EVE Search - Sticky:Dev blog: Building better Worlds

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

Sticky:Dev blog: Building better Worlds

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 72 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 56 post(s)
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 300	Posted - 2014.04.15 18:11:00 - [331] - Quote Imiarr Timshae wrote: Weaselior wrote: what the ** would we or anyone do with every highsec moon ** people off by holding them in an unassailably large alliance... get a small tower for 60m, offline it. Costs you nothing and pisses anyone who wants it off. I thought that's what you guys specialize in Unfortunately, the nature of POS roles makes that infeasible. This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Weaselior GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 6912	Posted - 2014.04.15 18:11:00 - [332] - Quote Imiarr Timshae wrote: Weaselior wrote: what the ** would we or anyone do with every highsec moon ** people off by holding them in an unassailably large alliance... get a small tower for 60m, offline it. Costs you nothing and pisses anyone who wants it off. I thought that's what you guys specialize in then watch as all of them get blown up left and right because an offline small is trivial to afk kill we'd be trolling ourselves more than anyone else Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Chanina ASGARD HEAVY INDUSTRIES Kadeshians 47	Posted - 2014.04.15 18:12:00 - [333] - Quote CCP Greyscale wrote: Aliventi wrote: Quote: Reduce copy time on all blueprints to be less time consuming than manufacturing something out of it. This gives the option to use blueprint copies to build items at Starbases without risking the original. Any chance this would also apply to T2 BPOs? Right now it takes longer to make a copy than to just manufacture from the BPO. It would be a great way for a new market to spring up around T2 BPO BPCs and make it easier for new people to get in to T2 manufacturing without having to get in to invention. That's the current plan, yes. So you are telling that you won't touch Invention with this expansion but greatly increasing the output of high quality T2 BPCs? Am I the only inventor here that doesn't like that change much? Yes a new guy wouldn't need that much to get into T2 Production, but a) the very limited group of producers for this high quality BPCs and b) the lack of competitors through invention will yield in high prices and again a lot of profit to people who already had years of time to pull out the profit from there investment. I like the overall attitude of this dev blog but improving use of T2 BPOs further isn't something I'm looking forward to. Not if there aren't improvements to Invented BPC quality.
Dinsdale Pirannha Pirannha Corp 2641	Posted - 2014.04.15 18:12:00 - [334] - Quote Entity wrote: Weaselior wrote: Entity wrote: So you're saying 8 years of operating a hisec POS with 2.5 trillion ISK worth (that's 2500 billion) of BPOs, you're suddenly expecting me to put said 2.5 trillion ISK into a paper space container and not locked down in my hangar? I like the changes but that part is just flabbergastingly stupid the real issue here is your apparent belief you should be entitled to get the most advantages possible from your 2.5 trillion in bpos absolutely risk free and how long that was tolerated eight years was 7.9 too long Risk free? What? Is your brain turned off or something? - The pos alone is worth 8 billion+ (all faction stuff) - I stand to lose a month worth of product to the tune of 20 billion if someone decides to blow it up. I'm fine with -that- risk, but having to literally put ALL my eggs in that one easy to pop basket is completely unacceptable. Let's see who CCP listens to: 1. One of the most famous, long term players in the game, who knows a thing or 2, or a million, about Eve industry. 2. A member of a group dedicated to ruining gameplay for as many as possible, and who is openly gloating over the changes. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook.
Kadl Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 145	Posted - 2014.04.15 18:12:00 - [335] - Quote Weaselior wrote: Kadl wrote: I can propose a simple alternative fix. Make it so that anyone who places a POCO or POS in a location vacated by a waring party would immediately become subject to the war. You cannot sneak a "neutral" third party in to reclaim a location since the war could be directed at control of that space location. Note now we are using war decs to control space in high sec. that is not simple whatsoever and would certainly require massively reworking a lot of code it is a more elegant fix yes but it is much less likely to be implemented It might require a bit more work on the code, but where is your evidence that it would be a massive rework? What would they need to touch? 1) Each POS/POCO location would need an added bit of hidden data noting which corporation last used it last and the date. 2) When placing a POS/POCO a check is needed on the corporation which last used the location. War Dec history would then need to be cross referenced to identify any wars the new POS/POCO owner might be stepping into. Any wars would require a warning popup asking if the new owner wishes to accept the risk of war. If they accept the risk then the wars are added to the new corporation in the exact same state. Any messy War Dec code can be avoided. It is now a normal war. Hopefully a quick check can be added to the initial POS/POCO deployment code. It should return a simple yes/no to deploying, and avoid any other interactions. This could have problems, but seems possible unless you have more detailed knowledge of the code.
