Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 20 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
423
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 17:38:00 -
[361] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:You seem to be making the assumption that the only goal is 100% safety.
And thus the question sir.
If the only goal is NOT 100% safe then what IS the goal? At what point, and to what extent, does high-sec need to be made safe.
You see I am looking for a goal post here. I want someone to tell me HOW SAFE IS SAFE ENOUGH and then stick to that.
Paranoia never killed anyone. -áA complete absence of it has. |
Angelica Dreamstar
Epic Boo Bees
86
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 17:38:00 -
[362] - Quote
Kimmi Chan wrote:Ramona McCandless wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Well if you read the forums, you'll often see complaints from both sides. This indicates that it is in fact not in a situation that would be described as perfect.. No, but it could be described as balanced. Perfection is impossible to attain. Utopia is not an option for a species which thrives on conflict. Balanced you say? I concur. Ramona McCandless wrote:Lucas Kell wrote: I denounce it when there's no real reason.
Maybe you should consider denouncing things when there's no good result instead. Your genius makes me quiver McCandless. Her intellect makes her sexy as hell, I'm glad she's mine in my corp! ;) New player feeling neglected? You're important from day 1!!! Join the Epic Boo Bees! (female chars only, RP!)
|
ZynnLee Akkori
Perkone Caldari State
39
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 17:41:00 -
[363] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Kimmi Chan wrote:Then how safe Lucas?
Huh?
How safe does it need to ******* be for you and Zynn and Nerf Burger II to shut the hell up?
At what point is it safe enough? Who knows, opinions vary. The real question is WHY should we shut up? What right do you have to tell us to shut up? Who exactly are you? Why is it you can't have a reasonable discussion about pros and cons of particular ideas and instead choose to tell people they are wanting 100% safety and they should "shut the hell up"? Reason is not the friend of hyperbole. Their argument boils down to: That's the way it is.
|
Lucas Kell
JSR1 AND GOLDEN GUARDIAN PRODUCTIONS SpaceMonkey's Alliance
2381
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 17:43:00 -
[364] - Quote
Kimmi Chan wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:You seem to be making the assumption that the only goal is 100% safety.
And thus the question sir. If the only goal is NOT 100% safe then what IS the goal? At what point, and to what extent, does high-sec need to be made safe. You see I am looking for a goal post here. I want someone to tell me HOW SAFE IS SAFE ENOUGH and then stick to that. I thought we'd covered this. More than there is now, less than 100%. I'm not sitting here with a laid out plan on what needs to be changed, so as much as you keep pushing for me to spew some random number, It really wouldn't help. If you can tell me where on your numerical scale of safeness we are supposedly at, I'd say probably about 1/10th of the way between that number and 100%.
The Indecisive Noob - A new EVE Fan Blog for news and stuff. |
Angelica Dreamstar
Epic Boo Bees
86
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 17:44:00 -
[365] - Quote
Kimmi Chan wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:You seem to be making the assumption that the only goal is 100% safety.
And thus the question sir. If the only goal is NOT 100% safe then what IS the goal? At what point, and to what extent, does high-sec need to be made safe. You see I am looking for a goal post here. I want someone to tell me HOW SAFE IS SAFE ENOUGH and then stick to that. It makes sense to ask that, but you can go more meta or deeper with that.
The point is that as long as people get killed, people will ask for increased security ... so the question should be more detailed, as in: When do you think people will stop complaining about getting blown up?
Ccovers the ground much more precise and leaves less loopholes. New player feeling neglected? You're important from day 1!!! Join the Epic Boo Bees! (female chars only, RP!)
|
Ramona McCandless
Epic Boo Bees
2058
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 17:44:00 -
[366] - Quote
ZynnLee Akkori wrote: Reason is not the friend of hyperbole. Their argument boils down to: That's the way it is.
Still avoiding the question as to why you dont tank your ship.
Incase you forgot, mining enhancement modules dont go in medium power slots. *** Vote MTU For CSM *** "They feel the need to cover their ears and eyes in horror at your very presence." --áPontianak Sythaeryn Omnis nomiom nom nom nomi |
Angelica Dreamstar
Epic Boo Bees
86
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 17:46:00 -
[367] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Kimmi Chan wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:You seem to be making the assumption that the only goal is 100% safety.
And thus the question sir. If the only goal is NOT 100% safe then what IS the goal? At what point, and to what extent, does high-sec need to be made safe. You see I am looking for a goal post here. I want someone to tell me HOW SAFE IS SAFE ENOUGH and then stick to that. I thought we'd covered this. More than there is now, less than 100%. I'm not sitting here with a laid out plan on what needs to be changed, so as much as you keep pushing for me to spew some random number, It really wouldn't help. If you can tell me where on your numerical scale of safeness we are supposedly at, I'd say probably about 1/10th of the way between that number and 100%. Your response is as inprecise as the question was. Try answering mine instead. It covers the issue completely and leaves no room for vague or inprecise responses.
New player feeling neglected? You're important from day 1!!! Join the Epic Boo Bees! (female chars only, RP!)
|
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
423
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 17:46:00 -
[368] - Quote
ZynnLee Akkori wrote:Yes, I see the issue. You prefer to change nothing. No compromise, no adjustment, nothing. Despite telling you over and over, you are convinced that I am lying on my intentions. There's nothing I can do about that. Your opinion is that highsec is safe enough. I don't agree. YOu assume it's safe enough if we play in a way that you think is 'reasonable'. I disagree with the pre-conditions and wonder how you would feel if there were pre-conditions to you flying a combat ship that you didn't agree with.
Then I'll ask you the question.
How safe does it need to be?
Does it need to be safe enough for you to maximize efficiency? Safe enough to AFK?
Less than that? More safe than that?
At what point will you look upon the safety of high sec and say, "Okay guys! THAT'S SAFE ENOUGH!"
ZynnLee Akkori wrote:But worse, you presume to dictate that I am just lying. That's not very nice. I won't hold that against you though, because I can see that you are a very emotional person.
I dictate nothing. Answer the questions that have been asked.
Why must gankers conform to your new rules (CONCORD response reduced by 50%) rather than YOU adjusting to the EXISTING game mechanics?
You see, at the end of all of this, all of this back and forth, and vitriol and venom. This is the question that I don't have the answer to. This is the knowledge that eludes me and make me a very emotional person. (And you have my thanks for not holding that fact against me).
Paranoia never killed anyone. -áA complete absence of it has. |
ZynnLee Akkori
Perkone Caldari State
39
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 17:46:00 -
[369] - Quote
Ramona McCandless wrote:
Would it really be such a hardship to tank your ship properly so your problems simply cease to be an issue for you?
WOuld it really be such a hardship to apply the same standard to shps not meant for combat as you do to combat ships? |
Angelica Dreamstar
Epic Boo Bees
87
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 17:47:00 -
[370] - Quote
Ramona McCandless wrote:ZynnLee Akkori wrote: Reason is not the friend of hyperbole. Their argument boils down to: That's the way it is.
Still avoiding the question as to why you dont tank your ship. Incase you forgot, mining enhancement modules dont go in medium power slots. Because her belief leads her to believe that humans shouldn't be made responsible for their wrong choices. Because she believes that those who make stupid choices need protection, instead of education.
Edit: I apologize for inaccuracy. It rather seems that she believes that humans shouldn't have to make decisions to protect themselves at all. New player feeling neglected? You're important from day 1!!! Join the Epic Boo Bees! (female chars only, RP!)
|
|
Ramona McCandless
Epic Boo Bees
2060
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 17:49:00 -
[371] - Quote
ZynnLee Akkori wrote:Ramona McCandless wrote:
Would it really be such a hardship to tank your ship properly so your problems simply cease to be an issue for you?
WOuld it really be such a hardship to apply the same standard to shps not meant for combat as you do to combat ships?
No, its not, thats why I do it. It doesnt affect anything I do (which isnt combat usually) to pop a bit of tank on when Im in anything but a cyno.
Please tell me why you are against putting shield modules in mid slots. *** Vote MTU For CSM *** "They feel the need to cover their ears and eyes in horror at your very presence." --áPontianak Sythaeryn Omnis nomiom nom nom nomi |
Lucas Kell
JSR1 AND GOLDEN GUARDIAN PRODUCTIONS SpaceMonkey's Alliance
2382
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 17:50:00 -
[372] - Quote
Angelica Dreamstar wrote:Kimmi Chan wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:You seem to be making the assumption that the only goal is 100% safety.
And thus the question sir. If the only goal is NOT 100% safe then what IS the goal? At what point, and to what extent, does high-sec need to be made safe. You see I am looking for a goal post here. I want someone to tell me HOW SAFE IS SAFE ENOUGH and then stick to that. It makes sense to ask that, but you can go more meta or deeper with that. The point is that as long as people get killed, people will ask for increased security ... so the question should be more detailed, as in: When do you think people will stop complaining about getting blown up? Ccovers the ground much more precise and leaves less loopholes. People will never stop complaining. But that doesn't mean there's not a legitimate issue there right now. You're forcing the situation to absolutes, which it is not. The Indecisive Noob - A new EVE Fan Blog for news and stuff. |
ZynnLee Akkori
Perkone Caldari State
39
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 17:50:00 -
[373] - Quote
Kimmi Chan wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:You seem to be making the assumption that the only goal is 100% safety.
And thus the question sir. If the only goal is NOT 100% safe then what IS the goal? At what point, and to what extent, does high-sec need to be made safe. You see I am looking for a goal post here. I want someone to tell me HOW SAFE IS SAFE ENOUGH and then stick to that. I'd offer a suggestion. What if Concord response time was a multiplier of the security status? 1.0 means arrival nearly immediately. 0.5 means Concord arrives as fast as it does now. Then extrapolate for the other numbers. |
Frumpylumps Faplord
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 17:50:00 -
[374] - Quote
ZynnLee Akkori wrote:Tippia wrote:Frumpylumps Faplord wrote:high sec should be more safe. We need more players, not to keep grief monkeys content. What makes you think that one would lead to the other? What makes you think it wouldn't? Would it really be such a hardship to have to adjust your formula for who get's to be your 'victim'? Don't you see that people on this side of the issue like the game, and want to see it get better? No one yet has suggested that the 'cold, hard reality(sic)' of Eve would be destroyed with a small adjustment to security rules in highsec.
With this topic you always end up arguing with the most irrational and narrow-minded individuals. They are in every thread, just keep that in mind before you take them seriously, it might save you some effort for debating people who are actually worth debating.
Regardless, it is still amusing listening to all the victim-blaming non-sense coming from the status quo crowd, who somehow, in defiance of all common sense , claims making high sec safer is going to break the game instead of help it. |
Ramona McCandless
Epic Boo Bees
2060
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 17:51:00 -
[375] - Quote
ZynnLee Akkori wrote:Kimmi Chan wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:You seem to be making the assumption that the only goal is 100% safety.
And thus the question sir. If the only goal is NOT 100% safe then what IS the goal? At what point, and to what extent, does high-sec need to be made safe. You see I am looking for a goal post here. I want someone to tell me HOW SAFE IS SAFE ENOUGH and then stick to that. I'd offer a suggestion. What if Concord response time was a multiplier of the security status? 1.0 means arrival nearly immediately. 0.5 means Concord arrives as fast as it does now. Then extrapolate for the other numbers.
Um... please someone else tell her please?
I dont want to, she'll think Im trolling her. *** Vote MTU For CSM *** "They feel the need to cover their ears and eyes in horror at your very presence." --áPontianak Sythaeryn Omnis nomiom nom nom nomi |
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
2301
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 17:53:00 -
[376] - Quote
ZynnLee Akkori wrote:I'd offer a suggestion. What if Concord response time was a multiplier of the security status? 1.0 means arrival nearly immediately. 0.5 means Concord arrives as fast as it does now. Then extrapolate for the other numbers. Would you be satisfied with that? Oh god. |
Lucas Kell
JSR1 AND GOLDEN GUARDIAN PRODUCTIONS SpaceMonkey's Alliance
2382
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 17:53:00 -
[377] - Quote
Ramona McCandless wrote:ZynnLee Akkori wrote:Kimmi Chan wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:You seem to be making the assumption that the only goal is 100% safety.
And thus the question sir. If the only goal is NOT 100% safe then what IS the goal? At what point, and to what extent, does high-sec need to be made safe. You see I am looking for a goal post here. I want someone to tell me HOW SAFE IS SAFE ENOUGH and then stick to that. I'd offer a suggestion. What if Concord response time was a multiplier of the security status? 1.0 means arrival nearly immediately. 0.5 means Concord arrives as fast as it does now. Then extrapolate for the other numbers. Um... please someone else tell her please? I dont want to, she'll think Im trolling her. lol, OK I'll do it. ZynnLee, security status already works that way, 1.0 is about 5 seconds for response and it's nearly impossible to effectively gank there. 0.5 is around 25 seconds in a prepped system, 20 unprepped. The Indecisive Noob - A new EVE Fan Blog for news and stuff. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4239
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 17:53:00 -
[378] - Quote
ZynnLee Akkori wrote:
Would it really be such a hardship to have to adjust your formula for who get's to be your 'victim'?
No one should have to do any such thing. EVE provides all kinds of tools people can use to protect themselves. That you choose not to use them is yoru choice.
Quote: Don't you see that people on this side of the issue like the game, and want to see it get better? No one yet has suggested that the 'cold, hard reality(sic)' of Eve would be destroyed with a small adjustment to security rules in highsec.
High sec doesn't need to be safer. The reason it needs to be dangerous is the same reason EVE is on one server, not two. People like you think you want to be totally safe, but it's a lie, because if you really thought that way you'd not be playing EVE at all.
For years I have been amazed at the squeemish personality types that can't handle the concepts of loss or personal responsibility (for their choices and their game experience) in a video game. I also find the sense of entitlement amazing, EVE was (at conception) envisioned as a hardcore and unforgiving experience, yet people have been begging for it to be watered down for the sake of "new players" not mentally tough enough to enjoy the game as is.
Why is that? Is the existance of ONE hardcore "kick you in your pants when you stop thinking" game too much for the universe to bear? |
Angelica Dreamstar
Epic Boo Bees
87
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 17:53:00 -
[379] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Angelica Dreamstar wrote:Kimmi Chan wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:You seem to be making the assumption that the only goal is 100% safety.
And thus the question sir. If the only goal is NOT 100% safe then what IS the goal? At what point, and to what extent, does high-sec need to be made safe. You see I am looking for a goal post here. I want someone to tell me HOW SAFE IS SAFE ENOUGH and then stick to that. It makes sense to ask that, but you can go more meta or deeper with that. The point is that as long as people get killed, people will ask for increased security ... so the question should be more detailed, as in: When do you think people will stop complaining about getting blown up? Ccovers the ground much more precise and leaves less loopholes. People will never stop complaining. But that doesn't mean there's not a legitimate issue there right now. You're forcing the situation to absolutes, which it is not. Oh it is absolute, but not at this point of time. I am simply jumping right to the end of this whole circle, trying to prevent it from continuing and reaching that point in the first place. If you have followed and understand the issue, then you are able to see why it is indeed absolute. The whole circle of complaints and given increased security leads towards the absolute. Absolute safety. New player feeling neglected? You're important from day 1!!! Join the Epic Boo Bees! (female chars only, RP!)
|
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
426
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 17:53:00 -
[380] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:People will never stop complaining.
[/thread]
Paranoia never killed anyone. -áA complete absence of it has. |
|
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
4241
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 17:57:00 -
[381] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:ZynnLee Akkori wrote:I'd offer a suggestion. What if Concord response time was a multiplier of the security status? 1.0 means arrival nearly immediately. 0.5 means Concord arrives as fast as it does now. Then extrapolate for the other numbers. Would you be satisfied with that?
We know the answer to you veiled rhetorical question (lol). When i started peole were flying mining ships (long before the ehp buff) and there were no "safeties" to prevent people from screwing up and getting themselves killed in high sec among other things. Now there is all this stuff and people STILL aren't happy.
It's because some people can't be pleased no matter what you do or what you change or what you give them. I know, I've been through a divorce |
Lucas Kell
JSR1 AND GOLDEN GUARDIAN PRODUCTIONS SpaceMonkey's Alliance
2382
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 17:57:00 -
[382] - Quote
Angelica Dreamstar wrote:Oh it is absolute, but not at this point of time. I am simply jumping right to the end of this whole circle, trying to prevent it from continuing and reaching that point in the first place. If you have followed and understand the issue, then you are able to see why it is indeed absolute. The whole circle of complaints and given increased security leads towards the absolute. Absolute safety. Logical fallacy. You are assuming that any single change would result in cascading changes inevitably ending with 100% safety. Totally not the case. It's perfectly reasonable to expect changes to the current mechanic which would not necessarily add more safety as a whole, but steer safety towards newer players. For example, barges above the procurer should require more skills, encouraging newer characters to fly that one first, rather than jumping straight into the others. The Indecisive Noob - A new EVE Fan Blog for news and stuff. |
Angelica Dreamstar
Epic Boo Bees
88
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 17:57:00 -
[383] - Quote
Kimmi Chan wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:People will never stop complaining. [/thread] Exactly, sister. And that's why there should be no increased security, because it doesn't help anybody. New player feeling neglected? You're important from day 1!!! Join the Epic Boo Bees! (female chars only, RP!)
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
15521
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 17:57:00 -
[384] - Quote
ZynnLee Akkori wrote:I'd offer a suggestion. What if Concord response time was a multiplier of the security status? 1.0 means arrival nearly immediately. 0.5 means Concord arrives as fast as it does now. Then extrapolate for the other numbers. I'll also bite.
That's how it already works, average Concord Time To Kill the bad guys times are courtesy of Tippia
- 1.0 GÇö 6-¦1 seconds.
- 0.9 GÇö 6-¦1 seconds.
- 0.8 GÇö 7-¦1 seconds.
- 0.7 GÇö 10-¦1 seconds.
- 0.6 GÇö 14-¦1 seconds.
- 0.5 GÇö 19-¦1 seconds.
|
ZynnLee Akkori
Perkone Caldari State
39
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 18:00:00 -
[385] - Quote
Ramona McCandless wrote:
Please tell me why you are against putting shield modules in mid slots.
If I choose to mine in "high" security space, which means I have already accepted the smaller yields, vastly increased competition, and restrictions of what I can mine, I shouldn't also have to further restrict myself to certain hull's or fit's that allow me to survive gank attempts, IF those fit's or hulls will result in a lesser yield.
If I could count on Concord to handle the problem in highsec while utilizing a mining ship (or maybe even an industrial?) that is fitted optimally for mining, the greater yields and opportunities I woul dhave in lower security space would be better balanced.
Having so little time to learn the game, it's entirely possible there are mining ships that I can fit a shield onto that will have no negative impact at all on my mining. Is that true for any mining ship I may be able to pilot? Will a single shield extender be enough to delay the attack till Concord arrives? I don't know. In high security, I shouldn't have to worry about that as much as I do now. |
Frumpylumps Faplord
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 18:02:00 -
[386] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote: People like you think you want to be totally safe, but it's a lie, because if you really thought that way you'd not be playing EVE at all.
"you think you want to be safe but you really don't"
|
Angelica Dreamstar
Epic Boo Bees
88
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 18:04:00 -
[387] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Angelica Dreamstar wrote:Oh it is absolute, but not at this point of time. I am simply jumping right to the end of this whole circle, trying to prevent it from continuing and reaching that point in the first place. If you have followed and understand the issue, then you are able to see why it is indeed absolute. The whole circle of complaints and given increased security leads towards the absolute. Absolute safety. Logical fallacy. You are assuming that any single change would result in cascading changes inevitably ending with 100% safety. Totally not the case. It's perfectly reasonable to expect changes to the current mechanic which would not necessarily add more safety as a whole, but steer safety towards newer players. For example, barges above the procurer should require more skills, encouraging newer character to fly that one first, rather than jumping straight into the others. This isn't a single event in a single point of time. Everything evovles. There already were a lot of changes that increased security. For miners, as last example I know, it was the barge buff. Did it stop the complaints? No.
You are looking at it from one point in time, while it's actually a long time frame. One more step and one more step and one more step etc etc. You're not the first to come up with this and you won't be the last. People will always demand as long as they get blown up.
All the reason why this exists is because people refuse to take care of themselves and demand that the system takes care of them. And all this won't stop until they learn it or leave.
So, when do you think people will stop complaining about getting ganked? New player feeling neglected? You're important from day 1!!! Join the Epic Boo Bees! (female chars only, RP!)
|
Ramona McCandless
Epic Boo Bees
2061
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 18:04:00 -
[388] - Quote
ZynnLee Akkori wrote:Ramona McCandless wrote:
Please tell me why you are against putting shield modules in mid slots.
If I choose to mine in "high" security space, which means I have already accepted the smaller yields, vastly increased competition, and restrictions of what I can mine, I shouldn't also have to further restrict myself to certain hull's or fit's that allow me to survive gank attempts, IF those fit's or hulls will result in a lesser yield.
But it doesnt result in a lesser yield. I keep telling you you dont lose any mining ability with shields in midslots! *** Vote MTU For CSM *** "They feel the need to cover their ears and eyes in horror at your very presence." --áPontianak Sythaeryn Omnis nomiom nom nom nomi |
ZynnLee Akkori
Perkone Caldari State
39
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 18:05:00 -
[389] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:lol, OK I'll do it. ZynnLee, security status already works that way, 1.0 is about 5 seconds for response and it's nearly impossible to effectively gank there. 0.5 is around 25 seconds in a prepped system, 20 unprepped.
EDIT: Oh and if it was unclear, 0.6-0.9 scales between the two. Let this be an example of how much I am opposed to ganking. I have actually structured my game around avoiding it. I don't get to do the things I'd like to thanks to the ability to get popped for any or no reason at all. My only ship loss since returning a month ago was a Venture in .5 space, and I think I have a hardener on it....
I have never in all the time played, had Concord show up to punish someone who attacked me. That is how seriously I avoid it. It is completely un-fun. But, I play BF4 almost daily, loved BG in WoW and ToR. A little insight into me that will probably allow my blush to fade faster...... |
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
426
|
Posted - 2014.01.07 18:07:00 -
[390] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:For example, barges above the procurer should require more skills, encouraging newer characters to fly that one first, rather than jumping straight into the others.
/sigh
That sounds like a great idea when you are bringing it up here in a common sense way man.
The reality is that people will not fly a procurer if they can train a little longer for a more ISK/hr ship.
It is no different than combat vessels.
I'll hang out in this Caracal until I can get into a Drake.
I'll hang out in this Drake until I can get into this Raven.
The difference, at least as it seems to me, is that I train support skills
Shields Armor Missiles Navigation Engineering Gunnery Targeting etc.
The miner trains what they need only to the extent that they need to in order to maximize ISK/hr.
If you want an intended consequence of what you are proposing then change the requirements on Barges and Exhumers to include some defensive measures.
Or, you know, mention to the people that come to the forum and holler about gankers, that they can train those skills and fit that tank.
Paranoia never killed anyone. -áA complete absence of it has. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 20 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |