Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Endeavour Starfleet
685
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 18:58:00 -
[121] - Quote
Cant figure the issues? It says it RIGHT there. Incursions arent the problem.
You and the others screaming about incursions have lost. You have had a CCP member say without beating around the bush that Incursions aren't the big bad inflation monster I see so many posts make it out as. You know the fake numbers on incursion inflation y'all used to get the uninformed screaming in topics even tho they have never run an incursion.
Now instead of beating a dead horse how about trying to provide real solutions such as ways to encourage people to report the blue bots that ARE generating massive inflation.
Andski wrote:Seriously any post by Endeavour Starfleet in threads about incursions should just be glossed over entirely because he doesn't want his risk-free 150m ISK/hour fountain touched
Wrong. I have never made that much in an Incursion and I never will. And I actually support small changes to vanguards to help remove the blitzing ability if assaults and HQs get a buff to payout. Even Ammzi seems to agree with the buff.
However that is because a single fleet type can blitz VGs without ever having to change fleet comp. Nothing to do with Inflation its due to want to them to start coming over to the community HQ fleets so we can have more of them and perhaps CCP will add more sites so things are a bit more interesting.
It is the fact that people with obvious agendas are pounding on Incursions when the real cause of out of control inflation is the massive amount bots are putting out. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5442
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 19:01:00 -
[122] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Cant figure the issues? Yes. You are completely unable to provide any kind of argument beyond a classic appeal-to-authority fallacy, so either argue the issues being presented or shush.
Quote:You have had a CCP member say without beating around the bush that Incursions aren't the big bad inflation monster I see so many posts make it out as. You know the fake numbers on incursion inflation y'all used to get the uninformed screaming in topics even tho they have never run an incursion. No. We know the real numbers of incursion injection and how they were actually a whole lot larger than what the GÇ£but incursions are not doing anythingGÇ¥ defenders were trying to claim.
The fact remains: incursions are a huge contributor to the ISK influx that is causing inflation, and this needs to be addressed. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2369
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 19:03:00 -
[123] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Cant figure the issues? It says it RIGHT there. Incursions arent the problem.
You and the others screaming about incursions have lost. You have had a CCP member say without beating around the bush that Incursions aren't the big bad inflation monster I see so many posts make it out as. You know the fake numbers on incursion inflation y'all used to get the uninformed screaming in topics even tho they have never run an incursion.
Now instead of beating a dead horse how about trying to provide real solutions such as ways to encourage people to report the blue bots that ARE generating massive inflation.
You and the other high-sec welfare queens screaming about bots are on the losing side, actually. There was a MASSIVE ban wave on bots not long ago, and bots are banned regularly. Did you know that there are just as many, if not more bots running L4 missions than ratting in nullsec? Or are you naive enough to believe that every single NPC kill in mission hub systems is done by mission runners at their keys? "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
411
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 19:04:00 -
[124] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote: If you want to stop inflation, you need to let inflation run its course in some sectors of the economy, the systemic imbalances are what need fixing. Make the use of ISK faucets more expensive in terms of materials consumed, and do it in a way that doesn't freak out carebears and lead to mass whines by blowing up ships from overly aggressive NPCs. One of the best ways I have seen suggested is material consumption via active modules, and that may help balance out some of the PVP issues as well.
Activities that do not create ISK from the faucets need a bump, but this does not mean allow some player to create more trit or moon goo. Stop dropping loot that can be refined, (drone poo change is a good start, adding ISK to drones however is a half step back but an easy fix so understandable). Create consumable goods, increase the mineral requirements of ammo, add some PI into ship building, lower end moon goo, add fuel to ABs and MWDs, charges for shied boosters and armour reps, multi-tier T1 production like T2 uses, etc. Increase consumption of raw materials by means other than just ships blowing up.
This assumes that inflation is a bad thing. It is NOT. The materials sector is not the problem at all... you are ignoring a critical difference between material faucets and NPC payment faucets: Material price levels are set by player demand vs. supply. This relationship is balanced by the EvE economy and is not a problem at all. When mineral prices rise more miners find it profitable and worth while to mine. When mineral prices fall, fewer people mine. It's not the mineral supply that determines market price... it's labor supply!!! When EvE pays you directly in ISK, the market doesn't get a say and that is where the problems pop up.
Adunh Slavy wrote:There is a significant portion of the player base that never goes out to PVP - this means they are not blowing things up. Eve's economy works because, in Eve, the Broken Window Fallacy, is not a fallacy, but that is true only up to a point. Not enough windows are breaking and all attempts at getting people to break more windows has failed, because for many individuals, not having windows broken on your own house is good thing. So ... if we can't get more windows to break, use more coal in the fire when making the glass. This is incoherent. The problem is not anemic consumption but a market economy trying to balance itself against NPC payments/entitlements.
Adunh Slavy wrote:The value in terms of time, of activities that are not sucking at the giant ISK tit, need to increase. The most useful sinks you could increase are material sinks. I agree with the first sentence but not the last. Mining floats with the economy however, and does not represent "sucking at the great ISK tit" in my view.
Adunh Slavy wrote:Slowing down how much ISK enters the economy, will not fix the imbalances. All it will do is concentrate wealth in the hands of those who already have massive reserves. Increasing this sink or that sink will only push people away from those activities and create further imbalances in the economy. My response to this was earlier on and it's a bit lengthy to post again or even paraphrase.
|
Zircon Dasher
Zirconia Trade Group
76
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 19:06:00 -
[125] - Quote
Tippia wrote: As luck would have it, we do know that. Even if we assume that the highsec incursions are run at max efficiency, there's still roughly twice as much in untapped incursion income waiting in the systemGǪ
I did not see that one. Good catch!
Someone needs to ask him to break out bounties by security for feb. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2369
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 19:07:00 -
[126] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote:Tippia wrote: As luck would have it, we do know that. Even if we assume that the highsec incursions are run at max efficiency, there's still roughly twice as much in untapped incursion income waiting in the systemGǪ I did not see that one. Good catch! Someone needs to ask him to break out bounties by security for feb.
Farm bounties in 0.0 for an hour. Proceed to farm incursions in high-sec for an hour. See where you make more ISK.
Hint: It's not the 0.0 bounties. "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Endeavour Starfleet
685
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 19:08:00 -
[127] - Quote
Real numbers Tippia? So your "real" numbers beat CCPs even tho they have a market expert with access to their data.
Epic and I mean epic fail!
And Andski I know about the bot ban wave but it is not enough by far. And it dosen't help that blues are "encouraged" not to report blue bots with promises of sharing and ship replacement programs.
And I have called time and again for hisec bots to be reported tho I highly doubt they beat the numbers in nullsec. Report them anyway because the more bots banned the better! |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2369
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 19:09:00 -
[128] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Real numbers Tippia? So your "real" numbers beat CCPs even tho they have a market expert with access to their data.
Epic and I mean epic fail!
And Andski I know about the bot ban wave but it is not enough by far. And it dosen't help that blues are "encouraged" not to report blue bots with promises of sharing and ship replacement programs.
And I have called time and again for hisec bots to be reported tho I highly doubt they beat the numbers in nullsec. Report them anyway because the more bots banned the better!
How do you feel about risk/reward imbalances between high-sec incursions and nullsec anomalies? "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
baltec1
789
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 19:11:00 -
[129] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Cant figure the issues? It says it RIGHT there. Incursions arent the problem.
No its doesn't. It says that incursions are not as big a flood of isk as others.
Incursions are however adding even more isk onto an already existing problem making it much much worse. This is what you simply do not seem to be able to grasp. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5442
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 19:12:00 -
[130] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Real numbers Tippia? So your "real" numbers beat CCPs even tho they have a market expert with access to their data. The market expert in question said that we do indeed have inflation. Our real numbers are CCP's numbers.
Quote:Epic and I mean epic fail! Well, maybe if you researched your GÇ£facts,GÇ¥ you wouldn't fail so much.
Now, how about you argue the issues instead of piling fallacy upon fallacy? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
|
Endeavour Starfleet
685
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 19:13:00 -
[131] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote:Tippia wrote: As luck would have it, we do know that. Even if we assume that the highsec incursions are run at max efficiency, there's still roughly twice as much in untapped incursion income waiting in the systemGǪ I did not see that one. Good catch! Someone needs to ask him to break out bounties by security for feb.
What it does show as well as even though low and nullsec incursions have a very high payout and can be done with low cost ships they don't get done. Why is that? They supposedly have higher pay than anoms? right?
Or is it that even with the free Cyno jams and ability to run with far less and make more still. They don't get run because its interfering with the real income source which in my opinion is mass scale botting.
Don't give me that crap about numbers online. VGs require a small amount of people. |
Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
562
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 19:17:00 -
[132] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:How about these nullbears start reporting blue bots before screaming about incursions?
Not possible right now. Like all political bodies, the CSM is corrupt on some levels. You have null representatives who punish their own members who report blue bots. RMT is big business when the convesion ratio is highly profitable in a country that has a broken economy or if you currently are not employed at all.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5444
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 19:17:00 -
[133] - Quote
Zircon Dasher wrote:I did not see that one. Good catch!
Someone needs to ask him to break out bounties by security for feb. If the mission reward numbers are any indication, it'll be ~50% highsec, ~50% nullsec, and a statistical-error-margin % in lowsecGǪ GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
baltec1
789
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 19:19:00 -
[134] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Zircon Dasher wrote:Tippia wrote: As luck would have it, we do know that. Even if we assume that the highsec incursions are run at max efficiency, there's still roughly twice as much in untapped incursion income waiting in the systemGǪ I did not see that one. Good catch! Someone needs to ask him to break out bounties by security for feb. What it does show as well as even though low and nullsec incursions have a very high payout and can be done with low cost ships they don't get done. Why is that? They supposedly have higher pay than anoms? right? Or is it that even with the free Cyno jams and ability to run with far less and make more still. They don't get run because its interfering with the real income source which in my opinion is mass scale botting. Don't give me that crap about numbers online. VGs require a small amount of people.
They dont get done because the people that run them do it in empire on alts whith far less risk involved. |
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
443
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 19:20:00 -
[135] - Quote
Sal Landry wrote:Misanth wrote: * Promote PvP
Wrong. PvP is an isk faucet due to insurance. Try harder.
2/10 this is a signature |
Endeavour Starfleet
686
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 19:21:00 -
[136] - Quote
Andski wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Real numbers Tippia? So your "real" numbers beat CCPs even tho they have a market expert with access to their data.
Epic and I mean epic fail!
And Andski I know about the bot ban wave but it is not enough by far. And it dosen't help that blues are "encouraged" not to report blue bots with promises of sharing and ship replacement programs.
And I have called time and again for hisec bots to be reported tho I highly doubt they beat the numbers in nullsec. Report them anyway because the more bots banned the better! How do you feel about risk/reward imbalances between high-sec incursions and nullsec anomalies?
That they are balanced minus the issue of AFK cloaking which I already proposed a solution for. With Blitzing VGs are on a bit of the high side but I am not too worried about that because I know eventually the blitzing part will be changed. HQs and As could use a buff tho.
You see I do not like the idea of bounty nerf. I think it will legitimately harm active players and yes greatly change the balance to favor hisec again. Instead I'm going to call as much as I can for action on botting.
You are a goon right? Rumor is the norm is "Don't $*&^ over other goons" Help prevent this madness by reporting the blue bots you see. As my opinion seems to mean little if they are bent on nerfing bounties eh? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5444
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 19:22:00 -
[137] - Quote
Misanth wrote:Sal Landry wrote:Misanth wrote:* Promote PvP Wrong. PvP is an isk faucet due to insurance. Try harder. 2/10 He's right, you knowGǪ
GǪbut even so, promoting PvP is a good idea since it drives production, which helps counter-balance the production of ISK.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2370
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 19:23:00 -
[138] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Zircon Dasher wrote:Tippia wrote: As luck would have it, we do know that. Even if we assume that the highsec incursions are run at max efficiency, there's still roughly twice as much in untapped incursion income waiting in the systemGǪ I did not see that one. Good catch! Someone needs to ask him to break out bounties by security for feb. What it does show as well as even though low and nullsec incursions have a very high payout and can be done with low cost ships they don't get done. Why is that? They supposedly have higher pay than anoms? right?
sorry to spoil your lil rant but GSF and TEST have been running lowsec incursions since the damn things were released, we even got the first revenant BPC drop! heh!
now here's a better question: why would anyone bother running incursions in lowsec (or, hahahaha nullsec), jumping around in carriers with PvE ships in the hold and scouting all over the place when they can fork over a few billion for a shiny faction BS and farm them in high-sec with significantly less risk of losing ships? "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Endeavour Starfleet
686
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 19:25:00 -
[139] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:How about these nullbears start reporting blue bots before screaming about incursions? Not possible right now. Like all political bodies, the CSM is corrupt on some levels. You have null representatives who punish their own members who report blue bots. RMT is big business when the convesion ratio is highly profitable in a country that has a broken economy or if you currently are not employed at all.
I have never seen CCP out people who report bots. The report must be done and move on like you saw nothing.
Tho if you are talking about things like shutting down SRPs and other activities funded by blue bots in retaliation well here is the deal folks. Blue bots are NOT your friends. Would you rather they get banned while there is peace and you have time to build up resources legitimately or potentially have them banned when you need that SRP the most during war?
They are cheating you They are cheating your corp and alliance They are cheating everyone
Report them. |
JitaPriceChecker2
State War Academy Caldari State
42
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 19:27:00 -
[140] - Quote
Andski wrote:Zircon Dasher wrote:Tippia wrote: As luck would have it, we do know that. Even if we assume that the highsec incursions are run at max efficiency, there's still roughly twice as much in untapped incursion income waiting in the systemGǪ I did not see that one. Good catch! Someone needs to ask him to break out bounties by security for feb. Farm bounties in 0.0 for an hour. Proceed to farm incursions in high-sec for an hour. See where you make more ISK. Hint: It's not the 0.0 bounties.
The day when i have to agree with a goon is a sad day indeed.
|
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2370
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 19:27:00 -
[141] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Andski wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Real numbers Tippia? So your "real" numbers beat CCPs even tho they have a market expert with access to their data.
Epic and I mean epic fail!
And Andski I know about the bot ban wave but it is not enough by far. And it dosen't help that blues are "encouraged" not to report blue bots with promises of sharing and ship replacement programs.
And I have called time and again for hisec bots to be reported tho I highly doubt they beat the numbers in nullsec. Report them anyway because the more bots banned the better! How do you feel about risk/reward imbalances between high-sec incursions and nullsec anomalies? That they are balanced minus the issue of AFK cloaking which I already proposed a solution for. With Blitzing VGs are on a bit of the high side but I am not too worried about that because I know eventually the blitzing part will be changed. HQs and As could use a buff tho. You see I do not like the idea of bounty nerf. I think it will legitimately harm active players and yes greatly change the balance to favor hisec again. Instead I'm going to call as much as I can for action on botting. You are a goon right? Rumor is the norm is "Don't $*&^ over other goons" Help prevent this madness by reporting the blue bots you see. As my opinion seems to mean little if they are bent on nerfing bounties eh?
Please tell me exactly how my alliance's leadership would enforce the "don't report blue bots" rule.
"WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Endeavour Starfleet
687
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 19:28:00 -
[142] - Quote
Andski wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Zircon Dasher wrote:Tippia wrote: As luck would have it, we do know that. Even if we assume that the highsec incursions are run at max efficiency, there's still roughly twice as much in untapped incursion income waiting in the systemGǪ I did not see that one. Good catch! Someone needs to ask him to break out bounties by security for feb. What it does show as well as even though low and nullsec incursions have a very high payout and can be done with low cost ships they don't get done. Why is that? They supposedly have higher pay than anoms? right? sorry to spoil your lil rant but GSF and TEST have been running lowsec incursions since the damn things were released, we even got the first revenant BPC drop! heh! now here's a better question: why would anyone bother running incursions in lowsec (or, hahahaha nullsec), jumping around in carriers with PvE ships in the hold and scouting all over the place when they can fork over a few billion for a shiny faction BS and farm them in high-sec with significantly less risk of losing ships?
Nullsec pays better. ALOT better. Goons know that as they run them.
You can try to defend the actions of other alliances all you want but the sheer amount of nullsecs that pop without intervention speaks for itself in my opinion.
Andski wrote:Please tell me exactly how my alliance's leadership would enforce the "don't report blue bots" rule.
Not saying goons do this but I have heard of people expelled and blacklisted for bot reporting. Of course it would likely involve someone telling another blue or saying in corp or alliance that they had reported or spotted a bot.
Don't have to actually remove that many members. If many think you have the power to spot them reporting. You get the point.
Edit: My main point is encouraging you and others to start getting serious about reporting blue bots before they really do end up lowering bounty payments. |
MacLuven
EL Bernays School of Strategic Communication
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 19:30:00 -
[143] - Quote
Incursions? The cause of this thing this weekend?
Not so sure about that.
Money supply is not a sufficient cause of inflation, a necessary cause but not sufficient.
There's a great historical example of an economy that experienced a high population growth, economic growth, productivity growth, and growth in the money supply, but experienced deflation. Eve, 2006-2007.
A growth in money supply isn't a problem so long as the economy can continue to grow fast enough to match the demand generated by the new supply of money. Theoretically.
Money supply is needed to fuel economic growth. Inflation occurs when inefficiencies develop in the economic structure and supply cannot match demand leading to price increases. If money supply increases and it is matched by economic growth, it is not necessarily inflationary. Practically it is inflationary because economies lag a bit in adjusting to its growth.
I'd be more easily convinced that there was a connection between the Incursion flood gates opening and the blow up this weekend if there hadn't been 13.5 months between when Incursions started and now.
And I don't see why how it could have caused the mineral markets to go so crazy.
If the flood of money creating a new super rich class, why are the ultra luxury goods, like faction battleships and tech 2 stuff not going up in price with trend?
The tech 1 battleships are all on a steep climb, but Rattlesnakes, Nightmares, and Vindicators are all trending down in price. Bhaalgorn's are looking stable. Machariels are the only ones going up.
That suggests to me that the run-away prices are a tech 1 phenomenon which means driven by the mineral market. That sounds like a supply shortfall and not a demand spike.
Checking on the tech 1 battleship volume numbers, they look pretty steady over time. So, it's not a spike in demand.
This looks like a mineral supply issue to me.
|
Ptraci
StoneWall Metals Productions Bloodbound.
413
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 19:32:00 -
[144] - Quote
Sal Landry wrote:Misanth wrote: * Promote PvP
Wrong. PvP is an isk faucet due to insurance. Try harder.
Not only that, but PVP increases demand for ships and module, which puts upwards pressure on prices.
PVP is healthy for the EVE economy and the manufacturing sector, but too much PVP can also be a bad thing. |
baltec1
790
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 19:32:00 -
[145] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Nullsec pays better. ALOT better. Goons know that as they run them.
You can try to defend the actions of other alliances all you want but the sheer amount of nullsecs that pop without intervention speaks for itself in my opinion.
Nullsec also has roaming gangs hugry for people doing incursions. A handfull of bombers is all you need and there is far worse out there. Why take that risk when you can swim in risk free isk fountains in highsec? |
J3ssica Alba
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
124
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 19:34:00 -
[146] - Quote
Andski wrote:Zircon Dasher wrote:Tippia wrote: As luck would have it, we do know that. Even if we assume that the highsec incursions are run at max efficiency, there's still roughly twice as much in untapped incursion income waiting in the systemGǪ I did not see that one. Good catch! Someone needs to ask him to break out bounties by security for feb. Farm bounties in 0.0 for an hour. Proceed to farm incursions in high-sec for an hour. See where you make more ISK. Hint: It's not the 0.0 bounties.
I would try to farm in 0.0 for an hour and even more but I don't think Im (and everyone not belonging to the mega corps) welcome there ...
For all the-áomgz incursions are an isk faucet-áwhiners CCP Soundwave : "Incursions are not a big issue in terms of isk globally."
|
baltec1
790
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 19:34:00 -
[147] - Quote
MacLuven wrote:Incursions? The cause of this thing this weekend?
Not so sure about that.
And you would be right. Zydrine prices went sky high because of an expert market manipulation. |
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
443
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 19:36:00 -
[148] - Quote
Dbars Grinding wrote:If battleship bounties get nerfed you will have a lot of angry high sec missioners. Remember those are the bulk of your costumers. TIme to go mining i guess?
Costumers that buys your pants? this is a signature |
Zircon Dasher
Zirconia Trade Group
77
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 19:36:00 -
[149] - Quote
Andski wrote: Farm bounties in 0.0 for an hour. Proceed to farm incursions in high-sec for an hour. See where you make more ISK.
Hint: It's not the 0.0 bounties.
Incursions are (currently) significantly less than bounties in terms of ISK injection.
Knowing how feb's bounty numbers break out will give some idea (albeit inferential) about where the biggest ISK faucet is in EVE.
If people are worried about hyper-inflation caused by ISK faucets, which I think is pretty lolworthy....but it is my opinion, then knowing where the biggest faucet is necessary.
Hint: It is not currently Incursions |
baltec1
790
|
Posted - 2012.03.12 19:36:00 -
[150] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Not saying goons do this but I have heard of people expelled and blacklisted for bot reporting. Of course it would likely involve someone telling another blue or saying in corp or alliance that they had reported or spotted a bot.
Don't have to actually remove that many members. If many think you have the power to spot them reporting. You get the point.
Edit: My main point is encouraging you and others to start getting serious about reporting blue bots before they really do end up lowering bounty payments.
What make you think we dont?
We simply do not police for CCP. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |