within

Hey Mittens, the 90's called, they want their hair gel back!

lol, oh man, that never gets old.

The banning mechanic has the potential to force a very static setup in the tournament teams - as the initial thought is this will be a guess the logistic (healing) ship. Teams will have to have real logisitic set-ups and bait/false ones so they don't lose an essential part of their strategies. Or spread out the repair modules among the team and have all the ships clumped together. It seems a little gimicky for no real reason, last years rules were fine and made a really fun tournament.

Most companies would figure out what they do well and what is successful, take those ideas, and run with them. CCP does this very well on the technology side, but seems to miss the point on the game development. It takes dedicated passionate players to thrive in EVE by design. They should support these players with their expansions. If they keep trying for the casual player, they will lose what is successful and keeps players paying every month. They are also behind the curve on a lot of things, take EveGate for example. The time of the "walled garden" approach for community development is over, new models are Apples "ap store" or other open development concepts. I think it comes from insular leadership, they need to open their eyes and take a look at what they are creating, not just the next deadline.

I thought Mr. Chandler was excellent in all the parts I saw him play. I am partial to his role as the bounty hunter in The Outlaw Jose Wales. They always cut these lists too short and leave out many deserving remembrances. Thank you for reminding us of your friend.

I have a Mac

With the officially sanctioned trading of in game money (isk) for monthly subscriptions, most of the established players I meet haven't paid CCP any real money in ages. Since skill leveling is almost completely real time based, new toons have a hard time competing against characters created even a year earlier. This of course encourages new players to try to even the playing field by buying isk either sanctioned or not. So now you have a community where the most influential players have the ear of developers (or are the developers themselves) but don't contribute to the revenues of CCP. Some separation needs to occur.

Great for my kids dorm

Comcast sells cable video, internet access, and voice phone service separately and as a package of three. It is highly profitable, but they are starting to see a small but growing group of their customers drop both the cable and voice service in favor of just the high speed internet (which can now provide all three services reasonably well). They are especially spooked by how much investment is going into these services; content providers, electronics, computer makers, and advertisers are all investing in this new paradigm . The bandwidth issue is only really a long term concern for them and mostly about capitol investment plan for the next 2-5 years. The real issue is cutting off the loses of people dropping services now, and nipping (or greatly slowing) the growth of video (and entertainment) over the internet. As long as the internet just replaced newspapers, magazines, books, and retail stores it was just fine, but Comcast can't let it replace their video delivery and destroy their balance sheet. Any near monopolistic entity would strive to do the same.

I think that they just made the learning curve shorter and invited more people to have a good time right away. Also it is nice to see an alternative to online co-op/MMO style games where you can play at your own pace and as often or little as you like.

The ETF fee will be $200. AT&T is now back to pro-rating their ETFs so that may factor.