EVE Search - [Proposal] 0.0 small gang incentive

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[Proposal] 0.0 small gang incentive

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Daedalus II	Posted - 2010.03.03 13:22:00 - [1] I've been reading the latest CSM meeting minutes found here: http://www.eveonline.com/council/transcripts/2010/CSM_CCP_Meetings_18-20_02_2010.pdf It seems like people want more small scale warfare incentives. For this some sort of target would be needed. Station services were mentioned in the CSM notes. My suggestion is to connect the ratting index/mining index to the strength of the system, essentially meaning that the more industry you have in the system, the tougher it is to take over. This means the industrialists will indirectly help keeping the system secure and will therefore have a value to the 0.0 alliances that currently only value fighting power. Say for example that we take max(ratting index, mining index) and give that many bonus reinforcement timers to the ihub of the system. This would mean that a brute force attack of a system would be very cumbersome and time consuming with high ratting/mining index. The smart attacker however comes in weeks in advance in smaller teams and reduce the ratting/mining index through attrition. When low enough the main fleet is brought in to easily take over the system. I think this would both promote small gang warfare and reduce blobbing to some degree. It would also discourage AFK alliances and encourage 0.0 alliances to take in more industrialist players to keep their indices as high as possible in all their systems (not just the core systems).
XXSketchxx Gallente Remote Soviet Industries Important Internet Spaceship League	Posted - 2010.03.03 13:51:00 - [2] Edited by: XXSketchxx on 03/03/2010 13:51:50 I like the concept of "attrition warfare" but this really doesn't support "small gang warfare" so much as 'gank the carebears." edit: unless people actually "defend" their carebears...or the bears reship and fight the insurgents...idea has potential _____________________________________________ -Sketch, Certified Pharmacist Need a Boost?
Daedalus II	Posted - 2010.03.03 14:02:00 - [3] Originally by: XXSketchxx edit: unless people actually "defend" their carebears...or the bears reship and fight the insurgents...idea has potential Yeah the implicit idea was that the alliance would have to protect its industrialists to keep their high indices. A "they can defend themselves" stance wouldn't be positive for them as it directly influences the security of the system if all the industrialists just pack up and leave for a safer area.
Sokratesz	Posted - 2010.03.03 14:11:00 - [4] Sounds like a good idea. CSM Iceland meeting minutes - READ THEM :D
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2010.03.03 14:15:00 - [5] Edited by: Malcanis on 03/03/2010 14:15:13 Originally by: Sokratesz Sounds like a good idea. Link the hub index strength to the reinforce timers. The weaker the index, the more variable the timer. EDIT: could also vary the iHub hitbpoints as well.
Taudia Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries	Posted - 2010.03.03 14:19:00 - [6] I like this idea.
Seraphina Oriana The White Rabbits The Gurlstas Associates	Posted - 2010.03.03 15:28:00 - [7] Yeah, I like it. Tales of the Clan Oriana - http://www.clan-oriana.com
Cheeva MekTor Incarnation of Evil	Posted - 2010.03.04 10:17:00 - [8] I like it you'd think the few thousand posts on CAOD about all the lag would be an incentive as well lol.
Vaal Erit Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2010.03.04 10:39:00 - [9] This is a good idea. Not perfect and needs tweaking but good enough for CCP to think about stuff like this and try it out. I would like a small gang objective that didn't involve taking over sov, but still hurts the enemy (killing ratters don't count as that is zzzz pvp). CCP has been promising small gang objectives for years and we haven't gotten any, my new theory is that CCP thinks a 200 man BS fleet is a small gang. Small gangs hooray, big blobs booo, more people in 0.0 heck ya. Support! Originally by: Jim Raynor EVE needs danger, EVE needs risks, EVE needs combat, even piracy, without these things, the game stagnates to a trivial game centering around bloating your wallet with no purpose.
Daedalus II	Posted - 2010.03.05 19:31:00 - [10] I approve of this bump!
Liol Wongsta The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2010.03.05 21:55:00 - [11] Actually a sensible suggestion.
Furb Killer	Posted - 2010.03.06 09:22:00 - [12] Also gives alliances more reason to use their space, i like it
Fille Balle Ballbreakers R us	Posted - 2010.03.18 22:14:00 - [13] Originally by: Furb Killer Also gives alliances more reason to use their space, i like it Not to mention give pve'ers a reason for being in 0.0 (beyond making isk), and give alliances a reason for having them there. It's not the great solution to move all pve'ers out of highsec, but it's a good step in the right direction. /Supported
Bagehi Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2010.03.18 22:19:00 - [14] If what you are saying is popping ratters/miners in a system impacts the system industry/military levels. This is a good idea.
Pian Shu Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2010.03.18 22:57:00 - [15] Originally by: Bagehi If what you are saying is popping ratters/miners in a system impacts the system industry/military levels. This is a good idea. What he is saying is that ratters and miners are now a valid part of the defense strategy for a system, but that they will need to be defended for this to work. And that preventing them from doing their thing will make the system easier to take a little later on. Actually popping them has nothing to do with it. It's an incentive for sovereignty holders to man (or woman) up and defend their right to rat and mine rather than dock up or move to a different system. And that should mean more real fights can be had rather than simple ganks -- and that's a good thing.
Daedalus II	Posted - 2010.04.08 17:25:00 - [16] Bumpage
Daedalus II	Posted - 2010.05.21 07:50:00 - [17] I've heard a lot of people complain about how boring the current sov system is with many reinforcement timers and a lot of waiting. In my opinion that's another good reason to change it to a system like this. Say that you have exactly as many reinforcement timers as the system industry/military index. At index 1 there will only be a single reinforcement timer, meaning half as much waiting as today. But at index 5 it will be 5 reinforcement timers, pretty much impossible to break through, and very boring to even try.
Corbeau Lenoir ZER0. IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.05.21 10:17:00 - [18] Edited by: Corbeau Lenoir on 21/05/2010 10:16:43 I like this idea. Leave the possibility to attack systems with the current cumbersome timers, but also allow to use this attrition warfare to lower timers or to make them more unpredictable. And to capture the system, you'll still need large fleet anyway. So, basicly, something to do for both large fleets and small gangs. Win-win. Really, really good idea. Supported. Vote me for CSM5!
Mkah Mvet Chumly Incorporated Beyond-Control	Posted - 2010.05.21 13:28:00 - [19]
AlexK100	Posted - 2010.05.21 15:35:00 - [20] very nice idea
Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate	Posted - 2010.05.21 22:08:00 - [21] Originally by: Corbeau Lenoir Edited by: Corbeau Lenoir on 21/05/2010 10:16:43 I like this idea. Leave the possibility to attack systems with the current cumbersome timers, but also allow to use this attrition warfare to lower timers or to make them more unpredictable. And to capture the system, you'll still need large fleet anyway. So, basicly, something to do for both large fleets and small gangs. Win-win. Really, really good idea. Supported. This.
Ashina Sito Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2010.05.21 23:38:00 - [22] The general theory is sound. This is how 0.0 should have been operating in the first place. My CSM Election Announcement
Charlemeign BESTIAL CARNAGE Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2010.05.21 23:49:00 - [23] Or we could just completely blob out the ****ing systems and slowly take it over. Ya, rite.
Grarr Dexx GK inc. Panda Team	Posted - 2010.05.22 01:42:00 - [24] The idea holds a lot of merit. But, in order to be balanced, it should be a much lower base system strength, so that the maximum strength can be around what we have now. It's already incredibly hard to take over systems as is. ___
Di Mulle	Posted - 2010.05.22 19:25:00 - [25]
Harlequ1n The Hegemonising Swarm	Posted - 2010.05.22 19:38:00 - [26] Good idea.
Imigo Montoya	Posted - 2010.05.22 21:00:00 - [27] This would also further encourage active use of systems which was an objective of Dominion.
darius mclever	Posted - 2010.05.22 21:06:00 - [28] +1
Halsoy Shade. Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2010.05.23 03:42:00 - [29] I like this idea very much. --------------------
pc dude Ghosts of Ragnarok	Posted - 2010.05.23 06:19:00 - [30] this is a really good idea. i approve. like someone else said, make sure it's not any harder to take than it is now
SephusS	Posted - 2010.05.23 06:19:00 - [31] winsauce
LOPEZ GK inc. Panda Team	Posted - 2010.05.23 06:40:00 - [32] best idea i've seen in YEARS. Support the Eve Video Community! My Videos
Occasus Vim Einherjar Rising Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2010.05.23 16:58:00 - [33] Great notion.
Emperor Cheney Celebrity Sex Tape	Posted - 2010.05.23 19:41:00 - [34] support
Emo TJ Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2010.05.23 21:28:00 - [35] YET ANOTHER, "PLEASE NERF THOSE WHO HAVE MORE FRIENDS THAN ME!" WHINE THREAD. MAYBE YOU SHOULD MAKE MORE FRIENDS THAN SHOOTING EVERYONE THAT SHOWS UP ON YOUR OVERVIEW. NOT SUPPORTED!!!
Omega Flames Last Resort Inn SYSTEM SHOCK INITIATIVE	Posted - 2010.05.24 02:14:00 - [36] ------------------------- "Forsys > WAR Forsys > HUH Forsys > WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR Harry Sunday > loot Forsys > touchT"
Asruv'ynn	Posted - 2010.05.24 04:25:00 - [37] so... you're suggesting to fight industrial/ratting blobs with pvp blobs and you want to reduce blobing? War of attrition sounds good and all, but you're still fighting with numbers and frankly they (industrialists) don't have those numbers to compete and the war is already won. You're better off putting a limit on the amount of people allowed in an alliance to limit their logistics for blob fleets. Imagine if alliances were only allowed say 1500-2000 members: that means you wouldn't have something like SC trying to 'conquer' the north and the north by responding with a localized peace coalition against the common enemy. There's no point in having the NC if the SC is gone because you wouldn't need ridiculously sized fleets and then everyone would be in their own corner.
Halsoy Gallente Shade. Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2010.05.24 07:20:00 - [38] Edited by: Halsoy on 24/05/2010 07:21:58 Originally by: Asruv'ynn so... you're suggesting to fight industrial/ratting blobs with pvp blobs and you want to reduce blobing? War of attrition sounds good and all, but you're still fighting with numbers and frankly they (industrialists) don't have those numbers to compete and the war is already won. You're better off putting a limit on the amount of people allowed in an alliance to limit their logistics for blob fleets. Imagine if alliances were only allowed say 1500-2000 members: that means you wouldn't have something like SC trying to 'conquer' the north and the north by responding with a localized peace coalition against the common enemy. There's no point in having the NC if the SC is gone because you wouldn't need ridiculously sized fleets and then everyone would be in their own corner. I believe you are completely misunderstanding the entire OP. What he is saying is that they/he/whoever wants it so that an entity of 2000 members need to employ miners, ratters, production crews to ensure that their system is hard to take. What this means is that a group of 10 pilots can interrupt the mining/ratting/industry and make the system vulnerable for attack, meaning much easier to take a week or three down the road. As the index system works now, every hour there is no ratting/mining the index decays. After three days or so, you lose an entire level. Give enough time, regardless of how much effort a big alliance puts up trying to defend mining ops, the defence will eventually weaken if attacked by good enough pilots. This means the attackers gank a ship or two and leaves without any losses. What the proposal does is it promotes guerrilla warfare on a new level. A big entity that wants to invade another big entity (NC vs SC i.e.) can hire smaller groups to do the dirty work for them. So when they are ready to take over a system, they can then roll in and take it in say one day instead of a week. (assuming if you drop the index levels you don't get RF timers on ihubs, stations, SCU and such) You'll never get rid of the blobs, as that's simple as "my dad will beat your dad" and you never bring a knife etc. But it promotes smaller groups, or small groups within bigger groups that are specialized to use proper guerrilla tactics. It has nothing to do with replacing one blob mechanism with another. --------------------
Asruv'ynn	Posted - 2010.05.24 20:41:00 - [39] My point was that they have an incentive to spam the system with industry or roams to control the system. As far as I can tell, if industry affects the ability to take a system, then just spam a ton of industry there to screw up the index. That way it'll be harder for someone to just roll in there and take it as you suggest, or in the other way, an attacker would simply spam roams to keep industry out to lower the index. I'm just not sure this would work, but I'm not a game designer so who knows.
Halsoy Gallente Shade. Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2010.05.24 20:56:00 - [40] Originally by: Asruv'ynn My point was that they have an incentive to spam the system with industry or roams to control the system. As far as I can tell, if industry affects the ability to take a system, then just spam a ton of industry there to screw up the index. That way it'll be harder for someone to just roll in there and take it as you suggest, or in the other way, an attacker would simply spam roams to keep industry out to lower the index. I'm just not sure this would work, but I'm not a game designer so who knows. OK, you are indeed misunderstanding it. See, the difference between what you're describing and what is suggested is basicly now and "if". You can already just "spam" the system with huge blobs or massive roams all day every day". What is suggested is as I said, 10 pilots can do the work of hundreds. --------------------
Asruv'ynn	Posted - 2010.05.25 03:37:00 - [41] Originally by: Halsoy Edited by: Halsoy on 24/05/2010 07:21:58 What this means is that a group of 10 pilots can interrupt the mining/ratting/industry and make the system vulnerable for attack, meaning much easier to take a week or three down the road. As the index system works now, every hour there is no ratting/mining the index decays. After three days or so, you lose an entire level. Give enough time, regardless of how much effort a big alliance puts up trying to defend mining ops, the defence will eventually weaken if attacked by good enough pilots. This means the attackers gank a ship or two and leaves without any losses. What the proposal does is it promotes guerrilla warfare on a new level. A big entity that wants to invade another big entity (NC vs SC i.e.) can hire smaller groups to do the dirty work for them. So when they are ready to take over a system, they can then roll in and take it in say one day instead of a week. (assuming if you drop the index levels you don't get RF timers on ihubs, stations, SCU and such) You'll never get rid of the blobs, as that's simple as "my dad will beat your dad" and you never bring a knife etc. But it promotes smaller groups, or small groups within bigger groups that are specialized to use proper guerrilla tactics. It has nothing to do with replacing one blob mechanism with another. I'm going to quote you since it's a lot easier. You're simply misunderstanding me. What I'm saying is this whole thing is an incentive to just simply blob each other. Alliance A invades Alliance B with say 10 people in 3 systems. Alliance B fails to utilize decent amount of industry and ratting within said systems and thus they are quite easily taken. Alliance B realizes that through using more ratters and industry in those systems, they can withstand an invading force for much longer and thus does so. Here's the problem: ok, so you can roam with a few people and put a squeeze on their systems and it (at first!) promotes small gang warfare. However, to off-set the oncoming force, Alliance B decides to start spamming more industry and ratting *WITH* a militia of equal or greater size than the roam to protect their industry and squash the invaders. Alliance A can either at this point go home, or continue with their planned invasion and thus start spamming more forces to counter-balance the defending Alliance B. Either you're going have a huge incentive to blob or you're going to have a defending pushover alliance that will just collapse at an incoming invasion. What choice do you think they have? So really you are replacing one blob with another, however only in anticipation of the blobs that were planned to invade in the coming future. The only thing that is changed is forcing corporations/alliances to use their systems more to an advantage or get stamped out if they choose not to. Sure small gang warfare makes sense, however they're going to defend themselves and so many pilots can only do so much. Not sure how only a few pilots roaming a system can take on an empire...
Halsoy Gallente Shade. Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2010.05.25 07:08:00 - [42] You've clearly never pushed a force that tries to protect it's industry before. It doesn't matter who it is. At one point, people will be too bored to sit there for nothing, defending miners. And while they're defending a mining op, the skirmish force can kill people elsewhere, making them whine that all the defence is assembled in one spot. It also enables a skirmish gang to bomb the "blob" defending the mining op. Hell, you can bomb the mining op itself and run away with no losses, furthermore decreasing morale. People need to stop using a blob as an excuse for everything, and rather start thinking what one might do while being outnumbered. It's VERY easy for 10 people to take out 100 Hulks protected by 600 military ships. You just need to know how. --------------------
Daedalus II	Posted - 2010.05.25 10:02:00 - [43] Edited by: Daedalus II on 25/05/2010 10:02:32 Originally by: Asruv'ynn Here's the problem: ok, so you can roam with a few people and put a squeeze on their systems and it (at first!) promotes small gang warfare. However, to off-set the oncoming force, Alliance B decides to start spamming more industry and ratting *WITH* a militia of equal or greater size than the roam to protect their industry and squash the invaders. Alliance A can either at this point go home, or continue with their planned invasion and thus start spamming more forces to counter-balance the defending Alliance B. Either you're going have a huge incentive to blob or you're going to have a defending pushover alliance that will just collapse at an incoming invasion. What choice do you think they have? But isn't this what we want? what is fun? It begins with a small force attacking industrialists, another small force moves in to intercept them. This then escalates to larger and larger forces until you have an all out war over the system. This differs from today where all of a sudden you get a spike of 500 ships jumping into the system proceeding directly to the ihub and decimating it in a few seconds. That force then has to sit there doing nothing waiting for either the timer to run out or the owners of the system to get a fleet ready which will take hours. There is just no "interaction" which should be the fun part. In my suggestion you get a trickle of people coming in from both sides, slowly escalating the battle. And at any one time the attackers can decide that their offensive capabilities are better used somewhere else and may withdraw to annoy another system, or split out over several systems.
Asruv'ynn THORN Syndicate Controlled Chaos	Posted - 2010.05.25 19:22:00 - [44] Originally by: Daedalus II Edited by: Daedalus II on 25/05/2010 10:02:32 But isn't this what we want? what is fun? It begins with a small force attacking industrialists, another small force moves in to intercept them. This then escalates to larger and larger forces until you have an all out war over the system. This differs from today where all of a sudden you get a spike of 500 ships jumping into the system proceeding directly to the ihub and decimating it in a few seconds. That force then has to sit there doing nothing waiting for either the timer to run out or the owners of the system to get a fleet ready which will take hours. There is just no "interaction" which should be the fun part. In my suggestion you get a trickle of people coming in from both sides, slowly escalating the battle. And at any one time the attackers can decide that their offensive capabilities are better used somewhere else and may withdraw to annoy another system, or split out over several systems. Quote: People need to stop using a blob as an excuse for everything, and rather start thinking what one might do while being outnumbered. It's VERY easy for 10 people to take out 100 Hulks protected by 600 military ships. You just need to know how. Yes, I absolutely agree, it shouldn't be an excuse, but my point still stands: they will use this as another means to blob a system. The current suggestion sounds great in that at first will encourage small roams to clear front line systems in enemy territory since I notice a lot of systems are hardly used by large alliances. However there comes a point where one group has to decide whether to defend it or not in terms of the proposed index. Perhaps it is better to go more along with something like what has been suggested for FW sov where each ship is worth a certain number of points and you 'weaken' the system given the losses of the defending team. Also, have it so the more ships that blob the opposing force, the less points are added/taken to the teams. It seems this way, you still will see blobing, however there is a better incentive to fight with less numbers and to be more careful with their ships. Thoughts?
KeLLaX Einherjar Rising Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2010.05.26 10:48:00 - [45] I m game with this one.. sounds good
Ulmagod	Posted - 2010.05.26 17:39:00 - [46] This sounds good at first glance, but people don't need another reason to go after PvE fit ratters and miners in 0.0, they are already significant targets and people get enough just out of the KMs. What stops them going after them is the liklihood of getting ganked themselves and the lack of targets due to good intelligence being passed to the ratters and carebears. You need to think through the proposal properly and consider the true problem and how people might twist the mechanic. I've been in 0.0 for a couple of months now and I've found one of the more irritating things to happen is where reds come into your system, cloak up and go /afk. It makes it difficult to rat or mine, you don't know what they are in or what backup they have. It ties down a lot of players with a boring game experience trying to fruitlessly hunt them down or just being there on standby, or you take a chance and risk it with inadequate backup after waiting ages for them to leave. Why do people do this at the moment, just to spoil peoples game I think, now you want to give people a reason to employ this routinely as it surely would be. Ultimately, this won't improve small gang warfare, it will just harm 0.0 ratting and mining. Improving small gang warfare, requires improving the safety of small gangs in enemy space by for example increasing the number of gates per system and the number of routes that small gangs can take in and out. Or encouraging the splitting up of large blobs, by requiring multiple objectives to be siezed and held in surrounding systems. I would have suggested adding something to just dissuade people from massive blobbing, but CCP tried adding massive lag and yet people still don't get it.
Rhadia	Posted - 2010.06.18 22:19:00 - [47] /sign
Rip Minner Gallente ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries	Posted - 2010.06.20 08:14:00 - [48] Edited by: Rip Minner on 20/06/2010 08:26:00 Edited by: Rip Minner on 20/06/2010 08:21:28 Edited by: Rip Minner on 20/06/2010 08:21:07 Edited by: Rip Minner on 20/06/2010 08:19:27 There is no way to fix blobs. Have you people not goten it yet. Blobs are what keeps the servers on in Iceland and keeps Eveonline going. Here is why. EVE is a pvp game mainly but it was well basicly failing at geting the needed numbers of players though pvp. So they did great promo on sandbox and you can do anything. You all remeaber that right. And numbers started rising rapidly. You see this numbers were not people that like pvp this were people that like pve. The pvp people that played eve were not going to keep the servers on so they had to get pve players into there game and make both pvp and pve players think there geting what they wanted. So this is how you keep pve players in a game they like doing pve content they love in a pvp game. It's the only real deturent PVE players have to combat PVP players. It's the blob. If your a PVE player you dont realy like PVP so you blob the crap out of the people that jack with your PVE content. Now its fair and = becouse PVE players dont like to pvp they only blob to get to the new cool PVE content placed in pvp zones. And it works becouse PVP players hate blobs there no fun for any pvp player ether. So both side's hate the blob just as much for differnt reasons. And that makes it all work out. Becouse the blob keeps PVP players away from PVE players for the most part. If pve players did not have this blob they would have not real deturent against pvp players. Why is that you say all they need to is pvp back well thats the problem if PVE players did not have a way to make pvp unfun for pvp players with the blob pvp players would never leave the pve players be becouse remeaber this are pvp players and pvp is want they want and would pvp the pve players till the pve left game and then you dont have the numbers to keep the servers on again. There for CCP has to keep the blob. As a side note it was a smart real life bussness move by CCP. Is it a rock? Point a Lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship? Point a Lazer at it and profit. I dont realy see any differnces here.
Anna Lifera Gallente Imperial Legion of Amarr	Posted - 2010.06.21 03:49:00 - [49] Originally by: Rip Minner If your a PVE player you dont realy like PVP so you blob the crap out of the people that jack with your PVE content. yes, it's always the missioner that has the blob as backup and never the ninja salvager... Originally by: Rip Minner Now its fair and = becouse PVE players dont like to pvp they only blob to get to the new cool PVE content placed in pvp zones. And it works becouse PVP players hate blobs there no fun for any pvp player ether. So both side's hate the blob just as much for differnt reasons. And that makes it all work out. Becouse the blob keeps PVP players away from PVE players for the most part. explain why those "pve players" gate camp busy low sec systems like amamake or hagilur? surely they would pick a less busy system to operate in when the pvp players could counter-blob? Originally by: Rip Minner If pve players did not have this blob they would have no real deturent against pvp players. Why is that you say all they need to is pvp back well thats the problem if PVE players did not have a way to make pvp unfun for pvp players with the blob pvp players would never leave the pve players be becouse remeaber this are pvp players and pvp is want they want and would pvp the pve players till the pve left game and then you dont have the numbers to keep the servers on again. There for CCP has to keep the blob. As a side note it was a smart real life bussness move by CCP. lmfao i've actually found a way to have your quotes actually make more sense (which isn't saying much to begin with). rdy? switch "pve player" with "pvp player" and vice versa whenever it comes up. try it. --- LOLOLOL If anything, lvl4s require LESS effort then Mining!... At least in mining you have to check every 4 minutes to move the ore to the can. You're an idiot. - Jerid Verges
xChevalierx	Posted - 2010.06.21 11:44:00 - [50] Edited by: xChevalierx on 21/06/2010 11:44:25 good idea, not sure if it's really an incentive for small gang warfare though, but its a good idea. Will add more dynamics and fun to the game... which CCP is completely against so it probably wont get passed.
Daedalus II	Posted - 2010.08.19 17:47:00 - [51] Bump!
Fournone	Posted - 2010.08.19 18:58:00 - [52] /supported BTW. nice forum fight
Elisa Fir	Posted - 2010.08.20 14:04:00 - [53] /signed
Quantessa DRACONIAN COVENANT	Posted - 2010.08.21 12:00:00 - [54] Sound idea.
Jamie Banks Wasted and Still Mining	Posted - 2010.08.22 02:59:00 - [55] Great idea, more small gang PvP will occur and the amount of forum tears on AFK cloakers will reach new heights. _______________________________ Join in-game Channel 'Aussies' AU/NZ Corp Register
Cromo Effect	Posted - 2010.08.22 03:27:00 - [56] The last thing this game needs is another nerf to mining in 0.0. Not supported.

Pages: 1 2 :: [one 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.