open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: Reimbursement policy updated
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

Author Topic

Versuvius Marii
Posted - 2011.03.11 16:50:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: GM Grimmi
2. Only items destroyed along with the ship are eligible for reimbursement. Any items left in space (in wreck, containers, etc.) are not eligible for reimbursement.
This is a load of bull. I can see why but 99/100 this situation occurs in a lagged-out battlefield. If you've lost your ship and then been podded due to the extreme lag and get reimbursed, there's still a wreck out there with stuff in it that someone's getting rich from. And then of course you have to buy new modules to replace the ones you can't retrieve because you woke up in a clone 10+ jumps away and your enemy holds the field.

This definitely needs changing so a reimbursement is exactly that, and not just a token gesture/apology. We all know you have the power to take away these items, or is it just that much hassle once it's gone on the market? Evil or Very Mad

Taedrin
Gallente
Kushan Industrial
Posted - 2011.03.11 16:51:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: Jovan Geldon
Edited by: Jovan Geldon on 11/03/2011 15:51:20
inb4 nullsec bears whinging that they can't get their blob-mobiles reimburse-

Never mind, too late.


Originally by: devblog
Mission collateral may be required for some missions. This collateral may be refunded in cases where GM investigation shows the mission creation was incomplete or if the mission was impossible to complete within normal gameplay parameters available to the player.


So does this mean the end of the "courier contract to player-owned station you can't dock in" scam?


NO.

There are SEVERAL in-game mechanics whereby you can dock at a player-owned station. You can:
1) Re-contract the items to someone who has access to the station
2) Join an alliance or corporation who has access to the station
3) Attack the system and claim the station for yourself

You need to look at this from CCP's perspective of "normal gameplay parameters", not your own personal set of parameters.

I believe what this statement is saying is that you will be refunded if the courier contract fails to give you the courier items, or if the courier contract somehow has a destination which is impossible to reach without dev powers (i.e. Polaris or Jove Space).

Ban Doga
Posted - 2011.03.11 17:06:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: Matalino
Edited by: Matalino on 11/03/2011 16:06:05
Originally by: Ban Doga
Does that mean if I accept a courier contract with 5 billion ISK collateral to transport something to Jove space I can get that reimbursed?
How about a transport to a player outpost that I won't get docking right for?
Courier missions to player outposts CAN be completed using normal game mechanics. You have the ability to avoid the scam using regular game mechanics. No refund!

Selecting a courier contract to a station where you do not have docking rights is no different than selecting a contract where you do not have sufficient cargo capacity. Just because you personally cannot complete the mission because of your personal limitations does not mean that the contract cannot be completed through the use of normal game mechanics.


And you are saying this in your official role as a GM of EVE Online?


I'll quote the relevant part of the new rules again so you might see the important detail:
Quote:
or if the mission was impossible to complete within normal gameplay parameters available to the player.


Doesn't matter if it's available to someone else. Doesn't even matter if I'm the only one who cannot complete it.
If I cannot complete it, then the above statement applies.
Very simple.

Ravcharas
GREY COUNCIL
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2011.03.11 17:30:00 - [34]
 

Originally by: Vuk Lau
Quote:
5. Any losses of any kind resulting from a large-scale player engagement are not covered by this reimbursement policy.


Pathetic altering of Reimbursement policies to cover your inability to do your job related to fleet fights, because its just easier to send generic reply to hundreds of players instead of actually doing your job - to provide customer support.






Also, can the GM department please define large-scale player engagement?

biggie fluffy
Posted - 2011.03.11 17:33:00 - [35]
 

I have to say I find may of your policy and M pretty horrible to deal with. It is clearly the most negative aspect of the game ( that is: interacting with GM when required).

99.999% of the the responses I have received from GM's indicate they either do not understand English, or have not bothered to read my request. It seems the GM is only concerned with providing a response, ANY response, and is not concerned with the quality of helping the person understand the issue.

I am currently dealing with an issue where I was buying items in station, but he items where being bought in other places. I found the issue. and sent a message to GM, I then did many other transactions to verify it could not possibly me something I was doing wrong, and then when to HELP CHANNEL to verify with them I was doing it all correct. I then messaged the gm FROM the station I was in , and bought something right then, with the same times stamp so they could verify the issue.


The response I received? "our logs show no errors"

This whole concept of the logs showing errors is faulty to start with! If your smart enough to sort through logs to find errors, why aren't you able to fix the problems generating them?!!!!!!!!


Quite simply - there needs to be a paradigm shift in the thinking of the gm's, and there roll. They need to be problems solvers, not the "blow off department".


I don't think you should EVER send a message to a user that your logs don't show the error they are seeing.-- this only proves that your logging is not effective.

Kev.



GM Guard

Posted - 2011.03.11 17:40:00 - [36]
 

Thank you all for the feedback and valued input. We will take the points brought to this discussion under advisement and make edits as we deem appropriate and necessary. We will also have a go at answering all your questions and try to clarify any remaining ambiguity about specific articles.

Matalino
Posted - 2011.03.11 17:40:00 - [37]
 

Edited by: Matalino on 11/03/2011 17:49:20
Originally by: Ban Doga
And you are saying this in your official role as a GM of EVE Online?
I would be happy to help you test this policy. If you want I will create a courier contract to a player owned station with 5 billion ISK collateral. You can then file a petition and document the results for us all. Of course, in order for this to be a realistic simulation, I would be unable to return the collateral without GM intervention. Razz


There is also problem of viewed from the perspective of the player creating the courier contract. Some twit accepts a contract that he is unable to complete, petitions the contract and gets his collateral refunded. In the mean time, the player who created the contract did not recieve the items he contracted at the expected location; therefore he uses the collateral he received to purchase the items at the desired location. A few days later, a GM comes along and f**ks with his wallet and inventory.

Realisticly, there is no policy that could allow for reimbursement of failed courier contracts. Only defective contracts could be reimbursed.

mkmin
Posted - 2011.03.11 18:00:00 - [38]
 

Well, it's pretty awesome that you just told hackers how to get away with hacking an account and not be punished. Love a policy that favors real world criminals over your paying customers.

(also all the contradictions are interesting and sums up to tl;dr we'll reimburse however we happen to feel like right then so stop your *****ing.)

Matalino
Posted - 2011.03.11 18:10:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: mkmin
Well, it's pretty awesome that you just told hackers how to get away with hacking an account and not be punished. Love a policy that favors real world criminals over your paying customers.
Just because the victim doesn't get a full reimbursement does not mean that the hacker goes unpunished.

Kalissa
Sacred Templars
RED.OverLord
Posted - 2011.03.11 18:44:00 - [40]
 

"We approach each petition with the mindset of trying to find a reason to fulfill the player's claim"

That statement is perhaps the biggest load of **** I've heard in a long time.

I've had petitions in the past for people in exactly the same fight, in exactly the same fleet at exactly the same time and had them dealt with by 2 GM's, one GM reimbursed, one didn't

So as you may expect I am a little cyncical about CCP's reimbursement policy to say the least. Granted this was quite a while ago, but it's left such an awful taste in my mouth that to this day it still annoys me. Infact among the friends I have ingame there is a general feeling that a reimbursement petition is a waste of time as you have an exceptionally small chance of success. But at least they're being upfront about the rules and if people do read this the amount of petitions that get submitted should decline quite a bit, because CCP have in effect told people that 90% of the reasons people may file a petition will be rejected out of hand, so you may as well save yourself and CCP the time and effort.

But don't get me wrong here, CCP's GM's do work hard and if you have a problem that is non reimbursement related I have always found them to be helpful and in most cases have sorted out the problem (even if the petition did take a bit to be replied to)


Louise Achura
Posted - 2011.03.11 18:48:00 - [41]
 

It be nice to have a simliar list of ingame "mechanics" you can't use (droping loads of cans for lag, etc).


Ban Doga
Posted - 2011.03.11 18:57:00 - [42]
 

Edited by: Ban Doga on 11/03/2011 18:58:00
Originally by: Matalino
Edited by: Matalino on 11/03/2011 17:49:20
Originally by: Ban Doga
And you are saying this in your official role as a GM of EVE Online?
I would be happy to help you test this policy. If you want I will create a courier contract to a player owned station with 5 billion ISK collateral. You can then file a petition and document the results for us all. Of course, in order for this to be a realistic simulation, I would be unable to return the collateral without GM intervention. Razz


There is also problem of viewed from the perspective of the player creating the courier contract. Some twit accepts a contract that he is unable to complete, petitions the contract and gets his collateral refunded. In the mean time, the player who created the contract did not recieve the items he contracted at the expected location; therefore he uses the collateral he received to purchase the items at the desired location. A few days later, a GM comes along and f**ks with his wallet and inventory.

Realisticly, there is no policy that could allow for reimbursement of failed courier contracts. Only defective contracts could be reimbursed.


I don't want to test the policy, I just want an official and clear answer what the policy includes and want not.
Right now the wording can be interpreted in a way that courier contract scams with player outposts fall under the "can be reimbursed" category.

But as you already mentioned yourself, it doesn't really make much sense to do this.
So something's strange and the newly formulated rules leave as much to be desired, room for misinterpretation, misconduct and favoritism as ever.

A blanket statement in the form of "if anything happens because of bugs in our client you won't get reimbursed" to round it up and there you have a great start into another episode of
"Last GM did this - why won't you?"
"Because it isn't covered by the policy."
"Last GM said it was."
"Well I don't!"

Hermosa Diosas
Ministry Of Mining And Industry
Posted - 2011.03.11 18:59:00 - [43]
 

this will only work when you fix the 'LOGS DONT SHOW ANYTHING' Bullsh*t - thats what annoys people. Because thats the answer you always come up with, your game logging is terrible.

mkmin
Posted - 2011.03.11 19:05:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: Matalino
Originally by: mkmin
Well, it's pretty awesome that you just told hackers how to get away with hacking an account and not be punished. Love a policy that favors real world criminals over your paying customers.
Just because the victim doesn't get a full reimbursement does not mean that the hacker goes unpunished.


a hacker just has to distribute the stolen assets to his alts through market orders. Read carefully what is said there and how gaping holes are left.

Lupus Caeli
Minmatar
Interstellar Arbitrage
Posted - 2011.03.11 19:08:00 - [45]
 

Originally by: Hermosa Diosas
this will only work when you fix the 'LOGS DONT SHOW ANYTHING' Bullsh*t - thats what annoys people. Because thats the answer you always come up with, your game logging is terrible.


Exactly - this is just another insult to the 30-40 ppl who petitioned not receiving rewards from the Headquarters site of the first Incursion ....

Despite the paragraph - this is not all inclusive blah blah blah ...we could not get a decision by a GM - just the sheeplike quote - no server logs due to the bug in question ...

CCP - This is an insult !!!



Lithia Tsanov
Posted - 2011.03.11 19:21:00 - [46]
 

Dear Mouthbreather Grimmi,

I want to prefix this with message with a couple simple statements. First and foremost, "we pay you". This is important, and I really want this to stay fresh in your mind as you re-read your blog. The second statement is that an item (ship) that is lost due to a bug is 'not' lost to the opposing character. An item lost to a bug is lost to CCP. When I lose a ship to a bug, it is the same as if CCP took ISK from my wallet, and gave it to some other person.

So let's tell a story. I'll call this story:

"Surprise, He's not jammed".

A long time ago in a galaxy far far away, CCP gave us ECM. With ECM, CCP gave us the ability to jam out targets. What CCP did not give us was an accompanying logable action other than module activation. Everyone was happy. People got jammed, people died, etc.
Somewhere, a falcon pilot named Kaatt began to notice strange things. Engagements where pilots were "jammed" were lost due to jammed pilots shooting back as if nothing was wrong. Screenshots were taken and bug "92552" was filed. Some of the screens were pretty darn obvious:

https://bugs.eveonline.com/files/50972719257.jpg

Numerous petitions were filed, but the response was always "the logs indicate nothing" and "have you filed a bug". The response to the bug was worse than abysmal... "We cannot reproduce the issue".
After CCP handed about 4 billion isk to Kaatt's enemies, he began to get curious. Just how hard was the bug to reproduce? In a 4 hour session with two accounts, Kaatt managed to reproduce the bug a dozen times, and discovered four other bugs and one exploit involving ECM. All five bugs stem from the same root cause:

Jamming doesn't prevent you from targeting. It simply reduces your Max Targets to 0.
The calculation for whether you are jammed or not appears to happen in three different places. (both clients, and the server).

After about 6 months of CCP BS, and trying to do the right thing, Kaatt happily canceled all of her subscriptions and now pays via Plex. You see, Kaatt got tired of paying CCP real money, so that CCP could take her fake money and give it to her enemies.
I guess the moral of the story is that your "reimbursement policy" only works if you actually log in-game actions on the server. If you don't, it's not only pointless, it's immoral. Perhaps if you had a remotely capable QA department, or perhaps if your GMs could actually calculate a binomial equation and determine from the "module activations" that there was a 97.6% chance that a ship was jammed when it wasn't, you'd have a leg to stand on... But you dont.... Basically it comes down to:

Your Reimbursement policy sucks because:
1: Your Devs are incompetent
2: Your "Bug Hunters" are incompetent and obtuse
3: Your GMs make matters worse because they cannot escalate issues to your incompetent devs and QA teams.


CCP owes me 4b isk.
LT

Naomi Wildfire
Amarr
Spricer
Raiden.
Posted - 2011.03.11 19:24:00 - [47]
 

Remove reimbursements completely or fix your stupid logs, you cant even track the simplest issues. I dont know how much i thought "This time its so clear that its not my fault and its also easy to track" and still got the same answer everytime.

The real question is, what do your logs show you? If we can filter out it in advance, we wouldnt be that sad and you wont reveive so many petitions.

Matalino
Posted - 2011.03.11 19:26:00 - [48]
 

Originally by: mkmin
a hacker just has to distribute the stolen assets to his alts through market orders. Read carefully what is said there and how gaping holes are left.
Those alts receive the same treatment as the main characters. The trail will be followed. At the end of it, there might be an RMT transaction where the buyer loses the ISK he bought and gets away with a negative wallet and a warning, otherwise, every account along the way is banned. This policy change has no effect on what is done to hackers. Those policies remain exactly the same as before.

The policy change only affects those who are careless with their passwords. If you lose your password, you lose your stuff! If you keep anything after your account gets hacked (ie you installed a key logger on your computer, use the same password for something else, gave your password to a "friend", etc) then count yourself lucky that you didn't lose everything as a result of your carelessness/stupidity.

Lithia Tsanov
Posted - 2011.03.11 19:36:00 - [49]
 

Edited by: Lithia Tsanov on 11/03/2011 20:06:33
Edited by: Lithia Tsanov on 11/03/2011 19:36:28
Double posted due to crappy forum software. I might as well take a moment to point out exactly how bad this game is currently.

http://scrapheap-challenge.com/viewtopic.php?t=38118



EB Research
Posted - 2011.03.11 19:53:00 - [50]
 

Edited by: EB Research on 11/03/2011 19:54:06
Originally by: Mr Grim

Generally in-game scams are allowed and considered a valid tactic



This is what I was told years ago...
When he [GRIMMI] take back something like 12 billion I scam, because I "ruin" a whole corp and they all were going to quite!

Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
IDLE EMPIRE
Posted - 2011.03.11 20:05:00 - [51]
 

wait I thought the GM policy was to not publish things, now they are publishing things

p=~p ExclamationExclamationExclamation

Duvida
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2011.03.11 20:46:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton
wait I thought the GM policy was to not publish things, now they are publishing things

p=~p ExclamationExclamationExclamation



CCP is becoming more open with their customers. I prefer this change and wouldn't want it discouraged.

Responding to the Dev Blog and response to it. "**** happens", "That language is rude", "This is a mature game, deal with it", etc. The use of swearing doesn't indicate maturity. Our parents were trying to forbid us from swearing at the age of 5 because they were trying to help us develop an adult vocabulary in place of the use of simple vulgarity. The language used can indicated the tone of the conversation to follow. So the choice of words can be important. The ability to think on that level and express it well is more likely to be an indicator of maturity.

As to the concerns brought up about losses due to client issues not being reimbursable, there appear to be exploitables that target the clientside. The client has exploitable issues that can result in losses outside of most player's control. The concern is that 1. There will NOT be a correction of those client issues, and 2. "**** happens", and your game client's weaknesses being targeted is not a concern of CCP.

We as players aren't likely to be able to write a new client without these bugs, nor would such an activity be welcomed by CCP, so the ball is entirely in CCP's court as to whether their customers are able to have an enjoyable game experience or not when looking at this issue.

Aineko Macx
Posted - 2011.03.11 21:01:00 - [53]
 

Edited by: Aineko Macx on 11/03/2011 21:03:29
Quote:
3. Reimbursement will only be granted if a loss is attributable to a bug or server error.

Except you don't reimburse for server errors when they happened in pvp situations "because it would alter the outcome of the battle" even if the outcome was determined exactly by your bugs or server problems.

Quote:
If someone gained access to your account as a result of your use of a third party program or other violation of our EULA/TOS, all requests for reimbursement will be null and void.

That is so lame, as it can be applied to anything to refuse reimbursement. "Hey, you got a trojan over your mail client or browser": BAM! No reimbursement for you as its a EULA breach by YOU Evil or Very Mad And CCP can't even state with confidence you were in fact infected with a rootkit or whatever, there are not enough resources by far for a true investigation on the client machine, so they just assume.

Quote:
1. If your account is accessed by another player and assets are stolen or transferred to other players, we will investigate and items that we are able to track down will be moved back to the rightful owner.
2. Any ISK stolen from the account may be transferred back to the rightful owner on a case-by-case basis.

Of course you suck hard at this, as I witnessed a case of obvious hacking with billions and T2 BPOs stolen, and the reply being "you never owned those assets" altho they could even be confirmed on the test server mirror.

One of the key reasons why I and many other players have contempt for the GM department are the rules, which are created to minimize the work for CCP, not to actually help players, and specifically exempt responsibility for the most blatant cases of CCP development incompetence. And in the cases where the rules allow room for interpretation, I have never seen them being interpreted in favor of the player. Except for the no-brainers like stuck characters, the GM department is little more than an unwilling counseling automaton, made to make players feel as if someone gave a ****, which is more frustrating than talking to a wall.

biggie fluffy
Posted - 2011.03.11 21:03:00 - [54]
 

I really really like it when I fight with a GM for like 8 petitions about a issue I am having, that

"doesn't exist, because there are no logs", and I am refused reimbursement, then they celebrate the issue as "fixed" in the patch :)

LOL

Aineko Macx
Posted - 2011.03.11 21:26:00 - [55]
 

Edited by: Aineko Macx on 11/03/2011 21:30:21
Food for thought:
If you as a developer had the chance to create new types of logs for issues which you knew would cause an increase of GM workload of say 10%, because you wouldn't truly be able to bounce "the logs show nothing" back to players anymore, would you still do it?

Estimate revenue loss because of players quitting as result of the incident (CCP should have enough historical data to model this by now) and compare that to the cost of hiring 10% more GMs.

Lithia Tsanov
Posted - 2011.03.11 22:09:00 - [56]
 

Originally by: Aineko Macx
Food for thought:
If you as a developer had the chance to create new types of logs for issues which you knew would cause an increase of GM workload of say 10%, because you wouldn't truly be able to bounce "the logs show nothing" back to players anymore, would you still do it?


The load created by logging an event is computationally trivial when compared to the processing of an event. The workload on the GMs is trivial as the logs are temporally linear, and can be assessed with even the most rudimentary logic skills. Example:

01:01:00 Ship A jams ship B.
01:01:10 Ship B targets Ship A

Since a jam lasts 20 seconds, it is easy to assess that Ship B should not have been able to target ship A.

Logging is also a tunable resource with varying levels in most development environments (Info, Warn, Debug) and can be adjusted in an ad-hoc and real-time fashion. Logs are easily imported to DB's to make data mining and statistics a cakewalk. It also makes retroactive reimbursement possible. Example:

1: Joe dies to Bug1 and submits reimbursement petition
2: GM says, "We don't know about that bug, but I'll bump up the logging for ActionA"
3: GM lets the logs ride for a day/two/week, takes a look at the collected data. Confirms the bug and it's frequency.
4: GM Escalates bug to Devs/QA
5: Dev/QA confirms discrepency
6: GM reimburses petitions due to Bug1 until a patch is released.

Tech is easy. People make it harder than it really is.

LT

Lithia Tsanov
Posted - 2011.03.11 22:36:00 - [57]
 

Originally by: GM Guard
Thank you all for the feedback and valued input. We will take the points brought to this discussion under advisement and make edits as we deem appropriate and necessary. We will also have a go at answering all your questions and try to clarify any remaining ambiguity about specific articles.



You might be new to this. So here's how it goes.

Your customers are asking for something. They're paying you money for it. You "do it". Customers are not asking for "edits", we're asking for an entirely new support paradigm. Put bluntly, your current support model sucks, and "edits" aren't going to fix it.

If you need a hand with this, stop asking the community and hire a digital commerce support specialist. Stop 'acting' like you care, and start do the right thing for your customers so that you have a job in a year.

Please understand that the next semi-decent elite-clone-mmorpg is going to devastate your company unless you provide your customers a compelling reason to stay.

LT


Jason Edwards
Internet Tough Guy
Spreadsheets Online
Posted - 2011.03.12 00:00:00 - [58]
 

Edited by: Jason Edwards on 12/03/2011 00:01:52
If a ship is lost because of a BUG... bug by definition says software != working right. So event logs and that **** isnt going to catch jack **** unless there already is a fail catcher put in place. Most likely this isnt going to be there.

So you basically are going to be declining MANY legitimate cases. ALL of which are going to be completely unhappy customers.

Moreover you also dont take value into account. On my various of accounts... I have experienced loads of different bugs leading to ship loss and had my claim declined. I have also had many others which were iffy bugs... like they seemed like bugs to me at the time but really hadnt been acknowledged by anymore. Then I get declined... week later they patch the bug on sisi that caused my ship to die.

Examples: Rattlesnake just got buffed to be a passive-shield-domi. I fit it up. I go do a bunch of missions which were fine. Then I do one and out of nowhere I start taking armor damage while my shields are basically full... and i pop instantly. Anyone who goes on sisi often and does passive shield ships has seen this bug many many times. I try reimbursement petition and OPPS LOGS SHOW NOTHING.


I had another one on another account/character. Basically I had a bug where I was cruising around in a pod in highsec and a wartarget interceptor was following me. No biggie... he cant catch a pod. Then out of nowhere I get to a gate... it pops up JUMPING but it just has me sitting there. Interceptor then locks me and Im smashing jump but nothing is happening. I then die. Reimbursement was like NO GO AWAY FFFFF UUUUU.

Then there's another time different account/char again... I hit align to a planet or whatever. It aligns fine. Im doing stuff and they start shooting me and I warp but randomly I just stop moving and dont warp off. Then I die. I thought maybe i screwed up tried to warp to something wrong or something. I go for reimbursement but I mention I could possibly have screwed up. Except I did get reimbursed... they gave me my ship back except 8 high slots, 8 mid slots, 8 low slots, and 3 hp. 1 shield, 1 armor, 1 structure. I also got the ship in some random station Im sure the character has never ever been to. So by the time I ever went to go get the ship.. the petition was long since closed.

Quote:
a. Any losses attributable to errors in the EVE client may not be eligible for reimbursement.

Because the end user is capable of maintaining bugs in the eve client any more then the server?


Here's to hoping that these rules are very soft rules and those doing the reimbursements are actually smart because this is something that ****es customers off.

Lubomir Penev
Dark Nexxus
S I L E N T.
Posted - 2011.03.12 00:11:00 - [59]
 

Originally by: GM Grimmi

If we can verify the cause to be a bug or server issue using server side logs, we'll reimburse.



Good policy, too bad you don't log anything relevant...

Tobin Shalim
Eclipse Industrials
Quantum Forge
Posted - 2011.03.12 00:20:00 - [60]
 

Originally by: Jason Edwards


Quote:
a. Any losses attributable to errors in the EVE client may not be eligible for reimbursement.

Because the end user is capable of maintaining bugs in the eve client any more then the server?



Are you joking? Are you ****ing joking CCP? Is it April 1st yet? What the **** were the people thinking that came up with this horse****? You're now saying that bugs IN YOUR OWN SOFTWARE are not eligible for reimbursement? The bugs that YOUR company have in YOUR OWN SOFTWARE are not reason to get stuff back when YOUR own stuff ****s up and screws us over? I want whatever you guys were drinking when you came up with THAT little gem, it must be some high-quality liquor.

Do consider changing this, it's quite moronic.


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