EVE Search - Sorry but it seems that we need instanced battle fields (WOW ahoi!)

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Sorry but it seems that we need instanced battle fields (WOW ahoi!)

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
d026 THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.07.29 13:42:00 - [31] Edited by: d026 on 29/07/2007 13:42:44 Originally by: Verone Originally by: Ogul Originally by: Verone Maybe you could all just stop blobbing? Ever thought of that? You do realize that instancing would keep the numbers in an engagement down to managable levels? By limiting the number of people allowed in there... Take this suituation : Fleet A enters instance. Fleet B enters instance. Fleets fight. Death. Explosions. Smacktalk. Survivors leave. Now, during this, Fleet C decides they want to come and rumble, because they don't really like fleet A, or B... oh no... they can't get into the instance, wtf full?! What's this? Somewhere in Eve we're locked out of? A piece of game environment we can't use? Isn't this supposed to be a shardless, seamless single environment mmog where players can have an intricate effect on the political goings on inside the world? So, an opportunity for a third party to get involved in a war with a surprise attack is negated... Sorry, but that's not Eve, it just doesn't cut the mustard. accept it eve cant handle the load. and im not gonna wait till they invent quantum computers to be actually able to play a 200 vs 200. eitehr instance or reduce gang size to 25 and sys cap to 50 people.
Verone Veto Corp	Posted - 2007.07.29 13:44:00 - [32] Originally by: d026 Originally by: Verone Cue massive whining on Eve-O about how CCP suck and their crap servers are killing the game, when in fact it's the 500 people too scared about losing a fight out in the middle of nowhere that have caused the issue. im not whining im suggesting change, even tough i knew it wont be popular. you on teh otehr hand are trolling and flaming:) If I was flaming, trust me, I'd be a lot harsher. If I was trolling, I'd be telling you I think you suck etc, which I'm not. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and while my attitude might come across as agressive, my point is perfectly valid. The single environment we play in is one of the prime factors that I, and literally thousands of other people play Eve for. Destroying that turns Eve-Online into just another MMOG, set in space, without elves and orcs. >>> THE BEAUTY OF NEW EDEN <<<
d026 THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.07.29 13:44:00 - [33] Originally by: Verone Originally by: Ogul Originally by: Verone Maybe you could all just stop blobbing? Ever thought of that? You do realize that instancing would keep the numbers in an engagement down to managable levels? By limiting the number of people allowed in there... Take this suituation : Fleet A enters instance. Fleet B enters instance. Fleets fight. Death. Explosions. Smacktalk. Survivors leave. Now, during this, Fleet C decides they want to come and rumble, because they don't really like fleet A, or B... oh no... they can't get into the instance, wtf full?! What's this? Somewhere in Eve we're locked out of? A piece of game environment we can't use? Isn't this supposed to be a shardless, seamless single environment mmog where players can have an intricate effect on the political goings on inside the world? So, an opportunity for a third party to get involved in a war with a surprise attack is negated... Sorry, but that's not Eve, it just doesn't cut the mustard. and by the way, right now, fleet c would not have any chance to enter the fight anyway due to completely overloaded nodes:)
Ogul Caldari ZiTek Deepspace Explorations Prime Orbital Systems	Posted - 2007.07.29 13:44:00 - [34] Originally by: Verone Sorry, but that's not Eve, it just doesn't cut the mustard. Removing the lag without changing anything else? I am all for it. It just doesn't work. --- This is a war declaration, issued from your alt corp. It is used to gank people in high sec.
d026 THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.07.29 13:45:00 - [35] Originally by: Verone Originally by: d026 Originally by: Verone Cue massive whining on Eve-O about how CCP suck and their crap servers are killing the game, when in fact it's the 500 people too scared about losing a fight out in the middle of nowhere that have caused the issue. im not whining im suggesting change, even tough i knew it wont be popular. you on teh otehr hand are trolling and flaming:) If I was flaming, trust me, I'd be a lot harsher. If I was trolling, I'd be telling you I think you suck etc, which I'm not. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and while my attitude might come across as agressive, my point is perfectly valid. The single environment we play in is one of the prime factors that I, and literally thousands of other people play Eve for. Destroying that turns Eve-Online into just another MMOG, set in space, without elves and orcs. but how if both parties agree to go to a secure area for the time beeing? no harme done except for fleet c, who could actually request a invite to the instance to..
d026 THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.07.29 13:46:00 - [36] Originally by: d026 Originally by: Verone Originally by: d026 Originally by: Verone Cue massive whining on Eve-O about how CCP suck and their crap servers are killing the game, when in fact it's the 500 people too scared about losing a fight out in the middle of nowhere that have caused the issue. im not whining im suggesting change, even tough i knew it wont be popular. you on teh otehr hand are trolling and flaming:) If I was flaming, trust me, I'd be a lot harsher. If I was trolling, I'd be telling you I think you suck etc, which I'm not. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and while my attitude might come across as agressive, my point is perfectly valid. The single environment we play in is one of the prime factors that I, and literally thousands of other people play Eve for. Destroying that turns Eve-Online into just another MMOG, set in space, without elves and orcs. but how if both parties agree to go to a secure area for the time beeing? no harme done except for fleet c, who could actually request a invite to the instance to.. and i agree it takes aways some interesting tactical options. but somethimes after 6 hours warming up and sitting on gates flying 50 systems to the enemy you JUST WANT TO FIGHT AND NOT LAGG OUT!
Verone Veto Corp	Posted - 2007.07.29 13:49:00 - [37] Regardless of the persistant whining with regards to server stability, what you're asking for is a fundemental change in the way Eve-Online is structured, how it's played and what effect a player can have on the game and it's environment. Adding instances basically destroys everything CCP has broke their backs trying to achieve over the last four years (read a single shardless environment). Basically what you're asking is for something that ulitmatley negates the basic structure and meaning of what Eve Online actually is. Again, It's a bad idea. >>> THE BEAUTY OF NEW EDEN <<<
Verone Veto Corp	Posted - 2007.07.29 13:50:00 - [38] Edited by: Verone on 29/07/2007 13:50:26 Originally by: d026 but how if both parties agree to go to a secure area for the time beeing? no harme done except for fleet c, who could actually request a invite to the instance to.. "Hi, Can I please join your fleet fight so I can launch a surprise attack on you and your opposition?" Please tell me that post was made in humor? >>> THE BEAUTY OF NEW EDEN <<<
Verone Veto Corp	Posted - 2007.07.29 13:54:00 - [39] Originally by: Price Watcher Originally by: Verone ahahahahahahaha Instances... Verone! You old pie-rat! Nice to see you're still active. I've been active for as long as I've played <3 >>> THE BEAUTY OF NEW EDEN <<<
Ogul Caldari ZiTek Deepspace Explorations Prime Orbital Systems	Posted - 2007.07.29 13:54:00 - [40] Originally by: Verone Regardless of the persistant whining with regards to server stability, what you're asking for is a fundemental change in the way Eve-Online is structured, how it's played and what effect a player can have on the game and it's environment. You can hold up that shiny vision of how EVE should be all you want, but if it cannot be realized due to technical limitations it might just be time to adapt and find out what is realistically attainable. Originally by: Verone Adding instances basically destroys everything CCP has broke their backs trying to achieve over the last four years (read a single shardless environment). Yes, they tried. And they failed. --- This is a war declaration, issued from your alt corp. It is used to gank people in high sec.

Miki Fin Gallente Independant Union of Rangers	Posted - 2007.07.29 13:55:00 - [41] Originally by: Verone Remove killmails? That'd stop a big load of lag in fleet battles with so many mail deliveries... Oh no sorry, that'd prevent all the counterstrike migrants from declaring their leetness as they camp gates in their smartbombing capitals, or lead 200 man blobs in to shoot a control tower for five hours and declare how they "pwnt" their opposition. Funny you should say that, I've just posted an idea I had over in F&I. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=565664
d026 THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.07.29 13:56:00 - [42] Edited by: d026 on 29/07/2007 13:57:52 Originally by: Verone Regardless of the persistant whining with regards to server stability, what you're asking for is a fundemental change in the way Eve-Online is structured, how it's played and what effect a player can have on the game and it's environment. Adding instances basically destroys everything CCP has broke their backs trying to achieve over the last four years (read a single shardless environment). Basically what you're asking is for something that ulitmatley negates the basic structure and meaning of what Eve Online actually is. Again, It's a bad idea. Besides that you want to denie us a enjoiable time in eve fleet fighting (after spending hours and hours of logistics in advance), you just dont get that superblobbs are just what eve is about RIGHT NOW. So ccp either has to completely change game mechanics in favour of small scale assaults (where they seem to fail to) or give us enough server resources to handle such huge fleets. Both would/will change how we play eve today.
Verone Veto Corp	Posted - 2007.07.29 13:58:00 - [43] Edited by: Verone on 29/07/2007 13:58:50 Originally by: Ogul Originally by: Verone Adding instances basically destroys everything CCP has broke their backs trying to achieve over the last four years (read a single shardless environment). Yes, they tried. And they failed. You're still playing aren't you? along with 200,000 other people? Ergo, they haven't failed. >>> THE BEAUTY OF NEW EDEN <<<
d026 THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.07.29 14:01:00 - [44] Edited by: d026 on 29/07/2007 14:01:31 Originally by: Verone Edited by: Verone on 29/07/2007 13:58:50 Originally by: Ogul Originally by: Verone Adding instances basically destroys everything CCP has broke their backs trying to achieve over the last four years (read a single shardless environment). Yes, they tried. And they failed. You're still playing aren't you? along with 200,000 other people? Ergo, they haven't failed. sorry mate in regards to fleet warfare they have. if you don't agree you probably should join a bigger blobb once in a while.)
Verone Veto Corp	Posted - 2007.07.29 14:03:00 - [45] Originally by: d026 So ccp either has to completely change game mechanics in favour of small scale assaults (where they seem to fail to)... ...Both would/will change how we play eve today. I've been running small scale assaults for four years (read <50 people in gang). I've never had issues. I've also been in some of the largest showings of capital fleets in game over the last couple of years, and been involved in a 8,000 man fight for an outpost over the space of two weeks. Instancing the game would change a lot of people's attitudes toward playing it, and would drive a lot of people away. Coupled with that, it would destroy the level of interaction that makes Eve the game it is. Again... Nope, bad idea. >>> THE BEAUTY OF NEW EDEN <<<
Z3r0n THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.07.29 14:05:00 - [46] While I agree with Verone that it would be a huge loss to EVE and every player if the world were instanced, I also have to see the harsh facts that EVE has become worse and worse lag wise in the last years and now its reached a level that is inacceptable to me. I don't like the idea of instancing but I'm also not having any fun when I try and play the game as advertised on the box, homepage and in ads. "Huge fleet battles" my ass. And no, you can't have my stuff. I'm not saying I wanna quit I just want to urge CCP to seriously concider the possibility that they are not capable (due to technical limitations) to supply the service as initially planned. Anything's better then these constant lag, desync and node-issues.
d026 THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.07.29 14:07:00 - [47] Edited by: d026 on 29/07/2007 14:08:16 Originally by: Verone Originally by: d026 So ccp either has to completely change game mechanics in favour of small scale assaults (where they seem to fail to)... ...Both would/will change how we play eve today. I've been running small scale assaults for four years (read <50 people in gang). I've never had issues. I've also been in some of the largest showings of capital fleets in game over the last couple of years, and been involved in a 8,000 man fight for an outpost over the space of two weeks. Instancing the game would change a lot of people's attitudes toward playing it, and would drive a lot of people away. Coupled with that, it would destroy the level of interaction that makes Eve the game it is. Again... Nope, bad idea. mate thats not what i meant. you dont take over a system with a 20-50 man gang these days. i also never have issues with a 20-50 man gang. but if you are going to take over a outpost you NEED numbers. so if ccp wont grant us epic 10000man fleets they have to give us REAL tools to be effective at disabling pos's with only 20 ships and at the same time deffend us from the 400 man blobb from the enemy trying to deffend theyre home space... and im not talking about crap like disabling station services...
Verone Veto Corp	Posted - 2007.07.29 14:10:00 - [48] Originally by: d026 Originally by: Verone Originally by: d026 So ccp either has to completely change game mechanics in favour of small scale assaults (where they seem to fail to)... ...Both would/will change how we play eve today. I've been running small scale assaults for four years (read <50 people in gang). I've never had issues. I've also been in some of the largest showings of capital fleets in game over the last couple of years, and been involved in a 8,000 man fight for an outpost over the space of two weeks. Instancing the game would change a lot of people's attitudes toward playing it, and would drive a lot of people away. Coupled with that, it would destroy the level of interaction that makes Eve the game it is. Again... Nope, bad idea. mate thats not what i meant. you dont take over a system with a 20-50 man gang these days. i also never have issues with a 20-50 man gang. but if you are going to take over a outpost you NEED numbers. so if wont grant us epic 10000man fleets they have to give us REAL tools to be effective at disabling pos's with only 20 ships and at the same time deffend us from the 400 man blobb from the enemy trying to deffend theyre home space... and im not talking about crap like disabling station services... I've bolded the part of my post you quoted and seemed to have totally missed. Motherships, titans, carrier blobs, fighter jockeying in a rifter, fleet fights in an abbaddon, shooting towers, shooting outposts. Done it. With 400 people on grid. Lag has never bothered me, I've been involved in a node death before, several times in fact. It happens. The issues are there, my point is that instancing isn't the way to solve them and will only drive people away from the game. >>> THE BEAUTY OF NEW EDEN <<<
d026 THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.07.29 14:11:00 - [49] Originally by: Verone Coupled with that, it would destroy the level of interaction that makes Eve the game it is. Please accept the fact that right now there is often NO INTERACTION at all due to server side limitations..
Asestorian Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2007.07.29 14:12:00 - [50] Edited by: Asestorian on 29/07/2007 14:12:51 I would quit EVE instantly if they put in instances, and I would never come back, because I would no longer trust CCP to make good decisions even if they removed the instances again. My answer to this is the answer I give to people wanting to change game mechanics to stop ISK sellers. Stop screwing over the idea and basis of the game just because of a certain problem. I agree with Verone here, wait till CCP have released their brand spanking new engine before you complain more about lag. Changing a fundamental part of the game is not a solution to lag. I don't have a solution myself, because I'm not the most technically competent person around (and you really need to be in order to make decisions about this stuff). Edit: Also there is a massive amount of interaction in the game. The only problem comes with the superblob. That is one part of the game. I don't want to have the rest of it screwed over because of that. --- ---

d026 THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.07.29 14:12:00 - [51] Originally by: Verone Originally by: d026 Originally by: Verone Originally by: d026 So ccp either has to completely change game mechanics in favour of small scale assaults (where they seem to fail to)... ...Both would/will change how we play eve today. I've been running small scale assaults for four years (read <50 people in gang). I've never had issues. I've also been in some of the largest showings of capital fleets in game over the last couple of years, and been involved in a 8,000 man fight for an outpost over the space of two weeks. Instancing the game would change a lot of people's attitudes toward playing it, and would drive a lot of people away. Coupled with that, it would destroy the level of interaction that makes Eve the game it is. Again... Nope, bad idea. mate thats not what i meant. you dont take over a system with a 20-50 man gang these days. i also never have issues with a 20-50 man gang. but if you are going to take over a outpost you NEED numbers. so if wont grant us epic 10000man fleets they have to give us REAL tools to be effective at disabling pos's with only 20 ships and at the same time deffend us from the 400 man blobb from the enemy trying to deffend theyre home space... and im not talking about crap like disabling station services... I've bolded the part of my post you quoted and seemed to have totally missed. Motherships, titans, carrier blobs, fighter jockeying in a rifter, fleet fights in an abbaddon, shooting towers, shooting outposts. Done it. With 400 people on grid. Lag has never bothered me, I've been involved in a node death before, several times in fact. It happens. The issues are there, my point is that instancing isn't the way to solve them and will only drive people away from the game. ok mate, lets work on a solution other than ionstancing then. im open to suggestions:)
Verone Veto Corp	Posted - 2007.07.29 14:14:00 - [52] Originally by: d026 Please accept the fact that right now there is often NO INTERACTION at all due to server side limitations.. You're wrong, there's still interaction, or 0.0 space wouldn't be changing hands on a daily basis. Titans wouldn't be dying if there was no interaction, motherships too. Fleets wouldn't be assembling and fighting, Eggs wouldn't be dropping for outposts, people wouldn't be claming sovreignty. Eve is alive and kicking. Instancing would flatten years of work. >>> THE BEAUTY OF NEW EDEN <<<
d026 THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.07.29 14:17:00 - [53] Originally by: Asestorian I would quit EVE instantly if they put in instances, and I would never come back, because I would no longer trust CCP to make good decisions even if they removed the instances again. My answer to this is the answer I give to people wanting to change game mechanics to stop ISK sellers. Stop screwing over the idea and basis of the game just because of a certain problem. I agree with Verone here, wait till CCP have released their brand spanking new engine before you complain more about lag. Changing a fundamental part of the game is not a solution to lag. I don't have a solution myself, because I'm not the most technically competent person around (and you really need to be in order to make decisions about this stuff). sorry mate i wont accept that i just spent 8 hours drawing a plot, scouting 100 systems, using 100 cynofields to jump our carriers/dreads 50lightyears up in hostile space, holding on every gate for 5 minutes to let stragglers keep up, just to desync/crash/notabletologginagain at the destination gate!
madaluap Gallente Mercenary Forces Exquisite Malevolence	Posted - 2007.07.29 14:18:00 - [54] Edited by: madaluap on 29/07/2007 14:19:31 I can remember a couple weeks ago when, with a total of 80-100 people max in local, we and the enemy totally desynched on jump in. I mwded 200 km (in a bs), while cap was still recharging and mwd not taking cap. I could still fire, but i could not stop my ship. We jumped in on 20-30 people with 20-30 people. I relogged 3 times, before i could participate again. Its just that these are major fights for me and it just sucks when you pay for a game and you cannot even explore into fights bigger than 40-50 people activly fighting @ the same time. It just...sucks. _________________________________________________ Breetime A killmail!11!1 omgrawr: BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Miki Fin Gallente Independant Union of Rangers	Posted - 2007.07.29 14:20:00 - [55] Originally by: d026 Originally by: Asestorian I would quit EVE instantly if they put in instances, and I would never come back, because I would no longer trust CCP to make good decisions even if they removed the instances again. My answer to this is the answer I give to people wanting to change game mechanics to stop ISK sellers. Stop screwing over the idea and basis of the game just because of a certain problem. I agree with Verone here, wait till CCP have released their brand spanking new engine before you complain more about lag. Changing a fundamental part of the game is not a solution to lag. I don't have a solution myself, because I'm not the most technically competent person around (and you really need to be in order to make decisions about this stuff). sorry mate i wont accept that i just spent 8 hours drawing a plot, scouting 100 systems, using 100 cynofields to jump our carriers/dreads 50lightyears up in hostile space, holding on every gate for 5 minutes to let stragglers keep up, just to desync/crash/notabletologginagain at the destination gate! If eve is really that bad, why play?
Asestorian Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2007.07.29 14:21:00 - [56] Look, I know lag sucks. It sucks massively. But we can't compromise the game and the potential fun it can bring because of it. --- ---
Verone Veto Corp	Posted - 2007.07.29 14:24:00 - [57] Originally by: d026 ok mate, lets work on a solution other than ionstancing then. im open to suggestions:) The scrapping of the need to drop a blob of towers for sovreignty, and the slimming down on a large scale of pos warfare and the ping pong effect with sovreignty. A cut down on the fuelling requirements of towers without the need to have Sovreignty level 2.713-4/A Section 12. Removal of the five day wait for sovreignty, which reduces the need for a large operation to stay static for so long. Creating multiple objectives in different areas of a constellation needed simoultaneously to get sovreignty to break up a fleet into smaller more manageable groups. The scrapping of the immense load that's created by a fleet fight by optimising code and cutting down on packet transfer between the client and server if possible. Streamlining of the interface and coding that is used to control fighter drones, they cause massive lag. Fixes to the overview and gang windows to make them at least semi-reliable. More importantly. The ability to DESTROY an outpost. Too many of them are springing up, 0.0 is turning into empire space too fast for the playerbase to control it effectively. I can think of lots more ways to change Eve, without resorting to cheap ideas that put it in the category of any other off the shelf MMOG. Of course, I'm not a Developer, so whether these ideas are feasable are an entirely different matter. >>> THE BEAUTY OF NEW EDEN <<<
madaluap Gallente Mercenary Forces Exquisite Malevolence	Posted - 2007.07.29 14:24:00 - [58] Originally by: Miki Fin Originally by: d026 Originally by: Asestorian I would quit EVE instantly if they put in instances, and I would never come back, because I would no longer trust CCP to make good decisions even if they removed the instances again. My answer to this is the answer I give to people wanting to change game mechanics to stop ISK sellers. Stop screwing over the idea and basis of the game just because of a certain problem. I agree with Verone here, wait till CCP have released their brand spanking new engine before you complain more about lag. Changing a fundamental part of the game is not a solution to lag. I don't have a solution myself, because I'm not the most technically competent person around (and you really need to be in order to make decisions about this stuff). sorry mate i wont accept that i just spent 8 hours drawing a plot, scouting 100 systems, using 100 cynofields to jump our carriers/dreads 50lightyears up in hostile space, holding on every gate for 5 minutes to let stragglers keep up, just to desync/crash/notabletologginagain at the destination gate! If eve is really that bad, why play? Because CCP tends to make mistakes(just like everyone does). By showing the problems that CCP may or may not have thought of you are making the game better. Remember a lot of people just quit, a small percentage whines about it on the forums and stuff changes for the better..or worse . _________________________________________________ Breetime A killmail!11!1 omgrawr: BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
d026 THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.07.29 14:31:00 - [59] Originally by: Asestorian Look, I know lag sucks. It sucks massively. But we can't compromise the game and the potential fun it can bring because of it. sorry you are narrow-minded period!
d026 THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.07.29 14:38:00 - [60] Edited by: d026 on 29/07/2007 14:39:10 Originally by: Verone Originally by: d026 ok mate, lets work on a solution other than ionstancing then. im open to suggestions:) The scrapping of the need to drop a blob of towers for sovreignty, and the slimming down on a large scale of pos warfare and the ping pong effect with sovreignty. A cut down on the fuelling requirements of towers without the need to have Sovreignty level 2.713-4/A Section 12. Removal of the five day wait for sovreignty, which reduces the need for a large operation to stay static for so long. Creating multiple objectives in different areas of a constellation needed simoultaneously to get sovreignty to break up a fleet into smaller more manageable groups. The scrapping of the immense load that's created by a fleet fight by optimising code and cutting down on packet transfer between the client and server if possible. Streamlining of the interface and coding that is used to control fighter drones, they cause massive lag. Fixes to the overview and gang windows to make them at least semi-reliable. More importantly. The ability to DESTROY an outpost. Too many of them are springing up, 0.0 is turning into empire space too fast for the playerbase to control it effectively. I can think of lots more ways to change Eve, without resorting to cheap ideas that put it in the category of any other off the shelf MMOG. Of course, I'm not a Developer, so whether these ideas are feasable are an entirely different matter. thats all dandy and fancy etc.. but imho doesnt solve the blobbing issue. if we like to keep eve as it is we have to reduce gang size to max 50 people. and something like a stacking penalty for each target lock on a single ship. also other game mechanic changes to make it not favourable to blobb. i mean if i want to take down (or destroy) this outpost, why should i fields 50 people instead of 500?



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: 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.