Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Shayla Etherodyne
United Nations Industrial Holdings
26
|
Posted - 2016.04.26 18:35:24 -
[91] - Quote
Kitsune Rei wrote:
It adds another dynamic to hi sec and removes targets from target rich environments. You've spent the better part of this thread complaining at anyone who thinks the current status isn't bad and ridicule any who offer alternatives. Are you always this averse to both the status quo and proposed changes.
Or did you have some other option that goes along with that bitterness?
I am specifically arguing against your alternative, simply because it is a badly thought idea.
|
Shayla Etherodyne
United Nations Industrial Holdings
26
|
Posted - 2016.04.26 18:41:19 -
[92] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:Kitsune Rei wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:A Galleon was a warship that was used to transport goods; they were basically hauling with a battleship. I imagine a Raven with nothing but Expanded Cargohold IIs in the lows and Cargohold Optimization Rigs Once upon a time, hauling with dreads was common. Then came the great cargo nerf.
Even before there was hauling "minerals" turned into modules with carriers loaded with frigates equipped with capital class modules. Then several nerfs come (module refining, being unable to move ships with illegal modules and so on). |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3210
|
Posted - 2016.04.26 20:38:48 -
[93] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:"I didn't bother reading what was actually written but just assumed you were wanting ganking to be harder because you dared suggest non helpless industrial vessels" Fixed that response for you, since you didn't bother reading anything I actually wrote, like the bit where I said it should take far longer before the concord 'response' occurs. (I'd love to replace Concord ships with just your self destruct mechanism being remotely triggered also, to make Concords power an override that can't be removed rather than fleets of ubber battleships that everyone when whines ignore other targets than criminals). And with the ganks taking far longer, everything else you wrote is utterly invalid.
Like I said, you are just all stuck in a tunnel vision mindset about the whole gank & industrials equation. Including CCP. |
Grauth Thorner
Vicious Trading Company
500
|
Posted - 2016.04.28 21:59:01 -
[94] - Quote
Kieron VonDeux wrote:GsyBoy wrote:Black Pedro wrote: any ship class became effectively invulnerable (which arguably freighters already boarderline are) I think quite the opposite. If you get targeted in high sec while running a route you will die. That is more of an issue in my eyes I think there is a huge perception problem here. Many think it is more dangerous than it should be, and many think it isn't dangerous enough. All I can say is that it certainly seems far more dangerous than it used to be when I first started playing a decade ago. Looking at the price of hauling stuff, I'd say it isn't dangerous enough.
View real-time damage statistics in-game
>EVE Live DPS Graph application forum thread
>iciclesoft.com
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
280
|
Posted - 2016.04.28 22:05:47 -
[95] - Quote
Isaac Armer wrote:To start, there's nothing wrong with ganking at all, but I'm not sure you understand what the word 'protected' means. Protection is proactive, concord is not. So protected is only a proactive measure, with no possibility that it's a reactive measure?
Does the fire service not protect the community by reacting to emergencies? Do doctors not protect the lives of the patients by reacting to trauma and other life threatening medical conditions? Do the police not protect people by reacting to crime? |
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
26123
|
Posted - 2016.04.28 22:15:21 -
[96] - Quote
Grauth Thorner wrote:Kieron VonDeux wrote:I think there is a huge perception problem here. Many think it is more dangerous than it should be, and many think it isn't dangerous enough.
All I can say is that it certainly seems far more dangerous than it used to be when I first started playing a decade ago. Looking at the price of hauling stuff, I'd say it isn't dangerous enough. I agree, it's safe enough that Red Frog managed a 99%+ successful delivery rate last year according to their annual report; I don't believe they specified how many failures were down to ganks, they did bump their prices fairly recently though.
There again, I'd say that Red Frog, being professionals, put a damn sight more effort into not getting ganked than the usual hapless victim does.
Civilized behaviour is knowing that violence is barbaric, but paying other people to do it is business.
Nil mortifi sine lucre.
|
Isaac Armer
The Soup Kitchen
180
|
Posted - 2016.04.28 22:25:38 -
[97] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:So protected is only a proactive measure, with no possibility that it's a reactive measure?
Does the fire service not protect the community by reacting to emergencies? Do doctors not protect the lives of the patients by reacting to trauma and other life threatening medical conditions? Do the police not protect people by reacting to crime?
Fire services protect people from losing everything, not from fires starting in the first place Doctors protect people from dying/getting worse, not from getting sick or being hurt in the first place Police protect people from crimes getting out of control, not from crimes happening in the first place
My point was simply that CONCORD was specifically designed as a form of punishment, not protection from something bad happening to you |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
280
|
Posted - 2016.04.28 22:29:03 -
[98] - Quote
Isaac Armer wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:So protected is only a proactive measure, with no possibility that it's a reactive measure?
Does the fire service not protect the community by reacting to emergencies? Do doctors not protect the lives of the patients by reacting to trauma and other life threatening medical conditions? Do the police not protect people by reacting to crime? Fire services protect people from losing everything, not from fires starting in the first place Doctors protect people from dying/getting worse, not from getting sick or being hurt in the first place Police protect people from crimes getting out of control, not from crimes happening in the first place My point was simply that CONCORD was specifically designed as a form of punishment, not protection from something bad happening to you Read the first three words of each sentence in your reply there.
So they do protect then, even as a reactive measure.
That is the same with CONCORD.
And, no. Your point was that Ima didn't understand the meaning of the word protection, yet you demonstrated that exact same lack of understanding in your reply to her. |
Isaac Armer
The Soup Kitchen
180
|
Posted - 2016.04.29 03:22:53 -
[99] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:Read the first three words of each sentence in your reply there.
So they do protect then, even as a reactive measure.
That is the same with CONCORD.
And, no. Your point was that Ima didn't understand the meaning of the word protection, yet you demonstrated that exact same lack of understanding in your reply to her.
confirming an NPC alt is trying to defend code. Post with your main, please.
Did you even read what I posted? concord doesn't defend anyone. You're honestly disagreeing with that? I'm not going to argue semantics with you when we all know concord doesn't exist to defend anyone.
There's nothing wrong with ganking, but as we all know, HS ganking and merc-ing relies on a system that doesn't protect anyone, but punishes people who get sloppy and lazy. Reactive is punishment, not protection.
What nerve did I hit that made you react like this? |
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
282
|
Posted - 2016.04.29 03:32:37 -
[100] - Quote
Isaac Armer wrote:confirming an NPC alt is trying to defend code. Post with your main, please.
Did you even read what I posted? concord doesn't defend anyone. You're honestly disagreeing with that? I'm not going to argue semantics with you when we all know concord doesn't exist to defend anyone.
There's nothing wrong with ganking, but as we all know, HS ganking and merc-ing relies on a system that doesn't protect anyone, but punishes people who get sloppy and lazy. Reactive is punishment, not protection.
What nerve did I hit that made you react like this? I didn't say CONCORD defends anyone and I'm not defending CODE. They are big enough to defend themselves.
You claimed that CONCORD does not protect. You made that claim on the basis of asserting that another player does not know the meaning of the word.
Yet you completely misrepresented it in your post.
I was just pointing out your limited understanding. Not anything to do with CODE.
As to being an NPC alt, so what? Is that illegal? Am I going to be ban hammered for posting in the forum using an character in an NPC corp?
Not a nerve either. Just pointing out stupidity. |
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
7571
|
Posted - 2016.04.29 08:21:04 -
[101] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:So yes, CCP do treat industrial ships as nothing more than targets, there are not a 'variety' of fits for them. And that is the root of the problem. A freighter in highsec is already protected by a automated, invincible, 100% deadly police force which even scales with the amount of Gankers there are. So what kind of weapons on a freighter will save you from destruction if 40+ people attack you? What if they bring 5 more to compensate for the amount you can kill in a worst case scenario. What about all the friends you could bring to the fight RIGHT NOW? Why do you think that CCP should change the rules so you can win in a 1 vs 40 fight without effort? I am also not surprised that this is a thread about another nerf to ganking and carebears already start to cry for the next nerf while they paint on this one is not even dry.
Freighters are "protected" in the same manner that the police protect us. That is, cops can only be relied upon to draw chalk around the body if the killer is motivated enough.
And you know that. The rest of your comment actually contradicts the "protection" you stated.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
284
|
Posted - 2016.04.29 08:29:05 -
[102] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Freighters are "protected" in the same manner that the police protect us. That is, cops can only be relied upon to draw chalk around the body if the killer is motivated enough.
And you know that. The rest of your comment actually contradicts the "protection" you stated. That is as disingenuous a concept of protection as the previous guy who posted.
In highsec many people fly around even without local open. Intel channels are the exception rather than the norm. Freighters often successfully autopilot to their desitnation. People mine away in belts AFK, or semi-AFK watching Netflix and that happens every day. You can undock from a station with dozens of people outside and not instantly feel like you are going to be killed.
The threat of CONCORD response to the actions of someone who shoots, is a major deterrent to some players and every bit as much a reason why highsec is not nullsec.
As a community, highsec is protected by CONCORD, even if one individual gank occurs. That doesn't change the fact that CONCORD offers protection to people in highsec. |
Celthric Kanerian
Ascendance Of New Eden Workers Trade Federation
739
|
Posted - 2016.04.29 09:22:20 -
[103] - Quote
GsyBoy wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:GsyBoy wrote:So you get 2 mins 45 secs of bumping, scram and repeat?
Did I miss something? 15 seconds apparently. Perfection is a dish best served like wasabi .
Is that an actual saying? |
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
2448
|
Posted - 2016.04.29 10:11:17 -
[104] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Freighters are "protected" in the same manner that the police protect us. That is, cops can only be relied upon to draw chalk around the body if the killer is motivated enough.
And you know that. The rest of your comment actually contradicts the "protection" you stated. Citizen!
If you attack a target it takes CONCORD only a few seconds to show up and completely disable your ship, your guns and your drones. If the ganker does not manage to kill the ship in that amount of time the target obviously survives.
Now gankers are perfectly capable of calculating the amount of damage they need to dish out to kill the target maybe even factoring in some interference from ag. They will therefor not attack a target which they can not destroy, since they lose all their ships in the process without a kill
Maybe you don't like the term, but I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that ships who do not get killed because CONCORD would destroy you before you can achieve your task are therefor "protected by CONCORD".
I mean in literally every bumping thread ag folks are complaining that bumping Freighters is ridiculous because the bumping ship is "inconsequential". Which obviously just means that it can do it's thing and you are unable to interfere with it because it is "protected by CONCORD" or just because ag is so bad they can't even kill a low EHP bumping ship and therefor rely on CCP to change the game in their favor once again.
I hope that made clear what I mean by that term. Let me know if you are still confused, I am here to help citizen.
Agent Ima Wreckyou
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Isaac Armer
The Soup Kitchen
182
|
Posted - 2016.04.29 14:19:19 -
[105] - Quote
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:I didn't say CONCORD defends anyone and I'm not defending CODE. They are big enough to defend themselves.
You claimed that CONCORD does not protect. You made that claim on the basis of asserting that another player does not know the meaning of the word.
Yet you completely misrepresented it in your post.
I was just pointing out your limited understanding. Not anything to do with CODE.
As to being an NPC alt, so what? Is that illegal? Am I going to be ban hammered for posting in the forum using an character in an NPC corp?
Just pointing out the stupidity of calling out another player when you don't understand the meaning yourself. If you call out other players, then you better be pretty sure of your ground. Stones and glass houses and all that.
We might be arguing semantics now. I don't consider retroactive punishment protection. That is retaliation. If someone shoots someone in the street and the police take the criminal to jail, we don't say "thank you for protecting the guy who got shot," we say "thank you for punishing a criminal"
CONCORD has never protected anyone. They avenge you, the react to what someone does. They don't protect anyone.
I have nothing against code either, it's a very valid playstyle. Claiming concord protects freighters simply isn't true, however. (and I say that thinking a 30 man fleet should always be able to take down a solo pilot in a freighter anywhere, even HS. 30 on 1 should never favor the one player) |
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony The Wraithguard.
266
|
Posted - 2016.04.29 17:04:58 -
[106] - Quote
That said ..... highsec rules are quite specific on the topic of aggression: you either have a Wardec warrent, the target is criminal, or you accept that concordokken will take place.
Bumping is a nice case of out-of-the-box thinking and emergent gameplay but bumping for hours is just milking it.
Out of several available options, eg: bumper suspect flag or straight out removal of the mechanic on ships entering warp, CCP came up with a compromise that allows unconsequential bumping for three minutes. THREE MINUTES. That's a long time allowing travel from several systems over.
Yet, gankers whine as if they've been robbed. Pathetic. Take comfort in the notion your controversial mechanic is still there, albeit for a limited timespan. A glass that could have been empty is still half full. Be grateful. |
Sentamon
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
2347
|
Posted - 2016.04.29 20:11:42 -
[107] - Quote
The 3 minute "rule" is a prime example of one of those game mechanics that people hate because you shouldn't need a college course to memorize all the goofy rules in place to counter bad game mechanics.
Some sensible way to solve this is:
* ship collision damage (before people say "but Jita 4-4" , ships undocking on top of each other is another terrible mechanic that needs to be fixed)
* detach warp start from acceleration completely, ie your ship has a it's set time to enter warp and no amount of bumping will stop that)
~ Professional Forum Alt -á~
|
Zar Myx
New Eden Browncoats
2
|
Posted - 2016.04.29 21:12:03 -
[108] - Quote
If the cop's pop you, there should be nonaggression type timer. You need a time out to think about what you have done. It doesn't need to be very long.
You can still try and kill and the haulers and miners you want, but at least there is a small penalty when in hi-sec. You just need a little time to stare at your naval and determine if you have chosen the right path. I think you probably have, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't reflect on it every now and then. |
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony The Wraithguard.
269
|
Posted - 2016.04.29 22:13:03 -
[109] - Quote
There is a 15 minute timer during which you can't warp anywhere. They just use alts for a suicide point. |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
7579
|
Posted - 2016.04.30 01:53:40 -
[110] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Freighters are "protected" in the same manner that the police protect us. That is, cops can only be relied upon to draw chalk around the body if the killer is motivated enough.
And you know that. The rest of your comment actually contradicts the "protection" you stated. Citizen! If you attack a target it takes CONCORD only a few seconds to show up and completely disable your ship, your guns and your drones. If the ganker does not manage to kill the ship in that amount of time the target obviously survives. Now gankers are perfectly capable of calculating the amount of damage they need to dish out to kill the target maybe even factoring in some interference from ag. They will therefor not attack a target which they can not destroy, since they lose all their ships in the process without a kill Maybe you don't like the term, but I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that ships who do not get killed because CONCORD would destroy you before you can achieve your task are therefor "protected by CONCORD". I mean in literally every bumping thread ag folks are complaining that bumping Freighters is ridiculous because the bumping is "inconsequential". Which obviously just means that it can do it's thing and you are unable to interfere with it because it is "protected by CONCORD" or just because ag is so bad they can't even kill a low EHP bumping ship and therefor rely on CCP to change the game in their favor once again. I hope that made clear what I mean by that term. Let me know if you are still confused, I am here to help citizen. Agent Ima Wreckyou
Member of an organization that says "CODE. always wins" says Concord protects ships.
And you proved my point again.
As for killing low EHP bumping ships, be careful what you wish for.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1400
|
Posted - 2016.04.30 11:36:51 -
[111] - Quote
Ima Wreckyou wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Freighters are "protected" in the same manner that the police protect us. That is, cops can only be relied upon to draw chalk around the body if the killer is motivated enough.
And you know that. The rest of your comment actually contradicts the "protection" you stated. Citizen! If you attack a target it takes CONCORD only a few seconds to show up and completely disable your ship, your guns and your drones. If the ganker does not manage to kill the ship in that amount of time the target obviously survives. Now gankers are perfectly capable of calculating the amount of damage they need to dish out to kill the target maybe even factoring in some interference from ag. They will therefor not attack a target which they can not destroy, since they lose all their ships in the process without a kill Maybe you don't like the term, but I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that ships who do not get killed because CONCORD would destroy you before you can achieve your task are therefor "protected by CONCORD". I mean in literally every bumping thread ag folks are complaining that bumping Freighters is ridiculous because the bumping is "inconsequential". Which obviously just means that it can do it's thing and you are unable to interfere with it because it is "protected by CONCORD" or just because ag is so bad they can't even kill a low EHP bumping ship and therefor rely on CCP to change the game in their favor once again. I hope that made clear what I mean by that term. Let me know if you are still confused, I am here to help citizen. Agent Ima Wreckyou
It is simply a question of risk and reward: Lets compare risk and rewards for a Ganker Bumper, the gankers themselves and a AG member ganking the Macherial.
Bumper
Risk - No criminal flag yet is effectively pointing someone - Slight risk of being ganked but is fast moving, best bumping fit can be taken down by one Talos
Rewards - Gets a slice of the loot and of course ransoms to stop bumping
AG Bumper Ganker
Risk - Will go criminal - Will lose a Talos - Will lose security status and the impact that has on what may be a limited number of accounts, so incurring costs - May lose POD
Reward - Has no interest in the freighter so no skin in the game - The Freighter pilot will often not even notice that he was saved in this way so no reward will be forthcoming
Ganker
Risk - Losses are paid by Goons or paid by donations T2 fitted Catalyst, T2 Brutix or T2 Talos or T2 Bomber - Security status impact that has no value because this toon is used solely for that on alliance funded accounts and they fly around in no value pods shuttles or noob ships apart from the gank ship
Reward - Slice of the loot
So notice something, AG guy has no reward at all only loss on his own pocket, Ganker bumper gets loot plus ransoms and due to the AG player having such a high cost the risk is remote as there is no reward.
Case closed on Bumping...
Ella's Snack bar. The Hisec sandbox is basically no longer a themepark for gankers now that CCP have rebalanced key areas. Well done CCP
|
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
11842
|
Posted - 2016.04.30 11:40:44 -
[112] - Quote
Celthric Kanerian wrote:GsyBoy wrote:Shae Tadaruwa wrote:GsyBoy wrote:So you get 2 mins 45 secs of bumping, scram and repeat?
Did I miss something? 15 seconds apparently. Perfection is a dish best served like wasabi . Is that an actual saying?
It is now
Perfection is a dish best served like wasabi .
Bumble's Space Log
|
Angelique Duchemin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
980
|
Posted - 2016.04.30 11:53:55 -
[113] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote: - Losses are paid by Goons
Goonswarm Federation has never paid a cent to any ganker group. The groups fund themselves with the loot they collect. Even the official goon ganker group funds itself.
What Goonswarm does provide is web services and a recruitment pool.
The very sun of heaven seemed distorted when viewed through the polarising miasma welling out from this sea-soaked perversion, and twisted menace and suspense lurked leeringly in those crazily elusive angles of carven rock where a second glance shewed concavity after the first shewed convexity.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1400
|
Posted - 2016.04.30 12:21:05 -
[114] - Quote
Angelique Duchemin wrote:Dracvlad wrote: - Losses are paid by Goons Goonswarm Federation has never paid a cent to any ganker group. The groups fund themselves with the loot they collect. Even the official goon ganker group funds itself. What Goonswarm does provide is web services and a recruitment pool.
Can't break the habit of lying can you.
Ella's Snack bar. The Hisec sandbox is basically no longer a themepark for gankers now that CCP have rebalanced key areas. Well done CCP
|
Angelique Duchemin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
980
|
Posted - 2016.04.30 13:46:24 -
[115] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Angelique Duchemin wrote:Dracvlad wrote: - Losses are paid by Goons Goonswarm Federation has never paid a cent to any ganker group. The groups fund themselves with the loot they collect. Even the official goon ganker group funds itself. What Goonswarm does provide is web services and a recruitment pool. Can't break the habit of lying can you.
You being the expert with internal experience on Goon finances and their suicide ganking institutions yes?
The very sun of heaven seemed distorted when viewed through the polarising miasma welling out from this sea-soaked perversion, and twisted menace and suspense lurked leeringly in those crazily elusive angles of carven rock where a second glance shewed concavity after the first shewed convexity.
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
11572
|
Posted - 2016.04.30 15:13:52 -
[116] - Quote
Is it that hard to believe that a group dedicated to freighter ganking can be financially self-sufficient?
Twitter: @EVEAndski
"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."
-á-á - Abrazzar
|
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony The Wraithguard.
271
|
Posted - 2016.04.30 16:28:30 -
[117] - Quote
Andski wrote: Is it that hard to believe that a group dedicated to freighter ganking can be financially self-sufficient?
Whenever I bring up the fact that some cheap ships are ISK efficient even against an empty hauler, other ganksters show up whining about "it's wrong to balance around ISK efficiency".
OF COURSE THEY'RE SELF SUFFICIENT!
On the other hand, an AG Falcon can fix that. Haulers really need to get organized. Becoming criminal themselves by ganking the bumper however is not a proper solution. Some of us can't conduct business with killrights over our heads and a -5 sec status. |
Shayla Etherodyne
United Nations Industrial Holdings
32
|
Posted - 2016.04.30 18:19:57 -
[118] - Quote
Angelique Duchemin wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Angelique Duchemin wrote:Dracvlad wrote: - Losses are paid by Goons Goonswarm Federation has never paid a cent to any ganker group. The groups fund themselves with the loot they collect. Even the official goon ganker group funds itself. What Goonswarm does provide is web services and a recruitment pool. Can't break the habit of lying can you. You being the expert with internal experience on Goon finances and their suicide ganking institutions yes?
On reddit there is a leaked conversation where a Goon representative inform CODE that they will stop financing them. It can be a fabrication, but it seem credible. |
Angelique Duchemin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
980
|
Posted - 2016.04.30 18:35:15 -
[119] - Quote
Shayla Etherodyne wrote:Angelique Duchemin wrote:Dracvlad wrote:Angelique Duchemin wrote:Dracvlad wrote: - Losses are paid by Goons Goonswarm Federation has never paid a cent to any ganker group. The groups fund themselves with the loot they collect. Even the official goon ganker group funds itself. What Goonswarm does provide is web services and a recruitment pool. Can't break the habit of lying can you. You being the expert with internal experience on Goon finances and their suicide ganking institutions yes? On reddit there is a leaked conversation where a Goon representative inform CODE that they will stop financing them. It can be a fabrication, but it seem credible.
It was on reddit so it must be true yes?
Apply some logical thinking here. Of all the things that Goonswarm have said and all the things Goonswarm has done in Eve.
Does it make sense that we try to hide it if we paid people to gank in high sec? As if that was somehow too far. Too mean for us to bear the bad PR of having the rest of Eve find out.
Goonswarm provides voice coms. IT services and recruits for the goonswarm gank entity (which I am part of mind you) But Goonswarm will not pay isk to support it.
The very sun of heaven seemed distorted when viewed through the polarising miasma welling out from this sea-soaked perversion, and twisted menace and suspense lurked leeringly in those crazily elusive angles of carven rock where a second glance shewed concavity after the first shewed convexity.
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
1405
|
Posted - 2016.04.30 19:45:33 -
[120] - Quote
Ahem you are still digging yourselves deeper in salty denials about Goon funding of CODE and the involvement of Miniluv. You totally convinced me
Ella's Snack bar. The Hisec sandbox is basically no longer a themepark for gankers now that CCP have rebalanced key areas. Well done CCP
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |