Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 10 post(s) |
Speedkermit Damo
Demonic Retribution
363
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 11:51:26 -
[61] - Quote
Interesting read.
Especially the nullsec section. I'm pleased that CCP Greyscale recognises the glaring issues with nullsec and the steps necessary to make nullsec exciting once again.
I only hope that CCP has the courage do go through with it and not cave in the the inevitable pressure and whining from many of the more entitled players who have got used to having everything handed to them on a plate.
Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
|
Nathanael Ashcroft
Ganking Jita Guard
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 14:34:14 -
[62] - Quote
Always interesting, but regarding the whole suppression of corp member aggression I would suggest thinking ouside the box and revising at the same time other mechanics.
I totally agree that being in a corp should not be an agreement for being able to aggro and be aggro. But what about fleets ? Aggroing fleet members is still triggering flags and CONCORD response while being a much more situational and tactical position, also more easily escapable. So why not make fleet members able to aggro eachother ?
It wont delete infiltrating corps or ganking unsuspecting members, but at least it wont be a constant menace as you have to accept the fleet invite. Moreover it will release some pressure from the logi player using some guns...
Accepting a fleet should be : "i'm ok for fighting alongside these guys for the next minutes/hours and thus accept the risk of some friendly fire occuring" It will also make open fleets more risky and force mining corp to work their diplomacy side if they want to open their fleet to blues. |
Mixu Paatelainen
Eve Refinery
177
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 14:36:38 -
[63] - Quote
Fozzie has a... direct... style. |
SpaceSaft
Capts Deranged Cavaliers Gentlemen's.Club
85
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 14:42:37 -
[64] - Quote
Very nice. Thank you for doing the summit & the minutes!
Nullsec
The direction(s) for nullsec sound very cool but I was a bit confused, with things like these maps:
http://www.gfycat.com/FlashyInstructiveGrackle
and then I was really surprised to hear that "not having names on the map" was even an option. Why wouldn't I or other players want that?
I can't really imagine how the point generation and the upkeep of structures with those changes would work. That being said I think ultimately it ends up in a discussion about how much every single activity in eve factors into that and how different kinds of content are weighed , which is bad because you'd be judging different playstyles.
But the idea of your structures and infrastructure being safe as long as you live in the system, are around and are somewhat defending it successfully and this "active eviction" or invasion talk sounds really interesting.
Granularity is also something I would very much like to see. Intermediate levels from mobile depot to pos to outpost. Again I am not sure how control of different objects in space would work. The most likely thing for me would be planet ownership associated with all things orbiting it, stations, belts etc.
I am also in favor of having game mechanics like bounty, coms, intel, navigation and all the stuff that just "happens" be dependant on structures you have to put up, maintain and keep safe by being around.
Community / Organized Play / PVE design
Occupancy and the idea of spreading pve content over larger regions in combination with the movement changes kind of contradict each other don't you think?
Growth
Concerning the growth team stuff and the skins: I thought it was already established that there are different kinds of people who will pay for different kinds of things.
I am sure there is a market for super rare and expensive skins from the NES as well as rented skins for corporation and alliance members and one time use skins as rewards or drops. Please don't lock groups of players out by only providing skins through +30% in price in isk or real money.
"Revisiting systems"
Just as a general feedback, I joined after retribution so I know eve from that point on, I don't feel like you really have "revisited and iterated on systems" as much as you might think. At least it didn't really feel that way.
The exception: The industry changes were really nice and kudos for removing the loot spew.
Things like warp speed / balance / ship changes, that's not iterating on how the systems work, that's just what inputs and outputs they give.
I mean I believe you might be doing a lot of code maintanence that players don't and shouldn't hear about but in terms of
"Hey we introduced this feature and we're changing it in a critical way because it's not working out as we thought." That doesn't really happen. Things that I think would be on that list are PI and ISIS (which are partially hidden by the windows you have open, ISIS only has 2 scroll states) ISIS really only has UI issues, The whole Dust integration that happened and now there are like 20 planets where you can bring the second to smallest ship class and only if you are in FW...
I guess compared to the amount of promise and PR build up these ideas have the amount of impact on gameplay they have and had is fairly small. PI as a passive activity you do for 5 minutes and planet shooting with all those conditions, aren't really a lot more than well polished prototypes.
In short "putting it out there, see what the players think and iterate on it" really didn't see a lot iterating from my point of view.
Overall I'm really happy with what's being done though.
Hope restored.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space
10399
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 16:40:09 -
[65] - Quote
If you actually take the step to removing awoxing without drastically buffing highsec PvP and nerfing CONCORD, I am going to unsub all of my accounts.
Non consensual PvP either exists, or it doesn't. EVE was founded on non consensual PvP. It is the only reason I play this game.
Removing it is where I draw the line. I will not play a game where the only means to inflict a PvP interaction on another player is consensual, as wardecs currently are.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
xXxMLG420sw4gxXx
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 16:48:49 -
[66] - Quote
Wow...no more awoxing? What's the next step, can't aggress players in highsec?
Not that this was that unexpected considering the way Eve has been going recently, but still, what happened to HTFU? Are we going from adaptation and survival to grinding and hugs?
|
Notorious Fellon
348
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 16:53:45 -
[67] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:If you actually take the step to removing awoxing without drastically buffing highsec PvP and nerfing CONCORD, I am going to unsub all of my accounts.
Non consensual PvP either exists, or it doesn't. EVE was founded on non consensual PvP. It is the only reason I play this game.
Removing it is where I draw the line. I will not play a game where the only means to inflict a PvP interaction on another player is consensual, as wardecs currently are.
Send me your stuff.
Also: no one cares if you throw a fit. Threatening to quit is about the lamest response one can give. Learn to adapt; just like you tell everyone else when changes come along that benefit you.
Crime, it is not a "career", it is a lifestyle.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space
10401
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 17:00:18 -
[68] - Quote
Notorious Fellon wrote: Send me your stuff.
No, I'll actually spend it all in an orgy of ganking before I biomass.
Quote: Also: no one cares if you throw a fit.
Just when carebears throw a fit, right? One is totally legit, and one is totally not.
Quote: Threatening to quit is about the lamest response one can give.
I am not threatening anything. I play this game exclusively for non consensual PvP. Everything else is secondary or tertiary as a concern in my eyes.
If the thing I like in the game is removed, it is a simple fact that I will cease playing it.
Quote: Learn to adapt; just like you tell everyone else when changes come along that benefit you.
"Changes" does not equate to the removal of a playstyle. If missioning were quite simply removed tomorrow with no replacement, I would fully expect the mission runners to quit the game.
The difference being of course, that I don't actively go around asking for some people's playstyles to go away entirely.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
xXxMLG420sw4gxXx
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 17:12:54 -
[69] - Quote
Notorious Fellon wrote:Also: no one cares if you throw a fit. Threatening to quit is about the lamest response one can give. Learn to adapt; just like you tell everyone else when changes come along that benefit you.
I don't know if I've ever got to tell anyone to adapt. We've gone from tanking concord while camping highsec gates to almost absolute safety, which is quite a one-sided set of changes in the last 10 or 11 years. It's a completely different game than it used to be, and I'm not sure I want to be a part of it anymore. |
Arcos Vandymion
White Beast Inc.
73
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 17:22:11 -
[70] - Quote
Can we please go back to the constructive posts re: the minutes? Thanks. |
|
Suzuka A1
Multiplex Gaming The Bastion
41
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 18:17:50 -
[71] - Quote
I would like to nominate CCP Leeloo for Employee of the Month.
Never forget the battle of Z9PP-H-á
What actually happened: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgcUwTmHY74
Battle Report: http://www.kugutsumen.com/showthread.php?42836-They-Might-Be-Giants-The-Southwest&p=497626&viewfull=1#post497626
|
Valerie Valate
Church of The Crimson Saviour
639
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 18:19:06 -
[72] - Quote
My first impression, is that I don't like the idea of standings decaying.
I spent a fair amount of effort to get my Blood Raider standing up to above 9. I did this, to add some measure of authenticity to my rp shenanigans.
If I have to maintain those standings, then that means I have to stay in Delve, and not interact with the vast majority of people that my shenanigans would be applicable to.
Similarly, an acquaintance feels some level of achievement in having shot so many npcs, that they are at -10.00 standing to the npc factions.
Also, my standings mean that members of my corporation, may install jump clones in blood raider stations, which again, adds a measure of authenticity to things.
So, if the positive standings that I put effort into achieving, decay into nothingness, because I don't want to be tied to a station in Delve, then I would be unhappy.
to describe the effort that I put in: I flew out to Delve in an Executioner frigate, with some blueprints. I refined mission loot to build better ships (punishers and coercers), to do missions with, fitting them with mission loot, when that loot was superior. It was an enjoyable adventure. Everyone I knew said it couldn't be done. They were wrong. lol. |
Regnag Leppod
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
93
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 19:43:43 -
[73] - Quote
I don't usually read the minutes, but I decided to browse through these.
I rather like CCP Greyscales ideas/vision for what a POS should be like, though some of his statements seem to contradict themselves.
I'm very much on board with the idea of a POS being "home", but I won't be logging off from one until I can dock and not have to worry about finding myself floating in space when I log back in a few days or so later. Yes, it could be construed that I'm asking for outpost level defense on a POS, but if you want a POS to be a place that your average player can call "home", it's going to need some safety.
Overall though, CCP needs to decide who they want to own a POS before they make changes to them. You can't expect to create a POS system that people can call "home" then give it tiny amounts of defense, and expect your average small corp to even bother using one. If your vision is that only corps with 100+ people have a POS, fine, but it's going to need to handle the actions/needs of that many players. To say they need to be scalable is fine, but then you lose the "home" idea completely except for the high level ones, which puts us right back at having outposts.
Love the enthusiasm and the ideas, but find your foundation first please. |
Dradis Aulmais
Ignite Llc. V.L.A.S.T
7
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 20:22:07 -
[74] - Quote
Access to "Jessica" would be awesome. Alliance battle reports. Cluster news. All rendered in a eve video would be great. |
Ralph King-Griffin
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
6320
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 20:51:26 -
[75] - Quote
I for one have not read the minutes but am thoroughly outraged regardless.
[/rablerablerable]
actually cheers for this, though i am concerned for awoxing, highsec may get a tad on the safe side.
"I'm also quite confident that you are laughing
and it's the kind of laugh that gives normal people shivers."
=]I[=
|
Sugar Kyle
Snuff Box
733
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 23:15:37 -
[76] - Quote
Regnag Leppod wrote:
Overall though, CCP needs to decide who they want to own a POS before they make changes to them. You can't expect to create a POS system that people can call "home" then give it tiny amounts of defense, and expect your average small corp to even bother using one. If your vision is that only corps with 100+ people have a POS, fine, but it's going to need to handle the actions/needs of that many players. To say they need to be scalable is fine, but then you lose the "home" idea completely except for the high level ones, which puts us right back at having outposts.
Love the enthusiasm and the ideas, but find your foundation first please.
Yes. This is why some of us have been shaking the bushes and talking to people about POS to compose a document for CCP about how players actually use, see, and view their POS vs what metrics say about them. They are not jumping into the POS changes but looking to turn it into the homes and wanted objects that they should be.
Member of CSM9
CSM9 Weekly Updates
|
Dwissi
Miners Delight Phoebe Freeport Republic
77
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 23:26:45 -
[77] - Quote
Sugar Kyle wrote:Regnag Leppod wrote:
Overall though, CCP needs to decide who they want to own a POS before they make changes to them. You can't expect to create a POS system that people can call "home" then give it tiny amounts of defense, and expect your average small corp to even bother using one. If your vision is that only corps with 100+ people have a POS, fine, but it's going to need to handle the actions/needs of that many players. To say they need to be scalable is fine, but then you lose the "home" idea completely except for the high level ones, which puts us right back at having outposts.
Love the enthusiasm and the ideas, but find your foundation first please.
Yes. This is why some of us have been shaking the bushes and talking to people about POS to compose a document for CCP about how players actually use, see, and view their POS vs what metrics say about them. They are not jumping into the POS changes but looking to turn it into the homes and wanted objects that they should be.
Any reason for not 'shaking those bushes ' in the public? Its simply hard to see from our side who gets to deliver input to you guys and who isnt. Doesnt look very representative when it happens without 'us' being able to see the different views and usages that are discussed and risking that some views never get listed.
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grr everyone
Greed is the death of loyalty
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
4105
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 23:28:55 -
[78] - Quote
Dwissi wrote:Sugar Kyle wrote:Regnag Leppod wrote:
Overall though, CCP needs to decide who they want to own a POS before they make changes to them. You can't expect to create a POS system that people can call "home" then give it tiny amounts of defense, and expect your average small corp to even bother using one. If your vision is that only corps with 100+ people have a POS, fine, but it's going to need to handle the actions/needs of that many players. To say they need to be scalable is fine, but then you lose the "home" idea completely except for the high level ones, which puts us right back at having outposts.
Love the enthusiasm and the ideas, but find your foundation first please.
Yes. This is why some of us have been shaking the bushes and talking to people about POS to compose a document for CCP about how players actually use, see, and view their POS vs what metrics say about them. They are not jumping into the POS changes but looking to turn it into the homes and wanted objects that they should be. Any reason for not 'shaking those bushes ' in the public? Its simply hard to see from our side who gets to deliver input to you guys and who isnt. Doesnt look very representative when it happens without 'us' being able to see the different views and usages that are discussed and risking that some views never get listed.
Actually, we have been asking in public. The discussions with people tend to be in private, due to opsec, but the asking was public.
Woo! CSM 9!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Dirk Magnum
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
388
|
Posted - 2014.10.30 23:51:29 -
[79] - Quote
There's a load of ways to regulate AWOXing without removing it. An SP-related blanket of concord protection for new players, increased tools for corps to pursue AWOXers beyond standard kill rights, removal of insurance payout for the aggressor on the next ship of theirs killed by corp mates, and every other half-measure between CCP's current proposal and the system of old. The onus should always remakn on corp members to protect themselves, or strike back at AWOXers.
This is the next step towards theme-parking highsec, and worries me greatly. CCP is overstepping a more balanced regulation of AWOXing by a huge degree.
Also, as an RvB player this breaks the legs of every special event we do.
-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á "LIVE FAST DIE."
- traditional Minmatar ethos [citation needed]
|
Dwissi
Miners Delight Phoebe Freeport Republic
77
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 00:01:35 -
[80] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Dwissi wrote:Sugar Kyle wrote:Regnag Leppod wrote:
Overall though, CCP needs to decide who they want to own a POS before they make changes to them. You can't expect to create a POS system that people can call "home" then give it tiny amounts of defense, and expect your average small corp to even bother using one. If your vision is that only corps with 100+ people have a POS, fine, but it's going to need to handle the actions/needs of that many players. To say they need to be scalable is fine, but then you lose the "home" idea completely except for the high level ones, which puts us right back at having outposts.
Love the enthusiasm and the ideas, but find your foundation first please.
Yes. This is why some of us have been shaking the bushes and talking to people about POS to compose a document for CCP about how players actually use, see, and view their POS vs what metrics say about them. They are not jumping into the POS changes but looking to turn it into the homes and wanted objects that they should be. Any reason for not 'shaking those bushes ' in the public? Its simply hard to see from our side who gets to deliver input to you guys and who isnt. Doesnt look very representative when it happens without 'us' being able to see the different views and usages that are discussed and risking that some views never get listed. Actually, we have been asking in public. The discussions with people tend to be in private, due to opsec, but the asking was public.
Well - the asking being public isnt really helpful. Its the results of discussions or the discussions themselves that matter. And i simply dont see the 'opsec' part you state. No need to state systems and/or positions or details that might give too much away. Things can easily be 'generalized' for bullet points - but not knowing who delivers that input in the end makes it not very representative.
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grr everyone
Greed is the death of loyalty
|
|
Regnag Leppod
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
93
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 02:42:48 -
[81] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:[quote=Dwissi] Actually, we have been asking in public. The discussions with people tend to be in private, due to opsec, but the asking was public.
Is there any one in particular that an evemail can be sent to then with such information? "opsec" is one of those issues that's kept me from being completely open about issues like this. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
4107
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 03:11:13 -
[82] - Quote
Regnag Leppod wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:[quote=Dwissi] Actually, we have been asking in public. The discussions with people tend to be in private, due to opsec, but the asking was public. Is there any one in particular that an evemail can be sent to then with such information? "opsec" is one of those issues that's kept me from being completely open about issues like this.
Pick a CSM member that you think you can trust enough
Woo! CSM 9!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Sugar Kyle
Snuff Box
733
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 04:19:13 -
[83] - Quote
Dwissi wrote: Well - the asking being public isnt really helpful. Its the results of discussions or the discussions themselves that matter. And i simply dont see the 'opsec' part you state. No need to state systems and/or positions or details that might give too much away. Things can easily be 'generalized' for bullet points - but not knowing who delivers that input in the end makes it not very representative.
We're not done. For weeks we've been asking and poking for info from people. We hit twitter during the session when we were given permission to start the project. Corbexx, not surprisingly, has gotten the most feedback. Then it is gathering it up. Hes made a nice form and shared it. Then its just inputting it. I will probably place a summary mine on my blog for those interested as I often do. But that depends on the people as well. Some people are very private about what they do. They will talk to us but they don't want people to know that they live in X area and do Y things. If someone asks me not to share beyond CCP what they have shared with me, I will not.
All it is, is questions such as: What does your POS mean to you? What do you do in it? What do force fields mean to you? How would you define your POS to someone? Why do you have a POS? What do you want from them?
The goal is that a POS that appears to be mining a moon mineral might be seen as a moon mining op or maybe a reaction POS. It may turn out that the person also researches there and houses their super carrier there. They may see it as their super POS but they run the moon to help pay for fuel. CCP's metrics will not see all of that but they would like to. Therefore, some of us are asking and gathering it up and making a big list that just says things that people use their POS for and see it as, for CCP to read and use to understand what players are doing and using their POS for.
Because we have spoken to CCP we can process and present the information fairly clearly. That's it.
Member of CSM9
CSM9 Weekly Updates
|
Sugar Kyle
Snuff Box
733
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 04:20:05 -
[84] - Quote
Regnag Leppod wrote: Is there any one in particular that an evemail can be sent to then with such information? "opsec" is one of those issues that's kept me from being completely open about issues like this.
Pick a CSM member that you are comfortable speaking with.
Member of CSM9
CSM9 Weekly Updates
|
Sarah Harpoon
The Scope Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 06:49:04 -
[85] - Quote
it's funny how you mention wardecs as an alternative to awoxing, when all that turns into is station games
you also mention suicide ganking as a better way to assassinate someone - as if that's more easy for a newbie to understand?
help ccp i'm confused |
Dwissi
Miners Delight Phoebe Freeport Republic
78
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 08:24:16 -
[86] - Quote
Sugar Kyle wrote:Dwissi wrote: Well - the asking being public isnt really helpful. Its the results of discussions or the discussions themselves that matter. And i simply dont see the 'opsec' part you state. No need to state systems and/or positions or details that might give too much away. Things can easily be 'generalized' for bullet points - but not knowing who delivers that input in the end makes it not very representative.
We're not done. For weeks we've been asking and poking for info from people. We hit twitter during the session when we were given permission to start the project. Corbexx, not surprisingly, has gotten the most feedback. Then it is gathering it up. Hes made a nice form and shared it. Then its just inputting it. I will probably place a summary mine on my blog for those interested as I often do. But that depends on the people as well. Some people are very private about what they do. They will talk to us but they don't want people to know that they live in X area and do Y things. If someone asks me not to share beyond CCP what they have shared with me, I will not. All it is, is questions such as: What does your POS mean to you? What do you do in it? What do force fields mean to you? How would you define your POS to someone? Why do you have a POS? What do you want from them? The goal is that a POS that appears to be mining a moon mineral might be seen as a moon mining op or maybe a reaction POS. It may turn out that the person also researches there and houses their super carrier there. They may see it as their super POS but they run the moon to help pay for fuel. CCP's metrics will not see all of that but they would like to. Therefore, some of us are asking and gathering it up and making a big list that just says things that people use their POS for and see it as, for CCP to read and use to understand what players are doing and using their POS for. Because we have spoken to CCP we can process and present the information fairly clearly. That's it.
Awsome - thats the answer that is very helpful! Thank you for taking your time to clarify this
Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins
Before someone complains again: grr everyone
Greed is the death of loyalty
|
Erin Crawford
328
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 10:23:37 -
[87] - Quote
pg 44:
Quote:At this point Corbexx asked if it would be possible to give more people access to Jessica GÇô CCPGÇÖs engine for making cinema tics and used in the likes of Clear Skies 3. CCP Falcon and CCP Dhalgren confirmed that this is something they will look into further as the potential benefits could be huge.
This would be mind-boggling awesome!!! I'm sure there are many that would love to make custom scenes and visuals, both static images and movies using Jessica.
In fact one of the reasons why I became interested in EVE was that i saw some artwork others have done using the bare-bone-basics and having to hack together using photoshop and 3rd-party app that extract, convert models and textures so they can create EVE scenes - and they never look as good or as authentic.
Having access to Jessica would allow for incredible EVE-related artwork to be created - this in itself will both directly and indirectly market EVE even more...
Imagine the type of high quality Corp Recruitment Ads that could be created using these tools! In fact, player-made story lines of events that have occurred in game could be re-created, animated and turned into visually stunning movies - control the cameras, flight-paths, explosions, etc... The opportunity for player-generated visuals, both still and movies, would be amazing.
Please, make it happen!
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
23528
|
Posted - 2014.10.31 11:39:07 -
[88] - Quote
pretty much player-generated advertising, that everyone would enjoy.
fwiw, +1
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Winter Archipelago
Fade.
277
|
Posted - 2014.11.01 04:52:26 -
[89] - Quote
Mangala Solaris wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:The meetings. oh god the meetings.
I want a 'I survived the CSM 9 summer summit' tshirt. Trust when I say Winter is worse. Especially in Iceland. You'll come to miss daylight. I'm not that bad. Just take off the blindfold!
Ransoms are accepted in Isk, Ships, Mods, and Dolls.
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. Suddenly Spaceships.
205
|
Posted - 2014.11.01 16:52:59 -
[90] - Quote
I didn't think you (CCP) had the balls to consider removing 'Sov' but I'm pleased to be proved wrong.
In my opinion, the worst change to the game came just shy of 10 years ago (24/11/2004 to be specific), with the introduction of the artificial 'sovereignty' mechanics. Every change since then has just iterated downwards.
Burn it all to the ground, if people want a silly no-benefits 'flag', good for them... but, going down this route this could be the best [potential] change to have occurred in the game.
... just don't screw it up!
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |