Tarsas Phage:

GM Haggis wrote:

The role of the Orca as a mining support vessel has not been changed in any and as that was it's designed purpose we would not consider this change anything other than a bug fix.


I don't buy this as being classified as a mere bug fix. This was a feature of the Orca which has existed since the ship, or ships with SMAs in general, have existed. Considering between then and now is a non-trivial amount of time, and given the recent results of the CSM Crowd Sourcing project, you must be daft to think that anyone will buy the "bug fix" line.

GM Haggis, is CCP now trying to enforce or confine ships to intended roles? Does this mean we can also expect to see Rorquals or Hulks being disallowed to mount neuts, points or any such other offensive modules? How about removing turret slots from Industrials?

And since you seem to be on a bug fixing bent here, lets hear about the progress on fixing the bugs which affect everyone's game play, such as windows sticking to mouse pointers, the random offline module lottery, and other such glaring examples of non-existent pre-release QA testing?

I approve of CCP taking steps to remove the risk free PvP that goes on in this game.

The role of the Orca as a mining support vessel has not been changed in any and as that was it's designed purpose we would not consider this change anything other than a bug fix.

'Stealth' cargo bays are an abuse that allow risk-free hauling and risk-free trade profits. Huge amounts of valuable cargo and BPOs are moved in their corporate hangar bays every day. Large amounts of EHP already makes them difficult to gank - but no way to scan + 0% chance of dropping = risk free hauling in highsec.

Actually i'd see it as not "risk free hauling" because the risk of being successfully ganked is just as high. The real risk is to the gank'ees, after all - you can kill it just as easy, but do you get anything?

So the real whine with this one isn't that it's risk free - but that your "piracy" attempts aren't guaranteed to give you (the chance of) phat lewts.

It's not in the patch notes, as it is now classified an exploit.
HTFU.

It's not risk free pvp, its griefing. I'm ok with the first patch apart from the stealthy backstab, the second one however was unnecessary, you couldn't run away if you were pointed anymore. CCP just made the mission runners that shoot you "risk free pvpers". So much for knowing what its about.

It's not risk free pvp, its griefing.

You know that griefing isn't allowed in EVE and will get you banned, right?

Hypocrite much? Since when has there been much risk in shooting a mission runner that has agressed back at you?

Dont see much nerf in not being able to scoop ships with the orca, while said ships are locked.
Why would your orca be ongrid anyway and if it isnt locking is a nonissue anyway.
I could see much hilarity if the orca inherited the flagging by scooping the ship though, suddenly that big fatboy would be on the line too for taking part in asshattery.

I haul all the time.
OFC its risk-free hauling, especially after the insurance nerf. Sure its 'possible', at a cost, to gank an Orca now, but why would anyone?

Ganking the massive EHP they have requires 12-20 Tempests/Tornados - costing hundreds of millions in hulls that are now not only guaranteed to die - but without an insurance payoff.

Thus, nobody is going to gank an seemingly 'empty' T1-Insurable Orca - especially if the 'hidden' loot will not drop - not even for tears. Any gang of that size would simply be better served taking down the nearest freighter.

Griefing in eve is allowed and is not bannable.

Incorrect on both accounts. Your problem is that you have brought some irrelevant notion of GÇ£griefingGÇ¥ in from some other silly game that has nothing to do with EVE.

So, indeed, L2EVE: it's not what you think it is. Griefing gets you banned around here.

Wrong. I have (with friends) ganked orcas multiple times, just for lols, and I don't intend to stop just because I won't get insurance anymore. It's not about loot, it's not even necessarily about tears... sometimes it's just about having a laugh.

Don't assume you're safe.

mwahaha - I especially love the part where even if you do gank an orca at random it still drops nada - even if the whole bay was filled with trillions of isk worth of plexes

that's like griefing the gankers :).

Although I suppose they do get to see what's on the inside once the killmail is posted - LOL

Ninja salvaging, bumping, suicide ganking, awoxing, reverse awoxing, infiltration, stealing, pirating, scamming, wardecking for ransom, ransoming ships and not honoring it... I thought this was related to the word griefing no?

The role of the Orca as a mining support vessel has not been changed in any and as that was it's designed purpose we would not consider this change anything other than a bug fix.

Tears from TEARS, epic.... Well done CCP

As for this Orca "Nerf"




In other words, find some other way in screwing with PVE fit ships and HTFU. Cause we all know that no-one picked on mission-runners before the Orca was in game.

At least 90% of eve players are the so called bears, i do not expect that i will get much support. This however has nothing to do with ships corp hangars which still work.

Also

Griefing in eve is allowed and is not bannable.
L2EvE

I am 100% for any change that forces high sec PvP carebears to actually finish the fights they start! If having to finish what you start is too much of a "nerf" well as they say, GÇ£donGÇÖt start nutin, wonGÇÖt be nutinGÇ¥. Besides, if I read correctly you can still do this as normal in low/null where your 3rd party Orca wil have to accept the risk of trying to protect a pirate and as you High sec carebear PvP pilots love to argue, nothing in EvE should be risk free.

Using the SMA like any other SMA (carrier, etc.) = bug.

GǪexcept that you can still use the Orca's SMA just like carrier's SMA.

The only difference is that you can't get a carrier into highsec where the restrictions on the Orca's SMA comes into play (and where trying to use a left-behind carrier in a similar manner would get you tossed out of highsec). So the question is: have you tried doing the same with a highsec carrier? Have you explored how the Orca works in low/nullsec? Have you tested to make sure that the Orca is indeed different? If so, maybe it's the carrier's SMA that's bugged.

Engaging in combat with a carrier in range of you on a station and your target returning fire does not bar you from switching or swapping ships OUT of the carrier, which used to be the case with the Orca. You can indeed still do this with a carrier in low sec and in an Orca in low-sec, but not in high sec. My main's corp locks down a low-sec pocket in Sinq where we did indeed test (in 40 AU safes) the ship swapping mechanic in both a carrier and an Orca; this nerf is a direct slap in the face to ninja's use of the mechanic. There is nothing to say for it other than that.

So what you're saying is that there is no difference between the Orca's SMA and the carrier's; there is no bug.

They are saying swapping was a bug, which you CAN do with a carrier, but now you CAN'T do with an Orca.

But you just that that you can do it in an Orca.

So which one is it?

Escaping the consequences of a fight in an Orca is lame. No problem with that, as in:
1. Fight in ship X, start to lose....
2. Hide 'ship X' inside Orca, and get ship Y (or simply disengage and fly off in a pod...)
Its 'risk-free' PVP.

But that isn't what these 'nerfs' are doing. Read and comprehend.
They preventing you from BOARDING another ship from the bay - with timers no less.

It really is pretty lame- because there isn't anything inherently unfair about bringing new ships into a fight - as long as they can't be returned to the hangar until the fight is over.

IE, Engage in ship X, board ship Y, engage in Y, while ship X remains floating in empty in space.
It isn't 'risk-free' PVP, as any ship that is boarded it now 'in play' and must finish the fight - or be destroyed.

Had they simply made it impossible to 'hide flagged ships' in Orcas, without wrecking the 'boarding' ship functionality, I'd have been perfectly OK with it. After all, sometimes the mission runner turns the tables, and you would rightly lose your T3/Sleip/'Cane. The 'risk-free PVP' that people complain about disappears, a reasonable solution.

But, no, CCP has chosen to make it impossible to board ships from the SMA at all - and further used an arbitrary timer to do it.

Why? Its no surprise - its not the 'hiding' and 'evading' combat that kills carebears - its the act of 'boarding' a new, bigger, ship that kills them. And Carebears petition like crazy and sometimes quit when they get cocky and lose Billion ISK ships to a T2-Cane. "Yeah, I initially shot at a Vigil, but an Orca brought them a Hurricane - no fair, they cheated - I should only have to fight the Vigil!"

No, this is hand holding at its worst. I suppose CCP intends for Faction-fit PVE ships to live forever, because CCP is doing a good job of eliminating one of the ONLY threats to their existence. Those LVL 4 NPC's certainly aren't going to do it.

The bear picked the fight, by shooting first. The Orca merely turns the tables on a Carebear that tried to prey on a 'weak' frigate. Don't want to die? Don't shoot at the Vigil.

At least 90% of eve players are the so called bears, i do not expect that i will get much support. This however has nothing to do with ships corp hangars which still work.

Also

Griefing in eve is allowed and is not bannable.
L2EvE

Incorrect on both accounts. Your problem is that you have brought some irrelevant notion of GÇ£griefingGÇ¥ in from some other silly game that has nothing to do with EVE.

So, indeed, L2EVE: it's not what you think it is. Griefing gets you banned around here.

Playing Devils Advocate they picked a fight with a Vigil, not a Cane. Would they have shot a Cane if it had been there ninja-looting in the first place? Probably not, which is of course why you/ninjas use Vigils in the first place, to invite aggression.

CCP haven't really set a precedent with this to be honest - they have been continually nerfing scamming as well with changes to the UI... Adding a textual description of an amount in a contract, removing freeform contracts completely, showing where the contract route goes, warning them that they might not be able to dock there, etc. This Orca change is not the paradigm shift you might think it is.

The problem here, if you're prepared to stand back and look at it objectively, is that if you choose to retaliate to a Vigil stealing your stuff it's not unreasonable to expect that this is what you are going to be fighting. Being able to switch into something much more threatening may well be emergent gameplay from your point of view but it runs counter to "expected behaviour" from the carebears perspective. Again CCP fixing this sort of thing is nothing new, they fixed the lofty trick, they removed cascading GCCs, they even recently went one step further and removed automatic cascading aggression upon stealing.

At the end of the day you've still got "proper" methods like social engineering and corp infiltration to rid carebears of their ships. You should assume from numerous other examples that CCP are not happy with deceptions via the UI or unintended or undocumented game mechanics and will continue to remove them, for the betterment of whoever it affects (which let's be honest is always likely to be people who don't want to fight)

Just my 2p.

Can't really reply due to time constraints, but appreciate the well thought out reply.
Still, I'd say, technically, they are engaging 'you', who happen to be flying in a Vigil, flags follow the person, not the ship.

So I don't think it is a reasonable expectation that -

Just because you engage a Vigil, you are guaranteed to only be fighting a Vigil. You are fighting the pilot.

Forcing players to disengage, dockup in order to switch ships - is kind of weaksauce when the whole point of the Orca having an SM bay in the first place is for in-space fitting and ship swapping. Seems like CCP simply wants to give PVE player every opportunity possible to escape, even AFTER they initiate the fight.

I read this nerf as, 'Orca switching ships is OK' as long as you are using it for Carebear pursuits. Ninjas, need not apply.

It's not risk free pvp, its griefing.

Can't really reply due to time constraints, but appreciate the well thought out reply.
Still, I'd say, technically, they are engaging 'you', who happen to be flying in a Vigil, flags follow the person, not the ship.

So I don't think it is a reasonable expectation that -

Just because you engage a Vigil, you are guaranteed to only be fighting a Vigil. You are fighting the pilot.

Forcing players to disengage, dockup in order to switch ships - is kind of weaksauce when the whole point of the Orca having an SM bay in the first place is for in-space fitting and ship swapping. Seems like CCP simply wants to give PVE player every opportunity possible to escape, even AFTER they initiate the fight.

I read this nerf as, 'Orca switching ships is OK' as long as you are using it for Carebear pursuits. Ninjas, need not apply.

...Sad though, we ninjas trained our orcas for 6 months or so and now they are useless.

You can do mining ops.

Grief play
What is grief play?
Griefing
A grief player, or "griefer," is a player who devotes much of his time to making othersGÇÖ lives miserable, in a large part deriving his enjoyment of the game from these activities while he does not profit from it in any way. Grief tactics are the mechanics a griefer will utilize to antagonize other players. 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.

This should not be confused with standard conflict that might arise between two (or more) players, such as corporation wars. The EVE universe is a harsh universe largely driven by such conflict and notice must be taken of the fact that nonconsensual combat alone is not considered to be grief play per the above definition.

An example of grief play would be the so called "Can baiting" in starter systems. An experienced player drops a cargo container with some items in front of a station in a starter system and waits for a new player to take from it. The new player is flagged and promptly attacked and killed by the owner of the container. Doing the same in starter tutorial complexes is also considered grief play and will not be tolerated.

When you know something is overpowered or cheap as hell then you should know better than to get butthurt when it eventually gets rebalanced.

While the change itself is aggravating, the underhanded sneaky f-ing way CCP brought out the change (that is, by never mentioning it) is the icing on the cake.

Someone had to take it up their rear-end. This time, it are the gankers.

You can't do it in high sec, which you could before.

i lulled hard at this misinformed Bear that is so fluffy in her down-pillow covered computer chair she cannot see past her rose colored glasses to see whats going on in the real world.

I approve and note character name as a perfect target of opportunity.

Ninja salvaging, bumping, suicide ganking, awoxing, reverse awoxing, infiltration, stealing, pirating, scamming, wardecking for ransom, ransoming ships and not honoring it... I thought this was related to the word griefing no?

"A griefer is a player in a multiplayer video game that deliberately irritates and harasses other players." -wiki

...White knights are the most sick people in EvE.

It's disgusting to see how those hipster bears whiteknight every forum thread with their puny moral prejudices...

While the change itself is aggravating, the underhanded sneaky f-ing way CCP brought out the change (that is, by never mentioning it) is the icing on the cake.

sneaky underhandness?? in MY EVE?? why i NEVER!

It's disgusting to see how those hipster bears whiteknight every forum thread with their puny moral prejudices...

Just have to Orca take the aggro from the ship it scoops. The runner will see the Orca flash on oversight and know more stuff is up. This way low sec doesn't function differently from high sec.

At least 90% of eve players are the so called bears, i do not expect that i will get much support. This however has nothing to do with ships corp hangars which still work.

Also

Griefing in eve is allowed and is not bannable.
L2EvE

griefer tears, best tears

This. Always amazes me how much more greifers cry/whine then carebears.

So let me get this straight...

Griefers (sorry, calling them ninjas glorified the occupatin too much to merit that term) hopes to get a person who does not know all the mechanics of the game to engage them. The griefer then uses an obscure mechanic, allowing them to switch to a more effective ship, and kills the person. Much tears to be had.

Ccp, in turn, makes a change to the obscure mechanic, negating the trick to some degree. The griefer gets caught, loses ships, much tears to be had...

Seems like it is working exactly as intended and a collection of griefers encountered karmic pay back. Sounds good to me.

They don't cry to you or the forums, they cry to CCP in petitions and quit the ******* game when they meet us. Shut your mouth.

Shut my mouth? you're the one whining like a little girl because some EXPLOITS are finally started to get addressed.

wah wah wah i want to kill and lose nothing. wah wah wah i want no risk but all rewards. wah wah wah

you are playing the wrong game. log back into your undead rogue and go gank some noobs in warsong. get all the kills you want and lose nothing.

They don't cry to you or the forums, they cry to CCP in petitions and quit the ******* game when they meet us. Shut your mouth.

So its okay for bears to be able to shoot us without consequences but not okay for us to be able to kill them for it?

So much for calling me a hypocrite...

Bear/Missionrunner can choose to not shoot us OR call corpies for help. Im not sure you people realise that...

If you steal his stuff and he shoots you. You know you can shoot back, right?
Y U BEING SUCH A WUSS!?

And don't give me the "oh now I can't switch ships" argument. HTFU, adapt and learn to live with it.

Actually i'd see it as not "risk free hauling" because the risk of being successfully ganked is just as high. The real risk is to the gank'ees, after all - you can kill it just as easy, but do you get anything?

So the real whine with this one isn't that it's risk free - but that your "piracy" attempts aren't guaranteed to give you (the chance of) phat lewts.

The name of the game is getting a CNR to shoot at your frigate, keeping the CNR scrambled, and seamlessly switching into a larger ship that can kill the CNR - without having to leave grid. (If you leave grid to change ships, it gives the Mission Runner the opportunity to dock up at their leisure.)

Ninja salvaging, bumping, suicide ganking, awoxing, reverse awoxing, infiltration, stealing, pirating, scamming, wardecking for ransom, ransoming ships and not honoring it... I thought this was related to the word griefing no?

"A griefer is a player in a multiplayer video game that deliberately irritates and harasses other players." -wiki

...White knights are the most sick people in EvE.

TLDR; I can understand preventing players from removing ships from combat via Orca. I don't understand why it should be made stupidly difficult/risky to bring a NEW ship into combat. After all - the new ship is now ALSO committed to the battle.
Fix the 'BOARD SHIP' function as detailed above.

Forcing players to disengage, dockup in order to switch ships - is kind of weaksauce when the whole point of the Orca having an SM bay in the first place is for in-space fitting and ship swapping.

Look, obviously CCP doesn't want it to be easy to SWTICH SHIPS MID COMBAT. If you want to switch ships dock/POS up, change ships, come back. That's the way it works.

It's trivially easy to bring a new ship into combat - it's just not easy to do when you're trying to transfer a pilot from one ship in combat to another ship. Nor should it be.

I am broadly in favor of every nerf to 'neutral' vessels having any ability to impact a fight whatsoever, from orcas to RR to gang boosters.

Anyway, any mission runner smart enough to know to target the hurricane when it gets spit out is going to be smart enough not to engage you in the first place.



Yes, it is for IN SPACE fitting and ship swapping. It is not for IN COMBAT fitting and ship swapping. The entire point of EVE revolves around you planning out a ship and fitting and then being restricted to that ship/fitting for the ensuing combat. Asking to be able to swap fits/ship on the fly because you made a dumb decision is game breakingly bad, IMO.

You want this capability because it helps you kill mission runners better, but take a step back and look at how terrible it is in terms of EVE's philosophy.

Why on earth should you be able to magically transform one ship into a completely different ship on the field of combat? I see no justification for this whatsoever as a game play element other than "well it helps kill mission runners" and there are plenty of ways to do that.

I'd say their new solution is perfect. There is a chance you will still get in your new ship and waste the MR, there is a chance the MR will target the new ship and keep you from boarding it. You could win, you could lose.

Also I would say that as a corporation that specializes in utilizing sneaky/underhanded methods of bringing grief to mission runners ( a cause I fully support) TEARS should be full of professional admiration at CCP's sneak/underhanded method of bringing grief to people who used ORCA's in this way.

Something you used to do doesn't work any longer. You'll have to adapt your tactics. Welcome to EVE.

And you're surprised this was changed? If you want to fight them in a larger ship, fight them in a larger ship. CCP is quite right to keep people from magically switching ships mid fight.

...

Well; the ninja tears a tasty in this thread.



Also for people complaining of the Corp Hanger on the Orca well maybe it is an unscanabble hold with a 0% drop but I bet you CCP is probably working on that issue.

Yes, it is for IN SPACE fitting and ship swapping. It is not for IN COMBAT fitting and ship swapping. The entire point of EVE revolves around you planning out a ship and fitting and then being restricted to that ship/fitting for the ensuing combat. Asking to be able to swap fits/ship on the fly because you made a dumb decision is game breakingly bad, IMO.

If that happens i think a lot of peopel will quit. it will make relocation of ships even more a nightmare. i like to relocate my valuable ships unscannabale and not one by one taking over 30 jumps...
even smaller ships in and not valuable are transported easier in an orca around...


and further more it would make hisec imho the most dangerous space while null sec the safest with all the local intel channels and guards...

Do you see what I'm saying here?

They took out a mechanic that SHIP MAINTENANCE ARRAYS, not the ******* Orca, use, for the sole purpose of satisfying high-sec pussybears.

This is a nerf to NINJA's ONLY, because who else would be in combat trying to swap ships in high sec? You can still do it in a carrier . . .

. . . but you CAN'T do the same thing in high sec, because those we're preying on "waahhh I didn't know he could do that! BAWWWWWWW I lost my billion ISK boat because I thought I could shoot whoever who steals from me without consequence!"

. . . BAWWWWWWWWWW, I lost my billion ISK risk free gravy train because my victims got tired of me using pay to win and a borderline game exploit to win my so called PvP after stealing from them in the first place.

[quote=Ulstan]




This is a nerf to NINJA's ONLY, because who else would be in combat trying to swap ships in high sec? You can still do it in a carrier if you're playing jack-ass on a station to get out of combat instantly, but you CAN'T do the same thing in high sec, because those we're preying on "waahhh I didn't know he could do that! BAWWWWWWW I lost my billion ISK boat because I thought I could shoot whoever who steals from me without consequence!"

Yes, yes I do. Criminals that have spent years using pay to win, multiboxing to run at least 2 clients in order to use a borderline game mechanics abuse to deliver ridiculously overwhelming force against someone who had the audacity to take umbrage against someone STEALING from them are crying because the mechanics were changed and now include a bit more risk.



In low/null sec, people expect, or learn to expect, things like station games, gate camps, blobs, bubble walls, stealth bombing and other forms of jackassery that make up PvP on the lawless frontier. In high security areas, not so much. For a real world example, in some parts of the world, you can take a rifle, go out and hide somewhere and shoot people. It sucks, people die, others say too bad they didn't run faster, sucks to be you and life goes on. In Washington DC it prompted curfews, a massive police, national guard and intelligence agency deployment, a manhunt and finally catching the pair.

Welcome to real life. Real thieves don't steal from the same victims over and over, don't steal too much in one small area and don't publicize the theft to gloat over the victim's loss. Your gravy train has left the station, adapt, quit your griefing ways or grow a pair and go out to low/null sec and learn real PvP. What you are doing is as much PvP as shooting ducks in a barrel is hunting. You are not stealing for cash, you are out to cause mental grief for others by using pay to win and a borderline mechanics abuse tactic. Any commentary to the contrary is simply a large pile of cow manure.

OH, and can you explain how you can justify that you are "helping Eve"? Someone posted that inane piece of drivel and I was curious to the chain of logic behind it.

You are not stealing for cash, you are out to cause mental grief for others by using pay to win and a borderline mechanics abuse tactic. Any commentary to the contrary is simply a large pile of cow manure.

In low/null sec, people expect, or learn to expect, things like station games, gate camps, blobs, bubble walls, stealth bombing and other forms of jackassery that make up PvP on the lawless frontier. In high security areas, not so much.

Something changed recently, and it certainly involved Incursions and Carebear BAWWWWWWWWWW.

AGAIN. I WOULD LIKE ALL HIGH SEC AGGRESSION TAKEN OUT OF THE GAME entirely. No can flipping no 1 v 1's no weapon activation outside of plex's missions and even then no ability to activate anything that does damage to another player in high sec.

AGAIN. I WOULD LIKE ALL HIGH SEC AGGRESSION TAKEN OUT OF THE GAME entirely. No can flipping no 1 v 1's no weapon activation outside of plex's missions and even then no ability to activate anything that does damage to another player in high sec.

AGAIN. I WOULD LIKE ALL HIGH SEC AGGRESSION TAKEN OUT OF THE GAME entirely.

High security space is suppose to be safe.

Sure. But as a consequence, none of the following things will be allowed either:

-+ You can obviously no longer lock any player ship.
-+ You can no longer activate any kind of AoE weaponry or module.
-+ You can no longer use the market, contracts or the trading window.
-+ You can no longer access or manage POSes and their services.
-+ You can no longer mine.
-+ You can no longer shoot rats.
-+ You can no longer open any kind of container in space.
-+ You can no longer use the on-board scanner or scan probes.
-+ You can no longer be in a fleet.
-+ You can no longer use salvagers.
-+ You can no longer access the industry interface.
-+ You can no longer access player-sovereign systems.
-+ You can no longer access free-floating permanent sites in space.

Deal?
No, it was never intended to be safe. It's just meant to be safer than low and null, and guess what? It is. A lot. Being safer still means it's a full-PvP area, though, and if you can't handle that, you shouldn't undock log in.

Is that hypocrisy i smell.

If that happens i think a lot of peopel will quit. it will make relocation of ships even more a nightmare. i like to relocate my valuable ships unscannabale and not one by one taking over 30 jumps...
even smaller ships in and not valuable are transported easier in an orca around...


and further more it would make hisec imho the most dangerous space while null sec the safest with all the local intel channels and guards...

So much anger over nerfing an exploit.

It's not risk free pvp, its griefing. I'm ok with the first patch apart from the stealthy backstab, the second one however was unnecessary, you couldn't run away if you were pointed anymore. CCP just made the mission runners that shoot you "risk free pvpers". So much for knowing what its about.

So its okay for bears to be able to shoot us without consequences but not okay for us to be able to kill them for it?

So much for calling me a hypocrite...

Bear/Missionrunner can choose to not shoot us OR call corpies for help. Im not sure you people realise that...

Hopefully OP didn't find this out till after he had a ship locked and could not hide it away in his risk free blue ship...

Yes, thinking his ship got blown up is making me feel good

pay to win

[...]

pay to win

[...]

pay to win

[...]

pay to win

[plus assorted other deluded, sanctimonious drivel]

I was an idiot, and paid for my idiocy in the only proper fashion. But I don't want to admit that, so I'll just leverage my entitlement-mentality that always worked for me in other generic MMOs, so that way I don't have to!

EVE is not a pay to win game. That term doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

At least 90% of eve players are the so called bears, i do not expect that i will get much support. This however has nothing to do with ships corp hangars which still work.

Time to squash that corp hangar bug!