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 - 2 post(s) |
Reikku
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:08:00 -
[121]
Originally by: Fuddlesticks
Originally by: Reikku
Originally by: CCP Fear
EVE is still harsh, and it punishes you for being careless and AFK. And this change, doesn't change that.
How, exactly, is afk/macro-mining in 0.5 punished after this patch? Where is the risk, exactly?
If you carry an ungodly amount of really really expensive stuff through 0.5, AFK..given enough people who know about this, that ship will go kaboom, and loot will be had..that's how.
You dodged the question.
|
Fuddlesticks
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:08:00 -
[122]
Originally by: Pesadel0
Why should we test something that in e sense is going true ,unchanged?So what is next are you going to nerf my ability to kill Noobs in low sec and tell me that it isn't a sport and that they didnŠt deserved that?I find it absolutely astonishing that you as in CCP is catering to the massive whines in the forums ,in essence give us tools donŠt take them away.
How do you know it's going through unchanged? If this were true, and CCP had decided on that, you'd think they'd avoiding the public test altogether - Wait! Wait wait wait! I know! Don't tell me! It's all a conspiracy to make it LOOK like they're open to your feedback, but in reality it's just a PR stunt, amirite????
Catering to whiners...pffft, way to spin the truth. Tell me, are you blind or did you deliberately avoid the rainbow colored elephant in the kitchen. Yes, THAT one..the one about no-risk suicide ganking where battleships pay for themselves through insurance.
|
Hoody
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:10:00 -
[123]
Originally by: CCP Fear Some answers to your questions;
These changes are on the test-server right now. So SISI is your way to go for testing this out.
Low security (0,3-0,1) is basically getting a reduction in security penalty from it's current values. So in essence, the lowest of security, just got harsher.
When we first started with this process, by brainstorming. We decided that it should not completely close off suicide ganking, but to raise the bar, make it so that it can be done, but will require some planning, thought and effort.
This is mainly focused on the no-risk no-thought ganking, that has killed thousands in the last few months.
I am in awe of those who spend weeks in planning, infiltrating, scheming and plotting against another player, just to be able to pop his freighter full of dysprosium. THAT is something i find amazing and i do not want to stop. And the reason for that, is the amount of work that went into the planning. That is cool IMO.
And that is still possible. But we want to discourage people to gank for giggles. It's just not sporting.
EVE is still harsh, and it punishes you for being careless and AFK. And this change, doesn't change that.
You sir seem to have no clue, how are people supposed to stop the botters now? not only do they have to spend ages fixing their sec status after ganking the macro barges they now have a financial penalty as well, all because CCP does jack shit about them when they are petitioned.
|
Fuddlesticks
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:11:00 -
[124]
Originally by: Ki An
Originally by: Fuddlesticks
Originally by: Reikku
Originally by: CCP Fear
EVE is still harsh, and it punishes you for being careless and AFK. And this change, doesn't change that.
How, exactly, is afk/macro-mining in 0.5 punished after this patch? Where is the risk, exactly?
If you carry an ungodly amount of really really expensive stuff through 0.5, AFK..given enough people who know about this, that ship will go kaboom, and loot will be had..that's how.
Since you obviously can't read, I've bolded and italisized the important part for you.
Pardon me..I got a little carried away, I apologise for not reading your post properly. :(
Now let me undodge the question: macro-miners is not something that's being covered in this change as far as I'm aware (re-reading the devblog), and you can hardly justify suicide ganking remaining the way it is because of macro miners - Atleast I don't think you can. It's just 2 different things
|
Caol
Minmatar UK Corp Project Alice.
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:12:00 -
[125]
The changes to the insurance payout are only really adding a real deterence to freighter ganks using t1 bs/bc. The people flying bpos or other small volume high value items around in shuttles/frigs/t1 industrials etc will still be at risk for stealth bombers etc, though there will be an increase in effort for the suicider to get his sec back up again to get into high sec.
In this respect, the dev blog changes don't obviously make high sec 100% safe.
However,
In contrast to the speed rebalancing changes, these ideas seem to be a shift in Eve's philosophy. The games credibility as one of, if not THE, game where a players in game choices and behaviour can be black, white or a multitude of greys seems to be up for a knock. In a game of choices, another one seems to have just got struck off.
I say this seriously and without venom or spite but after reading this dev blog i thought: Could they be possibly looking at locking jet cans in the future, only for those of the same corp/alliance to be able to remove ore/items from? If changes based on the popular forum opinion of the moment, such as the removal of insurace payouts, are now part of the CCP operating procdure can we expect to see other such moves?
Whatever is said however, in a years time after these changes have gone through, no one will know the difference probably. It will be as if it always was and alittle of the danger, the risk, the excitment when you [a player on an alt or main] transport something of value in high sec will be gone. In effect, high sec will become a bit more flat and boring (if thats possible).
Originally by: "CCP Fear" This is, of course, a major change in the landscape of EVE, but we are confident that these changes and the future plans will make EVE a better experience for everyone.
Assuming i haven't misunderstood you and your actually refering to the dev blog itself, when can we expect to hear possible other major changes involving sec status?
Changes/ideas/content additions along the lines of:
- Smuggling plans/ideas
- Plans/ideas for a black market
- Plans/ideas for kill right trading and bounty hunting
- Sec change tweeks and content addition for those in the pirating profession - ideas like possibly be able to enter 0.5 space but only fire if fired upon and so forth
- Plans/ideas to link sec status into factional warfare
- Plans/ideas for other imaginative schemes that link into the Eve sandbox idea
If im completely off the mark with the above are there any other plans/ideas on horizon with regards to the game mechanic of security status? Or are current plans as stated: just to reduce suicide ganking in high sec and make getting your sec status back up harder?
|
Pesadel0
Minmatar Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:12:00 -
[126]
Originally by: Fuddlesticks
Originally by: Pesadel0
Why should we test something that in e sense is going true ,unchanged?So what is next are you going to nerf my ability to kill Noobs in low sec and tell me that it isn't a sport and that they didnŠt deserved that?I find it absolutely astonishing that you as in CCP is catering to the massive whines in the forums ,in essence give us tools donŠt take them away.
How do you know it's going through unchanged? If this were true, and CCP had decided on that, you'd think they'd avoiding the public test altogether - Wait! Wait wait wait! I know! Don't tell me! It's all a conspiracy to make it LOOK like they're open to your feedback, but in reality it's just a PR stunt, amirite????
Catering to whiners...pffft, way to spin the truth. Tell me, are you blind or did you deliberately avoid the rainbow colored elephant in the kitchen. Yes, THAT one..the one about no-risk suicide ganking where battleships pay for themselves through insurance.
Because:
"In addition, the highly requested feature of removal of insurance in CONCORD related events will be implemented in the near future.
The CONCORD changes and Security penalty will be hitting TQ this fall, with Empyrean Age 1.1."
This was just an informative blog not a ask for help ,they most of the time listen to fedback and donŠt change a thing so yes mate i've been around for a lott of time and the only time i say them backing out was the carrier nerf and when tux send a bone to the minmatars in red moon rising.
I still have a bit of faith they are actually asking for feedback but mhee ,i'am too old to believe in fairy tales.
------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Korinn
The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:13:00 -
[127]
Edited by: Korinn on 06/08/2008 11:14:39
Originally by: CCP Fear Some answers to your questions;
These changes are on the test-server right now. So SISI is your way to go for testing this out.
Low security (0,3-0,1) is basically getting a reduction in security penalty from it's current values. So in essence, the lowest of security, just got harsher.
When we first started with this process, by brainstorming. We decided that it should not completely close off suicide ganking, but to raise the bar, make it so that it can be done, but will require some planning, thought and effort.
This is mainly focused on the no-risk no-thought ganking, that has killed thousands in the last few months.
I am in awe of those who spend weeks in planning, infiltrating, scheming and plotting against another player, just to be able to pop his freighter full of dysprosium. THAT is something i find amazing and i do not want to stop. And the reason for that, is the amount of work that went into the planning. That is cool IMO.
And that is still possible. But we want to discourage people to gank for giggles. It's just not sporting.
EVE is still harsh, and it punishes you for being careless and AFK. And this change, doesn't change that.
It REALLY sounds like you're trying to solve two mutually exclusive issues here with a single set of changes revolving around security; making 0.1 - 0.3 harsher does precisely **** all, and making it harder to rat up sec also makes precisely **** all difference to suicide gankers so I don't really see what these changes are designed to do. Lowsec is still absolutely ****ing pointless (HERES A HINT GUYS MOVE ALL THE ****ING LEVEL 4'S TO LOWSEC JESUS ****ING CHRIST THEN MAYBE PEOPLE WOULD ACTUALLY USE LOWSEC MORE THAN JUST A CONDUIT BETWEEN EMPIRE AND 0.0), and it's still just as viable to suicide gank people and YET AGAIN it's CCP's game design department wielding an elephant rifle instead of a scalpel.
Oh and maybe if you want people to test things you should sort out a goddamn SISI mirror that isn't 3 months old.. not like it'll matter since nothing that's made it to sisi aside from the carrier nerf has ever been severely altered by player input.
|
Larkonis Trassler
Neo Spartans
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:38:00 -
[128]
CCP really do appear to be losing their way here. There are plenty of mechanics in place for players to avoid being suicide ganked. Spawning Concord in their belts/gates they intend to travel through. Using a scout. Using a corp mate with a web to get their freighter through without being scanned. All this does is gives idiots extra security which they do not deserve. Tears aside with this and the nano changes (which were due but not to that extreme) I am seriously looking at my eleventy billion accounts and whether or not I wish to continue.
If you want suicide ganking for 'lulz' to stop. Bring back NPC mineral buy orders to stabilize the market somewhat. Currently mods and ships are too cheap, that is what is funding the speight of suicide ganking atm. Assumption of Risk |
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:38:00 -
[129]
...and yeah, low-sec needs to be made more enticing and profitable. But that's a separate matter.
|
Fuddlesticks
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:38:00 -
[130]
Edited by: Fuddlesticks on 06/08/2008 11:39:06
Originally by: Pesadel0
Low-sec been long time dead.I lolled when i read in the blog that this was a way to encourage more ganking in low sec :)
Which is fine - We'll see how it pans out, but I can hardly fault you for being amused. It's when people spread doom and gloom with no basis for what they're saying that I want to slap someone..you know, cause it's "cool" to go "omg this will kill EVE!".
*EDIT: un-pyramiding my post*
|
|
Ron Wright
Shark Investments
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:41:00 -
[131]
Edited by: Ron Wright on 06/08/2008 11:46:22 BAN MACROMINERS and actually start reading petitions about them and the "Suicideganking-Problem" disappears by itself....
[Edit] in times where suicideganking is more effective to get them out of the game instead of petitioning them and let CCP do the punishment stuff you can't start to penalize the ones that really want to do smth against those macroguys...
|
Korinn
The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:41:00 -
[132]
Originally by: Fuddlesticks I semi-agree with that, atleast as far as the highsec ganking thingie. Lowsec piracy though? Yeah it's dead..as far as if this change will do anything in bringing it back to life? Maybe not, but it's a step in the right direction imho.
Yeah don't get me wrong I kinda agree with the varied sec hit thing based on system status (not based on victim security rating though, just because someone has run loads of highsec missions they should be less of a target because they give a bigger sec hit? ), what I don't agree with is someone effectively writing a blog attempting to solve 2 problems with 1 set of solutions that deals with neither effectively, continuing to prove that the route CCP has taken recently with regards to game design have changed significantly since I started playing.
Rather than introducing more options, or ENCOURAGING people back into lowsec, they simply reduce the number of options with blanket nerfs, and effectively try and FORCE people back into lowsec by making it more of a grind to recover sec.
It's not going to work, and unless lowsec becomes a damn sight more target-rich, we'll be sitting in the same place in half a year whinging about how CCP applied another patch which achieved absolutely jack shit apart from annoying people
(yes I'm trying to control my nerdrage over the fact we've had 2 blanket-nerf, over-complex dev bog solutions in 2 weeks, both of which have asked people to test and yet the test server has yet to be mirrored even after it was said it would be done last week )
|
Veldya
Caldari Guristari Freedom Fighters
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:43:00 -
[133]
Originally by: Larkonis Trassler CCP really do appear to be losing their way here. There are plenty of mechanics in place for players to avoid being suicide ganked. Spawning Concord in their belts/gates they intend to travel through. Using a scout. Using a corp mate with a web to get their freighter through without being scanned. All this does is gives idiots extra security which they do not deserve. Tears aside with this and the nano changes (which were due but not to that extreme) I am seriously looking at my eleventy billion accounts and whether or not I wish to continue.
If you want suicide ganking for 'lulz' to stop. Bring back NPC mineral buy orders to stabilize the market somewhat. Currently mods and ships are too cheap, that is what is funding the speight of suicide ganking atm.
Spawning Concord to avoid getting ganked is against the rules.
You can't blame the high-sec miners who have had enough. The writing was on the wall for months but nobody chose to behave responsibly. Now you have your consequences.
|
Pesadel0
Minmatar Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:44:00 -
[134]
Originally by: Fuddlesticks Edited by: Fuddlesticks on 06/08/2008 11:39:06
Originally by: Pesadel0
Low-sec been long time dead.I lolled when i read in the blog that this was a way to encourage more ganking in low sec :)
Which is fine - We'll see how it pans out, but I can hardly fault you for being amused. It's when people spread doom and gloom with no basis for what they're saying that I want to slap someone..you know, cause it's "cool" to go "omg this will kill EVE!".
*EDIT: un-pyramiding my post*
I spell doom and alot of pirates spell dooom because this is a shift in the psychological balance,you have the means to not get killed in high sec ,but you dont use them you are lazy and stupid ,and now even CCP helps the lazy and the stupid .
Dont get me wrong we will still suicide gank ,what i find hilarious is CCP position in all of this ,the cold hard place eve was is transforming into a warm place for stupid people and that i see a problem. ------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Dev Rom
Caldari Masterminds Industries
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:45:00 -
[135]
Guys, what creazy insurance would insure criminal' ships??? And what insurance would pay for a ship loss because of a criminal act??? And what insurance would accept to insure again something belonging to a well known criminal?
PLEASE, don't cry for this you pirates! This is simply a good sense patch. Full stop. I am not your carpet ride, I am the sky.. |
Tchu
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:45:00 -
[136]
Please change name of this game to Hello Kitty Online. Empire will be carebears paradise soon, well done =(
|
Veldya
Caldari Guristari Freedom Fighters
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:45:00 -
[137]
Originally by: Ron Wright BAN MACROMINERS and actually start reading petitions about them and the "Suicideganking-Problem" disappears by itself....
I agree macro miners should be hunted down and banned... by CCP.
I don't know why anyone would macro mine, there are so many easier ways to make isk in and outside of empire.
|
Laudicia
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:49:00 -
[138]
ATM you can get in to -10 in just a couple of kills. However to raise the standing it takes to much time. I think in low sec you shouldnt have such high standing loss. As people take the risk to get in to lower sec.
|
Korinn
The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:49:00 -
[139]
Edited by: Korinn on 06/08/2008 11:49:37
Originally by: Pesadel0 Dont get me wrong we will still suicide gank ,what i find hilarious is CCP position in all of this ,the cold hard place eve was is transforming into a warm place for stupid people and that i see a problem.
It's funny because it's almost _exactly_ like the nano nerf in the fact that both have perfectly adequate counters which are well documented *EVERYWHERE*, and yet CCP still feel the need to make massive changes to areas of the game which aren't especially "broken" (in need of slight rebalance maybe) rather than sorting out major issues such as the market (price of mods + base minerals) and the UI
|
FireFoxx80
Caldari E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:50:00 -
[140]
Originally by: BritishInvader Also, insurance not being paid out in CONCORD events is going to lead to a huge amount of crippled newbies who accidentally shot someone in highsec with their shiny ship, got CONCORDED, and lost all their money.
+1 to that. I've lost a ship to CONCORD before (after being in Eve for 3 years), because of ill-explained game mechanics and poor documentation. If newbies start loosing their ship and all their ISK, then you can bet your conversion rate from trial>full will drop.
Saying that, I don't mind insurance payouts being modified by the standing. The blog mentions the difference in security rating between pilots, so perhaps insurance should also fit with this (-10% to insurance payout, if a -5 player unlawfully kills a +5 one).
The best thing about Eve, to me, is that despite how much of a pirate or Caldari-hating s****you are; you can always claw back standing for the other side. Fine if low-sec rats no longer give out security increases, but you have to offset that with something else the pirates can do to increase their standing(1).
(1) Could CONCORD start having low-sec agents, which specifically improve security rating (I understand they did this in the olden days of Eve). Give 'convicts' low-grade missions, such as hauling garbage and other boring missions ('go clear out this drone infestation'), and the power to raise their -10 rating to something less dangerous. At least then, they'd have to suffer the same risks as high-sec mission runners (such as being probed out and ganked!)
What I do the rest of the time - Vote for a Jita bypass! |
|
Typhado3
Minmatar Ashen Lion Mining and Production Consortium Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:53:00 -
[141]
hmm pvp might now move to low sec/0.0, which I'm pretty sure is what ccp intended. Yeah I know a lot of ppl out there like to stay in empire to pvp and this is a pretty major nerf to them but I've always believed empire ganking should be for those you really hate or trying to find that gtc seller with the officer fitted cnr. But hey that's just my opinion and I havn't been ganked (I have more than half a brain) and I haven't ganked (I like my 5.1 sec status) so I'll leave talking about balance to the people that care/know what they are talking about. however that does bring me on to my point:
1. What about those people who have >+5 sec status?
iirc it was once possible to have your sec status go all the way up to 10 at one point until it was changed to max of 5 (I may be totally wrong here as it was a few years ago back in my noob days). There are probably a few people out there who still have the high sec status of 10 or so. Does this mean some of the grizzled ancient carebears will have extra penalties for ganking them which no other player can ever reach?
2. drones.
ok this one I'm even less sure about but iirc rouge drones don't give sec status increase (ignore this point if wrong). With new mechanics coming in for sec status could it be possible to make sure they do effect security status (concord tried to send an attack against them last I remember rp wise).
3 more drones.
do concord stop your drones? I don't know about empire ganking mechanics but from what I understand the moment concord show up your jammed and dieing. If they are slowing down the dieing part (by making the bs take longer to lock you and less ships show up) wouldn't this make ganking domi's the obvious choice for suicide ganking as they can do extra damage with their drones while other ganking ships sit there jammed.
|
Dex Nederland
Caldari Lai Dai Infinity Systems
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:54:00 -
[142]
Slight boost for anti-pirates \0/ It is all in perspective.
Still need to figure out the security penalty for a +5 security status pilot attacking criminals of various security rating.
Wouldn't it be a harsh cruel universe if >+5 security pilots could attack -10 pirates without having to worry about a security lose - wait, anti-pirates/bounty hunters can shoot first blasphemy!
Eve is dark and harsh, but it should be that way for everyone; not just those following the rules
|
Granmethedon III
We are Legend
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:56:00 -
[143]
Terrible proposal, utterly terrible. Another way to remove the scope and depth from Eve by removing the one thing that makes Eve greater than any other MMO by making there be a certain element of risk at all times and instead helps turn it into another dull grinding paradise. Way to go.
|
Ki An
Gallente Filiolus Of Bellum
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:57:00 -
[144]
Originally by: Typhado3
do concord stop your drones? I don't know about empire ganking mechanics but from what I understand the moment concord show up your jammed and dieing. If they are slowing down the dieing part (by making the bs take longer to lock you and less ships show up) wouldn't this make ganking domi's the obvious choice for suicide ganking as they can do extra damage with their drones while other ganking ships sit there jammed.
That's how it used to be up until the LAST nerf to suicide ganking. It's not commonly known/remembered that suicide ganking has already been severely nerfed. Now, drones are jammed by CONCORD.
Filiolus of Bellum is recruiting
|
Hoody
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 12:00:00 -
[145]
Originally by: Fuddlesticks
macro-miners is not something that's being covered in any patch ever
Fyp
|
Falun Assad
Caldari Shadows of the Dead Daisho Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 12:00:00 -
[146]
Quote: But what for the future?
We have a taskforce (Named TaskForce Doughnut!) which is dedicated to looking over these changes and proposing plans for the future. We have already started work on the above, but the future holds more changes.
In addition, the highly requested feature of removal of insurance in CONCORD related events will be implemented in the near future.
The CONCORD changes and Security penalty will be hitting TQ this fall, with Empyrean Age 1.1.
Be safe out there!
CCP Fear
Ohh great, now the last weapon against macro miners goes down the sink....
excellent thinking there...
Unless you do something against 7+ noobcorper squads in Hulks or mackinaws mining 23/7, you should not implement this. Right now a disco-geddon is the only weapon against them, take away insurance and nobody is going to fight them anymore, so they can finally ruin mining as an income for legitimate players.
|
Eleana Tomelac
Gallente Through the Looking Glass
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 12:01:00 -
[147]
Less security loss in lowsec, well, this could make pirating a possible part time activity, which is a good move.
The loss for lowsec could be significantly lower, not just a bit, we could have amateur pirates raise into activity, shooting randomly factional warfare pilots. But as always, as for a sandbox, people will dig it or not, other will even say it's bad sand...
The cost of popping a mining barge in hisec was ridiculously low, even for the more expensive T2 ones, it was just a joke. Loosing a brutix to a mack, well... Too easy with insurance and top cheap fitting + faction ammo (just the guns loaded with 20 bullets or so, still cheap).
Planning to kill people and scanning them on a trade route will still be possible, for better loot only. Well, no one should afford to randomly pop industrials and barges. -- Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast !
Assault Frigates MK II |
Roy Batty68
Caldari Immortal Dead
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 12:04:00 -
[148]
Keep fighting those symptoms, CCP! Pretty soon your game is going to look like a mummy with all the patches to the patches to the patches.
WHY IS IT SO CHEAP TO SUICIDE GANK??? What caused that in the first place? Why is ship costs down to nearly a profit with insurance? Why is base cost so apparently out of wack? It didn't used to be... hmmm... I wonder if one or two of your past changes brought this about... What do you think?
Keep coddling the 6 month whiney wonders, CCP!! The game used to be about evolving, learning, adapting. Your game will never be WoW. You shouldn't even try to please that crowd. What makes your game great is the very fact that it ****es that lot off. It is a totally different way of thinking that alot of refugees from other games just never get. It's natural that they whine. And they'll continue to whine after these changes as well.
A poor man's WoW will just be something no one plays.
I'm not so worried about this specific change. It's just the change in theme and direction that seems to be eminating from CCP HQ lately. Hold the line, man. Carebears will whine you out of a buisness.
Sig removed, inappropriate content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
ArmyOfMe
hirr Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 12:05:00 -
[149]
the insurance changes were bound to happen, the other changes are a bit meh tbh
|
Syrinthal
Black Omega Security Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 12:07:00 -
[150]
While I do gank to afford GTC's to afford gametime to actually play (yay for being a student in the 3rd world :D with the :jewclaw:)
I think the reduction in reaction time is a pretty stupid idea - the rest I dont really have an issue with. Sec status losses will **** a lot of good high sec pvpers off :/
Cant fix lag or make pvpers happy? HALP TAH BEARZ! Think your market share is small cos everything isnt mass market appeal? MAKE SUM NERFZ Why bother trying to keep the game cold and gritty? I for one would love pink stations and cute flower named "space buggies", om nom nom
|
|
|
|
|
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 |