open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked Miner anti-suicide gank strategy: spawn CONCORD in your belt
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

Author Topic

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2008.07.10 12:12:00 - [31]
 

Because they still get the security penalty.

However @ ccp, telling to get players to protect your mining op in high sec is a joke, right? What are they supposed to do vs suicide gankers? Only thing that would work is having a logistics ship in same belt as you are mining all the time. Then it would be handier to mine in low sec, then at least you can kill attackers before they destroyed the mining ship.

Janus Duo
Gallente
Down In Flames
Posted - 2008.07.10 12:14:00 - [32]
 

I thought I'd seen everything...then I pull up the EVE online forums and see carebears arguing with CCP devs about what is an exploit or not. Wow.

And they have the nerve to call pirates immoral.

Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
Emptiness.
Posted - 2008.07.10 12:19:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: Alexios Komnenos
Originally by: CCP Atropos
Using a displosable alt to bypass the standing penalties is classed as an exploit. If you do this, then delete the alt when it hits -2 and create another, you're avoidning the consequences of your actions, and as such it's an exploit.


If that's the case, then why isn't using "disposable" ships then recovering the cost via insurance payouts by design when losing the ship ON PURPOSE to CONCORD not an equal exploit?

Sorry, not buying what you are selling.



How about.. what you buy or not does not matter. CCp defines what they accept or not in their game. If they say that running 3 times counterclockwise around a veldspar roid then 2 times clockwise around a jet can is an explit. Then it is. If you buy the logic or not, does not matter.

Alexios Komnenos
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2008.07.10 12:27:00 - [34]
 

Edited by: Alexios Komnenos on 10/07/2008 12:28:47
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
Originally by: Alexios Komnenos
Originally by: CCP Atropos
Using a displosable alt to bypass the standing penalties is classed as an exploit. If you do this, then delete the alt when it hits -2 and create another, you're avoidning the consequences of your actions, and as such it's an exploit.


If that's the case, then why isn't using "disposable" ships then recovering the cost via insurance payouts by design when losing the ship ON PURPOSE to CONCORD not an equal exploit?

Sorry, not buying what you are selling.



How about.. what you buy or not does not matter. CCp defines what they accept or not in their game. If they say that running 3 times counterclockwise around a veldspar roid then 2 times clockwise around a jet can is an explit. Then it is. If you buy the logic or not, does not matter.


They can say anything they want and make ridiculous proclamations as to what is an exploit or not to cover for a broke gameplay mechanic they can't be bothered to fix all they want. It still makes them look petty and stupid.

Even dumber is that CCP makes it possible to fit out cruisers that can fly at ludicrous speeds and at the same time will call flying them an exploit, IF used to fly past a gate in normal space.

In other words, what CCP needs to do is quit covering up incompetence by calling things exploits when they clearly are not, and instead fix them in the damn game. If suiciding to trigger concord isn't an exploit in ALL situations, it isn't in ANY situation. If flying a nanohac at 10K in any damn direction you please isn't an exploit in ALL situations, it isn't in ANY situation. I want to play a game not sit there reading a law manual, if it's not allowed the game shouldn't ALLOW me to do it.



Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2008.07.10 12:40:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: Alexios Komnenos
If that's the case, then why isn't using "disposable" ships then recovering the cost via insurance payouts by design when losing the ship ON PURPOSE to CONCORD not an equal exploit?
Because those are not disposable – you already know this since you put the word in quotation marks.

Alexios Komnenos
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2008.07.10 12:47:00 - [36]
 

Edited by: Alexios Komnenos on 10/07/2008 12:47:46
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Alexios Komnenos
If that's the case, then why isn't using "disposable" ships then recovering the cost via insurance payouts by design when losing the ship ON PURPOSE to CONCORD not an equal exploit?
Because those are not disposable you already know this since you put the word in quotation marks.


You can in many cases insure a caracal (the most commonly used suicide ship because of their cheap price and high volley) for more than it costs to replace (including fittings) because of how cheaply they can be bought or made.

So, effectively suiciding with them in the way that it's done is really no different than doing the same thing in an ibis. It's the misuse of a game mechanic.

Insurance payouts for low end ships in general are way too high. I'm sure they are that way for a reason, ie, to allow new players to make mistakes and still be able to get back into their ship. Why CCP doesn't do the obvious and take away insurance payments for actions involving CONCORD, which would balance the situation instead of papering over it I'll never know.



Sergeant Spot
Galactic Geographic BookMark Surveying Inc.
Posted - 2008.07.10 12:51:00 - [37]
 

Edited by: Sergeant Spot on 10/07/2008 12:52:01
Originally by: Furb Killer
Because they still get the security penalty.

However @ ccp, telling to get players to protect your mining op in high sec is a joke, right? What are they supposed to do vs suicide gankers? Only thing that would work is having a logistics ship in same belt as you are mining all the time. Then it would be handier to mine in low sec, then at least you can kill attackers before they destroyed the mining ship.


Wrong

A logistics ship will rarely help.

Friendly PvPer wont help either.


Alexios Komnenos
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2008.07.10 13:04:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: Sergeant Spot
Edited by: Sergeant Spot on 10/07/2008 12:52:01
Originally by: Furb Killer
Because they still get the security penalty.

However @ ccp, telling to get players to protect your mining op in high sec is a joke, right? What are they supposed to do vs suicide gankers? Only thing that would work is having a logistics ship in same belt as you are mining all the time. Then it would be handier to mine in low sec, then at least you can kill attackers before they destroyed the mining ship.


Wrong

A logistics ship will rarely help.

Friendly PvPer wont help either.




Yep, because of the rules of highsec, where you basically have to sit there and wait to be ganked without any way to defend yourself, all advantage goes to the suicide gankers. They get to take the initiative, attack in ships they planned to lose anyway, then rob you with impunity.

There basically is no defense to the tactic, which is why I find it rather amusing that CCP plays gymnastics with the word "exploit" to the point of twisting it into a pretzel with respect to an equally exploitish tactic of pre-spawning concord , but not for the suicide tactic itself.

Which leads me to a possible conclusion: That CCP devs love to suicide gank, at least enough of them to bias their thinking and that they might possibly be misusing their positions to keep the tactic legal and maintain it's rewards (such as insurance payments).

BTW, CCP hasn't commented on THIS common suicide tactic: You can easily open a trial account (or many trial accounts) and train those characters to fly the gank caracal well within the 14 days allowed, thus allowing the gankers to "throw away" the character when it reaches low sec standings as well, and get to have your own private suicide gank fleet without even paying for it and without having to incur sec loss ON THE MAIN CHARACTER(s) WHO LOOT THE WRECK!

See the can of worms here? This is why it's best to fix these kinds of broken mechanics in the game rather than by saying "exploit". Besides, after the T2 scandal, does anyone seriously think CCP GM's deserve any benefit of the doubt with respect to being neutral when certain power blocs are involved?

hint: buzz buzz...




Hamshoe
Posted - 2008.07.10 13:38:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: CCP Atropos
The reasoning is that you're deliberately using free ships (noob frigates) and alts to bypass the risk and penalties incurred by angering CONCORD. The incurred penalties are ignored since there's no financial loss, and no meaningful security loss, since you would delete the character afterwards.



Seems reasonable, depending on how "would" and "meaningful" are determined. Though in a practical sense that determination belongs to the GMs I suppose.

So... does anybody know how many cans do you have to shoot before your "non-disposalble, just not played a lot" alt hits -2? Is the sec hit the same for shooting the miners?

Guillight BLue
Gallente
Secret Society
Posted - 2008.07.10 13:46:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: CCP Atropos
How does my reply differ from that you quoted?

The reasoning is that you're deliberately using free ships (noob frigates) and alts to bypass the risk and penalties incurred by angering CONCORD. The incurred penalties are ignored since there's no financial loss, and no meaningful security loss, since you would delete the character afterwards.

Of course, if you're willing to live with these penalties, and don't delete the offending character, then there's no problem, since it is working as intended (you lose your ship, become criminally flagged, and incur a security hit). Although no one will really like you since you're spawning CONCORD to cover your own money making schemes Cool

How about getting some players to help you mine in safety?


Dear Atropos,

Please open up the rulebook of High Sec. Then re-read your post again. Then come back to us with a real solution Rolling Eyes

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2008.07.10 15:42:00 - [41]
 

Edited by: Venkul Mul on 10/07/2008 15:49:23
Edited by: Venkul Mul on 10/07/2008 15:47:28

Originally by: CCP Atropos
How does my reply differ from that you quoted?

The reasoning is that you're deliberately using free ships (noob frigates) and alts to bypass the risk and penalties incurred by angering CONCORD. The incurred penalties are ignored since there's no financial loss, and no meaningful security loss, since you would delete the character afterwards.

Of course, if you're willing to live with these penalties, and don't delete the offending character, then there's no problem, since it is working as intended (you lose your ship, become criminally flagged, and incur a security hit). Although no one will really like you since you're spawning CONCORD to cover your own money making schemes Cool

How about getting some players to help you mine in safety?


Originally by: Khrillian
In FOUR EASY STEPS!

1) get a disposable alt via a second account or a demo account in a second machine.
2) fly him to your mining ship
3) have him shoot your mining ship
4) Concord spawns and will now stick around as your personal mining op suicide ganking defense fleet. This certainly beats CONCORD's regular response time.
(5) (Optional) After your alt's timer goes away, repeat as needed.

Just a little suggestion. Maybe this will cut down on the number of whine threads?


Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: CCP Atropos
Using a disposable alt to bypass the standing penalties is classed as an exploit. If you do this, then delete the alt when it hits -2 and create another, you're avoiding the consequences of your actions, and as such it's an exploit.


Please explain this reply then:

Quote:
Please note that we only consider deleting characters as an exploit when the following two factors are met: 1) The character was created for suicide ganking only. 2) The player did the trick for repeated times after being confirmed in his account logs.




To me it seem completely different. To paraphrase the excised parts, the GM was saying that a character can be deleted at any time, independently by the standing. It was an exploit only if it was used for suicide ganking and it had a negative security standing for doing it.

You say that a character at negative standing -2 or less (for any reason, like podding in low sec, getting caught moving illegal items, failing the 2 Concord missions left) can't be canceled till it has more that -2 standing.

I can live with both options, what I don't like is 2 completly different replyes:

1) CCP Atropos - you can't delete a character at security standing -2 or less

2) GM - you can delete any character, even with negative security standing, if he wasn't used for suicide ganking.


CCP Atropos

Posted - 2008.07.10 16:17:00 - [42]
 

Ah I see the misunderstanding; I was attempting to state that if you use an alt for committing illegal acts (illegal in the sense that CONCORD kicks your ass for it) and then recycle them as a method to avoid the repercussions, you are committing an exploit. It's the avoidance of these penalties that is the problem.

I hope this clarifies my earlier statement somewhat.

GM Grimmi

Posted - 2008.07.10 17:18:00 - [43]
 

Edited by: GM Grimmi on 10/07/2008 17:21:46
Edited by: GM Grimmi on 10/07/2008 17:18:08
Hi everybody,

Our stance towards recycling "disposable alts" for purposes such as suicide ganking or summoning CONCORD for bodyguard duty is that it is an exploit, clear and simple. Using "disposable ships" is not seen as an exploit since all ships ARE disposable, when properly insured.

Exploits are the abuse of game mechanics in ways that were not intended or foreseen in order to gain unfair advantages over others. CCP has to date made arrangements to fix such issues as fast as possible. This, however, takes time and resources to sort out and the proper and perfectly logical solution is to prohibit whatever abuse of game mechanics in question until said issue is fixed.

While some unintended uses of game mechanics may not be classed as exploits they may still be subject to re-design or tuning and we assure you that CCP is working hard on fixing problems with game mechanics as deemed appropriate.

That is really the only straight answer we are able to give you guys on the contents of this thread at this time. There are so many possible scenarios and cases must be evaluated and handled on an individual basis and we simply have to deal with problems as they crop up. The petition system is the way to go about reporting possible issues that may require GM/dev attention so please be sure to file a petition if you think there is a problem. We will then investigate the issue and take the appropriate action.


GM Grimmi
Lead Game Master

bobabobobo
Posted - 2008.07.10 17:23:00 - [44]
 

so its an exploit?

Lance Fighter
Amarr
Posted - 2008.07.10 17:47:00 - [45]
 

using a noob alt to call concord for you, and then recycling him is an exploit.


However, getting one of your mission buddies who has +5 sec status to do the same thing is not an exploit.

Yet.

I think

Korizan
Hysterically Unforgiving
Posted - 2008.07.10 17:50:00 - [46]
 

So if you do NOT recycle the alt it is not a exploit.

However suiciding in order to increase concord response times is frowned on.
Going on that same principle.
Suicide Ganking which uses the same principle of beating those response times once again using the game mechanic should also be frowned upon.
Neither is a exploit as it stands to date.

However CCP is currently looking @ options to change these mechanics.
Suggestion, randomize the response times from 1 Second to the current normal rate.
THat way neither party has any idea what the outcome will be and it will make using these suicide alts to increase response times pointless.

That and the other ideas you all have come up with to add more depth to the whole experience.

Just a thought

Phintaiss
Posted - 2008.07.10 17:57:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: CCP Atropos
How does my reply differ from that you quoted?

The reasoning is that you're deliberately using free ships (noob frigates) and alts to bypass the risk and penalties incurred by angering CONCORD. The incurred penalties are ignored since there's no financial loss, and no meaningful security loss, since you would delete the character afterwards.

Of course, if you're willing to live with these penalties, and don't delete the offending character, then there's no problem, since it is working as intended (you lose your ship, become criminally flagged, and incur a security hit). Although no one will really like you since you're spawning CONCORD to cover your own money making schemes Cool

How about getting some players to help you mine in safety?


Money making Schemes ???
You can play this game without making isk, where's the manual, I want to learn that one.

I have a better answer, remove the ganking in empire altogether, there's plenty of room for this nonsense in 0.0 or low sec. That would cure all the problem for both CCP and the players.

Traka Vinderta
Posted - 2008.07.10 18:02:00 - [48]
 

Originally by: Alexios Komnenos
Originally by: CCP Atropos
Using a displosable alt to bypass the standing penalties is classed as an exploit. If you do this, then delete the alt when it hits -2 and create another, you're avoidning the consequences of your actions, and as such it's an exploit.


If that's the case, then why isn't using "disposable" ships then recovering the cost via insurance payouts by design when losing the ship ON PURPOSE to CONCORD not an equal exploit?

Sorry, not buying what you are selling.



Are you insane your arguing with a DEV who really has more power than a GM as far as the game goes,
So your going to use a disposable alt to spawn concord then destroy it when its sec is to low which is abusing the game mechanics .......

Phintaiss
Posted - 2008.07.10 18:04:00 - [49]
 


After reading CCP's posts in this, It's obvious that killing a hauler or miner before concord can kill them is an exploit of the game mechanics. Why have concord at all, it's become so easy.

I see nothing wrong with fighting one exploit with another exploit.


Blydchyld
Caldari
BlackWatch Industrial Group
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2008.07.10 18:05:00 - [50]
 

Originally by: CCP Atropos
How does my reply differ from that you quoted?

The reasoning is that you're deliberately using free ships (noob frigates) and alts to bypass the risk and penalties incurred by angering CONCORD. The incurred penalties are ignored since there's no financial loss, and no meaningful security loss, since you would delete the character afterwards.

Of course, if you're willing to live with these penalties, and don't delete the offending character, then there's no problem, since it is working as intended (you lose your ship, become criminally flagged, and incur a security hit). Although no one will really like you since you're spawning CONCORD to cover your own money making schemes Cool

How about getting some players to help you mine in safety?


Cool and heres me thinking that creating a kestral capeable character, buying a kessie and going ganking en mass was naughty.

Lo3d3R
Mos Eisley Social Club
Posted - 2008.07.10 18:19:00 - [51]
 

Edited by: Lo3d3R on 10/07/2008 18:19:02

*shrugs* : YOU DO NOT NEED TO RECYCLE YOUR ALTS TO GET CONCORD IN YOUR BELT, READ MY EARLIER POST, my way is completly legal!

note: I like high sec ganking, I do not like the LAME griefing of non-macro miners in highsec, with the current insurance pay-outs etc.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2008.07.10 18:23:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: GM Grimmi
Edited by: GM Grimmi on 10/07/2008 17:21:46
Edited by: GM Grimmi on 10/07/2008 17:18:08
Hi everybody,

Our stance towards recycling "disposable alts" for purposes such as suicide ganking or summoning CONCORD for bodyguard duty is that it is an exploit, clear and simple. Using "disposable ships" is not seen as an exploit since all ships ARE disposable, when properly insured.

Exploits are the abuse of game mechanics in ways that were not intended or foreseen in order to gain unfair advantages over others. CCP has to date made arrangements to fix such issues as fast as possible. This, however, takes time and resources to sort out and the proper and perfectly logical solution is to prohibit whatever abuse of game mechanics in question until said issue is fixed.

While some unintended uses of game mechanics may not be classed as exploits they may still be subject to re-design or tuning and we assure you that CCP is working hard on fixing problems with game mechanics as deemed appropriate.

That is really the only straight answer we are able to give you guys on the contents of this thread at this time. There are so many possible scenarios and cases must be evaluated and handled on an individual basis and we simply have to deal with problems as they crop up. The petition system is the way to go about reporting possible issues that may require GM/dev attention so please be sure to file a petition if you think there is a problem. We will then investigate the issue and take the appropriate action.


GM Grimmi
Lead Game Master


Just to be totally clear, the exploit is:

Spawning Concord in teh belt

or

Using a alt that will be destroyed when it reach -2 standing?

This piece seem to point to the disposable part:
Quote:
Our stance towards recycling "disposable alts" for purposes such as suicide ganking or summoning CONCORD for bodyguard duty is that it is an exploit, clear and simple.

so as long as the character is kept it seem he can be used to spam Concord, but at this point a clear cut reply seem the best option.

Venduras
Posted - 2008.07.10 18:26:00 - [53]
 

Originally by: CCP Atropos
How does my reply differ from that you quoted?

The reasoning is that you're deliberately using free ships (noob frigates) and alts to bypass the risk and penalties incurred by angering CONCORD. The incurred penalties are ignored since there's no financial loss, and no meaningful security loss, since you would delete the character afterwards.

Of course, if you're willing to live with these penalties, and don't delete the offending character, then there's no problem, since it is working as intended (you lose your ship, become criminally flagged, and incur a security hit). Although no one will really like you since you're spawning CONCORD to cover your own money making schemes Cool

How about getting some players to help you mine in safety?


In a Hulk, I would agree, with some skill and brains it can tank an average suicide squad expecting a noob fitted Hulk.
My own Hulk when fitted for it has a defense efficiency of about 250 and 20k effective HP.

With the Covetor, Retriever and especially the Mackinaw, other players cannot help you in the least, you would be dead (if not alpha'd) before they can react.

In order to mine in a Mackinaw with some degree of protection, you would have to gimp your entire ice mining setup, very much near the point where mining a Hulk with a semi setup is much safer (and possibly more rewarding).

Take a look at the Skiff's CPU...now take a look at the Mackinaw's CPU...now look at the Hulk's CPU...now look at the Strip Miner II's CPU needs...now look at the Ice Miner II CPU needs...starting to see the problem?

Not only is the Mackinaw's CPU horribly gimped for its price and purpose, but it also suffers from having to use Ice Miners which use more CPU then their Strip Miner cousins (66 CPU vs 60 CPU).

I won't even begin with the T1 barges (especially the Retriever) as they could not tank an Ibis fitted with Basic Micro Smartbombs

That T1 barges can be killed easily is fair enough, they are cheap T1 ships with 100% insurability...but the Mackinaw needs improving in its CPU and the CPU on the Ice Miners should be equal to that of Strip Miners.
Ice Mining is boredom enough as it is without having to strech the time ever more because it can't even fit two T2 Ice Upgrades without a CPU implant...

Phintaiss
Posted - 2008.07.10 18:44:00 - [54]
 

Edited by: Phintaiss on 10/07/2008 18:45:09
Originally by: Alexios Komnenos
Edited by: Alexios Komnenos on 10/07/2008 12:47:46
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Alexios Komnenos
If that's the case, then why isn't using "disposable" ships then recovering the cost via insurance payouts by design when losing the ship ON PURPOSE to CONCORD not an equal exploit?
Because those are not disposable you already know this since you put the word in quotation marks.


You can in many cases insure a caracal (the most commonly used suicide ship because of their cheap price and high volley) for more than it costs to replace (including fittings) because of how cheaply they can be bought or made.

So, effectively suiciding with them in the way that it's done is really no different than doing the same thing in an ibis. It's the misuse of a game mechanic.

Insurance payouts for low end ships in general are way too high. I'm sure they are that way for a reason, ie, to allow new players to make mistakes and still be able to get back into their ship. Why CCP doesn't do the obvious and take away insurance payments for actions involving CONCORD, which would balance the situation instead of papering over it I'll never know.







Who cares about insurance payouts. It has nothing to do with loosing a 50 million isk ship and gathering 300 million in loot from the hauler you just ganked. Who gives a dam about insurance.


Miasia
KdZ Industries
Initiative Associates
Posted - 2008.07.10 19:47:00 - [55]
 

So .. you have there 2 different goals you have to satisfy:

1.) Freedom of the customer to recycle characters
2.) Your saying that recycling an character which was used for suicide ganking (with less than -2 sec rating) is an exploit.

Which is more important? The freedom of you customer (which throws monly money into CCP's pocket) or the recycling of ingame characters wich less than -2 sec rating?



Market AltLOLOLOLO
Posted - 2008.07.10 19:56:00 - [56]
 

FFS.

Make a insta-undock and even a -10 is perfectly fine for this. All the GM does not want you to do is recycle a -ve sec char.




Woodwraith
Selective Pressure
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2008.07.10 20:40:00 - [57]
 

Originally by: Phintaiss

After reading CCP's posts in this, It's obvious that killing a hauler or miner before concord can kill them is an exploit of the game mechanics. Why have concord at all, it's become so easy.

I see nothing wrong with fighting one exploit with another exploit.




Ganking someone in high sec is not an exploit, its exactly the way the game was designed, and is working as intended,
the aggressor looses his ship, gets a sec hit and a 15 minute global, this holy trinity satisfys the need for 'justice' in eve.
The exploit is in using an alt to aggro on yourself, then biomassing the alt to purge the bad karma and do it all again with a new face.
if you take the same noob alt and rat with him or run missions to get his sec status back up, like the guys that gank you have to do, then its not an exploit and you too are participating in the feeding frenzy as it is intended.

you press undock, i get to kill you if i can both catch you, and desire to shoot, you dont like it, stay inside and play with market orders.
ill undercut you there anyway.

Vexidious
Posted - 2008.07.10 20:57:00 - [58]
 

Edited by: Vexidious on 10/07/2008 21:12:27
Originally by: CCP Atropos
Using a displosable alt to bypass the standing penalties is classed as an exploit. If you do this, then delete the alt when it hits -2 and create another, you're avoidning the consequences of your actions, and as such it's an exploit.


Does it really matter if its an exploit or not, if the rule is never enforced? For that matter, you don't really need to delete the character anyway. You get three character slots with an account. Just use them all, then close the account and open a new one.

Rules that can't be enforced are just pointless.

Call'Da Poleece
Posted - 2008.07.10 22:56:00 - [59]
 

If I read this right, when the char is -2 you will still be able to undock, immediately warp to a ss straight out from your station, immediately warp from there to your belt and just sit there, pretty soon Concord will turn up and pop your ship, no aggro needed.

I dont know if the alts sec status gets affected by that...

Viqtoria
Caldari
Perkone
Posted - 2008.07.10 23:17:00 - [60]
 

Originally by: Sokratesz
Originally by: Viqtoria
An old concord spawn will instantly gank anyone getting a GCC timer infront of them. And yes, it works.


I've offended repeatedly with concord watching and they didnt intervene. A new spawn appears for every agressor.



you may have the best forums sigs :P but old concord spawns will instapop you, at least in some cases. I've had them do this to me when i thought another spawn would have to appear :P


also for people using recyclable alts...the standings hit for attacking someone else's can and not blowing it up is really tiny, easily fixable by killing belt rats as you mine.


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only