open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked What to make of Incursion?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9

Author Topic

Darth Gustav
Silentium Mortalitas
Mortal Destruction
Posted - 2011.01.25 23:33:00 - [121]
 

Originally by: Doctor Mabuse
Originally by: Vincent Athena
The game has no tools for telling who to trust. Its unbalanced.


Unfortunately not, but good news, you can use that big squishy thing in between your ears to do the job!

Do you trust random strangers in RL with things that are valuable to you? No? So why do so in Eve?

Unless, of course, your stuff in Eve has no value to you, then why the complaint?


^ this.

okst666
Posted - 2011.01.25 23:36:00 - [122]
 

Question: What happens to the game if noone give a **** about the incursions...let them happen - so what?

I bet 500 Million isk that they will be gone within 2 weeks.
I pay them to the developer who convinces his boss to remove incursions from the game. (due at the date when they will never occur again)

Barakkus
Posted - 2011.01.25 23:38:00 - [123]
 

Originally by: Darth Gustav
Edited by: Darth Gustav on 25/01/2011 23:00:34
Originally by: Barakkus
Not remove them all together, just remove them from the "rooms" of the incursions.


I'd guess carebears would interpret this as bringing pockets of low-sec into high-sec, and would either abstain entirely from them, or quit.

The first option is appealing to me. I envision a map covered in Sansha controlled high sec. Not that it will happen, but I honestly hope it does.

Want to assist Sanshas? Go in a mission and request some reps. Choose your timing well, and activat modules on multiple ships before you go down, so you get more killmails.

Just sayin'.

[Edit: that was a mess.]



I don't think as many people would abandon incursions as you might think.

It would be a way to get people on both sides of the coin involved, and really be more like what EVE should be like, not as much catering to the cowardly as it is now.

I think it would break less stuff to simply make those rooms like lowsec than trying to change module activation mechanics, besides as long as people can't drop cap ships in the highsec incursions, it won't be that bad to fend off small gangs of "pirates", they most likely would get shot by Sansha too anyways.

Grimpak
Gallente
Midnight Elites
Echelon Rising
Posted - 2011.01.25 23:38:00 - [124]
 

Edited by: Grimpak on 25/01/2011 23:39:01
Originally by: Vincent Athena
The game has no tools for telling who to trust. Its unbalanced.



since when this game pandered blind trust?

pete's sake, the best, only tool for telling who or not to trust is you. in this game, healthy paranoia is something people most acquire at a very young age, and it's one of the things that makes it work.

Darth Gustav
Silentium Mortalitas
Mortal Destruction
Posted - 2011.01.25 23:45:00 - [125]
 

Edited by: Darth Gustav on 25/01/2011 23:46:04
Originally by: Barakkus
Originally by: Darth Gustav
Edited by: Darth Gustav on 25/01/2011 23:00:34
Originally by: Barakkus
Not remove them all together, just remove them from the "rooms" of the incursions.


I'd guess carebears would interpret this as bringing pockets of low-sec into high-sec, and would either abstain entirely from them, or quit.

The first option is appealing to me. I envision a map covered in Sansha controlled high sec. Not that it will happen, but I honestly hope it does.

Want to assist Sanshas? Go in a mission and request some reps. Choose your timing well, and activat modules on multiple ships before you go down, so you get more killmails.

Just sayin'.

[Edit: that was a mess.]



I don't think as many people would abandon incursions as you might think.

It would be a way to get people on both sides of the coin involved, and really be more like what EVE should be like, not as much catering to the cowardly as it is now.

I think it would break less stuff to simply make those rooms like lowsec than trying to change module activation mechanics, besides as long as people can't drop cap ships in the highsec incursions, it won't be that bad to fend off small gangs of "pirates", they most likely would get shot by Sansha too anyways.


Well, I think we can agree to disagree. The carebears may not emo rage quit en-masse, but the high sec PUG would probably go the way of COSMOS and FW. On the plus side, maybe that would make vast swaths of high sec unmissionable due to incursion. If nothing else, people would have to re-grind standings. LOL

Barakkus
Posted - 2011.01.25 23:47:00 - [126]
 

Originally by: Darth Gustav

Well, I think we can agree to disagree. The carebears may not emo rage quit en-masse, but the high sec PUG would probably go the way of COSMOS and FW. On the plus side, maybe that would make vast swaths of high sec unmissionable. If nothing else, people would have to re-grind standings. LOL


With the current concord mechanic I wouldn't doubt many highsec systems are going to be unmissionable now lol.

People actually pug in highsec? I wouldn't know personally, I don't trust any of you ****ers enough to fleet up unless it's an EVE radio thing, and even then I fly cheap :P

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.01.25 23:51:00 - [127]
 

Edited by: Tippia on 25/01/2011 23:52:20
Originally by: Darth Gustav
Originally by: Tippia
In other words, you're thinking:
Shot (with bonus) → GCC → Link terminated, but it no longer matters.
If that instead was:
Module activated → GCC → Link terminated → Shot (now without bonus)
…that particular problem would go away, except for in the case of RSBs.


There it is, do you see it?

A bunch of noob ships running in 1s intervals makes a bunch of gcc checks and such. If the module fires they GCC. If it doesn't they get to deactivate. It can't fire and have it be "safe". There has to be a check. That's why it fails.
Hmm… no, I don't see it, but that could be because I have a specific picture in my head of who does what in that chain that I maybe haven't expressed all that clearly.

Shooter:
1. Activates guns on an illegal target → 2. Gets GCC popup (in normal order) → 3. Chooses to fire → 4. pew pew (and the law now hates his guts) — at this point, the shooter may or may not be receiving bonuses, depending on what the supporter does in his step #4a/b, below. Regardless, he's shooting, and the bonuses may come back at a later stage once the supporter has made up his mind.

Supporter:
1. Has active support modules → 2. Gets GCC popup because of shooter's step #2 above → 3. Support module(s) turn off → 4a. Chooses not to support → 5a. Modules stay off (the law doesn't hate his guts).

…or… → 4b. Chooses to support → 5b. Modules reactivate (and the law now hates his guts too).

It's a one-way trip for the GCC propagation: the shooter can give the supporter an interrupting GCC-check, but not the other way around, and what the supporter does has no effect on what choices are available to the shooter.

Also, aside from steps #2, which are initiated on the shooter's end, these processes are entirely asynchronous. The shooter may be very quick at the draw (shootclickyespewpewpew) going through his step 2–4 as fast as he can press enter to confirm that he wants to shoot, whereas the supporter can dilly-dally and 30 seconds later say that… ok, maybe he will go along after all, at which case the modules kick in again. I might have expressed it in a way that made it sound like the shooter had to wait for the supporter to make his decision before he could act — that's not what I intended to say.

And of course, if the shooter decides in his step #3 not to shoot, it doesn't matter what the supporter chooses — nothing illegal has happened, so even if he arrives at his steb #5b, he doesn't get a GCC (but he still gets a "shooter is being a clot, do you want to be one too?" warning that he can choose to respond to).

Darth Gustav
Silentium Mortalitas
Mortal Destruction
Posted - 2011.01.25 23:52:00 - [128]
 

Originally by: Barakkus
Originally by: Darth Gustav

Well, I think we can agree to disagree. The carebears may not emo rage quit en-masse, but the high sec PUG would probably go the way of COSMOS and FW. On the plus side, maybe that would make vast swaths of high sec unmissionable. If nothing else, people would have to re-grind standings. LOL


With the current concord mechanic I wouldn't doubt many highsec systems are going to be unmissionable now lol.

People actually pug in highsec? I wouldn't know personally, I don't trust any of you ****ers enough to fleet up unless it's an EVE radio thing, and even then I fly cheap :P


I think that's actually the main source of concern. PUG guys are shooting their reppers for LOLs and loots. Shoot for shinies and swoop in with an alt to loot and salvage too! It might sound terrible, but it's also ironic. You can't have CONCORD to save you from smartbombers and not have them take a few innocents now and then under just the right circumstances.

Barakkus
Posted - 2011.01.25 23:56:00 - [129]
 

Originally by: Darth Gustav
Originally by: Barakkus
Originally by: Darth Gustav

Well, I think we can agree to disagree. The carebears may not emo rage quit en-masse, but the high sec PUG would probably go the way of COSMOS and FW. On the plus side, maybe that would make vast swaths of high sec unmissionable. If nothing else, people would have to re-grind standings. LOL


With the current concord mechanic I wouldn't doubt many highsec systems are going to be unmissionable now lol.

People actually pug in highsec? I wouldn't know personally, I don't trust any of you ****ers enough to fleet up unless it's an EVE radio thing, and even then I fly cheap :P


I think that's actually the main source of concern. PUG guys are shooting their reppers for LOLs and loots. Shoot for shinies and swoop in with an alt to loot and salvage too! It might sound terrible, but it's also ironic. You can't have CONCORD to save you from smartbombers and not have them take a few innocents now and then under just the right circumstances.


It would make more sense though to not have concord since concord is so much more superior in their technology, why wouldn't concord just wipe out the Sansha just like they do the pod pilots when an incursion happens?

From the pic floating around of mass concord problems in one incursion, they could have just as easily taken out the whole incursion themselves, looked to me that concord outnumbered sansha 10 to 1.

Darth Gustav
Silentium Mortalitas
Mortal Destruction
Posted - 2011.01.25 23:58:00 - [130]
 

Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Darth Gustav
Originally by: Tippia
In other words, you're thinking:
Shot (with bonus) → GCC → Link terminated, but it no longer matters.
If that instead was:
Module activated → GCC → Link terminated → Shot (now without bonus)
…that particular problem would go away, except for in the case of RSBs.


There it is, do you see it?

A bunch of noob ships running in 1s intervals makes a bunch of gcc checks and such. If the module fires they GCC. If it doesn't they get to deactivate. It can't fire and have it be "safe". There has to be a check. That's why it fails.
Hmm… no, I don't see it, but that could be because I have a specific picture in my head of who does what in that chain that I maybe haven't expressed all that clearly.

Shooter:
1. Activates guns on an illegal target → 2. Gets GCC popup (in normal order) → 3. Chooses to fire → 4. pew pew (and the law now hates his guts) — at this point, the shooter may or may not be receiving bonuses, depending on what the supporter does in his step #4a/b, below. Regardless, he's shooting.

Supporter:
1. Has active support modules → 2. Gets GCC popup because of shooter's step #2 above → 3. Support module(s) turn off → 4a. Chooses not to support → 5a. Modules stay off (the law doesn't hate his guts).

…or… → 4b. Chooses to support → 5b. Modules reactivate (and the law now hates his guts too).

It's a one-way trip for the GCC propagation: the shooter can give the supporter an interrupting GCC-check, but not the other way around, and what the supporter does has no effect on what choices are available to the shooter.

Also, aside from steps #2, which are initiated on the shooter's end, these processes are entirely asynchronous. The shooter may be very quick at the draw (shootclickyespewpewpew) going through his step 2–4 as fast as he can press enter to confirm that he wants to shoot, whereas the supporter can dilly-dally and 30 seconds later say that… ok, maybe he will go along after all, at which case the modules kick in again. I might have expressed it in a way that made it sound like the shooter had to wait for the supporter to make his decision before he could act — that's not what I intended to say.

And of course, if the shooter decides in his step #3 not to shoot, it doesn't matter what the supporter chooses — nothing illegal has happened, so even if he arrives at his steb #5b, he doesn't get a GCC (but he still gets a "shooter is being a clot, do you want to be one too?" warning that he can choose to respond to).


What really happens is you activate your guns and do damage. There's no hesitation as far as the game is concerned. Putting steps in between introduces lag. The noob ships in my example generate lag. Once you've repped or boosted somebody who's illegally done damage, you're a criminal. There can't be a hesitation, or it breaks the game. There can't be no hesitation, because you've got to check for GCC according to the way your chart is ordered.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.01.26 00:06:00 - [131]
 

Originally by: Darth Gustav
What really happens is you activate your guns and do damage. There's no hesitation as far as the game is concerned. Putting steps in between introduces lag. The noob ships in my example generate lag. Once you've repped or boosted somebody who's illegally done damage, you're a criminal. There can't be a hesitation, or it breaks the game. There can't be no hesitation, because you've got to check for GCC according to the way your chart is ordered.
Yes, I understand the idea that more checks = more lag, but I don't get the leap from there to the supporters causing the shooter not to be able to shoot.

The shooter already has to check for GCC (unless they've changed it since I last shot illegal targets), so that's not an extra step. The application of effects doesn't cause extra lag, because it's just the application of effects, just like now.

What this does introduce is the chance that the shooter will go without support bonuses for a tiny while, during which the supporter deals with his pop-up (and yes, that popup might cause some lag on the server as well).

If both these pop-ups have "don't ever ask again" checkboxes, the hesitation is zero for both parties, and there is no break in the support.

…but like I said, maybe they've fixed (i.e. removed) that popup since I lived in lowsec. vOv

Barakkus
Posted - 2011.01.26 00:09:00 - [132]
 

Originally by: Tippia
…but like I said, maybe they've fixed (i.e. removed) that popup since I lived in lowsec. vOv


Nah you still get the warning in lowsec if your target isn't already flagged if that's what you're talking about.

KhaniKirai
Posted - 2011.01.26 00:15:00 - [133]
 

Well checking the LP shop from concord.
They basically offer implants, but those do cost 250mil and 250k LP.
They offer 1 and 5 run bpc of capital mods, but those are 37.5/250k LP and 37.5mil/250mil, so only really usefull for the very big alliance super caps.

I am really not sure, why the biggest part of eve population will be interested in these rewards, when you get really no loot or bounties from all the npc's you need to kill for this LP.
Or will they drop other items in loot as well?
I guess the bigger alliances will do incursions now and then to get capital mods, but most players really wont bother just for a 6 percent implant.

Its just another : too much risk for the reward expansion, same as the cosmos stuff long ago.
Are you gonna do another loot nerf on normal stuff, to make this stuff worthwhile?

Barakkus
Posted - 2011.01.26 00:17:00 - [134]
 

Originally by: KhaniKirai
Well checking the LP shop from concord.
They basically offer implants, but those do cost 250mil and 250k LP.
They offer 1 and 5 run bpc of capital mods, but those are 37.5/250k LP and 37.5mil/250mil, so only really usefull for the very big alliance super caps.

I am really not sure, why the biggest part of eve population will be interested in these rewards, when you get really no loot or bounties from all the npc's you need to kill for this LP.
Or will they drop other items in loot as well?
I guess the bigger alliances will do incursions now and then to get capital mods, but most players really wont bother just for a 6 percent implant.

Its just another : too much risk for the reward expansion, same as the cosmos stuff long ago.
Are you gonna do another loot nerf on normal stuff, to make this stuff worthwhile?



I think there's the chance of juicy bpcs and stuff dropping from the sites too.

Darth Gustav
Silentium Mortalitas
Mortal Destruction
Posted - 2011.01.26 00:17:00 - [135]
 

Originally by: Tippia
Yes, I understand the idea that more checks = more lag, but I don't get the leap from there to the supporters causing the shooter not to be able to shoot.

The shooter already has to check for GCC (unless they've changed it since I last shot illegal targets), so that's not an extra step. The application of effects doesn't cause extra lag, because it's just the application of effects, just like now.

What this does introduce is the chance that the shooter will go without support bonuses for a tiny while, during which the supporter deals with his pop-up (and yes, that popup might cause some lag on the server as well).

If both these pop-ups have "don't ever ask again" checkboxes, the hesitation is zero for both parties, and there is no break in the support.

…but like I said, maybe they've fixed (i.e. removed) that popup since I lived in lowsec. vOv


The feature you're describing is intended to stop people from being popped for being criminals while somebody goes GCC. To do that, you have to identify and exclude each of them before the GCC happens. This delays CONCORD and the cops, giving everybody a better chance of evading CONCORD. In a busy system, you could see the delay be extra big because of all the other junk the server is doing. The only way to protect those ships is to delay the shot.

Delaying the shot causes lag. Lag is bad. Lag means more people are in danger, not less.

Louis deGuerre
Gallente
Malevolence.
Posted - 2011.01.26 00:18:00 - [136]
 

Originally by: Whitehound
Ships destroyed in the last 10h:

Fuekele: 289
Jolia: 349
Deltole: 358
Augnais: 522
Colelie: 1590

Total: 3108 ships destroyed within the last 10h

(These are only the numbers for Sinq Laison and I have left out the smaller numbers.)

Conclusion.


ROFL LMAO

AWESOME RazzRazzRazz

HeliosGal
Caldari
Posted - 2011.01.26 00:20:00 - [137]
 

massive isk sink

Lellian Marcellus Taron
Posted - 2011.01.26 00:22:00 - [138]
 

Welcome to Incursion: image link

Yes, I don't know why my HUD is at the left of the screen.

HeIIfire11
Posted - 2011.01.26 00:23:00 - [139]
 

Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen.Laughing

Makes for good reading though.

Major Snitch
Posted - 2011.01.26 00:29:00 - [140]
 

Edited by: Major Snitch on 26/01/2011 00:29:54
Originally by: HeIIfire11
Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen.Laughing

Makes for good reading though.
I 100% agree with you LaughingLaughing it's going to be fun watching the stages of this on the forums and in game first shock.....then disbelieve..............then anger

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.01.26 00:34:00 - [141]
 

Edited by: Tippia on 26/01/2011 00:40:44
Originally by: Darth Gustav
The feature you're describing is intended to stop people from being popped for being criminals while somebody goes GCC. To do that, you have to identify and exclude each of them before the GCC happens.
Not really. Each of them gets their own GCC based on their own GCC check, and CONCORD comes to deal with them in relation to that check. The identification already happens as part of the GCC-spreading mechanic. The only "delay" is that the supporters now would get a popup (and they wouldn't be supporting anything while they have it up, so there's you can't use it to prolong the bonus-giving period and give the shooter extra benefits that way)…

In fact, that delay might actually reduce the server load since it can now deal with each GCC at the pace of the support-pilots' mousing speed, rather than having to go through and flag everyone at once and spawn CONCORD for everyone right this minute server tick(!)
Quote:
The only way to protect those ships is to delay the shot.
I don't see it like that. The way to protect those ships (i.e. the supporters) is to just let the shooter do his thing, and at the same time let the supporters decide what they want to do. There is no need to delay the shot until they've made their decision, and their decision can be made completely separately from the shot being effected.

Yes, I agree that there might be a bit more lag from the query/response bit, rather than having the server just do everything internally like now, but will it really be that much more work, and how much of that extra load will be counteracted by the fact that it will take a little while to get that response, thus spreading out the whole process over several ticks rather than doing it all at once?
Originally by: HeliosGal
massive isk sink
Really? From the way people describe it, it's a massive faucet (both from the ship destruction and from the rewards for finishing… although the LP store should eat up some of that last bit).

(edit: getting my parties straight — time to sleep methinks… XD)

Mistress Mirrabell
Posted - 2011.01.26 00:38:00 - [142]
 

Edited by: Mistress Mirrabell on 26/01/2011 00:38:34
Originally by: CCP Soundwave
Originally by: Seklyko
It's really very very funny how this issue is a complete and utter surprise to CCP. Not in their wildest imagination would they dream of the possibility of players taking advantage of questionable game rules to mess up things for others. This has undoubtably taken CCP by shock and jawdropping surprise.


This change has been planned for a good while. The fact that we haven't had the time to put it in doesn't mean we didn't know about it. We're not seeing "droves of people" being blown up as a consequence of this mechanic.

Trust is a factor in all parts of EVEs gameplay. Incursions are no different, all interaction comes with a risk.
if this is true then why are you looking into changing the mechanic? and if youre not seeing "droves of people" being destroyed then again why are you thinking of changing said mechanic? seems like you guys dont know what the hell youre talking about tbh....

Mira Robinson
The Scope
Posted - 2011.01.26 00:47:00 - [143]
 

Don't know what to think of Incursions quite yet. Tried one and got blown away after we got through the confusion.

But wow, 3100 in 10 hours. That's unprecedented.

Darth Gustav
Silentium Mortalitas
Mortal Destruction
Posted - 2011.01.26 00:48:00 - [144]
 

Originally by: Tippia
Edited by: Tippia on 26/01/2011 00:40:44
Originally by: Darth Gustav
The feature you're describing is intended to stop people from being popped for being criminals while somebody goes GCC. To do that, you have to identify and exclude each of them before the GCC happens.
Not really. Each of them gets their own GCC based on their own GCC check, and CONCORD comes to deal with them in relation to that check. The identification already happens as part of the GCC-spreading mechanic. The only "delay" is that the supporters now would get a popup (and they wouldn't be supporting anything while they have it up, so there's you can't use it to prolong the bonus-giving period and give the shooter extra benefits that way)…

In fact, that delay might actually reduce the server load since it can now deal with each GCC at the pace of the support-pilots' mousing speed, rather than having to go through and flag everyone at once and spawn CONCORD for everyone right this minute server tick(!)
Quote:
The only way to protect those ships is to delay the shot.
I don't see it like that. The way to protect those ships (i.e. the supporters) is to just let the shooter do his thing, and at the same time let the supporters decide what they want to do. There is no need to delay the shot until they've made their decision, and their decision can be made completely separately from the shot being effected.

Yes, I agree that there might be a bit more lag from the query/response bit, rather than having the server just do everything internally like now, but will it really be that much more work, and how much of that extra load will be counteracted by the fact that it will take a little while to get that response, thus spreading out the whole process over several ticks rather than doing it all at once?
Originally by: HeliosGal
massive isk sink
Really? From the way people describe it, it's a massive faucet (both from the ship destruction and from the rewards for finishing… although the LP store should eat up some of that last bit).

(edit: getting my parties straight — time to sleep methinks… XD)


In short, you forgot about network traffic time. It's not just "how much is the server doing?"

Olleybear
Minmatar
I R' Carebear
Posted - 2011.01.26 00:53:00 - [145]
 

Quick tip. Eve isn't WoW. PUG's exist in WoW. Corporations exit in Eve. Join a corporation to do the Sansha Incursion content.

Eve and ultimate trust in others is a good way to get scammed/killed. That is the way Eve has always been and always should be.

There is a game mechanic that already helps prevent Concord instagib. Its called a corporation. If you accept an application from someone you just met into your corporation and that someone gets your fleet Concorded for the Lolz, that is your fault. Not a game mechanic fault.

Is it a game mechanic issue when a CEO gives director access to someone they just met and that someone steals the corp wallet and assets? Of course not.

Stop trying to WoW'ify Eve.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2011.01.26 00:54:00 - [146]
 

Originally by: Darth Gustav
In short, you forgot about network traffic time. It's not just "how much is the server doing?"
Fair enough. It should still be able to protect the supporters, and if they just give us (back) the "never ask again" option for GCC warnings, it can be internalised on the server, just like it is now, for those who need it to happen without delay.

Bankoff DarkFusion
Posted - 2011.01.26 00:59:00 - [147]
 

The predator players can hoot all they want but my corp is carebears and we intend to stay that way. My mates were waiting months for this incursion even though I've been telling them all along that players would use this to hit other players, with sansha as their tool. So here we are.

Some of us don't have a hoot about PVP. Nothing any of you do is going to change that. No scorn, no insults, no "are you mad? can I haz your stuff." Nothing. If CCP wanted incursions to open the gates for player on player slaughter, then a lot of us are just going to have to turn our backs on this game and on fellow players whom we care about.

Some of you should really read how you post. The glee with which you delight in watching others get betrayed and robbed is pretty sick. And yes, I do think that probably means you're a **** in life too.,

Blacksquirrel
Posted - 2011.01.26 01:00:00 - [148]
 

These the same thing as "Uber leet" raiding guild mechanics seen in other MMOs? Great never liked that crap in those games either. Oh well if you dont have a large enough corp or alliance to run em...

Really when you break it down these are just raiding functions seen in all other MMOs.

Major MouseTrap
Posted - 2011.01.26 01:02:00 - [149]
 

some how a see this thread being on page one for weeks lol......

Major Snitch
Posted - 2011.01.26 01:05:00 - [150]
 

Originally by: Bankoff DarkFusion
The predator players can hoot all they want but my corp is carebears and we intend to stay that way. My mates were waiting months for this incursion even though I've been telling them all along that players would use this to hit other players, with sansha as their tool. So here we are.

Some of us don't have a hoot about PVP. Nothing any of you do is going to change that. No scorn, no insults, no "are you mad? can I haz your stuff." Nothing. If CCP wanted incursions to open the gates for player on player slaughter, then a lot of us are just going to have to turn our backs on this game and on fellow players whom we care about.

Some of you should really read how you post. The glee with which you delight in watching others get betrayed and robbed is pretty sick. And yes, I do think that probably means you're a **** in life too.,
Shocked remember me saying first comes shock then disbelieve and know we see anger......................


Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9

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