EVE Search - CCP: "Griefing" policy question

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

CCP: "Griefing" policy question

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
The Apostle The Black Priests 204	Posted - 2011.10.08 03:33:00 - [1] - Quote So CCP, please explain... Under griefing rules/policy Quote: At our discretion, players who are found to be consistently maliciously interfering with the game experience for others may receive a warning, temporary suspension or permanent banning of his account. Current "fun" being enjoyed by a limited number of 0.0 alliances on empire players is consistently and maliciously interfering with the game experience for others. Source: http://support.eveonline.com/Pages/KB/Article.aspx?id=336 Is the "at our discretion" statement the mitigating factor? Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. WTB: An Austrian kangaroo!
Kehro Urgus Aliastra Gallente Federation 6	Posted - 2011.10.08 03:38:00 - [2] - Quote Lose a hulk recently?
Jovan Geldon Lead Farmers Kill It With Fire 37	Posted - 2011.10.08 03:39:00 - [3] - Quote Quote: At our discretion, players who are found to be consistently maliciously interfering with the game experience for others may receive a warning, temporary suspension or permanent banning of his account. Emphasis mine. Economic warfare is still warfare; it's only malicious if you are gaining literally nothing from it.
gfldex 7	Posted - 2011.10.08 03:42:00 - [4] - Quote I would bet it's "maliciously". How can it be bad to explode internet spaceships in a internet spaceship pvp game? Anyway, if you want an answer to your question you need to file a petition. In contrast to popular believe, the forum will only get you attention, not knowledge.
The Apostle The Black Priests 204	Posted - 2011.10.08 03:53:00 - [5] - Quote Jovan Geldon wrote: Quote: At our discretion, players who are found to be consistently maliciously interfering with the game experience for others may receive a warning, temporary suspension or permanent banning of his account. Emphasis mine. Economic warfare is still warfare; it's only malicious if you are gaining literally nothing from it. Firstly, no lost Hulks. Wouldn't complain if I did. Be my own fault. And for the record, the definition of malicious, consistent and interfering are NOT related to anything economic. The whole "bot kills" and "commodity throttling" is all smoke and mirrors for consistent and malicious bully-boy behaviour. This "campaign" is not random shoots and corp kills - it is a VERY deliberate and co-ordinated approach that is interfering with the play of others. For mine, if what the G**N's are doing is NOT deemed griefing then NOTHING in game can be called griefing - ever. I'm just after a clear definition of the rule. I see it as a topic for debate. Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. WTB: An Austrian kangaroo!
EnderCapitalG GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 117	Posted - 2011.10.08 04:10:00 - [6] - Quote So, goons blowing up ships in Eve: Online is now considered griefing?
Renan Ruivo Hipernova Vera Cruz Alliance 98	Posted - 2011.10.08 04:14:00 - [7] - Quote Jovan Geldon wrote: Quote: At our discretion, players who are found to be consistently maliciously interfering with the game experience for others may receive a warning, temporary suspension or permanent banning of his account. Emphasis mine. Economic warfare is still warfare; it's only malicious if you are gaining literally nothing from it. This. Killing ice-miners is being done with an economic agenda in mind (that dude will say otherwise, but he lie) Which is different from killing someone over and over just to annoy that particular person. Ain't nothing but business xD Sometimes the only difference between a budding genius and a blooming idiot is where they chose to take a stand.
Mr Epeen It's All About Me 356	Posted - 2011.10.08 04:14:00 - [8] - Quote What the goons are doing is denial of assets. They are picking on ice miners in general. If they started a campaign against one specific miner, an argument could be made for griefing... maybe. But, as repugnant as it is for most right thinking gamers, it's well within the rules to do what they are doing. Mr Epeen If you can read this, you haven't blocked me yet.
Kengutsi Akira 20	Posted - 2011.10.08 04:14:00 - [9] - Quote The Apostle wrote: So CCP, please explain... Under griefing rules/policy Quote: At our discretion, players who are found to be consistently maliciously interfering with the game experience for others may receive a warning, temporary suspension or permanent banning of his account. Current "fun" being enjoyed by a limited number of 0.0 alliances on empire players is consistently and maliciously interfering with the game experience for others. Source: http://support.eveonline.com/Pages/KB/Article.aspx?id=336 Is the "at our discretion" statement the mitigating factor? Working as intended. Just as on the forums, and as it was for BoB before them, the rules do not apply to Goons. Look around at how often they get moderated here for things such as trolling as in never lol tho; good try
The Apostle The Black Priests 204	Posted - 2011.10.08 04:15:00 - [10] - Quote EnderCapitalG wrote: So, goons blowing up ships in Eve: Online is now considered griefing? When it is co-ordinated and malicious yes imo. I'm asking the question tbh. Is it or should it be? It's not random ganks, it's not war-decs and nor is it 0 v 0 gudfites. It is DELIBERATELY and CONSISTENTLY interfering with the average empire players enjoyment of the game. As a G**N, I'm surprised you haven't said "Yes, that's what we do..." Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. WTB: An Austrian kangaroo!

Kengutsi Akira 20	Posted - 2011.10.08 04:17:00 - [11] - Quote Renan Ruivo wrote: Jovan Geldon wrote: Quote: At our discretion, players who are found to be consistently maliciously interfering with the game experience for others may receive a warning, temporary suspension or permanent banning of his account. Emphasis mine. Economic warfare is still warfare; it's only malicious if you are gaining literally nothing from it. This. Killing ice-miners is being done with an economic agenda in mind (that dude will say otherwise, but he lie) Which is different from killing someone over and over just to annoy that particular person. Ain't nothing but business xD Theres your camoflage. Its how Hulkageddon wasnt griefing because it was to "control the bot population" Which was bullshit but still If you think theres an issue, petition it. then you can ask yourself. It only took me like an hour or so to get an answer lol The GMs in this game are amazing at shutting their eyes when they want to Or pretending they dont know whats going on
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 336	Posted - 2011.10.08 04:31:00 - [12] - Quote The Apostle wrote: And for the record, the definition of malicious, consistent and interfering are NOT related to anything economic. No, but GÇ£maliciously interfering with the game experience of othersGÇ¥ is: killing people for gain is not an interference with the game experience GÇö it is the game experience. What that sentence means is that you are not allowed to keep people from playing the game; that you cannot target certain individuals and harass them for the sole purpose of keeping them from logging in. Quote: For mine, if what the G*N's are doing is NOT deemed griefing then NOTHING in game can be called griefing - ever. There are plenty of things that can be considered griefing GÇö the goon campaigns never qualify due to their very broad scope and speculative effects. They target activities* and possibly locations, not people, much less individuals. They're just causing general havoc (or wellGÇª trying to, at least) and having fun (and profit) in the process, all of which is entirely legal. In fact, one might even say that they're playing EVE in its purest form. Quote: I'm just after a clear definition of the rule. I see it as a topic for debate. It is pretty clear as it is. You're just not fully in tune with what counts as malicious around here. Continuously deccing, ganking, camping, abusing and harassing a single person for no reason is griefing GÇö going after anyone who does/flies/lives in X is not. They're not being targeted specifically, and can simply do/fly/live something or somewhere else. Taking advantage of quirks in various mechanics to prey on people who have not yet had the chance to grasp those mechanics (aka newbie griefing) is griefing GÇö going after people who have come so far as to sit in T2 ships and mine and refine a complicated resource such as ice is not. Causing server overloads (or even crashes) so other people can't even get in the game, or have trouble loading it, for what almost amounts to hardware reasons could conceivably be considered griefing, but that is covered by a whole slew of other rules as well and isn't particularly relevant here anyway. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á
Kengutsi Akira 21	Posted - 2011.10.08 04:39:00 - [13] - Quote Tippia wrote: The Apostle wrote: And for the record, the definition of malicious, consistent and interfering are NOT related to anything economic. No, but GÇ£maliciously interfering with the game experience of othersGÇ¥ is: killing people for gain is not an interference with the game experience GÇö it is the game experience. What that sentence means is that you are not allowed to keep people from playing the game; that you cannot target certain individuals and harass them for the sole purpose of keeping them from logging in. How precisely would you do that... Hack their Info, get their address and go break their computer? Imo this is a side effect of goons helping 0.0 be taken over. Less open territory = less conflict = more boredom. Id assume there to be more of these type things in the future as they get more and more bored, especially once 0.0 is completely under the massive alliance's thumb.
EnderCapitalG GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 117	Posted - 2011.10.08 04:47:00 - [14] - Quote Kengutsi Akira wrote: Tippia wrote: The Apostle wrote: And for the record, the definition of malicious, consistent and interfering are NOT related to anything economic. No, but GÇ£maliciously interfering with the game experience of othersGÇ¥ is: killing people for gain is not an interference with the game experience GÇö it is the game experience. What that sentence means is that you are not allowed to keep people from playing the game; that you cannot target certain individuals and harass them for the sole purpose of keeping them from logging in. How precisely would you do that... Hack their Info, get their address and go break their computer? Imo this is a side effect of goons helping 0.0 be taken over. Less open territory = less conflict = more boredom. Id assume there to be more of these type things in the future as they get more and more bored, especially once 0.0 is completely under the massive alliance's thumb. I'd really blame game mechanics on that one. Also, the best part is just about anyone is using their alts to do the ganking while they leave their main accounts down in Delve where we're still fighting, so it's not like we're even 100% concentrating on the highsec stuff in the first place.
EVE Stig Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 16	Posted - 2011.10.08 04:48:00 - [15] - Quote Kengutsi Akira wrote: If you think theres an issue, petition it. then you can ask yourself. ^^ EnderCapitalG wrote: Also, the best part is just about anyone is using their alts to do the ganking Just make sure you dont recycle them, that actually has been called an exploit in the past, though if you guys do it Im sure it wont be. "Some say that he is actually dead, but the Grim Reaper is too afraid to tell him." "Some say he is the 3rd member of Daft Punk and he did the vocals of "Technologic" song. All we know is,he's called EVE Stig"!
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 457	Posted - 2011.10.08 04:51:00 - [16] - Quote The Apostle wrote: Jovan Geldon wrote: Quote: At our discretion, players who are found to be consistently maliciously interfering with the game experience for others may receive a warning, temporary suspension or permanent banning of his account. Emphasis mine. Economic warfare is still warfare; it's only malicious if you are gaining literally nothing from it. Firstly, no lost Hulks. Wouldn't complain if I did. Be my own fault. And for the record, the definition of malicious, consistent and interfering are NOT related to anything economic. They are in EVE. There is long standing precedent for this: if you can demonstrate that you have a reasonable in-game motive for what you're doing, then it doesn't matter if it makes the victim abloobloohoo into his coffee all day long. Goons can credibly claim to be trying to corner the Gallente ice products market to their own advantage. Case dismissed. In case you haven't noticed, EVE does in fact allow non-consensual PvP. If campaigns were to be forbidden purely because the losing side was :sadface: about it, then no 0.0 war could ever happen. All that's happening here is that some people in hi-sec are getting a taste - a very, very mild, attenuated taste - of what it's like to fight an actual campaign in EVE. I can think of no reason whatsoever that hi-sec players as a whole should be totally immune to campaigns of organised violence. The rules of hi-sec are the same as they always were: nothing has changed, no rules are being broken. They're merely being applied in an organised, systematic way. The only thing that has changed is that these people have been left to endlessly make risk-free ISK for so long that they think it's not just normal but something they're entitled to. You consent to PvP when you undock your ships, whether you accept this or not. All the fuss is merely the startling realisation that this applies to ice-miners as much as it does to anyone else. There is no entitlement to safety. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players. Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 457	Posted - 2011.10.08 04:53:00 - [17] - Quote dp Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players. Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
EVE Stig Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 16	Posted - 2011.10.08 04:56:00 - [18] - Quote Malcanis wrote: I can think of no reason whatsoever that hi-sec players as a whole should be totally immune to campaigns of organised violence. In fact it would be amazing if all of 0.0 rose up and decided to kill the carebears in highsec. Arent there more in 0.0 than Empire? Theres more 0.0 space right? "Some say that he is actually dead, but the Grim Reaper is too afraid to tell him." "Some say he is the 3rd member of Daft Punk and he did the vocals of "Technologic" song. All we know is,he's called EVE Stig"!
Renan Ruivo Hipernova Vera Cruz Alliance 98	Posted - 2011.10.08 04:58:00 - [19] - Quote Malcanis wrote: dp Double penetration? EVE Stig wrote: Malcanis wrote: I can think of no reason whatsoever that hi-sec players as a whole should be totally immune to campaigns of organised violence. In fact it would be amazing if all of 0.0 rose up and decided to kill the carebears in highsec. Arent there more in 0.0 than Empire? Theres more 0.0 space right? I think it would be fun if 0.0 was in the middle and high-sec on the border. So if high-sec people want to get to the other side they either have to cross 0.0 or go all the way around. But meh... too many issues with that Sometimes the only difference between a budding genius and a blooming idiot is where they chose to take a stand.
Kengutsi Akira 21	Posted - 2011.10.08 04:59:00 - [20] - Quote Imo, there really shouldnt BE a griefing policy in this game as its nearly impossible to enforce

Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 336	Posted - 2011.10.08 05:00:00 - [21] - Quote Kengutsi Akira wrote: How precisely would you do that... Hack their Info, get their address and go break their computer? Put them on your notification list, map out their jump clones, and make sure that they cannot leave the stations they're in; barrage them with invites until they block you; ruin their market orders and contracts if they stay in stationGÇª GÇªand generally make sure that there is no point in their logging in because they cannot get anything done. At that point, we're talking about griefing. Before that, it's just EVE. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á
The Apostle The Black Priests 207	Posted - 2011.10.08 05:01:00 - [22] - Quote Tippia wrote: The Apostle wrote: And for the record, the definition of malicious, consistent and interfering are NOT related to anything economic. No, but GÇ£maliciously interfering with the game experience of othersGÇ¥ is: killing people for gain is not an interference with the game experience GÇö it is the game experience. What that sentence means is that you are not allowed to keep people from playing the game; that you cannot target certain individuals and harass them for the sole purpose of keeping them from logging in. I hear ya and agree on most points but it's this very fine line between "legitimate griefing" and "outright bullying" that I am trying to define. When does repeated and specific aggression against a very small player band become griefing? What I am seeing is a lot of "single person" references in the replies and we're really down to thumbtacks here. It's a specific type of player in a specific area. It is consistent in that those players who might "normally" fly said ship in said area are being denied the right/ability to do so. Sure they could go do "something else" but so could anyone else being "griefed"... More to the point is that a single very large, very financial 0.0 enitity can remove the entire spirit of the "relative safety of empire" (I'll accept the finger smacking on this point) for a gain that is described as "economic" when it's fair to say they just want shitz and gigglez. This is NOT a G**N bash by any means but please take into account that NO other alliance/coalition practices this behaviour. Tolerated by CCP it may be but by my definition, this unadulterated bullying needs to be reigned in. I'm not asking for "fair" (it's Eve) but there is simply no counter. And when there is no counter - it's a poor game mechanic. Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. WTB: An Austrian kangaroo!
Kengutsi Akira 21	Posted - 2011.10.08 05:02:00 - [23] - Quote Tippia wrote: Kengutsi Akira wrote: How precisely would you do that... Hack their Info, get their address and go break their computer? Put them on your notification list, map out their jump clones, and make sure that they cannot leave the stations they're in; barrage them with invites until they block you; ruin their market orders and contracts if they stay in stationGÇª GÇªand generally make sure that there is no point in their logging in because they cannot get anything done. At that point, we're talking about griefing. Before that, it's just EVE. Thank you for proving my point in my last post. What the hells the point of a griefing rule you cant/DONT WANT TO enforce? Honestly, get rid of it, its crap. Like the forum role against trolling, "respect each other" or whatever that one is or personal attacks. lol um... why to you self-censor Goon?
Dirk Magnum Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic 14	Posted - 2011.10.08 05:08:00 - [24] - Quote CCP have had years and years to declare the suicidal targeting of barges to be griefing, and haven't. Many Hulkageddons come and go and still not a negative word about it from CCP. The Ice Interdiction is easily in keeping with the finest traditions of tear farming in Eve, and in no way counts as griefing under any standard thus far established. If you want to mine ice, go to another region. If you want to mine Blue Ice specifically, stay vigilant in the belts as you do so. There is no reason you have to die to the Goons during their asset denial exercise. If you get destroyed, it's because you weren't paying attention. Is it griefing to bubble someone AFK AP'ing through nullsec?
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 457	Posted - 2011.10.08 05:20:00 - [25] - Quote The Apostle wrote: Tippia wrote: The Apostle wrote: And for the record, the definition of malicious, consistent and interfering are NOT related to anything economic. No, but GÇ£maliciously interfering with the game experience of othersGÇ¥ is: killing people for gain is not an interference with the game experience GÇö it is the game experience. What that sentence means is that you are not allowed to keep people from playing the game; that you cannot target certain individuals and harass them for the sole purpose of keeping them from logging in. I hear ya and agree on most points but it's this very fine line between "legitimate griefing" and "outright bullying" that I am trying to define. When does repeated and specific aggression against a very small player band become griefing? What I am seeing is a lot of "single person" references in the replies and we're really down to thumbtacks here. It's a specific type of player in a specific area. It is consistent in that those players who might "normally" fly said ship in said area are being denied the right/ability to do so. Sure they could go do "something else" but so could anyone else being "griefed"... More to the point is that a single very large, very financial 0.0 enitity can remove the entire spirit of the "relative safety of empire" (I'll accept the finger smacking on this point) for a gain that is described as "economic" when it's fair to say they just want shitz and gigglez. This is NOT a G**N bash by any means but please take into account that NO other alliance/coalition practices this behaviour. Tolerated by CCP it may be but by my definition, this unadulterated bullying needs to be reigned in. I'm not asking for "fair" (it's Eve) but there is simply no counter. And when there is no counter - it's a poor game mechanic. When the victims can "counter" simply by mining ice in Caldari space instead, or mining asteroids instead, or doing something else than mining, it's evidently false to claim that they have no recourse or in-game alternatives. No specific person is being targetted, only the general class of people engaging in a specific activity. This is the polar opposite of "griefing". It's just an in-game campaign conducted within the rules for a defined and reasonable objective. Simply because the perpatrators happen to be hugely enjoying the process isn't a reason to stop it. How exactly does this campaign differ from one alliance attacking another less powerful in 0.0? Why is one "griefing" whilst the other is normal gameplay? The goons have done what any 0.0 alliance might do: they have identified a group weaker than themselves who they can extract a profit from by applying force. Tech moons, ratting space, crokite belts... gallente ice products. The fact that the target group happens to be in hi-sec seems to be the only difference here. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players. Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 337	Posted - 2011.10.08 05:25:00 - [26] - Quote The Apostle wrote: I hear ya and agree on most points but it's this very fine line between "legitimate griefing" and "outright bullying" that I am trying to define. When does repeated and specific aggression against a very small player band become griefing? In the first case, no, there is no line between the two GÇö they're pretty much the same: when it is no longer about in-game gain, and all about making the other guy not want to play. As for the second, unless the GÇ£bandGÇ¥ is a real-world, immutable and unalterable attribute, never. It's about individuals, not groups. In fact, in those cases where it might conceivably be considered group-based, it falls under the umbrella of GÇ£hate speechGÇ¥ rather than griefing. Quote: What I am seeing is a lot of "single person" references in the replies and we're really down to thumbtacks here. It's a specific type of player in a specific area. GÇªwhich means it's as far from a single person as it gets. It has nothing to do with the person, but with a location and an activity. The goons have zero control over what single persons choose to be part of the targeted demographic. At this point, someone will undoubtedly chime in with the bone-headed GÇ£oh, you think rapist victims choose it tooGÇ¥ analogy, so let's just head that one off immediately: no, this is not like being the victim of a violent crime. It's like dressing yourself up in a raw-meat suit and run around on the savannah and then complain when you get mauled by lions: you know the lions are there, you know they really like meat, you know they maul weak and meaty things they come across, and thus any idiot can conclude that meat is unsuitable attire for savannah-running (and for extra measure, the lions themselves have been kind enough to put up big neon signs saying GÇ£numpties in meat suits, beware: we will eat youGÇ¥). So it's really your (very very poor) choice if you decide to do that anywayGÇª Quote: More to the point is that a single very large, very financial 0.0 enitity can remove the entire spirit of the "relative safety of empire" (I'll accept the finger smacking on this point) for a gain that is described as "economic" when it's fair to say they just want shitz and gigglez. Smack There is no relative safety! (sorry, had to be doneGÇª ). Yes? So? As Malc points out, all they're doing is reminding these highsec players that highsec is not safe; that you need to be wary of other players; that they're in a non-consensual full-PvP sandbox where everyone is free to do what they want, including blow people up for using umlauts in local chat. Quote: Tolerated by CCP it may be but by my definition, this unadulterated bullying needs to be reigned in. I'm not asking for "fair" (it's Eve) but there is simply no counter. There is: don't fly an ice-mining ship in the affected systems. Or, if you absolutely, positively, really really really have to (to which I say really? expand your horizons guysGÇª ), take the prerequisite precautions of tanking up, flying defensively, and gather intel. Welcome to the bighighschool league, boys. Kengutsi Akira wrote: Thank you for proving my point in my last post. What the hells the point of a griefing rule you cant/DONT WANT TO enforce? Aside from the fact that they can, want, and actually do enforce itGÇª GÇªthe point is that it's good to be clear that you don't accept griefing. And yes, there is griefing in EVE GÇö it's just not same activity as many highsec dwellers have dreamed out of on their unwarranted feelings of entitlement. GÇöGÇöGÇö GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ GÇö Karath Piki-á
Andski GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 124	Posted - 2011.10.08 05:32:00 - [27] - Quote Look at people crying about nonconsensual PvP
Kengutsi Akira 21	Posted - 2011.10.08 05:35:00 - [28] - Quote Tippia wrote: Kengutsi Akira wrote: Thank you for proving my point in my last post. What the hells the point of a griefing rule you cant/DONT WANT TO enforce? Aside from the fact that they can, want, and actually do enforce itGÇª Really... when? Ive yet to see that actually happen. Kinda like how they dont seem to moderate Goons or CSM for that matter. Id join just for that honestly
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 457	Posted - 2011.10.08 05:36:00 - [29] - Quote Kengutsi Akira wrote: Tippia wrote: Kengutsi Akira wrote: Thank you for proving my point in my last post. What the hells the point of a griefing rule you cant/DONT WANT TO enforce? Aside from the fact that they can, want, and actually do enforce itGÇª Really... when? Ive yet to see that actually happen. Kinda like how they dont seem to moderate Goons or CSM for that matter. Id join just for that honestly Havve you ever been griefed in EVE? Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players. Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Herping yourDerp Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 125	Posted - 2011.10.08 05:42:00 - [30] - Quote dont want to die, don't go to those systems to ice mine... its not like they are tracking down specific players.... that is griefing, not killing ice miners.



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,06s, ref 20250714/1329
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

bitcoin: 1CHRiBBArqpw5Yz7x5KS2RRtN5ubEn5gF

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.