EVE Search - Unique Mission Item Theft Rebalance

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Unique Mission Item Theft Rebalance

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 3 post(s)
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 352	Posted - 2014.01.23 15:16:00 - [1] - Quote It is a bad idea, and won't solve the problem. The problem of skewed cost/risk/reward does exist, and laughably on the pirates side. I will admit that I have not done these missions, but unless the mission itself rewards ISK or item worth 1.5 billion ISK, then the value to the missioner is no where near that mark. If it was, then most would gladly pay the 500 millon, and perhaps even be able to find backers to help fund the ransom. This does not happen, so I am assuming the Reward is more in line with other missions in the game where pirates want to demand 50+ million for a damsel that only pays maybe 2 million. Probably the biggest part of the skewed Cost/Risk/Reward is that this is a one time deal for the missioner with massive repercussions for failure, while the pirate can victimize new missioners in the same mission several times a day as opportunity arises with minimal repercussions should he fail. I would suggest instead that the mission items be of a sufficient size that pushes the cargo capacity of the ship intended to run the mission. Thus no taking in a frigate to loot something it takes a battleship to get to. This would at least help balance the cost portion, and not give a huge agility edge to the guy that also has 100% of the initiative on his side too. If we are going to make this a race, lets not fill the guy that has everything to lose shoe's with lead bricks too. I would even suggest some of these missions require escorted fleets to complete, with objectives requiring an industrial to cart off. A look at the aggro mechanics might still be in order too. If that NPC fleet is there to protect that one ship, then an enemy vessel orbiting that ship should get everything that fleet can throw at it, including the kitchen sink. Altering those ships so they can better assist their fleets in defending them by giving them webs and such. In these missions aggro priority should be on anyone actually shooting the protected ship first, and then whoever is closest to the protected ship. NPC fleet manuvers should reflect this as well, with ships trying to maintain optimal positions on their protected ship to defend it rather than optimal position on their current target. Such missions could essentially be two fleets, one designated for attack behavior, the other for guard behavior. Basically, there is a problem, and the mission runner is in a largely untenable position with the current setup. While the OP's idea is poor because it wont serve its own purpose while negatively impacting others, changes are warrented to address current problems.
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 356	Posted - 2014.01.23 23:29:00 - [2] - Quote 1: This is an MMORPG. While the pocket may not have existed in real life terms until you the player generated it by having your character accept the mission from an agent, within the context of the game world that area of space always existed and you have simply been hired for a job. 2. Crime may start with motive, but punishment does not start with summary execution. What you are suggesting is the right to outright kill anyone in the area you do not authorize to be there on suspicion of criminal intent. 3. The warning system would be a fine deterrent, except for the legitimate reasons someone may want to be there within the context of the fantasy world of EVE. Thats like saying murder victims deserve their fate because they dared enter New York's Central Park alone at night. 4. You are sadly underinformed and uneducated concerning ownership under the aegis of a government in real life. Anyone has every legal permission to be in whatever portion of space the sovriegnity holding entity grants, and is subject only to the force that the holder can apply. Thats kind of why you have the mission in their space to begin with.
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 356	Posted - 2014.01.24 00:04:00 - [3] - Quote Except you cannot determine why they are there until they actually do something. They do get flagged at the appropriate time. You do not need the right to summarily execute people just because they happen to be in a place you don't like on simple suspicion that they may be intending to do something you don't want to something that you yourself don't have the right too at that time. You have failed to give any sort of proper reason why you should have the right to shoot people simply for being in the same public space as you are. It all boils down to the point of ownership, and you are simply incorrect in assuming the space is yours just because you were given a location for it.
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 356	Posted - 2014.01.24 00:21:00 - [4] - Quote Your entire premise for why the space should not be considered public ignores the fact that this is an RPG game, and carries a certain amount of imagination. There is an assumed NPC population frequenting these locations on legitimate business all the time. The area is assumed to be open to the public at large. The mechanic of spawning a pocket is a fabrication to forward the storyline that something important happened at that otherwise mundane place at that particular time. You are not creating a space, you are creating a storyline event. The space is the setting for that encounter---you don't own the stage, just your part in that particular play. Your argument would be true only if we viewed the game in terms of pixels and data under our control, but that's now how the game world is intended to be viewed. If that were the case there would not be all this text you are supposed to be reading about the mission objectives and reasons for you to be heading to where you are going and such. For your argument to work, you need to have a valid, in game reason that ownership of that portion of space has transferred to you during the course of the events being portrayed. You don't have that... instead you have some metagame "This pocket didn't exist until I willed it so" BS that only applies if the game was meant to be 100% out of character. If you want to own space and shoot anyone that comes near you, it so happens that this is a game where you can make that happen. It also happens that the place for that sort of thing isn't in High Sec space... try one of the other 3 areas.
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 356	Posted - 2014.01.24 00:44:00 - [5] - Quote You know, I initially came into this thread to support your issue, just not your solution. That is done now, and you are actually slowing pushing my carebearish tendencies into actively hunting you down in game and shooting you just for being an annoying individual. Probably after I practice my probing skills finding you in a mission pocket just for the occasion. Every single time you regurgitate the assertion that you own the space due to the mechanics of accessing it you reveal yourself to be exactly the sort of whining incompetent that the PvP mouthbreathers claim. Once again... if you want to claim that space as your own, provide a logical, in game and storyline consistent reason why the current owners listed at the top left of the screen gave it and everything in it to you to do with as you please. Arguing game mechanics while claiming storyline rights simply will not work. You cannot take the RP out of RPG. While I, nor any other Player, can access the mission area, they are hubs of NPC activity used by the vast majority of the EVE universe on a daily basis. EVE is much more than a few thousand pod pilots ruling the spaceways. That sort of thing is what an RPG is all about. Your argument is ignoring the RP part of MMORPG, and doing its best to forget the MM part as well. There is a difference between the out of character mechanics of game play, and the in game storyline that is supposed to be the heart of the game. PVE content is all about the RP in RPG. You are wrong because you are trying to force out of game logic on in game storyline events. You do not, never have, nor ever will own that space. If you want to own space go forth into null sec and claim a patch of it. That is the nature of this game, and claiming otherwise due to the mechanics of how an encounter works will get you nowhere.
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 356	Posted - 2014.01.24 00:57:00 - [6] - Quote There is a difference between having the right to do something, and the ability. You are ignoring that. Everyone has the right to access that space. Only the mission owner has the ability, because that space is the setting for an event in that characters story. You only own your own actions and your own ship--- the setting is part of the world and is owned by everyone. Your argument is false because it is based on a false premise using unrelated facts to support a strawman conclusion. I am now out of troll snacks, enjoy tilting at this particular windmill.
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 356	Posted - 2014.01.24 00:57:00 - [7] - Quote There is a difference between having the right to do something, and the ability. You are ignoring that. Everyone has the right to access that space. Only the mission owner has the ability, because that space is the setting for an event in that characters story. You only own your own actions and your own ship--- the setting is part of the world and is owned by everyone. Your argument is false because it is based on a false premise using unrelated facts to support a strawman conclusion. Snip Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 361	Posted - 2014.01.27 21:53:00 - [8] - Quote Guys, please. Abdul is clearly just a garden variety troll. Stop feeding him. He isn't going to answer any questions about his proposal, because his proposal actively facilitates the exact type of abuse being described. It would result in nothing but trouble and increased problems for mission runners in several ways, none of which he will accept or claim to understand. He will continue to pretend like he is the only one capable of understanding his 'proofs' despite the fact that they have absolutely nothing to do with the concept of ownership in EVE. No argument will sway him, and he will keep parroting the tired and clearly false dogma that has pushed this thread to 20+ pages. The guy that argues for separating all high sec regions of each faction with low sec and killing half of all commerce in the game is more reasonable and well meaning. He will continue to discount any suggestion that actually addresses his claimed problem, because stealing mission objectives isn't his real concern. He wants to troll, and that's about it. Anything from mission resets to a simply making mission objectives in battleship class missions take up 500m3+ cargo space would solve every stated problem he has, but he does not want to discuss that, because it would solve his 'problem' and he would be without a source of troll-fodder. You cannot, under any circumstances, engage him in any sort of meaningful discussion on the subject, because as soon as your logic starts to contradict his trolling he will back out and resort to either tired dogmatic arguments that have nothing to do with the topic under discussion, or name calling. This thread has been done from about 3 posts in. Please just let it die the agonizing death it deserves.
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 363	Posted - 2014.01.28 19:44:00 - [9] - Quote For the COSMOS mission it is permanent, which is why I say the OP has a gripe. It is just his solution that is bad because it does nothing to address the problem while creating other problems of it's own. He does not consider the problems it creates as being important. He does not accept any discussion, compromise, alternate solution or any logic not 100% in agreement with him as being valid. This thread has been dead since page one. This entire thread is one long troll, and any attempt to give it some validation for existing is instantly countered by the OP's incessant whining that people don't agree with his solution.
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 363	Posted - 2014.01.28 21:47:00 - [10] - Quote If anyone is guilty of spamming, it's the OP who keeps this troll going. Most of the posts are someone pointing out or clarifying their objection or potential problem, and the OP coming back with either a declaration that the concern isn't important (though it may be to others), that it has been addressed (in most cases it hasn't or has been declared unimportant), or just him complaining that everyone else who does not agree with him is breaking some forum rule or another. It is disingenuous to declare problems that affect others as unimportant, while maintaining that your own problems are. The Ninja Salvager does not care about the mission loot or if the missioner gets it. That problem is unimportant to him. The missioner does not care if it is safe or not for the Ninja Salvager to do his thing, that problem is unimportant to him. Neither should get to decide what is important to the other. Having Access to an area is not the same as owning it. Agents do not spawn areas, they spawn Encounters. The mission is an event, and that event may be interfered with by anyone who has the means to find it. The fact that most NPC ships and structures are not scannable has nothing to do with the concept of ownership. Much of the OP relies on this false piece of inferred logic, despite the fact that nothing in game directly supports it, and a great deal of the entire concept of EVE itself denies it. A solution that does not solve it's intended problem, which would cause new problems for the people it is intended to benefit, additional problems to neutral parties, and which is easily circumvented by the people for whom it is supposed to be a problem is just a bad solution on every level. As such, while there may be basis for something to be done about the problem pointed out by the OP, the suggested solution is poorly thought out and should not be implemented. Unless the game client directly shows the missioner as owning the space a mission takes place in, ownership cannot be claimed and any solution predicated on ownership should be considered invalid. Unless a solution actually solves the problem for which it is intended without harming a neutral 3rd party, then that solution should be considered invalid. Unless a solution does not cause as many or more problems than it solves, it should be considered invalid.

Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 363	Posted - 2014.01.28 22:07:00 - [11] - Quote Sorry bro, there is no personal attack. I suppose it's a nice try at discrediting a line of argument you don't like and can't answer though. Declaring a thing does not make that thing valid. Much of the justification for the change you want is based upon false assumptions inferred from unrelated facts. That alone invalidates your suggestion We can remove the word Ninja from the term Ninja Salvager if it makes you feel better. It's still a playstyle impacted negatively by your suggestion which has been directly declared by devs to be legitimate and fair play. That alone invalidates your suggestion. It has been shown by numerous posters that other problems would arise for missioners if this solution were implemented. That alone invalidates the suggestion. It has been pointed out how this solution would be effortlessly circumvented by those it is intended to protect against. That alone invalidates the suggestion. It has been pointed out how the suggestion does nothing to actually help with the problem. That alone invalidates the suggestion. Refute those proofs if you can, without just re-quoting what you quoted earlier. Take it slow, one thing at a time so we can see how to help you suggest something that will actually address the problem.
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 363	Posted - 2014.01.28 22:34:00 - [12] - Quote Your quote does not address the issue. Identified Issue: Suggested proposal negatively impacts salvaging profession. Argument: Proposal is invalidated due to negative impact on neutral parties. You have failed, repeatedly, to answer this issue, instead choosing to quote other failed instances of you failing to address the issue. To not fail, show how this change does not impact a neutral party in a negative fashion, preferably while also showing your proposal to have a positive benefit in any way. Here is an example of how badly this proposal fails: Quote: A suspect flag for trespassing just puts the decision to salvage in a mission owner's pocket without permission on par with the decision to salvage in WH, Low Sec or Null Sec space. They are never forced to go into any of these areas to salvage nor are they prevented. If the salvager chooses to enter these areas or invade a mission owner's space because the reward (ISK value of salvage) is higher, there is nothing wrong with it carrying a slightly higher level of risk. The problem here is that while the salvager may be annoying to you, he is in fact doing something that CCP has designated as perfectly fine for him to be doing, at the risk/reward level he is currently doing it at. He is not operating in WH/LoSec/NullSec, and as such should not be at that same level of risk. As he is in High Sec space, he should be operating at High Sec levels of Risk.
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 363	Posted - 2014.01.28 23:32:00 - [13] - Quote The impact is not addressed, it is simply discounted as being unimportant to you. Dismi You fail to show any evidence that the salvaging profession needs to be adjusted in high sec to the same levels of risk it entails in the more dangerous areas of space. As such, your proposal needs adjusting to something that does not have this negative impact. Preferably it would be adjusted so that it has any positive impact, at all, for anyone. If you want a proof that something is badly wrong, understand that getting myself and Mags or Diamichi to agree is theoretically impossible. We are literally at opposite ends of the player spectrum. I should be on your side, except that there is simply no basis or benefit to the change you suggest.
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 364	Posted - 2014.01.28 23:52:00 - [14] - Quote Nope, its not. You are simply declaring that since WH/LoSec/NullSec space is more dangerous for salvagers, that somehow High Sec Salvaging should be that dangerous too. Your proposal strips a salvager of the protection inherant to high sec space, for no reason. How is handwaving this issue as unimportant in any way addressing it? You fail in post after post to address even the most rudimentary flaws in your proposal, instead insisting that any point not supporting you is simply unimportant. That is not how discussion works.
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 364	Posted - 2014.01.28 23:58:00 - [15] - Quote double post
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 364	Posted - 2014.01.28 23:59:00 - [16] - Quote Abdul 'aleem wrote: 12. Spamming is prohibited. Spam is defined as the repetitive posting of the same topic or nonsensical post that has no substance and is often designed to annoy other forum users. This can include the words GÇ£firstGÇ¥, GÇ£go back to insert other game nameGÇ¥ and other such posts that contribute no value to forum discussion. Spamming also includes the posting of ASCII art within a forum post. Oddly, most of your posts, and most of them containing this quote, qualify. Thanks for being so helpful and pointing that out. You see the same points being brought up because you are posting the same nonsense non-answers to the problems with your proposal, while refusing to actually enter into any discussion of the topic.
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 366	Posted - 2014.01.29 00:36:00 - [17] - Quote Very little would change, except a bit more grief for the mission runners. People would still come into mission pockets to do whatever they are there for, and the smart missioner will still sit there and let them knowing that most of these people have support fleets waiting for the stupid missioner to open fire. A few more mission ships would pop until people realized whats up, a few new scams utilizing the new mechanic would emerge, and likely the screams would encourage a new kind of mission griefing where PvP fleets warped in and begun poping all the high value targets while daring the missioner to open fire--- which they dont do now because CONCORD prevents it. Seriously, there is no up side to this proposal, it only encourages and empowers the griefers to redouble their predations.
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 366	Posted - 2014.01.29 00:44:00 - [18] - Quote Abdul 'aleem wrote: My Little Pyongyang wrote: In reality if this change ever happened this whole activity of mission griefing would probably drop off substantially and there wouldn't be enough targets to make ganking them worthwhile. It would certainly make mission griefing harder on the griefers if a suspect flag for mission invasion was implemented. The only way you can possibly think this would so much as inconvienence a griefer is if you have never actually experianced what you are talking about. Its never the lone frigate stealing your stuff. There is almost always at least an off grid warfare link boosting alt in a safespot and a logistic ship, and usually a pirate faction cruiser or two to help him as soon as you open fire. The only way to win is to stop missioning and start using the mission as bait, with your own support fleet on standby in case they bite. Handing them more tools to grief the missioner with is a bad plan.
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 366	Posted - 2014.01.29 00:52:00 - [19] - Quote Abdul 'aleem wrote: Mike Voidstar wrote: Very little would change, except a bit more grief for the mission runners. People would still come into mission pockets to do whatever they are there for, and the smart missioner will still sit there and let them knowing that most of these people have support fleets waiting for the stupid missioner to open fire. A few more mission ships would pop until people realized whats up, a few new scams utilizing the new mechanic would emerge, and likely the screams would encourage a new kind of mission griefing where PvP fleets warped in and begun poping all the high value targets while daring the missioner to open fire--- which they dont do now because CONCORD prevents it. Seriously, there is no up side to this proposal, it only encourages and empowers the griefers to redouble their predations. Lots of opinion there MIke... lots of opinion. You should really read the original post (or re-read it). All the benefits are clearly listed and spelled out there. The fact that every mission invader would be suspect flagged really increases the ability to counter it. Or, the missioner could choose to not do anything as they currently do. They are certainly never forced to fight or attack in any way. Every benefit has been shown as false. There are no positives. I am not conjecturing or tossing opinions. Much of what I am describing is exactly what crimewatch was developed for in the first place. I am not even a pirate, and I can think of a couple of ways to use this change to grief people.... And I have full faith in the mouth breathing baby eaters of EVE to come up with many more that I have not thought of. That is the History of EVE. If you think it wont repeat, I mourn for your pixels.
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 366	Posted - 2014.01.29 01:00:00 - [20] - Quote dexington wrote: Abdul 'aleem wrote: My Little Pyongyang wrote: Suspect flag for going into someone's pocket without authorization sounds fun. It would cause more pvp. Isn't that what pocket invaders want overall? Surely they aren't looking for easy targets and are scrub-tier pvpers. It does seem that the biggest concern to the griefers is that this change will create more risk to them both in and out of the mission pocket. And they are right that if this suggestion is implemented, griefing missioners will no longer be so easy/relatively risk free. You realize how easily griefers could exploit the suspect timer? All you need to do is accept a mission on you main, make a bookmark of the mission location an give it to an alt. You can now proceed to warp the victim to that location, which no one in the fleet has access to, and kill him when he lands without concord intervention. This is just going to be the MTU "exploit" allover, griefers exploiting ****** mechanics to kill inexperienced players. It's a dumb idea that don't even remotely solves any mission problems, except maybe for marauders pilots getting attacked by destroyers. In most other cases things remain unchanged, because the griefer would enable suspect him self, in the cases where it might give the mission runner an advantage any effect can be nullified by bringing 1-2 extra people. An excellent example of why not to do this.

Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 366	Posted - 2014.01.29 02:57:00 - [21] - Quote It does not need to allow squad warping. If you take a mission, hand the waypoint to a PvP alt, and have that alt form a greifing gank fleet he can just sit in the pocket and kill anyone else who joins his fleet and warps to the mission as he likes. In EVE, one always has to account for the abusive use of Alts.
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 379	Posted - 2014.01.29 17:58:00 - [22] - Quote I have read and re-read the OP, and the resulting threadfail. Of the many things bothing me is this: It has been stated that placing the flag on anyone warping to the pocket without the missioner's permission allows for many more options not currently available, and that these options have been listed in the OP and subsequent posts. All I see is 1 additional option: Preemptive attack by the missioner without fear of CONCORD reprisal. Where are these other options? Preemptive attack is a bad move for a PvE fit mission runner on a PvP fit mission invader. This suggestion will only result in more dead ships and pods held hostage for ransom. Where is the additional danger and risk for the group being targeted for the change? They don't need any different ship than they currently use (anyone that thinks a frigate is in danger from a battleship in EVE has clearly never heard the word 'tracking', and while light drones work so do smartbombs), and even if they found themselves bothered by drones they circumvent the change with about one additional week's training with a cov-ops cloak. Granted, the cov-ops ship is many times more expensive than what they were required to fly, it's also going to be completely immune to the change and even more efficient at invading missions for grief and profit than previous. The suggestion does nothing to address the balance issue between mission-objective thieves and the missioners. That is just one of many levels this suggestion fails on.
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 381	Posted - 2014.01.29 21:14:00 - [23] - Quote Abdul 'aleem wrote: Mike Voidstar wrote: Of the many things bothing me is this: It has been stated that placing the flag on anyone warping to the pocket without the missioner's permission allows for many more options not currently available, and that these options have been listed in the OP and subsequent posts. All I see is 1 additional option: Preemptive attack by the missioner without fear of CONCORD reprisal. Where are these other options? This has been posted, Mike. Suspect flags are global... if you cannot understand how many possibilities exist from that fact after reading and re-reading this thread as you claim to have done, I cannot help you to. Edit: For everyone else coming into the thread, read posts in and around #223 and again around #232 Feel free to educate me. Point out a single new option available to the missioner other than attack without CONCORD reprisal the flag opens up. Certainly among the many, many possibilities you have been claiming there is one you can name? Go slowly so that all can understand.
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 381	Posted - 2014.01.29 21:56:00 - [24] - Quote So.... Not going to give an example of any other options that opened up? Not one? Ok then.
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 381	Posted - 2014.01.29 22:16:00 - [25] - Quote Your claim is that there many new options available to the mission. I have read the thread, and I see only one option, and that one not really viable for missioners unless they want to explode. Please, educate me. One single option not currently available other than preemtive attack without CONCORD intervention. You have made claims, I just want to see them substanciated, if at all possible.
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 381	Posted - 2014.01.29 22:24:00 - [26] - Quote Right. You dont have a single viable benefit. Thanks for confirming.
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 381	Posted - 2014.01.29 22:38:00 - [27] - Quote I am asking you for an example of a direct, single, viable alternative not currently available other than preemtive attack. You claim there are many. I have checked and rechecked the thread and see only that one. No one has given another alternative than preemtive attack. Please, educate me. You claim there are many so this should be simple. Simply saying there are others without substanciating the claim offers nothing to discuss. I am willing to be convinced, if you can back up your claims in some way.
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 383	Posted - 2014.01.29 23:40:00 - [28] - Quote I am just trying to engage you in actual discussion of your idea. I still maintain it's a bad one for many reasons, and the fact that it does not do what it claims to do is just one. You have made a simple claim: That It opens many new options for a missioner in dealing with "griefers". I disagree, and see only the singular new option of preemptive attack, which I do not see as a viable alternative as it is almost certain death to attack a PvP ready griefer in a missioning ship. Even if such an option was viable under ordinary circumstances, it's still only one option, and the claim is many. Fire away. Let's hear about these new viable alternatives opened up by your idea. I understand that this is difficult, so take your time. Just repeating over and over again that they exist does not make it so... actually discuss your idea. You are big on word count, put some substance in it.
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 383	Posted - 2014.01.30 00:10:00 - [29] - Quote You have heard my question. Answer it if you can. You don't need any assurances from me to actually discuss your idea in a forthright, honest and productive manner. Stop crap posting and actually put up something of substance, if you are able.
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 383	Posted - 2014.01.30 00:35:00 - [30] - Quote Now I am trolling just for asking a simple question without jumping through hoops. Just answer directly. It's Ok. If you have an answer we can have a discussion. If not you are just crap posting to keep a troll thread going.

Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 383	Posted - 2014.01.30 00:45:00 - [31] - Quote Yet another post empty of content or answers to the concerns about the glaring problems caused by the suggestion. You go, Bro. Keep the troll alive.

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.