Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
Yongtau Naskingar
Yongtau Naskingar Corporation
26
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 11:36:00 -
[211] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Yongtau Naskingar wrote:
Except that a) people don't AP BRs with high value in their cargo (risk ain't worth it) so these people you wish pain on don't exist.
They do exist. They also park up on the jita gate and go afk. And that's when you shoot them. So far no problem
baltec1 wrote:You honestly think flying afk in a full blockade runner is a good pilot? It common sense, something far too many people seem to be lacking these days.
I already said:
Yongtau Naskingar wrote:autopiloting in general is widely regarded a bad idea (cargo or no, regardless of what you might think) You're the one that's arguing that autopiloting in a BR should come to little to no risk, if you're empty. I say there's no reason to make that distinction, that both of them are daft ideas, and there's no reason you should get off that easily.
baltec1 wrote:And why should the bad blockade runner pilots be protected from gankers scanning them? They are in a ship that when flown well is impossible to catch. They're not protected! You said that BRs get shot because they have the immunity, and gankers take the risk. So they're NOT protected by the immunity. The only protection in this whole discussion is the protection for gankers from getting unlucky and shooting a BR that's empty. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
520
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 11:40:00 -
[212] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:You evade again. You are obviously trying to wear away the stone by constantly dripping your emtpy words on it. That is not going to work. Said the guy who cant answer why bad pilots need to be protected from scanner when flying a ship that is impossible to lock when flown well.
Who are bad pilots? Using AP is NOT being a bad pilot in my opinion. It is only You who wants to see them as bad pilots. So, what should I answer if there is nothing to answer? You, in contrast, cannot even answer why I should see you as capacity to judge people's behavior and play style. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11654
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 11:50:00 -
[213] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Who are bad pilots?
People who get locked and scanned in a ship that when flown well is impossible to lock.
Rivr Luzade wrote: You, in contrast, cannot even answer why I should see you as capacity to judge people's behavior and play style.
I am a blockade runner pilot and memeber of the corp that industrialised ganking and gave everyone the gank catalyst.
Now, answer us, Why do people need more protection than the ability to be be unlockable, warp as fast as an interceptor, and align like a frigate? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
520
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 12:07:00 -
[214] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: You, in contrast, cannot even answer why I should see you as capacity to judge people's behavior and play style.
I am a blockade runner pilot and memeber of the corp that industrialised ganking and gave everyone the gank catalyst and just about every single new gank tactic in the last three years as well as the people behind burn jita..
Now, answer us, Why do people need more protection than the ability to be be unlockable, warp as fast as an interceptor, and align like a frigate?
Nice, then you have just answered your question on why people need a little bit of safety for their play style, which apparently does not align with your interesting ideas on how to play the game. This is a Sandbox, not Baltec1 Online. People have tools at their hand and use them however they like. Taking this sandbox-aspect away from them just because Baltec1 doesn't like safety built into a ship is "entirely pointless". You can use the ability of the ship to autopilot around your cargo in relative safety and pay with longer time, or you can use the abilities of your ship to haul it around faster. If you don't use the abilities of your ship to the fullest extent (ie. by autopiloting, you are not a bad pilot at all, you just use less efficient game mechanics, which in turn increase your risk of negative encounters). On the other hand, you can gank these ships, which are flown badly according to your verdict, just as well as any other ship. The only drawback with these ships is that you cannot be certain what you gank. Which is a good balance, considering that you only need 2 Catalyst to gank 1 Blockade Runner. |
Yongtau Naskingar
Yongtau Naskingar Corporation
26
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 12:11:00 -
[215] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:I am a blockade runner pilot and memeber of the corp that industrialised ganking and gave everyone the gank catalyst and just about every single new gank tactic in the last three years as well as the people behind burn jita.. Hm-mm, so even though the first few posts in this thread by you were meant to imply that you're arguing this as a BR pilot, you're now admitting you're arguing this as a ganker. Alright, that's some progress at least. So basically, you want to have it easy and see which AP BRs are packing and which aren't. You're simply asking for lower risk on your side, and higher risk on theirs. Even though that would mean higher rewards for you, and lower rewards for them, completely against the "Risk vs. Reward" line I hear you people touting all the time.
baltec1 wrote:Now, answer us, Why do people need more protection than the ability to be be unlockable, warp as fast as an interceptor, and align like a frigate? That's not the question in this thread. The question in this thread is, why do you (the ganker) need protection against bad luck? Answer that, and then you can argue for removing the unscannable bonus. |
Saint Hecate
Big Diggers Get Off My Lawn
11
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 12:18:00 -
[216] - Quote
I reallly like the proposed idea of the deep space transports like the Impel having immunity to NPC Customs officer scans. I think that would really open up a cool way for people who enjoy making drugs to move their product around. I think its a great idea and the person who proposed it deserves a cookie haha.
As a pilot who regularly uses cloaky haulers for all manner of things I think the immunity to cargo scan bonus is really unique and id be sad to see it go. If it does go, I hope it ends up on another ship class because I honestly think EVE needs more unique bonuses like that. I think unique bonuses add to gameplay by adding another layer of thought when deciding how you want to use the ship :).
After awhile I get kind of tired seeing 5% more damage or 10% rate of fire. Makes things feel homogenized. So I really hope that CCP keeps trying to push these fun bonuses.
Just my thoughts Best wishes Saint |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11655
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 12:19:00 -
[217] - Quote
Yongtau Naskingar wrote: That's not the question in this thread. The question in this thread is, why do you (the ganker) need protection against bad luck? Answer that, and then you can argue for removing the unscannable bonus.
No, that is the question here.
You two are demanding that CCP protects you from scanners in a ship that when flown well is impossible to lock.
Attacking blockade runners from a gankers point of view is a waste of time, isk and status right now. If you lose that scanner immunity then the vast majority will still be just as safe from gankers because we cant even lock you. There is no reason at all for the blockade runner to have scanner immunity. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Yongtau Naskingar
Yongtau Naskingar Corporation
26
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 12:27:00 -
[218] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:If you lose that scanner immunity then the vast majority will still be just as safe from gankers because we cant even lock you. So it makes no difference for the most of us, but you argue against it vehemently. Why? Because you want to have it easy, that's why. There's one ship that you actually have to put in some effort to gank, and you can't stand that sometimes when you put in the effort, you get unlucky. Cry me a river. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11655
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 12:39:00 -
[219] - Quote
Yongtau Naskingar wrote:baltec1 wrote:If you lose that scanner immunity then the vast majority will still be just as safe from gankers because we cant even lock you. So it makes no difference for the most of us, but you argue against it vehemently. Why? Because you want to have it easy, that's why. There's one ship that you actually have to put in some effort to gank, and you can't stand that sometimes when you put in the effort, you get unlucky. Cry me a river.
Yes, I would like scanning of blockade runners to go from impossible to hard.
Also, what makes you think removing scan immunity would make ganking a target require less effort? We would use the exact same ship and tactics. A gank is only ever as easy as the victim lets it be. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
520
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 12:41:00 -
[220] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Yongtau Naskingar wrote: That's not the question in this thread. The question in this thread is, why do you (the ganker) need protection against bad luck? Answer that, and then you can argue for removing the unscannable bonus.
No, that is the question here. You two are demanding that CCP protects you from scanners in a ship that when flown well is impossible to lock. Attacking blockade runners from a gankers point of view is a waste of time, isk and status right now. If you lose that scanner immunity then the vast majority will still be just as safe from gankers because we cant even lock you. There is no reason at all for the blockade runner to have scanner immunity.
I don't demand it. It is there already. And it is there for reasons to distinguish this ship from others in a a lot more cases and ways than your limited idea of its workings. It is also there because it fits the role of this ship.
If it is a waste of time from a gankers point of view, then I must say I am not really commiserating with them. The ganker pilots have it easy enough as it is. If they cannot determine if one ship type's cargohold is worth the Catalyst loss or not, it's not a great loss for them and certainly not for the hauler community. Gankers are to be required to make choices as well as the rest of the community. And this scanning immunity requires them to make a choice. |
|
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1231
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 12:55:00 -
[221] - Quote
Yongtau Naskingar wrote: That's not the question in this thread. The question in this thread is, why do you (the ganker) need protection against bad luck? Answer that, and then you can argue for removing the unscannable bonus.
I do not go about ganking BRs in highsec. I want the scan immunity removed.
I want it removed for purely selfish reasons, to enable me to AP around in an empty BR more safely. I'll still be safe while hauling valuable cargo, because I'm not an idiot. |
Yongtau Naskingar
Yongtau Naskingar Corporation
26
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:02:00 -
[222] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Also, what makes you think removing scan immunity would make ganking a target require less effort? I didn't. I said same effort, but some risk.
Gypsio III wrote:I want it removed for purely selfish reasons, to enable me to AP around in an empty BR more safely. I'll still be safe while hauling valuable cargo, because I'm not an idiot. AP should not be safe. |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
58
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 13:12:00 -
[223] - Quote
The one area you certainly can't argue against is sitting on Jita gate on a sunday afternoon with traffic control for 2 hours.
That happens to good pilots, bad pilots and everyone in between
Having a single ship int he game that can't be scaned is not the end of the world if they want to sit on the gate and spam jump for a bit with some expensive cargo, and get scanned and ganked before the gate to jita opens |
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
43
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 14:20:00 -
[224] - Quote
So, leaving the rolled homogeneous ships aside, the minniie ship is not the lightest and fastest anymore?
This makes negative amount of sense.
How about giving it the least max capacity (less than 12K aka 4 giant secure conts with max cargo fit), but returning the proper mass and agility? |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1231
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 14:29:00 -
[225] - Quote
Yongtau Naskingar wrote:Gypsio III wrote:I want it removed for purely selfish reasons, to enable me to AP around in an empty BR more safely. I'll still be safe while hauling valuable cargo, because I'm not an idiot. AP should not be safe.
I didn't say it should be. Read again.
I think it should be about as safe as using another ship with similar stats, and more importantly, I think your safety should be influenced by your own actions.
Right now, it's essentially pure dumb luck whether your empty APing BR gets ganked, because attackers can't tell if your hold is empty. That's a "feature" that's unique to BRs and, like most things involving pure dumb luck instead of skill or analysis, is fundamentally bad design.
It's much better game design for getting ganked to be a consequence of your own decisions. Now, you could argue that APing at all in a BR is a "bad decision" - and you'd be right, because it is stupid, and that's why I don't do it. But I don't regard this as acceptable from a design POV because it's essentially removing a pilot's options. It also forces a binary "safe because not APing" or "at risk because APing" state, with no gradations in between - which is another feature typical of bad design. |
Tharin Malkyre
Knights of the Ouroboros
23
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:00:00 -
[226] - Quote
Looks pretty tasty. My Prowler is gaining weight But it's getting T2 resists I'll take it.
And dat warp speed. I already have mine rigged with an extra warp speed rig, so 9 au/s here I come |
Arnpior
Corus Industries Ltd Corus Conglomerate
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 15:58:00 -
[227] - Quote
Gypsio III wrote:Currently, the scan immunity bonus essentially means that you can't AP around in an empty BR, you have to fly it manually everywhere. This can be a real pain. ... Now, you could argue that APing at all in a BR is a "bad decision" - and you'd be right, because it is stupid, and that's why I don't do it.
So..... if you dont AP at all in your BR..... then how is it a real pain that you have to manualy fly it everywhere ?
You guys are so full of ****.
|
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1231
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 16:18:00 -
[228] - Quote
Arnpior wrote:Gypsio III wrote:Currently, the scan immunity bonus essentially means that you can't AP around in an empty BR, you have to fly it manually everywhere. This can be a real pain. ... Now, you could argue that APing at all in a BR is a "bad decision" - and you'd be right, because it is stupid, and that's why I don't do it. So..... if you dont AP at all in your BR..... then how is it a real pain that you have to manualy fly it everywhere ? You guys are so full of ****.
I have no idea what point you're trying to make here. Are you sure you understand the subject?
The scan immunity means that it is unnecessarily dangerous to AP an empty BR about. Ergo, I don't do it, and fly manually instead. This is a real pain. This is bad design and results in a bad user experience. Ergo, scan immunity should be removed. This is no loss to the class because the cloak provides scan immunity for non-AP work.
|
Kasife Vynneve
Capital Storm. Black Flag Society
41
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 17:38:00 -
[229] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:
Use a t3. Tengu can get 1k cargo, 200k ehp with full passive tank (you can get a bit more if you arent autopiloting) and covops cloak. You can trade rigs for more cargo.
Legion can get 600k ehp, but obviously no cargo expanders on that. Has enough room for t2 bpos though
Prior to me training Transports I used my Legion to move things in and out of Null, while yes interdiction nullification was good to have gee I was glad to have more space withe the BR ~ particularly when it came to carrying command centers. Felt silly putting cargo rigs on a T3 just make them fit.
Love my cloaky now and I look forward to these changes as was always puzzled by the tanking bonus on them. |
Sheeana Harb
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
29
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 18:05:00 -
[230] - Quote
I'm disappointed that Prowler is loosing a bit of it's agility and gaining mass. Minmatar ships are know for being fast (and made of paper) and it is illogical to see this trait not being kept on arguably the most advanced sub-capital industrial ship.
The current trade-off for Prowler is one extra high, smaller cargo and the greatest agility. With the patch Prowler will loose the advantage of an extra high, will keep the smallest cargo and loose agility (altough gaining an extra low). It will be very hard to justify using Prowler after the patch unless someone has trained for it(which was probably for the extra high and agility).
I would very much like to see Prowler keeping its Minmatar theme. |
|
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
636
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 18:50:00 -
[231] - Quote
Sheeana Harb wrote:I'm disappointed that Prowler is loosing a bit of it's agility and gaining mass. Minmatar ships are know for being fast (and made of paper) and it is illogical to see this trait not being kept on arguably the most advanced sub-capital industrial ship.
The current trade-off for Prowler is one extra high, smaller cargo and the greatest agility. With the patch Prowler will loose the advantage of an extra high, will keep the smallest cargo and loose agility (altough gaining an extra low). It will be very hard to justify using Prowler after the patch unless someone has trained for it(which was probably for the extra high and agility).
I would very much like to see Prowler keeping its Minmatar theme. I think it ends up netting almost 0 change. Taking away from the agility multiplier makes it more agile, while adding mass counteracts that. however adding mass does help its agility when using speed modules. |
Myrthiis
Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys
14
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 19:32:00 -
[232] - Quote
Ok time for final thought on these changes .
-First scanning immunity should'nt be removed ,gankers should still take the gamble to blow an empty BR . -Bubble immunity should'nt be intoduced on these hulls are they are already quite slippery. -Transport bonus are fine and stong warpspeed is especially good ,for any pilot really behind is computer and ccp should be keeping this policy.
On the hulls themselves every ships can fit for 10 K m3 and an align time of 5 s with a Nano and T2 cargo rigs except the Crane with less than 10 k m3 and 6 s align time. On the fits ,u could apply on them there is two superiors BR Viator and Prorator who can fit Cover Cyno+ Cov ops + 10 mn experimental Mwd and keep their 10 k m3 cargo and align time . Prowler miss half a point of grid to do so (162.5/163) and need a 1 % grid implant to do so bye bye Eifyr and Co. 'Rogue' Warp Drive Speed WS-610 and variant .Plz CCP and Fozzie fix this . Crane is inferior in everyway in comparaison to the three others and should be sent back at near light speed in his engineer face.
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
9989
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 19:41:00 -
[233] - Quote
Yongtau Naskingar wrote:baltec1 wrote:I am a blockade runner pilot and memeber of the corp that industrialised ganking and gave everyone the gank catalyst and just about every single new gank tactic in the last three years as well as the people behind burn jita.. Hm-mm, so even though the first few posts in this thread by you were meant to imply that you're arguing this as a BR pilot, you're now admitting you're arguing this as a ganker. Alright, that's some progress at least. So basically, you want to have it easy and see which autopilot BRs are packing and which aren't. Why not? Morons who autopilot should get their BRs blown up if they're carrying expensive ****. You should really be for removing the scan immunity because otherwise your empty AP BR would be getting blown up as well.
Yongtau Naskingar wrote:That's not the question in this thread. The question in this thread is, why do you (the ganker) need protection against bad luck? Answer that, and then you can argue for removing the unscannable bonus. Nobody is arguing that they should. We're arguing that player safety should be influenced by their decisions. If you want to autopilot in an empty BR then objectively speaking your risk goes down if you can be cargo scanned. If you want to autopilot in a loot pinata BR then your risk will go up as it should be. Your risk of being ganked autopiloting shouldn't be independent of your decision to carry juicy trinkets. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
444
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 19:46:00 -
[234] - Quote
Myrthiis wrote: On the fits ,u could apply on them there is two superiors BR Viator and Prorator who can fit Cover Cyno+ Cov ops + 10 mn experimental Mwd and keep their 10 k m3 cargo and align time . Prowler miss half a point of grid to do so (162.5/163) and need a 1 % grid implant to do so bye bye Eifyr and Co. 'Rogue' Warp Drive Speed WS-610 and variant .Plz CCP and Fozzie fix this . Crane is inferior in everyway in comparaison to the three others and should be sent back at near light speed in his engineer face.
Based on this, without access to EFT, I'd totally support a bit more PG for the Prowler and Crane. I wonder how they compare when fit with probe launcher instead of covert cyno.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |
Myrthiis
Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys
14
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 19:48:00 -
[235] - Quote
They are both fine with it core probe launcher only consume 1 PG,but crane has still the crappiest align time and cargo |
Myrthiis
Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys
14
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 19:50:00 -
[236] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Yongtau Naskingar wrote:baltec1 wrote:I am a blockade runner pilot and memeber of the corp that industrialised ganking and gave everyone the gank catalyst and just about every single new gank tactic in the last three years as well as the people behind burn jita.. Hm-mm, so even though the first few posts in this thread by you were meant to imply that you're arguing this as a BR pilot, you're now admitting you're arguing this as a ganker. Alright, that's some progress at least. So basically, you want to have it easy and see which autopilot BRs are packing and which aren't. Why not? Morons who autopilot should get their BRs blown up if they're carrying expensive ****. You should really be for removing the scan immunity because otherwise your empty AP BR would be getting blown up as well. Yongtau Naskingar wrote:That's not the question in this thread. The question in this thread is, why do you (the ganker) need protection against bad luck? Answer that, and then you can argue for removing the unscannable bonus. Nobody is arguing that they should. We're arguing that player safety should be influenced by their decisions. If you want to autopilot in an empty BR then objectively speaking your risk goes down if you can be cargo scanned. If you want to autopilot in a loot pinata BR then your risk will go up as it should be. Your risk of being ganked autopiloting shouldn't be independent of your decision to carry juicy trinkets.
We have understood that Goonswarm are bored to gank empty BR ,but no thanks keep the immunity on BR as there is no valid reason to remove it .
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11679
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 20:21:00 -
[237] - Quote
Myrthiis wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Yongtau Naskingar wrote:baltec1 wrote:I am a blockade runner pilot and memeber of the corp that industrialised ganking and gave everyone the gank catalyst and just about every single new gank tactic in the last three years as well as the people behind burn jita.. Hm-mm, so even though the first few posts in this thread by you were meant to imply that you're arguing this as a BR pilot, you're now admitting you're arguing this as a ganker. Alright, that's some progress at least. So basically, you want to have it easy and see which autopilot BRs are packing and which aren't. Why not? Morons who autopilot should get their BRs blown up if they're carrying expensive ****. You should really be for removing the scan immunity because otherwise your empty AP BR would be getting blown up as well. Yongtau Naskingar wrote:That's not the question in this thread. The question in this thread is, why do you (the ganker) need protection against bad luck? Answer that, and then you can argue for removing the unscannable bonus. Nobody is arguing that they should. We're arguing that player safety should be influenced by their decisions. If you want to autopilot in an empty BR then objectively speaking your risk goes down if you can be cargo scanned. If you want to autopilot in a loot pinata BR then your risk will go up as it should be. Your risk of being ganked autopiloting shouldn't be independent of your decision to carry juicy trinkets. We have understood that Goonswarm are bored to gank empty BR ,but no thanks keep the immunity on BR as there is no valid reason to remove it .
We just gave you two.
Nobody has yet given a reason why a ship that cannot be locked when flown well need to also be impossible to scan. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Myrthiis
Boon Odd Ducks Bath Toys
14
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 20:56:00 -
[238] - Quote
Baltec 1 you are so simple that this is amusing ,you are trying to hide what u want behind logic . - You just want to remove the unscannability to let BR come back on autopilot once empty in the purpose to save time for multi adds vet .You hope than once scanned ,they could made it throught .
Sorry but there is two rules i've learn the first time i logged in EVE the first one is "fly what u can afford to loose" the second is "never fly a ship on autopilot".
SO here is your answer,BR need unscannability because it forces their owners to actively fly them to avoid destruction , this isn't a bonus but a malus ... |
Sheeana Harb
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
29
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:13:00 -
[239] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
We just gave you two.
Nobody has yet given a reason why a ship that cannot be locked when flown well need to also be impossible to scan.
Fozzie has and I strongly suggest you read the whole thread before engaging in further conversation.
Just in case you wouldn't bother reading it for the second time:CCP Fozzie wrote:...However it can be a useful tool for carrying extremely high value cargos and it fits so perfectly with the thematic role of the Blockade Runners that I am quite hesitant to remove it completely....
I personally hope cargo scanning immunity will stay even though it has made my time flying Blockade Runners riskier. |
Lemmih AI
Nexus Fleet Inc. Nulli Secunda
15
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:15:00 -
[240] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: Nobody has yet given a reason why a ship that cannot be locked when flown well need to also be impossible to scan.
Top of the page
Kenneth Feld wrote:The one area you certainly can't argue against is sitting on Jita gate on a sunday afternoon with traffic control for 2 hours.
That happens to good pilots, bad pilots and everyone in between
Having a single ship int he game that can't be scaned is not the end of the world if they want to sit on the gate and spam jump for a bit with some expensive cargo, and get scanned and ganked before the gate to jita opens
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |