open All Channels
seplocked EVE Technology Lab
blankseplocked CCP Atropos on 3rd party developer involvement
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Ix Forres
Caldari
Righteous Chaps
Posted - 2010.07.19 18:15:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Ix Forres on 19/07/2010 18:20:43
Hi all,

Myself and others had a chat with CCP Atropos in the #eve-dev IRC channel on Coldfront earlier today and he was kind enough to allow me to repost the conversation. The conversation focused on engagement and involvement of third party developers, in the light of the recent devblog, and why CCP can't simply put a dev on the API and give him access to IRC full-time.

The full conversation without tidying or edits can be found here: http://pastebin.com/JJBLN0Ae

Catari Taga
Centre Of Attention
Middle of Nowhere
Posted - 2010.07.19 19:00:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: Catari Taga on 19/07/2010 19:00:52
Thanks for the log.

tl;dr: it's not Atropos' area of responsibility to know why EVEGate features are not available as an API, and because of their SCRUM approach they cannot have a dedicated API dev.

In other words, same old.

Breira Teren
Posted - 2010.07.19 19:11:00 - [3]
 

So basically, scrum is great for developing new features, but god awful at maintaining and expanding existing features.

Who knew?

Peter Powers
FinFleet
Raiden.
Posted - 2010.07.19 19:17:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: Breira Teren
So basically, scrum is great for developing new features, but god awful at maintaining and expanding existing features.

Who knew?

that is not correct.

the problem is this that the current process does no see a representation of the 3rd partys interests,
thats not related to scrum itself.
scrum through his contineous integration approach embraces change, and quite a few of the ideas of scrum are actually meant to keep it maintainable - like automated testing, like shared ownership of the code (hence no "one dev drives against the tree and feature is dead"-problem).

as i mentioned in my post, i believe there needs to be an interface between 3rd party devs and ccp, both sides would profit from that - and no, the beauty queens of the csm are in no way qualified for that.

Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
Posted - 2010.07.19 19:23:00 - [5]
 

(See, no one mentioning CSM...)

Wollari
Phoenix Industries
Wicked Nation
Posted - 2010.07.19 19:47:00 - [6]
 

Edited by: Wollari on 19/07/2010 21:32:31
It's nothing new tbh. Sure you get new API features if the Scrum team thinks it's worse it. But like in the real game there's no TEAM that's responsible for pollishing existing features.

There're so many things that could be fixed and tweak with so little effort that there's no real big team required.

Just a little collection of "little" features
- strategic/military/industry indexes via API (currently only available via client cache files)
- alliance description (corps have their description field available)
- station description (see corps)
- there are a lot of more cool stuff, which would be cool to have out of game (like cyno beacons, which are available via ingame map / cache file), pilots in space, etc. But i can understand when those "anti-fog-of-war" topics are discussed.
- In fact the client cache offers so many rich informations and you just need a client cache uploader (like eve-metrics / eve-central) to take usage from it. But an api for it is much more effective.
- many other smaller fixes.

things that are missing in the database dump
- landmarks & sites (you get them from cache files anyway)
- static ded plexes (see landmarks)

There're a lot more things that people would be happy for. The guy from EveMon published a public whishlist if you like to see what people are about.
http://evemon.uservoice.com/forums/63043-ccp-api-suggestions

Sure all those ideas are too small to fit into the bigger scrum teams or they responsible area. It really looks like a 2 person team (coder+tester) should take care from time to time about it (not always). Otherwise things which never change and we (3rd party devs) will always be angry and getting the opinion that CCP has abandoned from the API. It's like the real game. New features > fixing existing ones.

Peter Powers
FinFleet
Raiden.
Posted - 2010.07.19 21:54:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: Peter Powers on 19/07/2010 21:55:41
well, except the whole process is more complex then
just having some coder do the code work and some qa guy testing it.

there needs to be someone who actually defines what is needed / possible,
then there needs to be someone to play planning poker to see how much manpower each feature costs,
then there needs to be someone who evaluates what that api means for the game, speaking of balance, game-economical-impact etc. then there needs som
eone who can decide on what of that stuff fits in the business strategy of ccp how many of the necessary resources for the features wanted ccp is willing to pay, so the product and the selected backlogs can be filled accordingly. There needs to be quite some communication with other scrumm teams
- if features for the API need to be added that work with new features that are added during a sprint.
Meaning, all of this is more than a "simple" development thing, it involves politics aswell.

Now depending on how ccp implements scrum i personally would expect them to put API tasks to the same teams as other stuff, according to the dependencies that the api stuff has.

But however they go about this, 3rd party devs can only be partially satisfied (since we allways want more than they will be able to give us), but if there was a way to involve us 3rd party guys in the process, get feedback from us, then in the planning stages they could try to see towards how t hey not only improve their product (EVE), but also allow us to increase its value by enabling us to build / improve the third party tools arround it.

I think the guys at ccp know as good as we do that tools like evemon, the killboards, eft, your evemaps, evemetrics, etc etc add to the value of the game.

Personally i'd love a communication line which goes in two directions, allowing us to give input, make suggestions, explain ideas on how to improve the API, but also giving us information about new API functionallity ahead.


edit: fixed a few line breaks

Catari Taga
Centre Of Attention
Middle of Nowhere
Posted - 2010.07.19 22:11:00 - [8]
 

It wouldn't really need any direct communication even, it should be plain enough what 3rd party developers need, and pre-EVE Gate there had been forum communication between devs and developers about our request of making the system open and their refusal. So I don't really think there's any communication issue but rather a deliberate choice which has been made.

Dragonaire
Caldari
Corax.
PURgE Alliance
Posted - 2010.07.20 05:33:00 - [9]
 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrum_(development)
Quote:
“Chicken” roles

Chicken roles are not part of the actual Scrum process, but must be taken into account. They are people for whom the software is being built.

Stakeholders (customers, vendors)
These are the people who enable the project and for whom the project will produce the agreed-upon benefit[s], which justify its production. They are only directly involved in the process during the sprint reviews.


So the 3rd party developers need to be the "Chickens" that CCP is demo-ing to about the benefits during the review process if I'm understand the way it suppose to work. Since that should be happening at the beginning of the sprint and we don't hear about what all is going to be done until after it's released what CCP is doing can't be call Scrum IMHO. The role of the 3rd party developer could be partly filled by the Product Owners if they would talk to us at the start, but from how it appear on the outside they haven't been doing that or a not very good job in their roles and become "chickens" and not the "pigs" they are suppose to be. I could be wrong and they are "pigs" but they haven't been talking to the "chickens" to make sure agreed-upon benefit[s] are actual but instead maybe doing something like: "It sounds good to me but I haven't really talked to anyone that used it, but that shouldn't matter, Right?". It matters when it come to the APIs IMHO more than the rest of Eve because all of us play Eve but not everyone that plays Eve have tried to develop stuff using the APIs. One thing I have learn from my own projects is it's very different doing development for an API/library vs an end user product.

Something else from the Sprint Review Meeting: Incomplete work cannot be demonstrated. But over and over again stuff gets put out on the production server "Tranquility" that doesn't meet that requirement which can be seen when it doesn't work.

IMHO some people at CCP really need to read again how it's suppose to work because it seems some things are getting missed.

Anyway that's my 0.02 ISKs about it.

Peter Powers
FinFleet
Raiden.
Posted - 2010.07.20 07:38:00 - [10]
 

i think you did not understand the pig and chicken analogy,
which is best described by the whole joke/comic:

http://blogs.msdn.com/blogfiles/dajung/WindowsLiveWriter/DilbertandScrum_12AB/060911-scrumtoon_3.jpg

Image now a URL, as per forum rules. Shadow.

Dragonaire
Caldari
Corax.
PURgE Alliance
Posted - 2010.07.20 15:59:00 - [11]
 

Actual I already had heard the joke and they did include it in the Wikipedia article as text too Wink We are of course all looking at it from outside and maybe internally they are doing most stuff right but it has to be breaking down some where or some of the more recent oops with the API wouldn't have happened.
I think one of the places it's breaking is in the sprint planning meeting: During this meeting, the Product Owner informs the team of the items in the product backlog that he or she wants completed. If they don't understand the need for improving the APIs or it had a low priority in the backlog then it never gets fixed which is what seems to be happening. It should have a high priory instead since the issues with the APIs either being missing or the bugs in the current ones are holding up all the third party developers in doing their own sprints Wink The ROI (Return On Investment) is higher for the API than almost anything else in Eve as almost every player uses one or more of the programs that the 3rd party developers make no matter what they are doing in-game be it killing, stealing, mining, building, etc there's something that helps them do so that is made outside CCP and by not making the improvements to the APIs they fail to maximize their ROI because as others have pointed out a couple people could do the work in just a couple weeks. If that could have that much impact imagine what could happen if they would do a sprint that most worked on the APIs with a whole team Shocked One thing it would do is they wouldn't have us "pecking" Wink at them all the time because we'd be way to busy writing all the code we can only dream about now because the APIS don't exist or are incomplete etc which causes us to be frustrated with them and our users with us. Since we have the general player base of Eve in common anything that helps us also helps their players which translates into $$ for them.

This all reminds me of the Recording and Movie people and how they fought for years against VCRs and cassettes tapes but once they were forced into it they have got fat off the money tree they were being lead to. I hope CCP can show more intelligence than that since the other option is another company that does understand it will come along and make a game that maybe not a cool as Eve but because their APIs are more complete 3rd party developers decide to move over to it and the rest of the players will follow because of all the cool stuff they can do both in and out of game.

Hel O'Ween
Men On A Mission
EVE Trade Consortium
Posted - 2010.07.21 12:00:00 - [12]
 

Interesting read. Thanks for sharing and thanks to CCP Atropos for allowing it to be shared.

This one I agree with and it is really annoying:
Quote:

[12:42:34] <PeterPowers> hard to perceive the api as something really supported when bugs reported get closed by bughunters who dont even seem to understand what you are reporting.



Also ...

Quote:

the problem is this that the current process does no see a representation of the 3rd partys interests,

[...]

(See, no one mentioning CSM...)



Therein lies the problem. We're few in numbers, yet I'm pretty sure that in average each EVE player uses at least one 3rd party app/service. And that are only the published ones, not to mention all the private/corp only/ally only apps/web sites utilizing the API.

Any prominent*) 3rd party developer willing to run for CSM next time?

*) prominent as in "players most likely know that app/service of the guy". That might raise the amount of votes he'd be able to accumulate.

azo jigga
FinFleet
IT Alliance
Posted - 2010.07.21 13:42:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Hel O'Ween

Any prominent*) 3rd party developer willing to run for CSM next time?

*) prominent as in "players most likely know that app/service of the guy". That might raise the amount of votes he'd be able to accumulate.


Peter Powers here (sorry for using alt, but mains account just run out,
and i wont extend it before end of next week).

I have been thinking about running for csm, IF my RL allows this, next year,
i think a few of my projects are known, and im known in the 3rd party dev community
aswell.

but im not certain if CSM is the place for this interface.

Catari Taga
Centre Of Attention
Middle of Nowhere
Posted - 2010.07.21 14:00:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: azo jigga
but im not certain if CSM is the place for this interface.

Verite Rendition
Caldari
F.R.E.E. Explorer
EVE Animal Control
Posted - 2010.07.21 14:18:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: Verite Rendition on 21/07/2010 14:28:11
Thanks for the log, Ix Forres.

It's a shame that CCP has deprioritized the API, but not unexpected. I suspect we're going to be making do with status quo for a very long time.Neutral

Edit: And just to be clear, some of this is just us asking for too much (i.e. write access). But there's a ton of simple fixes the API needs, which Wollari made a good list of

Hel O'Ween
Men On A Mission
EVE Trade Consortium
Posted - 2010.07.21 16:52:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Verite Rendition
[...] some of this is just us asking for too much (i.e. write access).


People really have asked for write access via API? Shocked I didn't hear that before.

Even non-techies agree in the API being read-only is a very good thing (just if there could be more of it Wink), because most people do realize that API write access = macroers heaven.

Hel O'Ween
Men On A Mission
EVE Trade Consortium
Posted - 2010.07.21 17:00:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: azo jigga

but im not certain if CSM is the place for this interface.


As this forum nowerdays mostly gets ignored by the devs, I feel the CSM is the only place to be heard for us.

And of course "API" shouldn't be the candidates only and not the most prominent topic for his CSM campaign. But having a 3rd party dev amongst the CSM would do wonders for simple fixes.

There are bugs in the API which would take 1-2 hours to fix - maximum. Can't be that hard. But with that Scrum approach, no one will ever look back at what he has done about the API part of his project. And with the next expansion, he has moved to another Scrum team. Do you really think the new guys in the old team will check the API in that part of EVE for errors and fix them?

CCP Atropos

Posted - 2010.07.21 21:43:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Verite Rendition
It's a shame that CCP has deprioritized the API, but not unexpected

Allow me to elaborate: it's not a deliberate deprioritisation of the API, but rather, with the shift to scrum, we won't allocate people to a single task peramanently.

The whole concept is that people work on a feature, as a whole, and ideally that would include the necessary API extensions to allow you to get what you want from it.

I can't really speak to specifics because it's not something I've worked on myself, but I have seen other teams going through this.

CCP Atropos

Posted - 2010.07.21 21:46:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Hel O'Ween
As this forum nowerdays mostly gets ignored by the devs, I feel the CSM is the only place to be heard for us.

HELLO!

Originally by: Hel O'Ween
And of course "API" shouldn't be the candidates only and not the most prominent topic for his CSM campaign. But having a 3rd party dev amongst the CSM would do wonders for simple fixes.

There are bugs in the API which would take 1-2 hours to fix - maximum. Can't be that hard. But with that Scrum approach, no one will ever look back at what he has done about the API part of his project. And with the next expansion, he has moved to another Scrum team. Do you really think the new guys in the old team will check the API in that part of EVE for errors and fix them?

Teams don't get broken up and a team is responsible for a feature long after it's on TQ; the whole point is that a particular team has the domain knowledge and should and is responsible for that domain going forward. The trouble comes with fitting the work into a schedule, but then I'm sure that's something alot of you can understand Smile

Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
Posted - 2010.07.21 22:05:00 - [20]
 

Edited by: Tonto Auri on 21/07/2010 23:06:25
Originally by: CCP Atropos
Originally by: Verite Rendition
It's a shame that CCP has deprioritized the API, but not unexpected

Allow me to elaborate: it's not a deliberate deprioritisation of the API, but rather, with the shift to scrum, we won't allocate people to a single task peramanently.

The whole concept is that people work on a feature, as a whole, and ideally that would include the necessary API extensions to allow you to get what you want from it.

I can't really speak to specifics because it's not something I've worked on myself, but I have seen other teams going through this.


Don't you see it fundamentally flawed for project that don't have any finished state? Scrum is good when you develop a finished product. You have clear goals you want to achieve and you push yourself to the limits in attempt to climb the mountain. EVE is different. It's not like a mountain, it's more like a river. You can't swim at full speed nonstop. You have to sit on the beach sometimes.
And related to EVE Gate - it was (yet again) a fundamental design failure. It must have been designed from (curerent) API, utilizing and extending it in many ways. Now, you say that API is (will be) a by-product. Shame on you. You're making your own work harder without a reason.

Epitrope
The Citadel Manufacturing and Trade Corporation
Posted - 2010.07.22 04:11:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: CCP Atropos
Originally by: Verite Rendition
It's a shame that CCP has deprioritized the API, but not unexpected

Allow me to elaborate: it's not a deliberate deprioritisation of the API, but rather, with the shift to scrum, we won't allocate people to a single task peramanently.

Well... why not? It seems to me that since moving to this agile development strategy, CCP has become somewhat less agile, and certainly less flexible. Different problems require different solutions, and while you've fully embraced this nice big shiny hammer, perhaps the API needs a screwdriver instead.

CCP Garthagk got more done on his own than all the different teams that have worked on the API since. A single person or team with the responsibility to maintain and improve the API would be better able to understand the different methods, which would allow adding new ones in a more holistic manner and allow bugs to be easier to find and fix. This would also give a point of contact with those of us in #eve-dev and in the Tech Lab.

Instead of having each team that works on a feature figure out how to do the API stuff too (if they think of it, and it doesn't get cut for time), why not have them work together with the (proposed) API team, so that each can focus on the part of the project they're best at?

Catari Taga
Centre Of Attention
Middle of Nowhere
Posted - 2010.07.22 08:11:00 - [22]
 

Edited by: Catari Taga on 22/07/2010 08:15:37
Originally by: Hel O'Ween
Originally by: Verite Rendition
[...] some of this is just us asking for too much (i.e. write access).


People really have asked for write access via API? Shocked I didn't hear that before.

Even non-techies agree in the API being read-only is a very good thing (just if there could be more of it Wink), because most people do realize that API write access = macroers heaven.

The write access discussion was in conjunction with EVEGate. EVEGate allows write access to TQ for mail, contacts and calendar. The API does not even allow full read access for mail and no write access to any of those. So what people, myself included, are doing, is to write tools that provide write access via EVEGate instead of a defined API, also requiring you to enter your account's login details rather than an API key, which of course is against the EULA if shared. The reason is not only ease of use/integration but also the bad quality of EVEGate which is incompatible with many browsers, in particular on mobile devices (and at least for the people I know remote access to evemail is mostly done while traveling, using mobile devices).

There is nothing remotely relevant to macroing in asking for access to EVEGate functionality via a defined API. We will access it either way.


Originally by: Hel O'Ween
But having a 3rd party dev amongst the CSM would do wonders for simple fixes.

You may have been missing the recent CSM minutes plus dev blog and ensuing threadnaughts. The reality is the CSM is entirely powerless and cannot do anything more than a simple forum post could do, too. In addition, the low frequency of CSM-CCP interaction makes a forum post (or other means of communication) many times more effective than the CSM. The CSM may still have its uses but it cannot achieve what you hope from it.

Hel O'Ween
Men On A Mission
EVE Trade Consortium
Posted - 2010.07.22 09:34:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: CCP Atropos

HELLO!



o/ Smile

Quote:

Teams don't get broken up and a team is responsible for a feature long after it's on TQ; the whole point is that a particular team has the domain knowledge and should and is responsible for that domain going forward. The trouble comes with fitting the work into a schedule, but then I'm sure that's something alot of you can understand


That wasn't my point, although I admit that I didn't formulate it well enough. Let me try to elaborate: OK, teams won't get split up. So, which team is currently responsible for "wallet related stuff"? And when was the last time one of those team members browsed through this forum, to look for possible API-related problems?

See, we had that wallet journal API data type overflow bug after Apocrypha. While the personal wallet journal API was quickly fixed, we needed to wait 'til Dominion for getting the same fix for the corp wallet journal API. A fix that is trivial and doesn't need any client updates, so it could have been implemented in any DT.

I'm aware of time constrains. But that's exactly we're all bemoaning here. Given the choice to fix an ingame feature compared to the API, it looks (to us) like the game feature always takes precedence, regardless of the actual time needed.

Back to the teams. What about all ingame parts, where there hasn't been any change for a long time, but do have a related API. Like Wallet, Market, Character Sheet/Certificates, POS etc. Are there teams working on those? And do they also look at the API while at it?

Hel O'Ween
Men On A Mission
EVE Trade Consortium
Posted - 2010.07.22 09:45:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Catari Taga

Originally by: Hel O'Ween
But having a 3rd party dev amongst the CSM would do wonders for simple fixes.

You may have been missing the recent CSM minutes plus dev blog and ensuing threadnaughts. The reality is the CSM is entirely powerless and cannot do anything more than a simple forum post could do, too. In addition, the low frequency of CSM-CCP interaction makes a forum post (or other means of communication) many times more effective than the CSM. The CSM may still have its uses but it cannot achieve what you hope from it.


But than again the CSM meeting minutes stimulated that dev blog, which in turn stimulated a threadnaught = it gets attention, while the dirty dozen 3rd party devs just ramble in the Tech Lab Forum and get mostly ignored both by the players (which is OK) and CCP. At least it feels that way.

Hera Vertigo
STRAG3S
Posted - 2010.07.23 06:18:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: Hera Vertigo on 23/07/2010 06:20:08
The dev team has just gotten to big. And frankly I don't think they really care because the API does not convert into $$$ for CCP. And when you get too big it all comes down to $$$.

Think of it from there perspective. Why invest resources from the next big expansion that will make them $$$ instead of something that does not make them some money.

Until they decide to spend the money/time to do some kind of survey that reviels not fixing the API or expanding it or whatever will result lost revenue and that lost revenue is more than what it will cost to work on fixing the API; then something will get done then. Simple economics...Shocked

In the meantime, us free flying 3rd party guys will have to keep thinking outside the box.

Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
Posted - 2010.07.23 11:15:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Hera Vertigo
Edited by: Hera Vertigo on 23/07/2010 06:20:08
The dev team has just gotten to big. And frankly I don't think they really care because the API does not convert into $$$ for CCP. And when you get too big it all comes down to $$$.


Not true in the $$$ sentence.
API is probably the best advertising instrument in their posession.

Catari Taga
Centre Of Attention
Middle of Nowhere
Posted - 2010.07.23 12:42:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Hel O'Ween
Originally by: Catari Taga

Originally by: Hel O'Ween
But having a 3rd party dev amongst the CSM would do wonders for simple fixes.

You may have been missing the recent CSM minutes plus dev blog and ensuing threadnaughts. The reality is the CSM is entirely powerless and cannot do anything more than a simple forum post could do, too. In addition, the low frequency of CSM-CCP interaction makes a forum post (or other means of communication) many times more effective than the CSM. The CSM may still have its uses but it cannot achieve what you hope from it.


But than again the CSM meeting minutes stimulated that dev blog, which in turn stimulated a threadnaught = it gets attention, while the dirty dozen 3rd party devs just ramble in the Tech Lab Forum and get mostly ignored both by the players (which is OK) and CCP. At least it feels that way.

True that, although you could question whether neglected 3rd party dev requests would lead to the same kind of reaction. In any case I'll agree that having a 3rd party dev in CSM will be a bonus.

Also I think the number of 3rd party devs is quite a bit higher than those who post here or are on IRC.

Originally by: Tonto Auri
Originally by: Hera Vertigo
Edited by: Hera Vertigo on 23/07/2010 06:20:08
The dev team has just gotten to big. And frankly I don't think they really care because the API does not convert into $$$ for CCP. And when you get too big it all comes down to $$$.


Not true in the $$$ sentence.
API is probably the best advertising instrument in their posession.

I agree with that, datadump, image dump and API, or rather the websites and tools that spring from it, are a big part of the attraction of the game for many people.

Ivy Brookdale
Posted - 2010.07.23 18:32:00 - [28]
 

Scrum or any other software development methology can't be blamed for the current state of the API. Its rather a lack of vision in managment that leads to non-existing roadmaps. Maybe a CSM rep would be able to bring new ideas to CCPs attention and help to build a API centered agenda? But that would be a pretty though job to do I guess.

But ultimately someone at CCP has to realize that the sandbox concept doesn't have to end at the game client. With proper API functions people would be able to interact with EVE from mobile devices, office places, or wherever they are. EVE would be just a platform and even most of the in-client tools would be running within the IGB, developed by a 3rd party. Use your own maps, mail, market or contracts app in game from a 3rd party - why not?

Currently EVE is a bit like the iPhone without the app store. Its a great product, with a great community, but I feel it could use the creativity, inovation and fun that more powerful 3rd party apps would be able to provide, to make it truely outstanding.

Dr BattleSmith
PAX Interstellar Services
Posted - 2010.07.26 03:17:00 - [29]
 

You didn't get an API on EveGate because the team responsible had zero idea of Social Networking and technologies available.

They rolled their own solution which is Web 0.0001a.

The design of the site is using such an old way of thinking that it will never be updated to include API.

This choice was made early in the piece. Instead of deciding to use technology that would allow oAuth API,
Authentication and all the shinny Web2.0 stuff, they went with a solution that can never include any of that.

EveGate failed day-1 of planning when ego took over from logic.

Lykouleon
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.07.27 03:28:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Dr BattleSmith
EveGate failed day-1 of planning when ego took over from logic.



your ego is showing...


Pages: [1] 2

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