open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked Change The Aggro timer!
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic

Crushall
Caldari
T-Cells
Moar Tears
Posted - 2011.07.06 20:27:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: Maduin Ardens
Originally by: Crushall

I understand precisely that you like the mechanic as it is, which is anathema to my point of view. You don't even want the docking or jumping timer changed as that might interfere with your virtually risk free pvp. It is a shame that pvp has been so dummed down to the point that it is almost always censensual.


No... I never said my personal viewpoints on the session timer at all, I simply stated that 1) CCP won't change it because it is not combat based, it simply prevents exploitation of the combat system itself, so making it longer holds no bearing, 2) per the other notion to prevent jumps or docking while pointed, the issue is extremely clear, if people do not want to fight, you cannot force them, the more stringent CCP makes the rules for non-consensual PvP, the less people who are already not as inclined to fight will either a) undock period, or b) stay subscribed.

If this were not the case, don't you think CCP would have altered things accordingly to improve the system? Station games have been a terrible side effect of the session timer at least since Trinity when I started, and I am sure for some time before that.

If there were a solution to make people who do NOT want to fight, actually FIGHT, you would probably earn the Pulitzer of EVE, if one existed.

People who do not want to fight, will find a way to not fight, no matter how many ways you try to force them, you cannot force them to want to fight, if they are risk-averse.

And also, stop with the ad hominem attacks already, both of you, it's extremely childish, and makes you seem like you're Warcraft rejects, or extremely insecure adolescents.

If I can find middle ground with one of the points made here, that station undocks should theoretically be uniform and 2500m across the board, surely you can admit that part of the problem with docking games are not the game mechanics at all, it is the people playing them.


That's not true. There are many ways to make pvp without blobbing more viable. Changing the timer on gates and stations is one of them.

And I am glad you are remaining "neutral" in this debate. Maybe it's the hood.




baltec1
Posted - 2011.07.06 20:38:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: Crushall


That's not true. There are many ways to make pvp without blobbing more viable. Changing the timer on gates and stations is one of them.





The problem with that is people like me will stop trying to fight things. Currently I will take the risk because I have a chance of running, however slim. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesnt but if you remover the escape route then I will most likely stop trying to solo large and dangerous targets in my bomber and stick to the easy fights such as haulers.

Alxea
Posted - 2011.07.06 20:40:00 - [33]
 

Edited by: Alxea on 06/07/2011 20:47:14
Edited by: Alxea on 06/07/2011 20:45:34
Originally by: baltec1
Edited by: baltec1 on 06/07/2011 20:19:58
Originally by: Alxea
quote] Nano died in 2007.


My nano hyperion does not agree.

As for the supercap drop. If the DRF are willing to dump one on my solo bomber at a gate then your billion isk gloryboat is a very viable target.


Wow you really nanoed a hype. lol But those only work in your 100 man blobs where you have no tackle of your own. See I don't play blob's online.

And seriously nano died dude, are you in denial that the speed nerf ever happened? I am old too, your older then me but, looks like your 23 mil sp behind me. Anyways I got over the speed nerf and moved on. You haven't. lol

I do small gangs and the rare 1vs1. But yeah we also have counter hot dropped people in the past with our allies SC's.

Maduin Ardens
Eve Innovations
Eternal Evocations
Posted - 2011.07.06 20:40:00 - [34]
 

Edited by: Maduin Ardens on 06/07/2011 20:44:44
Originally by: Crushall

That's not true. There are many ways to make pvp without blobbing more viable. Changing the timer on gates and stations is one of them.

And I am glad you are remaining "neutral" in this debate. Maybe it's the hood.



So you think there are ways to make people who do not want to fight, fight? I'm curious, how?
The more dangerous it gets out there for carebears, the more you'll kill, or they less they'll undock? It cannot be both.

We are talking about people who do not understand PvP, or are risk-averse and only wish to dabble in it and never actually commit to legitimate risks. So... the more legitimate you make the risks, the more you are going to catch them, or the more they will hide in station or rely on neutral alts or form neutral alt groups that cannot be wardecced?

You see, they are already avoiding the more legitimate engagements, random roams, low sec, null sec, etc. if you take more away from them, you do not think they will change their behavior to compensate?

I am just curious about this discussion because it seems like the age old argument of how to force people to play the game the way you want them to.

Personally, I prefer low and null sec PvP before it was excessively blobbed like it is now, before supercap hotdrop was a catch-all for what happens to you the moment you engage someone with a fleet at their back.

Empire is boring, let the carebears have it, you will never force them to fight, they will always try to get out of it, and if you make it so it is nearly impossible for them to do so, they will just move onto other games.

The unfortunate reality is that some people simply do not want to PvP as often as you do, and will do anything in their power to avoid it, accepting that is part of the adapt or die of EVE in fact, there will always be people who will simply refuse to fight, until the day CCP creates code that chucks people out of stations for being AFK for more than five minutes, people will refuse to participate. Do I want them to personally? Of course, I love a good fight (in null or low), but do I have any fantasies that CCP can implement ANY code or mechanic changes to make carebears participate? None whatsoever. If CCP wanted to, could have, or should have made such changes, they would have done so already. The devil's in the details.

Edit: The more I read my response the more I realize it's a predator-prey argument, and it is already answered in its entirety. If you make it easier for the predator, there will be less prey, and you will still not get what you want. Easy stuff really.

Crushall
Caldari
T-Cells
Moar Tears
Posted - 2011.07.06 20:46:00 - [35]
 

Edited by: Crushall on 06/07/2011 20:52:48
Edited by: Crushall on 06/07/2011 20:51:18
Originally by: baltec1
Originally by: Crushall


That's not true. There are many ways to make pvp without blobbing more viable. Changing the timer on gates and stations is one of them.





The problem with that is people like me will stop trying to fight things. Currently I will take the risk because I have a chance of running, however slim. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesnt but if you remover the escape route then I will most likely stop trying to solo large and dangerous targets in my bomber and stick to the easy fights such as haulers.

I don't think the game needs people like you then. Also, nerfing webs only made things worse.

I am also not interested in making things easy for predators, but to enliven pvp for everyone and add more risk to the game. Furthermore, longer timer is a double edged sword, especially on gates - ie predator may engage on gate with no backstop prey jumps through has plenty of time to get away. However, if that prey engages, he is fully committed to the fight. There is no whoopsy, my bad, deaggro, gone.

baltec1
Posted - 2011.07.06 20:50:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Alxea
Originally by: baltec1
Edited by: baltec1 on 06/07/2011 20:19:58
Originally by: Alxea
quote] Nano died in 2007.


My nano hyperion does not agree.

As for the supercap drop. If the DRF are willing to dump one on my solo bomber at a gate then your billion isk gloryboat is a very viable target.


Wow you really nanoed a hype. lol But those only work in your 100 man blobs where you have no tackle of your own. See I don't play blob's online.

And seriously nano died dude, are you in denial that the speed nerf ever happened? I am old too looks like your 10 mil sp behind me and I got over the speed nerf and moved on. You haven't. lol

I do small gangs and the rare 1vs1. But yeah we also have counter hot dropped people in the past with our allies SC's.


nano hype doesnt work in 100 man blobs, blasters are just not made for that. I also like to run in small gangs which is where blasters do best. As for the nano, just look around. Most canes run at least one as do drakes. The nano tempest is the single best small gang and solo battleship going. Mobility is still very important in pvp.

Feligast
Minmatar
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.07.06 20:50:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: Alxea
Err wait a sec, you only have 314 kills, and your tanking crap to a pirate with outlaw sec status, and you have 0.0 sec status. Wow I am so scarred of the carebear. Rolling Eyes Maybe your a alt of the whiners we just removed out of W-Space just recently. This is my main, good luck with that. Rolling Eyes


Err wait a sec, you only have 255 kills, and 75 of those are POS mods? Wow I'm so scared of the "pirate". Rolling Eyes Maybe you only have the skill to shoot stationary strucures in wormholes. Good luck with that!

Maduin Ardens
Eve Innovations
Eternal Evocations
Posted - 2011.07.06 20:52:00 - [38]
 

Edited by: Maduin Ardens on 06/07/2011 20:53:59
Originally by: Crushall
Originally by: baltec1
Originally by: Crushall


That's not true. There are many ways to make pvp without blobbing more viable. Changing the timer on gates and stations is one of them.





The problem with that is people like me will stop trying to fight things. Currently I will take the risk because I have a chance of running, however slim. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesnt but if you remover the escape route then I will most likely stop trying to solo large and dangerous targets in my bomber and stick to the easy fights such as haulers.

I don't think the game needs people like you then.


Devil's Advocate
What if he were a ship builder, you think your ship comes from thin air when you purchase it on the market?


See... this kind of stuff was not nearly as prevalent when I started immediately after Trinity, but it was there, and it got worse and worse over time until the mere mention of a miner or industrialist would send the entire forums into a feeding frenzy of THEY DO NOT BELONG!

And the very first and only thought I ever have when this argument comes up is... well, then are YOU going to train manufacturing skills for two months, mine ice to support the tower you need to do the RE you need to make T2 fittings, place the tower, and then mine or mission for six hours to build that Harbinger and all the fittings that go along with it?

Bear in mind, I hate industry stuff, I had notions of doing it all when I started this game, missions, mining, combat, sov warfare, you name it, but quickly determined the industry stuff was not for me, sure I love playing with POS, and tinkering with PI, but the only motivating factor is to make ISK to fund combat.

Alxea
Posted - 2011.07.06 20:54:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: Feligast
Originally by: Alxea
Err wait a sec, you only have 314 kills, and your tanking crap to a pirate with outlaw sec status, and you have 0.0 sec status. Wow I am so scarred of the carebear. Rolling Eyes Maybe your a alt of the whiners we just removed out of W-Space just recently. This is my main, good luck with that. Rolling Eyes


Err wait a sec, you only have 255 kills, and 75 of those are POS mods? Wow I'm so scared of the "pirate". Rolling Eyes Maybe you only have the skill to shoot stationary strucures in wormholes. Good luck with that!


Err wait a sec eve-kill is broken. Your seeing only my kills from 2011. Look at my 983 kills off BC. Being in the top 6000 and all. Rolling Eyes

http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=Alxea

baltec1
Posted - 2011.07.06 20:55:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: Crushall

I don't think the game needs people like you then. Also, nerfing webs only made things worse.

I am also not interested in making things easy for predators, but to enliven pvp for everyone and add more risk to the game. Furthermore, longer timer is a double edged sword, especially on gates - ie predator may engage on gate with no backstop prey jumps through has plenty of time to get away. However, if that prey engages, he is fully committed to the fight. There is no whoopsy, my bad, deaggro, gone.


So your goal is to get me to take less risks and not pvp as much as I do...

Crushall
Caldari
T-Cells
Moar Tears
Posted - 2011.07.06 20:57:00 - [41]
 

I am just saying that if you make the choice to fire back at an opponent, there should be more risk, especially since rigs and implants make the ehp of some ships enormous. Longer timer would solve a lot fo the ills that plague pvp as I see it.

Alxea
Posted - 2011.07.06 20:58:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: baltec1
Originally by: Crushall

I don't think the game needs people like you then. Also, nerfing webs only made things worse.

I am also not interested in making things easy for predators, but to enliven pvp for everyone and add more risk to the game. Furthermore, longer timer is a double edged sword, especially on gates - ie predator may engage on gate with no backstop prey jumps through has plenty of time to get away. However, if that prey engages, he is fully committed to the fight. There is no whoopsy, my bad, deaggro, gone.


So your goal is to get me to take less risks and not pvp as much as I do...
He has over 3000 kills, he takes more risks then you, hes mainly in small gangs or solo, if you glance at his kb he has a half a trillion isk done in damages to people. I'm sure he knows a hell of a lot more about pvp then you do, MR blobs online.

Maduin Ardens
Eve Innovations
Eternal Evocations
Posted - 2011.07.06 20:58:00 - [43]
 

Edited by: Maduin Ardens on 06/07/2011 21:00:39
Originally by: Crushall
Edited by: Crushall on 06/07/2011 20:52:48
Edited by: Crushall on 06/07/2011 20:51:18
Originally by: baltec1
Originally by: Crushall


That's not true. There are many ways to make pvp without blobbing more viable. Changing the timer on gates and stations is one of them.





The problem with that is people like me will stop trying to fight things. Currently I will take the risk because I have a chance of running, however slim. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesnt but if you remover the escape route then I will most likely stop trying to solo large and dangerous targets in my bomber and stick to the easy fights such as haulers.

I don't think the game needs people like you then. Also, nerfing webs only made things worse.

I am also not interested in making things easy for predators, but to enliven pvp for everyone and add more risk to the game. Furthermore, longer timer is a double edged sword, especially on gates - ie predator may engage on gate with no backstop prey jumps through has plenty of time to get away. However, if that prey engages, he is fully committed to the fight. There is no whoopsy, my bad, deaggro, gone.



Ah I didn't see this ninja edit, but I will respond to it later, as I have to head out.

This has turned into a pretty good discussion though, thank you for toning it down a bit, it is good to have different opinions aired in one place, one can only hope a GM is lurking somewhere in the dark corner of the thread jotting down notes to take to the devs later.

Very Happy

Also, I agree, if someone commits to a fight, it should be much harder to get away from it, I just don't think session timers are the way, aggression timers however, yes... they're presently between 45-52 seconds or as rumor goes, since it's not exactly 45 like it is advertised, but I could see aggression applying more stringently to station docking or jumping through gates.

But only if the person aggresses, not the other way around, I would be pretty reticent to see how timid carebears would become if their WTs could ping a random shot off their bow and suddenly they cannot dock for five minutes, LOL...


Crushall
Caldari
T-Cells
Moar Tears
Posted - 2011.07.06 21:04:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: Maduin Ardens
Edited by: Maduin Ardens on 06/07/2011 21:00:39
Originally by: Crushall
Edited by: Crushall on 06/07/2011 20:52:48
Edited by: Crushall on 06/07/2011 20:51:18
Originally by: baltec1
Originally by: Crushall


That's not true. There are many ways to make pvp without blobbing more viable. Changing the timer on gates and stations is one of them.





The problem with that is people like me will stop trying to fight things. Currently I will take the risk because I have a chance of running, however slim. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesnt but if you remover the escape route then I will most likely stop trying to solo large and dangerous targets in my bomber and stick to the easy fights such as haulers.

I don't think the game needs people like you then. Also, nerfing webs only made things worse.

I am also not interested in making things easy for predators, but to enliven pvp for everyone and add more risk to the game. Furthermore, longer timer is a double edged sword, especially on gates - ie predator may engage on gate with no backstop prey jumps through has plenty of time to get away. However, if that prey engages, he is fully committed to the fight. There is no whoopsy, my bad, deaggro, gone.



Ah I didn't see this ninja edit, but I will respond to it later, as I have to head out.

This has turned into a pretty good discussion though, thank you for toning it down a bit, it is good to have different opinions aired in one place, one can only hope a GM is lurking somewhere in the dark corner of the thread jotting down notes to take to the devs later.

Very Happy

Also, I agree, if someone commits to a fight, it should be much harder to get away from it, I just don't think session timers are the way, aggression timers however, yes... they're presently between 45-52 seconds or as rumor goes, since it's not exactly 45 like it is advertised, but I could see aggression applying more stringently to station docking or jumping through gates.

But only if the person aggresses, not the other way around, I would be pretty reticent to see how timid carebears would become if their WTs could ping a random shot off their bow and suddenly they cannot dock for five minutes, LOL...




Precisely! I am not suggesting a mechanic that benefits people who pvp exclusively. But if you make the choice to fight and not dockup, there should be a point of no return moment where you either win or lose. Not, thank god I have this buffer I just have to wait out a short timer and I'm safe.

baltec1
Posted - 2011.07.06 21:06:00 - [45]
 

Originally by: Alxea


So your goal is to get me to take less risks and not pvp as much as I do...
He has over 3000 kills, he takes more risks then you, hes mainly in small gangs or solo, if you glance at his kb he has a half a trillion isk done in damages to people. I'm sure he knows a hell of a lot more about pvp then you do, MR blobs online.


I pvp in haulers solo. I was among the first to pvp solo in bombers. I take out nano blaster battleships in small gang cruiser roams. Try getting to know someone befor tossing things around the room.

Number of kills mean nothing past a point. I wouldnt care if he was the top killer in eve, I dont like his idea. Stuff being able to run away should always be an option, even if it does mean I miss out on kills.

Alxea
Posted - 2011.07.06 21:13:00 - [46]
 

Originally by: baltec1
Originally by: Alxea


So your goal is to get me to take less risks and not pvp as much as I do...
He has over 3000 kills, he takes more risks then you, hes mainly in small gangs or solo, if you glance at his kb he has a half a trillion isk done in damages to people. I'm sure he knows a hell of a lot more about pvp then you do, MR blobs online.


I pvp in haulers solo. I was among the first to pvp solo in bombers. I take out nano blaster battleships in small gang cruiser roams. Try getting to know someone befor tossing things around the room.

Number of kills mean nothing past a point. I wouldnt care if he was the top killer in eve, I dont like his idea. Stuff being able to run away should always be an option, even if it does mean I miss out on kills.
Nah kills are a number that gives you creditability and rank. Since he has more kills, and more isk damage more importantly. He knows what hes talking about more then you. And I support his idea. Cus too bad its rare this ever happens.

http://alxea.griefwatch.net/?p=details&kill=1090

Crushall
Caldari
T-Cells
Moar Tears
Posted - 2011.07.06 21:13:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: baltec1
Originally by: Alxea


So your goal is to get me to take less risks and not pvp as much as I do...
He has over 3000 kills, he takes more risks then you, hes mainly in small gangs or solo, if you glance at his kb he has a half a trillion isk done in damages to people. I'm sure he knows a hell of a lot more about pvp then you do, MR blobs online.


I pvp in haulers solo. I was among the first to pvp solo in bombers. I take out nano blaster battleships in small gang cruiser roams. Try getting to know someone befor tossing things around the room.

Number of kills mean nothing past a point. I wouldnt care if he was the top killer in eve, I dont like his idea. Stuff being able to run away should always be an option, even if it does mean I miss out on kills.


No. Given current mechanics it is TOO EASY to run. If you engage on a station or a gate, there should be more risk. It should be more like an asteroid belt fight, which now are rare. But then again, on a station or a gate you always have the option to not fight and dock. But if you choose to fight, there should be more than a freaking minute to kill you.

baltec1
Posted - 2011.07.06 21:29:00 - [48]
 

Originally by: Crushall


No. Given current mechanics it is TOO EASY to run. If you engage on a station or a gate, there should be more risk. It should be more like an asteroid belt fight, which now are rare. But then again, on a station or a gate you always have the option to not fight and dock. But if you choose to fight, there should be more than a freaking minute to kill you.


Then people wont play ball and fight because there is no chance of escape in anything but the heavy tanking ships. You said it yourself, very few willingly fight in the belts because there is no escape unless they hold some sort of advantage.

Crushall
Caldari
T-Cells
Moar Tears
Posted - 2011.07.06 21:50:00 - [49]
 

You're wrong. And I explained why before.

Lady Aja
Posted - 2011.07.06 22:11:00 - [50]
 

How about this?

1 minute agro timer for agression, but the timer is adjusted based on ships mass.
the bigger you are the longer the timer.. exact details unknown.

Originally by: Crushall
Edited by: Crushall on 06/07/2011 19:03:45
The aggro timer as it currently exists on gates and stations is far too short and encourages blobbing and ganking mentality.

My view:

Make the timer longer. If one fires on an enemy while at a station or a gate one ought to be committed to that fight for more than a minute.

A longer timer, denying a pilot the ability to jump or dock, for a longer period of time, seems like a good idea to me. Thus, you need less ships to kill another ship because there is more time. This might even make macro engagements more viable.




baltec1
Posted - 2011.07.06 22:19:00 - [51]
 

Originally by: Crushall
You're wrong. And I explained why before.


I just re-read what you have put and quite frankly, no you didnt.

Doubling the time would mean death 100% of the time in most of the ships I fly because they do not have the tank to last that long if I get into trouble. Nobody in their right mind would engage if it ment certain death unless you are part of the goons suicide carrier force.

Your plan would result in less fights and less ship diversity.

Crushall
Caldari
T-Cells
Moar Tears
Posted - 2011.07.06 22:30:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: Lady Aja
How about this?

1 minute agro timer for agression, but the timer is adjusted based on ships mass.
the bigger you are the longer the timer.. exact details unknown.

Originally by: Crushall
Edited by: Crushall on 06/07/2011 19:03:45
The aggro timer as it currently exists on gates and stations is far too short and encourages blobbing and ganking mentality.

My view:

Make the timer longer. If one fires on an enemy while at a station or a gate one ought to be committed to that fight for more than a minute.

A longer timer, denying a pilot the ability to jump or dock, for a longer period of time, seems like a good idea to me. Thus, you need less ships to kill another ship because there is more time. This might even make macro engagements more viable.






That is interesting. But maybe three minutes?

Icas Otame
The Nintendo Generation
Snatch Victory
Posted - 2011.07.07 00:43:00 - [53]
 

I like this idea a lot, this feature should be changed so that it is easier to be lazy and not have to work to kill anything.

Maduin Ardens
Eve Innovations
Eternal Evocations
Posted - 2011.07.07 01:24:00 - [54]
 

Edited by: Maduin Ardens on 07/07/2011 01:37:06

When I was a nooblet, I used to loiter around low sec stations myself, not so I could dock, quite the opposite, whenever I would aggress someone on the station, whenever they would die, or dock, or zip away and warp off (this was before the nano nerf) I would instinctively warp off to a safe myself, and wait out my GCD. This to me just made sense, why would a station let me dock if I was a criminal, and the sentry guns were firing on me? I did not even consider the option, I just safed up. So it always has, and still does feel silly to me, that I can wail on someone in low sec, and even tho I am a criminal for 15 minutes, I can dock ~45 seconds after the last hostile act I made... I mean what sense does that make in low sec?

Anyways I think the main issue when it comes to aggression timers is that it's uniform across the board, in all space, which prevents a plethora of can-o-worm issues that would likely rise about if it were circumstantial, i.e. if you have different conditionals in play, for each new conditional across a system of X parameters or logic gates, you suddenly have a new system of exponential complexity. However, I do think there is room for them to improve on the current system, but only just. The idea about the two minute timer is almost right on the money. The aggression timer IMO should be extended to exactly as long as it takes to self destruct. Why? Well for one, it matches the self destruct timer so they are truly committed to either engaging or dying, second, it makes sense from a game mechanic standpoint. Any longer, and you start running into the exponential complexity issues due to variance in empire, low, and null, as far as logic and implementation go.

I've given this issue a lot of thought for the past few hours, here are the major points of interest when it comes to soft aggression timers, i.e. the time you must wait after your last hostile act, to jump or dock at a station. These are the issues that inhibit it from being longer than the self destruct timer, but do not inhibit it directly from being exactly identical to said timer.

Sovereign Outposts
Self-Destruct Sequence
Sovereign Warfare
Timer Ownership
- Player Versus Ship
- Ship Loss
- Podding
Sanctioned Wars
Faction Warfare
Target Pursuit
Logistics
Excessive Duration
etc.

I'm sure there is more... the deal breakers for me are, target pursuit, and docking period.

We know CCP would make a universal change to the aggression timer if and only if they make any change at all, as their past history has shown us, so the idea of the timer that prevents pursuit of a fleeing target for more than two and a half minutes means anyone in actual space that does not fight back but escapes through a gate is all but gone for good if the timer is much longer than it already is. Docking period, insofar as it would be an exercise in silliness if you were living in your own sovereign space, and you could not dock at your own outpost for longer than two and a half minutes after losing your ship or being giving standing orders to withdraw or regroup period.

The big issue for the most part seems to be space itself, and target pursuit in my opinion.

No one I presently know likes station games, though I have known people in the past that did, however it is likely that the vast majority of people would prefer actual peer to peer combat without the flee-for-your-life button available within 45 seconds the moment things go sour, BUT at the same time it would also work against the aggressor if the target simply does not aggress and flees the area, because they would be unable to pursue for X amount of time, so longer than the self destruct timer makes little sense from a universal standpoint.

So... should Crushall repost this in the Features & Ideas section? Aggression timer increased to two and a half minutes?


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