These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
8 Pages123Next pageLast page
 

Ask me about "The CSM" Q&A

First post First post
Author
Mercenary Coalition
#1 - 2012-01-19 18:22:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Seleene
So, yeah I wrote a thing about the latest CSM Summit minutes to clarify my thoughts on a few of the bigger issues.

LINKAGE TO BLOG POST - The Dec Summit Minutes and "The CSM"

For those that missed it, I also did a retrospective on the December Summit itself:

DECEMBER SUMMIT REPORT

Have a read and I'll respond here as time allows. Feel free to ask me whatever is on your mind and I will answer as best I can. Smile

2004-2008: Mercenary Coalition Boss

2007-2010: CCP Game Designer | 2011-2013: CSM6 Delegate & CSM7 Chairman

2011-2015: Pandemic Legionnaire

2015- : Mercenary Coalition Boss

Follow Seleene on Twitter!

Greater D.U.S.K. Coalition
#2 - 2012-01-19 18:24:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Salpun
Great blogs Required reading for forum warriersLol

Thanks for writing themCool
Any word about why we have log in queues now.

If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide

See you around the universe.

Pandemic Legion
#3 - 2012-01-19 19:41:16 UTC
Do you think tier 3 Battlecruisers served their purpose? I was under the impression one of their designs was to fly fast enough that titans should have difficulty tracking them. I realize situations where a titan has killed off tier 3 BC fleets have been tracking titans, and thus severly gimped tanks (and supported by carriers). Do you feel like any changes should be made (to titans or the tier 3s) or do you think this is balanced properly?

If supercarriers can be docked in null, do you think it appropriate to give respecs to them. Or should these be mutually exclusive?

What are your thoughts on giving new players temporary access to an area of space where they are safe from PVP long enough to learn the ropes. Though I think the ropes should include getting can flipped, can flipping, suicide ganking (both sides of this), etc.

What are your thoughts on master accounts? Specifically, how should the API change so that alliances/corps/comms cannot require access to every single character a person owns (thus making things like spying, flying in FW while also in a null alliance, or moonlighting for a merc group near impossible).
Top Belt for Fun
#4 - 2012-01-19 19:58:31 UTC
Your blog isn't accepting my comments. I'll leave them here:
I'm all for sleepers rampaging out of WHs and rocking people in high and low sec, but podding people is just a no-go. Seriously, wormhole logistics *already* suck.

I also point you to http://wp.me/p1WQ0O-3S (my blog) regarding destructible/vulnerable NPC station services. In short: screw off. The rules and mechanics for attacking entities living in NPC space (high, low, null, and even WH space) exist and have existed for a long time. Don't screw with it just because its different than sov 0.0.

Variety in space is a good thing.

As to your idea that you can't interact with NPC factions... have you ever tried to mission for pirate factions? Its actually really painful because ratting or plexing will *demolish* your *FACTION* standings (which can only be regained through *STORYLINE MISSIONS*).

If you want to do anything to make those factions actually able to be interacted with I sure hope you have plans to fix the current (and massive) problems around interacting with them in the first place.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

Mercenary Coalition
#5 - 2012-01-19 20:14:44 UTC
Bagehi wrote:
Do you think tier 3 Battlecruisers served their purpose? I was under the impression one of their designs was to fly fast enough that titans should have difficulty tracking them. I realize situations where a titan has killed off tier 3 BC fleets have been tracking titans, and thus severly gimped tanks (and supported by carriers). Do you feel like any changes should be made (to titans or the tier 3s) or do you think this is balanced properly?


Well, I never saw anything serious about them being uber fast, etc..; mostly it was **** YEAH BIG GUNS ON BCs WOOT!

As I noted in my blog, I think things are good for the moment but I have no issues with it staying under constant revision.

Bagehi wrote:
If supercarriers can be docked in null, do you think it appropriate to give respecs to them. Or should these be mutually exclusive?


Mutually exclusive. I don't favor respecs in general and do favor solutions that avoid screwing with skill points in that way.

Bagehi wrote:
What are your thoughts on giving new players temporary access to an area of space where they are safe from PVP long enough to learn the ropes. Though I think the ropes should include getting can flipped, can flipping, suicide ganking (both sides of this), etc.


I think that if you set up an initial 'safe zone' then, in a way, you are lying to a new player about what the nature of EVE is. If, and only if, CCP came up with a massively re-designed New Player Experience that put trial accounts through a proper 'Academy'-like atmosphere, which ended with them being introduced to thier first podding or something... I'd quite like that. But, in general, I prefer for EVE to keep it's dangerous edge. Bear in mind that I started playing the game 2 weeks after it went live in 2003. A lot of things were horribly unbalanced, CCP was a barely 30 man company and we were all guinea pigs of a sort. I'm tainted by what I experienced as a 'new player'; even though it was nightmarish at times, I enjoyed the challenge of it all. Smile

Bagehi wrote:
What are your thoughts on master accounts?


As they were explained to me at the summit and later detailed in the minutes, I think it's a great idea.

Bagehi wrote:
Specifically, how should the API change so that alliances/corps/comms cannot require access to every single character a person owns (thus making things like spying, flying in FW while also in a null alliance, or moonlighting for a merc group near impossible).


I'm going to be completely honest and beg off of this one as I'm not familiar enough with how the API's work beyond using them in EVEMon or an asset tracker. I understand the context of what you are asking, but I wouldn't really know how to make suggestions as to how to 'change the API' to prevent those things other than saying, "Yo, CCP, change the API." Big smile

2004-2008: Mercenary Coalition Boss

2007-2010: CCP Game Designer | 2011-2013: CSM6 Delegate & CSM7 Chairman

2011-2015: Pandemic Legionnaire

2015- : Mercenary Coalition Boss

Follow Seleene on Twitter!

Mercenary Coalition
#6 - 2012-01-19 20:40:38 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Your blog isn't accepting my comments. I'll leave them here:
I'm all for sleepers rampaging out of WHs and rocking people in high and low sec, but podding people is just a no-go. Seriously, wormhole logistics *already* suck.


Agreed. No podding.

Liang Nuren wrote:
I also point you to http://wp.me/p1WQ0O-3S (my blog) regarding destructible/vulnerable NPC station services. In short: screw off. The rules and mechanics for attacking entities living in NPC space (high, low, null, and even WH space) exist and have existed for a long time. Don't screw with it just because its different than sov 0.0.


I don't want to "screw with it", m8, I want to see it improve. Stagnation is boring as hell. I dislike how completely DEVOID of actual game play the NPC elements of EVE are. I would like to see improved interaction not just with null-sec NPC entities, but all NPC entities. If such a feature can be pushed for as part of a null-sec or lo-sec overhaul, that's the angle we should be pushing for. Regardless, I don't like how things are now where you no options for real interaction at all. I haven't liked them since 2005 when, during a Mordu's Legion event, some dipshit Mordus Admiral smacktalked me in local. I still want to burn his station to the ground (or something).

Liang Nuren wrote:
As to your idea that you can't interact with NPC factions... have you ever tried to mission for pirate factions? Its actually really painful because ratting or plexing will *demolish* your *FACTION* standings (which can only be regained through *STORYLINE MISSIONS*). If you want to do anything to make those factions actually able to be interacted with I sure hope you have plans to fix the current (and massive) problems around interacting with them in the first place.


Such changes would go hand in hand, obviously. When I say 'interaction', I'm not talking about Agent Missions; I'm talking about dealing with a representative of an NPC faction and actually negotiating with them terms of an agreement. Cripes, I was doing this sort of thing in Master of Orion almost 20 years ago, why can't I do it in the most advanced sci-fi game of all time?? Pirate


2004-2008: Mercenary Coalition Boss

2007-2010: CCP Game Designer | 2011-2013: CSM6 Delegate & CSM7 Chairman

2011-2015: Pandemic Legionnaire

2015- : Mercenary Coalition Boss

Follow Seleene on Twitter!

#7 - 2012-01-19 20:58:07 UTC
Huge agreement on the annoyance of "The CSM said" factor, I'd prefer a more transparent feedback system so each member is held accountable for their suggestions, both great and terrible.

And which actually say bugger all and just nod and murmur.

Unrelated to the minutes, but one thing I've always been curious about, Faction Navy modules can be bought with LP, yet their pirate faction alternatives (which are the same stats wise) can't be bought with pirate LP. Do you think there should be a greater level of consistency?

When your gut instincts tell you something is wrong, trust them. When your heart tells you something is right, ignore it, check with your brain first. Accept nothing, challenge everything.

Top Belt for Fun
#8 - 2012-01-19 21:19:16 UTC
Seleene wrote:

Liang Nuren wrote:
I also point you to http://wp.me/p1WQ0O-3S (my blog) regarding destructible/vulnerable NPC station services. In short: screw off. The rules and mechanics for attacking entities living in NPC space (high, low, null, and even WH space) exist and have existed for a long time. Don't screw with it just because its different than sov 0.0.


I don't want to "screw with it", m8, I want to see it improve. Stagnation is boring as hell. I dislike how completely DEVOID of actual game play the NPC elements of EVE are. I would like to see improved interaction not just with null-sec NPC entities, but all NPC entities. If such a feature can be pushed for as part of a null-sec or lo-sec overhaul, that's the angle we should be pushing for. Regardless, I don't like how things are now where you no options for real interaction at all. I haven't liked them since 2005 when, during a Mordu's Legion event, some dipshit Mordus Admiral smacktalked me in local. I still want to burn his station to the ground (or something).


The real problem is that everything I've seen so far has been moving towards trying to have one massive grind to deprive your enemy of use of the stations. However, I really like the way that NPC space works. If you want to deprive your enemy of their space... move in and take it.

A saying goes that possession is 9/10ths of the law... and that's true in NPC space. Its just not true in sov space - but the sov based CSM candidates are demanding "normalization" and ways of "striking back". No, **** them. If they want friendly people in NPC stations nearby then go wage war in the way that space was designed for.

We don't want your sov bullshit.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

#9 - 2012-01-19 21:37:14 UTC
Well, obviously the way to disable station services is to arrive with a dropship, unload a fecktonne of marines, and wait while the marines sort out the station services. This will require some way to force your way into the docking bay, but it's perfectly achievable without Dust 514 integration.

Thus all the janitors and marines in your hangar will actually count towards something. Marines to defend the station, janitors to repair things that break.

As for the drake, I'm happy to take a 5% kinetic damage nerf in favour of a 5% rate of fire buff. The Drake doesn't need more changes than that: it's popular because alliances require people to fly it. End of story. The Drake either fields a decent passive tank, or fields some respectable DPS (LOL, I used Drake and DPS in the same sentence). People who think that the Drake is both a heavy tanker and a DPS projector at the same time need to actually fly the ship before commenting on it.

Making the Drake worse is not going to make the Ferox better. To make the Ferox better, the Ferox needs to be better: upgrade to 8 turrets, done.
Mercenary Coalition
#10 - 2012-01-19 22:02:17 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Seleene wrote:

Liang Nuren wrote:
I also point you to http://wp.me/p1WQ0O-3S (my blog) regarding destructible/vulnerable NPC station services. In short: screw off. The rules and mechanics for attacking entities living in NPC space (high, low, null, and even WH space) exist and have existed for a long time. Don't screw with it just because its different than sov 0.0.


I don't want to "screw with it", m8, I want to see it improve. Stagnation is boring as hell. I dislike how completely DEVOID of actual game play the NPC elements of EVE are. I would like to see improved interaction not just with null-sec NPC entities, but all NPC entities. If such a feature can be pushed for as part of a null-sec or lo-sec overhaul, that's the angle we should be pushing for. Regardless, I don't like how things are now where you no options for real interaction at all. I haven't liked them since 2005 when, during a Mordu's Legion event, some dipshit Mordus Admiral smacktalked me in local. I still want to burn his station to the ground (or something).


The real problem is that everything I've seen so far has been moving towards trying to have one massive grind to deprive your enemy of use of the stations. However, I really like the way that NPC space works. If you want to deprive your enemy of their space... move in and take it.

A saying goes that possession is 9/10ths of the law... and that's true in NPC space. Its just not true in sov space - but the sov based CSM candidates are demanding "normalization" and ways of "striking back". No, **** them. If they want friendly people in NPC stations nearby then go wage war in the way that space was designed for.

We don't want your sov bullshit.

-Liang


I'm not quite sure why you're mad but you seem pretty mad. I'm not saying anything new, really. This stuff has been in the wind for years, m8. Lo-sec 'Viceroys' dealing with the major Empires, etc... Much of what you say doesn't make a lot of sense because you are talking about 'taking space" but you don't want people to actually TAKE any THING... just the space itself. As for the way that the space was 'designed for', I was one of the designers and I've got a pretty good idea that the reason things are the way they are currently have nothing to do with intent and everything to do with lack of resources. That is finally changing. It seems as if you just want the game to stay the same forever. I don't subscribe to that. Agree to disagree I guess. v0v Smile

2004-2008: Mercenary Coalition Boss

2007-2010: CCP Game Designer | 2011-2013: CSM6 Delegate & CSM7 Chairman

2011-2015: Pandemic Legionnaire

2015- : Mercenary Coalition Boss

Follow Seleene on Twitter!

The Bloc
#11 - 2012-01-19 22:09:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Deen Wispa
Seleene- What is your or any CSM member's stance on CCP turning FW into "nullsec-light" or whatever word people want to toss around nowadays. The commenst below from the minutes have created a very visceral response in the FW community;



Quote:
CCP would like to inject some of the drama that surrounds the CSM election system into FW, by having some sort of in-game election of militia leaders/admirals. This would help move some of the 0.0 style politics/revenge/spying into FW. Another important addition to this system would be some real power/consequences for system ownership, such as the elected leaders being able to set things like tax rates in lowsec stations that they control (and having some of this tax ISK flow to the faction). The leadership would be able to set strategic goals as well as adjust settings for the new FW benefits.



Quote:
Some CSMs suggested that FW could be used as a testbed for new capture mechanics, since FW would be smaller scale than nullsec.

High Five. Yeah! C'est La Eve .

#12 - 2012-01-19 23:32:19 UTC
Seleene wrote:
As for the way that the space was 'designed for', I was one of the designers and I've got a pretty good idea that the reason things are the way they are currently have nothing to do with intent and everything to do with lack of resources. That is finally changing. It seems as if you just want the game to stay the same forever. I don't subscribe to that. Agree to disagree I guess. v0v Smile

Two years ago, Greyscale wrote in a devblog, about the sov system you were working on:

CCP Greyscale wrote:
It needs to handle systems changing hands, of course, but it can afford to be descriptive, rather than prescriptive. Currently we have a prescriptive sovereignty system: you fight over sovereignty explicitly, with the sovereignty mechanics determining who owns the system. A descriptive system says who's in charge, so it only needs to change hands after the dust has settled and one side has emerged triumphant.


NPC has the ultimate descriptive system. You own a system by keeping enough active people in it, that hostiles cannot use it for anything productive. If you fail at that, and the hostiles are the ones camping you in station, you have lost control over the system. That works.

If a sov alliance can control or negate an NPC station by doing a flyby with 30 supers every day or two, I'd say that's bad for the game. If they can do the same through some sort of "NPC negotiation" and then deny me access without any sort of PVP recourse, it's even worse.

So what exactly are you advocating?

What happens in lowsec, stays in lowsec, lowering the barrier to entry to lowsec PVP: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=476644&#post476644

Northern Coalition.
#13 - 2012-01-19 23:32:44 UTC
Seleene thanks for sorting a thread, i'de like to ask for your opinion on veterans/loyalty program.
but i will also like to say that a lot of older players with the 150mil plus sp toons are getting sick of the high price of clones.

My moan about it i have spent years building it up and over the years getting a load of kills but its come a time its not worth risking the pod when i can park him and use a sub toon.
Top Belt for Fun
#14 - 2012-01-20 00:02:29 UTC
Seleene wrote:

I'm not quite sure why you're mad but you seem pretty mad. I'm not saying anything new, really. This stuff has been in the wind for years, m8. Lo-sec 'Viceroys' dealing with the major Empires, etc... Much of what you say doesn't make a lot of sense because you are talking about 'taking space" but you don't want people to actually TAKE any THING... just the space itself. As for the way that the space was 'designed for', I was one of the designers and I've got a pretty good idea that the reason things are the way they are currently have nothing to do with intent and everything to do with lack of resources. That is finally changing. It seems as if you just want the game to stay the same forever. I don't subscribe to that. Agree to disagree I guess. v0v Smile


Dear CCP Abathur / Seleene,

Please do not bullshit the audience about you being one of the designers behind NPC 0.0. I was shooting you and your brosefs - and even your own Nyx - long before you left Mercenary Coalition to work for CCP and there was already quite some amount of NPC 0.0 in game. Furthermore, please see the above post by Jack Dant for further explanation for what I am objecting to. He put my objections rather eloquently.

The core of my objection is that the reason the CSM even discussed the ability to incap/destroy NPC station services is because certain alliances were able to "raid" Sov 0.0 from NPC space. Thus, the Sov 0.0 members of the CSM demanded a way to "protect their space" in a way that is familiar and comfortable to them - by throwing 200 supercaps for 5 minutes every few days at the problem.

The entire approach demanded by the Sov 0.0 alliances flies directly in the face of the already existing game dynamic that exists in NPC space. NPC space is different than sov space and these differences encourage different kinds of residents and different forms of combat. "Ownership" of the system is much more about full time occupation of that system - and frankly if the sov 0.0 alliances want to fight NPC space alliances in their "home space" then they should have to adjust to the different rules of engagement - just as they would if they were trying to take Wormholes. (Oh wait, they demanded changes to make that easier for them too....)

Additionally, the ability for either party to raid along the border of Sov 0.0 / NPC 0.0 is a good thing for the game and provides unique attributes to the space on both sides - unique attributes that the current CSM is diligently working to remove and destroy.

And then your response to the issue makes literally no sense. You want to somehow make it so that if you plex against Sanshas in Sansha space you won't be able to dock in Sansha stations - and then you don't even address the idea of the sov 0.0 holders attempting to negatively affect the rules of NPC space.

Basically - NPC space is different than Sov space - and that's good for the game. All this talk about giving sov 0.0 alliances "remedies" with which they can attack the station services for NPC stations? Total bullshit.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

#15 - 2012-01-20 00:19:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Rixiu
Liang Nuren wrote:
*snip*

-Liang


+1 on that. The CSMs and CCPs fetish for structure grinding is very out of touch with everyone outside the relatively small playerbase they represent because that's the thing they are good for, the thing all their supercaps/giant blobs are good for. Putting more structure based mechanics such as destroyable stations into the game benefits these giants as it allow them to expand their influence to the NPC regions that up until now has been a relatively safe place from the 2 kinds of blobs that is the 0.0 sov of today.

From what we can see in these minutes is that the CSM members are pushing their own agenda much more than they have before (when it was more about getting CCP to actually work on spaceships), now that the resources are finally in place you all do this **** which is bad for the game and it's bad for the players.
Blades of Grass
#16 - 2012-01-20 00:42:36 UTC
ANGAL 2000 wrote:
Seleene thanks for sorting a thread, i'de like to ask for your opinion on veterans/loyalty program.
but i will also like to say that a lot of older players with the 150mil plus sp toons are getting sick of the high price of clones.

My moan about it i have spent years building it up and over the years getting a load of kills but its come a time its not worth risking the pod when i can park him and use a sub toon.



when clones are costing 65mil isk or more then a tier 1 bs i could ue that isk for the hip to keep pvping. it feels like the longer you play the more you are penalized yes you can do more but at the same time you die 2-3 times in a day/fleet thats 130-195m

i'm starting to feel it is better to give up on a toon at x skill point call it done and start a new one
Top Belt for Fun
#17 - 2012-01-20 00:44:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
cpu939 wrote:
ANGAL 2000 wrote:
Seleene thanks for sorting a thread, i'de like to ask for your opinion on veterans/loyalty program.
but i will also like to say that a lot of older players with the 150mil plus sp toons are getting sick of the high price of clones.

My moan about it i have spent years building it up and over the years getting a load of kills but its come a time its not worth risking the pod when i can park him and use a sub toon.



when clones are costing 65mil isk or more then a tier 1 bs i could ue that isk for the hip to keep pvping. it feels like the longer you play the more you are penalized yes you can do more but at the same time you die 2-3 times in a day/fleet thats 130-195m

i'm starting to feel it is better to give up on a toon at x skill point call it done and start a new one


If you target your training correctly you can get a pretty sweet PVP alt in a really small package. I've done it. :)

-Liang

Ed: I would be all for lowering the price of clones - and maybe even removing learning implants altogether. As long as they leave pirate implants, /shrug

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

Blades of Grass
#18 - 2012-01-20 00:51:35 UTC
Seleene, i hope you will push for the micro plex system i already see a few advantages to it if put in as stated in the minutes

if done by 30 small plexes 1 day each if you have an unexpected bill you can add a few days to your account if before pay day or use some for nex store items (not sure why anyone would want them) and sell the rest

Blades of Grass
#19 - 2012-01-20 00:59:23 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
cpu939 wrote:
ANGAL 2000 wrote:
Seleene thanks for sorting a thread, i'de like to ask for your opinion on veterans/loyalty program.
but i will also like to say that a lot of older players with the 150mil plus sp toons are getting sick of the high price of clones.

My moan about it i have spent years building it up and over the years getting a load of kills but its come a time its not worth risking the pod when i can park him and use a sub toon.



when clones are costing 65mil isk or more then a tier 1 bs i could ue that isk for the hip to keep pvping. it feels like the longer you play the more you are penalized yes you can do more but at the same time you die 2-3 times in a day/fleet thats 130-195m

i'm starting to feel it is better to give up on a toon at x skill point call it done and start a new one


If you target your training correctly you can get a pretty sweet PVP alt in a really small package. I've done it. :)

-Liang

Ed: I would be all for lowering the price of clones - and maybe even removing learning implants altogether. As long as they leave pirate implants, /shrug


why should we be penalized for playing the game i know if i'm not on a campain i can and will make the isk to cover it but if on campain it can be weeks before you get the chance to make isk and making an alt mean you might a well sell your main if your not going to use it, due to the extra costs, for what you made it for
#20 - 2012-01-20 01:05:29 UTC
Seelene wrote:
My stance is that I acknowledge the issue that we have these massive NPC entities in null-sec and absolutely no way to interact with them. I do find it quite absurd that I can kill hundreds of thousands of Angel Cartel crew members, then dock right up in one of their stations like nothing happened. Yes, it's an RP-ish issue, but it's something that every null-sec pilot has joked about for years.

Instead of just a blanket mechanic similar to the structure grinding that exists now, I would love to find a way to make an alliance with the Mordus mercenaries or see pirate corps as official 'partners' to the Guristas. Such relationships could have a direct affect on everything from station services to refine taxes and would force large alliances to make choices with regard to thier NPC neighbors or offer opportunities to smaller entities. There are all sorts of possibilities there.


Why was none of this in the minutes? This matches that document CCP put out a while ago on how they wanted to improve NPC Null for those that choose to live there. It would have been something for me to cheer about other than AF and potential NOS boosts.

Oh and while you're being open about your positions, what's your position on Local Chat Intel? CCP brought up changing it again, but from the minutes it looks like the CSM spoke out against any changes.


Liang Nuren wrote:

And then your response to the issue makes literally no sense. You want to somehow make it so that if you plex against Sanshas in Sansha space you won't be able to dock in Sansha stations - and then you don't even address the idea of the sov 0.0 holders attempting to negatively affect the rules of NPC space.


Actually it makes lots of sense. Since it means most of the holders of sov space in that region will have bad standing to the Pirates and not be able to utilize those stations and services, likewise any large player entity that hasn't uniformally set out to ally with those NPC pirates will have a good percentage of players that can't use the stations and services. This means that the NPC stations are less likely to be used by large player entities fighting wars for control of sovereignty, which is a good thing. On the other hand it will become a good home for those that act like pirates and attack players farming their NPC allies, and for those that run missions for the Pirates. The cost of which is having to leave the local RATS alone, although it might not be a bad idea to add new Concord DED and exploration sites to NPC Nullsec to give a little more PVE opportunities for those that don't want to ruin their standings with the Local Pirates.

...and yeah it makes absolutely no sense that you kill thousands of a Faction's ships/crew and then be merrily welcomed into the same factions stations to use every service but jump clone creation... yeah it's RP, but EVE last time I checked is an RPG.
8 Pages123Next pageLast page
Forum Jump