EVE Search - CynoJammer: What exactly is the issue?

All Channels

Corporation, Alliance and Organization Discussions

CynoJammer: What exactly is the issue?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 .. 13 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
KIATolon GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.03.11 15:49:00 - [301] Originally by: Khorian Quick, someone go find and archive the quote of KIAtolon saying how goons internet spaceship empire is virtually invulnerable, for future reference. I think with the current jammer mechanics it makes the GS empire almost impossible to take. I think they're unbalanced, but I think it benefits us more than anyone else right now. There we go :)
Cyberspatial Simulacra Caldari PROGENITOR CORPORATION Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2008.03.11 16:05:00 - [302] How about a Force Recon module that can temporarily disrupt a cynojammer's ability to jam? It wouldn't even have to be a large window, maybe a few minutes or so, and it would most likely be a suicide mission for the Recons, but it would give them another purpose to their role, and would also allow a well organized team to get some caps in system before the cynojammer came back on line. I think this could spawn an entirely new area of tactics, with "fake-out" operations where Recons disable one system to draw off defenses, ect. Hell, it wouldn't even have to be a Recon module. Maybe make a new stealth ship class that's entire purpose is anti-jammer warfare (both cyno and interdictor). ------------------------- Hur hur, me fly in space!
Dungar Loghoth Caldari Black Omega Security Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2008.03.11 16:05:00 - [303] Originally by: KIATolon Originally by: Khorian Quick, someone go find and archive the quote of KIAtolon saying how goons internet spaceship empire is virtually invulnerable, for future reference. I think with the current jammer mechanics it makes the GS empire almost impossible to take. I think they're unbalanced, but I think it benefits us more than anyone else right now. There we go :) Quoting this for the future. ---
Yorda Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.03.11 16:07:00 - [304] Originally by: Cyberspatial Simulacra How about a Force Recon module that can temporarily disrupt a cynojammer's ability to jam? It wouldn't even have to be a large window, maybe a few minutes or so, and it would most likely be a suicide mission for the Recons, but it would give them another purpose to their role, and would also allow a well organized team to get some caps in system before the cynojammer came back on line. I think this could spawn an entirely new area of tactics, with "fake-out" operations where Recons disable one system to draw off defenses, ect. Hell, it wouldn't even have to be a Recon module. Maybe make a new stealth ship class that's entire purpose is anti-jammer warfare (both cyno and interdictor). Make it a stealth bomber bomb, they'd finally be worth something. Originally by: nlewis jammers are the meatshield [Bob] wish their pets were
maralt Minmatar The seers of truth	Posted - 2008.03.11 16:08:00 - [305] Edited by: maralt on 11/03/2008 16:09:04 Originally by: Dungar Loghoth Originally by: KIATolon Originally by: Khorian Quick, someone go find and archive the quote of KIAtolon saying how goons internet spaceship empire is virtually invulnerable, for future reference. I think with the current jammer mechanics it makes the GS empire almost impossible to take. I think they're unbalanced, but I think it benefits us more than anyone else right now. There we go :) Quoting this for the future. lol even if the entire coalition started attacking goons right now the sheer time it would take to remove sov from all those systems would make that a safe bet considering how often the mechanics of the game change.
Sentinel Eeex Caldari DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.03.11 16:19:00 - [306] Originally by: smitor no it should not require "dreadnought 5" or some other hillarious skilling scheme and neither should it cost as much as a dread. Afterall we are talking about a SUBcaptialship. Both factors would limit the accessability and reduce the chance someone actually fields them to the point where we would be in the same situation as we are now with stealthbombers and triage mods. These newish ships would need to replace battleships on a borad scale for the specialized job of a jammer or pos takedown and in that context they would need to be available to all alliances and a broad base of pilots. What the ...? You're ignoring main issues with cynojammers. 1. Jumpbridges work for capital ships even when cynojammer is active in a system 2. Cynojammer doesn't use any CPU, but cyno generators (either ship module or POS module) do use CPU. So, cynojammers work when POS is in reinforced. 3. Cynojammer can be killed + reanchored/onlined easily, at another POS 4. Cynojammer has insane amount of armor HP 5. Cynojammer can be anchored/onlined on a fully armed deathstar. Fitting requirements are silly. 6. I'm sure there is more, can't think of it atm Changing even one of those would make the game more intense, and would bring risk vs reward back. At the moment, there is no reward for an attacker. There is no penalty for a defender. "Let's jump capitals in, before they kill+reanchor it" situation that we have at the moment is not a reward. Especially not for those who can't play game when cynojammer is being killed. Reward for attacker should be that cynojammer can not be repaired/recnahored/reonlined if underlying POS is in reinforced. Cynojammer should not be targetable (to kill it or rep it) until POS is back to 50% shields. This same award for attacker will be a penalty for defender, if they don't manage to defend POS. Cynojammer should still be reanchorable if POS is not in reinforced and jammer is at full health. This way, attacker would have to make sure they can incap cynojammer and reinforce POS. And then, defender might need to set short stront timer, in order to get POS back asap, so cynojammer can go back up again. I mean, even changing jumpbridge behaviour would already make it more intense. Preventing capital ships from using jumpbridges into cynojammed systems would be a good start. That would allow one side to at least attack cynojammer somewhere else. As opposed to going to attack 2nd cynojammer, and then having the same capital fleet from 1st one waiting for you there already. Introducing new ship class won't change a thing. I mean, there are tons of good ideas about this already, new ships are just silly.
Hrin Minmatar Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.03.11 17:02:00 - [307] Originally by: smitor 200 or 300 battleships with logistics can quickly kill a cyno jammer if you do it in an odd timezone. The superior BoB skill and logistics, distilled down to "Blob when they are not online" Thanks BoB for that gem of tactical advice. I see the wisdom of cynojammers and titans. They surely require skill and sound strategy to beat, not just blobbing. Oh wai
maralt Minmatar The seers of truth	Posted - 2008.03.11 18:20:00 - [308] Edited by: maralt on 11/03/2008 18:25:30 I have always disliked nerfs in any game as it is a negative response to a problem and developers should add a counter to a problem instead of hitting it with the nerf bat. Although i feel that there needs to be more evidence before i will admit to jammers being overpowered and in need of a change i think the best idea so far was too bring in a new class of ship. The new class of ship that would be in between a battleship and a dread is a very exciting and interesting prospect as it could easily tank several DDD and pos guns but be able to use gates as well as cyno fields and jump bridges. It should have poor tracking and very high damage just like a dread in siege mode so it could be used effectively in pos wars but be unable to hit a moving ship smaller than another capital or pos/module. I know ppl have mentioned this idea before and i think it is the best idea so far and should be included in the game even if a good quality pvp alliance proves that with good planning a jammer can be destroyed.
Yorda Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.03.11 18:31:00 - [309] Originally by: maralt Edited by: maralt on 11/03/2008 18:25:30 I have always disliked nerfs in any game as it is a negative response to a problem and developers should add a counter to a problem instead of hitting it with the nerf bat. Although i feel that there needs to be more evidence before i will admit to jammers being overpowered and in need of a change i think the best idea so far was too bring in a new class of ship. The new class of ship that would be in between a battleship and a dread is a very exciting and interesting prospect as it could easily tank several DDD and pos guns but be able to use gates as well as cyno fields and jump bridges. It should have poor tracking and very high damage just like a dread in siege mode so it could be used effectively in pos wars but be unable to hit a moving ship smaller than another capital or pos/module. I know ppl have mentioned this idea before and i think it is the best idea so far and should be included in the game even if a good quality pvp alliance proves that with good planning a jammer can be destroyed. First off, why do you insist on putting a bunch of spaces before and after your post? Secondly, it's a lot harder to add a new ship, design it, balance it, etc. than just modify an existing mod / mechanic to accomplish the same task. Especially when that ship is only designed for a single situation. The point of cynojammers was to encourage subcapital combat, making a ship that is basically a subcapital capital ship doesn't accomplish this. Originally by: nlewis jammers are the meatshield [Bob] wish their pets were
Hrin Minmatar Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.03.11 18:36:00 - [310] Originally by: maralt Edited by: maralt on 11/03/2008 18:25:30 I have always disliked nerfs in any game as it is a negative response to a problem and developers should add a counter to a problem instead of hitting it with the nerf bat. Although i feel that there needs to be more evidence before i will admit to jammers being overpowered and in need of a change i think the best idea so far was too bring in a new class of ship. The new class of ship that would be in between a battleship and a dread is a very exciting and interesting prospect as it could easily tank several DDD and pos guns but be able to use gates as well as cyno fields and jump bridges. It should have poor tracking and very high damage just like a dread in siege mode so it could be used effectively in pos wars but be unable to hit a moving ship smaller than another capital or pos/module. I know ppl have mentioned this idea before and i think it is the best idea so far and should be included in the game even if a good quality pvp alliance proves that with good planning a jammer can be destroyed. I don't know about some new ship. I'd rather hope for some magic number tweak that CCP could do that would solve all our worries. New ships require new content, QA, and a lot of testing while introducing new unintended exploits/bugs and not really doing what was promised. Perhaps thats too cynical, but I'd prefer a simpler solution. Besides, pocket dreadnaughts have been on the community's wishlist for a while now (a year at least) pretty much as already discussed above. I think the odds on those are pretty slim, like other fan favorites: new T2 destroyers and yachts, for example. A new ship may be a sexy solution, but not the best IMO
maralt Minmatar The seers of truth	Posted - 2008.03.11 18:40:00 - [311] Edited by: maralt on 11/03/2008 18:41:26 Originally by: Yorda Originally by: maralt I have always disliked nerfs in any game as it is a negative response to a problem and developers should add a counter to a problem instead of hitting it with the nerf bat. Although i feel that there needs to be more evidence before i will admit to jammers being overpowered and in need of a change i think the best idea so far was too bring in a new class of ship. The new class of ship that would be in between a battleship and a dread is a very exciting and interesting prospect as it could easily tank several DDD and pos guns but be able to use gates as well as cyno fields and jump bridges. It should have poor tracking and very high damage just like a dread in siege mode so it could be used effectively in pos wars but be unable to hit a moving ship smaller than another capital or pos/module. I know ppl have mentioned this idea before and i think it is the best idea so far and should be included in the game even if a good quality pvp alliance proves that with good planning a jammer can be destroyed. First off, why do you insist on putting a bunch of spaces before and after your post? Secondly, it's a lot harder to add a new ship, design it, balance it, etc. than just modify an existing mod / mechanic to accomplish the same task. Especially when that ship is only designed for a single situation. The point of cynojammers was to encourage subcapital combat, making a ship that is basically a subcapital capital ship doesn't accomplish this. 1. I hate reading blocks of text so i split mine up, deal with it. 2. The difficulty is hardly an issue as ccp adds ships and other items all the time and at least this is a positive step not a negative one. 3. The ship in question would be perfect for capital/super capital/pos combat and so would encourage it even more as these ships could go head to head with super or normal capital support. Im getting wood just thinking about it.
Ishamel 1 Omega Fleet Enterprises Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2008.03.11 18:42:00 - [312] To be honest cyno jammers are not overpowered except in the context of massive multiple alliance campaigns with their attendant lag. I think the basic premise is very good, it just all breaks down when the defending side has a large amount of capitals (the carriers are probably more important than the titans tbh). To answer the opp, the cyno jammer basically means the attacker doesn't get to use capitals while the defender does. The Huge capital fleets involved in delve means that BoB defending often has 1 - 4 titans who can destroy incoming conventional fleets trying to down the jammer, or 50-100 carriers with all the fighters they can deploy. The lag troubles eve has atm generally help the cap ships in any engagement too, as they have more buffer to survive module lag on reps (remote or local) and fighters will attack anyone stupid enough to aggro an individual carrier. Combined with the huge advantage jump in lag gives the defender attacking is not really an option. The situation would be exactly the same if it was the coalition was defending and BoB attacking (well, less titans probably). Of course the way to defeat this is surprise attack, taking down the cyno jammer before the enemy can respond and once your caps are in ensuring another jammer doesn't go up. Unfortunately everyone has spies in everyone else so surprise doesnt happen too often, and if it did even under surprise attack pos gunner alts manning faction deathstars will chew up a cyno-takedown gang too. I think nerfing the fittings on cyno jammer so they cant be defended by a deathstar would help, and might encourage a bit more lateral thinking when it comes to trying to take systems.
Arthur Miller GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.03.11 18:48:00 - [313] Or, you could do it where Dreads get a minor boost to unsieged gun/ torp DPS and are allowed to move through normal gates only if they do NOT have a siege module. Likewise, make triage modules for carriers necessary to get the capital rep/ range bonus and make it such that triage modules prevent carriers from using fighters or drones. Also, prevent supercapitals from being able to use jumpbridges. If you want to park multiple supercaps on a cyno-jammer, then you have to plan ahead or take risks to counter an enemys surprise attack. Whether or not you want to allow carriers to move through gates with/ without a triage module is another discussion.
Lord Fitz Antares Fleet Yards SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.11 18:50:00 - [314] Edited by: Lord Fitz on 11/03/2008 18:55:50 Originally by: Sentinel Eeex What the ...? You're ignoring main issues with cynojammers. 1. Jumpbridges work for capital ships even when cynojammer is active in a system 2. Cynojammer doesn't use any CPU, but cyno generators (either ship module or POS module) do use CPU. So, cynojammers work when POS is in reinforced. 3. Cynojammer can be killed + reanchored/onlined easily, at another POS 4. Cynojammer has insane amount of armor HP 5. Cynojammer can be anchored/onlined on a fully armed deathstar. Fitting requirements are silly. 6. I'm sure there is more, can't think of it atm 2 and 3 I see as issues, as for the others, it's not supposed to be EASY, since it has been done hundreds of times since they were introduced it's obviously only hard under the right circumstances (titans + many many motherships online and ready). I think they should have more armor HP :p But more hull HP too, they shouldn't be that easy to destroy and move somewhere else, mind you if they were not that easy to move, maybe the fact that they worked in reinforced wouldn't be as much of an issue. (As with short stront timers now it should not be, 2 days 7 hours is not a heap of time to have to leave your cap fleet in that system ready to strike again without having to cyno in. If it is you clearly do not want it enough.). You're saying that you want to be able to attack on any timezone, regardless of if they are prepared or not, but don't want to put the effort into locking down that system after a succesful attack ? I remember when taking a system meant that you may have to keep a fleet in the system for 5-6 days, the entire system locked down, or you would not be successful. Things move much faster now and people seem to be less patient. We have killed plenty of carriers at deathstar cynojammer POS's without an issue (and had them killed I'm sure). Mind you none of the fights have seen titans or more than a handful of motherships involved. (Several a few dozen carriers though, but they are easily disabled by a properly setup fleet.). Quote: At the moment, there is no reward for an attacker. There is no penalty for a defender. "Let's jump capitals in, before they kill+reanchor it" situation that we have at the moment is not a reward. Especially not for those who can't play game when cynojammer is being killed. It's not a reward in the fuzzy warm feeling sense, it's a reward in that you earnt your right to contest the system. Quote: Reward for attacker should be that cynojammer can not be repaired/recnahored/reonlined if underlying POS is in reinforced. Cynojammer should not be targetable (to kill it or rep it) until POS is back to 50% shields. Destroyed+Re-anchored probably not, it seems overpowered. If they do have to spend time repping it though, what are you doing during this time, you should be preventing it from happening. Time = money = reward. You spend time shooting, they spend time repping it = fair .. If it's quicker to destroy it + reanchor then that's abit of an exploit. If you can't stop them from repairing it, you lose that advantage, and it's not like you can't hit their bridges in as well and give them more work to do. Besides, once you have a ship behind a cyno jammer, you can have it leave, or stay there, for as long as you desire, repairing the jammer doesn't cause it to be expelled.
Yorda Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.03.11 18:51:00 - [315] Originally by: Arthur Miller Or, you could do it where Dreads get a minor boost to unsieged gun/ torp DPS and are allowed to move through normal gates only if they do NOT have a siege module. Likewise, make triage modules for carriers necessary to get the capital rep/ range bonus and make it such that triage modules prevent carriers from using fighters or drones. Also, prevent supercapitals from being able to use jumpbridges. If you want to park multiple supercaps on a cyno-jammer, then you have to plan ahead or take risks to counter an enemys surprise attack. Whether or not you want to allow carriers to move through gates with/ without a triage module is another discussion. Triage modules do prevent you from using fighters / drones. Also you would just unequip the siege mod, go through the gate, and re-equip it at a pos / carrier. Originally by: nlewis jammers are the meatshield [Bob] wish their pets were
Post Man Pat And His Black And White Cat	Posted - 2008.03.11 18:51:00 - [316] Originally by: Hrin Originally by: smitor 200 or 300 battleships with logistics can quickly kill a cyno jammer if you do it in an odd timezone. The superior BoB skill and logistics, distilled down to "Blob when they are not online" Thanks BoB for that gem of tactical advice. I see the wisdom of cynojammers and titans. They surely require skill and sound strategy to beat, not just blobbing. Oh wai He's trying to put it in terms goons will understand, i.e. blobbing. Postman Pat
Arthur Miller GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.03.11 18:58:00 - [317] Originally by: Yorda Originally by: Arthur Miller Or, you could do it where Dreads get a minor boost to unsieged gun/ torp DPS and are allowed to move through normal gates only if they do NOT have a siege module. Likewise, make triage modules for carriers necessary to get the capital rep/ range bonus and make it such that triage modules prevent carriers from using fighters or drones. Also, prevent supercapitals from being able to use jumpbridges. If you want to park multiple supercaps on a cyno-jammer, then you have to plan ahead or take risks to counter an enemys surprise attack. Whether or not you want to allow carriers to move through gates with/ without a triage module is another discussion. Triage modules do prevent you from using fighters / drones. Also you would just unequip the siege mod, go through the gate, and re-equip it at a pos / carrier. I know triage modules do that, but make the module required to make the carrier feasible as a logistics platform, you could even lower the skill requirements slightly for triage to reflect this. If possible you could make siege modules impossible to fit outside of a station, or even only at a POS. Rather than a new class of ship, I'm envisioning an encounter where you have a lower DPS remote repping dreadnought blob that can more easily tank a heavily gunned POS but is still vulnerable to enemy fleets. Likewise they could be supported by the superior carrier logistics platform, but this would require that the carriers cannot also provide offensive cover in the form of fighters. Support fleets would still need to be assembled, but having a dread capable of movement like this without siege gives you something that you can risk jumping into a multi titan/MS gatecamp or cynojammer defense.
Local Her0 Minmatar La Mancha Corp	Posted - 2008.03.11 19:03:00 - [318] Edited by: Local Her0 on 11/03/2008 19:03:50 Originally by: Post He's trying to put it in terms goons will understand, i.e. blobbing. qft edit: epic post _______________________________________________________________________________ Originally by: smitor 200 or 300 battleships with logistics can quickly kill a cyno jammer
Death Mate Death Mates	Posted - 2008.03.11 19:10:00 - [319] Some of you are truly so immature that, unless you are still technically teenagers, you should be ashamed. I created this as a serious thread and am tasked with handling it with care. A lot of good responses in hear but it is degrading. Please try and rise above your previous attempts at mature discourse. Thanks in advance.
Post Man Pat And His Black And White Cat	Posted - 2008.03.11 19:12:00 - [320] What do you expect? You made a features and idea/feedback thread in the CAOD forums, go to the proper forums maybe? Postman Pat
gazthenailer Dragons Of Redemption Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.03.11 19:16:00 - [321] well i just say that instead of pos and cyno warefare why not do station warfare. It would be really awesome to be able to pop station in order to claims space. /G
Hrin Minmatar Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.03.11 19:41:00 - [322] Naw this is a good thread, in the right forum. Here this issue gets the attention and feedback it deserves from the people it affects. This isn't just a BoB vs Goon thing, its the future of Eve territorial conquest.
Death Mate Death Mates	Posted - 2008.03.11 19:47:00 - [323] Originally by: Post What do you expect? You made a features and idea/feedback thread in the CAOD forums, go to the proper forums maybe? I expect.. a little more. There are some flashes of very intelligent and articulate minds lurking within a lot of these responses. All I ask is that you do your part, and I thank you in advance. DM
Darkrydar Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.03.11 19:53:00 - [324] Originally by: AIchemist The bob alts in this thread made it worth it to read for lulz. What is your take on the coalition alts? Or are alts only those that don't share the same opinion as you? Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Mitnal
John Blackthorn Foundation R0ADKILL	Posted - 2008.03.11 20:00:00 - [325] hahaha, this is so wrong. I mean pos guns are just weak they can't stop b.s. fleets. I've got faction guns all over my cyno pos and a particular alliance that I shall not name comes in every other day and shoots the jammer down. They use 60 remote rep b.s. If they loose 1b.s. to the guns we think it's a good day. If anything pos guns need a boost. Originally by: Yorda Okay, I'll bite on the flamebait. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=692485 There's a good writeup about it. The main problem is that you can easily have a capital fleet (who can get into the system via a series of jumpbridges) defend the cynojammer that can only be attacked by BS's. Okay that's fine, but when you can fit upwards of 30-40 faction medium guns it becomes increasing difficuit. And after incaping the cynojammer, you have about 30 minutes before they blow up the cynojammer and just anchor a new one.
Zorlag Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.03.11 20:02:00 - [326] Originally by: Darkrydar Originally by: AIchemist The bob alts in this thread made it worth it to read for lulz. What is your take on the coalition alts? Or are alts only those that don't share the same opinion as you? next you'll be telling us that "pubbies" is just our word for people we don't like
Cynri Amarr Chimera Tech	Posted - 2008.03.11 20:21:00 - [327] The problem with cyno jammers is with multiples you have to a. find them, not really a problem, just look for the starbase. b. Kill them, this presents the problem that coalation is having. In a properly defended system like Nol you will have a number of titans and lots of other fleet members mix of capital ships and small variants. Titans will whipe any sort of advancing enemy fleet that isn't a well tanked battle ship or bigger with DD. Anything else in the system will get cleaned up by the fleet if it doesn't get warp jammed beforehand! With titans requiring good tactics, good positioning, and lots of numbers/firepower, a cynojammed system in favour of the defending alliance just about screws that oppurtunity. Can I be more specific?
Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2008.03.11 20:34:00 - [328] Originally by: Cynri In a properly defended system like Nol... Properly??? I guess you don't know what you are talking about. There are only 3-4 other alliances which could defend a system like this. And actually I guess only 1 of them would show the same dedication to stay there and defend it actually for such a long time. Sounds all so easy ... drop 4 titans in a system and you are safe. Bull****t I say! You have to stay up all the time and be there. You can't leave the system alone for a single hour. You need to be there 24/7! This is such a huge disadvantage to the defender. And if you prepare a year and mass up ships in the system and all else what you need to defend it against a long siege and if you build up all the ships and if you actually can motivate all the people to be there in case of an attack ... well, then you deserve to keep it - unless you make an mistake. Nothing at all is wrong with cynojammers. Countless cynojammed systems were captured, still cynojammers are getting shot down all the time. If you can't break the jammer with brute force, then you must invent some other means. But oh no! That means some thinking, dedication and endurance - heavens forbid that! Where is the instant gratification?!
Seth Quantix Domination. Scorched Earth.	Posted - 2008.03.11 20:46:00 - [329] Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa $Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Wwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Death Mate	Posted - 2008.03.12 02:09:00 - [330] Well, that will certainly clear a room.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 .. 13 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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.