|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.07.03 15:33:00 -
[1]
Edited by: De''Veldrin on 03/07/2009 15:33:57 From http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=577
Originally by: CCP Fear
In addition, the highly requested feature of removal of insurance in CONCORD related events will be implemented in the near future.
That was from almost a year ago. August 2008, to be more precise, and we still don't have this implemented. Why are criminals (as defined by the fact that CONCORD jumped on you) still being paid insurance payouts when CONCORD WTFOMGBBQPWNs them?
I would like the CSM to push this issue with CCP and try and determine why this hasn't already been implemented.
--Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
De'Veldrin
Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.07.03 15:33:00 -
[2]
Supporting myself. --Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.07.03 18:40:00 -
[3]
Originally by: RedSplat No.
Highsec isnt risk free, it isnt intended to be. Your proposal is motivated by a desire to see Highsec become safer, riskless gameplay strikes at the heart of what makes EVE unique.
Wrong.
Highsec will never be risk free, and this proposal in no way prevents gankers from doing what it is they do. This in no way prevents them from locking my ship in a high sec system and pushing the fire button.
Originally by: Redsplat
No.
You want to nerf an entire profession without providing ample recompense or alternatives to gankers.
Further, Suicide Ganking is the only way to engage in pvp with people in NPC corps abusing the fact they cant be wardec'd. Remove insurance payouts and NPC corps will be totally unassailable by nature of suicide ganking being economically impossible to support.
Wrong.
Once again, this proposal in no way prevents suicide ganking from occurring. If you want to fly into Noob space, lock some guy in a noob frigate, and blast him to hell and back, I have absolutely no problem with you doing that. Please tell me how removing insurance payouts turns off your ability to press F1-F8.
It does however mean that you may have to choose your targets more intelligently instead of ganking everything that crosses your path. But please don't presume that I am stupid enough to believe that everyone in an NPC corp is flying an Ibis with civilian fittings. mmkay?
Originally by: Redsplat
No.
You already have the tools as a player to defend yourselves and more, strike back at gankers; stop whining, start doing something about it in game.
I know I have the tools to defend myself, and I use them. My hulk is tanked, and I have combat drones loaded. My corp uses cov-ops scouts and escorts for high value merchandise. As for striking back at the gankers, it's kinda pointless to shoot at them once CONCORD has asploded them all over the asteroid field.
However, what the gankers are doing is defined, by the game mechanics, as a crime. Please name one other criminal profession that offers insurance payouts to cover lost material.
I'll wait while you come up with one. Take your time, I have all year.
And please stop misconstruing my arguments. I'm not telling you you can't suicide gank. By all means, feel free. I'm just don't want it to be free (or nearly free). Talk about risk vs reward. --Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.07.03 21:27:00 -
[4]
Originally by: RedSplat
Risk free, no. But a climate so adverse to risk as to make it a hugs n' rainbows carbear teaparty that might as well for all intents and purposes be called risk free- decidedly, yes.
Removing insurance payouts for concorded ships makes suicide ganking VASTLY less profitable. This translates directly to fewer ganks occurring and a safer highsec.
And the solution to that, as the pirates are so quick to point out to us, is to move out of High Security space.
Originally by: RedSplat
It doesnt. It just anihilates the economic incentive to do so in 90% of cases. Please leave the strawman alone.
It's not a strawman. Your argument is it stops you from doing it. But you've just pointed out yourself that it doesn't - it just makes you have to be smarter about doing it. I thought that was what EVE was all about? Deciding if the risk is actually worth the reward. Why should suicide gankers be the only profession that don't have to care about the risk, because it's subsidized?
Originally by: RedSplat
I dont think you are stupid, just that you are a carebear with an agenda that will change EVE for the worse- completely different. mmkay?
You say carebear like it's a bad thing.
Originally by: RedSplat
You know what killrights are, right? What Merc. corps are?
Hint: -10 players live in Lowsec. You can go there. You even get sentry guns to help you!
Originally by: RedSplat
Originally by: De'Veldrin
However, what the gankers are doing is defined, by the game mechanics, as a crime. Please name one other criminal profession that offers insurance payouts to cover lost material.
I'll wait while you come up with one. Take your time, I have all year.
Lets see...Piracy. Or do you consider piracy griefing and not a 'profession'
Piracy, in and of itself, is not considered a crime by the game mechanics. CONCORD does not jump out of the shadows and blast you into metal scrap if you lock someone in low sec, web them, point them, and then try and ransom their ship - or even if you destroy their ship.
Good try, but wrong. Care to try again?
Originally by: RedSplat
Yep, you want to nerf the reward for the risk- We lose our ships, isk (Yes, even after insurance its significant) and sec status.
Let's talk about this for a minute. You didn't "lose your ship". You made a conscious decision to throw it away. And that, frankly, makes all the difference in the world. --Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.07.04 02:31:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Xenon Barinade Edited by: Xenon Barinade on 04/07/2009 01:31:31 Wheres the fun in this, gankers make the game fun and you will just kill it if you do this, gankers help the market and also makes couriering deadly and mining interesting. I really am against this idea and like the way gankers work atm.
Ofc in regards to topic, they would be less gankers, the insurance companies are different to concorde (I think) so I guess it is fine :D, insurance to all that die (except mission runners)
Your definition of fun differs vastly from mine, apparently. --Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.07.04 21:45:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Malcanis
But you're fine with empire carebears getting a massive free protection subsidy.
Oddly enough, most civilized societies consider it a good practice to protect their law abiding citizens. --Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.07.04 22:25:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Malcanis
Oddly enough, pod pilots aren't considered citizens.
I'd be curious to know why you think this. I wasn't aware that we handed in our citizenship when we left orbit.
Originally by: Malcanis
Oddly enough, policemen normally need paying.
Which way do you want it: are you a citizen with rights - and obligations? Or are you an independent pod pilot with the freedom to do as you please - but with no right to expect protection you contribute nothing towards?
Taxes are what normally support public services like crime prevention, not direct payment from citizens. And oddly enough, the EVE empires collect taxes in the form of sales taxes. --Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.07.05 16:59:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Tsumei Meyren One of the silliest proposals ever.
<snip>
It's a non-issue.
For a "silly...non-issue" it sure seems to be generating a lot of support. Doncha think? --Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.07.05 17:05:00 -
[9]
Edited by: De''Veldrin on 05/07/2009 17:05:47
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: De'Veldrin
I'd be curious to know why you think this. I wasn't aware that we handed in our citizenship when we left orbit.
In what meaningful way are pod pilots citizens?
In the same meaningful way that an infant is. You seem to be laboring under the Heinlein-esque notion of citizenship through service. Of course, by that definition, anyone with a positive faction standing towards one of the empires could be considered a de facto citizen, since they have obviously rendered a service to that empire (they don't just hand out faction standing at the door, now do they?) --Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 11:54:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Oam Mkoll Fact: the current ******ed system is making highsec ganking a zero-risk issue. Stupid pirates can mis-gank worthless targets because their ships cost zero.
They dont cost zero. The ships themselves cost marginally above zero; then they must be fitted.
And there is a significant non-zero time factor, plus the sec hit.
The sec hit is laughable, and frankly a non-issue, since you can roll up an alt to do your shopping, and if worse comes to worse, you can roll up another gank alt in under a week. Let's face it, all it has to be able to do is fly a destroyer and fit moderate weapons, as long as you can run in a pack. Hell you can eve go ratting and get your security hit back. So don't feed me this "we lose security status" like it actually means anything to you. If it meant something, you wouldn't be ganking people, amirite?
As for the rest of it - no, I don't want to be completely safe. I do, however, demand that people suffer the consequences for their choices. I chose to undock my ship, so yes, that means I chose to be available for non-consenual PvP - absolutely. Nothing I can about that, except fit the best tank I can, and hope it's enough.
However, you chose to throw your ship away - you chose to lose that ship, it's fittings, and the related sec status for attacking a neutral target in High Security space. So come down off your "save the gankers" high horse like you're some kind of a martyr for suffering those things. You nailed yourself to that cross. --Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.07.07 11:47:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Velvet Sinner There needs to be an internal mechanic that links different alts to the same human being (ie, payment device). Your toon isn't deciding to gank a Hulk; it's the warped brain of the human behind the keyboard. You gank in hi-sec, all accounts associated with the ganking toon are banned immediately. The only way around it would be those that pay for their account(s) with isk; even GTC buyers can be tracked thru payment mechanism. Also make trial accounts unable to fire on non-NPC ships in high-sec.
And while we're at it, why don't replace all our ships with cuddly bunny rabbits in tea cozies?
If you want to play Hello Kitty Online, you're at the wrong website. --Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.07.08 13:54:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Larkonis TrassIer
Cost isn't really an issue with suicide gankings. Sec is, considering the grind to recover it after a successful gank.
My father had an expression that went something like "You made your bed, now lie in it".
Originally by: Larkonis TrassIer
Example 1
When I was out suicide ganking I would rarely go after anything with a cargo value of less than 200 mil. Assuming one has a 50% drop rate and assuming you are using a tier 2 battlecruiser (what are they now, 35 mil) that's still a minimum 65mil profit if insurance is voided. Still worth doing.
Example 2
Pirate corp X is using destroyers to kill Hulks mining in Hisec. It takes 4-5 dessies to be able to reliably kill 1 Hulk. Total cost: 4-5 mil. Well worth it to destroy some carebears.
All that will happen if insurance is voided for Concord actions is the alienation of carebears who accidently set off a smartbomb in a plex or turn their guns on a fleet member.
This hysterical whining about suicide gankers has got to stop. Carebears have had too many concessions over the years. Pay attention, play smart and you won't get killed, simple as.
I'm not proposing that we allow people to play less intelligently, Lark. If anything, this will encourage more thought in the game, since you won't be able to gank anything that happens across your path with a reasonable expectation of at least breaking even economically.
You'll have to actually pick your targets selectively and balance the costs versus the potential rewards.
I thought that was sort of the point of EVE? --Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.07.08 15:41:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Scatim Helicon
Originally by: Malcanis But you're fine with empire carebears getting a massive free protection subsidy.
Or do you think should CONCORD protection be paid for? That would be an excellent idea IMO - instead of basing the concord response time on system sec, base it on the level of the contract you have with them. That gives the gankers their risk level - they cant be sure if they're shooting someone with platimum protection (CONCORD turn up in 5 seconds) or just basic (faction police arrive after 1 minute)
This is the only good idea in this thread fyi
I'd support this as long as my contract is applicable everywhere in EVE, including nullsec and WH space. After all, if I'm paying for protection, I expect my body guard to be nearby.
That really is a good idea, thanks! --Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.07.08 18:49:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Syringe no - do you realize how boring C&P would get?
I was under the impression that certain overzealous individuals had already more or less killed that area of the forum? --Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.07.08 22:29:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: De'Veldrin
Originally by: Scatim Helicon
Originally by: Malcanis But you're fine with empire carebears getting a massive free protection subsidy.
Or do you think should CONCORD protection be paid for? That would be an excellent idea IMO - instead of basing the concord response time on system sec, base it on the level of the contract you have with them. That gives the gankers their risk level - they cant be sure if they're shooting someone with platimum protection (CONCORD turn up in 5 seconds) or just basic (faction police arrive after 1 minute)
This is the only good idea in this thread fyi
I'd support this as long as my contract is applicable everywhere in EVE, including nullsec and WH space. After all, if I'm paying for protection, I expect my body guard to be nearby.
That really is a good idea, thanks!
Why on earth would CONCORD protect you in 0.0 or lo-sec? They dont operate there.
You're the one that suggested making them a pay for use service. If I am paying them to show up when I'm in trouble, they'd better bloody well show up regardless of where I am. --Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.07.09 14:35:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Aastarius Edited by: Aastarius on 09/07/2009 11:17:17 Supported.
You cause "sanctioned" by CONCORD then you shouldn't be "rewarded" and while you're at it how about removing insurance on self-destructs too.
I'd be fine with removing insurance on self-destructed ships. Again, you're making a conscious choice to destroy said property. --Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.07.13 20:40:00 -
[17]
Edited by: De''Veldrin on 13/07/2009 20:40:40
Originally by: Space Pinata
Define a criminal act?
Criminal act as defined by the game mechanics. Shooting a neutral target in high security space, for example --Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.07.16 16:51:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Aelsa
Originally by: Grann Thefauto If insurance was actually removed I would probably start suicide ganking. What you forget is that money is not the reason for the ganks that you guys complain about so much.
Nice straw man. Who's complaining about suicide ganking? Gank all you want, I just don't think you should get an automatic payout for doing it.
Either suicide ganking itself is profitable, or it isn't. If it is, then you don't need insurance payouts. If it's not profitable, then it's not profitable and you shouldn't get a CONCORD bailout for doing it.
This, tbh.
Suicide ganks are a part of the game, and I don't expect that to change. But those performing the ganks should bear the weight of that choice, instead of having it subsidized by the very agency thatis going to punish them for it. --Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.07.16 17:03:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Grann Thefauto
Originally by: Aelsa
Originally by: Grann Thefauto If insurance was actually removed I would probably start suicide ganking. What you forget is that money is not the reason for the ganks that you guys complain about so much.
Nice straw man. Who's complaining about suicide ganking? Gank all you want, I just don't think you should get an automatic payout for doing it.
Either suicide ganking itself is profitable, or it isn't. If it is, then you don't need insurance payouts. If it's not profitable, then it's not profitable and you shouldn't get a CONCORD bailout for doing it.
Theres no straw man here, the reason this is being suggested is to reduce the number of suicide gankings is it not?
You may want to pay more attention to C&P happenings so you understand why this specific issue has popped up at this time. Also, had you read the thread you would see that the argument is against mindless ganks not necessarily ones for profit.
All I'm saying is that the ganks people are aiming to combat with this change don't have a profit motive.
actually, I read (and post) in C&P quite frequently. That aside, this thread isn't intentioned to reduce suicide ganks. The only thing that would reduce suicide ganks would be removing guns from high security space.
And you're right, removing the insurance payout will not at all limit the suicide ganks that are done strictly for tears. I think you may be under estimating the number of ganks that are done for profit though. Let's face it, if C&P'ers are famous for anything, it's misinformation --Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.07.20 16:16:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Shidhe This is an idea that looks as though it makes obvious sense when it is a tabloid headline. However I am not sure it does if we look at game balance. The already outlined problems of high sec invunerability and NPC corps come to mind.
Now insurance in general... There is an argument for scrapping the whole thing, which I would like to see discussed.What about dropping the insured amount by 10% and monitoring the effects on in-game economics? [I am not sure I would support such a proposal, but discussion would be good.]
I'd consider an idea to tie insurance premiums to ship market value and pilot performance. But that really should be a separate topic. --Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.07.22 04:54:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Gaven's Bihotch Insurance does not cover the whole ship. you get what you pay for. If you don't want risk, Why are you playing a multiplayer game?
I don't mind risk. I do mind people not receiving the full consequences of their choices - good and bad. --Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.07.22 12:24:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: De'Veldrin
Originally by: Gaven's Bihotch Insurance does not cover the whole ship. you get what you pay for. If you don't want risk, Why are you playing a multiplayer game?
I don't mind risk. I do mind people not receiving the full consequences of their choices - good and bad.
You mean like choosing to make ISK while AFK for 5-10 minutes at a time? What consequence should this choice have?
It already has the consequence of being far more susceptible to being suicide ganked. If I lose my ship because I'm not paying attention, that's my fault, now isn't it? --Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.07.22 20:30:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Gaven's Bihotch
Originally by: Aria Selenis For the infinitely and repeatedly unanswered question (as usual, most arguments are ignored, with a straw man focused on something foolish someone said.):
For everyone who is whining about how insurance doesn't operate like a real insurance company, why aren't you whining about how CONCORD doesn't operate like a real police force?
Show me a police force that responds in a matter of seconds and never fails, and then get back to me on why insurance has to be realistic, as opposed to a game mechanic.
This times infinity
You guys beg for realism? What if you get it? Concord is not by any means going to be able to save the day anymore, think about those ships, their cost and what it would take to put them in every high sec system. And say goodbye to sentry guns up the wazoo. I mean seriously, the way the ships themselves is rather far fetched in terms of no upkeep over time, and no fuel costs. You want this to be more realistic? it's going to be even worse for you
Actually, I have often argued for fuel costs, maintenance fees, and jump/docking costs to be added to the game.
But apparently, people find those ideas offensive.
--Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.07.24 14:33:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Sky Marshal
Originally by: Red Splat
No.
Highsec isnt risk free, it isnt intended to be. Your proposal is motivated by a desire to see Highsec become safer, riskless gameplay strikes at the heart of what makes EVE unique.
No.
You want to nerf an entire profession without providing ample recompense or alternatives to gankers.
Further, Suicide Ganking is the only way to engage in pvp with people in NPC corps abusing the fact they cant be wardec'd. Remove insurance payouts and NPC corps will be totally unassailable by nature of suicide ganking being economically impossible to support.
No.
You already have the tools as a player to defend yourselves and more, strike back at gankers; stop whining, start doing something about it in game.
You may gather i dont support removing insurance from CONCORD shiploss.
/Thread
That made me giggle considering that the thread has gone on for 6 pages after that post. --Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.07.24 20:17:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Drake Draconis Edited by: Drake Draconis on 24/07/2009 16:42:07 You want funny?
Every single reason for saying no is utterly stupid.
Even in-spite of the fact that this in no way hurts the criminal profession. Other than taking away "free ISK"
But Drake, you know everyone likes free ISK. --Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.07.30 01:35:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Awesome Possum
ITS A GAME
I'm well aware of the fact that it's a game. that's why I am using the approved process to bring something to the attention of the player's representatives that I don't agree with in the game mechanics. If this was real life, I'd have sued someone already.
Originally by: Awesome Possum
There are already consequences to shooting someone you're not 'allowed' to. Stop trying to make it impossible, because that's what you're aiming for.
Despite what other people may have said, this is not what I am aiming for. I am simply aiming to make suicide gankers suffer the same moment of pause when they undock as I do. It only seems fair. Miners have to decide what to mine to maximize profits. Manufacturers have to decide what to manufacture for the same reason. Why should the suigankers get a pass on that decision just because they're being subsidized by the system?
All I want is for the suicide gankers to have to think before they shoot. Why are you so against leveling the playing field? --Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.07.30 22:10:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Awesome Possum
Quote: Despite what other people may have said, this is not what I am aiming for. I am simply aiming to make suicide gankers suffer the same moment of pause when they undock as I do. It only seems fair. Miners have to decide what to mine to maximize profits. Manufacturers have to decide what to manufacture for the same reason. Why should the suigankers get a pass on that decision just because they're being subsidized by the system?
You seem to forget that a hulk can be suicide ganked by 2-3 destroyers in cheap t1 crap for a total loss of... ? Even without insurance, its not going to stop anything.
I never suggested that it would stop suicide ganking. I suggested that it might the gankers think before they act. If they choose not to, that's not really my problem.
Originally by: Awesome Possum
Quote: All I want is for the suicide gankers to have to think before they shoot. Why are you so against leveling the playing field?
Considering there are already plenty of ways in game right now to keep from being suicide ganked, why are you trying to get in game mechanics changed just to penalize one small section of the game? Play the game.
You very nicely dodged answering the question you quoted. So I'll re-ask it. Why are you bound and determined to not have this one mechanic changed, since it does indeed impact such a small part of the game. I mean if it's so small, it shouldn't matter, right? Keep it as is, change it - shouldn't make any difference, since it's just a tiny little part of the game.
I just want the job the gankers choose to follow to actually reflect it's true cost instead of having that occupation be subsidized.
Unless you'd like to propose to CCP that they start seeding the market with free minerals so my chosen occupation can be subsidized too? --Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
De'Veldrin
Minmatar Special Projects Executive
|
Posted - 2009.07.31 13:39:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Amber Harden Reading through peoples idea of what insurance is for is bizarre.
That said - I can see both sides of the arguement.
PVP, wanted or not, is a strong driving force in market stimulation. Without it the high sec industrialists would have a much harder time selling the products and produce.
The stupidity of this is there is very little punishment for a ganker. They fully understand the risk they take when they attack and can calculate the money outlayed versus the possible reward from the wreck.
The thing that is missing here is reality. What insurance company in its right mind would insure someone at a fraction of the cost of a ship, that is destroyed 2 hours later.....answer, nearly all of them, once.
After that you would pay far more for insurance in premiums. Repeated insurance mis haps would eventually result in no one wanting to insure you....ever again.
Sure Gankers take a security status hit - big deal - go kill some Battleships and recover this.
Higher insurance costs for repeat gankers on an ever increasing scale.
Then place cheaper, less reputable insurers in low sec systems, (where all the gankers tell industrialists they should be anyway) - that charge far less but have a % chance of not paying out.
I could get behind the idea of a sliding scale of ship insurance based on actual market value and pilot performance (i.e. ship loss). it might need some tweaking, but the overall idea is intriguing and it accomplishes my main goal. --Vel
Experience is what you get right after you need it.
|
|
|
|