Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 300 .. 343 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
1090
|
Posted - 2017.04.08 23:21:42 -
[9481] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:You guys just never give up on the false equivalence of cloaks vs. being docked. They aren't comparable. Who says anyone needs to evade a cloaked ship? What if someone just wants to hunt it because it happens to be in space? That's a good enough reason to hunt literally every thing else in the game.
You did. You said people need to evade a cloaked ship.
Mike Voidstar wrote:Everyone else must actively evade
Cloaked ships are part of 'everyone', aren't they? What if I want to hunt someone just because they happen to be logged in, but they are docked? Get rid of docking! Sorry for using your logic and your own words against you.
For the third time, how can anyone cloaked hurt you? They can't activate modules. They can't shoot. |
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
301
|
Posted - 2017.04.08 23:22:48 -
[9482] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:What if someone just wants to hunt it because it happens to be in space?
Too bad. The whole point of fitting a cloak is that you can't be hunted. Removing the reason for cloaks to exist is an incredibly stupid idea, motivated primarily by people who can't stand the thought of 0.0 carebearing being at all dangerous. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1183
|
Posted - 2017.04.08 23:25:31 -
[9483] - Quote
You still don't show a need for a 'counter' to Local.
It's an unrelated issue, where the only real problem is the minor loading time when you enter a system. Any more than that and you are asking for an actively tilted playing field in your direction.
Beyond loading time it works exactly the same for everyone.
The part you don't like is when an alliance's worth of people gather together and use it collectively, an amount of effort you want to handwave away with a trivial module. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1183
|
Posted - 2017.04.08 23:26:28 -
[9484] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:You guys just never give up on the false equivalence of cloaks vs. being docked. They aren't comparable. Who says anyone needs to evade a cloaked ship? What if someone just wants to hunt it because it happens to be in space? That's a good enough reason to hunt literally every thing else in the game. You did. You said people need to evade a cloaked ship. Mike Voidstar wrote:Everyone else must actively evade Cloaked ships are part of 'everyone', aren't they? What if I want to hunt someone just because they happen to be logged in, but they are docked? Get rid of docking! Sorry for using your logic and your own words against you. For the third time, how can anyone cloaked hurt you? They can't activate modules. They can't shoot.
Too bad. Docking is specifically in game so that you can aquire assets and give gameplay meaning.
It does not matter if a cloaked ship can't shoot. Are you suggesting just shutting down your modules should make you invulnerable to interaction? I mean, it's going to make Pods and shuttles a lot more powerful.... |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1183
|
Posted - 2017.04.08 23:28:34 -
[9485] - Quote
Merin Ryskin wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:What if someone just wants to hunt it because it happens to be in space? Too bad. The whole point of fitting a cloak is that you can't be hunted. Removing the reason for cloaks to exist is an incredibly stupid idea, motivated primarily by people who can't stand the thought of 0.0 carebearing being at all dangerous.
Actually, it's to enable stealth gameplay.
There is a wide gulf between hard to find and impossible to find. |
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
1090
|
Posted - 2017.04.08 23:29:10 -
[9486] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Too bad. Docking is specifically in game so that you can aquire assets and give gameplay meaning.
Too bad. Cloaking is in game so that you can hide while not docked (at the cost of not being able to shoot anyone or earn isk) and thus give gameplay meaning.
You're literally proving my point.
And we have shown a need for a counter to local. In sov null local keeps PvE-ers safe literally 100% of the time. Your only excuse is "well sometimes they don't pay attention, so 100% safety is OK" |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1183
|
Posted - 2017.04.08 23:31:23 -
[9487] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:Too bad. Docking is specifically in game so that you can aquire assets and give gameplay meaning. Too bad. Cloaking is in game so that you can hide while not docked (at the cost of not being able to shoot anyone or earn isk) and thus give gameplay meaning. You're literally proving my point. And we have shown a need for a counter to local. In sov null local keeps PvE-ers safe literally 100% of the time. Your only excuse is "well sometimes they don't pay attention, so 100% safety is OK"
Except anything in space is supposed to be subject to non-consensual PvP. Cloaks fail that test. Your point is invalid.
If PVE-ers are safe, how do they ever die? If it's 100% of the time, they should be safe while afk, the way cloaks are. That's not the case, your point is invalid. |
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
301
|
Posted - 2017.04.08 23:31:51 -
[9488] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:You still don't show a need for a 'counter' to Local.
What happened to your idea that everything needs a counter? Or does that only apply to cloaks?
Quote:It's an unrelated issue, where the only real problem is the minor loading time when you enter a system.
Oh FFS, are you honestly this stupid or are you just trolling? We've explained this to you many, many times. The issue has nothing to do with 1-2 seconds of loading delay, it's about the fact that the time between appearing in local (even if your appearance is delayed for 1-2 seconds while you load the system) and getting a lock within tackle range is far greater than the time required to warp out from a PvE site and be 100% safe at a station. Therefore it is virtually impossible to kill any player that does not wish to be caught, as long as they are willing to abandon their PvE site until you leave.
Cloaking is one of the few counters to this because long-term cloaking in a system obscures whether or not a player is an active threat. So everyone else has a choice: shut down all PvE indefinitely, or undock and accept a level of risk. If you remove local there would be no reason to AFK cloak, if you aren't actively playing you just log out until you're ready to come back.
Quote:The part you don't like is when an alliance's worth of people gather together and use it collectively, an amount of effort you want to handwave away with a trivial module.
Lolwut? There is no "alliance worth of people" involved here, only a single player. You don't need elaborate alliance intel networks to notice an unknown player enter local and warp back to a station. The intel network only increases the advance warning time to the point that even the most incompetent players can escape, no matter how careless they are. I've done plenty of zero-risk carebearing in 0.0 in a one-man corp, with local as my only intel source.
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
301
|
Posted - 2017.04.08 23:34:39 -
[9489] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Except anything in space is supposed to be subject to non-consensual PvP.
Where did you get that rule from? A ship in warp is not subject to PvP. A ship that is aligned to a station at full speed is not subject to PvP. A ship within docking range of a station is not subject to PvP. A ship in a safespot with d-scan watching for combat probes is not subject to PvP. Etc Fitting a cloak is just one of the ways to avoid PvP, at an incredibly high cost. You can't engage in PvP yourself without dropping cloak, and just fitting one carries a heavy penalty.
Quote:If PVE-ers are safe, how do they ever die?
Again, incompetence. The fact that some people are really stupid and suck at EVE doesn't negate the fact that the existing mechanics provide 100% safety if you use them correctly. You balance around the assumption that people will play correctly, not the assumption that they will be incompetent morons who randomly commit suicide. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1183
|
Posted - 2017.04.08 23:34:50 -
[9490] - Quote
Merin Ryskin wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:You still don't show a need for a 'counter' to Local. What happened to your idea that everything needs a counter? Or does that only apply to cloaks? Quote:It's an unrelated issue, where the only real problem is the minor loading time when you enter a system. Oh FFS, are you honestly this stupid or are you just trolling? We've explained this to you many, many times. The issue has nothing to do with 1-2 seconds of loading delay, it's about the fact that the time between appearing in local (even if your appearance is delayed for 1-2 seconds while you load the system) and getting a lock within tackle range is far greater than the time required to warp out from a PvE site and be 100% safe at a station. Therefore it is virtually impossible to kill any player that does not wish to be caught, as long as they are willing to abandon their PvE site until you leave. Cloaking is one of the few counters to this because long-term cloaking in a system obscures whether or not a player is an active threat. So everyone else has a choice: shut down all PvE indefinitely, or undock and accept a level of risk. If you remove local there would be no reason to AFK cloak, if you aren't actively playing you just log out until you're ready to come back. Quote:The part you don't like is when an alliance's worth of people gather together and use it collectively, an amount of effort you want to handwave away with a trivial module. Lolwut? There is no "alliance worth of people" involved here, only a single player. You don't need elaborate alliance intel networks to notice an unknown player enter local and warp back to a station. The intel network only increases the advance warning time to the point that even the most incompetent players can escape, no matter how careless they are. I've done plenty of zero-risk carebearing in 0.0 in a one-man corp, with local as my only intel source.
Talk to Teckos about the loading time. He brings it up constantly when anyone suggests that local works the same for everyone. I just accept he is right on that one point, and it can be addressed easily.
Local is a game condition. Asking for a counter to it is like asking for a counter to asteroids or how shiny the local star is.
|
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
301
|
Posted - 2017.04.08 23:36:28 -
[9491] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Local is a game condition. Asking for a counter to it is like asking for a counter to asteroids or how shiny the local star is.
Sorry, but that's ****ing stupid. Local is a tool that people use, not just an aesthetic item like how shiny the star is. If cloaking as a tool requires a counter because everything needs a counter then so does local. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1183
|
Posted - 2017.04.08 23:37:54 -
[9492] - Quote
Merin Ryskin wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:Except anything in space is supposed to be subject to non-consensual PvP. Where did you get that rule from? A ship in warp is not subject to PvP. A ship that is aligned to a station at full speed is not subject to PvP. A ship within docking range of a station is not subject to PvP. A ship in a safespot with d-scan watching for combat probes is not subject to PvP. Etc Fitting a cloak is just one of the ways to avoid PvP, at an incredibly high cost. You can't engage in PvP yourself without dropping cloak, and just fitting one carries a heavy penalty. Quote:If PVE-ers are safe, how do they ever die? Again, incompetence. The fact that some people are really stupid and suck at EVE doesn't negate the fact that the existing mechanics provide 100% safety if you use them correctly. You balance around the assumption that people will play correctly, not the assumption that they will be incompetent morons who randomly commit suicide.
If they are safe 100% of the time, incompetence isn't a factor. You can't claim it's safe when it isn't.
In point of fact, other than in warp you are subject to PvP in all of your listed circumstances. What you have a problem with is that those people can quickly leave the play area. They can still be located, locked, and modules activated on them, or bumped around, or any other sort of interaction possible in game so long as they remain in the play area.
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
301
|
Posted - 2017.04.08 23:57:32 -
[9493] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:If they are safe 100% of the time, incompetence isn't a factor. You can't claim it's safe when it isn't.
Oh FFS, is this idiotic nitpicking the best you've got? Nothing is safe if you assume incompetence. Being cloaked is not, because you could decloak yourself and get killed. Even being docked in station isn't 100% safety, because you could accidentally hit the "trash" button. But if we assume competent play by everyone involved it's 100% safety.
Quote:In point of fact, other than in warp you are subject to PvP in all of your listed circumstances. What you have a problem with is that those people can quickly leave the play area. They can still be located, locked, and modules activated on them, or bumped around, or any other sort of interaction possible in game so long as they remain in the play area.
And because leaving the play area is instant (literally less than one second between clicking "leave" and being immune to PvP) this translates into 100% safety. You will never successfully interact with those people if they don't want to be interacted with. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1183
|
Posted - 2017.04.09 02:49:29 -
[9494] - Quote
Merin Ryskin wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:If they are safe 100% of the time, incompetence isn't a factor. You can't claim it's safe when it isn't. Oh FFS, is this idiotic nitpicking the best you've got? Nothing is safe if you assume incompetence. Being cloaked is not, because you could decloak yourself and get killed. Even being docked in station isn't 100% safety, because you could accidentally hit the "trash" button. But if we assume competent play by everyone involved it's 100% safety. Quote:In point of fact, other than in warp you are subject to PvP in all of your listed circumstances. What you have a problem with is that those people can quickly leave the play area. They can still be located, locked, and modules activated on them, or bumped around, or any other sort of interaction possible in game so long as they remain in the play area. And because leaving the play area is instant (literally less than one second between clicking "leave" and being immune to PvP) this translates into 100% safety. You will never successfully interact with those people if they don't want to be interacted with.
It's not nitpicking. It's a vital difference between the safety a cloak provides, and the 'safety' you claim local provides. With a cloak you must opt in to risky behavior. Without a cloak, just being in space is inherently risky and you must opt out in order to be safe. Thus you can afk with unlimited impunity under a cloak, whereas going afk without one is a death sentence if an enemy shows up.
Leaving space is supposed to be safe. It's one of the very most fundamental parts of gameplay--- in space is not safe, out of space is safe.
If you are easily confused, you can try and draw the false equivalence with cloaks being like docking, but it's been done to death. Docks are not a module. Local is not a module. Modules are not the same as fundamental game conditions. |
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6370
|
Posted - 2017.04.09 04:21:58 -
[9495] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Talk to Teckos about the loading time. He brings it up constantly when anyone suggests that local works the same for everyone. I just accept he is right on that one point, and it can be addressed easily.
Local is a game condition. Asking for a counter to it is like asking for a counter to asteroids or how shiny the local star is.
If 2 players are in system local works exactly the same. It does not when one player jumps into a system where another player is in that system. As you are watching the warp tunnel and waiting for grid to load, watch local, you'll see the guy already in system...but you cannot do anything as you are waiting for the grid to load. The player already in system has the grid loaded and can GTFO.
You can verify this with a single account and a buddy. Or you can verify it with 2 accounts both logged in at the same time. Many people have verified this.
Further I don't think it can be fixed other than by having the person jumping not show in local for a period of time--e.g. you don't show so long at your jump cloak is active. Once it drops you are visible in local and local is visible to you. That would "fix it".
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6370
|
Posted - 2017.04.09 04:25:29 -
[9496] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:You guys just never give up on the false equivalence of cloaks vs. being docked. They aren't comparable. Who says anyone needs to evade a cloaked ship? What if someone just wants to hunt it because it happens to be in space? That's a good enough reason to hunt literally every thing else in the game.
Weren't you making that comparison at one time? That being cloaked is like being as safe as docked? Never seen anyone killed while docked.....
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1183
|
Posted - 2017.04.09 11:24:19 -
[9497] - Quote
Not sure what your trying to prove there....
In each quote there I was pointing out that it was a problem.
Cloaking modules aren't stations, thus they should not be providing that level of safety.
I guess that's too hard for you to grasp though, so you are trying twist the meaning by taking it out of context. Yet you failed. |
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6370
|
Posted - 2017.04.09 17:10:58 -
[9498] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Not sure what your trying to prove there....
In each quote there I was pointing out that it was a problem.
Cloaking modules aren't stations, thus they should not be providing that level of safety.
I guess that's too hard for you to grasp though, so you are trying twist the meaning by taking it out of context. Yet you failed.
Mike Voidstar wrote:You guys just never give up on the false equivalence of cloaks vs. being docked. They aren't comparable.
What were you saying about false equivalency? What were you saying about logical fallacies.
I completely understand your argument though Mike. So does Sonya. In fact she was pointing out certain aspects of your argument, then you engaged equivocation because you did not like the implications.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6370
|
Posted - 2017.04.09 17:28:54 -
[9499] - Quote
See Mike you kinda hit the nail a few posts back. You are correct in that we have a position and argue from that position, but you were wrong in that we don't use fallacies, rhetorical loops, etc. We in fact use logical and consistent arguments. We don't have to jump around doing things like saying cloaks are like stations and the false equivalency that cloaks are like stations, and then jump through hoops to try and justify that obvious contradiction. So basically we have a position (no goal post moving) and over time we have refined the arguments against nerfing cloaks for the sake of nerfing cloaks.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
1093
|
Posted - 2017.04.09 18:44:27 -
[9500] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Cloaking modules aren't stations, thus they should not be providing that level of safety.
Why? Stations give you safety and the ability to earn isk by trading, cloaks give you safety and a degree of mobility without the ability to earn isk. Balance. |
|
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6370
|
Posted - 2017.04.09 19:22:37 -
[9501] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:Cloaking modules aren't stations, thus they should not be providing that level of safety. Why? Stations give you safety and the ability to earn isk by trading, cloaks give you safety and a degree of mobility without the ability to earn isk. Balance.
Don't forget jump clones which give a type of mobility too.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
1093
|
Posted - 2017.04.09 20:03:29 -
[9502] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Don't forget jump clones which give a type of mobility too.
And basically risk free cyno-ing from citadel to citadel |
B Caster
0ne True Cave The Bastion
0
|
Posted - 2017.04.10 20:50:10 -
[9503] - Quote
I was lately thinking about something like super weapon to Fortizar and Keepstar class citadels. It would take huge amount of fuel for activation and makeing it getting warming up for few minutes. at moment of initialize process of warming up anybody in the system will receive communicate on local about warming up of that module. And then the citadel will emit short, bright burning all active cloak modules flash in moment of warmup timer end. All AFK-ing campers will be decloaked and ready to be dead and module will enter into cooldown mode. There will be no AFK in cloak camp. Its a best solution. If u want to be cloaky camper u must be active, in other way u will be with out cloak and already probed. |
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6387
|
Posted - 2017.04.10 21:16:17 -
[9504] - Quote
B Caster wrote:I was lately thinking about something like super weapon to Fortizar and Keepstar class citadels. It would take huge amount of fuel for activation and makeing it getting warming up for few minutes. at moment of initialize process of warming up anybody in the system will receive communicate on local about warming up of that module. And then the citadel will emit short, bright burning all active cloak modules flash in moment of warmup timer end. All AFK-ing campers will be decloaked and ready to be dead and module will enter into cooldown mode. There will be no AFK in cloak camp. Its a best solution. If u want to be cloaky camper u must be active, in other way u will be with out cloak and already probed.
Why should an ATK cloak user have his game nerfed?
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
Vic Jefferson
Brand Newbros Test Alliance Please Ignore
1212
|
Posted - 2017.04.11 08:15:24 -
[9505] - Quote
B Caster wrote:I was lately thinking about something like super weapon to Fortizar and Keepstar class citadels. It would take huge amount of fuel for activation and makeing it getting warming up for few minutes. at moment of initialize process of warming up anybody in the system will receive communicate on local about warming up of that module. And then the citadel will emit short, bright burning all active cloak modules flash in moment of warmup timer end. All AFK-ing campers will be decloaked and ready to be dead and module will enter into cooldown mode. There will be no AFK in cloak camp. Its a best solution. If u want to be cloaky camper u must be active, in other way u will be with out cloak and already probed.
This would be fine, if cloaks actually hid players in the first place, which they do not thanks to local. Local already provides the defender with perfect counter-play to active hunting, and that would give them perfect counter-play to passive hunting.
I just don't get where there is this idea that most people like cloaky camping. It's terrible and awful, but it's one of the only ways around local via intel saturation. I.E. people would generally be fine (outside of wormholes) if here was a module that countered cloaks if cloaks weren't already countered 100% by local.
Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?
|
George'o Santanigo
we are down syndrome inPanic
0
|
Posted - 2017.04.11 09:45:56 -
[9506] - Quote
Why cant you just set Cloaking on a 30 min timer. Every 30 minutes Cloak will need to be reactivated or the cloak comes down. Another idea if you are cloaked up and inactive after X amount of time it logs the pilot out of the game. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18826
|
Posted - 2017.04.11 10:36:22 -
[9507] - Quote
George'o Santanigo wrote:Why cant you just set Cloaking on a 30 min timer. Every 30 minutes Cloak will need to be reactivated or the cloak comes down. Another idea if you are cloaked up and inactive after X amount of time it logs the pilot out of the game.
Because AFK cloaking is the only counter to local based intel systems. |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
1183
|
Posted - 2017.04.11 13:12:51 -
[9508] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:Cloaking modules aren't stations, thus they should not be providing that level of safety. Why? Stations give you safety and the ability to earn isk by trading, cloaks give you safety and a degree of mobility without the ability to earn isk. Balance.
Because Stations aren't modules. It's really that simple. Modules provide a ship functionality in space. Stations are a safe place for your ship to park. They aren't the same, or even comparable except in the most superficial way.
Everything in space is supposed to be at risk of non-consensual PvP. That cannot be provided by a module, as a module must be on a ship that is in space to function. |
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6387
|
Posted - 2017.04.11 16:40:38 -
[9509] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Sonya Corvinus wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:Cloaking modules aren't stations, thus they should not be providing that level of safety. Why? Stations give you safety and the ability to earn isk by trading, cloaks give you safety and a degree of mobility without the ability to earn isk. Balance. Because Stations aren't modules. It's really that simple. Modules provide a ship functionality in space. Stations are a safe place for your ship to park. They aren't the same, or even comparable except in the most superficial way. Everything in space is supposed to be at risk of non-consensual PvP. That cannot be provided by a module, as a module must be on a ship that is in space to function.
Look everybody, Mike's using a false equivalency.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6387
|
Posted - 2017.04.11 17:19:40 -
[9510] - Quote
Sonya Corvinus wrote:Mike Voidstar wrote:Cloaking modules aren't stations, thus they should not be providing that level of safety. Why? Stations give you safety and the ability to earn isk by trading, cloaks give you safety and a degree of mobility without the ability to earn isk. Balance.
I would add to this that the "station like safety" that Mike is going on about is only if you are at a safe you only know about and you do not move from it. Thus, the safety is very limitingGǪnot unlike with a station. My point about jump clones is that you probably have more safe travel than you do with a cloak. If anyone is engaged in a false equivalency here it is Mike. Mike wants everyone to believe that once you slap on a cloak and activate the module thatGÇÖs it. You are as safe as if you were in station. My arguments against this is that it is only true in a very limited context. It is not true if you are on grid with others. That means it is not true if you are near a station, a POS, some other structure. It is not true with gates. With a cloak you do not get the risk free travel you do with a station. Granted the station is limited in that you can only travel to where your JCs are. So with a cloak you trade off that absolute safety for a greater range of destinations. Why this is seen as unbalanced by Mike, IDK. Strikes me as reasonably balanced.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 200 300 .. 343 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |