| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
5nipe
    |
Posted - 2011.06.21 17:21:00 -
[61]
Edited by: 5nipe on 21/06/2011 17:22:22
Originally by: Ghurthe
Also, can you tell me how easy it is to scan things out without the implants? I'd do the legwork myself but I'm at work.
Just quick none.
The way it works now: you can make unprobable T3 immune to scanner without virtue set.
With Virtue set any (at least T3) ship is scanable now.
What CCP did is a "cap" as they call it. Or "capping". It means at some degree any improvements of signature radius or sensor strength not reduce "emitted" signature of the ship.
For Tengu it is about 150 sig radius and 130 sensor strength.
So, it doesn't matter if you fit 2 or 4 EECM on T3 now.
With full Vitrue set I have scanned Tengu fitted with 3 ECCM within about 2,5 minutes.
|
Qalix
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 17:45:00 -
[62]
Originally by: 5nipe
So, it doesn't matter if you fit 2 or 4 EECM on T3 now.
With full Vitrue set I have scanned Tengu fitted with 3 ECCM within about 2,5 minutes.
Is that tengu only? Or tengu pilot with implants?
(btw thanks for doing the legwork for us!) |
Ghurthe
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 17:49:00 -
[63]
Sounds like CCP did this the best way they could =) Thanks much for taking the time to give me some info while I forum warrior from my desk.
So there's no marked improvement after 150 Sensor 130 sig?
If so that jives with the numbers I've been looking at. Thank you very much again.
|
grootgroot
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 17:51:00 -
[64]
I was at the PVE presentation at fanfest this year. In response to a question about how it was unviable to mission in low/nullsec, one of the CCP guys (forgot his name, sorry) replied he regularly missioned in low/null an unprobeable T3.
|
5nipe
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 17:56:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Qalix
Originally by: 5nipe
So, it doesn't matter if you fit 2 or 4 EECM on T3 now.
With full Vitrue set I have scanned Tengu fitted with 3 ECCM within about 2,5 minutes.
Is that tengu only? Or tengu pilot with implants?
(btw thanks for doing the legwork for us!)
Talon set ( Gravimetric -> Tengu ) increases sensors strength
Halo set reduces signature radius.
But once u reach certain level with implants or EECM it is over.
Now you have option: ECCM or implants to reach that "cap" level.
for example: 4 EECM + Talon on Tengu gives 435/150 sensor/radius respectively.
but this Tengu emits the same signal as only fitted with 2 ECCM and 130/150 ratio.
at least on SiSi atm.
|
Olleybear
Minmatar
I R' Carebear
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 17:59:00 -
[66]
Originally by: iudex
Do you really believe, you just "improved" EVE ? 
Yes, yes they do believe it. They believe scanning out a ship should be much easier than scanning out the original plex the ship is in as well, which is why it is easier. They also believe scanning out a Marauder with probes that don't go below 8AU is reasonable.
While I do understand that no activity should be 100% safe in game, a 'real' balance has to be struck. Even pirates that I talk to agree that its too easy to scan out mission runners. This is the reason most are in highsec, and now, even a T3 pilot that gimps his setup with eccm will be coming back to highsec. Wonderfull.
There is something seriously wrong when it is safer to run faction warfare missions that have the entrance gate on the overview.
It is looking like the only way to 'balance' the mission runner risk is to do a complete rewrite of nearly all normal missions so you don't need to sit in one spot in a slow, easily scanned battleship. Make missions more like faction warfare missions and you can even put the friggin gate on the overview.
I have nothing against traders, but is now a bad time to say that traders who never undock make some of the best isk in game for zero risk of getting blown up?
CCP, if you really want people out of highsec, your going to have to balance things so people actually have a chance of making isk elsewhere. Planetary Interaction was a good start and faction warfare missions, as long as you can continue doing them without the need for a ponderously slow battleship, are as well.
I'm a pvper and want more targets, not less damnit.
|
5nipe
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 18:00:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Ghurthe
So there's no marked improvement after 150 Sensor 130 sig?
150 sig / 130 strength
I may be just a bit inaccurate but it looks like 130-135 for sensor strength.
|
Kamikaze jihawt
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 18:39:00 -
[68]
Originally by: OllieNorth
Originally by: Kamikaze jihawt
Edited by: Kamikaze jihawt on 21/06/2011 12:21:55
Originally by: CCP Dropbear
Edited by: CCP Dropbear on 20/06/2011 21:38:43
Both sides were looked at. In the end it came down to a simple principle. If you want to be impervious to scanning, use a cloak. If you are doing something that requires dropping cloak, you should be vulnerable to scanning whilst doing it.
Why?
Because a well-fit, unprobeable ship in the hands of a skilled pilot can reap rewards that are out of alignment with the risk involved in getting them, and this has crept into a lot of gameplay areas over time.
My suspicion: the type of people who put the research, time, funding and piloting skill into making unprobable tactics work for them (either militarily or economically) are the type who will find yet more ways to adapt.
You guys are so full of ****. It's actually sad really. These unprobable ships still risked being caught at gate camps, and stations. I do not understand CCP's policy/crusade to completely destroy every which way possible to make a decent buck/isk in this game. What is it to you guys? Oh wait, if we buy more plex's from you guys, you make more money. I got ya now. It has nothing to do with balance in game, but the balance in ccp's bank account. Go preach elsewhere, your logic isn't really logic, but an excuse to try and make you guys more money.
Is it possible that CCP might actually WANT to limit the mission iskfaucet? Besides PLEX sales, limiting ISK flow might make your caps (SCs!!) a little more exclusive. It seems to me that CCP would rather not have 200 SC hotdrop fleets around every corner. Then again I might just be another cog in the machine trying to harsh your easy iskies. 
Isk faucet? I may agree that these mission runners were making lots of isk, however it's not like they were sitting around and having magic isk fly into their wallets. They did have to actually run the missions, and fly very expensive ships to do it. Expensive ships that if caught at a gate or a station were pretty much toast. Go ahead and stroke CCP weiner more. I think it's funny how you guys call stuff like this isk faucet, like you are doing nothing to earn what you got. Would you consider a $200k a year job a dollar faucet? Can you say Socialist much?
|
stoicfaux
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 18:57:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Kamikaze jihawt
Isk faucet? I may agree that these mission runners were making lots of isk, however it's not like they were sitting around and having magic isk fly into their wallets. They did have to actually run the missions, and fly very expensive ships to do it. Expensive ships that if caught at a gate or a station were pretty much toast. Go ahead and stroke CCP weiner more. I think it's funny how you guys call stuff like this isk faucet, like you are doing nothing to earn what you got. Would you consider a $200k a year job a dollar faucet? Can you say Socialist much?
I don't think you understand what is meant by an isk faucet. The problem with faucets is that they create isk out of thin air. The more isk you add, the more inflation you get. Mission running enables a person to essentially print money at will.
Quote:
Would you consider a $200k a year job a dollar faucet?
No. The job doesn't print/create new dollar bills. The $200k a year is money that already existed in the system.
Try imagining what would happen if most everyone could *print* 200,000 dollars a year.
-----
"Are you a sociopathic paranoid schizophrenic with accounting skills? We have the game for you!
-- Eve, the game of Alts, Economics, Machiavelli, and PvP"
|
Wardecced Alt
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 19:03:00 -
[70]
I sorta support this change , however won't this just mean more people going back to empire ? Place is crowded enough as is.
|
|
Kamikaze jihawt
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 19:08:00 -
[71]
Originally by: stoicfaux
Originally by: Kamikaze jihawt
Isk faucet? I may agree that these mission runners were making lots of isk, however it's not like they were sitting around and having magic isk fly into their wallets. They did have to actually run the missions, and fly very expensive ships to do it. Expensive ships that if caught at a gate or a station were pretty much toast. Go ahead and stroke CCP weiner more. I think it's funny how you guys call stuff like this isk faucet, like you are doing nothing to earn what you got. Would you consider a $200k a year job a dollar faucet? Can you say Socialist much?
I don't think you understand what is meant by an isk faucet. The problem with faucets is that they create isk out of thin air. The more isk you add, the more inflation you get. Mission running enables a person to essentially print money at will.
Quote:
Would you consider a $200k a year job a dollar faucet?
No. The job doesn't print/create new dollar bills. The $200k a year is money that already existed in the system.
Try imagining what would happen if most everyone could *print* 200,000 dollars a year.
That's good in all, but all currency to date has been printed, and been put out into circulation. Are you suggesting that Eve needs a federal reserve to print the isk for us and then distribute it to the corporations? I say we don't need that, let it come from "thin air". It doesn't get rid of the fact that people are earning it by taking the missions and then completing them. It's not an isk faucet, it's essentially doing what we've been doing minus the lame federal reserve.
|
5nipe
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 19:51:00 -
[72]
One of the reason I watched Tournament was short presence of CCP Hammer. And he had brought very valuable point. At the moment it is not about how to make ISKs in EvE. It is about the existent ways how to "consume" them.
I am not much aware of 0.0 life with all politics and stuff. But I know people who left the game because of boredom of 0.0 and luck of PvP activities in low sec, except gate camping.
Look at the map and how many systems in 0.0 have military upgraded. And compare it to what it used to be year, two years ago. Look at traffic at low sec. Cloaked T3, Dramiels/Ceptors + bombers. Cloaked transports. Rare rouming gangs with fail attempts to get on gate campers.
More stuff should be exploded. How does "no more unscannable" affects it? Probably not much. People will adapt quickly.
But absence of unprobable ships brings the end to semi afk pilots. (not to say afk, if you know what I mean).
Honestly, I think CCP has bigger picture that we do, and such things like unprobable ships for explorations or fleet boosters do not fit into that picture very well.
|
Adrian Idaho
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 20:01:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Kamikaze jihawt
Originally by: stoicfaux
Originally by: Kamikaze jihawt
Isk faucet? I may agree that these mission runners were making lots of isk, however it's not like they were sitting around and having magic isk fly into their wallets. They did have to actually run the missions, and fly very expensive ships to do it. Expensive ships that if caught at a gate or a station were pretty much toast. Go ahead and stroke CCP weiner more. I think it's funny how you guys call stuff like this isk faucet, like you are doing nothing to earn what you got. Would you consider a $200k a year job a dollar faucet? Can you say Socialist much?
I don't think you understand what is meant by an isk faucet. The problem with faucets is that they create isk out of thin air. The more isk you add, the more inflation you get. Mission running enables a person to essentially print money at will.
Quote:
Would you consider a $200k a year job a dollar faucet?
No. The job doesn't print/create new dollar bills. The $200k a year is money that already existed in the system.
Try imagining what would happen if most everyone could *print* 200,000 dollars a year.
That's good in all, but all currency to date has been printed, and been put out into circulation. Are you suggesting that Eve needs a federal reserve to print the isk for us and then distribute it to the corporations? I say we don't need that, let it come from "thin air". It doesn't get rid of the fact that people are earning it by taking the missions and then completing them. It's not an isk faucet, it's essentially doing what we've been doing minus the lame federal reserve.
You're either trolling or you're exceptionally dense. Missions are an ISK faucet, because additional ISK is generated "out of thin air", as opposed to it coming from another player. I doesn't matter whether you get 1,000 ISK, 1,000,000 ISK, or 1,000,000,000 ISK from a mission, it's always an ISK faucet.
|
OllieNorth
Gallente
Interstellar Entrepreneurs
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 20:06:00 -
[74]
I'm probably being trolled, but all right.
The currency in circulation accounts for a tiny percentage of all of the 'real' money in the world. There isn't anywhere near enough currency to cover it if everyone withdrew all of their money at once. That doesn't have anything to do with this though.
What we are saying is that missions are a 'faucet' because money appears out of nowhere. Mission rewards to a minor extent and bounties(the biggest faucet in eve by a large margin, check out the Economy posts from CCP) award you money from no physical interaction. Mining is not a faucet because 'real' items are exchanged ISK, ore is bought. Bounties are not a 'real' transaction. The only 'real' transaction involved in missions would be loot and salvage, as those are 'real' items. I'm probably explaining this poorly, but my point is that bounties are, by definition, money out of thin air.
There have been a number of threads and posts showing how rat bounties are far and away the largest source of ISK creation in the game. The unprobable Tengu takes almost all of the risk out of the equation, making mission running comparable or low risk to hauling, with 1000's of times greater reward. This leads directly to the huge amounts of liquid ISK in the system. That in turn, leads to the huge cap fleets, because everyone and their 8-year old sister can afford a Mom (sorry, SC). THIS, I think, is what they intended to nerf a little.
And yes, to answer your question, I AM a carebear, not a single PVP kill, and I still think this is a good idea. EVE is about risk/reward. Unprobable Tengus (and other suck ships) remove the risk, as literally 'unbalancing' as you can get.
As to the whole 'my 2 billion ISK ship shouldn't be probed out by a 2 month old scanner character' argument. . . sounds an awful lot like "my 5 year old character shouldn't be able to be tackled by a 2 month old character in a t1 frigate" whining. Deal with it kids, EVE is about constant fear for your life. If at any point you have a setup that makes you feel comfortable and risk-free (outside of spinning your ship), brace for the incoming nerf.
P.S. I'm a carebear, but I still love your carebear tears.
|
Kamikaze jihawt
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 20:10:00 -
[75]
Originally by: OllieNorth
I'm probably being trolled, but all right.
The currency in circulation accounts for a tiny percentage of all of the 'real' money in the world. There isn't anywhere near enough currency to cover it if everyone withdrew all of their money at once. That doesn't have anything to do with this though.
What we are saying is that missions are a 'faucet' because money appears out of nowhere. Mission rewards to a minor extent and bounties(the biggest faucet in eve by a large margin, check out the Economy posts from CCP) award you money from no physical interaction. Mining is not a faucet because 'real' items are exchanged ISK, ore is bought. Bounties are not a 'real' transaction. The only 'real' transaction involved in missions would be loot and salvage, as those are 'real' items. I'm probably explaining this poorly, but my point is that bounties are, by definition, money out of thin air.
There have been a number of threads and posts showing how rat bounties are far and away the largest source of ISK creation in the game. The unprobable Tengu takes almost all of the risk out of the equation, making mission running comparable or low risk to hauling, with 1000's of times greater reward. This leads directly to the huge amounts of liquid ISK in the system. That in turn, leads to the huge cap fleets, because everyone and their 8-year old sister can afford a Mom (sorry, SC). THIS, I think, is what they intended to nerf a little.
And yes, to answer your question, I AM a carebear, not a single PVP kill, and I still think this is a good idea. EVE is about risk/reward. Unprobable Tengus (and other suck ships) remove the risk, as literally 'unbalancing' as you can get.
As to the whole 'my 2 billion ISK ship shouldn't be probed out by a 2 month old scanner character' argument. . . sounds an awful lot like "my 5 year old character shouldn't be able to be tackled by a 2 month old character in a t1 frigate" whining. Deal with it kids, EVE is about constant fear for your life. If at any point you have a setup that makes you feel comfortable and risk-free (outside of spinning your ship), brace for the incoming nerf.
P.S. I'm a carebear, but I still love your carebear tears.
I guess loyalty points is chopped liver then. This topic affects lvl 5 missions most in which the majority of the reward you get from completing these missions is in fact via loyalty points. Not isk, or bounties, those are just a Minor added bonus to running the missions. The fact of the matter is, it's not an isk sink because it generates actual goods that are traded to other people, for isk that is already in game.
|
stoicfaux
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 20:20:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Kamikaze jihawt
The fact of the matter is, it's not an isk sink because it generates actual goods that are traded to other people, for isk that is already in game.
LP are an isk sink. The money you pay to buy an item from the LP store is removed from the economy.
-----
"Are you a sociopathic paranoid schizophrenic with accounting skills? We have the game for you!
-- Eve, the game of Alts, Economics, Machiavelli, and PvP"
|
OllieNorth
Gallente
Interstellar Entrepreneurs
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 20:21:00 -
[77]
Well, it's a good point, the LPs are not as much of a faucet, as they are an exchange for an in-game item. It still doesn't mean that being able to run 5s with no risk isn't unbalanced, just a little less of a pure faucet. It should not be safer to run missions in low sec than it is to do high sec hauling. That is what I think the driving force is here.
And no, I haven't even gotten into unprobable offgrid ganglinks.
/Yay rants
|
Kamikaze jihawt
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 20:24:00 -
[78]
while we are on the subject of risk vs. reward.... where is the risk a covert ops ship is taking to probe down another ship? why isn't there risk? Why not make it so that when a covert ops ship launches combat probes they cannot cloak until the probes are recovered? Why is it that the mission runners in this game are always expected to have some sort of unrealistic, bloated goal of high risk to earn their isk, when the pvp'ers don't risk nearly the same amount to probe them down and gank them?
|
Kamikaze jihawt
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 20:27:00 -
[79]
Originally by: stoicfaux
Originally by: Kamikaze jihawt
The fact of the matter is, it's not an isk sink because it generates actual goods that are traded to other people, for isk that is already in game.
LP are an isk sink. The money you pay to buy an item from the LP store is removed from the economy.
Fixed, I meant faucet not sink.
|
OllieNorth
Gallente
Interstellar Entrepreneurs
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 20:30:00 -
[80]
I have to agree that it would make sense to not be able to cloak while probes are out, or have it so that when you cloak, you lose contact with your probes. That being said, you need to remember that PVP is always high risk, you could always run with a cloaked alt in a web/scram/TP fit ready to warp in if you get scanned down. It is not unheard of for people to set mission traps even. All that being said, the reward of PVP is generally far lower than PVE, players are usually much harder to kill than rats. How many times do you see people talking about running missions to pay for their pew pew, that's because PVP isn't high reward, except for tears.
|
|
Kamikaze jihawt
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 20:41:00 -
[81]
Originally by: OllieNorth
I have to agree that it would make sense to not be able to cloak while probes are out, or have it so that when you cloak, you lose contact with your probes. That being said, you need to remember that PVP is always high risk, you could always run with a cloaked alt in a web/scram/TP fit ready to warp in if you get scanned down. It is not unheard of for people to set mission traps even. All that being said, the reward of PVP is generally far lower than PVE, players are usually much harder to kill than rats. How many times do you see people talking about running missions to pay for their pew pew, that's because PVP isn't high reward, except for tears.
Not everyone has more than one account. If you think you can't fund pvp with pvp you just aren't killing the right people. However if you choose to fund your pvp via pvp'ing and it doesn't make you as much as a mission would then that is strictly your choice, and it isn't the mission runners fault you chose that lifestyle.
|
stoicfaux
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 20:47:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Kamikaze jihawt
Originally by: Kamikaze jihawt
The fact of the matter is, it's not an isk *faucet* because it generates actual goods that are traded to other people, for isk that is already in game.
Fixed, I meant faucet not sink.
Meh, you're still wrong. LP are not an isk faucet because LP doesn't create isk. Your bit about generated goods isn't relevant.
-----
"Are you a sociopathic paranoid schizophrenic with accounting skills? We have the game for you!
-- Eve, the game of Alts, Economics, Machiavelli, and PvP"
|
Kamikaze jihawt
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 20:50:00 -
[83]
Originally by: stoicfaux
Originally by: Kamikaze jihawt
Originally by: Kamikaze jihawt
The fact of the matter is, it's not an isk *faucet* because it generates actual goods that are traded to other people, for isk that is already in game.
Fixed, I meant faucet not sink.
Meh, you're still wrong. LP are not an isk faucet because LP doesn't create isk. Your bit about generated goods isn't relevant.
Read it again! That's exactly what I said, and it is relevant, you just confirmed that.
|
Ranka Mei
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 20:50:00 -
[84]
Originally by: 5nipe
Talon set ( Gravimetric -> Tengu ) increases sensors strength
Halo set reduces signature radius.
But once u reach certain level with implants or EECM it is over.
Now you have option: ECCM or implants to reach that "cap" level.
for example: 4 EECM + Talon on Tengu gives 435/150 sensor/radius respectively.
but this Tengu emits the same signal as only fitted with 2 ECCM and 130/150 ratio.
at least on SiSi atm.
Yup, the legwork and math is appreciated. :)
Since every scanner out there worth his trade will have full Virtue set + max implants, you can still be scanned pretty easily it seems (2.5mins is easy).
--
 |
Ranka Mei
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 20:59:00 -
[85]
Originally by: OllieNorth
I have to agree that it would make sense to not be able to cloak while probes are out, or have it so that when you cloak, you lose contact with your probes.
Now hear this!
Originally by: CCP Dropbear
If you are doing something that requires dropping cloak, you should be vulnerable to scanning whilst doing it.
Can you say 'double standard'? If unprobability can no longer be achieved without being cloaked, then scanning should not be allowed cloaked either.
This was of course never really about balance. Just wish they'd at least drop the pretence.
--
|
Kamikaze jihawt
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 21:06:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Ranka Mei
Originally by: OllieNorth
I have to agree that it would make sense to not be able to cloak while probes are out, or have it so that when you cloak, you lose contact with your probes.
Now hear this!
Originally by: CCP Dropbear
If you are doing something that requires dropping cloak, you should be vulnerable to scanning whilst doing it.
Can you say 'double standard'? If unprobability can no longer be achieved without being cloaked, then scanning should not be allowed cloaked either.
This was of course never really about balance. Just wish they'd at least drop the pretence.
No, it's about more money in ccp's bank, which was exactly my point earlier.
|
|
CCP Dropbear
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 21:12:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Ranka Mei
Originally by: OllieNorth
I have to agree that it would make sense to not be able to cloak while probes are out, or have it so that when you cloak, you lose contact with your probes.
Now hear this!
Originally by: CCP Dropbear
If you are doing something that requires dropping cloak, you should be vulnerable to scanning whilst doing it.
Can you say 'double standard'? If unprobability can no longer be achieved without being cloaked, then scanning should not be allowed cloaked either.
This was of course never really about balance. Just wish they'd at least drop the pretence.
Getting a warpable hit on someone can be done with zero risk, but there is nothing intrinsically rewarding about getting a warpable hit. In order to actually use it, and reap any kind of reward from it, someone, somewhere, needs to uncloak and engage.
|
|
|
CCP Dropbear
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 21:17:00 -
[88]
Originally by: grootgroot
I was at the PVE presentation at fanfest this year. In response to a question about how it was unviable to mission in low/nullsec, one of the CCP guys (forgot his name, sorry) replied he regularly missioned in low/null an unprobeable T3.
That was me. 
I'm quite familiar with the use of the tactic. So are others in CCP. The suspicions I stated earlier are based on that knowledge. I know what sort of thinking goes into using the strategy (and it's a lot more than "copypasta from Battleclinic" as some people seem to think...you still had to use your brain to mitigate risk, and really work hard to eliminate it entirely) and suspect that those types of people will be more than smart enough to find other ways to achieve similar ends.
|
|
OllieNorth
Gallente
Interstellar Entrepreneurs
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 21:45:00 -
[89]
Zomg, it's like a Blue Double Tap. Thanks for dropping in to talk on the subject, always nice to get some CCP interface.
|
|
CCP Dropbear
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 22:04:00 -
[90]
By the way, this is from CCP Greyscale, who has a much better idea of the actual mechanical changes than I do:
Originally by: "CCP Greyscale:
IIRC we just placed a minimum cap on the signal strength return you can get from a target. Don't remember off-hand what the exact number is, but it isn't very big. (The ability to create an unprobeable fit has always been an anomaly with the scanning system, and the opportunity came up to close the loophole while doing some related work. There are specific modules to make you unfindable in space - ie cloaks - and they have specific restrictions and drawbacks to balance this out. We're aware that making this change will make certain otherwise-legitimate activities significantly less viable, but most of the ones we're aware of really need to be fixed properly down the road rather than band-aided in this way, and in the meantime we're sufficiently uncomfortable with the subversion of intended mechanics that such workarounds require that on balance we don't feel they're good reason to keep this loophole open. Sorry.)
From: this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |