Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 34 post(s) |
|
CCP Nullarbor
C C P C C P Alliance
1051
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:15:24 -
[91] - Quote
luobote kong wrote:CompleteFailure wrote:luobote kong wrote:In your slide you said one of the goals was that
"Everyone who wants to use a structure, does: ..."
Does this mean solo players will be able to do this or will the corp restriction remain? Try actually reading the dev blog: Quote: We donGÇÖt want to force the user to select which group they wish to use it for before deploying anymore. Instead, we want the user to make a conscious choice after it has been deployed, and decide if they want personal, corporation, alliance or public use. ThatGÇÖs right, we want those structures to be used for the wider audience, so if you wish to establish your own Market Hub somewhere, make it open to everyone and set your taxes to be shamelessly expensive go right ahead. In a similar manner, if you have permission from your corporation or alliance, nothing should prevent you to deploy a structure for your own personal use.
Erm.. I did. But what I haven't seen explicitly said is whether the user that deploys the structure can be a solo player or indeed can't be. Just seeking a clarification.
Our current thinking is you cannot be in an NPC corp because you need to be able to declare war against the owner.
However we want people to be able to deploy personal use only towers from within any player corporation.
CCP Nullarbor // Senior Engineer // Team Game of Drones
|
|
JTK Fotheringham
Merchants Trade Consortium The Last Chancers.
92
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:20:15 -
[92] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
Oh and for the wormholers, yes you will be able to anchor some (or maybe all of these structures). However there will be some activities / bonuses that remain tied to sovereignty. The exact details of this need to be discussed with the wormhole community to see what best fits their needs and play style.
Thanks for this clarification. Happier now.
Looking forward to that discussion. |
stoicfaux
5526
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:22:38 -
[93] - Quote
I'm confused. The entire Game of Drones team left CCP, has been working on a new MMO for a new publisher, and made the hugest screw-up possible by posting design notes on their old employer's (that would be CCP's) website?!?
I want to play GoD's new MMO. When's the beta?
Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
|
Demyen
Araata-Teiva Kamloss
15
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:24:18 -
[94] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Finally, we are considering adding Interbus Shipping abilities, which could reduce logistic hassle for small volume of items to fit a ship, but at a specific cost: a NPC convoy would spawn and manually move to the destination, being highly susceptible to disruption from other player groups
Holycrap yes. Interbus shipping, and done in a realistic way that's not just magic teleportation! |
Rena'Thras
Military Gamers
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:29:54 -
[95] - Quote
This...makes me very sad in several ways.
I mean, I guess you can't please everyone, but I think you're missing some MAJOR player issues here and not realizing it. As always, my post might be a bit long, but I hope it adds something for you to maybe consider?
.
The Good:
1) I like the new system having a lot more types of structures. This is pretty sweet. I see administration structures which seem like a combination POS/Station/TCU, a POCO/Station(Corp offices/cloning facilities), etc. I really think that's a cool idea since it's one of the cool things about the Deployables having so many types.
2) I also like that it looks like you want to give players the option to build truly massive and monumental structures.
3) The new fitting system seems kind of cool and intuitive, at least the High/Medium/Low slots. I'm not quite sure I understand the S slots - are you saying to upgrade some things we have to kill our ability to do other things? That sucks...but I'll get to more why in just a sec.
4) It looks like we might finally be able to get away from moons...like the NPCs have been doing for YEARS. If only we could gate the entrances making people have to fly there manually. :p |
luobote kong
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:30:28 -
[96] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:luobote kong wrote:CompleteFailure wrote:luobote kong wrote:In your slide you said one of the goals was that
"Everyone who wants to use a structure, does: ..."
Does this mean solo players will be able to do this or will the corp restriction remain? Try actually reading the dev blog: Quote: We donGÇÖt want to force the user to select which group they wish to use it for before deploying anymore. Instead, we want the user to make a conscious choice after it has been deployed, and decide if they want personal, corporation, alliance or public use. ThatGÇÖs right, we want those structures to be used for the wider audience, so if you wish to establish your own Market Hub somewhere, make it open to everyone and set your taxes to be shamelessly expensive go right ahead. In a similar manner, if you have permission from your corporation or alliance, nothing should prevent you to deploy a structure for your own personal use.
Erm.. I did. But what I haven't seen explicitly said is whether the user that deploys the structure can be a solo player or indeed can't be. Just seeking a clarification. Our current thinking is you cannot be in an NPC corp because you need to be able to declare war against the owner. However we want people to be able to deploy personal use only towers from within any player corporation.
Thanks for the clarification. If that thinking holds then actually this is disappointing as it isn't much of a change at all. |
Rena'Thras
Military Gamers
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:30:41 -
[97] - Quote
The Bad:
1) While the new system seems to be bringing more TYPES, it seems to be eliminating the GRANULARITY. See, under the system now, I would take POCOs and TCU/IHUBs and set them to the side of the equation scale. Each has a particularly defined and narrow function. What we really have to look at here are Deployables, POSes (Starbases), and Stations/Outposts. Right now, I can launch a Mobile Depot for myself (aggravatingly, I can't give friends a password so they can use it...), a Small POS for specialized missions or for a small/poor/fledgling Corporation, a Medium POS for more expansive capabilities and a well off Corp or even small Alliance, a Large POS for a small Alliance and for large scale projects, and there is some type advantages based on which Racial POS you go with. Finally, for medium sized Alliances, there are Outposts - for large Alliances, they just build several dozen.
...the new system seems to be discarding this granularity entirely. There will be MDs still, of course, but you seem to be getting rid of POSes, if I'm reading this right. You'll have some combination MD+X structures, MD+POCO, MD+Manufacturing, etc, but no more POSes. And in the place of POSes, everything will be HUGE. No more Small or Medium options. The size alone will be massive, with, again, no granularity. Likewise, you have Outposts...but again, just one size - HUGE.
Not everyone is overcompensating for something. Some of us like smaller things. And there's something cool about the POS shield and being able to sort of build your little town - the main issue with POSes is how little anyone other than Corp bosses gets to play with them.
But as a person who has an alt in a small Corp which is trying to set up our first (Small) POS, hearing that this is going away and all we'll have is massive structures with no shields and no ability to lay out the structures in 3-space to our liking...this is very, very saddening.
Worse, while the present system could do with a "Mega Outpost" for large Alliances to have some fun with, the Small/Medium/Large gameplay is nice. PLEASE keep this or integrate this in the new system in some way!!!!
2) To expand on 3) in the Good, sometimes, and this is particularly important for small Alliances, you need a small facility that will do a little of everything. Max specialization and efficiency isn't the goal, ability to cover all your bases is. Later on, as/if you grow, you can then put out more facilities ans specialize. Specialization leads to increased efficiency and economies of scale, but that's only something you CAN do once you've grown to that size.
...by removing the generalization ability of structures, you're kicking small groups in the shins and preventing them from being able to grow organically over time. It basically means that a small group will have to sit in High Sec for a lot longer trying to recruit up numbers, or join up with a big blue doughnut to get the numbers to get into the structure game. And, again, this is very very sad.
PLEASE reconsider here. I agree that specialization should (as it does now) add benefits. However, you shouldn't make it where people CAN'T be inefficient. Inefficient is necessary for small things that need to grow. Whether children, learning new things, or starting a new group - inefficiency is a necessary first step to grow into something that is more efficient and powerful later.
.
Since it's easy to criticize but to execute you need ideas and suggestions, here are mine:
1) Having the ability to make supermassive things is cool - but don't overlook the builders in the sandbox that want to build a fort instead of a castle! Can you not leave in Small/Medium/Large POSes and possibly institute two types of Outposts? You can add in an X-Large POS if you really want something with that greater size (as well as adjust the structure sizes of the existing Large and Medium somewhat), and all existing Outposts would be the regular variety with the Super Outpost being an entirely new thing (complete with bragging rights when CFC or N3 build their first one). Balance and tuning and all that, but KEEP the granularity! It's a great thing, why break it when you can build/add TO it?
2) Reconsider the shields. Shields are pretty.
3) While making specialization more attractive is good, allow generalization (at much lower levels of efficiency) to stay in the game. Read the description of the Celestis sometime - there are a lot of small Corps and Alliances that need structures that meet that same goal. (I don't remember the exact wording, it's something like "Small Corporations who have limited resources like the Celestis because it's adaptable and relatively inexpensive.)
.
Thanks for your time!
(Sorry for double post, even though I had 12 characters left, it said I was over the limit. XD)
Hope this feedback - positive, negative, and suggestions - can be useful. |
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
136
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:35:50 -
[98] - Quote
Dev blog mentions entosis-only capture mechanic for L-size structures and damage-only for M-size.
Does it mean you have to babysit those structures 24/7 since there's no reinforce mentioned anywhere? |
RainReaper
RRN Assembly INC Straw Hat Legion
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:38:44 -
[99] - Quote
i have waited years.... and... its finnaly almost here.. Q~Q |
Madd Adda
41
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:40:56 -
[100] - Quote
Quote: 5. Housing
Proper housing of player items and ships is a critical must-have if we wish those structures to be used over NPC stations.
the issues with not using NPC stations is the destructibility of player made structures and the looting of assets. As it stands, NPC stations are nigh invulnerable and players can't steal from you from within stations.
Is CCP going to impose limits on what can be stored in NPC stations to force us to buy into this?
Also will the housing structures require fuel to remain online and charter sheet in order to be used in high?
Carebear extraordinaire
|
|
Javani
Low-Sec Survival Ltd.
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:48:50 -
[101] - Quote
Obsidian Hawk wrote:I have a few questions.
1. Wh deployment / sizes allowed. 2.. Defenses. Currently there are major deathstars protecting the larger investments, how will we protect our investments now with only 8 guns? Are there plans for mobile sentry structures or something like that? 3. What bonuses will the base platform give to defenses? looking at that test set up, it looks like fodder for a group of bombers. 4. High sec, low sec, null, and wh space. What will be allowed what wont be allowed? 5. Are we going to have a variation for each faction say minmatar mining, caldari mining, amarr mining? Or will it kind of be based on the outpost model for variations. 6. Can I has them now please? 7. How you doin?
I snippet from the Round Table:
1. ) The Hull sould not be limited to sec status / wh. only the rigs for specalistation. (no supers for wh ) 2. ) No AI would fire back. only player can fire back. currently they are looking for timezone and capture machanics at sov 5.0 3. ) L and XL will evently have simillar machanics like the new sov system 4. ) highsec etc. will be currently limited by usable rigs wich will be limiting the me/te boost etc. no size limit. also there will be a thukker rig for low sec capital producement. 5. ) If i heard it right. there will no race specific structures only meta or maybe t2 variations 6. ) They said the first set (assambly or sience or ... which is currently not selected) should hit TQ this year 7. ) After fan-fest good :) thanks |
Candente
Navy Veteran Club
39
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:49:33 -
[102] - Quote
Congratulations to all who made this happening. Another new chapter for Eve. |
Morgana Tsukiyo
Samsara Dynamics
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:50:39 -
[103] - Quote
Now that-¦s the game i-¦ve been wanting to play! Good Job, put those on SiSi asap! |
RainReaper
RRN Assembly INC Straw Hat Legion
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:53:38 -
[104] - Quote
Justa Hunni wrote:Nyctef wrote:
tl;dr being able to put together a small town of individual structures would make me feel more like I'm building a home rather than just renting someone else's
I really like the changes but I'm quoting above as I had a totally different understanding of what is being contemplated. Right now I can have my POS do almost anything I want it to do (within PG and CPU) but your new structures seem to be role dependent. Does this mean I'll have to have separate research, manufacturing and refining "arrays" within my WH system rather than a single or two POS with all the necessary current arrays (with all the extra fueling etc headaches that enforces)? isent it possible to just change the gear when you want it to do something else? you can store the things in the pos's storage right? |
Redbull Spai
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:56:40 -
[105] - Quote
Quote:Everyone who wants to use a structure, does: We want structures to be as widely used as possible, by removing artificial barriers or mechanics that may be in the way.
Looking at the proposed system, it looks exactly like the current system - completely the opposite of this statement.
Under the current system, only the 0.1% of corp members with *POS Roles* get ANY content WHATSOEVER. The other 99.9% get absolutely ZERO content as regards player-owned structures. Under the new system, it looks the same - POS Role players get all the content, POS Role players are the only ones that can drop/fit the new structures, POS Role players are the only ones that decide where and who manufacturing can occur ect.
And please dont say start your own corp and give yourself POS Roles (or whatever it is going to be called), if your not an established corp in an established alliance with the members to defend such structures, you will get rolled over into dust.
|
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate Naquatech Syndicate
1746
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 19:58:04 -
[106] - Quote
Aryth wrote:With the newest system introduced last year, a great many alliances invested trillions in improvements. Are stations going to be rebated/refunded/changed when they are phased out of the industrial process? You can say the same about supercaps... depending what the changes to them will be
Akrasjel Lanate
General Director(CEO) of Naquatech Conglomerate
Executor of Naquatech Syndicate
Citizen of Solitude
|
Iosue
Empyrean Guard Tactical Narcotics Team
289
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:00:39 -
[107] - Quote
love what i'm seeing so far. need to spend a little time thinking some of the details over, but i really like the improvement goals driving the changes. this will have a big impact on industry both manufacturing and game play mechanics in general and i'm glad for this progress on that front, CCP. can't wait to see more, please keep the info coming. |
Iosue
Empyrean Guard Tactical Narcotics Team
289
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:01:58 -
[108] - Quote
Iosue wrote:love what i'm seeing so far. need to spend a little time thinking some of the details over, but i really like the improvement goals driving the changes. this will have a big impact on industry both manufacturing and game play mechanics in general and i'm glad for this progress on that front, CCP. can't wait to see more, please keep the info coming.
edit: also looking forward to reading dev feedback to responses here. |
Madd Adda
41
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:03:55 -
[109] - Quote
Iosue wrote:Iosue wrote:love what i'm seeing so far. need to spend a little time thinking some of the details over, but i really like the improvement goals driving the changes. this will have a big impact on industry both manufacturing and game play mechanics in general and i'm glad for this progress on that front, CCP. can't wait to see more, please keep the info coming. edit: also looking forward to reading dev feedback to responses here.
you could have just edited your first post.
Carebear extraordinaire
|
Emmy Mnemonic
Svea Rike Fatal Ascension
43
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:04:10 -
[110] - Quote
Seems cool. Will upgrades/rigs/services in the new structures depend on sov upgrades in nullsec?
CEO Svea Rike
|
|
RazorDreamz
Southern Cross Empire Flying Dangerous
29
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:09:27 -
[111] - Quote
I love where this is going!
I would love to see stations that are building ships to have visual of what they are building. So if your building a carrier for instance it should show a carrier moored and under construction. Not sure if this is can be reasonably applied for sub-caps but I think for caps it would help provide more interesting game-play via spying on stations and launching an attack for instance when you see a titan under construction. |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
1755
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:17:22 -
[112] - Quote
Redbull Spai wrote:Quote:Everyone who wants to use a structure, does: We want structures to be as widely used as possible, by removing artificial barriers or mechanics that may be in the way. Looking at the proposed system, it looks exactly like the current system - completely the opposite of this statement. Under the current system, only the 0.1% of corp members with *POS Roles* get ANY content WHATSOEVER. The other 99.9% get absolutely ZERO content as regards player-owned structures. Under the new system, it looks the same - POS Role players get all the content, POS Role players are the only ones that can drop/fit the new structures, POS Role players are the only ones that decide where and who manufacturing can occur ect. And please dont say start your own corp and give yourself POS Roles (or whatever it is going to be called), if your not an established corp in an established alliance with the members to defend such structures, you will get rolled over into dust.
the reason that only players with pos roles get to play with them is very simple. pos roles are an all or nothing thing. someone who can build a ****** small mining tower can also offline the 5 CSAAs with titans in build.
this looks like that's going to change. you can now decide that peter, bob and anne get to play with mining towers, while only alex is allowed to screw with the titans in build.
Build your empire !
Rent Space in Feythabolis and Omist
Contact me for details :)
|
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1706
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:18:26 -
[113] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Cervix Thumper wrote:watching the twitch and reading this sounds kind of like a cash grab.
we have to purchase new material while the old become obsolete?
existing structures / purchases can't be upgraded or transitioned into the new system?
for those purchases that have already been made and not deployed.. players are S.O.L?
A transition period is nice but, all said and done, it seems like scrap the old and buy the new.
This was something missing from the blog but we discussed in our roundtable at Fanfest today. We will make sure you get some reasonable value back from your old structures and not just nerf them until they don't do anything. This includes the tower, modules and blueprints to build them. We did a similar thing during the industry expansion. Oh and for the wormholers, yes you will be able to anchor some (or maybe all of these structures). However there will be some activities / bonuses that remain tied to sovereignty. The exact details of this need to be discussed with the wormhole community to see what best fits their needs and play style.
What about outpost upgrades?
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate Naquatech Syndicate
1746
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:18:57 -
[114] - Quote
Will it mean removal of racial diversity like POSes and Fuels(Isotopes) ? Will you introduce new materials to make those structures ? It will require a lot of new skills counted 16 new skills if correct.... or it will go down to one per structure type/tree ?
Akrasjel Lanate
General Director(CEO) of Naquatech Conglomerate
Executor of Naquatech Syndicate
Citizen of Solitude
|
Sky Cloud Austrene
KISIN Enterprises
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:19:33 -
[115] - Quote
5 questions/points to raise;
1) What becomes of the Anchoring & Starbase Defence skills ? How will they be impacted by the changes.
2) Will faction standings have any bearing on the ability & bonus's to use the new structures in high sec ?
Quote: Acquisition We want to significantly unify and improve structure acquisition as a whole. As such they will involve:
Acquiring the blueprint original (seeded on markets for Tech I variants). If Faction or Tech II variations are released, they will be available through loot and Invention respectively. Manufacturing the item from the blueprint. Deploying the structure in space by drag and dropping it. The interface should be clear enough to tell you if there are location restrictions and where to go to avoid them. We donGÇÖt want to force the user to select which group they wish to use it for before deploying anymore. Instead, we want the user to make a conscious choice after it has been deployed, and decide if they want personal, corporation, alliance or public use. ThatGÇÖs right, we want those structures to be used for the wider audience, so if you wish to establish your own Market Hub somewhere, make it open to everyone and set your taxes to be shamelessly expensive go right ahead. In a similar manner, if you have permission from your corporation or alliance, nothing should prevent you to deploy a structure for your own personal use.
3) In a similar manner, if you have permission from your corporation or alliance, nothing should prevent you to deploy a structure for your own personal use. That right there is the key part. Under the current system individuals are denied from having their own POS's ect unless they have both trained skills and are grabted the roles by their Corp CEO or Directors before hand to be able to use these things or unless they form their own alt corp to be able to do so. So, What stops a Corp CEO or director in giving individuals roles, the individual gose buys/manufactures/ships these proposed structures and deploys them for the intent of personal use, only then for a Corp CEO or director, to simply remove roles and screw you over ? Thats not a fantasy senario, I have had it happen to me under the current system with POS's Just sayin, that a players ability to use these things should not be governed by the corp management roles, if a play invests the time in training skills to use be able to make & manage these things, then the player should not be confined by corporation controls, but maybe corps/alliances could instead impose taxes. That would help corps and alliances gain a source of alternate income whilst freeing individuals to use them. Should a individual go against corp or alliance policy, the corp/alliance would still be able to see what and where the structure is thru the management window and take action to kill it or kick the individual.
4) Quote:Fate of stored items on structure destruction This sounds like a bad idea. Can totally see this being exploited by hell camps of stealth bombers. Why not just relocate all assets to a NPC station ?.
5) I imagine these structures would still be required to have some sort of HP system tied to them, in order to be able to guage damage so they can be destroyed and also, so the defenders can repair them if they rebuff an attack. How would this work and how will it be different from a structure grind.
|
xttz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
523
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:21:50 -
[116] - Quote
Something I hope the devs keep in mind when developing these new structures is not to rely entirely on this new Entosis mechanic. While I'm sure the majority of us have a healthy distaste for structure shooting, it does still have a place in the game and shouldn't be dismissed entirely. We have entire classes of ships based around delivering and repairing high quantities of damage and this is an aspect of the game that should remain, albeit in a less essential role to today.
By all means allow sovereignty mechanics to favour grid control over ability to inflict damage, but most other structures should still require a real investment in firepower to destroy. I guess the simplest approach would be for Entosis Links to have a disabling or even stealing effect on structures, but actual damage should be inflicted in order to destroy them for good. |
M1k3y Koontz
Aether Ventures Surely You're Joking
741
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:21:53 -
[117] - Quote
These changes look awesome, but leave me with two concerns:
Compensation for people who own starbases (that arent in space) when starbases are finally removed, and decay, the pictures in the blog show decay timers, will those impact XL deployables? Because if so that will be a problem if they are to replace outposts in the long haul.
What kind of compensation will there be for starbase owners (if any), and will XL structures decay?
Overall, I cant wait for the day I can have a personal pseudo-station somewhere without fear of theft, and the removal of the moon requirement makes these structures incredibly promising.
How much herp could a herp derp derp if a herp derp could herp derp.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1888
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:27:12 -
[118] - Quote
I'm worried about highsec game play because of the comment that structure wrecks would only be looted by the owner. You absolutely need to ensure that highsec structures can be destroyed and looted. Otherwise you remove the only risk of the current system which is wardecs.
There is a lot of game play around people searching out unfuelled or at least undefended towers, deccing and destroying for the loot. It would be a shame for this to go away because it is one of the only significant risk elements of high sec industry.
Please make it so that:
1. Defences power down without fuel to make AFK and lack of planning have consequence. This could be done by having a shield/defence module which consumes fuel blocks. 2. Highsec structure wrecks can be looted by the legitimate aggressor (or anyone for a suspect flag).
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1963
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:31:21 -
[119] - Quote
Initial reply to the Dev blog/snippets from Fanfest.
AI MUST fire back; Can't stress this enough, if a player fits weapons to their structure they should always fire at attackers. Otherwise it's a 24/7 job to defend a structure, not a game. Players should be more effective. (Player skills apply perhaps to add damage/effects).
Fuel use only when doing things with services is a great idea, and will enable especially smaller high sec corps to make more use of structures. Which also puts more assets in space to be attacked in a Wardec meaning there is more reason for a corp to stay together rather than disband and make a new one.
Awesome concept work, would like to see a lot more fill in of the structure list in the medium size as well for small high sec corps to use, as currently most of them seem directed towards Null. |
Tzar Sinak
Mythic Heights
161
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 20:37:57 -
[120] - Quote
Please consider:
If the owner of containers that are injected into space (as a result of structure destruction) does not retrieve them WITHIN A PERIOD OF TIME, these containers should become scannable and hackable. This will provide additional and logical game play. The destroyed structure will become a beacon of possible loots to be had for explores as we travel from system to system.
Hydrostatic Podcast First class listening of all things EVE
Check out the Youtube Channel and be sure to subscribe!
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |