Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 20 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 12 post(s) |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Aegis Solaris
2197
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 17:58:00 -
[121] - Quote
W0wbagger wrote:Hi - please don't make the wardec restriction apply to low and nullsec - we frequently buy pocos and not being able to because the corp is at war is just a needless nerf for us - there is no reason for this restriction to exist in low/null and just screws over Pocos in this area
As a potentially more important issue- in the current situation - what is to stop me a neutral, flying up to a poco being bashed in highsec in a hauler/orca whatever with his own poco in the hold - locking it up, waiting for it to die and then deploying his own? - basically means its fastest finger first which is a bit unfair on the guys who have paid to do the wardeccing. This is of course also the case in low/null with the difference that you can just blow up said hauler meaning the mechanic was never too much of an issue. Note you can deploy a POCO anywhere near the planet. It does not have to be where the last one was. That makes sniping the planet even easier. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
22
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 18:00:00 -
[122] - Quote
pmchem wrote:The doom-and-gloom posts in this thread miss two broader points:
1. CCP has stated repeatedly in dev blogs and fanfest talks that they want to increase "player interactions". Removing a NPC-seeded part of the game and replacing it with a player construction is one step along that path. This is a MMO and it benefits from social interactions. Why do you think that stargate picture is being shown again and again?
2. PI will continue to thrive, but in a different manner. If the easy, convenient COs people had been using come under new ownership or are destroyed, what happens? The player can (a) continue attempting to use that planet, (b) move to a less fought over area, or (c) exit the market. If (a) then no big deal, maybe a price increase passed to consumer. If (b) then GOOD, we have lots of systems in Eve which need more traffic. If (c) then no big deal, some other player will see the decrease in supply lead to a price increase, and enter the market himself.
Flaw in #1: In general I agree with the notion to give players more and more control, but not at the cost of unecessarily losing areas to test out features of the game or do your business independently from other players' will. Highsec is that and should remain that. Giving people control over what belongs to NPC and should stay with NPC in order to provide people with an independent area to explore the game and its contents. Pitting in new people right away in entities and environments like CFC just makes them bad players.
Flaw in your point #2: There are no alternatives to Plasmas if you are tight on planets. Blueing up all the game just to be able to PI cannot be a solution, can it? (Obviously it can because CCP does exactly that). I also disagree on the more-traffic-idea. Null should not become as busy as highsec. There need to be and have to be a lot of deserted and dead areas piling up with treasures. |
Aliath Sunstrike
Aviation Professionals for EVE The Diogenes Club
4
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 18:01:00 -
[123] - Quote
Aryth wrote:Nullsec gets handed siphons to steal moongoo and nullsec says nothing as that is funny what will promote some fun at the expense of our income.
Highsec gets handed POCOS and flips out because they want to play farmville in peace without those nasty big alliances clubbing them over the head.
The rabbit hole is much deeper than people seem to realize in this thread. We have three plans. Only one of which anyone is focusing on at this point. You should be worried far more about your fellow highsecer than us. While we are interested, this is fairly small income to us outside certain select cases. Worry more about your neighbors.
The problem is (as always and in US history) is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and we all suffer from the short-sighted greed that is your master plan or that plan of anyone being so space-rich they run out of ideas except to terrorize other people.
The answer lies in economics and math just as it always has.
Anarchy isn't the way and Socialism (space carebears isn't either). Go ask Dr. E what he thinks of Nash and game theory.
Einstein said it as well. Paraphrasing, "You do what is best for yourself AND the group and you get the optimal outcome. If we really are playing internet spaceships second life here, then that is THE DEFINITIVE ANSWER HERE. Any new CCP "feature" to come out should meet both these criterium.
|
Elana Maggal
Perkone Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 18:01:00 -
[124] - Quote
Andski wrote:Elana Maggal wrote:Andski wrote:maybe you can compete with the big alliances by starting a big alliance of your own Maybe I want to play in a sand box that I can do my own thing without goons dictating what I can and can't do and monopolizing key game play elements. oh you must be confused, a sandbox means that powerful groups can have influence because it's exactly that: a sandbox, and not an instanced game perhaps there are instanced games more suited to your needs
Influence - monopolize no.
|
Daenna Chrysi
Omega Foundry Unit Shadows Of Betrayal
68
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 18:02:00 -
[125] - Quote
Callic Veratar wrote:I noticed an inconsistency with POCOs. In nullsec, you must have sov to anchor a POCO. In lowsec, nobody cares. In highsec, you don't need standing with the faction to anchor.
Lowsec doesn't matter either way since no mechanic exists there, but anchor rights should be consistent in highsec and nullsec. Either require sov/faction in both or in neither. If I need faction to anchor a POS, why don't I need it to anchor a POCO?
This is actually a valid question, one would imagine that if just setting up a POS in empire space needs them to like you enough to lt you set one up to begin with. Then why the empires are a ok with people setting up customs offices that allow capsuleers to tear apart the very planets of that faction, without any standings checks?
"oh you are 0.01 away from being shot on sight by our military, sure go right ahead and do what you want with our planets full of innocent citizens, but dont you dare to set up a lab or two around one of our barren moons before you have worked your ass off to make up for all the damages you have caused and earned our trust"
Another question, how will the anchoring work in 0.8-1.0 sec? afterall POS stuctures cant be anchored in those sec. but POS would be ok?
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
9191
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 18:02:00 -
[126] - Quote
Elana Maggal wrote:Influence - monopolize no.
who says we're aiming to monopolize anything Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
Elana Maggal
Perkone Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 18:04:00 -
[127] - Quote
Michael Turate wrote:Superb changes, you little anti-social guys need to pick a side and then buy a microphone. Remember that CCP makes the sandbox and the dimensions and rules of the sandbox are down to their designs. There has been YEARS of notice that high sec changes were coming and that the sandbox would be adjusted to make co-operative play work better than lone wolfing. Eve played as a socially co-operative experience was always the stated aim of the developers, the game is much better played that way in any case. This is the future and there's no going back now, more to follow I'm sure, explosions incoming.
So any computer player who plays single is now an "anti-social guy".
WTF?
|
Varius Xeral
Galactic Trade Syndicate
1270
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 18:04:00 -
[128] - Quote
Aliath Sunstrike wrote:
The problem is (as always and in US history) is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and we all suffer from the short-sighted greed that is your master plan or that plan of anyone being so space-rich they run out of ideas except to terrorize other people.
The answer lies in economics and math just as it always has.
Anarchy isn't the way and Socialism (space carebears isn't either). Go ask Dr. E what he thinks of Nash and game theory.
Einstein said it as well. Paraphrasing, "You do what is best for yourself AND the group and you get the optimal outcome. If we really are playing internet spaceships second life here, then that is THE DEFINITIVE ANSWER HERE. Any new CCP "feature" to come out should meet both these criterium.
Quoting for the ages. I have never seen so much ill-conceived pseudo-intellectual prattle mish-mashed into one post before.
This **** needs to be on t-shirts.
Also, this poco change completely makes up for the tos and blink stuff. Thoroughly enjoying Eve Online: Forums today.
Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Aegis Solaris
2197
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 18:06:00 -
[129] - Quote
Don't we already have a skill for tax reduction? Accounting? Why not just use that? http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Aliath Sunstrike
Aviation Professionals for EVE The Diogenes Club
6
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 18:07:00 -
[130] - Quote
Michael Turate wrote:Superb changes, you little anti-social guys need to pick a side and then buy a microphone. Remember that CCP makes the sandbox and the dimensions and rules of the sandbox are down to their designs. There has been YEARS of notice that high sec changes were coming and that the sandbox would be adjusted to make co-operative play work better than lone wolfing. Eve played as a socially co-operative experience was always the stated aim of the developers, the game is much better played that way in any case. This is the future and there's no going back now, more to follow I'm sure, explosions incoming.
OBVIOUS CCP ALT
Go do what you are paid to do and work on fixing the game we all pay for instead of trolling.
P.S. Why change Hisec? Isn't hisec for learning the game. Then we all "graduate" to 0.0 as was told to us years ago. ::rolls eyes:: |
|
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire
9613
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 18:08:00 -
[131] - Quote
Nom nom nom!
|
|
Aliath Sunstrike
Aviation Professionals for EVE The Diogenes Club
6
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 18:09:00 -
[132] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:Aliath Sunstrike wrote:CCP Paradox wrote:Philpip wrote:Can I get clarification on the anchoring please (and sorry if this has already been asked).
Do you have to have local faction standing to anchor like you would a pos?
No, no restrictions like that. Now see ---THAT IS A GOOD IDEA. WHY THE HECK DOESN'T A CORP NEED STANDING TO ANCHOR A POCO LIKE A POS??! That would fit with all the past lore in game and only make sense and REWARD players for grinding standing. REWARD industrialists for their hard work. Small indy corps would have purpose. But we can't have that can we (null alliances)....err CCP. fyi this will not save you we have high standings alts just like you anchor with alt -> transfer to goonwaffe
Ahh good point. But it does make it a bit harder.
Also - as I mentioned in another post but will restate here, I don't care about hisec POCO's personally, I just want to see EVE balanced for all instead of dying a slow death to one. |
Josef Djugashvilis
Acme Mining Corporation
1363
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 18:10:00 -
[133] - Quote
Michael Turate wrote:Superb changes, you little anti-social guys need to pick a side and then buy a microphone. Remember that CCP makes the sandbox and the dimensions and rules of the sandbox are down to their designs. There has been YEARS of notice that high sec changes were coming and that the sandbox would be adjusted to make co-operative play work better than lone wolfing. Eve played as a socially co-operative experience was always the stated aim of the developers, the game is much better played that way in any case. This is the future and there's no going back now, more to follow I'm sure, explosions incoming.
If I may paraphrase you:
Sandbox, join a gang or quit. This is not a signature. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1224
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 18:11:00 -
[134] - Quote
Aliath Sunstrike wrote:Aryth wrote:Nullsec gets handed siphons to steal moongoo and nullsec says nothing as that is funny what will promote some fun at the expense of our income.
Highsec gets handed POCOS and flips out because they want to play farmville in peace without those nasty big alliances clubbing them over the head.
The rabbit hole is much deeper than people seem to realize in this thread. We have three plans. Only one of which anyone is focusing on at this point. You should be worried far more about your fellow highsecer than us. While we are interested, this is fairly small income to us outside certain select cases. Worry more about your neighbors. The problem is (as always and in US history) is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and we all suffer from the short-sighted greed that is your master plan or that plan of anyone being so space-rich they run out of ideas except to terrorize other people. The answer lies in economics and math just as it always has. Anarchy isn't the way and Socialism (space carebears isn't either). Go ask Dr. E what he thinks of Nash and game theory. Einstein said it as well. Paraphrasing, "You do what is best for yourself AND the group and you get the optimal outcome. If we really are playing internet spaceships second life here, then that is THE DEFINITIVE ANSWER HERE. Any new CCP "feature" to come out should meet both these criterium.
I don't disagree with most of what you said really. I spend a great deal of my "EVE" time inventing ways to make our collective richer, more secure, more powerful, or have more fun. So we do indeed pursue the optimal outcome for our group. Yes, if you are outside the group you will not benefit from those actions but all richness and content must come at the expense of something or someone. That is the nature of sandboxes and to some extent all MMO's.
The major thing to remember is none of our plans are short sighted in the least. We just don't do that because it isn't efficient when trying to coordinate even our own alliance, much less CFC.
Our plans are generally multi-year plans. Or research for plans. People need to take the time to really think about these changes with a long view. The kneejerk reactions happening in this thread are what is short sighted. Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal - Want to follow the latest scandals? @EVEAryth |
Aliath Sunstrike
Aviation Professionals for EVE The Diogenes Club
6
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 18:12:00 -
[135] - Quote
Varius Xeral wrote:Aliath Sunstrike wrote:
The problem is (as always and in US history) is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and we all suffer from the short-sighted greed that is your master plan or that plan of anyone being so space-rich they run out of ideas except to terrorize other people.
The answer lies in economics and math just as it always has.
Anarchy isn't the way and Socialism (space carebears isn't either). Go ask Dr. E what he thinks of Nash and game theory.
Einstein said it as well. Paraphrasing, "You do what is best for yourself AND the group and you get the optimal outcome. If we really are playing internet spaceships second life here, then that is THE DEFINITIVE ANSWER HERE. Any new CCP "feature" to come out should meet both these criterium.
Quoting for the ages. I have never seen so much ill-conceived pseudo-intellectual prattle mish-mashed into one post before. This **** needs to be on t-shirts. Also, this poco change completely makes up for the tos and blink stuff. Thoroughly enjoying Eve Online: Forums today.
WOW! You actually succeeded in bashing your own post! Great intelectual comeback bra....you mad? |
Evil Incarn8
Evil's League of Evil
53
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 18:12:00 -
[136] - Quote
Daenna Chrysi wrote:Callic Veratar wrote:I noticed an inconsistency with POCOs. In nullsec, you must have sov to anchor a POCO. In lowsec, nobody cares. In highsec, you don't need standing with the faction to anchor.
Lowsec doesn't matter either way since no mechanic exists there, but anchor rights should be consistent in highsec and nullsec. Either require sov/faction in both or in neither. If I need faction to anchor a POS, why don't I need it to anchor a POCO? This is actually a valid question, one would imagine that if just setting up a POS in empire space needs them to like you enough to lt you set one up to begin with.
I am going to agree with this point as well, Why do I require high faction standings to put up a POS, (or not able to at all in the highest of security systems) but I can anchor a POCO anywhere I like regardless of my standings with the owners of the system?
I think Corperate standings tot eh sysytem owners should be added to this feature, perhaps not quite as steep as those required for a POS, but certainly no trifling amount. Effort results in reward. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5105
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 18:16:00 -
[137] - Quote
Aliath Sunstrike wrote: The problem is (as always and in US history) is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and we all suffer from the short-sighted greed that is your master plan or that plan of anyone being so space-rich they run out of ideas except to terrorize other people.
i didn't start out able to buy and sell you hundreds of times i worked my way to the top |
Aliath Sunstrike
Aviation Professionals for EVE The Diogenes Club
7
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 18:17:00 -
[138] - Quote
Aryth wrote:Aliath Sunstrike wrote:Aryth wrote:Nullsec gets handed siphons to steal moongoo and nullsec says nothing as that is funny what will promote some fun at the expense of our income.
Highsec gets handed POCOS and flips out because they want to play farmville in peace without those nasty big alliances clubbing them over the head.
The rabbit hole is much deeper than people seem to realize in this thread. We have three plans. Only one of which anyone is focusing on at this point. You should be worried far more about your fellow highsecer than us. While we are interested, this is fairly small income to us outside certain select cases. Worry more about your neighbors. The problem is (as always and in US history) is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and we all suffer from the short-sighted greed that is your master plan or that plan of anyone being so space-rich they run out of ideas except to terrorize other people. The answer lies in economics and math just as it always has. Anarchy isn't the way and Socialism (space carebears isn't either). Go ask Dr. E what he thinks of Nash and game theory. Einstein said it as well. Paraphrasing, "You do what is best for yourself AND the group and you get the optimal outcome. If we really are playing internet spaceships second life here, then that is THE DEFINITIVE ANSWER HERE. Any new CCP "feature" to come out should meet both these criterium. I don't disagree with most of what you said really. I spend a great deal of my "EVE" time inventing ways to make our collective richer, more secure, more powerful, or have more fun. So we do indeed pursue the optimal outcome for our group. Yes, if you are outside the group you will not benefit from those actions but all richness and content must come at the expense of something or someone. That is the nature of sandboxes and to some extent all MMO's. The major thing to remember is none of our plans are short sighted in the least. We just don't do that because it isn't efficient when trying to coordinate even our own alliance, much less CFC. Our plans are generally multi-year plans. Or research for plans. People need to take the time to really think about these changes with a long view. The kneejerk reactions happening in this thread are what is short sighted.
Thanks for the reply and compliment. Back at ya - you guys are great at planning. I was just sticking to the here and now. Long term, honestly, I will just stop playing if it becomes so unbalanced. All politics is local is the old saying, this is sorta the same thing. The battle is the small here and now.
Again, I like the long term plans too, just saying, keep this in mind as you will eventually run out of poor in game. Like W. Buffett said recently, "The rich can't get richer until the poor do." I am not saying Goons are out for monopoly, just warning against it for your own space-fun benefit. |
Kinis Deren
The Nyan Cat Pirates Disband.
189
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 18:17:00 -
[139] - Quote
Quickly scanned through thread and didn't see this being asked:
Has any provision been made for new player PI access as part of the NPE? |
Josef Djugashvilis
Acme Mining Corporation
1364
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 18:19:00 -
[140] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Aliath Sunstrike wrote: The problem is (as always and in US history) is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and we all suffer from the short-sighted greed that is your master plan or that plan of anyone being so space-rich they run out of ideas except to terrorize other people.
i didn't start out able to buy and sell you hundreds of times i worked my way to the top
Or perhaps you just climbed to the top of your ego. This is not a signature. |
|
Aliath Sunstrike
Aviation Professionals for EVE The Diogenes Club
7
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 18:19:00 -
[141] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Aliath Sunstrike wrote: The problem is (as always and in US history) is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and we all suffer from the short-sighted greed that is your master plan or that plan of anyone being so space-rich they run out of ideas except to terrorize other people.
i didn't start out able to buy and sell you hundreds of times i worked my way to the top
Yes you probably did....IN A BALANCED SYSTEM which you took for granted and are now apparently set upon destroying. That is the presumption I am trying to get across - a la theory crafting. Just keep that in mind.
Not bashing the hi-sec POCO idea, just trying to advance the conversation with this axiom in the minds of the readers and controllers (CCP and the goons :)
Also - with that - I am out of this thread. Too much real life time wasted. EVE is great and all but this game turns to work really quick sometimes. Today - case in point.
You are all welcome for the education I provided you free of charge.
|
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
22
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 18:20:00 -
[142] - Quote
Michael Turate wrote:Superb changes, you little anti-social guys need to pick a side and then buy a microphone. Remember that CCP makes the sandbox and the dimensions and rules of the sandbox are down to their designs. There has been YEARS of notice that high sec changes were coming and that the sandbox would be adjusted to make co-operative play work better than lone wolfing. Eve played as a socially co-operative experience was always the stated aim of the developers, the game is much better played that way in any case. This is the future and there's no going back now, more to follow I'm sure, explosions incoming.
You obviously don't understand the point of a Sandbox. EVE is not about "socially co-operative experience", it is about "socially co-operative experience" AND "lone wolfing", it is about choice; and with this, CCP takes away a lot of choice in order for some entities to impose their values and ideas on others. |
Mike Whiite
Cupid Stunts. The Wolfpack Nexus
223
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 18:23:00 -
[143] - Quote
I don't think denying acces in HI Sec should be an option.
Hi sec should be a place where new players can try out stuff like PI, having acces denied isn't realy good PR.
I'm not sure about the other changes:
one part says yeah go for it an other part is abit weary about the big alliances taking over and destroying part of the gameplay.
I'm not sure which of these to sides have won in my head.
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2655
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 18:24:00 -
[144] - Quote
A few things:
If you rep a POCO you aren't associated with (i.e. aren't part of the owning corp/alliance, nor an allie, nor at war), do you get a suspect flag?
And for others worried about GSF: Generally speaking, entire coallitions will not be able to partake in a "Highsec Poco" operations, since all member alliances won't declare war. This could create interesting "suspect timer" situations.
Also, competing for highsec resources is an Excellent addition to the game!!! |
Wyn Pharoh
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 18:26:00 -
[145] - Quote
I'm so glad to hear that there will still be some NPC tax on PI goods! It's a rather clever compromise that will allow a player group to takeover a POCO and attract some traffic if they keep the overall tax rate modest. Anything over the top would be financially absurd, especially considering the vast number of planets available. By keeping at least 5% NPC tax, with best skills, Null, WH and Lowsec entities will have a much lower financial incentive to try and abuse holding these POCO's for their own use. There are significant costs involved with PI outside of Hisec, so it makes sense to ensure there is some ceiling in place to keep Hisec production from overtaking all PI production overall.
I am pretty concerned about the idea of attaching POCO conflicts to wardecs. The speculation that wardec costs will act as a shield for larger entities to bully POCO holdings with impunity is no idle speculation. The wardec mechanics themselves have quite a few critics, and throwing POCO mechanics into the mess will isolate and/or inflame a fair number of folks. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
9191
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 18:33:00 -
[146] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:And for others worried about GSF: Generally speaking, entire coallitions will not be able to partake in a "Highsec Poco" operations, since all member alliances won't declare war. This could create interesting "suspect timer" situations.
Also, competing for highsec resources is an Excellent addition to the game!!!
somebody gets why we literally have no ability to monopolize hisec pocos Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
None ofthe Above
682
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 18:34:00 -
[147] - Quote
Andski wrote:Elana Maggal wrote:Influence - monopolize no. who says we're aiming to monopolize anything
Any chance to take advantage, you guys will take. That's the goon way, no?
Not tinfoiling here. Just looking at the track record. Even when you are out to improve the game, you do it by showing how bad something can be exploited. I don't even resent you for it. It's just is what it is.
I grant you that taking over last Poco is probably more effort :effort: than the CFC would care to put into this. The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit. |
Elana Maggal
Perkone Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 18:35:00 -
[148] - Quote
Putting aside the trash talking (which was amusing) let me repeat something I said in an earlier post:
The flaw in the current plans is the ability for Big Alliances and Power players to MONOPOLIZE a single planet's custom office.
You need to have some economic competition - you know, a free market.
Which means you either need to have several OFFICES at a single custom's space that an Eve player can select what rate he wants to do his transaction with OR you can have several custom offices at a single planet - each controlled separately.
The Big Alliances will probably still take over the key planets in hi-sec, (Plasma planets for example) - but if a hi-sec player has a choice of which custom's tariff he has to pay - the Big Alliances will have to compete economically for the best rates.
|
Elana Maggal
Perkone Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 18:36:00 -
[149] - Quote
Andski wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:And for others worried about GSF: Generally speaking, entire coallitions will not be able to partake in a "Highsec Poco" operations, since all member alliances won't declare war. This could create interesting "suspect timer" situations.
Also, competing for highsec resources is an Excellent addition to the game!!! somebody gets why we literally have no ability to monopolize hisec pocos
Except there is no competition - there is only ONE customs office at each planet. THAT IS A MONOPOLY on resource access (an absolute monopoly on imports.)
If there were several custom offices at each planet - or one structure with several offices that players could select from, there then might be some healthy economic competition. |
None ofthe Above
682
|
Posted - 2013.10.01 18:37:00 -
[150] - Quote
Kinis Deren wrote:Quickly scanned through thread and didn't see this being asked:
Has any provision been made for new player PI access as part of the NPE?
Nope The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 20 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |