Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
pmchem
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
27
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 07:00:00 -
[1] - Quote
I went through and got some numbers on sisi regarding highsec CO changes and nullsec POCOs. Highsec COs have indeed had all their import/export taxes doubled. The sisi export tax rate is 200 isk/m3 or 1200 isk/u for p3's (like robo), and 12 isk/m3 or 18 isk/u for p2's (like coolant). This corresponds to a "10%" tax rate in highsec on sisi. The sisi tax rate is essentially a joke number: it's based on a reference value that doesn't place any importance on the "market value" or "maximizing profit" aspects of the game at all. If we assume the p3 is Robotics (70k isk/u) and that the p2 (say, Mech Parts) is worth 10k isk/u, then the p3 tax rate is actually 1.7% and the p2 tax rate is a laughable 0.18% based on market values.
With current market prices, a POCO costs about 100m isk to fully deploy/upgrade (including BPC LP value). Unfortunately, the tax rate can not be set above 100%. Since the highsec values correspond to "10%", just imagine highsec x10 as the highest tax you can set on a POCO. If you have reds set to 100% tax rates and the reds are exporting p1s or p2s, they aren't going to care about the miniscule tax. On p3's a 100% tax rate is actually a fairly sizable hit, but not enough to stop a user if they don't have other easily accessible options, because what the heck, "my time is free". A 100% tax rate nullsec POCO is almost certainly more profitable than a highsec POCO doing extraction just because of nullsec abundancies. p1 extraction in nullsec is laughably cheap even at "100%" POCO tax rate. It's about 0.912 isk/u, which if you're extracting chiral corresponds to about a .12% market tax rate. It can essentially be ignored.
What does this mean for the overall market? Let's look at daily Jita volumes and assume an average "20%" tax rate for nullsec/lowsec POCOs. If half the PI supply comes from nullsec/lowsec, we can guesstimate how much prices should rise after an equilibrium is reached -- when POCOs have been deployed on all planets players have interest in, and when the market has evened out so that producers are making about as much profit (in isk/u) as they are now. Yeah, not totally realistic, but w/e it makes for an easier estimating. The rise is not that much, only about 1200 isk/u based on pure export value ( surprised? :math: ) for Robo, plus whatever trickle-up effect you get from more expensive p1/p2 supply and import costs. Call it about 2,000 isk/u overall. In short, if nullsec/lowsec taxes are not pretty much all set to 100%, the effect JUST FROM TAX CHANGES will not be a big deal. If everyone sets POCO tax rates to 100%, the effect is more amusing -- over a 10% rise in price -- but since most p3s are made in highsec that scenario is unrealistic. People buying PI goods to build POCOs and the disruption as POCOs are set up or fought over will have a much greater near-term impact on the PI market. Since PI is boring, it's likely that the near-term spike could be quite long lived. But any changes in price should be attributed to the setup and fighting over POCOs themselves, not to tax changes.
Can an alliance make isk from taxing POCOs in their region? Let's assume it supplies the entire universe with enriched uranium. That's about 1m units/day. At 100% tax rates (heh), that would be about 180m isk/day for the alliance, or 5.4b/month. That's a ridiculous scenario and it's still only a fraction of a tech moon. Basically, POCOs are terrible for alliance income until their handling of taxes is SUBSTANTIALLY changed by CCP, or the reference values for taxes reset way, way upward. Oh, and if your "20%" tax rate POCO has users exporting 100,000 units of p2s PER DAY (heh), it will still take a month to recoup costs of putting it there in the first place.
WHAT CAN BE DONE? Well, as I mentioned in two older, less-wordy posts: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=208048#post208048 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=224363#post224363 CCP needs to give the POCO owners greater control over the exact taxes. I would recommend the following:
FIRST: reset the default "reference tax values" to represent full Winter 2011 market value of the average good for that tier, instead of the fantasy values they currently have. This would have two immediate effects: increasing the isk paid by users of highsec COs (an increase of an isk SINK, which your economist should love), and increasing the range of values over which POCOs can be taxed. This is the easy, no-brainer option.
SECOND: give the POCO owner the ability to change those "reference tax values", per tier (p0/p1/p2/p4 goods). This is an expansion of the current fairly nice POCO configuration menu and would allow POCO owners total flexibility in setting their tax rates, saving future game balance headaches. Just let the players handle the market, as it should be.
If CCP does not do this, there are SERIOUS FUTURE GAME DESIGN PROBLEMS which will crop up: Problem 1: nobody likes POCOs. Corporate joes bug their corp CEO or alliance CEO to put POCOs up, because PI is important to some poor people. However, the corps and alliances hate the things because they can not provide good income, have to be deployed in dozens/hundreds of places, and sometimes get shot at. They are Not Fun. Problem 2: nobody cares about POCOs. If they don't generate corp/alliance income, and if they're trivial to replace, nobody is going to bother to reinforce them, or defend/kill them when they are somehow reinforced.
It's clear POCOs are going to be the fundamental interface between Eve and DUST 514. Please don't screw up their economics, or DUST will fail. That's something CCP cannot afford. Please change POCOs before release. |
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate
179
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 09:27:00 -
[2] - Quote
Yea, right. |
Kirin Falense
Some names are just stupid
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 11:24:00 -
[3] - Quote
Ive come to similar conclusions.... |
Usurpine
Galactic Defence Consortium United Pod Service
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 16:52:00 -
[4] - Quote
Its ok for me if DUST will fail. I dont want buy a console for playing it anyway. |
KarmaHotelLobby
Aliastra Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 21:54:00 -
[5] - Quote
Any reason not to have an interface giving 4 options.
Isk per p1 Isk per p2 Isk per p3 Isk per p4
Set a flat isk amount, with ultimate flexibility, no need for percentages because they make no sense anyway? |
Hamatitio
Aperture Harmonics K162
25
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 22:20:00 -
[6] - Quote
tl;dr please? :) |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 23:11:00 -
[7] - Quote
Usurpine wrote:Its ok for me if DUST will fail. I dont want buy a console for playing it anyway.
Don't be shortsighted. This affects Eve, even if DUST never comes into being. Ignore the bits about DUST if you want - the point is that for an "alliance level income source", these are laughable at best. |
Mal Nina
The Red Circle Inc.
10
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 23:31:00 -
[8] - Quote
Just to build on the numbers a bit.
Assumptions: 2% tax on PI product value (upped from 1.7 as given in earlier post) 150 mil a month in product creation (2 charactors, 4/5 skills on both) 10 planets 20 corp members doing PI.
Costs 100 mil for each POCO to install.
The math.
2% of 150 mil is 3 mil. 3 mil x 20 players is 60 mil a month in taxes generated. Cost was 1 Bil to install, that gives you a ROI of 16.67 months. So for you to start generating a profit is 17 months. Does not sound like a good idea to me for any small corperation. Even larger ones may suffer.
So if this is all about putting the power back in the hands of the players and giving something for corperations to make money from your wrong. Your own numbers do not justify it except for large (huge) alliances that have a fairly defendable area and can run operations 24 hours a day to defend thier intial investment. I know there is a 24 hour timer, however putting these into reinforcement is going to be just the start. At some point someone else will come along to destroy the ones coming out of reinforcement and the owning corperation will just not have enough people on to do anything about it. its just too juicy a target and too costly for owning corps not to.
So if this was to give small corps/alliances a chance at a pot of gold you have missed your mark. There is no gold at the end of this rainbow, just misery and missed opportunity.
It does however give the new NAGA and Talos something to shoot at and provides a unique niche for these ships. |
Jim Hooknose
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 00:14:00 -
[9] - Quote
A goon posted this so somehow it is a scam. I feel like I should check my wallet after reading it. |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
136
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 00:59:00 -
[10] - Quote
If you want changes, you'd likely be better off posting in the test server forum where it might get read by a dev. |
|
pmchem
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
48
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 04:16:00 -
[11] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:If you want changes, you'd likely be better off posting in the test server forum where it might get read by a dev.
I posted links to the this discussion there in two POCO threads.
Regarding isk per p1, p2, etc comment -- I think the percents will be staying. It's because you can set taxes at different rates based on standings red/blue/orange/etc. Plus when you show info on a POCO it tells you your tax "rate", not rate per p1, rate per p2, etc. An interface thing. But, my second suggestion (allow user customization of reference value for p1, p2, etc) would have the same solution you desire. |
trianna Ekanon
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 08:50:00 -
[12] - Quote
It never ceases to amaze me just how terrible people in this game can be at something with even the simplest of mechanics like PI. I suppose the key to being profitable with POCO's is simply not having idiots on your planet. Hell my single PI account would pay for the damn thing in a month and a half. |
Via Shivon
Kriegsmarinewerft Goonswarm Federation
19
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 10:56:00 -
[13] - Quote
if tis to expensive for my alliance we will set them up with the corp, if its still to expensive ill buy them myself and earn the tax :D
3b investment for 6 planets i get in 3 weeks PI at the current high prices |
pmchem
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
57
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 22:12:00 -
[14] - Quote
With today's blog announcing Interbus COs going up in place of all current lowsec/nullsec COs, POCOs just became an even worse thing for their owners. They have to compete with Interbus CO tax rates (the new 'standard'). Since that rate is low and the cost of putting up a POCO is a few months of taxes (at least), killing the Interbus COs is pretty much a form of griefing to whoever lives in that space. Any local resident would prefer an Interbus CO over putting up their own, given the current taxation schemes and POCO costs.
Regarding PI usage in general -- yes PI usage needs to be expanded but that is not the topic of this thread. This thread is about how, given the current market, POCO taxation options are absolutely terrible and will lead to players not enjoying this new game feature, at all. |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
365
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 06:42:00 -
[15] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:If you want changes, you'd likely be better off posting in the test server forum where it might get read by a dev.
Actually, you'd be better off posting them in the most recent POCO thread, rather then burying the feedback in some random S&I forum thread. |
trianna Ekanon
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 07:01:00 -
[16] - Quote
pmchem wrote:With today's blog announcing Interbus COs going up in place of all current lowsec/nullsec COs, POCOs just became an even worse thing for their owners. They have to compete with Interbus CO tax rates (the new 'standard'). Since that rate is low and the cost of putting up a POCO is a few months of taxes (at least), killing the Interbus COs is pretty much a form of griefing to whoever lives in that space. Any local resident would prefer an Interbus CO over putting up their own, given the current taxation schemes and POCO costs.
Regarding PI usage in general -- yes PI usage needs to be expanded but that is not the topic of this thread. This thread is about how, given the current market, POCO taxation options are absolutely terrible and will lead to players not enjoying this new game feature, at all.
you're missing the point, if PI is expanded into a widespread and competitive market, suddenly justifying installing and fighting over the newly available tax revenue can become a reality.
Right now theres too few opportunities to actually create a sizeable tax revenue spread across many tens of thousands of planets.
Think of it like research slots, thered be no reason to make research poses if there were enough station slots to go around. Sae for invention and bpo copying. |
electrostatus
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 15:54:00 -
[17] - Quote
I'm currently looking at the tax system right now so I can update my profit calculator and... I'm not seeing much of a difference on sisi compared to what it is now and I'm not seeing where the settable percent comes into play. If you want to see how the taxes will affect prices, my program does allow you to change the tax rate. Can't do percents right now though, but can take any number you give it. PI Profit Calculator: calculates your profits and taxes of any PI product depending on how you built them! |
Quinc4623
Borg Mining Collective Unimatrix 01 Legion. XIII
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 16:26:00 -
[18] - Quote
I think the main reason one might need a POCO is just to make use of a planet at all. Doing 1 500m3 launch from the command center at a time is entirely impractical, but if you have control over a lot of 0.0 space you'll want to actually take advantage of the planets there. In a large enough alliance or corporation with enough PI users it can easily be worth while with a proper program of shared PI profits. But yeah, the taxes bit doesn't sound like it would be very worth it by itself.
I have a number of very profitable planets in 0.2 systems and quite frankly I'm going to have to abandon them on the 28th since I don't see anyone maintaining POCOs in low sec. There are gangs that gank random POS and so there will be those who gank POCO, and only those related to an organized PI scheme will be defended or replaced, and those might be blocked off to outsiders, (and more likely in null than low).
Quite frankly I'm worried about how this will affect the costs of having a POS as everyone will rely on high sec for all their PI, which plain and simply don't give nearly as much actual Planetary Goods. |
pmchem
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
60
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 22:57:00 -
[19] - Quote
trianna Ekanon wrote:pmchem wrote:With today's blog announcing Interbus COs going up in place of all current lowsec/nullsec COs, POCOs just became an even worse thing for their owners. They have to compete with Interbus CO tax rates (the new 'standard'). Since that rate is low and the cost of putting up a POCO is a few months of taxes (at least), killing the Interbus COs is pretty much a form of griefing to whoever lives in that space. Any local resident would prefer an Interbus CO over putting up their own, given the current taxation schemes and POCO costs.
Regarding PI usage in general -- yes PI usage needs to be expanded but that is not the topic of this thread. This thread is about how, given the current market, POCO taxation options are absolutely terrible and will lead to players not enjoying this new game feature, at all. you're missing the point, if PI is expanded into a widespread and competitive market, suddenly justifying installing and fighting over the newly available tax revenue can become a reality. Right now theres too few opportunities to actually create a sizeable tax revenue spread across many tens of thousands of planets.
No, I'm not missing the point. My post and analysis is based on a specific set of data: reality. Current proposals and test server data, current game mechanics, current market consumption of PI goods. I feel like you're some incognito CCP dev going "no just wait, if the PI market is expanded everything will be ok I promise!" Well, that's nice, and I realize that POCOs will be more attractive if PI usage is greatly expanded and PI becomes a higher isk volume market.
Right now, it's not. Deal with it. |
JitaJane
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
48
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 20:41:00 -
[20] - Quote
So POCOS are not a good investment for Null mega alliances but could be worth it to smaller alliances/ renters. Working as planned. |
|
pmchem
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
68
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 17:19:00 -
[21] - Quote
JitaJane wrote:So POCOS are not a good investment for Null mega alliances but could be worth it to smaller alliances/ renters. Working as planned.
No, you are wrong. They are even worse for smaller alliances since it will take them much longer to make a profit on their investment of laying down a POCO. Interbus COs are much better for small groups. Killing Interbus COs will be a form of griefing. |
Borun Tal
One More Corp
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 17:38:00 -
[22] - Quote
A wall of text... FROM A GOONIE?!?!?!?
WTF is happening to these forums?!!?!!? C'mon, people, we have standards, here!! |
|
CCP Omen
C C P C C P Alliance
69
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 14:30:00 -
[23] - Quote
You may accuse us of many things, but one thing we are not guilty of is not reading this thread!
We are monitoring this and many other threads, I won't get into defense mode and try and defend the feature against all sorts of claims. I will re-iterate that we want POCOs to be valid for small corporations, we want highsec to act as a crowded/low income safety for the market as a whole while the land of opportunity is Lowsec. We want Alliances to be able to enjoy 0% tax for their own space. We want PI be a catalyst for space battles as much as it is a low effort passive income.
Regarding the taxation topic itself. I have called a meeting with CCP:s economist to go through the issues raised.
Best regards Omen Game Designer Team Pi |
|
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
153
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 14:52:00 -
[24] - Quote
CCP Omen,
You have access to the database. Have you checked how much isk/day is paid per lowsec PI colony? And what are the average and maximum numbers of colonies per lowsec planet?
In other words, do you have any evidence that POCOs can pay for themselves via taxes? My quick calculations gave me something silly like 20 years for a single P1 export colony. |
Bastet Aiona
Tir Capital Management Group The Mockers AO
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 16:19:00 -
[25] - Quote
CCP Omen wrote:. I will re-iterate that we want POCOs to be valid for small corporations, we want highsec to act as a crowded/low income safety for the market as a whole while the land of opportunity is Lowsec. Omen
Could you give me a method to send you a private message on some pretty extensive plans to give you insight on how a low sec dweller is looking at using this feature - I prefer not to splatter these plans all over the forums though - they go beyond simply putting up some POCO's - but I think you'd like to see a preliminary plan of action and see how that fits into your view. I don't expect you to change anything based on that view - but perhaps seeing it will give you some ideas.
EVE Mail okay? |
pmchem
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
75
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 17:51:00 -
[26] - Quote
CCP Omen wrote:You may accuse us of many things, but one thing we are not guilty of is not reading this thread!
We are monitoring this and many other threads, I won't get into defense mode and try and defend the feature against all sorts of claims. I will re-iterate that we want POCOs to be valid for small corporations, we want highsec to act as a crowded/low income safety for the market as a whole while the land of opportunity is Lowsec. We want Alliances to be able to enjoy 0% tax for their own space. We want PI be a catalyst for space battles as much as it is a low effort passive income.
Regarding the taxation topic itself. I have called a meeting with CCP:s economist to go through the issues raised.
Best regards Omen
Omen, thank you for the reply. In the long term, I imagine that PI income should be much more important than moon mineral income. That will be necessary for DUST 514 to succeed, as players will need to REALLY care about planets. When PI becomes more important than moons, alliances will not be taxing their own POCOs at 0%. Instead, POCOs will be a form of alliance income. That is why I am so concerned about the taxation issue: without it having higher reference values and also being fully customizable by the players, there is much less incentive for players to deploy and fight over control of POCOs.
Hopefully your economist will appreciate both the disparity between current reference values / market values, and how the increased taxation would function as an ISK sink. PI-producing players themselves could pass off the increased taxation in the form of higher prices at market, so a change in default taxes should not "hurt the little guy". |
Crias Taylor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
76
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 18:35:00 -
[27] - Quote
Bastet Aiona wrote:
It's not the ability to protect the POCO that needs to be increased - it's the ability to simply KNOW that your attackers are serious about attacking (in general) rather than simply looking to make life stressful and difficult for you.
Consider it a preview what to holding sov is like. We get attack mails if someone even reps the station services.-á |
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
153
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 19:05:00 -
[28] - Quote
Bastet Aiona wrote: Because the POCO's are essentially open pinata's that anyone can attack at any given time,
POCOs don't drop anything on destruction, so you can't really call them a pi+¦ata
Quote:it's our expectation to constantly be harassed with warnings of POCOs under attack from single shot passer bys and timers constantly being set off with no intention of removing the POCO. The time it takes to reinforce a POCO is quite easy with a sizable force, Devs have said they won't send a mail until a sizable amount of damage has been done (to avoid spam). Besides, odds are you won't get there in time before they reinforce, so it shouldn't matter much.
Quote:and we expect a lot of harassment in the early days of our deployment and constant false alarms.
How easily it can be done with no cost to the attacker is the main problem. In Low Sec we don't have warp bubbles or any ability to stop a force from simply warping away and docking. If they choose to hit with no investment, they lose nothing. So they have nothing to defend, nothing to lose and no reason NOT to simply harass and hit the POCO's just because they can. Seems to me you are complaining about how hard it will be to defend POCOs far away from your base.
This is bad how? |
Spanking Monkeys
ZC Industries
9
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 19:07:00 -
[29] - Quote
pmchem wrote:CCP Omen wrote:You may accuse us of many things, but one thing we are not guilty of is not reading this thread!
We are monitoring this and many other threads, I won't get into defense mode and try and defend the feature against all sorts of claims. I will re-iterate that we want POCOs to be valid for small corporations, we want highsec to act as a crowded/low income safety for the market as a whole while the land of opportunity is Lowsec. We want Alliances to be able to enjoy 0% tax for their own space. We want PI be a catalyst for space battles as much as it is a low effort passive income.
Regarding the taxation topic itself. I have called a meeting with CCP:s economist to go through the issues raised.
Best regards Omen Omen, thank you for the reply. In the long term, I imagine that PI income should be much more important than moon mineral income. That will be necessary for DUST 514 to succeed, as players will need to REALLY care about planets. When PI becomes more important than moons, alliances will not be taxing their own POCOs at 0%.
for more players to care about PI it has to be amended to actually be something people want to do rather than have to do. its current state is far from a want to do game mechanic. i do get that a few people liek to do it, but from every one i know that does pi, that number is very few |
tengen san
Triton-TC
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 00:10:00 -
[30] - Quote
The subject of taxation is coherently with the desire/estimation to set up a POCO in first place, none will daub this. On another notice to the closing words of the PO, I do not see an imminent relevance to the D514 implementation AND dependence to the success, as for now, most if not all D514 engagement is considered to be on Temperate Planets only (please refer to the Interview with Hallan Fannar on dust514.org)
Quinc4623 wrote:I think the main reason one might need a POCO is just to make use of a planet at all. Doing 1 500m3 launch from the command center at a time is entirely impractical, but if you have control over a lot of 0.0 space you'll want to actually take advantage of the planets there. In a large enough alliance or corporation with enough PI users it can easily be worth while with a proper program of shared PI profits. But yeah, the taxes bit doesn't sound like it would be very worth it by itself.
I have a number of very profitable planets in 0.2 systems and quite frankly I'm going to have to abandon them on the 28th since I don't see anyone maintaining POCOs in low sec.
Using the CC launch is worthless for one and for second the ability to build/use a Launchpad is conjoint with the existence of a CO /POCO, third, any further import requires a CO/POCO just As for now each and every single low sec planet contains a CO, thus not only risk. /. reward is in balance but the market as well. The question herby is, why even bother to set up a POCO in a low sec system in first place if a.) the tax profitability is next to nothing with a mere 1-3 or 2-5 CCGÇÖs on the ground. b.) no advanced knowledge what type of production is on the ground, in regards of the taxable reverence value of P1/P2/P3/P4.
CCP Omen wrote:I will re-iterate that we want POCOs to be valid for small corporations, we want highsec to act as a crowded/low income safety for the market as a whole while the land of opportunity is Lowsec. We want Alliances to be able to enjoy 0% tax for their own space. We want PI be a catalyst for space battles as much as it is a low effort passive income.
Thank you very much for the consiterations, but further review must be done as for now non of the above will be possible in low sec.
The taxation for 0.0. Alliances as a problem would not GÇ£really occurGÇ¥, as assumable there will be other means come to task to GÇ£taxGÇ¥ the renter, but it will have a devastating effect on low sec.
I daub heavily anyone who is able to operate a calculator will seriously invest near to a bill for POCO to cover a P1-P4 production circle in a low sec system, as only the base materials will be retrieved and valued production will be directed to high sec. This, caused by diversity in separated tax values will make the diversity obsolete in the run, thus the desire to set up a POCO in low sec.
Function of a 0.0 PI operations within an alliance is to discriminate to low sec with rather general than allied PI usage.
But even if there would be a hypothetical widespread POCO low sec use with a, as proposed, taxation system at work, the in-balance of tax earnings would be in 0.0. fare greater compared to low sec with the ability to roll out valued production to high sec. However this will not be the case, as low sec PI will come to an halt and the in-balance then will be created by the PI monopol of 0.0.
The whole change from CO to POCO should/must be revised for a resubmittal and the implementation for 28.Nov seriously reconsidered to the next extension.
a.No tax income to receive in 0.0. and low sec to justifying the investment b.Dismounting all CO's throughout low sec is counterproductive to the attempt of revitalize low sec.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |