open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked Before you whine, read this:
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 : last (11)

Author Topic

Darius Brinn
Iberians
Posted - 2008.03.28 20:12:00 - [241]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
Ganking in mission ravens? [:roll:



LOL! Be serious.


I am. I don't necessarily mean throwing themselves at it with their better faction or T2 stuff. But if they happen to be near home, it takes nothing to dock the good toy and come with the disposable one. I do missions near my home system. If I was a ganker and you appeared in a Covetor or Hulk I feel like popping, I can get the Brutix out and destroy you. Money doesn't matter...because I'm getting it back from NPCs.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2008.03.29 10:44:00 - [242]
 

Originally by: Darius Brinn
Originally by: Malcanis
Ganking in mission ravens? [:roll:



LOL! Be serious.


I am. I don't necessarily mean throwing themselves at it with their better faction or T2 stuff. But if they happen to be near home, it takes nothing to dock the good toy and come with the disposable one. I do missions near my home system. If I was a ganker and you appeared in a Covetor or Hulk I feel like popping, I can get the Brutix out and destroy you. Money doesn't matter...because I'm getting it back from NPCs.


No. Just no. Apart from the PITA time it takes to dock up and refit - most mision ships are rigged. Just conceivably a ganker might have a pre-fitted gank ship ready, but seriously, no-one missions while waiting for a gank.

I bet if you have a think about it, you can work out why.

Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2008.03.29 11:21:00 - [243]
 

Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Darius Brinn

All this nonsense is also in EVE. It's a DESIGN FLAW. Unrealistic, and unbalanced. Consequences, yes. For ALL.


But that is what we have.
Gankers lose their ship, they get insurance.
Victims lose their ship, they get insurance.

Gankers also get a security status penalty, a criminal flag, and killrights handed to their victim.

Seems fair.


I couldn't help but make a comment on this.

Ganker gets 90%-100% of what his ship is worth because it is T1 ship with T1 fittings.
The hulk pilot, do you really think the insurance pays him enough to cover his hulk loss and fittings?

I mean come on, this argument is totally weak sauce.

Remove insurance payout for being concorded and lets move on people!

Mauslin
Posted - 2008.03.29 11:31:00 - [244]
 

Originally by: Avon
The risk is in the hands of the players, *as it should be*, not some automatic game mechanic which comes running to the rescue.


O
M
G

Is it that you CAN'T read or that you DON'T WANT TO read?

I don't want Concord to come running to the rescue when Ore gets stolen.

I repeat that, so it sinks in...

I DON'T WANT CONCORD TO COME RUNNING TO THE RESCUE WHEN ORE GETS STOLEN.

Stealing Ore from a jetcan is a valid game mechanic. If someone profits from that, it's perfectly legal.

BUT (now comes the part where you need to read carefully and not assume you know what I'm writing), it's not ok that the act of theft is accepted by Concord in a high sec area. Assume it's like a parking ticket. One is no problem. 10 is fine. 20 you might have to speak at the nearest police station with an officer. But after the 30th, 40th or 50th parking ticket you might even end up in jail. That doesn't mean the moment someone parks illegaly he shoot be shot instantly...

Ore thiefery is often not used to steal ore. It's used to lure newbies who don't fully understand the mechanics of aggression timer and kill rights into making a mistake so they can be blown up.

Yes, I know there are ways for experienced players to avoid that or to take revenge. But people ganking through ore thiefery are not aiming at them. They are aiming at newbie chars for the joy of ganking.

I still hope you can understand that I don't want to improve the security of jetcan mining. But I want to see some consequences for continued ore thiefery in High-Sec.

Shakuul
Caldari
RuffRyders
Axiom Empire
Posted - 2008.03.29 11:32:00 - [245]
 

Lol look its a whine about whines.

Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2008.03.29 11:54:00 - [246]
 

I really don't know why the pirates are SO against the removal of insurance payout if you are killed by Concord. You guys talk about how you kill haulers with billions in them and all that kind of stuff. Well if you kill a hauler and Concord comes and kills you and you get the uber loot but no insurance... are you really that concerned about the insurance if you just made a billion or two??

The pirates say that if someone is hauling loot worth waaaay more than their ship is worth they desrver to die. Well, you still would get to kill them, and make off with the loot (if it doesn't go pop too).

So by removing the insurance from being concorded you still would get what you want and so would the carebear. How is this bad? You say that the haulers are being greedy but the pirates wanting the carebear ship killed on moral reasons for being "careless", getting uber loot to get rich quick and you want the insurance too?! The carebear just wants you to not get your insurance.

Now who the hell is the greedy one?! Rolling Eyes

Avon
Caldari
Versatech Co.
Raiden.
Posted - 2008.03.29 12:17:00 - [247]
 

Originally by: Mauslin
O
M
G


W
T
F

The consequence should be provided by the player, not Concord, or fines, or impounding his ship / favorite exotic dancer .. *by the player*.

Either you punish him by blowing him to bits, or he gets away with it.
That is Eve.
No additional penalty is required.
Concord don't care about your stuff, they just care about keeping the peace. If you have a legitimate grievence, like a war or retribution on someone who has wronged you, they have no interest in the matter. They are willing to turn a blind eye if you or your corpmates feel need to seek revenge, because your reasons are, as far as they are concerned, valid.

If Concord don't care, who else is going to action these "other" penalties you ask for?
No-one really cares who picks up stuff floating in space enough to do anything about it. Why get involved with the goings on of those pod pilots? Those elite of the universe can solve their own problems, lest they decide to lay waste to a city or bankrupt the planet of those who choose to interfere.

Avon
Caldari
Versatech Co.
Raiden.
Posted - 2008.03.29 12:20:00 - [248]
 

Edited by: Avon on 29/03/2008 12:20:27
Originally by: Marlona Sky
I really don't know why the pirates are SO against the removal of insurance payout if you are killed by Concord. You guys talk about how you kill haulers with billions in them and all that kind of stuff. Well if you kill a hauler and Concord comes and kills you and you get the uber loot but no insurance... are you really that concerned about the insurance if you just made a billion or two??

The pirates say that if someone is hauling loot worth waaaay more than their ship is worth they desrver to die. Well, you still would get to kill them, and make off with the loot (if it doesn't go pop too).

So by removing the insurance from being concorded you still would get what you want and so would the carebear. How is this bad? You say that the haulers are being greedy but the pirates wanting the carebear ship killed on moral reasons for being "careless", getting uber loot to get rich quick and you want the insurance too?! The carebear just wants you to not get your insurance.

Now who the hell is the greedy one?! Rolling Eyes


You just managed to make the perfect arguement for the *non* removal of insurance.
The carebear wants it, even though it would make no real difference, to feel like they have somehow punished their killer.

Meanwhile Joe Bloggs, who has just accidentally shot his mate's drone on a mission, is sitting in a pod wishing his insurance had paid.

Astral Fox
Gallente
Militek Industries
Integrity Respect Selflessness
Posted - 2008.03.29 14:00:00 - [249]
 

Edited by: Astral Fox on 29/03/2008 14:18:09
Superb! - Vikarion has captured the very essence of this game in his OP - Mods - PLEASE strip the inane sub-plots & half-arsed counter arguments that appear to have clearly ignored the OP:
Quote:
Now, this is for all of you carebears and piebears out there, from me, a fellow bear. I've been noticing an increasing torrent of whines about suicide ganking, JihadSwarm, etc., and I'm getting a little tired of it. So, I'd like to make a few things clear.
& STICKY the damned thing - it should become the Mantra for Eve.

Quote:
What part of "cold, uncaring universe" do you not understand? / No one cares / If you died, it was probably your fault. / Learn a little perspective


BTW - to clear things up a little - just in case......I am not a Pirate & I do not "YARR" - I do my best to adapt, stay aware, survive & PROSPER in this "Cold, uncaring universe".

Cyriel Longinus
Caldari
XERCORE
Posted - 2008.03.29 14:33:00 - [250]
 

Edited by: Cyriel Longinus on 29/03/2008 14:42:59


Yea, something like this really needed to be said.

So I give my thanks to Vikarion for taking the time show some love for EvE and straight up common sense.


Commander 598
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.03.29 17:35:00 - [251]
 

Originally by: Marlona Sky
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Darius Brinn

All this nonsense is also in EVE. It's a DESIGN FLAW. Unrealistic, and unbalanced. Consequences, yes. For ALL.


But that is what we have.
Gankers lose their ship, they get insurance.
Victims lose their ship, they get insurance.

Gankers also get a security status penalty, a criminal flag, and killrights handed to their victim.

Seems fair.


I couldn't help but make a comment on this.

Ganker gets 90%-100% of what his ship is worth because it is T1 ship with T1 fittings.
The hulk pilot, do you really think the insurance pays him enough to cover his hulk loss and fittings?

I mean come on, this argument is totally weak sauce.

Remove insurance payout for being concorded and lets move on people!


Flying a Hulk that costs 100m ISK and only has a 20/30m ISK insurance payout and seemingly no impressive benefits over a 20m ISK Covetor in Empire is dumb in my opinion...and fitting it with fittings that double the ISK lost is even dumber. So much poorly spent money...

Darius Brinn
Iberians
Posted - 2008.03.29 19:09:00 - [252]
 

Quote:
The consequence should be provided by the player, not Concord, or fines, or impounding his ship / favorite exotic dancer .. *by the player*.


Nice going, Avon. Using the same (inappropiate) logic, you should be IN FAVOUR of all profit to be provided by the player, not insurance NPCs.

Wanna gank? Fine. Wanna loot? Fine. But every single ISK you make by comitting crimes, you get/loot yourself.
No insurance for Concord'ed ships.

NO INSURANCE FOR CONCORD'ED ships.

Overwhelmed
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
Posted - 2008.03.29 19:13:00 - [253]
 

Originally by: Darius Brinn

NO INSURANCE FOR CONCORD'ED ships.



So instead of making 200 million ISK off of some sucker, they'll make 150 million.

You hear it here folks, all suicide ganking would cease with this simple solution!

Don't quit your day job.

Darius Brinn
Iberians
Posted - 2008.03.29 19:35:00 - [254]
 

Originally by: Overwhelmed
Originally by: Darius Brinn

NO INSURANCE FOR CONCORD'ED ships.



So instead of making 200 million ISK off of some sucker, they'll make 150 million.

You hear it here folks, all suicide ganking would cease with this simple solution!




Did I say anything about wanting ganking to stop? Doubt it. You just made that up, Overwhelmed.

I don't want suicide ganking to stop. I don't want can flipping to stop. I have never been flipped, or ganked, nor care about other users being flipped, or ganked.

I just see something that doesn't look particularly "right" to me, and come here to discuss it. If gankers get a billion ISK from each gankee, but all of it comes from looting and Salvaging, I'm absolutely and completely in favor of those who choose such a profession in-game.

Avon
Caldari
Versatech Co.
Raiden.
Posted - 2008.03.29 20:27:00 - [255]
 

Originally by: Darius Brinn

Nice going, Avon. Using the same (inappropiate) logic, you should be IN FAVOUR of all profit to be provided by the player, not insurance NPCs.

Wanna gank? Fine. Wanna loot? Fine. But every single ISK you make by comitting crimes, you get/loot yourself.
No insurance for Concord'ed ships.

NO INSURANCE FOR CONCORD'ED ships.


You logic fails.
"No insurance for *any* ship" would be the logical extension of my arguement, which oddly enough I am perfectly fine with.

Vikarion
Caldari
State Trade Consortium
Posted - 2008.03.29 20:40:00 - [256]
 

Originally by: Commander 598

Flying a Hulk that costs 100m ISK and only has a 20/30m ISK insurance payout and seemingly no impressive benefits over a 20m ISK Covetor in Empire is dumb in my opinion...and fitting it with fittings that double the ISK lost is even dumber. So much poorly spent money...


Er, if you can't fly a ship in hi-sec, and you can't fly it in low-sec, and you can't fly it in 0.0, because in all of them it's not worth it...

Why is it in the game?

Darius Brinn
Iberians
Posted - 2008.03.30 08:18:00 - [257]
 

Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Darius Brinn

Nice going, Avon. Using the same (inappropiate) logic, you should be IN FAVOUR of all profit to be provided by the player, not insurance NPCs.

Wanna gank? Fine. Wanna loot? Fine. But every single ISK you make by comitting crimes, you get/loot yourself.
No insurance for Concord'ed ships.

NO INSURANCE FOR CONCORD'ED ships.


You logic fails.
"No insurance for *any* ship" would be the logical extension of my arguement, which oddly enough I am perfectly fine with.


I don't think my logic fails. Insurance helps pirates to make up for their losses. But they're not a drop within the ocean of losses the hauler suffers.

Insurance is the blood and joy of High security gankers, not of Empire dwellers. Even if the insurance was to be removed completely, I'd still think it's better than what it is now.


Overwhelmed
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
Posted - 2008.03.30 08:26:00 - [258]
 

Originally by: Darius Brinn


Did I say anything about wanting ganking to stop? Doubt it. You just made that up, Overwhelmed.

I don't want suicide ganking to stop. I don't want can flipping to stop. I have never been flipped, or ganked, nor care about other users being flipped, or ganked.

I just see something that doesn't look particularly "right" to me, and come here to discuss it. If gankers get a billion ISK from each gankee, but all of it comes from looting and Salvaging, I'm absolutely and completely in favor of those who choose such a profession in-game.



And that's why removing insurance wouldn't necessarily do anything. You can change the arbitrary cost of losing a ship but removing insurance is just increasing the cost by another abritrary amount. High-sec gankers already lose enough ISK per attempt that they don't blow up frigates "just cause" so I don't see the problem. They wait for very juicy targets then destroy them. Increasing that threshold would not stop them from blowing up what they do and doesn't affect the "losses" carebears love to complain about.

The problem in question, if any, is why hulks pay so little of their original value.

Darius Brinn
Iberians
Posted - 2008.03.30 18:02:00 - [259]
 

Originally by: Overwhelmed
Originally by: Darius Brinn


Did I say anything about wanting ganking to stop? Doubt it. You just made that up, Overwhelmed.

I don't want suicide ganking to stop. I don't want can flipping to stop. I have never been flipped, or ganked, nor care about other users being flipped, or ganked.

I just see something that doesn't look particularly "right" to me, and come here to discuss it. If gankers get a billion ISK from each gankee, but all of it comes from looting and Salvaging, I'm absolutely and completely in favor of those who choose such a profession in-game.



And that's why removing insurance wouldn't necessarily do anything. You can change the arbitrary cost of losing a ship but removing insurance is just increasing the cost by another abritrary amount. High-sec gankers already lose enough ISK per attempt that they don't blow up frigates "just cause" so I don't see the problem. They wait for very juicy targets then destroy them. Increasing that threshold would not stop them from blowing up what they do and doesn't affect the "losses" carebears love to complain about.

The problem in question, if any, is why hulks pay so little of their original value.


I difer. It's not a matter of a fixed, equal amount of compensation to both parties (ganker and ganked). Ganker choses to gank in a T2 ship, it's his problem. Miner decides to use a T2 ship, it's his problem. But when a ganker FAILS his attempt and gets most of it back, there's something there that doesn't quite seem appropiate.

Ganker tries > fails > loses a ridiculous amount of ISK no matter what.

So, it's big jackpot, or try again for free. That's not piracy. That's being the Mayor's nephew and getting all parking tickets wrote off. It's free crime.

Remove insurance for Concord'ed ships, or remove insurance completely.

Commander 598
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.03.30 19:44:00 - [260]
 

Originally by: Vikarion
Originally by: Commander 598

Flying a Hulk that costs 100m ISK and only has a 20/30m ISK insurance payout and seemingly no impressive benefits over a 20m ISK Covetor in Empire is dumb in my opinion...and fitting it with fittings that double the ISK lost is even dumber. So much poorly spent money...


Er, if you can't fly a ship in hi-sec, and you can't fly it in low-sec, and you can't fly it in 0.0, because in all of them it's not worth it...

Why is it in the game?



Well, I can't fly one myself, but I hear it can tank 0.0 spawns which actually makes it useful in 0.0, everywhere else you're probably better off not mining at all or using a Covetor instead...or a BS fit for mining if jetcans aren't a liability for you.

I keep hearing about how Hulks are so much cheaper now but I don't even remotely consider it cheap or worth the time/effort to fly, in fact I don't really consider the Covetor worth the time to train mining barge and astrogeology to 5 (About 50 days for me...) when I could just fly a BS and mine into a jetcan in either 0.0 or some incredibly untraveled deadend highsec system.

Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2008.03.30 21:15:00 - [261]
 

Originally by: Avon
Edited by: Avon on 29/03/2008 12:20:27
Originally by: Marlona Sky
I really don't know why the pirates are SO against the removal of insurance payout if you are killed by Concord. You guys talk about how you kill haulers with billions in them and all that kind of stuff. Well if you kill a hauler and Concord comes and kills you and you get the uber loot but no insurance... are you really that concerned about the insurance if you just made a billion or two??

The pirates say that if someone is hauling loot worth waaaay more than their ship is worth they desrver to die. Well, you still would get to kill them, and make off with the loot (if it doesn't go pop too).

So by removing the insurance from being concorded you still would get what you want and so would the carebear. How is this bad? You say that the haulers are being greedy but the pirates wanting the carebear ship killed on moral reasons for being "careless", getting uber loot to get rich quick and you want the insurance too?! The carebear just wants you to not get your insurance.

Now who the hell is the greedy one?! Rolling Eyes


You just managed to make the perfect arguement for the *non* removal of insurance.
The carebear wants it, even though it would make no real difference, to feel like they have somehow punished their killer.

Meanwhile Joe Bloggs, who has just accidentally shot his mate's drone on a mission, is sitting in a pod wishing his insurance had paid.


What?? Stop avoiding the question. And before you resort to the, "Crap, I'm losing the argument. I better respond with 'Post with your main.' tactic.", this is my main.


Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2008.03.30 21:21:00 - [262]
 

When you go to the slot machine and put in your token and pull the lever and don't win, does it give you your token back anyways?

I mean seriously, with the insurance the way it is, it is exactly like that. And when you pull the lever on the slot machine (gank in empire) and you win (get uber loot) you still get the coin you originally put in the machine as well (insurance payout for being Concorded)

Thats all this is with the current insurance payouts is a slot machine that you get to play over and over and over with the same token that spits out even when you lose.

0ffBeaT
Caldari
Posted - 2008.03.30 21:26:00 - [263]
 

Edited by: 0ffBeaT on 30/03/2008 21:26:32
hehe.. yea, its a take it on the chin kind of game, this an't wow.
thats what i like the most about this game, a loss is a real loss..

hellraiser reborn
Posted - 2008.03.31 00:24:00 - [264]
 

I remember the first time i picked up the Eve box in the store .It said I could do numerous different trades in Eve. I've done alot of different things including this topic.No where on the box or in the rules did it say I couldn't. To change the rules to over compensate one group or another is not only bias, but would make this game unbearable for any pvper.Should they do this, you could take away all sec status and jam every system with Concord and Lag up the whole game.Every suicide squad knows the risk and are obviously willing to take it.

Darius Brinn
Iberians
Posted - 2008.03.31 07:47:00 - [265]
 

Originally by: 0ffBeaT
Edited by: 0ffBeaT on 30/03/2008 21:26:32
hehe.. yea, its a take it on the chin kind of game, this an't wow.
thats what i like the most about this game, a loss is a real loss..


No, it's not. The ganker is compensated for almost all he risks, whether he succeeds at ganking or not. He scores...he makes quite a bit of ISK. He doesn't...his losses are neglectable. Straight into another try.

Darius Brinn
Iberians
Posted - 2008.03.31 07:48:00 - [266]
 

Originally by: hellraiser reborn
Every suicide squad knows the risk and are obviously willing to take it.



Every suidice squad knows the LACK OF REAL risk and are obviously willing to give it a go.

They know that in either of the two possible outcomes, they're losing nothing. It's like getting a free lottery ticket, or the aforementioned slot machine giving back the coin you toss into it...again and again and again.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2008.03.31 09:22:00 - [267]
 

Originally by: Darius Brinn
Quote:
The consequence should be provided by the player, not Concord, or fines, or impounding his ship / favorite exotic dancer .. *by the player*.


Nice going, Avon. Using the same (inappropiate) logic, you should be IN FAVOUR of all profit to be provided by the player, not insurance NPCs.

Wanna gank? Fine. Wanna loot? Fine. But every single ISK you make by comitting crimes, you get/loot yourself.
No insurance for Concord'ed ships.

NO INSURANCE FOR CONCORD'ED ships.



I presume that you're also in favour of heavily nerfing NPC corps in some way to make up for the huge advantage that this would give them over player corps? (NPC corps can't be war-dec'd; player corps can)

What adjustment to NPC corp membership would you make to balance this advantage out?

The simplest method I can think of would be to automatically remove players from NPC corps after they finish the trial and create an individual, war-deccable "MeCorp™" for them (With all Mecorps sharing the same corp channel). But perhaps you have a better idea?

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2008.03.31 09:26:00 - [268]
 

Originally by: Darius Brinn
Originally by: hellraiser reborn
Every suicide squad knows the risk and are obviously willing to take it.



Every suidice squad knows the LACK OF REAL risk and are obviously willing to give it a go.

They know that in either of the two possible outcomes, they're losing nothing. It's like getting a free lottery ticket, or the aforementioned slot machine giving back the coin you toss into it...again and again and again.


By the way, I never did see a satisfactory response to the "solution looking for a problem" issue posed a way back. I don't recall you ever actually supplying the evidence that I asked for that suicide ganking was currently a big enough problem to require fixing.

I'm actually back in empire now, flying in and out of lo-sec, buying stuff, doing a mission or two in slack moments, and I haven't even seen a ganking, much less been ganked myself.

So just in case I missed it: what is your evidence that what is happening now is actually such a big problem? The tl;dr version will do.

(Remember, neither forum noise, and speculation on what may happen in the future are evidence)

Hasak Rain
Amarr
Posted - 2008.03.31 09:34:00 - [269]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Darius Brinn
Quote:
The consequence should be provided by the player, not Concord, or fines, or impounding his ship / favorite exotic dancer .. *by the player*.


Nice going, Avon. Using the same (inappropiate) logic, you should be IN FAVOUR of all profit to be provided by the player, not insurance NPCs.

Wanna gank? Fine. Wanna loot? Fine. But every single ISK you make by comitting crimes, you get/loot yourself.
No insurance for Concord'ed ships.

NO INSURANCE FOR CONCORD'ED ships.



I presume that you're also in favour of heavily nerfing NPC corps in some way to make up for the huge advantage that this would give them over player corps? (NPC corps can't be war-dec'd; player corps can)

What adjustment to NPC corp membership would you make to balance this advantage out?

The simplest method I can think of would be to automatically remove players from NPC corps after they finish the trial and create an individual, war-deccable "MeCorp™" for them (With all Mecorps sharing the same corp channel). But perhaps you have a better idea?


Why do noobs have to be removed from noob corps in order to fix suicide ganking again? I don't see any correlation between the two.

Sounds like you are saying one play style should be nerfed just because the other is.

Or am I missing your point?

Darius Brinn
Iberians
Posted - 2008.03.31 09:42:00 - [270]
 

Originally by: Malcanis


By the way, I never did see a satisfactory response to the "solution looking for a problem" issue posed a way back. I don't recall you ever actually supplying the evidence that I asked for that suicide ganking was currently a big enough problem to require fixing.

I'm actually back in empire now, flying in and out of lo-sec, buying stuff, doing a mission or two in slack moments, and I haven't even seen a ganking, much less been ganked myself.

So just in case I missed it: what is your evidence that what is happening now is actually such a big problem? The tl;dr version will do.

(Remember, neither forum noise, and speculation on what may happen in the future are evidence)


You didn't bother to read my posts, Malcanis. I specifically and repeatedly mentioned that I have never ever suffered or witnessed such a thing. Please take a minute to check my previous (recent) posts.

I don´t think it's a pressing issue either. But your constant denying there's an issue at all constantly brings me back to the topic.


Pages: first : previous : ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 : last (11)

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