanning interface. Changing local is not bad, of itself. Changing local before the rest of Eve is adapted for it will result in havoc.
Butter Dog ISS Navy Task Force Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.08.17 18:12:00 - [156] Originally by: d'hofren 1) It's all well and good saying using a scout / gate hugger for intel. Does that mean that every system with a mining or npcing op will need to have every gate into the system covered? This will represent a revenue drop for many corps as active pilots will need to camp gates for hours rather than making any iskies Yup... so? Originally by: d'hofren 2) Log off / Log on tactics. Find a popular system, park pvp / pirate character. Log on when ever you think you might get a target. Gate spotters will never see you coming. Even with the constellation wide idea, well, I bet you could shut down an entire constellation by parking 4 chars in a random safe spot somewhere. Problem is every ruddy system would need to be probed to find those ss'ed pilots. Not cool. Happens already. Or have you never fought RAT? xxx
Butter Dog ISS Navy Task Force Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.08.17 18:15:00 - [157] Originally by: iqplayer To people saying the 'big' alliances are overpowered - you mean because your 5 man fleet can't destroy the whole alliance? I think you need a reality check - 5 people, or 10 people, or 100 people even, should stand no chance against 1000 or more. Yes, I argue vehemently that alliances need more tools to make them stronger, because at the moment there is very little that an alliance of 1000 people can do to track down just a single hostile with cloak inside their sovereign space. I know that ASCN spent days chasing a hostile using this exact setup - and while one of our gangs eventually got the kill, the only reason they got it was because the pilot made a stupid mistake (and for all I know, he probably lagged out). Sounds like guerilla warfare to me. Perfectly desirable, perfectly legitimate as a tactic. Or do you want game mechanics changed so that big alliances can see cloaked ships in their soveriegn space? Guerilla tactics WORK, they work militarily in RL, and they work in this game we play called EVE. You want alliances to be invincible. How dull, and how totally unrealistic.
Butter Dog ISS Navy Task Force Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.08.17 18:18:00 - [158] Originally by: thiefkiller3 1) It will make people head toward higher sec space, not toward lower sec. Getting more people toward low sec/0.0 has been a stated Dev goal for a long time. I can't really see all PvPers in EVE running back to empire to mine Scordite because there are more and better fights to be had in 0.0 following a local nerf. Can you?
iqplayer Caldari Dragon's Rage Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.17 18:27:00 - [159] Originally by: Butter Dog Sounds like guerilla warfare to me. Perfectly desirable, perfectly legitimate as a tactic. Or do you want game mechanics changed so that big alliances can see cloaked ships in their soveriegn space? Guerilla tactics WORK, they work militarily in RL, and they work in this game we play called EVE. You want alliances to be invincible. How dull, and how totally unrealistic. No, that's your interpretation of what I wrote, which happens to be quite incorrect. And yes, you might have been able to pick that up, since I did say that I was in favor of changes to local overall, but that other parts of Eve needed adjusting to fit first. Yes, I do have a problem with cloak. Do I think that I should be able to click a button, see a cloak, get an immediate warpin point, and blow them up? NO. Do I think that it's fair that with the same 1 button click, a hostile character becomes untouchable for as long as he chooses, with no way to ever catch him? And do I even need to answer that question? Guerrilla warfare is a valid tactic in the real world, and it should be in Eve. But it should still be balanced. For every tactic, there should be some way to fight against it. The problem that I see at the moment, is that Eve already favors the agressor to some extent - though at present, not so far as to unbalance things completely. Changing local (which as I pointed out, is a very radical change) without making major changes to other game mechanics, will cause some very bad effects because it will add more of an advantage to the aggressor than it will to the defender. In a game where it's already almost impossible to pin down an enemy, it's my opinion that it will tip the balance quite drastically.
thiefkiller3	Posted - 2006.08.17 18:59:00 - [160] Originally by: Butter Dog Originally by: thiefkiller3 1) It will make people head toward higher sec space, not toward lower sec. Getting more people toward low sec/0.0 has been a stated Dev goal for a long time. I can't really see all PvPers in EVE running back to empire to mine Scordite because there are more and better fights to be had in 0.0 following a local nerf. Can you? My point was simply that nerfing Local will have the overall effect of LESS people in 0.0 rather than MORE, which has been a stated Dev goal scince Exodus. Ratters will go do level 4 missions. Its a simple formula of risk vs. reward Do you think nerfing local would actually encourage people into 0.0 space? Are you actually saying Local channel is keeping people out of low sec/0.0? If so, I simply dissagree, cheers,

iqplayer Caldari Dragon's Rage Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.17 19:18:00 - [161] Edited by: iqplayer on 17/08/2006 19:24:31 Originally by: Butter Dog I can't really see all PvPers in EVE running back to empire to mine Scordite because there are more and better fights to be had in 0.0 following a local nerf. Can you? I would also question the 'more and better fights'. I seriously doubt it. Noone wants to fight a battle they think they'll lose. That's why people want intel, to try and evaluate whether they can win. Not having that intel (or making it much harder to get) won't encourage the battles, it will encourage holding back the fleets while trying to gather more intel. Edit: Plus, this change won't affect large fleets (who already have the numbers and the cov ops pilots to get intel) nearly as much as the smaller groups, such as npc'ers and miners. A good argument could be made for this change causing mining to slow down substantially in 0.0. Slowing down mining would tend to raise the prices of high end minerals, which in turn would raise the prices of ships. Higher ship prices tend to discourage fighting. So, it's very possible that this change could have a very detrimental effect, instead of 'more and better fights'. My point, overall, is that this needs to be very well thought out and planned. Local is a very basic, and very relied upon function. One of the first things 0.0 pilots learn is to leave local open at all times. To remove such a cornerstone of Eve life will without doubt cause major change in the game.
turnschuh	Posted - 2006.08.17 19:19:00 - [162] If you remove/change local, you also have remove/change "current pilots in space" option in the map. Because it gives the agressor an advantage over the defender.
CCP HOSTILE	Posted - 2006.08.17 20:18:00 - [163] Edited by: CCP HOSTILE on 17/08/2006 20:19:42 Reading thru the posts and as somebody has stated already, if you remove local, then please remove all other possibilities of information from ex map and so forth, that way, we all play in the true space darkness. Scatter the roid fields even more and so on. Ohh please, create more lag with the scanner after the proposed changes. Because, we all love lag, so more = welcome. Originally by: CCP doesn't care! FUN...remember that module CCP? Urgent CCP Attention! Or do you just opress with Sinister Bans like the Chinese Communist Party ??
Maya Rkell Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2006.08.17 20:44:00 - [164] Oveur, Making it constelation chat...er... Large chat channels allready lag enough. It forces log when PvPers enter constelation/scout alts on gates for miners/PvE'ers. Etc... "On the other hand, local gives as much advantage to the defender as to the attacker. You really can't argue about that" Oh yes you most certainly can! The prey has to watch in all directions at all times. Removing local means that he must either put scout alts on the gates or hit the scanner every 3 seconds to get enough warping to warp off. The hunter only needs to look where he is going, and furthermore he KNOWS there is a pretty limited number of places that the NPCers/Miners will be, especially in 0.0 where there are a very limited number of systems worth using in risk/reward terms over lowsec! "We're increasing survivability of ships in general, not only with increases to hitpoints but with Rigs and other balancing as well." Okay, and how are you avoiding the problems of obseleting small ships with more hp? Even the 25% change has caused a nasty and noticeable bias on killboards towards the usage of larger ships by PvPers. Rigs... they're going to be used for mix/maxing, right. Changing local at this VERY late stage is going to radically alter the balance against the people trying to build rather than the ones trying to tear it down. And making smaller ships even less useful..ugh. Dukath, and they are better off in lowsec than in those "slightly worse" systems per killboard analysis of risk/reward. Butter Dog, "not knowing", aka either you're in a blob or a scout...or don't bother. And yes, it'll be a PvPers "dream", until you get bored of the even more static blobwars (you CAN'T risk engagement if the enemy has twice your number, and you need to know...hours of scouting or spys). "Those who wish to chat may...." be booted out of any serious corp. And yes, it's "lazy", well, most of us can't play for long sessions and we expect more than a little return on them. "I can't really see all PvPers in EVE running back to empire to mine Scordite because there are more and better fights to be had in 0.0 following a local nerf. Can you?" Nope. But there won't be more fights, and there won't be better fights. Given THAT.... Taz, "ie having sovereignty should give you an advantage in collecting intel" And how many alliances have been booted out in how many campaigns? And you want to have he defenders a crushing intelligence advantage? You're getting down to 6-7 entities in the whole of EVe who could remove an alliance of any size given that sort of intel advantage. eLLioTT wave, "Or pay someone to escort you" - for the cost, better to go to highsec. And boring for the guard. "Or go somewhere quiet and out of the way" - you cannot tell where is quiet anymore. "Or go on a mining op with friends and make a lot more isk/hour" - no, you make the same isk/hour, and you're a better target for groups of PvPers. etc. And sure, when they're highsec miners stripping 0.8's... j0's right, and more eloquent that me, as per usual. iqplayer, and when 800 kill 3000 in a matter of a week? You know this just happened, and will happen again. Favouring the 800 even more strongly is not a good idea. Defenders DO have advantages, especially the armed supersafespots which are POS.
Evil Sulu Sanguine Legion Atrocitas	Posted - 2006.08.17 20:51:00 - [165] The local nerf I don't think will have as much of an impact on the game as people fear. I think it will shift a majority of the action to higher density kill-zone hubs, where everyone knows that there will be targets. Without being able to check quickly to see if anyone is in system, most people will merely skip through typically empty pipelines without even checking due to the hassle - until players start setting up shop 'under the radar' in these previously low-pop systems at least. The Insta-nerf is what concerns me, because it shifts the balance of combat drastically in favor of blob warfare as opposed to solo combat. Without instas, it will be suicide to fly anything larger than a cruiser alone. It's also going to be really annoying to travel anywhere, especially in a group. ------------- Public channel #KhanidBlood

wystler Forum Moderator Interstellar Services Department	Posted - 2006.08.17 21:09:00 - [166] How about you wait for the local changes to be introduced and try the system scanning before you all start doomsaying and predicting the end of EVE as we know it? No? Worth a try eve-crc.net \| forum rules \| c.a.o.d forum rules \| mods@ccpgames.com Official keeper of the smilie. Yarr!

iqplayer Caldari Dragon's Rage Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.17 21:09:00 - [167] Originally by: Maya Rkell iqplayer, and when 800 kill 3000 in a matter of a week? You know this just happened, and will happen again. Favouring the 800 even more strongly is not a good idea. Defenders DO have advantages, especially the armed supersafespots which are POS. Phew, slow down a bit there, jumping so quickly between topics makes it really hard to follow your points :) TBH, I've not seen any engagements lately where the '800 kill 3000 in a week', though we did see RA 'hold off' the Coalition + ASCN - I think this might be what you're talking about, but then again, the POS's that were put into reinforced were only saved because the assault was called off. Apparently the Dread losses were more than the attackers could bear. Lag was very bad in that engagement, but other than POS guns, lag affects both sides. I'm not sure that engagement would have turned out very different if there had been no lag.... and yes, I was there, I was in a BS, and I was fighting at the last POS to be put into reinforced - and even thru the horrendous lag, I came home with my Tempest intact and a kill to my name :D But I think (I'm not sure, tbh, after your statements, as they seem to go back and forth) that we're arguing the same point here. There are some 'issues' in Eve atm, but overall things are fairly balanced. Lag needs some addressing, and POS warfare needs some love - fixing the first issue would go a long way to fixing the latter, imho. Dropping local, or nerfing it though, is such a major change, that unless a lot of thought is put into it, I think it could upset the balance of the entire game. I disagree with you, about Defenders having an advantage, and the above engagement should go a long way to prove that. All it takes is a lot of isk to plop down 30/40/50 POS towers, and poof, you win. And there's not a heck of a lot the Defender can do about it. But more importantly, and more at the heart of this topic, so far the changes people are putting forward are more in favor of the attacker, especially the small ganker attacker, than the defender. From where I stand, I can't see how this is going to help the balance in Eve for the good......
Fuujin Hadean Drive Yards	Posted - 2006.08.17 21:14:00 - [168] Originally by: wystler How about you wait for the local changes to be introduced and try the system scanning before you all start doomsaying and predicting the end of EVE as we know it? No? Worth a try Heh guess i'm not the only one who hates when people jump to the worst possible conclusions, it never ends up that bad anyways. Personally i'd love to test such a change, ill make my reservations about it after playing around with it. Provided it ever comes about. _______________ The sword has to be more than a simple weapon; it has to be an answer to life's questions
iqplayer Caldari Dragon's Rage Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.17 21:15:00 - [169] Originally by: wystler How about you wait for the local changes to be introduced and try the system scanning before you all start doomsaying and predicting the end of EVE as we know it? No? Worth a try Most of the time I'd agree with you Wystler, but to be fair, we've seen a lot of things released in a very 'broken' state in Eve, and once again, this change has the power to change things pretty radically in Eve. Should those of us who love the game wait until it's too late to do anything about it, in the blind faith that it will come out right? Or to put it more bluntly, it was only the testing of a few dedicated players that averted the major problems with Freighter's dropping cans. That was a change that actually had the power to crash entire nodes in the game. Were the players wrong to question CCP on such a change? Would you have rather dealt with the petition queue's after the fact? The fact is, that on one hand we have a dev stating 'local won't be changing in the forseeable future', now we have Oveur seeming to indicate that it will change, without offering much in details. To me, this smells very much like the (imho) rushed Freighter changes, and I'm worried it will have the same consequences.....
Exiled One Amarr Imperial Shipment	Posted - 2006.08.17 21:18:00 - [170] LOCAL MUST GO. LVL4 Agents in high-sec must go ! Carebears whinners that want to play a pve mmorpg should shove their keyboards you know where Or re-subscribe (lol) to wow


wystler Forum Moderator Interstellar Services Department	Posted - 2006.08.17 21:25:00 - [171] All I'm saying is have a little optimism and give things a go before you decide its a bad idea and give some constructive feedback on how to improve it. Try it out on SiSi! Go help with the bug testing :) Bug report what doesn't seem to be working right! Try and break the system scanning! Etc Its absolutely BRILLIANT that we have such a big playerbase who are so enthused about the game that they ardently fight for their beliefs, but please do test it before deciding its all horribly broken? eve-crc.net \| forum rules \| c.a.o.d forum rules \| mods@ccpgames.com Official keeper of the smilie. Yarr!

d'hofren Queens of the Stone Age Chimaera Pact	Posted - 2006.08.17 21:26:00 - [172] Originally by: Butter Dog Originally by: d'hofren 1) It's all well and good saying using a scout / gate hugger for intel. Does that mean that every system with a mining or npcing op will need to have every gate into the system covered? This will represent a revenue drop for many corps as active pilots will need to camp gates for hours rather than making any iskies Yup... so? Less rares being mined = higher rare prices = higher module prices Originally by: Butter Dog Originally by: d'hofren 2) Log off / Log on tactics. Find a popular system, park pvp / pirate character. Log on when ever you think you might get a target. Gate spotters will never see you coming. Even with the constellation wide idea, well, I bet you could shut down an entire constellation by parking 4 chars in a random safe spot somewhere. Problem is every ruddy system would need to be probed to find those ss'ed pilots. Not cool. Happens already. Or have you never fought RAT? xxx I refer the gentleman to my alliance ticker. He may then use the alliance map to see where I live. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Meeep!
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.08.17 21:50:00 - [173] Originally by: wystler All I'm saying is have a little optimism and give things a go before you decide its a bad idea and give some constructive feedback on how to improve it. Try it out on SiSi! Go help with the bug testing :) Bug report what doesn't seem to be working right! Try and break the system scanning! Etc Its absolutely BRILLIANT that we have such a big playerbase who are so enthused about the game that they ardently fight for their beliefs, but please do test it before deciding its all horribly broken? Sony and the NGE for Star Wars Galaxies. That's all I have to say. Changing local without enough thought to the balance between attackers and defenders could be that bad. Don't destroy the gameplay of thousands on a whim. Local is such a big part of gameplay, I am very worried about any changes. I'm not against changes per se, but until I see the full picture of what they are, I am worried as hell. Local is a needed defensetool against rampaging gank squads, who are practically uncatchable. Is it needed against covertops skulking about in a system completely UNTOUCHABLE. It is needed against gankers logging off and on. Without local, imagine I am chasing a ganker. He disappears off scanner, how the hell am I supposed to find him again? He could have jumped to another system, he could have logged off (unless I put him in my buddylist, but I think thats not intended either?), he could be out of my scanner range, he could have cloaked. How the hell are we supposed to find them? Its not like stabbabond gankers need to have it any easier, or do they? If local is removed, there better be a ****load of other means for defenders to keep track of hostiles in the area or 0.0 will become a barren wasteland. That is my prediction.
Ragornok	Posted - 2006.08.17 21:53:00 - [174] I honestly don't see it being a BAD thing if they remove/change local. After all, almost no first or third person MMO has an equivilant of the local chat listings. Yeah, some games you can do a "whois" search on the chat, but those are only of limited use since you aren't notified if anybody leaves or enters.... so you can think of that more like an equivilant of the system scanner where you have to intentionally search it. And it seems to work ok on PvP servers in other games, so I don't think we will have as many problems as people think.
Maya Rkell Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2006.08.17 21:53:00 - [175] wystler, to be clear, this is on SiSi for testing NOW then? Which is kinda my point.. We can only criticise what we has been said, and what has been said by Oveur was untrue (that it helps the prey as much as the hunter), and thus anything derived from that is a mistake. In any case, by the time it hits Sisi, unless it's as obviously bad and as minor as missile arming time, it's too late to stop per previous experience. As for bugs... I know people who have filled over 10 big reports, some jointly with me, all those things still happen. There does need to be a feedback system for bugs, if only "we have recieved this and some bug in the system has not eatern it" confirmation emails. iqplayer, BoB vs Goons. "There are some 'issues' in Eve atm, but overall things are fairly balanced." Yes, I'd say that was a fair statement. Further, radical changes at this stage...are perhaps not the best idea. POS wars (and dreads)...as a system mostly parallel to normal gameplay are something which can be worked on without causing major disruption.
Guillame Herschel Gallente	Posted - 2006.08.17 21:55:00 - [176] Originally by: Noriath Afterall you own the gate, why shouldn't it tell you who's using it... Can you destroy the gate? Move it? No? Then you don't own it.
Maya Rkell Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2006.08.17 22:00:00 - [177] Ragornok, no, you can see people comming at multiples of maximum weapon range however...and most of them do NOT have meaningful PvP. Even Shadowbane had "track", a long-distance sense for certain characters. It works "okay" in 2d environments without chokepoints etc.
Phoenix vajaa SUBLIME L.L.C. Prime Orbital Systems	Posted - 2006.08.17 22:02:00 - [178] Originally by: Oveur Originally by: Kuolematon Originally by: Oveur With Exploration, we'll eventually move all asteroid belts into the exploration system, so that you have to search for the fields - and so does the pirate that wants to take you on. wtf?! You serious? Your finally going to get real asteroid belts that you have to find yourself in space? Not those stupid ring formations that looks so "unnatural". No, I was just kidding, I take it all back. i really wish i could find that funny, i really do.
Exiled One Amarr Imperial Shipment	Posted - 2006.08.17 22:06:00 - [179] Originally by: wystler All I'm saying is have a little optimism and give things a go before you decide its a bad idea and give some constructive feedback on how to improve it. Try it out on SiSi! Go help with the bug testing :) Bug report what doesn't seem to be working right! Try and break the system scanning! Etc Its absolutely BRILLIANT that we have such a big playerbase who are so enthused about the game that they ardently fight for their beliefs, but please do test it before deciding its all horribly broken? Sony this, sony that more whines by major alliance CAREBEAR players. I agree with you wystler it needs testing but they don't even care about it - all they want is to be safe i.e. hostile enters local, npcer/miner is already aligned to station/safespot, once the new local appears they don't even bother checking info ! they warp to a safespot/logoff/instadock/etc. That's the reason it needs nerfing, we need more player interaction instead of the my miner II to your roid/my torp to your 1,8m. bs spawn ENCOURAGE PLAYER INTERACTION !
Salo deSaade	Posted - 2006.08.17 22:09:00 - [180] Originally by: Oveur Personally, I don't like local, it's supposed to be a chat, so people can hear you scream in space, not a tactical tool. Taz is spot on with that aspect, just removing local would make space more empty than it already is. Glad to hear it. I know some Alliance and Pirate players are utterly uninterested in the social aspect of the game beyond their corp, but I like ambling about systems and chatting to people.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.