Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jaded Pestilence
Angels Of Death EVE Mayhem.
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.23 18:52:00 -
[91] - Quote
You have my vote, but i would like to know how you would improve capital warfare. For example when you cyno in massive fleets everyone bumps off and flys everywhere if jumping to the same cyno. |
Koemghen
ICE is Coming to EVE Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.24 17:08:00 -
[92] - Quote
You can count on my vote dude!
Definitely the best candidate and the most helpful person I know in EvE universe.
Oh and he's also belgian, what indicates that he has Beer Appreciation skill lvl V |
Deka Daence
Nihilistic Techologies
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.25 12:52:00 -
[93] - Quote
you can count on me and mine for votes!
what is your stance on introducing additional alliance-level income source? as it stands right now, highend moon minerals are the only commodity in the game qualified for that criteria. more resource to fight over means more fight, and that's generally good for business. |
Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial Rooks and Kings
996
|
Posted - 2012.02.25 16:43:00 -
[94] - Quote
Kirrella wrote:Meissa Anunthiel wrote:As far as R64 moons are concerned, I strongly favour a rebalancing of "alliance earning" mechanics. As it is, alliance income comes from such resources as R64s, while personal income derives from activities such as ratting, plexing and, for the 3 people who do it, PI. I have been working with CCP to try and make alliance income more aligned with personal income. At the same time, R64 serve currently as focus points where conflict happens (and that's much needed, PvP is the fuel needed for industry to be meaningful, it's also very fun). So, these are the paths I would pursue rather than placing hard limits on number of R64s held by a single entity. Agreed, if you reduce the value, then no one cares about the moons anymore and a decision point is eliminated. Do you have a specific proposal for how to deal with this problem?
Oh, I do believe the value should end up being reduced, the question is how much, and how. There are several alternatives to that problem. Bring in those T2 moon mining mods, add more alchemy options, tweak the T2 blueprints (not a big fan of this option), add more sources of minerals (comets were once mentionned) or totally revamp the moon mining mechanics.
One of the ways I would prefer would be to make moons function a bit like PI without the clicking every single minute. Members install extractors on moons, moons get mined, corp can set a tax whereby anything members collect something, the corp takes a part of (or all of it if they so choose). This idea has several drawbacks, but the major advantage is that member revenue leads to corp revenue, and it's easier to tweak than the binary way in which moonmining currently happens.
Plex4Free wrote:What do you think of the recent changes to Super capitals and what other changes would you like to see done in the future?
Super capitals have been nerfed somewhat reasonably. I would have preferred a change of role rather than a change of stats, but their efficiency has been a bit decreased. This combined with the logoffski fixes I had been requesting combine into a situation where supers die. Yet they don't die enough. It takes a bit of time to see the impact of changes that have been made so at this stage I wouldn't change the supers for a bit.
A change that I would like to see as far as capitals are concerned is a titan tracking nerf, and I'm still waiting to get the full picture on dreadnought usage after the changes, this may require more adjustent as well. Member of CSM 2, 3, 4 and 5. Vice-Chairman of CSM 6 |
Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial Rooks and Kings
996
|
Posted - 2012.02.25 17:05:00 -
[95] - Quote
Courthouse wrote:It's probably time for you to take a break from the whole CSM thing. Your 3+ years in the counsel really didn't accomplish anything of note and your entire platform has been "I've been here forever, vote for me (again)".
I say you haven't accomplished much of note because from CSM 2 through 5, about the only thing of note that got accomplished was skill queues. You completely screwed up jump bridges by advocating for something you had no knowledge or experience with. Luckily for nullsec alliances CCP added their own flavor of stupid and mistakenly sort of made them easier to manage.
In CSM 6 you spent your time berating all of the candidates except for Mittani, because you knew you didn't have the political tact to make an opponent of him and acted like a French jackass otherwise. Most of the major accomplishments would have occurred without your voice, certainly without your input since none of the ideas were specifically yours and I honestly can't find a reason that people should continue to vote for a lame duck incumbent when there are exciting prospects like Hans who can bring some fresh perspective to the table.
I never claim credit for individual features by the way, so while I did emphasize the need for a skill queue and many other things, the accomplishments I could boast of are more of the nature "make CCP create team BFF", "emphasize the need for UI revamps", "get CCP to assign someone to permanent rebalancing", etc.
Ideas are dime a dozen, and most of the good ones can be found here on the forums, or by talking to people, which I do. If you think the purpose of a CSM member is to come up with ideas nobody else thought of before, you are very mistaken. The purpose of a CSM member is to know these ideas that exist, how they would integrate with the game, see their impact on different areas of the game, make the differecnce between the good ones and bad ones, being able to adequately portray their importance to CCP and be able to engage in dialog about those ideas (this last part is mostly because the ideas found here and elsewhere can rarely be implemented as such but require adjustments). The CSM is not a think tank, it's a channel and feedback group.
You say the major accomplishments (which you claimed didn't exist the paragraph above) would have happened without my voice. That may or may not be true, I can't glimpse into parallel universes and see (you'll have to tell me how you do it). One thing is certain however, you have no idea how the defense/promotion of ideas went or goes, and you'll find in this thread and elsewhere a number of former or current CSM members with whom I worked who will say otherwise, and this whether they were "aligned" with me or not.
I don't say "vote for me" because I've been around forever, and I certainly don't like to bask in the glory, I say vote for me because I know to be a better candidate that most others, and demonstrably so. Every term I see that 3 to 5 of the elected members don't show up, don't work, don't talk during meetings, neglect parts of the eve population or don't know what they are talking about. Things have been getting better every year, to an extent, but it's still nowhere near it should be. This is why you should vote for me. Member of CSM 2, 3, 4 and 5. Vice-Chairman of CSM 6 |
Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial Rooks and Kings
996
|
Posted - 2012.02.25 17:34:00 -
[96] - Quote
Esrevid Nekkeg wrote:Meissa Anunthiel wrote:N'h+¬sitez pas +á me contacter pour plus d'information. Contactame para obtener m+ís informaci+¦n. Bitte kontaktieren Sie mich f++r weitere Informationen. Dan ben je Belg en dan niet eens in het Vlaams? Zei de suffe Hollander.... But anyway, yes, you have my vote. You are one of the very few people that have voiced intelligent (and well written) view points on a very broad spectrum of this game. At least with you on the CSM it will not only be about 'Me, myself and I', about glorified self interest. It will be about the game as a whole. Good luck.
Ik bekrijp Nederlands, maar ik kan niet goed spreken. Het zou belledigend zijn om iets anders te impliceren. Dat is de reden dat ik heb het niet gezeged. ;-)
And thank you, much appreciated.
Xali Ying wrote:The current system of POS research labs managemnet is flawed.
You ether have full access or you don't, the pos' have a public option but it doesn't work. How would you improve the R&D at pos' if you were eleted to CSM 7.
I was actually talking about this very topic with a developper last week. We were exchanging notes on invention and manufacture tools and I was mentioning to him this proposal I had made to fix part of the lab/manufacture tools at a POS (darn bbcode won't parse, it's here: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Manufacturing_and_Invention_at_POSes_(CSM) ). The jist of it is first to implement resource pooling so one doesn't have to do micromanagement of multiple labs/Equipment assembly arrays (and other AAs) which can grow very very tedious when you are semi-serious with industry, and makes you scream at the skies and want to kick someone hard if you're serious about it.
The public option and renting don't work, when we were discussing this in CSM 3 it became painfully obvious that for this to work it would take some major code refactoring with POSes, and that's not something devs look forward to (it's very tricky and time consuming). So the way I'd deal with it is by not dealing with it. Now that resources exist again, CSM 6 has been pushing for "new and improved" POSes (the dead horse proposals) and I'd push for those modular POSes instead, the kind that takes the needs we have always expressed into consideration. This, I believe, would be a better way to spend resources than adding public/renting options.
Jaded Pestilence wrote:You have my vote, but i would like to know how you would improve capital warfare. For example when you cyno in massive fleets everyone bumps off and flys everywhere if jumping to the same cyno. In order to change the bumping, people would have to cyno in at larger distances from the cyno. At least capitals. incresaing the jump in radius for caps by 50% (to 6 instead of 4km) would increase the "no-bumpage" cyno capacity by 1.5-¦ = 3.375. Which would be a good step. Increasing the distance more than that would start creating issues as far as distance between ships is concerned (some ships fit cap modules than are unbonused as far as distance factor is concerned, and could easily find themselves unable to effect adequately their peers). Other than that maybe multiple cynos are not a bad fact of life, they create redundancy and eliminate the single point of failure.
As far as improvements are concerned, the first thing would be a limitation of titan damaging capabilities on non-capital ships (how is the tricky bit, and I'm not sure which of the available options is the best). After that I'd steer clear from supercapitals with combat capabilities. To be honest, I'm still watching the impact of the changes to dreads and supercarriers, and when it comes to rebalancing/additions/improvements, I think it's more time to look at the other end of the spectrum first (AFs have been handled, EAFs & T1 cruisers still need to be looked at). Member of CSM 2, 3, 4 and 5. Vice-Chairman of CSM 6 |
Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial Rooks and Kings
996
|
Posted - 2012.02.25 17:45:00 -
[97] - Quote
Deka Daence wrote:you can count on me and mine for votes!
what is your stance on introducing additional alliance-level income source? as it stands right now, highend moon minerals are the only commodity in the game qualified for that criteria. more resource to fight over means more fight, and that's generally good for business. Additional alliance level sources of income, yes, but I'd rather those be sources that generate revenue for both the base and the alliance itself, unlike previously. So if they were to introduce, say, comets, I'd like the reprocessing of comet-goo to go through an outpost (or POS) based module that allows taxation of that resource by the corporation, to make sure members don't end up fighting wars for goo they know to be important, but doesn't affect them personally.
Koemghen wrote:You can count on my vote dude! Definitely the best candidate and the most helpful person I know in EvE universe. Oh and he's also belgian, what indicates that he has Beer Appreciation skill lvl V
And alcohol resistance IV after downing half a dozen Chimay Bleue like I did yesterday. At least I wasn't hungry after that (those who know the beer will understand) Member of CSM 2, 3, 4 and 5. Vice-Chairman of CSM 6 |
Theyu Civaro
Sanctum Scala Caeli Deus Malus
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.25 22:30:00 -
[98] - Quote
You have all my votes as always. Keep up the good work |
Gomtuu
Fairlight Corp Rooks and Kings
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.26 20:45:00 -
[99] - Quote
I like |
Isa Rin
Nihilistic Techologies
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.27 21:26:00 -
[100] - Quote
What is your personal stance regarding the massive amount of ISK readily available in EVE? I am not talking about additional means of making money, but the huge possible income being generated in certain environments. |
|
Yugo Reventlov
STA'IN The Devil's Warrior Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2012.02.27 23:18:00 -
[101] - Quote
Meissa Anunthiel wrote:And alcohol resistance IV after downing half a dozen Chimay Bleue like I did yesterday. At least I wasn't hungry after that (those who know the beer will understand)
Excellent choice :) |
Jozzie
Fairlight Corp Rooks and Kings
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 12:07:00 -
[102] - Quote
You got my vote. Keep up the good work. o7 |
Raif Severance
Fairlight Corp Rooks and Kings
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.29 16:46:00 -
[103] - Quote
You got my vote m8! |
Mesh Marillion
Fairlight Corp Rooks and Kings
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 01:22:00 -
[104] - Quote
Its rare to meet people like Meissa that are not only very competent but also very friendly. I hope you get the chance to have another successful period in the CSM. |
Jonathan Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd Ferguson Alliance
30
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 03:29:00 -
[105] - Quote
Meissa Anunthiel wrote:8. I agree it's an issue, the way I proposed it be changed is to make the clone cost be a rent instead of a buy, the base price of which is the current value of a clone divided by its average "life expectancy". So it wouldn't be a cost on podding, yet the cost should still increase over time as you get more skills.
Meissa comes off as very sensible when he's campaigning but then comes off as arrogant and aloof once he gets elected.
Anyway, clones should be insurable. That would solve the problem so that vets who PVP regularly will have a cheaper option while more risk averse vets who hardly ever PVP will still pay a significant cost for their hundreds of millions of sp. |
Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial Rooks and Kings
1052
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 12:03:00 -
[106] - Quote
Jonathan Ferguson wrote:Meissa Anunthiel wrote:8. I agree it's an issue, the way I proposed it be changed is to make the clone cost be a rent instead of a buy, the base price of which is the current value of a clone divided by its average "life expectancy". So it wouldn't be a cost on podding, yet the cost should still increase over time as you get more skills. Meissa comes off as very sensible when he's campaigning but then comes off as arrogant and aloof once he gets elected. Anyway, clones should be insurable. That would solve the problem so that vets who PVP regularly will have a cheaper option while more risk averse vets who hardly ever PVP will still pay a significant cost for their hundreds of millions of sp.
I beg to differ on the arrogance. I'm elected to defend and promote ideas and objectives, and that's what I do. I will defend any idea I hold true tooth and nails, but will also never shy away from admitting I am wrong when I am, or admit I don't know when I don't. Neither do I disparage opposing ideas as invalid/stupid because I happen to disagree with them, but will instead explain why I disagree. That can be perceived as arrogance, but it's not, it's me doing what I'm elected to do.
Either way, onto your question/comment. Clones are currently one of the big money sinks in Eve, makin things cheaper than they are now would be detrimental, yet preventing vets from flying small ships is detrimental too. insuring clones would decrease the sink, which is not really a good thing. Member of CSM 2, 3, 4 and 5. Vice-Chairman of CSM 6 |
Morium Blue
Fairlight Corp Rooks and Kings
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 15:21:00 -
[107] - Quote
Lost In Eve podcast |
Franklin D Roosevelt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
80
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 20:29:00 -
[108] - Quote
I can't vote for men that play female eve dudes sorry :( |
frk Kaat
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 02:00:00 -
[109] - Quote
+1 from me!
Doing a great job, m8! Keep it up. |
Bemir
The Tuskers
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 17:26:00 -
[110] - Quote
some people argue that GCC is too long and as such is a deterrant to casual PvP whats your opinon on this? |
|
Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
832
|
Posted - 2012.03.03 22:37:00 -
[111] - Quote
Support, for a better Eve for everyone. |
Batharis
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.04 21:11:00 -
[112] - Quote
good stuff |
Tehg Rhind
Atlantic Innovations
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.04 21:40:00 -
[113] - Quote
Meissa, I heard your debate/interview on LIE today. First off I just wanted to share my sympathy with you having to debate Riverini. No one should have to be exposed to that.
But aside from that, I wanted to make a comment about two things you said.
1) Increasing the number of copy slots in high sec to improve access to invention BPCs. There are three major problems with this. The first is that there are already relatively simple routes to get BPCs for invention even without a POS. You could buy them from a POS owner that grinds out BPCs on the side, or you could use the 15-18 day wait stations that exist in highsec and create copies with your alts (will make ~300 copies a month per character.)
The second issue is that you are equating station copy slots with POS copy slots, saying that they should be equally accessible. However you are ignoring the fact that POS copy slots require a significant monthly fuel cost to maintain. By putting station copy slots on an equivalent footing (in terms of speed) with POS slots you are invalidating POS copy slots as a profitable avenue, since they will be competing wth an alternative that has zero maintenance.
This is particularly problematic when you look at copying of higher value non-invention BPOs like Maelstroms or Capital Components etc etc. By opening up a higher volume of BPC flow from stations you will absolutely hammer the profitability of copying these in POS's, to the point that there will be no justifiable reason to do so from within POS's.
Basically the advantages you get from copying in POS's is offset by the increased maintenance cost of fueling the POS.
The third issue, and arguably the most problematic, is that while this would increase the flow of BPCs for invention you would still have a supply chokepoint in datacores. This change would skyrocket the price of datacores as more demand for them built up due to the excess supply of BPCs. Now, as someone who generates quite a lot of datdacores this would be pretty cool, but as an inventor I think that this would ultimately increase the costs of invented items substantially (as the BPC cost is relatively negligible in module items.)
2) I have always had concerns about any talk about increasing industry in Null Sec by making it inherently more profitable (say through improved invention chances.) I do believe it should be more accessible (more slots more slots more slots!), but doing things that create an inherent price advantage of operating in null sec will only serve to create Null Sec manufacturing cartels that will severely crush high sec manufacturing.
This is because there is negligible risk involved in manufacturing or inventing in null sec. You have jump freighters that will quickly and safely deliver the materials/products between the high/nullsec. The price of fuel will be negligible when compared to the price of items transfered (how many billions in modules or T2 BPCs can you deliver in a jump freighter.)
Basically there is no real barrier between the null sec manufacturing centers and the high sec markets beyond membership in the Alliances that have stations. So if there is a material bonus given to one set of manufacturers they will be able to price all of the other manufacturers out of the market completely. It's like Production Efficiency 5, you simply don't manufacture without it. This would set the stage for the major Null Sec alliances to completely dominate the high sec industrialists.
That said, on the latter, I do agree that Null Sec needs it's unique "bonus". I would argue that the two best things to do to sort this would be to remove Ice from High Sec and only allow it to be supplied from low/null sec (while adjusting POS and Capital fuel requirements to avoid a massive fuel spikes), and also to remove high end minerals (mega/zydrine) from drone goo entirely. This would make mining a viable option for null sec alliances in terms of profitability, and would allow the local production of ship hulls (one of the most difficult things to handle in Null Sec due to the volume).
Anyways, I enjoyed your interview. |
WilliamMays
Stuffs Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.05 07:49:00 -
[114] - Quote
I like the way you think through a subject, and present your opinion in a reasonable way. I was going to ask questions about one particular area, but reading through the thread gave me some other questions and suggestions
On destructable outposts, I agree with you that asset security is very important in EVE. At the same time, there should be greater signifigance to having someone pop holes in your 25 billion isk home. Would adding PI components and minerals to the repair process (similar to when building the station) be too extreme? Perhaps increasing materials, and restricting some percentage of assets with each level of reinforcment. I think this would result in people actually considering mounting a defense to the initial attack.
What are your thoughts on the current situation with isk faucets and sinks? Should we have more isk creation, or should CCP start adding more PVE activities that provide other forms of income, such as items/LP/materials to sell?
What direction do you forsee for 0.0 industry, mining in particular? Should minerals from hidden belts be adjusted? Should ice be moved from the current static belts? -where to? Should mining be the only source for actual minerals? -what would you suggest other current sources change to in place of their current drops? Are cloakers cutting down on mining (and other playstyles) to much? -what other forms of griefing could be better in place of cloaking? What would make people want to put effort into doing what is required to mine in null sec? |
Grey Stormshadow
draketrain Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1027
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 00:29:00 -
[115] - Quote
+1 bump
Get |
Aura Naoko
Battered Gentlemen and Extreme Decadence Rooks and Kings
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 02:36:00 -
[116] - Quote
+1 for Meissa |
Laura Marhsal
Pure Steel Inc.
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 14:03:00 -
[117] - Quote
Just voted on your with all my accounts in the hopes that u will fix the paper cuts of being an indy |
Tanya Powers
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
836
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 14:27:00 -
[118] - Quote
+2 votes 4U
I must say that a lot of stuff as been done lately, I only hope you will not show the same arrogance level Mittani did witch is the only point that made my decision turn in your favour.
Also: Hybrids rebalance -finished and properly done some day? |
Colonel Astor
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2012.03.07 16:41:00 -
[119] - Quote
A lot are around in election time but Meissa is someone I could convo any time during the year and got an answer/response from. |
Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial Rooks and Kings
1173
|
Posted - 2012.03.08 07:17:00 -
[120] - Quote
Tehg Rhind wrote:Meissa, I heard your debate/interview on LIE today. First off I just wanted to share my sympathy with you having to debate Riverini. No one should have to be exposed to that.
But aside from that, I wanted to make a comment about two things you said.
1) Increasing the number of copy slots in high sec to improve access to invention BPCs. There are three major problems with this. The first is that there are already relatively simple routes to get BPCs for invention even without a POS. You could buy them from a POS owner that grinds out BPCs on the side, or you could use the 15-18 day wait stations that exist in highsec and create copies with your alts (will make ~300 copies a month per character.)
The second issue is that you are equating station copy slots with POS copy slots, saying that they should be equally accessible. However you are ignoring the fact that POS copy slots require a significant monthly fuel cost to maintain. By putting station copy slots on an equivalent footing (in terms of speed) with POS slots you are invalidating POS copy slots as a profitable avenue, since they will be competing wth an alternative that has zero maintenance.
This is particularly problematic when you look at copying of higher value non-invention BPOs like Maelstroms or Capital Components etc etc. By opening up a higher volume of BPC flow from stations you will absolutely hammer the profitability of copying these in POS's, to the point that there will be no justifiable reason to do so from within POS's.
Basically the advantages you get from copying in POS's is offset by the increased maintenance cost of fueling the POS.
The third issue, and arguably the most problematic, is that while this would increase the flow of BPCs for invention you would still have a supply chokepoint in datacores. This change would skyrocket the price of datacores as more demand for them built up due to the excess supply of BPCs. Now, as someone who generates quite a lot of datdacores this would be pretty cool, but as an inventor I think that this would ultimately increase the costs of invented items substantially (as the BPC cost is relatively negligible in module items.)
2) I have always had concerns about any talk about increasing industry in Null Sec by making it inherently more profitable (say through improved invention chances.) I do believe it should be more accessible (more slots more slots more slots!), but doing things that create an inherent price advantage of operating in null sec will only serve to create Null Sec manufacturing cartels that will severely crush high sec manufacturing.
This is because there is negligible risk involved in manufacturing or inventing in null sec. You have jump freighters that will quickly and safely deliver the materials/products between the high/nullsec. The price of fuel will be negligible when compared to the price of items transfered (how many billions in modules or T2 BPCs can you deliver in a jump freighter.)
Basically there is no real barrier between the null sec manufacturing centers and the high sec markets beyond membership in the Alliances that have stations. So if there is a material bonus given to one set of manufacturers they will be able to price all of the other manufacturers out of the market completely. It's like Production Efficiency 5, you simply don't manufacture without it. This would set the stage for the major Null Sec alliances to completely dominate the high sec industrialists.
That said, on the latter, I do agree that Null Sec needs it's unique "bonus". I would argue that the two best things to do to sort this would be to remove Ice from High Sec and only allow it to be supplied from low/null sec (while adjusting POS and Capital fuel requirements to avoid a massive fuel spikes), and also to remove high end minerals (mega/zydrine) from drone goo entirely. This would make mining a viable option for null sec alliances in terms of profitability, and would allow the local production of ship hulls (one of the most difficult things to handle in Null Sec due to the volume).
Anyways, I enjoyed your interview.
I agree there is a simple way to get BPCs, the way I do it is anchor a highsec POS, stick 10 labs in it and churn out copies like there's no tomorrow, the standings requirement make this difficult for many corporations however.
I agree that POS slots and outpost slots should not be treated equally. However POS slots also have a time bonus, which changes things, and 0.0 outpost represent (well, should have represented) a significant investment. I don't want outposts to produce BPCs as fast as POSes, my concern there starts with number of slots.
I am also aware of the issue of datacore cost and their relative valuation in the price of T2 items, which is why I'd like 2 changes with them. A decreased volume and a gradual increase in amount that drop from radar sites.
I understand and agree with your concerns about 0.0 manufacturing cartels crushing highsec, which is why I'm not really in favour of solutions that include greter invention chances or better ME. better production time (both manufacturing and BPC) and more slots should already provide a buff. The idea is not to make highsec unprofitable for invention, but to give people who take the risk of moving to 0.0 an extra advantage.
Also, while hauling has been made relatively easy/safe with jump freighters, having production in 0.0 would help create local markets that wouldn't require the need to haul everything back & forth to Jita all the time, to an extent.
Either way, I agree with the things you said, and thanks for listening Member of CSM 2, 3, 4 and 5. Vice-Chairman of CSM 6 |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |