Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Anita Name
Perkone Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 19:09:50 -
[121] - Quote
Yroc Jannseen wrote:Quote: So in the example [quote]+2 Sanctums, +3 Havens, +2 Forsaken Hubs, +4 Forsaken Rally Points, +2 Forlorn Hubs, +1 Hub, and +1 Forlorn Rally Point.
I too complain about almost doubling the number of viable anoms in a system. Also, it's more likely going to be 8-10, up to 12 if you do forlorn hubs |
Yroc Jannseen
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
123
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 19:16:45 -
[122] - Quote
Anita Name wrote: I too complain about almost doubling the number of viable anoms in a system. Also, it's more likely going to be 8-10, up to 12 if you do forlorn hubs
I'm not complaining that they are increasing the number of anomalies, I'm wondering if they are looking into patterns of what anomalies are actually run and the underlying reasoning.
|
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
590
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 19:18:20 -
[123] - Quote
Hmm... I tend to think that these proposed PVE changes will end up making null even more stagnant, and encourage less PVP, in the long run.
Most players only have a limited amount of RL time to spend in gaming, and more time spent running PVE missions means less time spent in PVP. If CCP really wants to encourage more PVP, then it should be looking to improve the ISK payout to individual players on PVP activities rather than trying to turn null PVP players into mission-running and mining nullbears. Essentially, I believe that the proposed changes will just be pushing undesired high sec gameplay, ie. less PVP, into null sec.
Also, I think that these changes are also going to further escalate the supercap proliferation problem, since the significant increase in alliance income and materials directly fuels additional supercap production.
Note, too, that FozzieSov is already going to have serious impacts on null sec gameplay, particularly due to the contraction of held space by the alliances. This is likely to result in less PVP, too, due to increased buffer space between the alliances and less contested space, and due to the exponentially increased defensive strength that comes with fewer held systems, under the new FozzieSov system. Less alliance PVP means fewer supercap losses, which, ofc, exacerbates the supercap proliferation problem.
Adding these proposed PVE incentives immediately on top of FozzieSov, without first waiting to see the result of the FozzieSov changes, is a very problematical decision.
In short, I'd suggest waiting for 3-6 months to see how FozzieSov actually affects null sec gameplay, before even considering to throw these PVE changes into the mix. |
Alexander the Great
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
168
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 19:18:59 -
[124] - Quote
While you're looking at anoms I have one more thing to suggest: remove escalation chance from anoms completely
Especially it you're increasing spawn rate.
Make exploration viable again! |
Anita Name
Perkone Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 19:22:46 -
[125] - Quote
Yroc Jannseen wrote:Anita Name wrote: I too complain about almost doubling the number of viable anoms in a system. Also, it's more likely going to be 8-10, up to 12 if you do forlorn hubs
I'm not complaining that they are increasing the number of anomalies, I'm wondering if they are looking into patterns of what anomalies are actually run and the underlying reasoning.
Then you should look at what you quoted.
+2 Sanctums, +3 Havens, +2 Forsaken Hubs, +4 Forsaken Rally Points, +2 Forlorn Hubs, +1 Hub, and +1 Forlorn Rally Point.
Will likely turn into 1 ring sanctum, 1 gate haven, 2 gas havens, 2 forsaken hubs, 4 forsaken rally points all of which are commonly run, for an extra 10 anoms per -1 system. Even a -.1 system gets an extra 7 "good" anoms. You should know very well that gas havens and forsaken rally points are being run, if not only because the "good" gate havens / fhubs / ring sanctums are taken. They're going to just add 15 more of those. |
Mostlyharmlesss
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
178
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 20:14:02 -
[126] - Quote
I don't get it. Where's the incentive?
From the looks of these changes, the only regions that stands to gain from this are the regions that are being overutilized (So Deklein and to some extend Branch). A ton of regions in EVE aren't being utilized so they will gain nothing from it. There is still no incentive for people to choose null sec anomaly running over the high sec ISK making choices as the pay is still comparable (and in most cases better) with almost zero risk.
Follow me on Twitter for the latest regarding GoonSwarm Federation and our recruitment drives!
|
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
3789
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 20:25:43 -
[127] - Quote
So CCP adds more PvE...
...in nullsec. Right where it is needed.
73% of EVE characters stay in high security space. 62% of EVE subscribers barely PvP. 40% of all new accounts just "level up their Ravens". Probably that's why PvE content in EVE Online is sub-par and CCP is head over heels for PvP...
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
3338
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 20:35:46 -
[128] - Quote
Querns wrote:Bienator II wrote:Quote:Unfortunately there are some activities that cannot be made to powerfully influence the Multiplier without becoming exploitable (PVP kills and Manufacturing jobs are the classic examples) why are you giving up so quickly? Instead of making it killcount based you could factor in isk lost per kill with some safety buffer. Just like lp payouts and bounty payouts work. if the gain from the multiplier is less than the lost value of the ships exploding with some buffer it should be fine. CCP's kills to LP/money calculation has been found to be pretty flawed in the past. the fw issue is fixed since payout caps, safety buffer and reasonable market averages are used.
you think CCP doesn't exactly know how much a site is worth in ISK average? or how much a system is worth total with min/max upgrades per day? Furthermore the pvp modifier would not be the only modifier. If you kill 10 isharts per day you should not spawn 10 new sites if 10 sites are more worth than 10 ishtars (and they are). If you lose more isk with your exploit than gain from it there is no exploit. Its how bounties and lp payouts have been fixed.
how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
|
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
338
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 20:37:00 -
[129] - Quote
GimmeDatISK wrote:Quote:Some members of the CSM (IGÇÖll let them identify themselves if they wish) approached us in recent weeks with balance concerns about wormhole travel for Nullsec entities. We took a look at their concerns and decided to make some tweaks to help ease them. Can you please elaborate more on this? I'm very concerned about this statement and how it applies to your relationship with CSM members. You took the concerns of a select group of people who seem to have something to lose by wormholes staying in their current form and very quickly made a change to the mechanics of the game to suit that group. (small? big? who knows - you won't tell us) It disturbs me that we don't publicly know who asked for you to make these changes and who they represent. Was there any disagreement between other CSM members? Did you even bring it up with other members? Why was this such a fast-track change? The way you present your dev blog reads like you fast-tracked changes to appease anonymous critics of a system that didn't benefit them. I don't see how this is good game design or good-faith development with the larger player base in mind. It was being abused. CCP balanced it. Deal.
Buddy Program: If you sign up with my buddy invite link and subscribe with a valid payment method - I will give you 95% of the going rate for PLEX!
|
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1745
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 20:38:12 -
[130] - Quote
Mostlyharmlesss wrote:I don't get it. Where's the incentive?
From the looks of these changes, the only regions that stands to gain from this are the regions that are being overutilized (So Deklein and to some extend Branch). A ton of regions in EVE aren't being utilized so they will gain nothing from it. There is still no incentive for people to choose null sec anomaly running over the high sec ISK making choices as the pay is still comparable (and in most cases better) with almost zero risk.
Nah, while we do benefit, really crap regions benefit wayyyy more. Provi? Pure Blind? The entire SE quad? A whole lot of space we wouldn't wipe our boots on is now worth living in. That is good overall. You could argue this is a net nerf for us if you consider the ratio of how good Dek is compared to say Scalding Pass.
I am not arguing that it is but you could make that point.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Creator of Burn Jita
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
|
Inquisitor Tyr
Phantom Squad The Blood Covenant
73
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 20:38:28 -
[131] - Quote
Will Ship Spinning feed into the Activity Defense Multipliers ? I believe ship spinning and sitting AFK in station are important indicators of nullsec activity and that systems with a high number of AFK bittervets should receive significant bonuses to their Defence Multiplier. |
Zifrian
Licentia Ex Vereor Phoebe Freeport Republic
1647
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 20:39:34 -
[132] - Quote
Like the idea of coop pve in null. I too dislike anoms for this purpose and think this is something really needed.
I think the idea of the ESS has come and gone. Using an entosis is a bad idea as well. I appreciate the innovative approach but I just don't think it works. It's too much hassle and just easier not to deploy.
All the other changes I like. Good job!
GÇ£Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do. GÇ¥ - Dale Carnegie
Maximze your Industry Potential! - Download EVE Isk per Hour!
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
3338
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 20:39:52 -
[133] - Quote
EvilweaselSA wrote:Bienator II wrote:Quote:Unfortunately there are some activities that cannot be made to powerfully influence the Multiplier without becoming exploitable (PVP kills and Manufacturing jobs are the classic examples) why are you giving up so quickly? Instead of making it killcount based you could factor in isk lost per kill with some safety buffer. Just like lp payouts and bounty payouts work. if the gain from the multiplier is less than the lost value of the ships exploding with some buffer it should be fine. please provide how you calculate the isk value of the gain from the multiplier don't worry, i'll wait
i can't do that since i don't know the pve value of a nullsec system. CCP does, otherwise they couldn't even ask their "economy" experts to look over the new changes.
how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
|
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
247
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 20:49:41 -
[134] - Quote
Mostlyharmlesss wrote:I don't get it. Where's the incentive?
From the looks of these changes, the only regions that stands to gain from this are the regions that are being overutilized (So Deklein and to some extend Branch). A ton of regions in EVE aren't being utilized so they will gain nothing from it. There is still no incentive for people to choose null sec anomaly running over the high sec ISK making choices as the pay is still comparable (and in most cases better) with almost zero risk.
Those areas aren't being utilized because the cost of living in and defending them (beyond passive Dominion-era HP grind defense) is greater than the income they produce. These changes are intended to increase the income from such areas such that with some effort put into it, they can support pilots living and dying there, making it much more likely that pilots actually will move there. |
FearlessLittleToaster
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
52
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 20:51:01 -
[135] - Quote
I would not worry too much about swamping the markets with deadspace gear from the increase in site spawns. The spawns will only happen in systems with these upgrades installed, and compared to the absolute avalanche generated by anomaly escalations it will be a drop in the bucket. Pith X-type hardeners are so cheap they are showing on common ratting fits for cripes sakes. As for hacking and archeology sites, I guess you will have to wait and see. There is a lot more demand for their outputs. If the pace of ship destruction picks up and the amount of ultra-safe space decreases it could help quite nicely.
This is not to say I am complaining that exploration is broken. I made good money off of it and have since 2011. But the changes you are making here will have local (probably positive) impact without even getting close to the scope needed to change the overall market.
|
Zappity
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
2339
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 20:59:47 -
[136] - Quote
Impressive devblog. Thanks for going over the results of the Mosaic changes - very interesting.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
SCom Thor
Erebus Innovations Erebus Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 21:38:58 -
[137] - Quote
I very rarely write here, but this one is special, this time Fozzie really proved that he has 0 understanding of what drives EvE around.
Dude, I'll be short and blunt: YOU RETARDS DON'T HAVE THE SUBSCRIBERS TO FILL NULLSEC. No, you don't even have enough to fill 10% of current nullsec system, even if everyone will move in today. Granting carebears the ability to pile 1000/system does NOT benefit the game. Allowing them to pile 800 in a -0.1 system AGAIN does not benefit the game.
FFS get your heads out of your ass, it's clear as daylight: REDUCE the number of anoms/system so one system won't be enough for 100 carebears, increase their ISK/h so to motivate hisec mission runners to move into nullsec, and then come back for more suggestion.
Oh, but I bet you won't. I, at least, tried to profit from the loss and bet a huge amount on the fact that by February EvE online will be on full decline with no way to be stopped from disappearing by next summer.
Since you took us our favorite game, at least that's what we can make out of it. |
DaReaper
Net 7
2316
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 21:42:01 -
[138] - Quote
SCom Thor wrote:I very rarely write here, but this one is special, this time Fozzie really proved that he has 0 understanding of what drives EvE around.
Dude, I'll be short and blunt: YOU RETARDS DON'T HAVE THE SUBSCRIBERS TO FILL NULLSEC. No, you don't even have enough to fill 10% of current nullsec system, even if everyone will move in today. Granting carebears the ability to pile 1000/system does NOT benefit the game. Allowing them to pile 800 in a -0.1 system AGAIN does not benefit the game.
FFS get your heads out of your ass, it's clear as daylight: REDUCE the number of anoms/system so one system won't be enough for 100 carebears, increase their ISK/h so to motivate hisec mission runners to move into nullsec, and then come back for more suggestion.
Oh, but I bet you won't. I, at least, tried to profit from the loss and bet a huge amount on the fact that by February EvE online will be on full decline with no way to be stopped from disappearing by next summer.
Since you took us our favorite game, at least that's what we can make out of it.
Why do you want to make alliances have to spread out more? An alliance should have no issues making everything it needs in a single constellation, or region. Many alliances peppered all over, a better null sec makes. I think it might be you thats has no idea what you are talking about.
OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1753
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 22:14:15 -
[139] - Quote
Bienator II wrote:Querns wrote:Bienator II wrote:Quote:Unfortunately there are some activities that cannot be made to powerfully influence the Multiplier without becoming exploitable (PVP kills and Manufacturing jobs are the classic examples) why are you giving up so quickly? Instead of making it killcount based you could factor in isk lost per kill with some safety buffer. Just like lp payouts and bounty payouts work. if the gain from the multiplier is less than the lost value of the ships exploding with some buffer it should be fine. CCP's kills to LP/money calculation has been found to be pretty flawed in the past. the fw issue is fixed :shobon:
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Sven Viko VIkolander
Friends and Feminists
357
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 22:16:01 -
[140] - Quote
Great changes to the livability of null sec space so far, though I have mixed feelings about the N->N wormhole nerf.
I am also worried that there is going to be an increase in the incoming isk to the economy with these major null sec PVE buffs. IMO...nerf high sec incursions to compensate, as mad as this would make some groups...
In addition, the data/relic site loot economy is already tanked, and will likely fall even further with this change. I suggest lowering the base spawn rate in all of null sec to compensate for the added rate in upgraded systems...
Finally, add in a delayed local chat to all of null sec please. Been asking for the change for years ayyyy just do it. |
|
Ab'del Abu
Atlantis Ascendant
323
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 23:26:26 -
[141] - Quote
EvilweaselSA wrote:Ab'del Abu wrote: Heh nice try.
Your unassailable empire was shrunk to a handful of regions, because under the new system (fozzie sov) it would not have been defensible. The CFC could do that only because those regions provide all the income you need, and then some. So congratulations, you're now living in a virtually unconquerable space, where you can AFKtar and make mad iskies w/o any significant risk whatsoever.
If large groups such as yours were forced to hold more space, said space would be more easily contested. You catching my drift?
Resources need to be limited, why would anyone fight over them if they weren't? That's some straight-forward logic that even you can understand. You're welcome.
our unassailable space shrunk because owning half of the entire map was not worth the effort and was not vital when things become vital for us, anything in the way gets crushed but let us discuss how insane your claim that if we were to own more space, it would be easier for smaller groups to carve out their own portion of that space than if we did not own that space, elaborate on that, let us talk about how your tiny worthless corp would have an easier time not getting brutally murdered as an example to everyone else if you attacked space we want vs. space we dont want
Oo tiny worthless corp ... you're getting personally very quickly there, I like your style.
I also think you're confusing the words "vital" and "viable". If the CFC could have continued to hold that amount of space, they would have. You're pretty delusional if you think otherwise m8 |
Ab'del Abu
Atlantis Ascendant
323
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 23:27:25 -
[142] - Quote
Denidil wrote:EvilweaselSA wrote:Ab'del Abu wrote:Increasing anomaly spawns is somewhat contradictory to incentivize group PVE, you know that right?
I really think Pirate Detection Arrays should work more like Survey Networks and Entrapment Arrays do, i.e. it only increases the chance that a particular sites spawns in the system, however, it doesn't give you a fixed amount of sites to run. This way, PVE content per systems would be limited and people would actually be forced to spread out and travel to make isk (similar to the way it is in wormholes).
You keep going on about your idea that you want to more small and independent groups out in nullsec and more localized conflicts. You won't be accomplishing that as long as it is viable for extremely large groups to live off a comparatively small space. Period. uh you realize the more systems our unassailable space empire needs, the less room for small and independent groups there is your logic could not be more backwards, this is an impressively bad post he's been rage shitposting on Reddit about this too. we just had to downvote him to oblivion and tell him to shut up and go back to his wormhole
I made an argument, I didn't shitpost. But thanks for your valuable input ...
|
Galphii
Oberon Incorporated Get Off My Lawn
313
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 23:36:12 -
[143] - Quote
I'd like to read more about what Team Space Glitter has accomplished so far with AI and NPC improvements in a devblog, at their convenience :)
"Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1755
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 23:41:33 -
[144] - Quote
Ab'del Abu wrote:EvilweaselSA wrote:Ab'del Abu wrote: Heh nice try.
Your unassailable empire was shrunk to a handful of regions, because under the new system (fozzie sov) it would not have been defensible. The CFC could do that only because those regions provide all the income you need, and then some. So congratulations, you're now living in a virtually unconquerable space, where you can AFKtar and make mad iskies w/o any significant risk whatsoever.
If large groups such as yours were forced to hold more space, said space would be more easily contested. You catching my drift?
Resources need to be limited, why would anyone fight over them if they weren't? That's some straight-forward logic that even you can understand. You're welcome.
our unassailable space shrunk because owning half of the entire map was not worth the effort and was not vital when things become vital for us, anything in the way gets crushed but let us discuss how insane your claim that if we were to own more space, it would be easier for smaller groups to carve out their own portion of that space than if we did not own that space, elaborate on that, let us talk about how your tiny worthless corp would have an easier time not getting brutally murdered as an example to everyone else if you attacked space we want vs. space we dont want Oo tiny worthless corp ... you're getting personally very quickly there, I like your style. I also think you're confusing the words "vital" and "viable". If the CFC could have continued to hold that amount of space, they would have. You're pretty delusional if you think otherwise m8 Please tell us more about how the Imperium operates.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Aneu Angellus
Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi
66
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 23:57:19 -
[145] - Quote
PL Reddit thread is so much better than this one... especially where they cry a lot. |
Gideon Enderas
Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens
5
|
Posted - 2015.07.09 00:51:02 -
[146] - Quote
Aneu Angellus wrote:PL Reddit thread is so much better than this one... especially where they cry a lot.
Yeah, this change specifically, all wormholes to and from and nullsec being reduced to 16 hours only is basically putting the nails in the coffin of wormhole space. PL used an in game tool to find content, this tool isn't new. It's been used by several wormhole groups before. Now that a large organized group is using this method to travel, somehow it's unfair. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1747
|
Posted - 2015.07.09 00:54:22 -
[147] - Quote
Gideon Enderas wrote:Aneu Angellus wrote:PL Reddit thread is so much better than this one... especially where they cry a lot. Yeah, this change specifically, all wormholes to and from and nullsec being reduced to 16 hours only is basically putting the nails in the coffin of wormhole space. PL used an in game tool to find content, this tool isn't new. It's been used by several wormhole groups before. Now that a large organized group is using this method to travel, somehow it's unfair.
Welcome to our world since....forever
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Creator of Burn Jita
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery Prolapse.
2540
|
Posted - 2015.07.09 01:23:27 -
[148] - Quote
S199's are not that prevalent, and are no harder to collapse than a N432 or K162 to C5.
Really, who is giving you this information, or are you guys literally blind and dumb?
I rarely find an S199 when I go to nullsec. Most wormholes are C5's, followed by C1-2-3's, and very, very rarely a B499 or N944. So, great, you are cutting down on S199's which are already quite rare.
Good work on making pirate detection arrays more efficient. You know whatthe hardest part about ganking caps in nulsec is? When there is 60 anoms in system, it's hard to filter through for the Hubs and Sanctums past all the abandoned low-grade chaff. Ratters best protection is having more sigs in the list, more green dots on the overview, because it's harder for a hunter to find them amngst the debris.
So, good work, CCP. Nullsec is now confirmed a giant farm, and wih sov timers coming to the API, the number of landholders will shrink.
Doctor Prince Field Marshall of Prolapse. Alliance and Grand Sasquatch of Bob
We take Batphones. Contact us at Hola Batmanuel - Free call 1800-UR-MOMMA
~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
|
Gideon Enderas
Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens
5
|
Posted - 2015.07.09 01:33:02 -
[149] - Quote
Aryth wrote:Gideon Enderas wrote:Aneu Angellus wrote:PL Reddit thread is so much better than this one... especially where they cry a lot. Yeah, this change specifically, all wormholes to and from and nullsec being reduced to 16 hours only is basically putting the nails in the coffin of wormhole space. PL used an in game tool to find content, this tool isn't new. It's been used by several wormhole groups before. Now that a large organized group is using this method to travel, somehow it's unfair. Welcome to our world since....forever
Yeah, I'm probably going to quit EVE if the wormhole changes go through in their current state. Taking a chainsaw to something just because it's being used effectively is ridiculous. I'm fine with altering one thing at a time, slowly. Knee jerk reactions like the ones CCP seems to make are merely bandaid solutions. Bandaids given to little kids to stop them from crying. From what I understand CCP has a history knee jerk reactions, however I was under the impression that CCP was going to stop making them and work more so on tweaking the current system.
CCP needs to stop making drastic changes to perceived problems that may or may not actually exist. I feel that changes should be done for gameplay reasons, not to appease people.
For Example, limiting jump range to 5 LY for caps is rather boring. I think carriers should have been able to jump 7 LY, but at the cost of gaining extra fatigue associated with it. These jump changes were heavy handed, and in my opinion a bit too much.
The nerf to the lifetime of the null wormholes doesn't really hurt groups like PL who (I'm guessing) have multiple chains set up. A few from their home system, and several from their target system(s). It can take anywhere from a couple of minutes to a several hours to find a route close to your target system. |
Ms Michigan
Aviation Professionals for EVE The Ditanian Alliance
64
|
Posted - 2015.07.09 01:41:08 -
[150] - Quote
THIS is the dev blog I have been waiting for. Excellent stuff.
My only suggestion (and as you mentioned - you are working on it) - more PVE content for groups! Excellent!!!
Love the changes to Incursions and WH's....Bob will still be pleased. I like the array changes too.
As someone else mentioned, please REMOVE moon mining and make it a MINING activity equivalent to gold! :) Then people will really flock to null and low to feed the T2 industrial machine.
Excellent changes that will reinvigorate SOV along with the capture the flag mechanics.
Looking forward to the next year in EVE.
o7
Let's get those subscriber numbers back up. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |