These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: Building Dreams: Introducing Engineering Complexes

First post First post First post
Author
Obil Que
Star Explorers
Reckoning Star Alliance
#701 - 2016-10-24 13:44:17 UTC
Space Vixen wrote:

I think this is the biggest issue in this entire discussion.

This entire thread is basically heated debate about the implied design strategy of CCP, based on people's interpretation of the proposed features/tactics.

CCP - if you made the strategy clear, I belive it would be far more acceptable to people.


They laid out the goals in the very first devblog

https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/back-into-the-structure/

Quote:
Everyone who wants to use a structure, does: We want structures to be as widely used as possible, by removing artificial barriers or mechanics that may be in the way. This has to stay within a reasonable risk versus reward scope, of course, and as such the most rewarding structures should always be vulnerable to attack.


Seems right in line with the proposed vulnerability states

Quote:
Strong connection with the player: This means we want to enthrall our players to feel meaningfully connected with the structures they deploy, use, and manage. We want them to have an active cooperative (or disruptive) role in the space around them so that players care about their placement.


Note the mention of cooperation and disruption

Quote:
Structure combat is more exciting: Structure combat leaves a lot to be desired, as the AI target selection is lacking, while defensive options are limited and not that effective. This goal ensures structures work well in asymmetrical warfare, being force multipliers in the area they contest to compensate for their static nature. We want structure combat to feel more like ship combat between several parties and less like a static grind.


Again, the structure is a force multiplier, not a force unto itself with limited AI and interactions

Quote:
Encourage interaction between groups of players: Partly covered before, we want our new system to greatly favor player interactions via cooperative or competitive gameplay. This not only means structures should matter to be considered primary targets, but also promote public participation if needed.


Seems obvious what their stated goal here is.

No amount of restating what has already been said about EC use by individuals both public and private as well as the industry options in NPC stations for individuals is going to change your view I fear. You see only the broken solo POS stick that currently dominates non-NPC industry (outside of null-sec outposts) and not how that model is seriously at fault for the current mindset of how industry "should" be done, not what needs to be done for the betterment of the game as a whole.

Kinizsi
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#702 - 2016-10-24 13:47:31 UTC
Samsara Toldya wrote:
.




Yes, introduced Nov 8th 2016, but not I don't think them as finished until Drilling platforms and reaction methods are introduced.
Obil Que
Star Explorers
Reckoning Star Alliance
#703 - 2016-10-24 13:53:59 UTC
Samsara Toldya wrote:
Kinizsi wrote:
I've fitted my Tear Collector II and I'm allready a billionaire from your whiner tears.

POS's ... WOULD DISAPPEAR asap EC's are finished, so industry guys, HTFU, and get used to EC's, those are your future, not NPC stations if you want to remain in business.


Well... EC will be introduced Nov 8th 2016 and I really hope POS get removed that day (hint: won't happen).

Because... only when the last POS are gone you'll recognize that neither Citadels nor EC are able to extract moon-goo.

I can't replace a medium industry POS with a XL EC. That's fine. Bet moon-mining will suffer the same problems soon™.
Gone are the days of "one POS will do the job".


Moon goo and reactions will be incorporated into the drilling structures

https://updates.eveonline.com/card/2z5cx/structures-drilling-platforms/


Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#704 - 2016-10-24 13:57:34 UTC
Obil Que wrote:
Samsara Toldya wrote:
Kinizsi wrote:
I've fitted my Tear Collector II and I'm allready a billionaire from your whiner tears.

POS's ... WOULD DISAPPEAR asap EC's are finished, so industry guys, HTFU, and get used to EC's, those are your future, not NPC stations if you want to remain in business.


Well... EC will be introduced Nov 8th 2016 and I really hope POS get removed that day (hint: won't happen).

Because... only when the last POS are gone you'll recognize that neither Citadels nor EC are able to extract moon-goo.

I can't replace a medium industry POS with a XL EC. That's fine. Bet moon-mining will suffer the same problems soon™.
Gone are the days of "one POS will do the job".


Moon goo and reactions will be incorporated into the drilling structures

https://updates.eveonline.com/card/2z5cx/structures-drilling-platforms/





I'll bet you 1isk that they'll be as big a let down as the whole sequence of releases from Citadels onwards have been.

Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..." " They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."

Welcome to EVE.

Obil Que
Star Explorers
Reckoning Star Alliance
#705 - 2016-10-24 14:01:55 UTC
Drago Shouna wrote:

I'll bet you 1isk that they'll be as big a let down as the whole sequence of releases from Citadels onwards have been.


I'm sure the tear buckets will overflow
That doesn't mean they aren't better for the game
Just means that some EVE players have very narrow views of what is good for the game
Skia Aumer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#706 - 2016-10-24 15:19:34 UTC
Obil Que wrote:
They laid out the goals in the very first devblog
https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/back-into-the-structure/

True, but that was a large-scale view. Would be nice to re-iterate them regarding ECs specifically.
For example, "Support and enhance existing gameplay" could be understood as "I have a POS now, so EC should do the same but better", which is in contradiction with "Encourage interaction between groups of players".
Obil Que
Star Explorers
Reckoning Star Alliance
#707 - 2016-10-24 15:30:32 UTC
Skia Aumer wrote:
Obil Que wrote:
They laid out the goals in the very first devblog
https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/back-into-the-structure/

True, but that was a large-scale view. Would be nice to re-iterate them regarding ECs specifically.
For example, "Support and enhance existing gameplay" could be understood as "I have a POS now, so EC should do the same but better", which is in contradiction with "Encourage interaction between groups of players".


It clearly doesn't. The paragraph you quote mentions mini-games as those were often proposed as "enhancements" to structure gameplay. What they do say that is relevant is : "For example Starbases work best to give capsuleers an edge when manufacturing, or contesting space." Their comments there are along the lines of "we don't intend to change structures into mini-games or completely change their design, we want them to give an advantage" with manufacturing yields being one example and force multipliers when contesting space being another.

The idea that an EC should "do the same but better" is a misconception of players that are not accepting the balance pass that CCP is performing on structures. ECs should not be better than the POS in every area because there are a number of areas where the POS fails to provide good balance. Just like you generally don't see CCP buffing a particular class of ship without also addressing areas where it is overpowered or, in some cases, adjusting the cost of the class of ship where it is too cheap for the benefits it provides.

Chani El'zrya
Beyond Frontier
Pandemic Horde
#708 - 2016-10-24 16:02:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Chani El'zrya
Obil Que wrote:
Skia Aumer wrote:
Obil Que wrote:
They laid out the goals in the very first devblog
https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/back-into-the-structure/

True, but that was a large-scale view. Would be nice to re-iterate them regarding ECs specifically.
For example, "Support and enhance existing gameplay" could be understood as "I have a POS now, so EC should do the same but better", which is in contradiction with "Encourage interaction between groups of players".


It clearly doesn't. The paragraph you quote mentions mini-games as those were often proposed as "enhancements" to structure gameplay. What they do say that is relevant is : "For example Starbases work best to give capsuleers an edge when manufacturing, or contesting space." Their comments there are along the lines of "we don't intend to change structures into mini-games or completely change their design, we want them to give an advantage" with manufacturing yields being one example and force multipliers when contesting space being another.

The idea that an EC should "do the same but better" is a misconception of players that are not accepting the balance pass that CCP is performing on structures. ECs should not be better than the POS in every area because there are a number of areas where the POS fails to provide good balance. Just like you generally don't see CCP buffing a particular class of ship without also addressing areas where it is overpowered or, in some cases, adjusting the cost of the class of ship where it is too cheap for the benefits it provides.



Well i don't ask that ECs to be as good as POS.
I just want them to be better than NPC station for all players.
Space Vixen
Doomheim
#709 - 2016-10-24 16:15:35 UTC
Quote:

Seems obvious what their stated goal here is.

No amount of restating what has already been said about EC use by individuals both public and private as well as the industry options in NPC stations for individuals is going to change your view I fear. You see only the broken solo POS stick that currently dominates non-NPC industry (outside of null-sec outposts) and not how that model is seriously at fault for the current mindset of how industry "should" be done, not what needs to be done for the betterment of the game as a whole.



Is it really obvious?

These are extremely vague goals, considering that these changes look to upend the entire existing gameplay model of industry.

The force that drives the entire world and economy of eve online.


However, I am not against the changes as you presumptively assume.


I love the idea of these industrial platforms as more engaging platforms for play - it's just the notion that they should only favor ONE PLAYSTYLE is what concerns me.

Also, I'd just like to hear the rational as to why, as you seem to believe, that this is infinitely better for the future of the game.

I'm just interested in the strategy so I can understand the changes.

SV


Obil Que
Star Explorers
Reckoning Star Alliance
#710 - 2016-10-24 16:27:33 UTC
Chani El'zrya wrote:
Obil Que wrote:
Skia Aumer wrote:
Obil Que wrote:
They laid out the goals in the very first devblog
https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/back-into-the-structure/

True, but that was a large-scale view. Would be nice to re-iterate them regarding ECs specifically.
For example, "Support and enhance existing gameplay" could be understood as "I have a POS now, so EC should do the same but better", which is in contradiction with "Encourage interaction between groups of players".


It clearly doesn't. The paragraph you quote mentions mini-games as those were often proposed as "enhancements" to structure gameplay. What they do say that is relevant is : "For example Starbases work best to give capsuleers an edge when manufacturing, or contesting space." Their comments there are along the lines of "we don't intend to change structures into mini-games or completely change their design, we want them to give an advantage" with manufacturing yields being one example and force multipliers when contesting space being another.

The idea that an EC should "do the same but better" is a misconception of players that are not accepting the balance pass that CCP is performing on structures. ECs should not be better than the POS in every area because there are a number of areas where the POS fails to provide good balance. Just like you generally don't see CCP buffing a particular class of ship without also addressing areas where it is overpowered or, in some cases, adjusting the cost of the class of ship where it is too cheap for the benefits it provides.



Well i don't ask that ECs to be as good as POS.
I just want them to be better than NPC station for all players.


You have a simplistic "want" which requires a complex answer but one that is undoubtedly they are, in terms of stats and numbers, better than an NPC station. They provide a better bonus to manufacturing to any given item over an NPC station when rigged for that activity. This is indisputable.

They do NOT provide this bonus without a choice to be made or without considerations.

The choices are complex with multiple "knobs" to be considered including size and the specific specializations. Those choices have implications related to cost and vulnerability. Whether a given player takes that risk or invests that cost is entirely up to them and whether those choices are good for a given industrialist depend greatly on their product and scale. They also have the added choice of where to place them including in systems without NPC stations to take advantage of other benefits related to job cost, taxes, etc. Additionally, ECs add in the option to use public facilities where others take on portions of this risk to provide you with portions of the benefits.

But you know all this, I'm certain.

The reality may be that when someone adds up their cost, risk and compare to their size, scale, and products that the ECs would not be better. That is a valid design choice in a game as complex as EVE. People here are mad because their own situation may result in ECs being a bad decision for them because there is now more complexity in the decision. Today, there are very few considerations because of the design of POSes flattens most of them into "POS better" and the risk/reward make them nearly a throwaway part of the discussion. In a game where we want decisions to matter, there should be little disagreement that ECs, like Citadels, introduce that into a part of EVE that currently has very little.












Chani El'zrya
Beyond Frontier
Pandemic Horde
#711 - 2016-10-24 16:36:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Chani El'zrya
Obil Que wrote:
Chani El'zrya wrote:
Obil Que wrote:
Skia Aumer wrote:
Obil Que wrote:
They laid out the goals in the very first devblog
https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/back-into-the-structure/

True, but that was a large-scale view. Would be nice to re-iterate them regarding ECs specifically.
For example, "Support and enhance existing gameplay" could be understood as "I have a POS now, so EC should do the same but better", which is in contradiction with "Encourage interaction between groups of players".


It clearly doesn't. The paragraph you quote mentions mini-games as those were often proposed as "enhancements" to structure gameplay. What they do say that is relevant is : "For example Starbases work best to give capsuleers an edge when manufacturing, or contesting space." Their comments there are along the lines of "we don't intend to change structures into mini-games or completely change their design, we want them to give an advantage" with manufacturing yields being one example and force multipliers when contesting space being another.

The idea that an EC should "do the same but better" is a misconception of players that are not accepting the balance pass that CCP is performing on structures. ECs should not be better than the POS in every area because there are a number of areas where the POS fails to provide good balance. Just like you generally don't see CCP buffing a particular class of ship without also addressing areas where it is overpowered or, in some cases, adjusting the cost of the class of ship where it is too cheap for the benefits it provides.



Well i don't ask that ECs to be as good as POS.
I just want them to be better than NPC station for all players.


You have a simplistic "want" which requires a complex answer but one that is undoubtedly they are, in terms of stats and numbers, better than an NPC station. They provide a better bonus to manufacturing to any given item over an NPC station when rigged for that activity. This is indisputable.

They do NOT provide this bonus without a choice to be made or without considerations.

The choices are complex with multiple "knobs" to be considered including size and the specific specializations. Those choices have implications related to cost and vulnerability. Whether a given player takes that risk or invests that cost is entirely up to them and whether those choices are good for a given industrialist depend greatly on their product and scale. They also have the added choice of where to place them including in systems without NPC stations to take advantage of other benefits related to job cost, taxes, etc. Additionally, ECs add in the option to use public facilities where others take on portions of this risk to provide you with portions of the benefits.

But you know all this, I'm certain.

The reality may be that when someone adds up their cost, risk and compare to their size, scale, and products that the ECs would not be better. That is a valid design choice in a game as complex as EVE. People here are mad because their own situation may result in ECs being a bad decision for them because there is now more complexity in the decision. Today, there are very few considerations because of the design of POSes flattens most of them into "POS better" and the risk/reward make them nearly a throwaway part of the discussion. In a game where we want decisions to matter, there should be little disagreement that ECs, like Citadels, introduce that into a part of EVE that currently has very little.



I did all the calculations already using all parameters you mention.

The short answer is that medium ECs is worth the risk starting from 2 characters producing and onlining only the prod service. As soon you get more character on board you can online research and invention services. 20 characters per system is the maximum which put an hard limit on the use of public EC per system
One single character producing have to stay in NPC station.
Obil Que
Star Explorers
Reckoning Star Alliance
#712 - 2016-10-24 16:40:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Obil Que
Space Vixen wrote:
I love the idea of these industrial platforms as more engaging platforms for play - it's just the notion that they should only favor ONE PLAYSTYLE is what concerns me.

Also, I'd just like to hear the rational as to why, as you seem to believe, that this is infinitely better for the future of the game.

I'm just interested in the strategy so I can understand the changes.


Because they provide choice in a sandbox game that is all about choice

Industry is a simple choice of profit. Your costs are determined by how you source your materials, what you make, and where you make it. POSes are one bit to be twiddled in that they provide reductions in material cost (and time) by incurring a given cost in terms of fuel.

They do NOT, however, provide any relevant choice when it comes to what POS to create or how to build it which is the gameplay aspect of structures. Any POS can do everything 100% as well as any other POS. Add in the fact that it has very cheap startup costs relative to industry capital and that, at least in high-sec, you can operate it with 100% safety due to wardec mechanics, you have a system which truly has very little choice or gameplay. It is just a "POS or no" calculation relative to profit. The choices of POSes relative to size, armaments, etc. are of very little consequence due to how the POS AI works, how timers work, etc. They have an illusion of gameplay but it is very shallow and of little concern to most players.

ECs have many choices to be made. The sizes, rigs, modules, public/private access, taxes, vulnerability windows, etc. etc. all provide actual gameplay and points of interaction with the rest of the game. Each choice carries a consequence. Whether this is good/bad for individual players is where the discussion comes here and where many are frustrated because they do not wish to accept the consequences to receive the benefit. I do not believe, however, that adding this gameplay to the industry system is bad for * the game * because it provide opportunity for interactions, disruptions and overall makes the entire process more interesting as a whole. People may not like that they can't get the max benefit with almost no risk anymore. I think that EVE is exactly about risk / reward and ECs make that possible where POSes do not.
Obil Que
Star Explorers
Reckoning Star Alliance
#713 - 2016-10-24 16:44:34 UTC
Chani El'zrya wrote:
I did all the calculations already.

The short answer is that medium ECs is worth the risk starting from 2 characters producing and onlining only the prod service. As soon you get more character on board you can online research and invention services. 20 characters per system is the maximum which put an hard limit on the use of public EC per system
One single character producing have to stay in NPC station.


Is that in a vacuum where only one EC enters into the calculation and is being considered relative to a single solar system? Your point is valid, but again, like most things, probably a bit simplistic when you consider that the EC isn't operating by itself in a system. Unless I'm misunderstanding what calculation are you trying to reach.
Chani El'zrya
Beyond Frontier
Pandemic Horde
#714 - 2016-10-24 17:02:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Chani El'zrya
Obil Que wrote:
Chani El'zrya wrote:
I did all the calculations already.

The short answer is that medium ECs is worth the risk starting from 2 characters producing and onlining only the prod service. As soon you get more character on board you can online research and invention services. 20 characters per system is the maximum which put an hard limit on the use of public EC per system
One single character producing have to stay in NPC station.


Is that in a vacuum where only one EC enters into the calculation and is being considered relative to a single solar system? Your point is valid, but again, like most things, probably a bit simplistic when you consider that the EC isn't operating by itself in a system. Unless I'm misunderstanding what calculation are you trying to reach.


I'm not sure to understand what i could not have taken into account.

If it is one or ten ECs in one system, it doesn't make any difference, the key descriptor is the system index which take the total number of player operating (which include even players using NPC station in the same system).

The breakeven point i was discussing with public EC is "how many player is required in a system until the ME bonus is not enough to compensate for the resultant higher system index? "
I took a scenario where you will use as an alternative an NPC station for one character producing and setting his system to 1.5 % (it's an overestimation).


Answer roughly 20 (roughly because it depends if those 20 characters use their 10 prod slots at 100% utilisation or less).
Icarus Narcissus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#715 - 2016-10-24 17:08:43 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey folks, thanks for all the replies so far. I'm going through everything and I'll be making a big Q&A post with answers at some point soon.


Fozzie, it's been almost two weeks and the release is now a mere two weeks away. We are getting concerned. We saw good changes to fuel use on Singularity, but it appears those have been reverted. We have had absolutely no word or action regarding our concerns about the other issues -- real or perceived.

CCP's silence on this issue has been very concerning and I think I speak for a lot of people in this community when I say, the silence from CCP is only making this situation worse.
Mai Khumm
172.0.0.1
#716 - 2016-10-24 17:23:27 UTC
Icarus Narcissus wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey folks, thanks for all the replies so far. I'm going through everything and I'll be making a big Q&A post with answers at some point soon.


Fozzie, it's been almost two weeks and the release is now a mere two weeks away. We are getting concerned. We saw good changes to fuel use on Singularity, but it appears those have been reverted. We have had absolutely no word or action regarding our concerns about the other issues -- real or perceived.

CCP's silence on this issue has been very concerning and I think I speak for a lot of people in this community when I say, the silence from CCP is only making this situation worse.

There was another thread where Fozzie was active on earlier today.


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6681149#post6681149


It seems like right now, the concerns that's being brought up isn't on CCPs priority list. As most of the changes have yet to be even finalized and with EVE Vegas this weekend. We, not only won't get a reply to this. But, we'll probably never see alot of stuff until release. Or, as I'm expecting, things to be pushed back because of insufficient testing and bugs from insufficient testing...
Obil Que
Star Explorers
Reckoning Star Alliance
#717 - 2016-10-24 17:27:13 UTC
Chani El'zrya wrote:
Obil Que wrote:
Chani El'zrya wrote:
I did all the calculations already.

The short answer is that medium ECs is worth the risk starting from 2 characters producing and onlining only the prod service. As soon you get more character on board you can online research and invention services. 20 characters per system is the maximum which put an hard limit on the use of public EC per system
One single character producing have to stay in NPC station.


Is that in a vacuum where only one EC enters into the calculation and is being considered relative to a single solar system? Your point is valid, but again, like most things, probably a bit simplistic when you consider that the EC isn't operating by itself in a system. Unless I'm misunderstanding what calculation are you trying to reach.


I'm not sure to understand what i could not have taken into account.

If it is one or ten ECs in one system, it doesn't make any difference, the key descriptor is the system index which take the total number of player operating (which include even players using NPC station in the same system).

The breakeven point i was discussing with public EC is "how many player is required in a system until the ME bonus is not enough to compensate for the resultant higher system index? "
I took a scenario where you will use as an alternative an NPC station for one character producing and setting his system to 1.5 % (it's an overestimation).

Answer roughly 20 (roughly because it depends if those 20 characters use their 10 prod slots at 100% utilisation or less).


Again, unless I'm missing something, isn't that system cost independent of whether those producers are at 1 EC or 10 or at an EC and an NPC station? If it takes 20 people (regardless of location) the spike an index, that only really matters if you're talking about a system with no existing industry getting spiked due to additional industry coming in. In a system where there is existing industry, the cost is the same whether you are at an EC or NPC. Again, unless I'm missing something or not understanding what you're pointing at.
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#718 - 2016-10-24 17:37:56 UTC
Obil Que wrote:
Space Vixen wrote:
I love the idea of these industrial platforms as more engaging platforms for play - it's just the notion that they should only favor ONE PLAYSTYLE is what concerns me.

Also, I'd just like to hear the rational as to why, as you seem to believe, that this is infinitely better for the future of the game.

I'm just interested in the strategy so I can understand the changes.


Because they provide choice in a sandbox game that is all about choice

Industry is a simple choice of profit. Your costs are determined by how you source your materials, what you make, and where you make it. POSes are one bit to be twiddled in that they provide reductions in material cost (and time) by incurring a given cost in terms of fuel.

They do NOT, however, provide any relevant choice when it comes to what POS to create or how to build it which is the gameplay aspect of structures. Any POS can do everything 100% as well as any other POS. Add in the fact that it has very cheap startup costs relative to industry capital and that, at least in high-sec, you can operate it with 100% safety due to wardec mechanics, you have a system which truly has very little choice or gameplay. It is just a "POS or no" calculation relative to profit. The choices of POSes relative to size, armaments, etc. are of very little consequence due to how the POS AI works, how timers work, etc. They have an illusion of gameplay but it is very shallow and of little concern to most players.

ECs have many choices to be made. The sizes, rigs, modules, public/private access, taxes, vulnerability windows, etc. etc. all provide actual gameplay and points of interaction with the rest of the game. Each choice carries a consequence. Whether this is good/bad for individual players is where the discussion comes here and where many are frustrated because they do not wish to accept the consequences to receive the benefit. I do not believe, however, that adding this gameplay to the industry system is bad for * the game * because it provide opportunity for interactions, disruptions and overall makes the entire process more interesting as a whole. People may not like that they can't get the max benefit with almost no risk anymore. I think that EVE is exactly about risk / reward and ECs make that possible where POSes do not.



There's only a couple of conclusions I can come to after reading the CCP party line garbage that you're spouting...

You're either trolling just because you can.

Or you know nothing about any kind of industrialism in the game, unlike the massive majority of posters who have genuine invested concerns about the changes and direction a couple of devs are driving the game.

Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..." " They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."

Welcome to EVE.

Chani El'zrya
Beyond Frontier
Pandemic Horde
#719 - 2016-10-24 17:55:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Chani El'zrya
"Again, unless I'm missing something, isn't that system cost independent of whether those producers are at 1 EC or 10 or at an EC and an NPC station?"

Yes exactly.

"If it takes 20 people (regardless of location) the spike an index, that only really matters if you're talking about a system with no existing industry getting spiked due to additional industry coming in. "

The only thing worth calculating when you want to adjust the parameters of the production system ( fuel cost, EC investment, etc) must be considered at steady state. Transient phenomena are irrelevant.

"In a system where there is existing industry, the cost is the same whether you are at an EC or NPC."
No you have a bonus ME on EC.

"Again, unless I'm missing something or not understanding what you're pointing at."

Sorry i can't make myself clearer.
Westly Crawford
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#720 - 2016-10-24 23:51:46 UTC
Where are the Rigs for these EC's? - I would like to run some tests on sisi.