These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Should nullsec industry > hisec industry?

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#1081 - 2013-04-10 14:19:10 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
DrClit wrote:


Build a pos then douche. Your argument is like arguing against starving people dont eat much food anyway so why give them any to begin with.


Yes lets spend hundreds of billions a month on POS that can be attacked to get what high sec has for almost free and no risk!



I'd like to see some changes to how highsec slots work. First step: reduce the numbers. Second. Specialise them by corporation, so some stations can do ships, but not modules and so on. Third step: limit the number that someone can use in each station.

That /should/ push more people into POS, without utterly destroying production by people just starting out. Ideally modular POS would allow for smaller , and personal, pos than we have these days, to allow newbies a taste, without the 100 mill per month cost.

Increasing the slots in outposts would also be good. I could hardly believe it when I read what the various outpost upgrades did. (9 from the advanced, 14 from the two intermediate and 15 from the basic factories. plus 4 from being an amarr factory outpost. 42 slots. And that's stopping any other upgrades, like a refinery. And these cost tens of billions. And it's always possible I've misread the details.) The capabilities of Outposts, and the fact they're limited to one per system, really screws with Null's Industry. I have to laugh at the 'Outposts are a major upgrade from running operations out of a collection of starbases.'. The major benefits, atm, are docking and being indestructible.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1082 - 2013-04-10 14:21:00 UTC
Without going in to playerbase #s and all that, out of curiosity.. what can NOT be built in nullsec? Don't tell me about availability, we all know slots are taken up. But I'm curious as to what that 1% non efficiency is.

If null is "supposed" to be 99% efficient, what CAN'T be built there?

If it's something inane like a t3 ship you can go to hell btw, because a t3 is not "required" to be self sufficient.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1083 - 2013-04-10 14:26:59 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
What if you took the fact of the market being player ran (ignoring the price in one market versus another, we know the player is going to transport whereever the # is greater) and also took into consideration that rock for rock (yea I know) null does have a higher value of ore? Based on m3 I mean.

Now, with the supposed factor of null having a fleet of exhumers going to work, you can get a much greater quantity out of those belts right? Quantity is it's own quality and all that.

I think that's the design behind null having a greater "value".

Yes you can say "but Murk, you can just move belts" and you'd be right! But as a for instance, even if I decide to solo mine after work for a few hours to chill in say... Jel... 70% of the belts are either fully stripped or are not going to give enough yield to make it worth my time.

If I say mined in a system that had 5 station and only 6 belts in null... and logged on late in the day, I'm pretty sure I could mine as much as I want without having to switch rocks, let alone belts.

So in short, I don't think using the market is going to actually reinforce the reality of what belt has a greater value in what sector of space.

I understand the point of spending costs to move the ore, but in reality, we are talking about using the ore to build ships, not sell to the public right? After all, null is about empire building.


in null sec, mining is done in grav sites. grav sites are worth less isk/m3 than scordite. thank spod and gneiss for that, dragging down the average isk/m3 of a grav site.
unfortunately due to the nature of grav sites, you can't just cherry pick the ark and ignore the rest.

nothing stops you putting those exhumers in high sec and obtaining the same quantity, at a higher isk/quantity value.

the only thing null has going for it is the rorq bonuses, which as i pointed out are the hinge of the debate as to which is worth more isk, high sec or null sec. i'm not saying high sec is always more profitable, however it is generally when all considerations are taken in to account i feel it is. oh and scordite isk/m3 > grav site isk/m3 is just fact, i've run the maths. although i haven't updated the sheet in a few days, but i doubt it has changed all that much. although the gap is closing.

then i will repeat the "move belts" suggestion. the ore is there if you look for it, even with the proliferation of high sec miners.
find that remaining 30% of belts, or pick another activity.

# of belts in null sec is irrelevant, once you have the first industry upgrade installed in a sov system.

you might not think so, but that's exactly how it works. a belt's value is determined by how much isk the market will give you for it's contents.

as for transport costs there will always be costs; yes some minerals will be kept for local production. however by nature 0.0 must over produce megacyte/zyd/morphite because high sec doesn't have access to those minerals so the excess has to be exported. the only way to reduce these costs to 0 is to basically say "all production is done in null" and that's silly.



That makes sense, ty for that. But it still begs the question.... if it's null sec why does it have to be a market? In theory couldn't an alliance have buy agreements since we are talking about keeping the materials internal for consumption?

I guess what I'm trying to do, is see if you NEED the MARKET to compare null mining to highsec mining. Why not eliminate that factor (granted it also eliminates the argument heh but that's the point)?

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1084 - 2013-04-10 14:31:36 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Without going in to playerbase #s and all that, out of curiosity.. what can NOT be built in nullsec? Don't tell me about availability, we all know slots are taken up. But I'm curious as to what that 1% non efficiency is.

If null is "supposed" to be 99% efficient, what CAN'T be built there?

If it's something inane like a t3 ship you can go to hell btw, because a t3 is not "required" to be self sufficient.


Navy items/ammo/ships is a big market as are loot items like MWD and sensor boosters.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1085 - 2013-04-10 14:31:51 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
DrClit wrote:


Build a pos then douche. Your argument is like arguing against starving people dont eat much food anyway so why give them any to begin with.


Yes lets spend hundreds of billions a month on POS that can be attacked to get what high sec has for almost free and no risk!



Better prices is not relevant to autonomy though. That's the crux I think.

Just because it's more expensive doesn't mean it's impossible, which is what I think the whole null vs highsec debate comes from.

Yes, you can EASILY make more money transporting your goods from null to highsec and pay for the logistics. Yes you can transport goods from highsec to null and still keep more money than building it in null.

But that doesn't mean you can't do it in null right? Just means you can't do it for FREE.

Now, I do think null should have more slots. Null should, by design, be meant to accomodate more people. But I think it's safe to say that will come with a cost too.

Which is why risk vs reward exists and more money could be had in null. More more more is the order of the day =).

More danger, more isk, more people (should be, that's player fault though), more cost.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1086 - 2013-04-10 14:33:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Without going in to playerbase #s and all that, out of curiosity.. what can NOT be built in nullsec? Don't tell me about availability, we all know slots are taken up. But I'm curious as to what that 1% non efficiency is.

If null is "supposed" to be 99% efficient, what CAN'T be built there?

If it's something inane like a t3 ship you can go to hell btw, because a t3 is not "required" to be self sufficient.


Navy items/ammo/ships is a big market as are loot items like MWD and sensor boosters.



None of those are dependent on survival. Only a "luxury" (don;t roast me for that!) to make things easier and better.

Just like 9 is better than 8, neither are 0 however.

Ammo however.. you got me there. Kinda need that. Didn't know you could not make ammo in null. That's actually pretty fuckin ********.

Unless you mean navy ammo, then it can be discarded.

Wait a sec, I just realized something.....

You're telling me that NAVY can't be built in null?

That uh, well, I'm trying not to **** you off but think about that.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Dave stark
#1087 - 2013-04-10 14:34:19 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
That makes sense, ty for that. But it still begs the question.... if it's null sec why does it have to be a market? In theory couldn't an alliance have buy agreements since we are talking about keeping the materials internal for consumption?

I guess what I'm trying to do, is see if you NEED the MARKET to compare null mining to highsec mining. Why not eliminate that factor (granted it also eliminates the argument heh but that's the point)?


i'll admit; i don't exactly get what you mean.

but, i'll answer it in the best way i can.
null sec only has use for a fraction of the minerals mined in null sec, as i pointed out. therefore the remainder of the minerals will be exported and sold else where. this means null sec alliances would be agreeing to pay their miners above jita price for what?
alternatively they could just let their miners export it to jita, buy it at jita prices, and bring it back to null sec. which also puts a limit on how much you can sell your zyd/mega for locally (price of the mineral at jita price + logistics costs) even at that "above jita price" the demand is so small and the supply exceeds it such that it'll quickly fall to jita price or below.

then again if you're importing things, you may as well import whole modules and whole ships rather than the materials (mynnna wrote about it in his tritanium bottleneck article on themittani why it'd be better to import stuff rather than materials, he explains it better than i would)

hence if you're importing everything from high sec, you need to send your stuff to high sec so the producers can purchase your raw materials, which means it goes to jita. so there's really no way around giving minerals a market price.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1088 - 2013-04-10 14:36:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
That makes sense, ty for that. But it still begs the question.... if it's null sec why does it have to be a market? In theory couldn't an alliance have buy agreements since we are talking about keeping the materials internal for consumption?

I guess what I'm trying to do, is see if you NEED the MARKET to compare null mining to highsec mining. Why not eliminate that factor (granted it also eliminates the argument heh but that's the point)?


i'll admit; i don't exactly get what you mean.

but, i'll answer it in the best way i can.
null sec only has use for a fraction of the minerals mined in null sec, as i pointed out. therefore the remainder of the minerals will be exported and sold else where. this means null sec alliances would be agreeing to pay their miners above jita price for what?
alternatively they could just let their miners export it to jita, buy it at jita prices, and bring it back to null sec. which also puts a limit on how much you can sell your zyd/mega for locally (price of the mineral at jita price + logistics costs) even at that "above jita price" the demand is so small and the supply exceeds it such that it'll quickly fall to jita price or below.

then again if you're importing things, you may as well import whole modules and whole ships rather than the materials (mynnna wrote about it in his tritanium bottleneck article on themittani why it'd be better to import stuff rather than materials, he explains it better than i would)

hence if you're importing everything from high sec, you need to send your stuff to high sec so the producers can purchase your raw materials, which means it goes to jita. so there's really no way around giving minerals a market price.



Well, I'm lookin at what Jenn said about being "99% self sufficient" and looking at things with the same eye you would use watching Walking Dead.

Terms of survival without using highsec. Like, can't you get the same ore and minerals from reprocessing loot gotten from wrecks and rats? And those anoms? I see TONS of wrecks from rats that are unlooted in null all the time.

Not counting pure salvage, that's a lot of minerals. In fact, due to my own laziness I loot my bs wrecks and always just process the stuff that doesn't have a buy order for it.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1089 - 2013-04-10 14:37:54 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Without going in to playerbase #s and all that, out of curiosity.. what can NOT be built in nullsec? Don't tell me about availability, we all know slots are taken up. But I'm curious as to what that 1% non efficiency is.

If null is "supposed" to be 99% efficient, what CAN'T be built there?

If it's something inane like a t3 ship you can go to hell btw, because a t3 is not "required" to be self sufficient.


let's put it this way: anything can be built in nullsec, but it isn't, and the difference in efficiency is far more than 1%

the only thing I bother building in 0.0 is the frigates we need for our newbie program, simply because the quantities I need to provide are impossible to source in Jita at times and because it's more efficient to ship uncompressed minerals in a jump freighter than hulls

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1090 - 2013-04-10 14:38:54 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:


Better prices is not relevant to autonomy though. That's the crux I think.



We dont want better prices than high sec just the ability to match them when building out in 0.0.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1091 - 2013-04-10 14:44:01 UTC
Andski wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Without going in to playerbase #s and all that, out of curiosity.. what can NOT be built in nullsec? Don't tell me about availability, we all know slots are taken up. But I'm curious as to what that 1% non efficiency is.

If null is "supposed" to be 99% efficient, what CAN'T be built there?

If it's something inane like a t3 ship you can go to hell btw, because a t3 is not "required" to be self sufficient.


let's put it this way: anything can be built in nullsec, but it isn't, and the difference in efficiency is far more than 1%

the only thing I bother building in 0.0 is the frigates we need for our newbie program, simply because the quantities I need to provide are impossible to source in Jita at times and because it's more efficient to ship uncompressed minerals in a jump freighter than hulls



So then null is 99% self sufficient, just not as profitable as people would like?

I'm trying to get a full breakdown to see what's mechanic, and what's player laziness/greed. Not to be an ass, or hateful, but to understand.

Especially if I'm going to be a part of a sov alliance (and I hate highsec) and maybe even one day run one, or be a building block for one.

I don't want to adopt other peoples' views, but I do want to know what works, and how, and why, and apply them to my own goals.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1092 - 2013-04-10 14:45:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:


Better prices is not relevant to autonomy though. That's the crux I think.



We dont want better prices than high sec just the ability to match them when building out in 0.0.




Are you willing to give up sov null for that though? Meh, probably even null period come to think of it. Because it just sounds like you're wanting the baby without having the labor pains (not to be confrontational but I am calling it as I see it).

EDIT- That sounds harsh, sorry for that.

I just see how people are explaining to me how things are working and it proves it is working how it should, but then people say how it's broken.

To me it isn't broken, just people want it improved.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#1093 - 2013-04-10 14:47:06 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:


Better prices is not relevant to autonomy though. That's the crux I think.



We dont want better prices than high sec just the ability to match them when building out in 0.0.



And thats the point (so simple a point yet so hard for some to grasp).

It's like that in more than industry. For instance I can and do kill npcs in null sec, but I can make the same or more isk in empire running incursions not having to stare at local while someone else does all the driving. End result, I spend more time doing incursions than null sec ratting, as do many of my peers.

The industiralist can do many things in null, but its freer, easier and cheaper to do it in empire. A whole class of players are virtually forced to live in space they don't want to by circumstance.

High sec player whine all the time about feeling forced to do this or that (they aren't forced, ccp just did things to "encourage" them out of high sec), but its perfectly ok to those same high sec players that high sec be so good as to make many activities in null sec basically moot.

I don't think industrialists are looking for more isk, they would simply like to leave where they want, just like the high sec people. I don't know what's wrong with that idea.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1094 - 2013-04-10 14:47:58 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:



Are you willing to give up sov null for that though? Meh, probably even null period come to think of it. Because it just sounds like you're wanting the baby without having the labor pains (not to be confrontational but I am calling it as I see it).


Right now it is impossible to match high sec industry out in null.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1095 - 2013-04-10 14:48:04 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:


Better prices is not relevant to autonomy though. That's the crux I think.



We dont want better prices than high sec just the ability to match them when building out in 0.0.



And thats the point (so simple a point yet so hard for some to grasp).

It's like that in more than industry. For instance I can and do kill npcs in null sec, but I can make the same or more isk in empire running incursions not having to stare at local while someone else does all the driving. End result, I spend more time doing incursions than null sec ratting, as do many of my peers.

The industiralist can do many things in null, but its freer, easier and cheaper to do it in empire. A whole class of players are virtually forced to live in space they don't want to by circumstance.

High sec player whine all the time about feeling forced to do this or that (they aren't forced, ccp just did things to "encourage" them out of high sec), but its perfectly ok to those same high sec players that high sec be so good as to make many activities in null sec basically moot.

I don't think industrialists are looking for more isk, they would simply like to leave where they want, just like the high sec people. I don't know what's wrong with that idea.



That doesn't mean it's broken. Just not as ideal as you'd like.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Dave stark
#1096 - 2013-04-10 14:48:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Murk Paradox wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
That makes sense, ty for that. But it still begs the question.... if it's null sec why does it have to be a market? In theory couldn't an alliance have buy agreements since we are talking about keeping the materials internal for consumption?

I guess what I'm trying to do, is see if you NEED the MARKET to compare null mining to highsec mining. Why not eliminate that factor (granted it also eliminates the argument heh but that's the point)?


i'll admit; i don't exactly get what you mean.

but, i'll answer it in the best way i can.
null sec only has use for a fraction of the minerals mined in null sec, as i pointed out. therefore the remainder of the minerals will be exported and sold else where. this means null sec alliances would be agreeing to pay their miners above jita price for what?
alternatively they could just let their miners export it to jita, buy it at jita prices, and bring it back to null sec. which also puts a limit on how much you can sell your zyd/mega for locally (price of the mineral at jita price + logistics costs) even at that "above jita price" the demand is so small and the supply exceeds it such that it'll quickly fall to jita price or below.

then again if you're importing things, you may as well import whole modules and whole ships rather than the materials (mynnna wrote about it in his tritanium bottleneck article on themittani why it'd be better to import stuff rather than materials, he explains it better than i would)

hence if you're importing everything from high sec, you need to send your stuff to high sec so the producers can purchase your raw materials, which means it goes to jita. so there's really no way around giving minerals a market price.



Well, I'm lookin at what Jenn said about being "99% self sufficient" and looking at things with the same eye you would use watching Walking Dead.

Terms of survival without using highsec. Like, can't you get the same ore and minerals from reprocessing loot gotten from wrecks and rats? And those anoms? I see TONS of wrecks from rats that are unlooted in null all the time.

Not counting pure salvage, that's a lot of minerals. In fact, due to my own laziness I loot my bs wrecks and always just process the stuff that doesn't have a buy order for it.


you can be self sufficient, however you've then got to look at the ratios of minerals that come out of a grav site. as i said, by nature 0.0 must overproduce on things like mega/zyd.

two things can happen, we export it to jita. bam, market price.
we separate null and high sec, no interaction what so ever; trit is now worth 30k per unit, and megacyte is less useful than a condom vending machine in the vatican. well perhaps nothing that extreme but the demand on stuff in null sec is higher than locally sourced minerals can provide with regards to low ends. (the most lucrative grav site in null has 0 veld, scord, and pyrox, or something. it's 3 of the common low ends, cba to go check but you get the point)

(i may need to edit this, forums went full ****** on me. give me a moment)
edit: meta 0 no longer drops, and iirc meta 1-4 reprocesses to less minerals or something? not quite sure on that one, i don't reprocess a lot of modules, and when i do i sure as **** don't check what i'm actually getting.

look at the chinese server, that's exactly what they do. then look at their ship prices. demand is bigger than supply, because they don't mine on serenity, they reprocess all their rat loot. or, so i've been led to believe.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1097 - 2013-04-10 14:49:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:



Are you willing to give up sov null for that though? Meh, probably even null period come to think of it. Because it just sounds like you're wanting the baby without having the labor pains (not to be confrontational but I am calling it as I see it).


Right now it is impossible to match high sec industry out in null.



THAT I can understand and get behind. I do think null should have more slots. Definitely.

That's where all the 2000v2000 fights come from. Frontline should be churning some crap out by the truckload.

I just don't think the higher end quality should match, based on storyline quantification.

Just like you can't make empire specific things in null. Because it's well, empire specific.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#1098 - 2013-04-10 14:49:47 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:


Better prices is not relevant to autonomy though. That's the crux I think.



We dont want better prices than high sec just the ability to match them when building out in 0.0.




Are you willing to give up sov null for that though? Meh, probably even null period come to think of it. Because it just sounds like you're wanting the baby without having the labor pains (not to be confrontational but I am calling it as I see it).

EDIT- That sounds harsh, sorry for that.

I just see how people are explaining to me how things are working and it proves it is working how it should, but then people say how it's broken.

To me it isn't broken, just people want it improved.


It is broken, null sec players should not be slaves to high sec interests. Dealing with high sec should be a matter of choice not necessity.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1099 - 2013-04-10 14:52:36 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:


Better prices is not relevant to autonomy though. That's the crux I think.



We dont want better prices than high sec just the ability to match them when building out in 0.0.




Are you willing to give up sov null for that though? Meh, probably even null period come to think of it. Because it just sounds like you're wanting the baby without having the labor pains (not to be confrontational but I am calling it as I see it).

EDIT- That sounds harsh, sorry for that.

I just see how people are explaining to me how things are working and it proves it is working how it should, but then people say how it's broken.

To me it isn't broken, just people want it improved.


It is broken, null sec players should not be slaves to high sec interests. Dealing with high sec should be a matter of choice not necessity.


Players shouldn't be slaves to isk at all.

That's the problem. Because it is a choice. You can produce anything in null you need to survive. The possibility is there. What remains, is the choice to wait, or plan a much more detailed oriented program to get the same things from highsec (albeit cheaper).

It does work, just not as well as you'd like. That's why it's a choice.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1100 - 2013-04-10 14:54:23 UTC
I do very much think that pirate faction stuff should be possible to build however, and NOT in highsec. Null specific, npc maybe.

That would be fun and would encourage a whole different direction and add a new element.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.