| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Aemun Anarch
    |
Posted - 2008.08.16 12:27:00 -
[541]
People do get punished according to who they committed it against. The man who killed John Lennon did not get parole and likely will not. Someone who killed a homeless man might. The men who killed the president get more of a punishment than the men who kill some druggy in a crack deal.
|
silken mouth
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 14:46:00 -
[542]
Originally by: Zachstar
Originally by: Miyagi Sensei
As much as I think security needs to be improved at the gates, this could also affect another area of the game that needs to be addressed, the ability of concerned players to be able to kill macro-miners when we find them. Macro's have become a much bigger problem lately with as many as 40 or more in a single ice field at any time. They are there 23/7 and, as CCP is either unable or unwilling to stop them, some pilots have taken it upon themselves to do it for the good of the game and to stabilize the markets. The only tool available is the suicide gank.
If enhanced concord response time creates even greater security for these parasites, then they will simply expand as we will no longer be able to kill them before Concord arrives. If you must decrease response times in the entire system, can you offset this by giving us another way to help us get rid of these pests?
They have already given you a tool.. It is called the report..
LuL at people who think they have a "right" to kill farmers instead of gathering evidence so they can be removed from the game..
farmer alt spotted...
|
Startling Revelation
|
Posted - 2008.08.19 12:00:00 -
[543]
Originally by: Haji Moto
...with the exception of the scaled sec status loss. To essentially punish someone based on their target's reputation is akin to altering a persons judicial sentence based on who that person killed.
No, it's to encourage vigilantism, which is fine by me, and by most people.
One other possibility, rather than having all record of criminal activity subsumed in a single, erasable security standing, would be to flag repeated suicide gankers, in a similar way to players with a bounty on them. If a character who's been involved in a certain number of suicide ganks within a certain period were excluded from Empire space irrespective of sec standing, it would be a little more meaningful.
Fact is, these changes aren't going to make a huge difference because it's easy enough to make disposable suicide gank characters - what do you need, about 1.5m SPs? In the absence of detection and punishment of white collar crimes, money laundering, handling stolen goods etc, nothing is going to be done to stop crime paying, any more than you can stop unsuccessful pirates replacing their losses with funds from carebear alts. |
Assimil8r
|
Posted - 2008.08.19 15:09:00 -
[544]
Would any of you pirates/gankers like some cheese with that whine? Or how about, you just STFU and accept the changes that CCP are making? Ever considered that the guys who make this game might just have a better knowledge of how to balance it than you do? Ever considered that launching personal atacks on a dev, becausde you don't like what he/she blogs about, is about as mature as oh, say, stealing a 12-year-old's bicycle? But then, you're pirates... that's the kind of thing you get a kick out of.
For everyone whose brains seem to be located near their rectums, let me make something clear: piracy and ganking are criminal acts. Criminal acts deserve punishment in hi-sec space, and until now, such punishments have been somewhere between "laughable" and "nonexistent". CCP is trying to create a believable game world, and that implies a law enforcement agency that is actually capable of protecting players; this change will make CONCORD the kind of cops that they should have been from day one.
If you want to pirate and gank, do it in low-sec - where you have the same risk as being popped as the guy you're hunting, but don't have to be worried about being CONCORDed. Seriously, this is the best change CCP have made in a long time.
Although, I will agree that the risk/reward ratio is heavily biased in favour of hi-sec, and it's now even more so with this new change. IMO, CCP should consider the introduction of level 6 missions - like L5 but 100 times more lucrative, and of course only available in low-sec. Unfortunately, this still leaves the macro-miner problem unresolved... |
silken mouth
|
Posted - 2008.08.20 08:19:00 -
[545]
Originally by: Assimil8r
Would any of you pirates/gankers like some cheese with that whine? Or how about, you just STFU and accept the changes that CCP are making? Ever considered that the guys who make this game might just have a better knowledge of how to balance it than you do?
Yeah....., right...., zulupark and the overkill speednerf really support your argument... 
Quote:
Unfortunately, this still leaves the macro-miner problem unresolved...
Which is what most people complain about --> insurance removal is nonsense, as long as there is nothing viable against noobcorp-hugging-farmers |
MongWen
Farmer Killers
United Corporations Against Macros
|
Posted - 2008.08.20 10:13:00 -
[546]
Originally by: Zachstar
Originally by: Miyagi Sensei
As much as I think security needs to be improved at the gates, this could also affect another area of the game that needs to be addressed, the ability of concerned players to be able to kill macro-miners when we find them. Macro's have become a much bigger problem lately with as many as 40 or more in a single ice field at any time. They are there 23/7 and, as CCP is either unable or unwilling to stop them, some pilots have taken it upon themselves to do it for the good of the game and to stabilize the markets. The only tool available is the suicide gank.
If enhanced concord response time creates even greater security for these parasites, then they will simply expand as we will no longer be able to kill them before Concord arrives. If you must decrease response times in the entire system, can you offset this by giving us another way to help us get rid of these pests?
They have already given you a tool.. It is called the report..
LuL at people who think they have a "right" to kill farmers instead of gathering evidence so they can be removed from the game..
right... the get removed form game... then tell me why i see "players" that mine 23x7 not missing a cycle for months after they are "reported" still in game ?
And still no human will sit up and active for that time not missing a cycle... |
Patrika Deane
|
Posted - 2008.08.20 11:42:00 -
[547]
Originally by: Vaal Erit
Originally by: Dev blog
In addition, the highly requested feature of removal of insurance in CONCORD related events will be implemented in the near future.
Do NOT put this in. This is a hugely terrible change. If you want to modify insurance, then MODIFY INSURANCE.
Explain to my why suiciding ganks get no insurance, but SUICIDING into 0.0 or SUICIDING your own ship via self-destruct gets you insurance.
Explain to me why Pend Insurance Inc. would insure any ship that is to be flown by a player in a 0.0 alliance or a -10.0 pirate or someone who loses 10 ships a day or someone shooting Gallente/Amarr/Minmatar/Caldari ships in a mission. No, if insurance doesn't make sense for suicide ganking then you have to modify it for ALL types of SUICIDING and RISKY behavior.
This is a bad move CCP. If you do this, there needs to be *balance*, a way for pirates to increase security standings or at least get SOMETHING cool out of it. The pirates/suicide gankers and such are the people providing non-NPC content, nerfing them is penalizing players for interacting with each other in a god damn mf'ing MMORPG.
The rest of the changes I don't care about, but FFS no insurance on suiciding ships is flat-out caving to the whiners, you have ZERO basis or reasoning on this change and I'm calling you out right now. Nerfing level 4 missions is a "highly requested feature" so where is that?
Actually, this is a VERY valid point. The concept of insurance is that of a risk pool. Thos who are in a hihg risk pool pay more for insruance than those ina low risk pool.
A CareBare running missions with a High Sec rating should have a lower insurance premium than a outlaw with a -10 rating. Similarly ... A hi sec rated pilot who loses ships to misisons every week should have a higher premium than a veteran outlaw who loses 1 ship every 6 months.
HOWEVER! Most insurance payments are null and void when the payouts are made as a result of a commission of a felony. So this removal of insurance payouts for CONCORD responses has a contractual and legal basis. |
Ira Black
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 15:14:00 -
[548]
I haven't fully read the topic responses since I'm not really impressed with the response so far. Lot of low-class moaning and childish reactions aimed at persons (instead of opinions).
I have read a few comments that did have a point, so here goes:
I don't really mind gankers. I've been ganked a few times (not afk or transporting valuables) and one of the advantages the current system has is stress. The rage I felt at being ganked is actually what interests me in EVE. A different point of view would be high-sec as farmground and low-sec or 0.0 being PvP areas. That would alter the concept of EVE as it is tho.
As it is, I will enjoy EVE. Whether they make this change or not. |
Gaufres
|
Posted - 2008.08.22 03:41:00 -
[549]
While they are at it, deny travel thru High Sec even to Pods for people who can not fly a ship thru the same area without getting Concorded
|
Ahsekuaw
Brother Theo's Monastery
|
Posted - 2008.08.22 13:37:00 -
[550]
The whole point of the revision of the security system is to move the ganking out to low sec where it belongs. Nobody is stopping you from ganking. Just do it somewhere else.
I for one halfway applaude the change. I say halfway as I don't think it goes far enough in a .9 and 1.0 system. Gankers in those systems should be penalized monitarily in addition to quick death and bigger security hit. Those monitary hits should double after each gank. New players need a place to learn. That's what the .9 and 1.0 systems are for. Pilots that think it's fun to gank a newb in a rookie ship undocking from a station in a 1.0 system are pathetic. They need to be dealt with swiftly. 
I'm not giving CCP a free pass on this. It is their responsibility to ensure the macro pilots are dealt with too. The macro pilots are wrecking the economics of the game. What about Concord and security penalities for them too?
Ahs
|
|
Semkhet
Spartan Industries
|
Posted - 2008.08.22 17:44:00 -
[551]
Originally by: Assimil8r
Would any of you pirates/gankers like some cheese with that whine? Or how about, you just STFU and accept the changes that CCP are making? Ever considered that the guys who make this game might just have a better knowledge of how to balance it than you do?
For everyone whose brains seem to be located near their rectums, let me make something clear: piracy and ganking are criminal acts. Criminal acts deserve punishment in hi-sec space, and until now, such punishments have been somewhere between "laughable" and "nonexistent". CCP is trying to create a believable game world, and that implies a law enforcement agency that is actually capable of protecting players; this change will make CONCORD the kind of cops that they should have been from day one.
If you want to pirate and gank, do it in low-sec - where you have the same risk as being popped as the guy you're hunting, but don't have to be worried about being CONCORDed. Seriously, this is the best change CCP have made in a long time.
Although, I will agree that the risk/reward ratio is heavily biased in favour of hi-sec, and it's now even more so with this new change. IMO, CCP should consider the introduction of level 6 missions - like L5 but 100 times more lucrative, and of course only available in low-sec. Unfortunately, this still leaves the macro-miner problem unresolved...
Here we have The Big Guy with his harsh words, but still afraid to post under his main. Brilliant  (because a 3 months old char is an alt, yeah yeah I know, you have other accounts and your big brother plays also).
First postulate: the devs that make the game are the ones to know how to balance the game. If his brain is slightly bigger than the average guinea pig dodoo, might the Genius tell us where all these mods, rigs, skills and implants that are cyclically either taken away or nerfed come from to start with ?
Second postulate, implying that rectums are something bad. I don't know about you, but my beloved wife has quite a nice butt, and she uses it admirably at my highest entertainment & satisfaction.
Third postulate, that a game world should be "believable". So suddenly the Genius is the self-appointed reference in what makes or not this game believable ? I'll tell you what makes a game believable: IMMERSION. And in the kind of game where EVE pretends to hold a niche, IMMERSION comes from RISK. If you don't like RISK, there are plenty of other games out there that have been specifically designed for all these "mature" players who are even afraid to loose pixels...
Fourth postulate: a law agency is able to protect. But dude, if this doesn't even happen in RL where the stakes are magnitudes higher than in a game ? The only place where you are protected by a law enforcement agency is when living just in front of the precint. Short of that, over 80% of the events only see law enforcement elements intervene when the offense has ALREADY been committed. Sorry, maybe you should wake up and smell the coffee, we ain't living in a perfect world and neither should EvE be the exception.
Fifth postulate: A pirate has the same chances to get popped in low-sec as his victim. Cough cough... Did you ever go in low-sec except for an agonizing transit between high sec systems ? Guess not. I won't loose time to explain you why you are spitting nonsense, you'll have to wait that some compassionate sole does it
Sixth postulate: Micro-miners are bad. I don't know if they are good or bad and frankly I don't care. But most of the peeps who hate macro-miners are... miners. So what do we have here ? The Uber Miner happy that soon EVE will turn into a spreadsheet laid in space ?
On the other hand, it's people like you that makes people like me happy to suicide a ship even if the result is an isk loss, just for the exquisite pleasure of watching your resulting mood in local
 |
ouranei
|
Posted - 2008.08.22 18:21:00 -
[552]
Most crazy situation is leaving station in Jita with a full cargo with a value of more than 400MIsk and discover after the lag in Jita the ship destroyed and the cargo already looted by a suicide gang....easy they have no risk except probably their frigate and they pick cargo and in same time enter in station....no risk for them....no chance for me even to play...
That case is really against game spirit and pleasure to build business in game.....
(sorry for my poor english :p)
Ouranei
|
Heliosium
|
Posted - 2008.08.23 10:10:00 -
[553]
These measures are definitely a step in the right direction, but I have to admit that the whole perfect -10.0 status thing actually forcing players to attack more people than rats is an interesting unforseen consequence.
May I suggest extending the security status to below -10.0, BUT hiding that excess below -10.0? This will give the pirates a bit of cushion so that killing rats doesn't affect their precious -10.0 as much.
|
Smokin' Dragon
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 22:03:00 -
[554]
Edited by: Smokin'' Dragon on 25/08/2008 22:04:59
Having just been a victim in a suicide gank let me tell you what happened ....
Me and my corp (of ten) were out minig ore to build new PVP ship with, so we can join in all the fun and enter CONSENSUAL PvP combat in LO-SEC.
Then along pops a raven and smartbombs the entire operation.
Net result -
Having just spent 6 hours bonding with my corp, having fun, and building ourselves a better future in EVE, some 16 yr old idiot (probable) spoils our entire day, and leaves 1/3 of my corp debating whether to keep playing this game.
Put simply, suicide ganking like this (unprovoked, practically worthless cargo) is pointless and will result in the loss of (a rough guess) 30% of your potential player base who actually want to spend there RL time (you have 70 years approx) BUILDING something. (in this case it amounts to about 50 gbp per month, so its only 1000 GBP, nothing to cry over im sure.... (now scale that up by a factor of 3000) )
To rub salt in the wound, the guy then petitioned me when i told him what i thought of his pointless attack
If all you Yaaaaaar pirates truly believe this is justified, effective and above all NOT POINTLESS AND IRRITATING behaviour, feel free to comment.
Truly ,the point is, if i wanted to pvp a battleship in my barge, i'd be in lo-sec where the minerals might actually be worth the loss of a ship.
If CCP cannot realistically control, minimize or downright prevent this kind of behaviour, what is the point of playing? the only income left is missions, and this becomes a space conquest game.
Personally I prefer counterstrike, there is less lag involved
|
Tehopenee
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 22:47:00 -
[555]
I have played eve now for a couple of years and have noticed the many changes---all aimed at more conflict and less chances for survival for new players. Eve is good if you are a ganker, pirate, high sec thief, and general scammer. I use to like to do missions with different ships and try new things--but why bother? There will only be some jerk comeing in to steal your salvage and you can't shoot back. Well, maybe I will give up on the missions and try mining---wow--can flippers all over the place--I know I will try trade and contracts---whoa scammers all over the place---if you ask about it ccp says no big deal---it is ok for you to be cheated if you dont read carefully. What war dec a can flipper or ore thief--oh no---ccp has decided they can hide in npc corps so you can not war dec them. Now they are worried about gankers. I think some of the ideas are good--but why cant we have a level playing field. I dont mind the thieves--just give me a chance to shoot them. I think things you work for should be yours---or at least give you a chance to fight for it. I know the only comments this will gt is the usual from the gankers about whinning and ccp will totally ignore this. :)
|
Aakaa
Amarr
Murderous Inc
|
Posted - 2008.08.26 01:35:00 -
[556]
NoooooO...
This will mean less explosions in Empire dang it. Muderous Inc steam rolling the gank machine till Security changes hit...
|
WA Dragon
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.08.28 13:19:00 -
[557]
WELDONE CCP you just handed all the games macro miners a get out of jail for ever card you bloody fools
To be or not to be......sorry can you repeat the question? |
WA Dragon
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.08.28 13:50:00 -
[558]
Originally by: Nautsyn Thome
CCP you took my only weapon against Makrominers away!
Please do not let them destroy our game. If you take suicide ganking away, PLEASE remove THEM first!
CCP take no action when Macro miners are petitoned and now it looks as if they are even going as far as to fully protect them. This game is losing its flavor rappidly
To be or not to be......sorry can you repeat the question? |
CMHQ Morswin
|
Posted - 2008.08.28 19:12:00 -
[559]
This makes no sense, how will i be able to gank macro miners now ?
People suicide gank becouse t1 ships are cheap, with insurence it cost 20-30M to lose bs in high sec, while a freghter can drops few billions...
Macro miners are the ones who spoil this game the most, cheap minerals make ganking possible and affordable. If you apply these changes be able to kill any macro miner any more, mineral prices will fall down even lower than they are now (sucide ganking acctualy keep them up) making mining a total lose of time.
As the resoult, small miners will loose isk, and maybe get concorded by an accident, pvp players will have nothing to do in the empire and freighters from bob and ra will fly with billions of isk onboard, and macros will never be interupted again.
I dont even want to talk abaout carebears who put milions of isk on tiny industrials and blame the game for losing it :/
Get rid of lag and macro first
|
Tempo Paradiso
|
Posted - 2008.08.28 21:22:00 -
[560]
I am a Carebear  , and I like being a Carebear missionrunner since I only play for about 1-2 hours.
It doesnFt prevent me from understanding the frustration of the players who make a living being a pirate, preying on the innocent, defenceless and uncareful.
In the end it just forces Carebears, miners, traders and other players who are not into PvP, to think twice before entering lower security space. And if they are flying in valuable goldbirds or moving vast fortunes from point A to B, then they need to operate in groups, posibly with escort ships and good recon.
Knowledge is power, and the key to power is good intelligence. So make use of it all. Send out reconships, use spies etc. Think of the convoys during WWII, the key to their survival was recon planes and picket ships. Its all a case of the chicken outsmarting the fox. If the chicken is to well guarded, the fox will look elsewhere for food.
In order for the Carebear community to fight the dark side of EVE, we need to think like a pirate and operate accordingly.
In the end, these adjustments to Concord wont make suicide gangkers go away or impossible, it will just make it harder and more dangerous.
I do agree with most of the gankers and miners in the fact that macro-miners are a big problem, but in the end that is problem CCP must resolve, not the players. Its only CCP that is able to install software that can monitor the systems for macro miners. And CCP apparently thinks it is ok.
|
|
Nick Domani
|
Posted - 2008.08.29 04:33:00 -
[561]
Originally by: Khanto Thor
Originally by: Vitrael
4. You're removing insurance for CONCORD losses - why? Over suicide gankers? What about the dozens of ships that are CONCORD'd accidentally every day? I think you've fallen down a slipperly slope.
oh wait... you're right there! how many of us have accidentally shot at the stargate instead of our war target 
Hmm...maybe hot-locking targets via a pre-activated weapon isn't such a good idea. Turn off the 'easy mode' of your guns and this won't happen.
|
Uni Zueto
Amarr
Nakama
|
Posted - 2008.08.29 22:31:00 -
[562]
Any insurance company that doesn't try to weasel out of a payout just isn't a proper Insurance Company.
Thankyou CCP for putting the cut throat attitude back into the SCC. Let's see those SCC fiscal reports now...
'May all your ventures be profitable' - Caldari Farewell |
Santana Laurence
|
Posted - 2008.08.31 12:30:00 -
[563]
Edited by: Santana Laurence on 31/08/2008 12:31:37
"Risk" vs. Reward:
If you're blathering about "risk vs. reward" as one of the people who were abusing the insurance bug, and turning a profit by killing ships containing loot with less value than the ship you're flying...you're a useless tool pretending to be a real PvPer. You had less "risk" than your victims, and you're just bandwagoning the whine to muddy the waters. Yeah, carebears should have some risk involved if they carry more than what your ship is worth. And you shouldn't have much of a reward if you shoot at something with less net worth...because if that's the case, you aren't risking enough for the reward you're claiming you deserve for farming your intellectual inferiors.
You are not a ballsy pirate who is doing something clever here. You are a bottomfeeding insurance fraudster; get over it. You ran the point that insurance was broken into the ground and made the game less fun for people who were doing something useful, like popping macro miners. At least they were serving the community!
Gankers == Carebear Education:
You aren't really teaching a carebear a "lesson" about reality when you're abusing the insurance bug; you're just teaching them that you'll blow them up whenever you feel like it as long as the bug still works. While that's the current reality of things because of the broken mechanic...that doesn't change the fact that the mechanic is broken. You'll have to, gasp, move on to only educating carebears who are carrying more than what your ship is worth!
Macro Vigilantes:
You've got a much more reasonable platform to complain about these changes on. I wish it were possible to let you keep doing what you're doing without allowing the "Risk vs. Reward" pretenders force the matter on CCP. I'm all for them coming up with some mechanic that flags anyone who does nothing but go to belts and a station for 24 hours, though.  Anything that empowers you guys without enabling folks to turn a profit off of blowing up ships with less net worth than their ship and fitted modules would be nice. It's hard to prevent one without the other though.
Standing Shifts:
Probably weren't needed. The insurance bug should have come first. While I agree that there needs to be more of a "role" for 0.1-0.4, you need to add non-PvPer incentive for them being used as trade routes. Going out on a limb here, this is probably where the much-needed contraband "market" needs to be pushed...make it profitable to run contraband through these areas and the carebears with teeth will come. Pilots with low to mid range experience would run in small teams, with their opposition being the full-PvPer teams who have no cargo assets to defend on the route. That would be a situation with a fun measure of risk and reward on both sides. (yes, I know there are some logic holes with this, but try to build on the idea or suggest a new one instead of taking a cheap shot  - remember that both carebears and PvPers will need a sizable margin of profit to make 0.1-0.4 work)
|
Mithrandir TFC
Gallente
Laughing Leprechauns Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.08.31 16:37:00 -
[564]
Another step closer to `Hello Kitty` online.
|
Tehopenee
|
Posted - 2008.08.31 22:57:00 -
[565]
I think some of the problems or complaints by some here is caused by their thinking. They must think ccp will actually be reading their whines and do something about it . I havent made up my mind if they do read all the blogs but I dont think they are really interested in making everyone happy---mostly the pirates and thieves and scammers it seems. I could be wrong---but I have never heard of anyone actually getting a ntoe form anyone on their blogs. :)
|
Cpt Branko
Surge.
|
Posted - 2008.09.01 12:46:00 -
[566]
Meh.
All the ISK making opportunities in high-sec (except trading/industry which are PvP activities themselves) need a good hit with the nerf-stick, together with NPC corps.
In a competitive game, if you want safety you need to make some serious trade-offs.
|
Innominate
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.09.01 21:06:00 -
[567]
How do we get from
"Concord provides consequences, not safety."
to
"CONCORD has some issues, mostly that pilots are killed long before CONCORD arrives." |
Fox Walken
Delucian Defence Initiative
|
Posted - 2008.09.01 22:44:00 -
[568]
Few issues with this.
1. -10 standing was never easy, but true -9.999 was, and this just made it easier - as a pirate I find that annoying.
2. Protecting carebears... wish CCP would stop doing this - it is in their nature to whine, so let them, don't feed them, part of EVE's success is that it remains viable for non-consentual PKing, every other game that nerfs this and gives into the bears loses players to EVE. Until EVE gives in too..........
3. Macrominers boost - why? this will benefit macro miner isk sellers way more than the bears.
4. The law of unintended consiquence - there has long been an issue with war-targets in high-sec leaving corps to get enemies concorded, now they can do it to even more effect with the insurance nerf.
The best thing about EVE is that no-one is safe, even in high-sec. Do not feed the bears anymore concessions |
Edric Jin
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 01:00:00 -
[569]
Edited by: Edric Jin on 02/09/2008 01:00:54
About the whole insurance fuss. Insurance is an aspect of the game completely unregulated by player activity. It doesn't fluctuate or alter depending on how many ships you lose, or acts in any way like a dynamic market. Because of this fact alone, taking advantage of one of the few financially static areas of EVE to go suicide ganking is abusing an exploit. Even CONCORDS original design philosophy of consequences > protection wasn't being upheld. It's a blip caused by two different models conflicting, nothing more.
Also, this game has never been about an entirely lawless area of space, and for the most part I don't see the problem in making zones that are meant to be heavily policed a greater detterent to piracy.
|
Peregrine
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 07:18:00 -
[570]
Originally by: Reikku
Originally by: Plave Okice
Have you forgotten what this game was supposed to be about?
Where are the old devs who made this game a dark and harsh universe?
Originally by: CCP Fear
Be safe out there!
Hopefully this answers to your question of where CCP is steering this game.
Theyre trying to compete with HELLO KITTY online!
Infact, I heard theyve attempted recruiting CCP Fear for their new "OMG I can cuddle it" program.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |