Welcome to Jester's Trek.
I'm your host, Jester. I've been an EVE Online player for about six years. One of my four mains is Ripard Teg, pictured at left. Sadly, I've succumbed to "bittervet" disease, but I'm wandering the New Eden landscape (and from time to time, the MMO landscape) in search of a cure.
You can follow along, if you want...

Saturday, January 18, 2014

Blue is the warmest color

Second bookmark I want to put on today, 18 January 2014, centers on this agreement.

In the CSM Minutes, you'll find the CSM being initially informed of CCP's intent to put players in control of high-sec POCOs. I immediately raised the concern that the biggest entities in the game would take over all the POCOs worth anything and then would hide behind the inability of anyone else to war-dec them effectively (it's on pages 41 and 42):
Soniclover pointed out that there are a lot of planets in highsec, though Ripard Teg countered that there are far fewer in range of Jita. Soniclover stated that those would be hotly contested.
The Minutes don't show what the video conference recording shows: me shutting up and shaking my head. ;-) CCP SoniClover, how did that whole "POCOs around Jita will be hotly contested" thing end up working out?

In the last couple of years, the concept of a "conflict driver" in EVE has come to have less and less meaning as out-of-game treaties and agreements have come to govern the control of the money-making constructs in EVE. Moons and home region sites, incursions and now POCOs, are managed by gentleman's agreements and handshake discussions and outright treaties that basically come down to "these two are yours, these three are mine, and let's agree not to mess with each other's money-makers." Non-invasion pacts and blue lists have become the norm, as player social agreements have grown from corps to alliances to coalitions to now... whatever this B0TLRD treaty is. We're gonna need a new word.

Reading it, I was unmistakably reminded of Londo Mollari and Mr. Morden dividing up the galaxy between the two of them on Babylon 5.


The rest of us? Bad at EVE and therefore irrelevant. In any event, the treaty does make it pretty clear that the two of them may need to join forces to wipe out any of the rest of us that seem inclined to get uppity and forget our places. In short, it's an blue agreement for which the word "coalition" isn't blue enough to describe.

But really, all of these agreements come down to one thing: rather than fighting over the sources of ISK in EVE, let's just split them up in some "equitable" way between the "relevant" players in this game and bring in ISK by the tens of trillions until Dr. EyjoG starts to weep!

It's a good enough goal for those lacking a better one, I suppose.

60 comments:

  1. So now we can say that everything in nullsec politic is pointless and move to other nice games (becouse what is left of EvE is PvE and this is terrible) ?
    ---
    eciu

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one cares about null anymore the fights have been shit for years. U go to low sec when u want to have fun no need for a different game nublet

      Delete
  2. Apropos of high sec POCOs... Have you seen that Gevlon Goblin formed an alliance of a few dozen scrubs from the EveO forums and declared war on the Goons high sec poco assets?

    Then RvB declares war on Gevlon's alliance to protect the Goons. So instead of 10,000 to 70 it's now 18,000 to 70.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And thus we can say it's not blue donut. It's blueberry pie.

      Delete
    2. rvb is a goon pet?

      Delete
    3. Ripard is right that we can't do anything about the "18000" part. They will blue.

      However Ripard is very wrong about the "70" part. Instead of whining about POCOs are not contested, jump in and ... contest it.

      OK, highsec is maybe not your playground. However the BoTLORD treaty says "no messing with ESS and renters". How about Rote go and messing with them? No renters, no ISK, no SRP, no 10000 F1 monkeys.

      Don't you find it funny that I dared to challenge GSF and the "real PvP-ers" don't?

      Delete
    4. Gevlon, you made an absolute fool out of yourself with that poco thing. I think many people find it funny but not the way you wish. Goons are trolling you, rvb gets some free pew and marmite is scamming you for isk. Well played indeed.

      Delete
    5. Gevlon has it. The big issues are always going to be determined by gigantic clusterfucks in which humongous forces clash with the unfathomable speed of glaciers.

      However, big issues arise from small ones. Sov is dependent on ISK... which is now dependent on rent. Rent is dependent on small PvE groups. Small PvE groups are easily harassed by small gangs. Large monolithic coalitions CAN deal with small gangs... but it's a lot harder to put out a bunch of tiny brushfires than it is to deal with a single immense threat.

      In short, if you think it's a problem that EVE has too much blue? Fleet up and go hunt some renters.

      Delete
    6. I'm still trying to process the "RvB working for Goons" bit. When did that happen?

      Delete
    7. Gevlon, the simple question is: What for?
      Is it fun to fight 'goons' when they can hide anything behind a wall of alts have nearly unlimited resources and there is nothing really to gain from contesting their stuff?

      It is simply pointless, and it will stay this way until we get the concept of real danger for everyone back into the game. All of eve has become rvb and it will stay this way most likely forever. Cooperative behavior is always the better solution and it seems like eve players realized this on grand scale, while they enjoy their 'non-cooperative' gameplay on
      'small scale' wars. Without the ability to annihilate the enemy completely this will not change ever.

      Delete
    8. We fight because writing "blue is the warmest color" is funny, but breaking it is even funnier. I mean when you go to war 90v19000 and your total war losses are smaller than a SINGLE kill https://zkillboard.com/detail/36077748/ that's a moment that the trailers promised.

      Death to the Blue Bees! Join the revolution!

      Delete
    9. Gelv take your ass back to wow the leet pvpers have no problem pipe bombing goons keep talking from high sec. Weren't u gonna buy a titan? U should be able to pipe bomb stuff yourself by now, oh yeah but u actually would have to defend pocos lol or leave high sec gg

      Delete
    10. Did they mentioned in the trailers as well that you have no power at all? That kill is meaningless. You can not hurt them, they can not hurt you.

      EVE-PVP is as meaningless as WoW-PVP is, just the rewards for doing it are worse. If you enjoy it, good for you, keep doing it, but don´t denial that you can not hurt them and they can not hurt you. Thanks to alts and incredibile income possibilities in eve. Solo players can farm enough isk to buy a titan, and yet losing one is news worthy. Really? You are happy about a 2 billion kill, worth a weekend of moderate farming, really?

      What has become of EVE and the risk and rewards it used to offer to its players?

      Delete
  3. I am truly shocked that what CCP intended to do by messing with hiseccers and what nullseccers actually did with it are not related at all. And it is even more shocking how the consequence has been the exact opposite of what CCP intended.

    How long lasted the experiment? 3 months? That's successful game development for you...

    ReplyDelete
  4. CCP SoniClover has show to be completly incapable of understanding how the player base with act and react to any new mechanics or changes to existing ones.

    Stupid ideas like the ESS don't help with that image either.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Is this as close as you'll get to open rebuke of RvB & Goon's Poco decision? I was hoping you'd find stronger words!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Why fight over who gets to eat what when there's enough to go around?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Define everyone cuz im pretty sure thats what got the Chinese server wiped

      Delete
  7. And so EVE Online, that great social Player vs Player sandbox MMO was seen to change over time to a mega-social Players vs Devs MMO themebox where the players had forced CCP into accepting that when given the power of 'choice', players obviously will 'jump into bed' rather than fight and risk anything...

    This was seen, ultimately, as the reason for the decline and eventual relegation of EVE Online to an obscurity similar to that of Ultima Online...

    Not like we dint see that coming...

    ReplyDelete
  8. I couldn't even read it. Started to, then puked in my mouth, and stopped right after. RL corporations have their legal departments, so I suppose its only natural for in game corps to have one as well...

    What's the solution though?

    I'm sure someone on the forums has thought of it, but my 2 minutes brainstorm solution would be concord bounties on certain things, that pay out a % of the value of the structure in some kind of LP rewards. Possibly allow CEOs to set a corp/alliance LP tax for these LPs. RP/Lore reasoning should be easy to add. Anyway, a short list of possible bounty targets:

    Player owned POCOs, in all areas of space. High sec ones should be removed from behind the wall of wardec fees and simply incur a suspect flag for shooting one. Basically Concord's middle finger for taking their money away.

    Alternatively, wave wardec fees against any corp/alliance that owns a highsec POCO, such a war is deemed invalid after the last POCO falls. I prefer this method myself, and if you take this route, I'd also add concord bounties on the corp/alliance that took advantage of this free wardec.

    All sov structures and sov required structures (jump bridges, cyno jammers, IHUBs, ect).

    Possibly also,

    Any ship/structure owned by
    - an outlaw character
    - member of a sov holding alliance
    - member of a corp/alliance that owns a POS. Don't want to leave out WHers now do we? Could limit it from highsec, but I say screw it, risk/reward. I'd even apply the special wardec mechanic here.

    By doing this, CCP would add a real conflict (and general violence driver) to EVE. It would also provide an avenue for PvPers to actually make money doing the thing they subscribe to EVE to do. Heck, really good ones could possibly make a living off of it.

    The payouts would have to be designed and balanced against lots of things, like insurance payouts for instance, so that the system couldn't be gamed of course. The overall outcome should be that the value destroyed is higher than value gained.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can very easily create this game mechanic yourself by placing a large enough bounty on an alliance of your choice. See if that encourages any infighting.

      Delete
  9. How ironic that in a game world known for its cold, ruthless savagery, the problem CCP now faces is that the population is *not violent enough*. They've provided no end of new "conflict drivers" in one expansion after another, yet the biggest players just keep on making more peace over them. It's almost enough to restore my faith in humanity.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Geez Jester...you sound like me. That will never do. I like the term BOTLRD. Wonder where all that ISK ends up? I am positive that the few that control the purse strings would never, ever consider RMT'ing these ridiculous income streams.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just how much money, in USD, do you think there is involved here? While I'm quite willing to believe that people might rmt income streams, and I'm sure it goes on at a smaller and harder to detect scale, I'm just not sure if the reward is large enough on a per person basis to go with the increased visibility of operating at an alliance level. After all, they very carefully train lawyers to be risk avoiding.

      As pure speculation though, how would one launder that much money? What things that normally happen in Eve, that cause a lot of value to change hands, could you use to move very large amounts (perhaps at a steep loss)?

      And, apropos of nothing, James 315 was once a goon, right?

      Delete
    2. No see CCP is actively conspiring with and/or controlled by these supposed RMT cartels, and so looks the other way for them. The war on bots? That's just CCP eliminating the competition for the cartels.

      These are both things Dinsdale has professed to believe.

      Delete
  11. I have to say, I find it amazing how far people will go to deliberate about things that only matter in a game. How many hours went into thinking about, negotiating, drafting, writing and publishing this agreement?

    One can only wonder what the same minds could achieve if they dedicated themselves to real world events instead.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It probably took less time to hammer out than it did to get the CSM minutes published.

      Heh, I'm not a grammar Nazi by any means, but it sticks out like a sore thumb when a document penned by a lawyer has the word "abilitys" in the first paragraph. LOLawyers in space.

      Delete
    2. Those minds are very dedicated to the very real money income from all those virtual ISK. Maybe you think that players getting a hundred billions a month will just pile it à-la-Scrooge McDuck, when those hundred billions are worth some 2,000 $ in the RMT market.

      Delete
    3. Yes, it is in amazing how many hours went into it, if it was just for pixel money.

      Delete
    4. Mme Thalys, as much as I often agree with you, it has been my experience, IRL and IVL, that those who put this kind of effort into their 'hobby', usually put as much effort, if not more, into their RL jobs, families, etc.

      Once could as easily say, "She writes so well...what if she put all that effort into writing something worthwhile instead of wasting her time writing about just a game?"

      Delete
  12. Your bookmarks look a lot like the starting points for a chronicle of decline.

    I've been playing in fits and starts over the past year. Just a taste now and then. One of the things that has struck me is the posting rate and number of characters posting on the EVE forums. In the old days, most of the subforums had enough activity to push into the second or third page with 24 to 48 hr old threads/responses. Now it often goes to 4 or 5 day old posts on the first page of teh subforums. Even in CAOD! The new player subforum goes to 3 and 4 day old posts on the second page.

    EVE was a great experiment. It turns out, though, that its possible to conquer the sandbox and push all the other kids out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not dying. Or at least it doesn't have to. It just needs some significant changes that require vision and enough resources dedicated to it to achieve that vision. Whether or not CCP is up to the task is the key question. They said they had some really good iteration planned for Dominion. That was 4 years ago. Then they said they had a 5-year roadmap for revamping nullsec. That was 3 years ago (and that plan is long dead).

      I don't agree with Jester's take on CCP Seagull's long-range vision per se, but if it happens in a vacuum then it will be doomed to failure. EVE needs work - and lots of it - but CCP is content these last couple of years to tinker around the edges without addressing the very real problems that are causing the game to stagnate.

      Delete
  13. About POCOs.

    As of last month, RvB owns about 275 pocos with a combined income of 10 billion isk/month. Let's say each gantry costs 60 million isk, that's 15 billion in gantries. Say RvB decided to fight GSF for those POCOs and welp one battleship fleet, that's roughly 30-40 billion isk.

    Let's say the 30 GSF Pocos are also worth 10 billion a month, it would take 3 months of POCO income to recoup the cost of the battleship fleet lost defending it. The return on investment is no very good.

    Rignt now RvB are earning 10B a month, and all of it is profit. Plus they get the benefit of a free wardec against the jita wardec corps. What's not to like from the RvB perspective.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just because the leader of the RvB, (which has become another member of cfc, for all intents and purposes) SAYS it is 10 billion, does not MEAN it is just 10 billion. Seriously, you think any goon, particularly their leaders, even get out of bed for 10 billion / month?

      Delete
    2. Good business is not always good gamesmanship.

      EvE is a GAME not a Business... at least to those of us who are not part of the Big Bluecockring... which it seems is now creeping is insidious slow way into Hisec...

      Delete
    3. I would assume the finance department of the goons cherry picked the POCOs they wanted and RvB got little say in it. if RvB are earning 10B/m the goons are probably earning (and saving from their own manufacturing planets) in the order of 40B-100B

      Delete
    4. The gsf finance department didn't say how much they make, but I find it hard to believe that the 30-40 they own earn more than RvB's 300. They certainly make more counting their poco's in nullsec.

      Also what money would they save from their own manufacturing planets? They have certain nullsec planets set to 0% taxes, so their members don't have to pay concord taxes. It's been this way for a while.

      Delete
  14. Botlord Accords. Heh. Well, I suppose it is good for CFC and PL to come out of closet as being botusers (lords of the bots). Kudos for honesty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In case you are serious, the name is a combination of [B0T] - the ticker of Brothers of Tangra, a PL renter alliance; and [PBLRD] - the ticker of Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere, the CFC renter alliance.

      Delete
  15. and here I thought three tenants of the game were:

    harvest -> manufacture -> destroy

    So Goons?! Have spent their entire existence demonising harvesting (Mining), and now with 40k coalition and this pact with PL have over turned sideways conflict/destruction. So if they are not going the game how CCP intends - why are they still in the game?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Allow me to be the dissenting voice again.

    To me, this agreement is the very essence of what makes EVE beautiful. The true nature of the Sandbox distilled into a few paragraphs.

    It is hilarious to see some people resent others for being risk-averse and unwilling to participate in combat, citing the "sandbox" nature of EVE and the notion of everyone being involved in PvP as soon as they undock. However when a group achieves their goals through means other than uncontrolled violence, suddenly the idea of a sandbox goes out of the window and the same people cry foul play.

    Truth is, EVE isn't a PvP game. EVE is a Sandbox game. This does mean you should be prepared to face PvP on every corner. But you are also free to explore a whole spectrum of other options to gain advantage.

    I'm sorry but I have to laugh at your "bluer than blue" view of the Accords - in fact the treaty itself specifically lists ways in which CFC and PL may attack each other. And in EVE, "may attack" is synonymous to "will attack". This is really more of an analogy to the Geneva conventions than a declaration of cooperation.

    Compare EVE to, say, Planetside 2. Both games involve large forces of organizations of players fighting each other over territory. Both games involve some kind of resource loss upon death. However something like OTEC/B0TLRD is simply impossible to ever happen in PS2. The combat in PS2 is staged, the factions are hostile to each other by definition. EVE in contrast provides what you correctly identify as conflict drivers - but it doesn't force the actual combat onto anyone - it merely provides incentives. The decision to fight or not is left to the players, and either is a valid way to play in the Sandbox. People who fail to realize this are just as deluded as the highsec miner who believes he should be safe from ganks.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Funny thing is I have seen all of this before in another game on a much smaller scale anyway. I know how it plays out. The blue doughnut is a natural progression of power.
    We called them Non Aggression Pacts and Mutual Defense Agreements. CCP has the right idea I think but they keep missing the target. No matter what you do the superpower will find a way to coexist is full destruction is not a realistic option. If full destruction is an option then everyone but the superpowers who can coexist will die in time. There is nothing you can do to stop the blue. However there is a lot you can do to make the blue not matter as much. The siphon is a good example of the right idea but missing the mark. What could have been the start of small gang bank heists is instead mostly just a boring nuisance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What other game, if I may ask?

      I used to play Lineage 2 (another PvP - alliances - territory control MMO), and the cycle went kinda like this every few months:

      Big clans form an alliance.
      Alliance takes 90% of available territory.
      They become demonized and hated by all the rest of the playerbase. (grrgoons)
      Rest of the playerbase bands up and destroys big alliance.
      The clans united in fighting against the alliance end up shattered without a common goal and start fighting each other (citing "honor" PvP and such).
      Strongest clans take territory and form an alliance.
      Repeat from the start.

      No consistent "blue donut" alliance ever existed for more than a very few months at a time.

      It seems that EVE is stuck at being unable to perform point four. Whether that's due to game mechanics or the EVE community - or even if it's actually happening, just more slowly - is a good topic for discussion.

      Delete
    2. It HAS happened before: The fall of BoB.

      The CFC will have its turn.

      Delete
    3. Unless it doesn't

      Delete
  18. (side note)

    That is, to say, the treaty itself is not pure perfection on its own. Anyone who knows the history of OTEC or even uses common sense to think about it for a while can poke holes through it.

    One problem is the uncertain mention of "allies" or "non-signatories". Without clearly defining who these terms represent or outlining rules of engagement in relation to them, either side can still force an engagement on the other's home soil by using a third "non-signatory" party to attack first. They can then escalate at will without breaching the treaty. Or they can simply fund a third party as a proxy to attack the enemy income directly. Or harbor a third party under protection of the pact as "allies" (similar to what NC. did with BL in the times of the first OTEC).

    Second, the treaty is very dependent on individual members of CFC/PL to uphold it. As it is worded, it is enough that a relatively tiny fraction (compared to the size of the blocs) disagrees with it, and they can force an engagement in violation of the treaty, assumingly voiding both OTEC and B0TLORD. It is enough that one high-profile FC or diplomat is a part of this fraction for it to be ineligible under the "fuckups happen" clause. So if any senior member of either bloc shares your views, the treaty will be temporary at best.

    However the biggest problem I see here is the very notion of "the CFC". Who exactly is "the CFC" as a signatory to OTEC/B0TLRD? Was every alliance in the CFC individually consulted and agreed to this? Is there some body within the CFC with an authority to make this kind of contract on behalf of all the other alliances? Was the deal made by The Mittani himself or by Goonswarm alone without considering other CFC members? I honestly don't know which is the case, and I intend to find out.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The idea of player owned POCOs was good. "Standing" should have been a requirement to keep the riff-raff out. H-sec'rs are not so organized as to defeat Soniclover's purpose. Besides, roleplaying-wise, it makes no sense for Concord to turn over whole planets in civilized h-sec to pirates, bandits, killers, and thieves.

    ReplyDelete
  20. As someone I know so pithily put it, anything worth going to war over is worth making peace over. The way I see it, this sort of agreement is inevitable. I mean, even Europe managed to eventually make peace and develop stable borders. The thought that that wouldn't happen in EVE because it was too hard to do is ridiculous. Time and again, it has been shown that, if an organization will get an advantage by doing something the hard way, they'll do it the hard way, even if it burns them out.

    ReplyDelete
  21. This is what we elected you to fight Ripard. Problem is you are originally from corps warm to the Goons (Gents, Get off My Lawn) and you usually back what they want which means exactly the kind of "gameplay" that kills the game for new players. Sure the goons can siphon off some of the dumber newer players by promising them easy win by numbers push f1 gameplay however it kills the game for the far larger newer crowd who doesn't want to join some giant corporate blob and just want to learn and play the game with a smaller group of friends rather than for "the man". It is supposed to be play time after all. Instead of Fozzie or CMS endlessly tinkering with rather irritatiing and irrelevant changes (at least in new players eyes its just irritating to train your first upper level goal ship and have it change before you can learn it) and have him work on blowing up the big blob instead - making it far harder and far riskier for the bullshit lawyer agreement type of play which is killing our new player pipeline.

    ReplyDelete
  22. All you have to know about why CCP did not expect your outcome is remember that CCP expected the high sec fleets to *win* in the event that introduced ghost sites.

    They actually, truly and sincerely believed that kitchen-sink PVE scrub fleets consisting of strangers, many of whom had no idea what a fleet was or how it worked--and those fleets infiltrated with spies to boot--would not only make a fight of it, but win.

    They imagine high sec players banding together and fighting null sec alliances for the most valuable POCOs because... well, I honestly have no idea. Someone thought it would make a good story? They forgot that the null powers got their power through allegiances and failed to predict RvBee? They forgot that many of the people in high sec are in high sec because they want nothing to do with the tedium and time demands of large, organized fleet action? (The ones that aren't just alts of null sec players, that is.) Never mind the cat-herding required to get them all into any sort of doctrine, or get them all on the same page in terms of commands and comms discipline, we're already well into the realm of the absurd.

    Their current attempts to educate people on the finer points of fleets and combat are commendable, but they will take years to make a significant penetration into the player base, and they still leave unsolved the problem that there are very few people in high sec who can handle the all-important enabler roles. Those few showed up at the last special event, and they hardly made a lick of difference (granted, for reasons that were out of their control in many cases, such as the event ending before they even reached the destination system).

    In one of the ESS threadnaughts, the point is made over and over again that the goal of any defense of a ratting system is to make any aggressor not want to come back, whether by blobbing them or by blue balling them or some combination of the two. Gevlon and his merry band can do neither, so they are instead giving RvB (especially), but also Goonswarm, exactly what they want: lots of fun, but irrelevant, fights. That's not conflict in any meaningful sense. It's certainly not going to encourage either group to leave, or stand down--to the contrary. Hgh sec levels of organization don't scale high enough to provoke a real conflict, and that's a feature: it means that different regions of space cater to different play styles and different preferences. It also means that the result of any encounter between null sec and high sec is foreordained: any new player who gets a love for fleet PVP from CCP's tutorials will likely move to a part of space which is not high sec, because those areas are where you most frequently encounter fleet PVP.

    I wish CCP luck. They clearly need it.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Treaty of Tordesillas, divided the newly found New World between Portugal and Spain with the blessing and backing of the papacy. The treaty completely ignored France, the Netherlands, England and the rest of Europe. Fiction follows History.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Studiously NOT mentioned by the author: The part in the minutes where the idea that we'd take them and then jack the rate up to troll everyone was rightfully ridiculed. I mean, I told him exactly what we'd do, but he didn't believe me! ;)

    ReplyDelete
  25. Babylon 5 .... oh, boy!
    My favourite.sci-fi.
    A lot of political references, some punchy one-liners. Couple of in-jokes and lot of philosophical content. Food for thought.

    I think I have said that before in my blog: the only way to solve this deadlock is to create a constant flux. A constant shift in resources both on the moons and planets and in plexes.

    That is the only way this game will stay fresh. Stay constant and the min-max approach will kill this game!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Nothing particularly surprising. A free market environment always tends to generate cartels at some point. What breaks the cartels: 1/ anti-trust legislation (not really applicable to EVE), 2/ new paradigms.

    Generally, 2/ consists of a couple of guys discovering or inventing something new, and by the time the big boys have a clue they're on to something big, the small guys have too much of a head start in the new technology. Cue Bill Gates, or simply oil replacing coal, and the like.

    The problem with making an EVE Online equivalent is that in EVE everybody can train into everything, the information is simply out there. Worst case: power players will create a zillion alts that will train into every new skillset that pops up, so when one of them turns profitable at least one of those alts is ready.

    Thinking out loud, now: say there's a special kind of BPC. It's not a BPO, because it is consumed after being manufactured, but you can spend days researching it (no telling how much additional ME/PE it will give you, though). It also requires completely different materials. Most of these will be for existing ships, or for ships that are comparable to existing hulls (like basic T1 cruisers, maybe a bit different). If you produce a BPC after researching it, you gain (hidden) research points in that particular technology. When you have enough, researching that BPC turns it into a BPO.

    The idea would be to enable some meta shifts without having to go through the whole expansion process. Some ships will be good today, and obsolete tomorrow (gradual shift if possible). Some resources will be better today than tomorrow, etc. Which should make for more wars - cue CFC invasion of Fountain.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Jester, can you genuinely raise this point on the next CSM summit and ask Soniclover if he is satisfied or not with the rate of attrition of POCOs in high-sec?

    And if he is not, what is he thinking in doing to change the current status quo?

    ReplyDelete
  28. TEARS!! CRY ME MORE. HTFU and put effort in organisation, intelligence gathering, strategy and execution, and if you don't have willpower to do that, you can't play with big boys and there is nothing wrong with that, that's how things work in RL also.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Wanna fix 0.0? Simple let supers be built in low sec stations.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.