These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Science & Industry

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CSM minutes: industry in 0.0
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Zetaomega333
High Flyers
#21 - 2013-01-23 00:58:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Zetaomega333
Quote:
Alek argued that it would be
pointless to mine so long as there was a more valuable resource, like Merc/Mega/Zyd, that could be
mined, exported, traded in empire for Tritanium, and hauled back still at a profit.



After building tons of caps out here i know this is pure bullshit ^^^^^.

While yes you can do that but you can only fit a measly 35mill trit in a jf. If you compress into guns ect you lose alot and its only usefull for very large projects. If there was a super veld or scord in nullsec you bet your ass it would be mined.


Its always fun to see people who dont do industry in nullsec or pvpers who dont do industry period comment on how indy should run in nullsec.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#22 - 2013-01-23 02:01:46 UTC
Zetaomega333 wrote:
Quote:
Alek argued that it would be
pointless to mine so long as there was a more valuable resource, like Merc/Mega/Zyd, that could be
mined, exported, traded in empire for Tritanium, and hauled back still at a profit.



After building tons of caps out here i know this is pure bullshit ^^^^^.

While yes you can do that but you can only fit a measly 35mill trit in a jf. If you compress into guns ect you lose alot and its only usefull for very large projects. If there was a super veld or scord in nullsec you bet your ass it would be mined.


Its always fun to see people who dont do industry in nullsec or pvpers who dont do industry period comment on how indy should run in nullsec.


He was referring to a hypothetical infinite sized rock of normal-yield Veld. Would you mine that?


As for loss to compression, on the 3.5b Trit it takes to build an Avatar, in the form of 35,000 units of 425mm Railgun I, I would lose 945,000 Trit to reprocessing waste. That's 6 million ISK worth of Trit lost in transporting 21.3 Billion ISK worth of Trit.* Which is... carry the 3.... nothing. The compressed volume is 1.75m m3, which fits into 5 JF loads.
In one JF, you can fit enough compressed material for at least a half dozen Carriers or Dreads, with truly negligible waste.

*I would also lose 245k/920m Py, 70k/307m Mex, and 35k/83m Iso, with no Nocx, Mega, or Zydrine losses.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Zetaomega333
High Flyers
#23 - 2013-01-23 03:14:11 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Zetaomega333 wrote:
Quote:
Alek argued that it would be
pointless to mine so long as there was a more valuable resource, like Merc/Mega/Zyd, that could be
mined, exported, traded in empire for Tritanium, and hauled back still at a profit.



After building tons of caps out here i know this is pure bullshit ^^^^^.

While yes you can do that but you can only fit a measly 35mill trit in a jf. If you compress into guns ect you lose alot and its only usefull for very large projects. If there was a super veld or scord in nullsec you bet your ass it would be mined.


Its always fun to see people who dont do industry in nullsec or pvpers who dont do industry period comment on how indy should run in nullsec.


He was referring to a hypothetical infinite sized rock of normal-yield Veld. Would you mine that?





In a heartbeat, One of the problems with veld and scord in nullsec is the belts are ussually saturated with the higherend rocks as well as veld and scord where as in highsec you can get belts of just veld and scord. So this limits your minable veld makes you hunt and pick through belts and it becomes more profitable to mine out entire sections of lowends including kernite plag veld scord and other rocks just to offset the downtime of constantly warping to new veld spots.

If they had a rock thats just like ice where you could mine from dt to dt just to collect the trit you bet your ass there would be mining ops to mine it.
Dave Stark
#24 - 2013-01-23 11:01:40 UTC
Zetaomega333 wrote:
If they had a rock thats just like ice where you could mine from dt to dt just to collect the trit you bet your ass there would be mining ops to mine it.


i'd like to say this is complete ****. but, actually, i could see it happening. however, when you consider that arkonor, which isn't even top dog for mining any more, is 50% more valuable than trit.... are you really going to spend 50% more time mining trit rather than just exporting megacyte and trading it for compressed trit in jita and moving it back to null?

while a larger source of trit is nice, i honestly don't think it'd matter when it's so inefficient. as some one who mines to fund other things rather than to provide for my own personal production chain; i would totally ignore infinite veldspar if that was the source of infinite trit. the real solution, imo, to this issue is to simply change things like spod/gnessis to provide significantly more trit/pyerite. those asteroids *have* to be mined in order to flip the belts and are currently nothing but a waste of your time. they are worth half the isk/m3 of omber, which is the unloved bastard child of high sec mining.
Emma Royd
Maddled Gommerils
#25 - 2013-01-23 11:02:33 UTC
hmm, all I see are things saying that Null should be easier Blink

Yes the distribution of minerals could be better, but then again, null success has nearly always been about logistics, if you have to mine stuff, move stuff, sell stuff, buy stuff, move stuff, build stuff, then you need good logistics.

Maybe it's time to give minerals scalable size, so the low-end minerals take less room than they do now, and the high ends take more, like the ores do.

So Tritanium at the moment is 0.01m3 per unit, so that could be reduced to 0.005 so you could get twice as much in the cargohold, and stuff like Zyd, Mega, Morph instead of being 0.01 could be 0.02, 0.025, 0.03

Dave Stark
#26 - 2013-01-23 11:40:45 UTC
Emma Royd wrote:
hmm, all I see are things saying that Null should be easier Blink

Yes the distribution of minerals could be better, but then again, null success has nearly always been about logistics, if you have to mine stuff, move stuff, sell stuff, buy stuff, move stuff, build stuff, then you need good logistics.

Maybe it's time to give minerals scalable size, so the low-end minerals take less room than they do now, and the high ends take more, like the ores do.

So Tritanium at the moment is 0.01m3 per unit, so that could be reduced to 0.005 so you could get twice as much in the cargohold, and stuff like Zyd, Mega, Morph instead of being 0.01 could be 0.02, 0.025, 0.03



i haven't seen a single post that wants null to be easier, i've seen lots of posts asking null sec mineral supply to be less of a terrible joke, though.

i fail to see how the volume of minerals changes anything. if you want minerals to take up less space, you compress them, this change wouldn't actually change a thing.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2013-01-23 14:13:57 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Zetaomega333 wrote:
If they had a rock thats just like ice where you could mine from dt to dt just to collect the trit you bet your ass there would be mining ops to mine it.


i'd like to say this is complete ****. but, actually, i could see it happening. however, when you consider that arkonor, which isn't even top dog for mining any more, is 50% more valuable than trit.... are you really going to spend 50% more time mining trit rather than just exporting megacyte and trading it for compressed trit in jita and moving it back to null?

while a larger source of trit is nice, i honestly don't think it'd matter when it's so inefficient. as some one who mines to fund other things rather than to provide for my own personal production chain; i would totally ignore infinite veldspar if that was the source of infinite trit. the real solution, imo, to this issue is to simply change things like spod/gnessis to provide significantly more trit/pyerite. those asteroids *have* to be mined in order to flip the belts and are currently nothing but a waste of your time. they are worth half the isk/m3 of omber, which is the unloved bastard child of high sec mining.

actually this is what i wrote about.

people who mine for profit will mine ABC for profit and sell it. Mostly into empire because in 0.0 "everyone and his dog" mines ABC. So adding any minerals into BC will simply increase supply of these minerals in empire.

Well. There is one case when tuning of ore composition will do the trick:
- your new magical ore provides you will all minerals you need to build stuff (tritanium, pyerite, ..., zydrine) in right composition.
- your new ore is the best when we speak about ISK/hour

Let's say you have Dominix BPC with requirements: 1% zydrine, 2% megacyte, ..., 99% tritanium. So you just can mine this "new" ore for X hours, get Y cubical meters, refine it and you have all minerals you need to use this one BPC.

If your "new" ore has another material composition then:
- you need to mine something other to get some needed minerals (and here we have ISK/hour!!!!)
- you need to import this mineral (and why don't sell some of your ore into empire to use your JF on the way to empire?)
- you have more minerals than you need and then you need to sell it or mine something other to compensate

AFAIK material requirements for different BPCs are different.


The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Emma Royd
Maddled Gommerils
#28 - 2013-01-23 14:16:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Emma Royd
Move along, nothing to see here, strange things were happening when I was pressing buttons on the forum.
Emma Royd
Maddled Gommerils
#29 - 2013-01-23 14:30:33 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Emma Royd wrote:
hmm, all I see are things saying that Null should be easier Blink

Yes the distribution of minerals could be better, but then again, null success has nearly always been about logistics, if you have to mine stuff, move stuff, sell stuff, buy stuff, move stuff, build stuff, then you need good logistics.

Maybe it's time to give minerals scalable size, so the low-end minerals take less room than they do now, and the high ends take more, like the ores do.

So Tritanium at the moment is 0.01m3 per unit, so that could be reduced to 0.005 so you could get twice as much in the cargohold, and stuff like Zyd, Mega, Morph instead of being 0.01 could be 0.02, 0.025, 0.03



i haven't seen a single post that wants null to be easier, i've seen lots of posts asking null sec mineral supply to be less of a terrible joke, though.

i fail to see how the volume of minerals changes anything. if you want minerals to take up less space, you compress them, this change wouldn't actually change a thing.


WTF draft went for a coffee and didn't come back.

Quick re-cap of my post.

"i haven't seen a single post that wants null to be easier, i've seen lots of posts asking null sec mineral supply to be less of a terrible joke, though." - indicating a problem that they would like looking at, thus making their life EASIER

Changing the mineral size would alter logistics, buying low-ends from the high-sec miner scrubs, you know the ones, the ones not worth anything, the ones who must be botters, the scourge of the universe etc. So you could move more low-ends that people say aren't in enough supply in nullsec up to nullsec more easily.

I'm not sure what people want, high-end ores to be given extra low-end minerals? a rebalance of manufacturing requirements to alter the ratio of High to Low end minerals?, more ore in the belts?, truth is there is low-end ore in the belts, I'm sat on sisi atm in DBT-GB (-0.2) and can see 32 various Veld rocks around the 60k+ quantity, 25 various Scordite rocks around the 30k+ quantity and 28 Pyrox rocks around the 28k quantity and most of them I could get without moving an inch from the standard warp-in point in the belt.

The big problem I see is people in empire need Null-Sec for supplies, but people in Null-sec see it as below them to have to resort to Empire for supplies, well guess what, it's a 2 way street, if you want to build massively Tritanium hungry ships like Supers, then you may have to buy some trit in, much as if I want to build anything that requires Megacyte, Morphite then I can't mine that from empire so that has to be bought in.

Imagine the possibilities of an industrial corp/alliance that has strong forces in both empire and null-sec, they could be shifting minerals to and fro and getting the best of both worlds.
Dave Stark
#30 - 2013-01-23 14:47:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Emma Royd wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Emma Royd wrote:
hmm, all I see are things saying that Null should be easier Blink

Yes the distribution of minerals could be better, but then again, null success has nearly always been about logistics, if you have to mine stuff, move stuff, sell stuff, buy stuff, move stuff, build stuff, then you need good logistics.

Maybe it's time to give minerals scalable size, so the low-end minerals take less room than they do now, and the high ends take more, like the ores do.

So Tritanium at the moment is 0.01m3 per unit, so that could be reduced to 0.005 so you could get twice as much in the cargohold, and stuff like Zyd, Mega, Morph instead of being 0.01 could be 0.02, 0.025, 0.03



i haven't seen a single post that wants null to be easier, i've seen lots of posts asking null sec mineral supply to be less of a terrible joke, though.

i fail to see how the volume of minerals changes anything. if you want minerals to take up less space, you compress them, this change wouldn't actually change a thing.


WTF draft went for a coffee and didn't come back.

Quick re-cap of my post.

"i haven't seen a single post that wants null to be easier, i've seen lots of posts asking null sec mineral supply to be less of a terrible joke, though." - indicating a problem that they would like looking at, thus making their life EASIER

Changing the mineral size would alter logistics, buying low-ends from the high-sec miner scrubs, you know the ones, the ones not worth anything, the ones who must be botters, the scourge of the universe etc. So you could move more low-ends that people say aren't in enough supply in nullsec up to nullsec more easily.

I'm not sure what people want, high-end ores to be given extra low-end minerals? a rebalance of manufacturing requirements to alter the ratio of High to Low end minerals?, more ore in the belts?, truth is there is low-end ore in the belts, I'm sat on sisi atm in DBT-GB (-0.2) and can see 32 various Veld rocks around the 60k+ quantity, 25 various Scordite rocks around the 30k+ quantity and 28 Pyrox rocks around the 28k quantity and most of them I could get without moving an inch from the standard warp-in point in the belt.

The big problem I see is people in empire need Null-Sec for supplies, but people in Null-sec see it as below them to have to resort to Empire for supplies, well guess what, it's a 2 way street, if you want to build massively Tritanium hungry ships like Supers, then you may have to buy some trit in, much as if I want to build anything that requires Megacyte, Morphite then I can't mine that from empire so that has to be bought in.

Imagine the possibilities of an industrial corp/alliance that has strong forces in both empire and null-sec, they could be shifting minerals to and fro and getting the best of both worlds.


i don't see how it makes anything easier. all you're doing is mining instead of jumping a freighter around. it's not making anything easier it just changes which activity you do to achieve the same outcome. in fact it's easier to load a freighter with junk and jump to a cyno than it is to set up a mining operation. if anything it's harder.

again, changing mineral sizes is irrelevant, that already happens via compression, that's already a thing in essence.

in 0.0 the simple fact is that nobody is going to mine low end minerals when it's more profitable not to mine them and exchange mega/zyd/moph for trit/pyerite/mex/etc. not to mention, outside of belts that can be stripped within hours of downtime that's all there is, that isn't enough to keep up with the supply of high ends coming from constantly respawning grav sites. it doesn't matter what you see in a regular belt when it's simply not enough so why bother wasting the time when you can trade in high sec.

no, it's not "below" them at all. the simple fact is, you can't supply what you need in null sec even if you wanted to.

why would you even want a high sec corp mining in high sec for you? move them to null, get them to mine high end ores, haul the minerals to jita (you have to get your freighter there if you want to bring it back full of trit, right?) and that freighter sells it's cargo of mega, and comes back with the same m3 in trit and a huge wedge of isk to boot. the entire fact that it's more efficient to *not* supply yourself is borderline stupid and needs to be addressed. not being able to supply yourself in high sec is fine because **** me it's high sec, high sec miners already have it easy they don't need it to be even easier. those high end minerals are null sec's rewards for not having concord babysitting them or being able to sit in their wardec immune corps safe from awoxers and wardecs, etc.

edit: having said that, you can still get mega/zyd in high sec from reprocessed loot.
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
#31 - 2013-01-23 14:54:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Bugsy VanHalen
Xessej wrote:
Wouldn't a simple solution be to put some low end ore in the grav sites? The wspace grav sites tend to have at least a balance of low and high end roids, if not at least one of each kind.

Most miners would still mine the high ends as it is more isk/m3.

No need to change the rocks that exist in the grav sites, just change what they refine into. less dev time and work, for a better result.

The solution to increase the amount of low end minerals in those high end roids that are already getting mined would actually create an increased supply of low end minerals in NULL. If you mine Arknor you would still get the same Megacyte but you would get 10 times the tritanium you get now.

most null sec grav sites contain huge Spodumain rocks, these are near worthless currently are are only mined to respawn the sites. SPOD already contains tritanium and pyrite, just give it a massive increase in those minerals to bring its value on par with other high end ores. This would not only make spod worth mining, but would creat a massive source of low end minerals, trit and pyrite, in NULL sec.
Dave Stark
#32 - 2013-01-23 14:57:23 UTC
Bugsy VanHalen wrote:
Xessej wrote:
Wouldn't a simple solution be to put some low end ore in the grav sites? The wspace grav sites tend to have at least a balance of low and high end roids, if not at least one of each kind.

Most miners would still mine the high ends as it is more isk/m3.

No need to change the rocks that exist in the grav sites, just change what they refine into. less dev time and work, for a better result.

The solution to increase the amount of low end minerals in those high end roids that are already getting mined would actually create an increased supply of low end minerals in NULL. If you mine Arknor you would still get the same Megacyte but you would get 10 times the tritanium you get now.

most null sec grav sites contain huge Spodumain rocks, these are near worthless currently are are only mined to respawn the sites. SPOD already contains tritanium and pyrite, just give it a massive increase in those minerals to bring its value on par with other high end ores. This would not only make spod worth mining, but would creat a massive source of low end minerals, trit and pyrite, in NULL sec.




i completely agree with this, making spod and gneiss produce more low ends to both increase their isk/m3 from a bad joke to something worth mining along with having them provide a sizable quantity of low ends is a simple and elegant solution.
Emma Royd
Maddled Gommerils
#33 - 2013-01-23 15:36:50 UTC
Spod needs addressing, it always has been a duff ore to mine, and the fact it's in the sites must be a CCP way of saying "Ha mine this sucker"

Dave, you make it sound like mining in Nullsec is hard work. If you're in a well setup corp/alliance you will have intel channels, scouts in the next systems, bubbles on the gate, and the fairly easy assumption that anyone you don't know in local is going to kill you, so you get to safety, so frustrating yes, dangerous I'm not so sure. On the other hand, in empire, when you've got 100+ in local, short of hitting d-scan as often as possible, or knowing who the known gankers are, generally you're pretty clueless, I'm not saying that should change, and if people fit their ships for max yield instead of a tank then they get what they deserve.

The difference is people in empire will probably fit cheaper ganking ships as they know they're going to get concorded whereas in nullsec there isn't that threat, so you could be a little more generous with your gankmobile.

Short of doubling the amount of ore in the belts / sites and making a faster re-spawn rate for roids so there is more to mine in nullsec is needed, but you will still get cherrypicking of the ores as it's common sense to mine high-value ore and sell the excess to buy low-value minerals, so until that attitude changes then there is no good solution.

It's no different than real life, if the supply exceeds what you demand and you can't do anything about that, then you have to factor in shipping the supply in into your plan.

There's not an easy answer, and let's hope they never get rid of mineral compression via mods Shocked
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#34 - 2013-01-23 16:17:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Batelle
Reposting because I would like feedback. 0.0 industry should be more than just building capitals, but IMO only people building capitals have "major" problems with acquiring low-ends (correct me if I'm wrong). T2 industry is what CCP said they want to get into 0.0, t2 industry should work on a small and large scale. People build capitals in 0.0 because they have to, it doesn't seem necessary to make it easier. CCP said its fine if other T1 industry stays in hisec, the problem is all t2 industry happens there too.

Batelle wrote:
TL;DR: all this talk of changes to nullsec mining and refining is completely irrelevant. give an efficiency bonus to t2 production/invention in lowsec/nullsec.

the supply and transport of lowends is a problem if you're doing capital construction or other such things in null, however I don't see this as a particularly important problem for two reasons.

1. People will continue to compress/import what is needed and continue to mine what is most profitable. For capital production, compression and massive trit importing will never be replaced by mining veldspar in 0.0
2. lowsec and nullsec need to be adjusted to make them more attractive to t2, t3, and booster production, which don't rely heavily on acquiring mass quantities of low-ends.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
Dave Stark
#35 - 2013-01-23 16:24:33 UTC
Emma Royd wrote:
Spod needs addressing, it always has been a duff ore to mine, and the fact it's in the sites must be a CCP way of saying "Ha mine this sucker"

Dave, you make it sound like mining in Nullsec is hard work. If you're in a well setup corp/alliance you will have intel channels, scouts in the next systems, bubbles on the gate, and the fairly easy assumption that anyone you don't know in local is going to kill you, so you get to safety, so frustrating yes, dangerous I'm not so sure. On the other hand, in empire, when you've got 100+ in local, short of hitting d-scan as often as possible, or knowing who the known gankers are, generally you're pretty clueless, I'm not saying that should change, and if people fit their ships for max yield instead of a tank then they get what they deserve.

The difference is people in empire will probably fit cheaper ganking ships as they know they're going to get concorded whereas in nullsec there isn't that threat, so you could be a little more generous with your gankmobile.

Short of doubling the amount of ore in the belts / sites and making a faster re-spawn rate for roids so there is more to mine in nullsec is needed, but you will still get cherrypicking of the ores as it's common sense to mine high-value ore and sell the excess to buy low-value minerals, so until that attitude changes then there is no good solution.

It's no different than real life, if the supply exceeds what you demand and you can't do anything about that, then you have to factor in shipping the supply in into your plan.

There's not an easy answer, and let's hope they never get rid of mineral compression via mods Shocked


i think the difficulty of mining is irrelevant here, to be honest. the point i was making was mining your own low ends simply changes what you do to supply low ends rather than "making it easier".

sure you'll always want to cherry pick, but to flip a belt EVERYTHING has to be mined, which means you'll start with the most lucrative to maximise your isk/hour incase you get interrupted. having to mine the entire belt means that isk/hour is largely unimportant and unless you're "forced" to mine less lucrative ores (eg, to flip a hidden belt) nobody will bother. hence why changing the composition of spod/gniess is arguably the best answer. nothing will change in terms of a miner's day to day activity and will just provide a glut of low ends in 0.0 space and also stop spod being a horrible joke.
Akira Menoko
Silnare
#36 - 2013-01-23 18:40:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Akira Menoko
Bugsy VanHalen wrote:

most null sec grav sites contain huge Spodumain rocks, these are near worthless currently are are only mined to respawn the sites. SPOD already contains tritanium and pyrite, just give it a massive increase in those minerals to bring its value on par with other high end ores. This would not only make spod worth mining, but would creat a massive source of low end minerals, trit and pyrite, in NULL sec.


I see this as the best solution and have thought so for quite a while now.

Gneiss could get some similar treatment too I suppose.
Callduron
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#37 - 2013-01-24 01:54:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Callduron
Miner behaviour in null sec is odd. People are adamant about mining out the grav sites even when there's Mercoxit left rotting in the belts (currently worth about 5 times as much as the dregs of the grav site).

Also many anoms have minerals but there's no interest in mining out freshly cleared sites.

We can't expect null sec miners to pursue the most profitable path when they don't do that now.

I write http://stabbedup.blogspot.co.uk/

I post on reddit as /u/callduron.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#38 - 2013-01-24 02:27:46 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Callduron wrote:
Miner behaviour in null sec is odd. People are adamant about mining out the grav sites even when there's Mercoxit left rotting in the belts (currently worth about 5 times as much as the dregs of the grav site).

Also many anoms have minerals but there's no interest in mining out freshly cleared sites.

We can't expect null sec miners to pursue the most profitable path when they don't do that now.



A maxed out Mack mining Mercoxit with the rig pulls in 3101m3/cycle for 31.3m ISK/hr.
Mining Hed, it puls in 5091m3/cycle for 41m ISK/hr.

Mercx mining is between Pyro and Kern in ISK/hr. The only reason it looks so profitable to you is that you're forgetting that Deep Core Strip miners have **** yields (and possibly because you're comparing units instead of m3).

So they're mining out the grav sites to cycle them and get back to mining Hed, Ark, and Hemo (the current top 3).


As for mining in anoms: Yes, lets turn off the spawning of new anoms by sitting in the old ones mining for hours. Sounds like a great way to keep your ratters happy.


Sounds like Null Sec miners are doing just fine at finding profitable paths and you just don't know what you're talking about.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Dave Stark
#39 - 2013-01-24 12:02:39 UTC
Callduron wrote:
We can't expect null sec miners to pursue the most profitable path when they don't do that now.


flipping the large grav site is the most profitable path, give or take. even if the larger grav sites was more profitable you'd still flip the large one because uninterrupted mining in an indy 3 system is more isk/hour than not mining in an indy 5 system that's constantly cloaky camped.
Mister Tuggles
Heretic Army
Sedition.
#40 - 2013-01-24 14:35:04 UTC
I find it ridiculous they want to give another bump to the nullbears. Every other region in Eve is tied to the same problem of having to either buy, or import certain minerals, moon goo, etc to do production. Why should null be any different? Especially since it is the safest ******* place in Eve.

Hell, instead of spawning belts in null why doesn't CCP just change it to spawn ******* jet cans of modules, and random floating ships to be scooped up?


riduclous.