Myxx 699	Posted - 2014.04.15 18:13:00 - [336] - Quote A lot of people in this thread either don't care, or are deliberately ignorant or even perhaps hostile to the industry side of EVE. Sad. Ohwell. As far as I'm concerned, there are three plans in place. Depending on how the scaling cost turns out, they'll be used to make the entire system CCP is setting up pointless. It has been boiled down to potentially a series of small annoyances. Thanks for stabbing industiry in the back, though.
Imiarr Timshae Funny Men In Funny Hats 181	Posted - 2014.04.15 18:13:00 - [337] - Quote Tra'con Han wrote: Sorry, but I think the removal of the standings to anchor a pos is an absolute disgrace. Lets put Eve on easy because people are too lazy to commit to a project! And this, to a degree, is also true. The barrier to entry removal of say, scanning, was great. Scanning was confusing and difficult. My finds dropped in value because more people were finding them, I didn't mind. The content was engaging and fun and should have been simple since it's in the tutorial anyway. There is something satisfying about getting an empire to like you enough that you can get a piece of their real estate. It made sense, canonically. It acted as a barrier to entry so you had to either work hard to get the required standing or you had to pay someone. That's pretty much how the free market works. Without the barrier to entry it'll just be a blobfest just like customs offices, plus it makes no sense. Someone who is literally kill on sight by Gallente can anchor a control tower in gallente prime if they are spry enough to avoid the police. That'll be interesting for faction warfare. TSCA - Free 3rd Party & Collateral Holding Service - POS Deployment Corp Sale/Boosting
Imiarr Timshae Funny Men In Funny Hats 181	Posted - 2014.04.15 18:15:00 - [338] - Quote Weaselior wrote: Imiarr Timshae wrote: Weaselior wrote: what the ** would we or anyone do with every highsec moon ** people off by holding them in an unassailably large alliance... get a small tower for 60m, offline it. Costs you nothing and pisses anyone who wants it off. I thought that's what you guys specialize in then watch as all of them get blown up left and right because an offline small is trivial to afk kill we'd be trolling ourselves more than anyone else And I referred to Red and Blue in my post you quoted and not goon because you guys are nullsec and have null interested. RVB are constantly looking for combat in highsec. Defending control towers - like customs offices - would be right up their street. TSCA - Free 3rd Party & Collateral Holding Service - POS Deployment Corp Sale/Boosting
Kithran 94	Posted - 2014.04.15 18:16:00 - [339] - Quote Allison A'vani wrote: Ydnari wrote: Removal of all Extra materials: Doesn't this mean that Tech 2 ships at ME -6, -5, -4 (Augmentation, Attainment and no decryptor) will use 2 T1 hulls, since it being an Extra material was what kept it at 1? So a Sin would use 2 Dominix hulls with those three invention choices. At ME -3 and above it rounds back down to 1 T1 hull. No, because ME is based on a %. You can not reduce the ME enough to run into this problem. Besides the fact that any decrypter that reduces ME is literally useless on any ship invention as it completely removes any profit all together. ME 0 = 10% waste ME 1 = 5% waste ME 2 = 2.5% waste etc ME -1 = 20% waste ME -2 = 30% waste ME -3 = 40% waste ME -4 = 50% waste ME -5 = 60% waste ME -6 = 70% waste If at 0 waste you would use 1 of something at ME -4 you will in theory be using 1.5 rounding to 2
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 329	Posted - 2014.04.15 18:16:00 - [340] - Quote Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: Let's see who CCP listens to: 1. One of the most famous, long term players in the game, who knows a thing or 2, or a million, about Eve industry. 2. A member of a group dedicated to ruining gameplay for as many as possible, and who is openly gloating over the changes. that dude, whoever he is, lost a lot of credibility when he admitted he can only turn over 20b a month on 2.5t This post was crafted by a member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Kadar Yassavi 24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire 6	Posted - 2014.04.15 18:16:00 - [341] - Quote Holy **! HOLY !!! I'm very concerned about the POS changes. Will it still be benificial to have a nice highsec POS over just traveling 2 or 3 more jumps to a station where the installation costs are reasonable enough? On the other hand, will it be so extremely benificial that the chances of me as a solo player not** getting my nice highsec POS blown up after the expansion are above 99%? I understand that this is an MMO and obviously there should be a certain drive to team up with others (to defend a nice highsec POS for example), but I know there are a lot of solo industrialists out there just like me. You are killing the side profession of offering corporation standings boost/creation, maybe others as well, don't know atm. Will there be new incentives/rewards to grind faction standings to high numbers? Wow, that UI and the things it suggests for the future dev blogs. Please release the other dev blogs asap (like tomorrow).
Dinsdale Pirannha Pirannha Corp 2643	Posted - 2014.04.15 18:17:00 - [342] - Quote Etara Silverblade wrote: POSes in high-sec without standing requirements means those of up who have standings loose out. You are compensating every other piece that is being nerfed but not this. What good are my Gallente standings now that anyone can put up a tower in any system? You are going to force some of us to find new jobs in eve as raising standings for corps will no longer be of any use. Didn't you know? Your game play is not sanctioned in this "wide-open sandbox". The best part: Griefer roups can now fire up as many small POS's as they like, not fuel them, effectively deadzoning as many moons or entire systems they like, because standings are done. Then, the only way to get a POS up will be to wardec them, which is what they wanted all along. New method of griefing. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook.
Myxx 701	Posted - 2014.04.15 18:17:00 - [343] - Quote Chanina wrote: CCP Greyscale wrote: Aliventi wrote: Quote: Reduce copy time on all blueprints to be less time consuming than manufacturing something out of it. This gives the option to use blueprint copies to build items at Starbases without risking the original. Any chance this would also apply to T2 BPOs? Right now it takes longer to make a copy than to just manufacture from the BPO. It would be a great way for a new market to spring up around T2 BPO BPCs and make it easier for new people to get in to T2 manufacturing without having to get in to invention. That's the current plan, yes. So you are telling that you won't touch Invention with this expansion but greatly increasing the output of high quality T2 BPCs? Am I the only inventor here that doesn't like that change much? Yes a new guy wouldn't need that much to get into T2 Production, but a) the very limited group of producers for this high quality BPCs and b) the lack of competitors through invention will yield in high prices and again a lot of profit to people who already had years of time to pull out the profit from there investment. I like the overall attitude of this dev blog but improving use of T2 BPOs further isn't something I'm looking forward to. Not if there aren't improvements to Invented BPC quality. I think you misunderstand what we'll probably end up doing with T2 BPOs some of us have. Selling copies will be for the slightly cheaper stuff (ie, guns and ammo) but I don't anticipate that ship BPOs will have many copies sold. Some might, maybe, but there are other better uses that preserve the status quo as it is. That status quo is quite profitable atm.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 20768	Posted - 2014.04.15 18:17:00 - [344] - Quote Chanina wrote: I like the overall attitude of this dev blog but improving use of T2 BPOs further isn't something I'm looking forward to. Not if there aren't improvements to Invented BPC quality. Meh. They get slightly higher output on items where the market is already fully controlled by invention, and it lasts maybe one expansion cycle. I don't see inventors being particularly hurt by that one. Etara Silverblade wrote: POSes in high-sec without standing requirements means those of up who have standings loose out. You are compensating every other piece that is being nerfed but not this. What good are my Gallente standings now that anyone can put up a tower in any system? Come to think of it, what happens if a -10 Gallente standings corp puts up a tower in Gallente space? Myxx wrote: Thanks for stabbing industiry in the back, though. If this counts as stabbing someone in the back, I'm going to send CCP a weekly subscription of back-stabbing daggers, because I want more. 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 2.1.
Myxx 701	Posted - 2014.04.15 18:20:00 - [345] - Quote Tippia wrote: Chanina wrote: I like the overall attitude of this dev blog but improving use of T2 BPOs further isn't something I'm looking forward to. Not if there aren't improvements to Invented BPC quality. Meh. They get slightly higher output on items where the market is already fully controlled by invention, and it lasts maybe one expansion cycle. I don't see inventors being particularly hurt by that one. Etara Silverblade wrote: POSes in high-sec without standing requirements means those of up who have standings loose out. You are compensating every other piece that is being nerfed but not this. What good are my Gallente standings now that anyone can put up a tower in any system? Come to think of it, what happens if a -10 Gallente standings corp puts up a tower in Gallente space? Myxx wrote: Thanks for stabbing industiry in the back, though. If this counts as stabbing someone in the back, I'm going to send CCP a weekly subscription of back-stabbing daggers, because I want more. I don't think you're looking at the larger picture, but okay...
samualvimes Quantum Cats Syndicate Repeat 0ffenders 213	Posted - 2014.04.15 18:20:00 - [346] - Quote These look like the beginning of something great! Good job CCP Thank God Dinsdale turned up. I was beginning to think he was ill! If you've never tried PvP in EvE it's quite possible you've missed out on one of the greatest rushes available in modern gaming.
Cassandra Kazan Padded Helmets 0	Posted - 2014.04.15 18:21:00 - [347] - Quote Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: Entity wrote: Weaselior wrote: Entity wrote: So you're saying 8 years of operating a hisec POS with 2.5 trillion ISK worth (that's 2500 billion) of BPOs, you're suddenly expecting me to put said 2.5 trillion ISK into a paper space container and not locked down in my hangar? I like the changes but that part is just flabbergastingly stupid the real issue here is your apparent belief you should be entitled to get the most advantages possible from your 2.5 trillion in bpos absolutely risk free and how long that was tolerated eight years was 7.9 too long Risk free? What? Is your brain turned off or something? - The pos alone is worth 8 billion+ (all faction stuff) - I stand to lose a month worth of product to the tune of 20 billion if someone decides to blow it up. I'm fine with -that- risk, but having to literally put ALL my eggs in that one easy to pop basket is completely unacceptable. Let's see who CCP listens to: 1. One of the most famous, long term players in the game, who knows a thing or 2, or a million, about Eve industry. 2. A member of a group dedicated to ruining gameplay for as many as possible, and who is openly gloating over the changes. Perhaps they could consider evaluating the arguments of both people on the merits. Or would that be too much to ask?
Gizznitt Malikite Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 3845	Posted - 2014.04.15 18:21:00 - [348] - Quote Etara Silverblade wrote: POSes in high-sec without standing requirements means those of up who have standings loose out. You are compensating every other piece that is being nerfed but not this. What good are my Gallente standings now that anyone can put up a tower in any system? You are going to force some of us to find new jobs in eve as raising standings for corps will no longer be of any use. Maybe... or maybe standings will become important in a different way. It could be the costs you pay at a station are modified by you and your corps standings with the NPC owners. This, however, would make the temporary standings boosts you provide much less useful, as long term standings boosts become more important. Then again, maybe standings with NPC corps will cease to be important. That's not entirely a bad thing.
Rapscallion Jones Omnibus Solutions 0	Posted - 2014.04.15 18:22:00 - [349] - Quote Chanina wrote: CCP Greyscale wrote: Aliventi wrote: Quote: Reduce copy time on all blueprints to be less time consuming than manufacturing something out of it. This gives the option to use blueprint copies to build items at Starbases without risking the original. Any chance this would also apply to T2 BPOs? Right now it takes longer to make a copy than to just manufacture from the BPO. It would be a great way for a new market to spring up around T2 BPO BPCs and make it easier for new people to get in to T2 manufacturing without having to get in to invention. That's the current plan, yes. So you are telling that you won't touch Invention with this expansion but greatly increasing the output of high quality T2 BPCs? Am I the only inventor here that doesn't like that change much? Yes a new guy wouldn't need that much to get into T2 Production, but a) the very limited group of producers for this high quality BPCs and b) the lack of competitors through invention will yield in high prices and again a lot of profit to people who already had years of time to pull out the profit from there investment. This 100x over! If you want to eliminate invention just come out and say it. When shall we expect Tech 2 BPOs to be seeded on the market?
theman428 Twist Industry Unlimited 0	Posted - 2014.04.15 18:23:00 - [350] - Quote Remove the ability for players to use stations to safely store their blueprints without putting them at risk in Starbase structures. Players will still be able to start their jobs remotely (via the use of Supply Chain Management and Scientific Networking skills), but will now have to move their blueprints directly into the starbase structures that require it, like other materials. Worst change in this feature. another Super capital nerf... thanks CCP.... with this change if you want to produce a supercapital ship you know have to risk all of your assets whcih can be hundreds of billions of isk. or spend months copying your blueprints to build 1 ship... this has now given eve online 50% of the work for Supercap Proliferation... this changes coupled with the change to compression... expect price increases of 50%-100% of current hull values. of supercarriers and titans if they are produced at all... good job CCP make things better for pvpers which i have no objection to but making builders scared to build now.... you should rethink this part of the changes...

Gizznitt Malikite Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 3845	Posted - 2014.04.15 18:23:00 - [351] - Quote Imiarr Timshae wrote: Weaselior wrote: what the ** would we or anyone do with every highsec moon ** people off by holding them in an unassailably large alliance... get a small tower for 60m, offline it. Costs you nothing and pisses anyone who wants it off. I thought that's what you guys specialize in Hopefully they implement a mechanic to more easily remove offlined towers. If those large alliances need to fuel those POSes, holding a gajillion moons is both tedious and expensive.
Myxx 701	Posted - 2014.04.15 18:25:00 - [352] - Quote Rapscallion Jones wrote: Chanina wrote: CCP Greyscale wrote: Aliventi wrote: Quote: Reduce copy time on all blueprints to be less time consuming than manufacturing something out of it. This gives the option to use blueprint copies to build items at Starbases without risking the original. Any chance this would also apply to T2 BPOs? Right now it takes longer to make a copy than to just manufacture from the BPO. It would be a great way for a new market to spring up around T2 BPO BPCs and make it easier for new people to get in to T2 manufacturing without having to get in to invention. That's the current plan, yes. So you are telling that you won't touch Invention with this expansion but greatly increasing the output of high quality T2 BPCs? Am I the only inventor here that doesn't like that change much? Yes a new guy wouldn't need that much to get into T2 Production, but a) the very limited group of producers for this high quality BPCs and b) the lack of competitors through invention will yield in high prices and again a lot of profit to people who already had years of time to pull out the profit from there investment. This 100x over! If you want to eliminate invention just come out and say it. When shall we expect Tech 2 BPOs to be seeded on the market? You really need to re-examine this. T2 BPO copies aren't going to get sold for the most part. They'll be used for production, alts will be made to copy in stations in total safety. We'll have to log in slightly more often, but we can still spread our production chain out if need be. This is what I'm pretty sure CCP is expecting.
Gizznitt Malikite Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 3845	Posted - 2014.04.15 18:25:00 - [353] - Quote Weaselior wrote: Imiarr Timshae wrote: Weaselior wrote: what the ** would we or anyone do with every highsec moon ** people off by holding them in an unassailably large alliance... get a small tower for 60m, offline it. Costs you nothing and pisses anyone who wants it off. I thought that's what you guys specialize in then watch as all of them get blown up left and right because an offline small is trivial to afk kill we'd be trolling ourselves more than anyone else This is a good point...If a single alliance held a ton of moon locations with offline POS's, one wardec and that alliance is going to lose a butload POS's that they can't hope to adequately defend.
Cassandra Kazan Padded Helmets 3	Posted - 2014.04.15 18:26:00 - [354] - Quote I think it is fair to say that the faction standings system is a piece of EVE that has not been taken seriously as a gameplay component for nearly 10 years. Standings are something that people grind out when it is needful, or which they pay other people to maintain for them. In light of how neglected the system is and how little compelling gameplay it provides, can anyone really argue that it should remain linked to key highsec gameplay elements? I don't think so.
Ydnari Estrale Frontiers Project Wildfire 312	Posted - 2014.04.15 18:26:00 - [355] - Quote Allison A'vani wrote: Ydnari wrote: Removal of all Extra materials: Doesn't this mean that Tech 2 ships at ME -6, -5, -4 (Augmentation, Attainment and no decryptor) will use 2 T1 hulls, since it being an Extra material was what kept it at 1? So a Sin would use 2 Dominix hulls with those three invention choices. At ME -3 and above it rounds back down to 1 T1 hull. No, because ME is based on a %. You can not reduce the ME enough to run into this problem. That's not how negative ME works. On a standard 10% base waste blueprint at ME-4 you get 50% waste, which rounds a single unit up to two. http://wiki.eve-id.net/Equations Quote: Besides the fact that any decrypter that reduces ME is literally useless on any ship invention as it completely removes any profit all together. It'll also apply when you don't use a decryptor, and that's not the point of my question anyway. The same question also applies to modules, where currently the ME-5 and ME-6 decryptors can produce some of the best ISK per hour, because of the runs bonuses; they'll start using 2 base modules too. The question is whether this has been anticipated or not, since only the extras on T1 ships that were added to avoid reprocessing were mentioned in the blog. --
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 20769	Posted - 2014.04.15 18:26:00 - [356] - Quote Myxx wrote: I don't think you're looking at the larger picture, but okay... I'm looking at how it will benefit me as an industrialist; how it will benefit the dynamics of space utilisation; how it will benefit risk-taking; how it benefits the activity economy. Pretty much all of it is good. The only annoyance so far is a bit of logistical hassle, but that one has more to do with appalling POS mechanics than anything, and the main worry there is related to information that won't be released until a later devblog. 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 2.1.
BugraT WarheaD 98	Posted - 2014.04.15 18:26:00 - [357] - Quote Nice blog Ytterbium, you're way easier to read than to hear :D [french]Saloperie d'accent fran+ºais quoi, non mais c'est un monde +ºa ma bonne dame, m+¬me moi j'y arrive pas ![/french] Great changes to come, hope the next blogs were as legendary as this one !
Powers Sa 1028	Posted - 2014.04.15 18:29:00 - [358] - Quote Grarr Dexx wrote: Will there be unavoidable manufacturing / research fees in 0.0 stations? Or are they going to get that for free like they get free repairs? Grarr Dexx wrote: While we're talking about unavoidable costs in 0.0 stations, is there a reason repairs can be set to 0? Who is paying the guys patching up your ships? What about the materials needed to bring back structural integrity? It makes no sense. sov bills I'm ok with repair bills if i get to incap services in 0.0 NPC stations. lol
Kadl Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 146	Posted - 2014.04.15 18:29:00 - [359] - Quote Tippia wrote: Chanina wrote: I like the overall attitude of this dev blog but improving use of T2 BPOs further isn't something I'm looking forward to. Not if there aren't improvements to Invented BPC quality. Meh. They get slightly higher output on items where the market is already fully controlled by invention, and it lasts maybe one expansion cycle. I don't see inventors being particularly hurt by that one. Slightly higher output for T2 BPOs => Slightly lower output for invention => Slightly lower profits for invention. Your argument is that we should ignore the benefits reaped by T2 BPO owners because they are small. I think that is a move in the wrong direction, and should be avoided. I would like CCP to make a commitment to avoid improving the overall use of T2 BPO for their owners. I am uncertain whether the overall situation will improve for T2 BPO owners. For example, will they end up being required to place their T2 BPO in a POS in order to reach the old levels of production.
Myxx 701	Posted - 2014.04.15 18:29:00 - [360] - Quote Tippia wrote: Myxx wrote: I don't think you're looking at the larger picture, but okay... I'm looking at how it will benefit me as an industrialist; how it will benefit the dynamics of space utilisation; how it will benefit risk-taking; how it benefits the activity economy. Pretty much all of it is good. The only annoyance so far is a bit of logistical hassle, but that one has more to do with appalling POS mechanics than anything, and the main worry there is related to information that won't be released until a later devblog. I see. Then I misunderstood. We have different ideas as to what is good for the use of moons and starbases.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 .. 72 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.