Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 44 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 27 post(s) |
Lord Haur
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
64
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 16:21:00 -
[331] - Quote
T3 can be either Factory or Plant, the only difference is the time bonus is on T1 or T2 ships respectively. But yes that's right, if your only concern is maxing the slots out. |
Rakshasa Taisab
Sane Industries Inc.
1161
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 16:26:00 -
[332] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Ice anom sizes are tuned so that high sec is capable of providing about 80% of the ice needs of New Eden right now, if fully mined. Will this be adjusted down so as to eat into stockpiles, cause else the 20% deficiency is going to take years before non-high-sec ice mining will be needed. Nyan |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
4745
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 16:27:00 -
[333] - Quote
Rakshasa Taisab wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Ice anom sizes are tuned so that high sec is capable of providing about 80% of the ice needs of New Eden right now, if fully mined. Will this be adjusted down so as to eat into stockpiles, cause else the 20% deficiency is going to take years before non-high-sec ice mining will be needed. lol, can you imagine the outcry if this were to be adjusted down? |
Traidir
Hedion University Amarr Empire
59
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 16:30:00 -
[334] - Quote
KIller Wabbit wrote:Once the scans are done and end up in Dotlan - end of game and a lot of wasted CCP dev work. Not if the resources deplete.
|
Octoven
Phoenix Productions Headshot Gaming
85
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 16:32:00 -
[335] - Quote
Von Keigai wrote:I am concerned about the proposed mechanics of icebelt respawn. Respawn happens a fixed and exact four hours after depletion of the last icebelt. This is a bad idea. It creates a "gold rush". It rewards solo play. It rewards semi-AFK players, who will be able to log in on a known schedule for their setup keyclicks. And it creates a quite unrealistic ability to know when something will be discovered in the future. "We know ice will be discovered in Otela at exactly 17:32. Just not where." A miner could be in one system, tap out the ice, then move to a nearby system for the four hours with absolute certainty that he is not missing any ice. A mining team could theoretically establish a schedule among a set of nearby ice belts, by carefully not-mining the last little bit of ice until it accords with a schedule.
The obvious tweak is make the respawn variable in time, averaging four hours but perhaps ranging anywhere from 1 hour to 7. This gives the same expected ice production, while making it impossible for players to trivially predict just by coming back in exactly four hours.
There are a couple issues I have with your assessment of this situation.
A. Solo play should always be rewarded, it is a slowly disapperaing aspect of this game and im glad it is being supported a bit more now. Players who use macks are still going to solo no matter where they go...respawn rates are irrelevant to that fact. Another thing to think of is that most miners who solo play will have 3-4 accounts that they engage in mining with. So in a technical term its not eexactly solo play...from a social stand point it is but not from a 3rd person point of view.
B. I fail to see how this rewards semi-afk play. Yes, ice harvesters are being penalized with longer cycle times; however, having lowers amounts of ice depleting over more areas is much better. We all know that depleting an ice roid the way they are set now is a *****. Even with a good sized fleet it would take you all day to do just one roid. Having them pop every hour or so helps.
C. As for the ability to know where it will be discovered in the future that one is easy. The new discovery scanner can be set to auto-scan and pick up new ice belts, the belts are not moving from the current systems they are in...just away from static belts.
D. The 4 hour spawn rate being an issue is irrelevant. I mean technically the way it is now with standard ore belts is respawning at DT. So as a miner you know that exactly 11:30 every day that belt will get new ore. Thus you can set a time table there as well.
E. Finally yes, a miner could get a fleet together and tap out a belt so to speak, but another fleet could be tapping out a belt in a different system, and the first fleet may move to the system the second fleet was in and find it devoid of ice. This isnt an issue. Having the respawn set in stone at exactly 4 hours helps players who play in varoius time zones to be able to take advantage of it and organize a fleet within their time zone to take advantage of it.
To be honest, I love the 4 hour exact timing of it. It allows miners to plan when they want to deplete a belt; AND...yes there is an and, it allows gankers to know exactly when ice will be available too. Thus if you mine you have the edge and if you gank you have equal footing PLUS every time zone can gain an equal edge. To be honest your concerns are misplaced to me. |
Sissy Fuzz
Sissy Fuzz Communications
4
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 16:36:00 -
[336] - Quote
10 years of dumbing down EVE! And still going strong!
"We will also be making a significant change to the way hidden asteroid belts will be found by players. We are phasing out the Gravimetric signature category, and instead pilots will be able to find all Ore Sites using their shipGÇÖs built-in anomaly scanning equipment. This change will make finding hidden belts much less difficult for both miners and for those who would prey on them, so pilots are always advised to practice vigilance."
Love this one: Changing the way hidden asteroid belts will be found by players.
I'd say - they won't be hidden anymore, will they. Way to take away one small thing that is actually fun i high sec. Why not add an AutoMine and AutoGank function too? Or even better: Also add a NavigateToAndMine and NavigateToAndGank option to the autopilot!! Then you won't even have to be in the actual system when you get the urge to mine or gank something.
Then it will be really noob friendly for all types of players.
/SF
|
Octoven
Phoenix Productions Headshot Gaming
85
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 16:39:00 -
[337] - Quote
Sissy Fuzz wrote:10 years of dumbing down EVE! And still going strong!
"We will also be making a significant change to the way hidden asteroid belts will be found by players. We are phasing out the Gravimetric signature category, and instead pilots will be able to find all Ore Sites using their shipGÇÖs built-in anomaly scanning equipment. This change will make finding hidden belts much less difficult for both miners and for those who would prey on them, so pilots are always advised to practice vigilance."
Love this one: Changing the way hidden asteroid belts will be found by players.
I'd say - they won't be hidden anymore, will they. Way to take away one small thing that is actually fun i high sec. Why not add an AutoMine and AutoGank function too? Or even better: Also add a NavigateToAndMine and NavigateToAndGank option to the autopilot!! Then you won't even have to be in the actual system when you get the urge to mine or gank something.
Then it will be really noob friendly for all types of players.
/SF
I sense someone is pissed that they cant mine hidden from gankers anymore...This isnt dumbing eve down its making it less work and more play. Im a miner and I support these changes. |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
863
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 16:48:00 -
[338] - Quote
Traidir wrote:KIller Wabbit wrote:Once the scans are done and end up in Dotlan - end of game and a lot of wasted CCP dev work. Not if the resources deplete.
depleting moongoo is a really bad idea We are recruiting german-speaking PVP players, contact me :)
Malcanis - CSM 8 |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
863
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 17:21:00 -
[339] - Quote
Quote:A. Solo play should always be rewarded, it is a slowly disapperaing aspect of this game and im glad it is being supported a bit more now. Players who use macks are still going to solo no matter where they go...respawn rates are irrelevant to that fact. Another thing to think of is that most miners who solo play will have 3-4 accounts that they engage in mining with. So in a technical term its not eexactly solo play...from a social stand point it is but not from a 3rd person point of view.
nope, it should be possible, but this is a MULTIPLAYER game, teaming up should be rewarded
Quote:B. I fail to see how this rewards semi-afk play. Yes, ice harvesters are being penalized with longer cycle times; however, having lowers amounts of ice depleting over more areas is much better. We all know that depleting an ice roid the way they are set now is a *****. Even with a good sized fleet it would take you all day to do just one roid. Having them pop every hour or so helps.
semi-afk play should not be rewarded
We are recruiting german-speaking PVP players, contact me :)
Malcanis - CSM 8 |
Alice Katsuko
Terra Incognita Unclaimed.
222
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 17:43:00 -
[340] - Quote
On the whole, I like these changes, but some I think are a mistake:
Please do not add more slots to outposts, except perhaps for additional corporate office slots. Industry in null should take place in POSes, not in outposts. POS industry is better from a game design perspective than outpost industry. First, POSes require fuel, so increased POS use stimulates PI and ice mining; more POSes means more PvE, which means a more active economy, more ISK in player pockets, AND more targets in space to shoot at. Second, POSes are objectives to fight over. Third, a POS is a stake in the ground, and creates a sense of ownership. Fourth, POS industry encourages cooperation between corp members, and creates openings for corp thieves.
I've written extensively on why outpost slot availability is not a bottleneck in null industrial production. In brief -- the drone regions produced all of their T1 ship and ammo needs up until the removal of drone alloys, using POS industry slots. There's no reason to expand outpost slots, and doing so does not promote player interaction.
Please leave the random hidden belts as grav sites that must be probed down. These are the belts that spawn randomly, and are not tied to the industry index of a system. They should be better than regular belts, given the effort it takes to scan them down and then make use of them, especially in lowsec; better for a low/null miner means safer.
If I understand correctly, the new 'discovery' scanner will produce instant results. This is a mistake. Miners need the ten second window in order to (1) see the hostile pilot in local and (2) get into warp. Mining barges are very, very slow; this change risks turning mining in null, lowsec, and wh space into a turkey shoot. The stupid miners will go back to high-sec, and the smart miners will start mining while permanently aligned to a safe tower; both will result in reduced targets. If i-hub-spawned belts are moved to the new discovery/system scanner, then either they should not appear immediately on the scan results or, alternatively, the i-hub should spawn duplicate belts -- that is, it should spawn an additional belt or two at each level, instead of one belt, so that it is more difficult to drop in on the mining operation.
I have little experience with wormholes, but considering how easy mining barges are to kill, and how difficult it is to detect hostiles in wormholes even under the current probing/scan mechanic, grav sites in wormholes should remain part of the exploration system and should require probes to locate. Unless the discovery scanner also shows all ships within scan range, which renders this issue moot.
The addition of low-end minerals to high-end ore is awesome, and should make null industry possible, and should also increase the rewards of mining in null by a substantial degree. I am somewhat concerned about the risk of low-end minerals from null flooding into high-sec. Maybe it might make sense to increase the volume of high-end ore (and increase yield per unit proportionately in compensation), in order to make exporting raw high-end ore to high-sec less profitable. No sane person will normally move low-end minerals via jump freighter, so that should not be a substantial issue except in shallow null.
The ice mining changes are great. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
13866
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 18:02:00 -
[341] - Quote
Alice Katsuko wrote: Please do not add more slots to outposts, except perhaps for additional corporate office slots. Industry in null should take place in POSes, not in outposts. POS industry is better from a game design perspective than outpost industry. First, POSes require fuel, so increased POS use stimulates PI and ice mining; more POSes means more PvE, which means a more active economy, more ISK in player pockets, AND more targets in space to shoot at. Second, POSes are objectives to fight over. Third, a POS is a stake in the ground, and creates a sense of ownership. Fourth, POS industry encourages cooperation between corp members, and creates openings for corp thieves. That would make sense if POSes were actually in any way useful for large-scale industry, which would require a complete revamp of everything POS related. Moreover, POSes don't solve the problem of highsec since a) the same POSes are available there and b) since we still have the highsec stations, which are the real problem to be solved.
So no, add craptons of slots to outposts, and then GÇö should POSes ever be reimplemented GÇö maybe it would be time to scale back station and outpost slots. But certainly not before then. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan.-á |
Liz Laser
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 18:09:00 -
[342] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:
semi-afk play should not be rewarded
Kiss 100,000 accounts goodbye, then. |
Fergus Runkle
Truth and Reconciliation Council
21
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 18:16:00 -
[343] - Quote
Dilbert HighSeed wrote:
You can bet that ice interdiction parties by the null sec cartels will be a common thing. They have the resources, pilots, and organization to mine out ice belts FAST, and at the same time bump/ destroy any other non-allied mining ships from the belts.
It will become a situation that they will have ongoing threads on their private forums stating the precise time that a new belt will spawn, allowing the next wave of their pilots 4 TZ's over to grab the entire belt's worth of ice.
Welcome to the new resource chokepoint / oligopoly commodity. But hey, the goon lead game designer said he wanted ice to become the oil of Eve.
Well, expect goons, test, and others to continue to act like u.s., China, Russia, and the other major powers do in the real world with oil, and do their best to have their industrial corps control the supply, backed by whatever military might is required.
Pretty much this.
1) why can't the ice belts spawn anywhere rather than in fixed systems, thats not making it harder for bots
2) why the move from signatures to anomalies for the ore belts and new ice belts, leave them in the exploration system. Gives the explorers a sense of the gold rush pioneers. theres ice in this 'ere system
(unless the move to anomalies is in preparation for ALL ore to be moved to them, no static belts of any kind anymore)
|
Octoven
Phoenix Productions Headshot Gaming
85
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 19:36:00 -
[344] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:Quote:A. Solo play should always be rewarded, it is a slowly disapperaing aspect of this game and im glad it is being supported a bit more now. Players who use macks are still going to solo no matter where they go...respawn rates are irrelevant to that fact. Another thing to think of is that most miners who solo play will have 3-4 accounts that they engage in mining with. So in a technical term its not eexactly solo play...from a social stand point it is but not from a 3rd person point of view.
nope, it should be possible, but this is a MULTIPLAYER game, teaming up should be rewarded Quote:B. I fail to see how this rewards semi-afk play. Yes, ice harvesters are being penalized with longer cycle times; however, having lowers amounts of ice depleting over more areas is much better. We all know that depleting an ice roid the way they are set now is a *****. Even with a good sized fleet it would take you all day to do just one roid. Having them pop every hour or so helps.
semi-afk play should not be rewarded
It is a multi-player game; however, it is also a sandbox and yes while people should be able to interact with other players, there should not be a restriction of allowing others to do solo stuff. In truth it should be pretty balanced on both sides. More and more changes have been geared toward only fleet ops and multi-player opportunities and while these are nice to have, we must not stomp out the new content and ability for players to take a break now and again and just do something on their own without someone barking orders. |
Althanaslas Imhari
All Your Machariel Belong to Ham
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 20:14:00 -
[345] - Quote
I'm not a miner myself, but something that I haven't really seen taken into account yet is that ORE ships use oxygen isotopes as well, along with one of the more popular JFs (Anshar). Now that ice (likely blue ice especially) is becoming scarce, will there be more efforts to discourage the use of bots/macros?
Just from a game mechanic standpoint, seems like you're setting up a perfect situation for that sort of thing to run rampant and basically dominate the market. |
Lunaleil Fournier
StarFleet Enterprises Red Alliance
23
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 20:34:00 -
[346] - Quote
Really happy with most of this, but you're missing a huge opportunity with anomalies.
Nullsec Anomalies should be re-done into 3 different sites: one for 2 month old noobs in t1 BS's (dens), one for vets in marauders (hubs), and one for groups of people (sanctums). Each one increases the isk per hour per pilot which means groups would make the highest isk per hour per person. It would be much more scalable and allow more people per system. It also would give noobs a viable income in 00 that the current low level anoms don't provide - if you balance the payout to be worthwhile.
Also - a lot of current anoms are just a pain to run because of the rediculous numbers of frigs and cruisers. Balancing that to be less tedious but still difficult by removing numbers but buffing the rats that remain would be greatly appreciated. |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
863
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 20:58:00 -
[347] - Quote
I never said solo play or semi afk playshould be impossible, I said that grouping up and being active should pay off
Right now, it often does not. That's really bad game design.
Making (highsec) ice a scarse Ressource is a step in the right direction, organised gameplay will be rewarding, competition is (for the first time in ice history) a possibility, competition is where stories are told. High-Sec needs those. We are recruiting german-speaking PVP players, contact me :)
Malcanis - CSM 8 |
Conjaq
Interwebs Cooter Explosion Fatal Ascension
9
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 20:59:00 -
[348] - Quote
Quote:From the dev blog; Most systems that currently have ice belts will contain these new ice anomalies, with the notable exception of many systems in Amarrian, Khanid, and Ammatar high security space. Below I will list all the systems in high security space that will contain spawns of Clear Icicle.
....List of systems
These will be the only high security systems that will contain Clear Icicle. All low-security and null-security systems that currently contain static ice belts, as well as all high security systems in Caldari, Gallente and Minmatar space that contain static ice belts, will contain the new ice anomalies.
How come the amarr ice belts are not changed, like the rest of all the the factions? It seems wierd only amarr keep their static ice belts, |
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
349
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 21:22:00 -
[349] - Quote
EvilweaselSA wrote:a miner is prey and its only defense, like prey, should be fleeing to safety when the predators arrive Ya know, if this is really true, then all mining ships should have a built-in +4 WCS, as well as a much higher agility for faster warp outs and to help avoid bumping.... |
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
349
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 21:29:00 -
[350] - Quote
Althanaslas Imhari wrote:I'm not a miner myself, but something that I haven't really seen taken into account yet is that ORE ships use oxygen isotopes as well, along with one of the more popular JFs (Anshar). The only mining ship which uses oxytopes is the Rorqual. The mining barges, exhumers, the Venture, and the Orca do not use oxytopes. |
|
Althanaslas Imhari
All Your Machariel Belong to Ham
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 21:38:00 -
[351] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:Althanaslas Imhari wrote:I'm not a miner myself, but something that I haven't really seen taken into account yet is that ORE ships use oxygen isotopes as well, along with one of the more popular JFs (Anshar). The only mining ship which uses oxytopes is the Rorqual. The mining barges, exhumers, the Venture, and the Orca do not use oxytopes.
Sorry, I suppose I should have specified that in my original post (ship, as opposed to ships). My point was that there are more ships out there using the isotopes refined from Blue Ice than any of the other ice products, leading to an already inflated market for Blue Ice and Oxygen Isotopes. |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
863
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 21:42:00 -
[352] - Quote
So, more competition for the blue ice?
How terrible
Not. We are recruiting german-speaking PVP players, contact me :)
Malcanis - CSM 8 |
Althanaslas Imhari
All Your Machariel Belong to Ham
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 21:58:00 -
[353] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:So, more competition for the blue ice?
How terrible
Not.
Perhaps a market dominated by bots and isk farmers is okay by you, but for those of us with towers and ships to fuel, it is a valid concern. Also, should you have bothered to read, the original post was about the possibility of the afforementioned demographic having an unfair advantage over players. Then again, I should know better than to feed the trolls. Have yourself a fine day my good sir. |
frightning
Griffin Capsuleers Ad-Astra
4
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 22:28:00 -
[354] - Quote
As mentioned a few times re: Wormholes, you could go further than initial blog by: Ensuring that Grav sites are not anoms & warpable due to a "Subspace Communications error". This will offset not having local to check who's in system. [*] Introducing Ice of random varieties as an alternative source of supply. This will generate isk for WH folks plus keep easy prey on the field for gankers. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
4754
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 22:47:00 -
[355] - Quote
Althanaslas Imhari wrote:I'm not a miner myself, but something that I haven't really seen taken into account yet is that ORE ships use oxygen isotopes as well, along with one of the more popular JFs (Anshar). I guess it's good then that I invested in oxygen isotopes over the other types. It was a pretty random decision which one I'd go for. |
Sissy Fuzz
Sissy Fuzz Communications
5
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 23:12:00 -
[356] - Quote
Octoven wrote:Sissy Fuzz wrote:10 years of dumbing down EVE! And still going strong!
"We will also be making a significant change to the way hidden asteroid belts will be found by players. We are phasing out the Gravimetric signature category, and instead pilots will be able to find all Ore Sites using their shipGÇÖs built-in anomaly scanning equipment. This change will make finding hidden belts much less difficult for both miners and for those who would prey on them, so pilots are always advised to practice vigilance."
Love this one: Changing the way hidden asteroid belts will be found by players.
I'd say - they won't be hidden anymore, will they. Way to take away one small thing that is actually fun i high sec. Why not add an AutoMine and AutoGank function too? Or even better: Also add a NavigateToAndMine and NavigateToAndGank option to the autopilot!! Then you won't even have to be in the actual system when you get the urge to mine or gank something.
Then it will be really noob friendly for all types of players.
/SF
I sense someone is pissed that they cant mine hidden from gankers anymore...This isnt dumbing eve down its making it less work and more play. Im a miner and I support these changes.
Well, you're sensing wrong.
I am not any more hidden from gankers than the field I am mining was for me, before I scanned it down. It is less work but not more play. On the contrary, I think a lot of people find a lot of "play" in the process of scanning down both mining fields and miners, as per preference.
Risk v reward... or effort v reward, right? The current system demands effort from both miner and ganker to be rewarded in a - from both perspectives - low risk environment. The proposed change is - exactly - dumbing down EVE by removing the effort of employing something that takes skill and time to achieve a goal.
I am not a miner and I don't.
/SF
|
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
863
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 23:14:00 -
[357] - Quote
Althanaslas Imhari wrote:Gilbaron wrote:So, more competition for the blue ice?
How terrible
Not. Perhaps a market dominated by bots and isk farmers is okay by you, but for those of us with towers and ships to fuel, it is a valid concern. Also, should you have bothered to read, the original post was about the possibility of the afforementioned demographic having an unfair advantage over players. Then again, I should know better than to feed the trolls. Have yourself a fine day my good sir.
do you realise that a limited and interesting ressource makes being a bot much harder than it currently is ? i for one see competition for the ice belts, i see wardecs, i see bumping, i see hatred, i see all the good stuff. (and i worry if having 80% of all required ice in highsec is enough to promote enough conflict, i would aim for less as a game designer, but i understand a cautious approach, especially since making fuelblocks in 00 makes sense will all the incoming changes, and icemining in 00 opens up so much more possibilities for interesting gameplay than icemining in highsec ever could)
and don't forget the gigantic stockpiles that currently exist, its not like oxygen isotopes will dissapear from all hangars tomorrow (would be pretty funny though) We are recruiting german-speaking PVP players, contact me :)
Malcanis - CSM 8 |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
1666
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 23:16:00 -
[358] - Quote
Lunaleil Fournier wrote:Really happy with most of this, but you're missing a huge opportunity with anomalies.
Nullsec Anomalies should be re-done into 3 different sites: one for 2 month old noobs in t1 BS's (dens), one for vets in marauders (hubs), and one for groups of people (sanctums). Each one increases the isk per hour per pilot which means groups would make the highest isk per hour per person. It would be much more scalable and allow more people per system. It also would give noobs a viable income in 00 that the current low level anoms don't provide - if you balance the payout to be worthwhile.
Also - a lot of current anoms are just a pain to run because of the rediculous numbers of frigs and cruisers. Balancing that to be less tedious but still difficult by removing numbers but buffing the rats that remain would be greatly appreciated.
Amen to this.
The current state of Anoms isn't all that great. The way bounteis are paid out in EVE (outside of incursions) makes anoms very "anti-cooperation". It's the exact same in missions and complexes but people don't realy notice it because plexes are about loot and missions don't just pay bounties, but also LP. If you have a high dps ship and you invite a buddy along that does't do as much dps, that buddy STILL gets exactly half of all the bounties. Great for him, crappy for you lol.
I better way might be to apportion bounties according to damage done (do 65% of the damge, get 65% of the bounty total), but I could see downsides to that as well.
Back to what you are talking about, it would be VERY nice to see anoms structured as you say. As it is now, there is no reason for anyone (noob or otherwise) to do an anom lower than a hub and there are reasons why people don't share the good high end anoms very much , leading to this situation we have here were upgraded systems can't accomodate very many ratters.
More ratters means more isk yea, but also more targets/more ships going boom. With a lot of people in local, some ratter usually misses the neut/red coming in and gets killed. The current anoms encourge small ratting system populations making local that much better an intel tool, ie the current situation is pretty anti-pvp. |
Dring Dingle
Polaris Rising Gentlemen's Agreement
10
|
Posted - 2013.04.28 01:25:00 -
[359] - Quote
Did I miss the part about pos upgrades? Also why not 100% refining at poses!!! |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
326
|
Posted - 2013.04.28 02:11:00 -
[360] - Quote
ThuliHaf...... err go with Thulium Hafnite?
and ProMerc, u were so close to an easy name - Promercurite
the Composites tend to have 'ium' endings to names so promercurium wouldnt fit too well.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 44 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |