Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
827
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 09:30:00 -
[61] - Quote
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:But so far some people gank in hisec because they are rewarded by mechanics with a nonsensical insurance that halves their loss GǪyeah, that's not a reward GÇö it's a reduction of costs. They mitigate their risks by picking the right equipment and using it correctly
Quote:whereas freighters, industrials, miners and other easily gankable targets get no bonus for that risk. All of those people can manage their own risks. Just like the gankers, they can mitigate the risks by picking the right equipment and using it correctly.
Quote:"Put a tank on it" is nonsense, tanks cost income That would be nonsense if the cost of tanking it was higher than the income. It's not. Moreover, that cost can be ammortised over several uses GÇö every time you don't get picked (or do get picked an survive) because of your tank, you have earned money back from that tiny investment.
Quote:(and freighters CAN'T be tanked at all) Not directly, but you can most certainly improve on their gank survivability.
Quote:also tanks can be overcome if the reward is high enough. GǪso you make sure it isn't.
It's very simple: people keep claiming that ganking has no risk, without considering what it is that creates this situation. What generates Gǣno riskGǥ for gankers is that they mitigate those risks and they accept a drastic reduction of income. They ensure that the target is weak enough; that it carries enough to conceivably turn a profit; that the ship they use gets maximum oomph for the money (because no, insurance does not cover the cost). And then they waitGǪ and waitGǪ and wait for something that fits the profile. While waiting, they're losing income.
So the question is: why is it to blasphemous to suggest that the self-proclaimed victims do the same? Why can't they accept a loss of income just like the gankers do? Why can't they mitigate their risks by carrying sensible loads and protecting them and scouting for possible targets? It's not that ganking has no risk and hauling/mining/whatever has all the risk GÇö it's that one party choose to mitigate their risks and accept a reduction if efficiency whereas the other chooses not to (and then refuses to blame themselves for the choices they made GÇö it has to be someone else's fault). Stop suffering from such epic grades of entitlement-itis and start doing what the GÇ£other sideGÇ£ is doing! They're doing it for a reason, you knowGǪ 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 |
knobber Jobbler
Holding Inc.
8
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 09:42:00 -
[62] - Quote
Tres Farmer wrote:Needs better/different arguments - not the silly and often heard "proliferation of crime is unfair" thing you got going there. Cause you know, you're talking about Eve here, right?
Maybe provide some counter arguments. Payments for ships blown up by concorde makes no sense to me and I've never seen a single argument which I can objectively see as a valid point as to why insurance payouts are made for ships killed by concorde. Go ahead and make some good points that it does make sense.
|
Hisomi
Suicidal Trainingscamp Thukker Tribe Mercenaries
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 09:47:00 -
[63] - Quote
DarkAegix wrote:Insurance for suicide gankers is a bit silly, yet removal of insurance for them destroys an entire "profession". Perhaps some other solution is in order?
Instead of removing insurance for suicide-gankers completely, introduce one of the following options: -Pirate faction standings requirement for insurance payout in a suicide gank -CONCORD standing reduction whenever insurance is paid out on suicide gank -20% less payout for suicide ganks, automatically -Instead of ISK, receive some raw minerals in the next NPC station you dock in. Inconvenient, but it's still valuable! -Only 20% chance you will receive the payout. Introduce a skill which increases 10% per level -Other stuff
I really like where you are going with this. it creates some kind of immersive answer to why suicide gankers can continue doing what they are doing. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
827
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 09:50:00 -
[64] - Quote
knobber Jobbler wrote:Maybe provide some counter arguments. Payments for ships blown up by concorde makes no sense to me and I've never seen a single argument which I can objectively see as a valid point as to why insurance payouts are made for ships killed by concorde. Because it provides an incentive to blow ships up, and ships blowing up is is what keeps the wheels of EVE in motion.
Moreover, if you want to go for the Gǣmakes no senseGǥ line of reasoning, remember that the same nonsense is what provides you with an teleporting, instagibbing, omniscient, unavoidable, undefeatable (RAAARRRR) police forceGǪ Do you want that removed as well?
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 |
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
41
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 09:56:00 -
[65] - Quote
Tippia wrote:(...)
It's very simple: people keep claiming that ganking has no risk, without considering what it is that creates this situation. What generates Gǣno riskGǥ for gankers is that they mitigate those risks and they accept a drastic reduction of income. They ensure that the target is weak enough; that it carries enough to conceivably turn a profit; that the ship they use gets maximum oomph for the money (because no, insurance does not cover the cost). And then they waitGǪ and waitGǪ and wait for something that fits the profile. While waiting, they're losing income.
So the question is: why is it to blasphemous to suggest that the self-proclaimed victims do the same? Why can't they accept a loss of income just like the gankers do? Why can't they mitigate their risks by carrying sensible loads and protecting them and scouting for possible targets? It's not that ganking has no risk and hauling/mining/whatever has all the risk GÇö it's that one party choose to mitigate their risks and accept a reduction if efficiency whereas the other chooses not to (and then refuses to blame themselves for the choices they made GÇö it has to be someone else's fault). Stop suffering from such epic grades of entitlement-itis and start doing what the GÇ£other sideGÇ£ is doing! They're doing it for a reason, you knowGǪ
If hisec suicide ganking is a pain in the ass, then don't do it. If hisec suicide ganking hurts your income, do things more profitable. If you can't have fun without hisec suicide ganking... well... Sane people does not have a primal urge to f*ck off other people for the sake of fun, you know? So... no affordable NEx store... no full-fledged Incarna... no casual content... no solo content... no PvE content...-á
Why should I keep paying to play this game? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
827
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 10:03:00 -
[66] - Quote
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:If hisec suicide ganking is a pain in the ass, then don't do it. If hisec suicide ganking hurts your income, do things more profitable. GǪand that's the problem: it's presumably not a pain in the arse even with the lower profit.
But that's not the argument. The argument is that GÇ£boohoo, I don't want to take precautionsGÇ¥ and GÇ£bohoo, I take all the risksGÇ¥ are bogus arguments. The reason you take all the risks is because you choose not to take any precautions. The gankers do, and that's why some (incorrectly) perceive them as having no risks. You can do the same and get the same results.
Quote:If you can't have fun without hisec suicide ganking... well... Sane people does not have a primal urge to f*ck off other people for the sake of fun, you know? It's called Gǣplaying a gameGǣ, at which point, yesGǪ yes they do. That's how the sane people vent that particular need to stay sane.
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 |
Princess Cellestia
Friendship is Podding Test Alliance Please Ignore
63
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 10:03:00 -
[67] - Quote
The way I always saw it PVE is there to FUND PVP. Not just so people can do nothing but pve all the damn time. Also all I'm seeing here is another highsec pubbie complaining that his ships aren't invincible. |
Klandi
Consortium of stella Technologies
10
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 10:20:00 -
[68] - Quote
I am for the concept of erasing insurance on ships that suicide gank - and the definition in the kill mail will have concord as the greatest damage dealer.
The reason why I would support this change is simple. Actions have consequences. You decide that you want to take out a target that you are not at war with - you get slapped for your impetuosity by concord and you get fined.
However - lets take this one stage further.
I would ask that the victim gets the isk. Regardless of the insurance taken out by the victim, they also receive insurance isk from the perpetrators ship death. That should make the replacement funded by the ganker.
Then there would be tears |
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
42
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 11:02:00 -
[69] - Quote
Klandi wrote:I am for the concept of erasing insurance on ships that suicide gank - and the definition in the kill mail will have concord as the greatest damage dealer. The reason why I would support this change is simple. Actions have consequences. You decide that you want to take out a target that you are not at war with - you get slapped for your impetuosity by concord and you get fined. However - lets take this one stage further. I would ask that the victim gets the isk. Regardless of the insurance taken out by the victim, they also receive insurance isk from the perpetrators ship death. That should make the replacement funded by the ganker. Then there would be tears
I LOL'ed seriously.
It would be too CRUEL to have EVE's Crime & Punishment behave as in RL... So... no affordable NEx store... no full-fledged Incarna... no casual content... no solo content... no PvE content...-á
Why should I keep paying to play this game? |
Cassina Lemour
Staner Industries
13
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 11:55:00 -
[70] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Cassina Lemour wrote:Mag's wrote:Cassina Lemour wrote: Eve is a libertarian dystopia, suicide ganking can only be justified when it is supported entirely on it's own economic merit. The current welfare model of insurance is a subsidy for the idiotic and lazy. Removing this welfare payment would require suicide ganking to pay it's own way just like other eve activities. Supporting the current system is closet communism.
But lazy AFK auto piloting in flimsy ships with semi/very expensive cargo should be rewarded. amirite? No, that is Strawman fail. "semi/very expensive cargo" makes a perfect economic target, that proves my point. Not at all. You said that the current insurance model is a subsidy for the idiotic and lazy. I was merely using the same argument in regards to the idiotic and lazy AFK APers. Are you now saying that your argument is also fail?
Another strawman to miss-represent what I said. Proof, I think that, that you do not have a legitimate rebuttal.
|
|
Mashie Saldana
Veto. Veto Corp
39
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 12:05:00 -
[71] - Quote
Elson Tamar wrote:Couple of ideas which will be unpopular, but are kinda intersting maybe in a what if kind of way.
I dont think that you should get insurance when you get blown up by concord, or infact if engaged in factional warfare. Maybe it is the navies the FW people are fighting for that cover the insurance cost as a thanks for the pod pilots doing their dirty work? Anastasia -á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á Dominique-á-á Mashie -á-á Monica |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
331
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 12:31:00 -
[72] - Quote
If this is done, then you shouldn't receive an insurance payout if you're blown up while mining/hauling in a high-risk system. |
Dyner
Midgard Protectorate
7
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 12:37:00 -
[73] - Quote
Bronden Neopatus wrote:Tres Farmer wrote:Needs better/different arguments - not the silly and often heard "proliferation of crime is unfair" thing you got going there. Cause you know, you're talking about Eve here, right? I wasn't there to tell, but maybe insurance was introduced as a universal feature to prevent PvP from complaining that PvE got it when they were killed by NPCs. Today insurance is a feature old enough and PvPers have got many free rides and it's time to remove some of their privileges. CCP should do something for PvE each now and then, aside from spoiling their fun with scannable mission sites and removing Lvl5 from hisec, or keep them replaying the same old Lvl4 for years.
EVE was never a PVE game; it's always been Player-driven.
I also, don't see how showing what implants got blown up is a boon for PVPers. I mean...you [victim]still got dead. |
Tanya Fox
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 12:38:00 -
[74] - Quote
Bronden Neopatus wrote: Also lately PvP have been handed a treat that will ruin many people's living... namely implants in killmails, which mean that now there will be a serious reason to pod everyone, with or without a ransom. Good-bye piracy, btw.
Don't see why that would ruin piracy, just increase the ransom.
Bronden Neopatus wrote:Remove insurance for concordokken ships.
Agree with you here as most contracts would have a clause where you would forfeit the payout if engaged in anything illegal. That does not mean there can't be another system where they could get insured although it's likely to be at a slightly higher premium.
Bronden Neopatus wrote:That will effectively raise the cost of every ship used for suicide ganking
Suicide ganking has no real RP element, they mainly do it for laughs, so some will still do it. |
Ciar Meara
Virtus Vindice
186
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 12:41:00 -
[75] - Quote
I understand the arguments on not reinbursing ships that where used in a crime and I fully and I agree with them.
But I highly doubt it would solve suicide ganking. From my experience, payout of insurance is 30-90 million, depending of your ships offcourse. People who suicide gank a "juicy" target don't know what will drop so they run a risk on occasion of not coming up with profit.
Therefore it is my understanding that even suicidegankers don't just gank anything on the radar but pick their targets carefully and expect to be amply rewarded by their ganks dropped cargo. Losing 30-90 million might be a problem, but in the high sec ganks I don't think that changes alot in practice since the potential targets must have a big profit margin to be attacked to begin with.
I never suicide ganked so I might be wrong. I think the only real problem with this measure is it would make suicide ganking purely for tears/strategic reasons (like the ice mining thing) more expensive, but tears shouldn't be cheap to come by. They should be earned :). - [img]http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/janus/ceosig.jpg[/img] [yellow]English only please. Zymurgist[/yellow] |
pussnheels
Vintage heavy industries
130
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 12:50:00 -
[76] - Quote
uummm 2 thingd
First implants on killmails is cosmetic sure it pleases the hardcore griefer ; but then again podkills in highsec by suicide ganks are rare , i think on the other hand if you get podded you lose those implants no matter if they show on killmaill or not, nor does the suicide ganker have any idea what implants you got
the new BC or how i like to call them the pocket battleships sure they seem to be the suicide gankers dream But atleast if you see one warping into your belt you know for 90% he is out for a kill same if you see several of them camping the perimeter / jita gate; only makes it easier to spot the suicide gankers I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire |
Zamoria
Gammler Gmbh
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 12:53:00 -
[77] - Quote
Bischopt wrote:Bronden Neopatus wrote:Someone give me just one reason why gankers should be paid for losing a ship. Because everyone else does as well. If gankers stop getting insurance so should everyone else. They paid for it, they got it. And if you're gonna start a thread try to have some arguments ready, not just some hate because someone blew you up paired with insults at everyone who disagrees with you. Nobody's taking this thread seriously anymore.
Thats no reason. If i burn my own house i paid insurance for, who will give me money? right no one!
|
Big Bad Mofo
Comply Or Die
32
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 12:55:00 -
[78] - Quote
Bronden Neopatus wrote:I've been reading the fears that the new BCs will be used as the perfect suicide gankers due to their pew-pew... so that should be countered in some way.
Also lately PvP have been handed a treat that will ruin many people's living... namely implants in killmails, which mean that now there will be a serious reason to pod everyone, with or without a ransom. Good-bye piracy, btw.
That makes +2 for PvP, so I am going to suggest CCP to give a -1 to PvP to keep the fair play.
My suggestion is:
Remove insurance for concordokken ships.
That will effectively raise the cost of every ship used for suicide ganking, shiny new BCs included, and will fulfill a venerable old demand of many players who feel outraged by such a ludicrous thing as rewarding criminals for their crimes.
If someone has got the "galls" (cough, cough) to be a ganker, there is no point rewarding him for so. If being a ganker is not rewarding enough, he should stop being a ganker.
So that's it. Give PvP their shiny new ganker BCs and the implant killmails, BUT remove insurances when they are killed by the law.
Give with one hand and take away with the other, CCP.
BE FAIR.
tbh if you suicide gank, then yes you should not get insurance..i dont know why ccp still havent implemented this. I would like to know why |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
868
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 12:59:00 -
[79] - Quote
Cassina Lemour wrote:Another strawman to miss-represent what I said. OK let's revisit what you said.
Cassina Lemour wrote:Eve is a libertarian dystopia, suicide ganking can only be justified when it is supported entirely on it's own economic merit. The current welfare model of insurance is a subsidy for the idiotic and lazy. Removing this welfare payment would require suicide ganking to pay it's own way just like other eve activities. Why and how so? For these arguments to stand, wouldn't the same need to apply to both sides equally? (The point you missed.) The no concord insurance payment side want to fit there ships for full cargo or full mining output. Why don't they have to accept some cost v reward? Why shouldn't they fit their ships or be active when transporting cargo, in order to mitigate the chance of being ganked? Surely the same economic argument should apply?
Cassina Lemour wrote:Supporting the current system is closet communism. I didn't take this seriously, sorry.
Cassina Lemour wrote:Proof, I think that, that you do not have a legitimate rebuttal. You need to show proof, to back up your original statement.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
Renan Ruivo
Hipernova Vera Cruz Alliance
215
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 13:01:00 -
[80] - Quote
Insurance should not be paid to concordokken ships. I agree with that.
I don't usually insure my thrashers at any rate... Sometimes the only difference between a budding genius and a blooming idiot is where they chose to take a stand. |
|
Klandi
Consortium of stella Technologies
10
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 13:12:00 -
[81] - Quote
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:Klandi wrote:I am for the concept of erasing insurance on ships that suicide gank - and the definition in the kill mail will have concord as the greatest damage dealer. The reason why I would support this change is simple. Actions have consequences. You decide that you want to take out a target that you are not at war with - you get slapped for your impetuosity by concord and you get fined. However - lets take this one stage further. I would ask that the victim gets the isk. Regardless of the insurance taken out by the victim, they also receive insurance isk from the perpetrators ship death. That should make the replacement funded by the ganker. Then there would be tears I LOL'ed seriously. It would be too CRUEL to have EVE's Crime & Punishment behave as in RL...
But ironic and dare I mention it - fair. Cruel is these peoples sense of fun - let them have it two-fold |
knobber Jobbler
Holding Inc.
8
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 13:57:00 -
[82] - Quote
Tippia wrote:knobber Jobbler wrote:Maybe provide some counter arguments. Payments for ships blown up by concorde makes no sense to me and I've never seen a single argument which I can objectively see as a valid point as to why insurance payouts are made for ships killed by concorde. Because it provides an incentive to blow ships up, and ships blowing up is is what keeps the wheels of EVE in motion. Moreover, if you want to go for the Gǣmakes no senseGǥ line of reasoning, remember that the same nonsense is what provides you with an teleporting, instagibbing, omniscient, unavoidable, undefeatable (RAAARRRR) police forceGǪ Do you want that removed as well?
Blowing ships up in wars, low sec and null is what keeps eve in motion. high sec ganking isn't some work around of the war Dec mechanic or anything to do with pvp, its a cheap way of making money by suiciding people transporting stuff with a get out of jail free card and a payment to cover things if it goes wrong. It's not pvp by any stretch of the imagination. Not saying stop suicide ganking, I'm saying remove the payment for doing it. After all, this is eve, its a harsh place, unless you're a suicide ganking alt.
Re: concorde, theyre the space police, part of high sec. Want to do crime with no police presence, that's what low sec is for. |
Ludi Burek
The Player Haters Corp
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 14:33:00 -
[83] - Quote
I just got back 400k on my Thrasher? U crybabies Mad? |
Esagila
25
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 15:03:00 -
[84] - Quote
Klandi wrote:I am for the concept of erasing insurance on ships that suicide gank - and the definition in the kill mail will have concord as the greatest damage dealer. The reason why I would support this change is simple. Actions have consequences. You decide that you want to take out a target that you are not at war with - you get slapped for your impetuosity by concord and you get fined. However - lets take this one stage further. I would ask that the victim gets the isk. Regardless of the insurance taken out by the victim, they also receive insurance isk from the perpetrators ship death. That should make the replacement funded by the ganker. Then there would be tears
That would be seriously epic. However, I doubt that'll ever happen, it just makes too much sense. |
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
43
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 15:19:00 -
[85] - Quote
Esagila wrote:Klandi wrote:I am for the concept of erasing insurance on ships that suicide gank - and the definition in the kill mail will have concord as the greatest damage dealer. The reason why I would support this change is simple. Actions have consequences. You decide that you want to take out a target that you are not at war with - you get slapped for your impetuosity by concord and you get fined. However - lets take this one stage further. I would ask that the victim gets the isk. Regardless of the insurance taken out by the victim, they also receive insurance isk from the perpetrators ship death. That should make the replacement funded by the ganker. Then there would be tears That would be seriously epic. However, I doubt that'll ever happen, it just makes too much sense.
Well, the whole point of EVE is about how fun would be to be a criminal if civilization was prevented from dealing with it... So... no affordable NEx store... no full-fledged Incarna... no casual content... no solo content... no PvE content...-á
Why should I keep paying to play this game? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
838
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 15:29:00 -
[86] - Quote
knobber Jobbler wrote:Blowing ships up in wars, low sec and null is what keeps eve in motion. high sec ganking isn't some work around of the war Dec mechanic or anything to do with pvp Yes it is. It's how you get to parts of the war effort that are hidden in NPC corps or throw-away corps that will be dismantled at the first whiff of a wardec.
It's also pretty much the only way certain ships ever get blown up, since no-one would ever be nuts enough to bring them into a war zone. These things need to be lost as well to keep some kind of demand up.
Quote:It's not pvp by any stretch of the imagination. Of course it is. Unless NPCs have suddenly started to suicide gank youGǪ
Quote:Not saying stop suicide ganking, I'm saying remove the payment for doing it. Why? 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 |
Killstealing
Broski Enterprises Elite Space Guild
61
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 15:39:00 -
[87] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:Bronden Neopatus wrote:Someone give me just one reason why gankers should be paid for losing a ship. i am babby 100% chance to lose your ship if you suicide gank. Not my fault miners fit hulks to have 5k EHP |
Killstealing
Broski Enterprises Elite Space Guild
61
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 15:45:00 -
[88] - Quote
David Grogan wrote: i am a dummy and think miners can't fit a tank or have any defenses
damage control, invulnerability field, EM shield rig, orca nearby
You are now almost invulnerable unless they bring enough alpha to kill your orca (you can store ship in orca if you get ganked) in which case you should have watched local you big doofus!
But please do keep fitting your retrievers to have 1k EHP and your hulks to have 5 |
Jada Maroo
Mysterium Astrometrics BRABODEN
326
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 15:53:00 -
[89] - Quote
Vachir Khan wrote:On one hand I agree that current suicide mechanics are "a bit silly" but on the other I will defend EVE's bloodthirsty Darwinism to the last breath.
How about bringing in a more realistic insurance idea; introduce both reduced payouts as diminishing payouts within a certain time frame. Counted from the last offence, a certain amount of time afterwards there would be lower payouts, actual numbers are open for discussion ofcourse but this is how it could look.
First concordoken: 80% payout second within a month of last concord loss: 50% third: 20% fourth: 0%
That way newbies (the eternal reasoning to not remove insurance) aren't hurt much at all but repeating offenders get "blacklisted" and have a reduced payout, if they keep out of trouble for that timeframe (a month in this example) then they'll be back at step 1. Again, actual numbers or "parole time" is up for discussion but I do believe this system would work fine; taking care of the repeat offenders and giving them a "time out" unless they agree to heavier losses.
This is not a bad approach, if insurance must be maintained.
But to your first sentence there. You can do both. Because what we have now isn't bloodthirsty Darwinism. We have an NPC corp that by any reasonable expectation would be bankrupt by now being used to subsidize suicide ganking. That's not Darwinism. That's outright dependence. The suicide gankers are suckling at the teet of an NPC corp on one hand while on the other telling people they should HTFU. The hypocrisy makes me blush with embarrassment. |
Kengutsi Akira
83
|
Posted - 2011.10.23 15:54:00 -
[90] - Quote
Bronden Neopatus wrote:fair play.
Theres your first mistake We should really stop calling it FiS
Dammit there is no FiS its Called EVE. Especially now that WiS is "back burnere"ed |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |