Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami
300
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 16:41:00 -
[391] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:Their success rate in protecting from ganks is what... maybe 5%?
Their success in preventing ganks(through deterrence) is what..... maybe that same 5%? Maybe lower? No, it's a lot higher than that, unless you're going to try to pretend that you have a 95% chance of getting ganked every time you undock. Every time you undock, travel a few jumps, meet unknown people along the way and redock safely, concord's protection has worked.
Considering the rule of thumb is to assume you will get ganked 100% of the time...
Any time you are not ganked, you should count as a blessing, not depend on Concord to do what you think is their "job". "I say tomato, you say tomaCCP BAN ALL TOMATOES THEY ARE HARASSING ME I WANT TOMATO FREE HIGHSEC."-á -TheGunslinger42 Proud enforcer of the Code, see [url]http://www.minerbumping.com[/url]-á for details. |
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami
300
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 16:43:00 -
[392] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:Think of that statement and how that would apply to say.... development of nuclear arms in the world as of right now (won't name specific countries but you should see where I'm going with this).
Then go ahead and say (enter country name) is trying to be a "protector". Sure, I see where you're going with this. Iraq: No Nuclear weapons + Pissed off the US > Got Invaded North Korea: Nuclear weapons + Constantly Pissing off the US > Protected from Invasion Hang on... that goes against your wacky claim that deterrence does not provide protection (a claim that, in the specific case of CONCORD, you've already agreed is false).
You mean the part where NK says "we are going to bomb you and we will put a nuclear warhead on our weapons if we want"?
Yea. Because we are constantly threatening to invade NK therefore they must have nuclear warheads for "protection".
NK is the aggressor sir, not the other way around =). "I say tomato, you say tomaCCP BAN ALL TOMATOES THEY ARE HARASSING ME I WANT TOMATO FREE HIGHSEC."-á -TheGunslinger42 Proud enforcer of the Code, see [url]http://www.minerbumping.com[/url]-á for details. |
Lord Zim
2348
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 16:44:00 -
[393] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:Considering the rule of thumb is to assume you will get ganked 100% of the time...
Any time you are not ganked, you should count as a blessing, not depend on Concord to do what you think is their "job". And yet, I've never gotten ganked, on any char, in hisec, and I've done a fair bit of travelling over the past 4-5 years. I guess concord must be doing a good job of protecting us. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. RIP Vile Rat |
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami
300
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 16:48:00 -
[394] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:Think of that statement and how that would apply to say.... development of nuclear arms in the world as of right now (won't name specific countries but you should see where I'm going with this).
Then go ahead and say (enter country name) is trying to be a "protector". Sure, I see where you're going with this. Iraq: No Nuclear weapons + Pissed off the US > Got Invaded North Korea: Nuclear weapons + Constantly Pissing off the US > Protected from Invasion Hang on... that goes against your wacky claim that deterrence does not provide protection (a claim that, in the specific case of CONCORD, you've already agreed is false). Murk has a problem with very black and white thinking. To him "protection" means 100% safety it seems. I had a similar argument years ago as a rookie with a citizen while I was trying to eat lunch (That day learned why older officers eat in their cars lol). he said we don't provide protection, i said in a way he's correct, but we do provide a LEVEL of protective service by deterring "casual criminals" and making operating more difficult for more determined hard core ones. His response was "either i'm protected or i'm not". He couldn't' grasp the idea that or jub was to make crime and disorder less likely, because totally preventing it isn't physically possible. Pretty much the same in EVE. People fly around high sec, get ganked, then say "EVE has no protection". Yes, high sec EVE does have a LEVEL of protection. Last time someone tried to gank my (tanked) hauler and failed it was because CONCORD showed up before they could shoot at me more, where it not to CONCORD, I'd have lost a s ship and cargo.
It's not a problem of black and white thinking Jenn, it's a matter of definition.
Concord does not provide protection. YOU might generate or feel a sense of protection in knowing that Concord will blow up anyone who attacks you. But that won't keep you from getting blown up. Therefore any sense of "protection" ends up being false because you aren't protected. You then realize that Concord does not protect, they merely avenge.
Loose use of the word to describe one thing while meaning another is where you get a "false sense of security" as pirates and highsec miscreants are known for; preying on that false sense.
And that's what Concord does. Gives you a false sense of security, because they do not protect. They do not heal, or repair, or reimburse. They will watch you die even as they assist in blowing up the person who broke Empire's law.
It's really quite simple. "I say tomato, you say tomaCCP BAN ALL TOMATOES THEY ARE HARASSING ME I WANT TOMATO FREE HIGHSEC."-á -TheGunslinger42 Proud enforcer of the Code, see [url]http://www.minerbumping.com[/url]-á for details. |
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami
300
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 16:52:00 -
[395] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Quote:
That's actually the best way to prove Concord is not a protector. Since nukes aren't known for their protection. Their known for their disastrous effect and everyone knows a nuke is made to destroy, not protect =).
No. Both sides were stopped from attacking eachother because both sides would be vaporised. Nukes protected both states by deturing both sides from attacking. Thier destructive power ended up protecting the nations that had them.
Much like a hammer, used to bash things, can be used to screw something in. But not what it's intended for.
And a hammer is not defined by it's ability to turn a screw. But you CAN use it for that use. Even though a screwdriver would be far more efficient.
Such as Concord and any implication of protection.
So again, Concord is not a Protector. It's a concept in relation to risk versus reward in regards to following highsec's rules. "I say tomato, you say tomaCCP BAN ALL TOMATOES THEY ARE HARASSING ME I WANT TOMATO FREE HIGHSEC."-á -TheGunslinger42 Proud enforcer of the Code, see [url]http://www.minerbumping.com[/url]-á for details. |
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami
300
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 16:56:00 -
[396] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:Considering the rule of thumb is to assume you will get ganked 100% of the time...
Any time you are not ganked, you should count as a blessing, not depend on Concord to do what you think is their "job". And yet, I've never gotten ganked, on any char, in hisec, and I've done a fair bit of travelling over the past 4-5 years. I guess concord must be doing a good job of protecting us.
Crime and Punishment has those relative discussions sir.
Or ask baltec1 what his success rate. He can answer how well Concord protects from that perspective.
"Don't undock what you cannot afford to lose" and all that. "I say tomato, you say tomaCCP BAN ALL TOMATOES THEY ARE HARASSING ME I WANT TOMATO FREE HIGHSEC."-á -TheGunslinger42 Proud enforcer of the Code, see [url]http://www.minerbumping.com[/url]-á for details. |
baltec1
Bat Country
5858
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 16:58:00 -
[397] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:
Much like a hammer, used to bash things, can be used to screw something in. But not what it's intended for.
And a hammer is not defined by it's ability to turn a screw. But you CAN use it for that use. Even though a screwdriver would be far more efficient.
Such as Concord and any implication of protection.
So again, Concord is not a Protector. It's a concept in relation to risk versus reward in regards to following highsec's rules.
Its protection as defined by every single government, army, police force and security sevice.
It stops us bad guys from killing everything, which is the very meaning of protecting people and like all protection it wont stop everything. |
Lord Zim
2349
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 17:01:00 -
[398] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:Concord does not provide protection. Concord being there makes hisec safer, ergo it provides protection.
Murk Paradox wrote:YOU might generate or feel a sense of protection in knowing that Concord will blow up anyone who attacks you. Protection through deterrence, yes.
Murk Paradox wrote:But that won't keep you from getting blown up. Something providing protection doesn't mean you're invulnerable. Hisec's safer with concord, hence concord provides protection.
Murk Paradox wrote:Therefore any sense of "protection" ends up being false because you aren't protected. You then realize that Concord does not protect, they merely avenge. Concord protects, until someone isn't deterred by concord anymore, because the risk is worth the reward. Doesn't detract from the fact that concord does provide protection through deterrence. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. RIP Vile Rat |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
1589
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 17:02:00 -
[399] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:
It's not a problem of black and white thinking Jenn, it's a matter of definition.
Relativistic thinking doesn't change the laws of nature. If you have to make up new definitiions of things to make what you want to believe "fit", thehn the problem is you, not the subject.
Quote: Concord does not provide protection. YOU might generate or feel a sense of protection in knowing that Concord will blow up anyone who attacks you. But that won't keep you from getting blown up. Therefore any sense of "protection" ends up being false because you aren't protected. You then realize that Concord does not protect, they merely avenge.
That's black and white , "either/or"thinking right there.
What actually happens (and this is testable, but only by CCP) is that fewer people get blown up in high sec becuase of concord's existence than would otherwise get blown up. CCP could demonstrate this by turning off concord for a day. Therefore, CONCORD provides a level of protection, but not absolute protection.
Quote: Loose use of the word to describe one thing while meaning another is where you get a "false sense of security" as pirates and highsec miscreants are known for; preying on that false sense.
And that's what Concord does. Gives you a false sense of security, because they do not protect. They do not heal, or repair, or reimburse. They will watch you die even as they assist in blowing up the person who broke Empire's law.
It's really quite simple.
It;'s quite simple that you prefer to argue definitions rather than try to understand what others are saying, in the same way that private citizen was doing to me at lunch that day. You can define it anyway you like, but the truth is,CONCORD provides a measurable level of overall "protection" through deterrent of some forms of casual aggression while not providing "absolute" protection.
This video game COULD provide absolute protection, but only video games can do that. In real life NOTHING provides protection (at least by your narrow definition). Not the gun I carry, not the Vest I wear, not my training, not the car I drive or the seatbelt I wear, nothing. Protection isn't physically possible.
|
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
1589
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 17:03:00 -
[400] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:
Much like a hammer, used to bash things, can be used to screw something in. But not what it's intended for.
And a hammer is not defined by it's ability to turn a screw. But you CAN use it for that use. Even though a screwdriver would be far more efficient.
Such as Concord and any implication of protection.
So again, Concord is not a Protector. It's a concept in relation to risk versus reward in regards to following highsec's rules.
Its protection as defined by every single government, army, police force and security sevice. It stops us bad guys from killing everything, which is the very meaning of protecting people and like all protection it wont stop everything.
So simple a concept for must of us.
|
|
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami
300
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 17:05:00 -
[401] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:
Much like a hammer, used to bash things, can be used to screw something in. But not what it's intended for.
And a hammer is not defined by it's ability to turn a screw. But you CAN use it for that use. Even though a screwdriver would be far more efficient.
Such as Concord and any implication of protection.
So again, Concord is not a Protector. It's a concept in relation to risk versus reward in regards to following highsec's rules.
Its protection as defined by every single government, army, police force and security sevice. It stops us bad guys from killing everything, which is the very meaning of protecting people and like all protection it wont stop everything.
So when did Concord ever shield or rep or help any one pilot? Never. They blow up the aggressor. They don't care about the victim.
Again, shoot an aseteroid in highsec tell me what happens. "I say tomato, you say tomaCCP BAN ALL TOMATOES THEY ARE HARASSING ME I WANT TOMATO FREE HIGHSEC."-á -TheGunslinger42 Proud enforcer of the Code, see [url]http://www.minerbumping.com[/url]-á for details. |
baltec1
Bat Country
5858
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 17:09:00 -
[402] - Quote
Murk wrote:
So when did Concord ever shield or rep or help any one pilot? Never. They blow up the aggressor. They don't care about the victim.
Again, shoot an aseteroid in highsec tell me what happens.
They dont have to rep anyone to help. Just being there ready to pounce is vastly more helpfull. |
Lord Zim
2349
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 17:10:00 -
[403] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:So when did Concord ever shield or rep or help any one pilot? Never. They blow up the aggressor. They don't care about the victim. And yet, they provide protection. Undock an empty hauler from jita and see what happens, then compare that with undocking the same empty hauler from a lowsec station with lots of neutral people sitting right outside, and/or with undocking from a nullsec station with lots of neutral people sitting right outside.
What you'll find is that you won't die in hisec, whereas you will in lowsec and nullsec, because concord protects through deterrence. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. RIP Vile Rat |
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami
300
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 17:18:00 -
[404] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:So when did Concord ever shield or rep or help any one pilot? Never. They blow up the aggressor. They don't care about the victim. And yet, they provide protection. Undock an empty hauler from jita and see what happens, then compare that with undocking the same empty hauler from a lowsec station with lots of neutral people sitting right outside, and/or with undocking from a nullsec station with lots of neutral people sitting right outside. What you'll find is that you won't die in hisec, whereas you will in lowsec and nullsec, because concord protects through deterrence.
That empty hauler is the level or protection, gained through risk vs reward since anytime you are in a hauler near a trade hub you'd be naive to think you haven't been scanned down.
If I left Jita with an empty hauler chances are I would not be ganked.
If I left Jita with a hauler worth 10bil, chances are I would be ganked.
Both scenarios involve Concord.
The level of me determining the reward using an empty hauler is a form of protection of deterrence.
Concord doesn't factor in at that point. Those pirates would assume death already. "I say tomato, you say tomaCCP BAN ALL TOMATOES THEY ARE HARASSING ME I WANT TOMATO FREE HIGHSEC."-á -TheGunslinger42 Proud enforcer of the Code, see [url]http://www.minerbumping.com[/url]-á for details. |
Lady Areola Fappington
New Order Logistics CODE.
81
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 17:20:00 -
[405] - Quote
kind of like my grandpappy said, "locks keep honest people honest"
CONCORD does the same. Don't worry miners, I'm here to help! If you care about making EVE better, you'll vote Psychotic Monk for CSM8. |
Skeln Thargensen
Filthy Carebear Tax Avoidance Shell Corp
84
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 17:22:00 -
[406] - Quote
the pirates are still deterred if their potential gain is less than the loss they calculate. freelance space bum |
Lord Zim
2349
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 17:23:00 -
[407] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:That empty hauler is the level or protection, gained through risk vs reward since anytime you are in a hauler near a trade hub you'd be naive to think you haven't been scanned down. So which part of the hauler would stop you from being ganked? Its tank? Its dps?
Oh wait, no, it's because concord is deterring gankers from ganking you, i.e. you're protected by concord.
Murk Paradox wrote:If I left Jita with an empty hauler chances are I would not be ganked. Because concord protects you.
Murk Paradox wrote:If I left Jita with a hauler worth 10bil, chances are I would be ganked. Because while concord protects you, it's not a perfect protection. It doesn't have to be perfect protection to still be protection.
Murk Paradox wrote:The level of me determining the reward using an empty hauler is a form of protection of deterrence. Which part of the hauler provides deterrence?
I'll tell you, no part of the hauler itself provides any deterrence at all. The only protection through deterrence is emanating from concord.
Murk Paradox wrote:Concord doesn't factor in at that point. Those pirates would assume death already. Death by concord, yes. Concord protects through deterrence. Without concord, there would be no deterrence through certain death by concord, and thus no protection. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. RIP Vile Rat |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
1589
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 17:23:00 -
[408] - Quote
Skeln Thargensen wrote:the pirates are still deterred if their potential gain is less than the loss they calculate.
Right, which is how freighter pilots "protect" themselves by not hauling to much expensive stuff, though they're ships can still be blown up for no reason at all.
|
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
1589
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 17:25:00 -
[409] - Quote
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:kind of like my grandpappy said, "locks keep honest people honest"
CONCORD does the same.
Grandpappy is a smart dude. +1 .
|
RubyPorto
Sniggwaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
3157
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 17:31:00 -
[410] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Which part of the hauler provides deterrence?
Ammo cost? This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
|
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami
300
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 17:32:00 -
[411] - Quote
Skeln Thargensen wrote:the pirates are still deterred if their potential gain is less than the loss they calculate.
Exactly. "I say tomato, you say tomaCCP BAN ALL TOMATOES THEY ARE HARASSING ME I WANT TOMATO FREE HIGHSEC."-á -TheGunslinger42 Proud enforcer of the Code, see [url]http://www.minerbumping.com[/url]-á for details. |
RubyPorto
Sniggwaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
3157
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 17:33:00 -
[412] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote: That empty hauler is the level or protection, gained through risk vs reward since anytime you are in a hauler near a trade hub you'd be naive to think you haven't been scanned down.
If I left Jita with an empty hauler chances are I would not be ganked.
And if you left Rancer with an Empty hauler, what do you think would happen to it?
Due to the absence of CONCORD, it would get ganked virtually every time.
With CONCORD > You Don't get ganked in an empty hauler. Without CONCORD > You Do get ganked in an empty hauler.
Therefor, CONCORD protects you from gankers. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
Lord Zim
2349
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 17:36:00 -
[413] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:Skeln Thargensen wrote:the pirates are still deterred if their potential gain is less than the loss they calculate. Exactly. And considering lowsec doesn't provide them with any instant losses for ganking anyone, that "empty hauler" ends up being a very, very juicy target which'll yield a nice killmail. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. RIP Vile Rat |
RubyPorto
Sniggwaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
3157
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 17:38:00 -
[414] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:Skeln Thargensen wrote:the pirates are still deterred if their potential gain is less than the loss they calculate. Exactly.
And what does that deterrence (provided by CONCORD) provide to the potential targets? Protection. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami
300
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 17:39:00 -
[415] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote: Death by concord, yes. Concord protects through deterrence. Without concord, there would be no deterrence through certain death by concord, and thus no protection.
You just literally made 0 sense.
Yes, it's true you would not die by Concord if Concord wasn't there. o_O
And the part of the hauler that protects is not its tank, but it's cargo hold. Anyone WILLING to gank, and lose a ship to Concord, will check and recheck and double check if it's worth it to gank that person. Be it for an idea, a payment, or a bounty.
Concord is a cost. Any form or idea of protection is already discarded by the mind of that opportunist.
I can orbit Jita or Dodixie with an empty bestower all day. You say I won't get blown up because Concord protects. I say it's because of the fact an empty bestower doesn't provide anything worth killing for. If I put just 20 plex in that bestower, how fast do you think I'd get blown up?
Let's re analyze that
Empty bestower with Concord = survive. Notsoempty Bestower with Concord = ganked.
Any questions? "I say tomato, you say tomaCCP BAN ALL TOMATOES THEY ARE HARASSING ME I WANT TOMATO FREE HIGHSEC."-á -TheGunslinger42 Proud enforcer of the Code, see [url]http://www.minerbumping.com[/url]-á for details. |
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami
300
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 17:40:00 -
[416] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:Skeln Thargensen wrote:the pirates are still deterred if their potential gain is less than the loss they calculate. Exactly. And what does that deterrence (provided by CONCORD) provide to the potential targets? Nothing if the pirate wants to kill you.
Fixed. "I say tomato, you say tomaCCP BAN ALL TOMATOES THEY ARE HARASSING ME I WANT TOMATO FREE HIGHSEC."-á -TheGunslinger42 Proud enforcer of the Code, see [url]http://www.minerbumping.com[/url]-á for details. |
RubyPorto
Sniggwaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
3157
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 17:41:00 -
[417] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:I can orbit Jita or Dodixie with an empty bestower all day.
Now try that somewhere without CONCORD and see what happens. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
Sniggwaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
3157
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 17:42:00 -
[418] - Quote
Murk Paradox wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:Skeln Thargensen wrote:the pirates are still deterred if their potential gain is less than the loss they calculate. Exactly. And what does that deterrence (provided by CONCORD) provide to the potential targets? Protection Fixed.
Getting them to not want to kill you for profit is the definition of deterrence. And that is the Protection that CONCORD provides. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami
300
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 17:42:00 -
[419] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Murk Paradox wrote: That empty hauler is the level or protection, gained through risk vs reward since anytime you are in a hauler near a trade hub you'd be naive to think you haven't been scanned down.
If I left Jita with an empty hauler chances are I would not be ganked.
And if you left Rancer with an Empty hauler, what do you think would happen to it? Due to the absence of CONCORD, it would get ganked virtually every time. With CONCORD > You Don't get ganked in an empty hauler. Without CONCORD > You Do get ganked in an empty hauler. Therefor, CONCORD protects you from gankers.
Rancer isn't highsec. This is risk versus reward. You wanting to roam around in a hauler in Rancer to which you said was a very busy and camped place, has nothing to do with Concord as it is lowsec and out of their jurisdiction.
Keep on topic please. "I say tomato, you say tomaCCP BAN ALL TOMATOES THEY ARE HARASSING ME I WANT TOMATO FREE HIGHSEC."-á -TheGunslinger42 Proud enforcer of the Code, see [url]http://www.minerbumping.com[/url]-á for details. |
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami
300
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 17:43:00 -
[420] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Murk Paradox wrote:Skeln Thargensen wrote:the pirates are still deterred if their potential gain is less than the loss they calculate. Exactly. And considering lowsec doesn't provide them with any instant losses for ganking anyone, that "empty hauler" ends up being a very, very juicy target which'll yield a nice killmail.
Empty haulers aren't very juicy. I have a ton of sigils and bestowers for moving PI stuff around because I am too lazy to spend the time moving them back and just buy a new hull. "I say tomato, you say tomaCCP BAN ALL TOMATOES THEY ARE HARASSING ME I WANT TOMATO FREE HIGHSEC."-á -TheGunslinger42 Proud enforcer of the Code, see [url]http://www.minerbumping.com[/url]-á for details. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |