Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Riley Craven
Caldari Copacetic Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.04.02 21:46:00 -
[1]
Simply, people breaking the law in front of the police should not get any type of insurance period. This goes against all common sense.
|
Cain Bloodlust
|
Posted - 2007.04.02 21:58:00 -
[2]
What about all the people that accidently agro in high sec?
Additionally, seeing as suicide gankers go for haulers worth hundreds of millions, getting no insurance for a high sec agro isn't going to stop diddly.
My last problem with this oft-stated idea is that it would hamstring the fine players that dedicate their ingame careers to eradicating the scourge that is macro miners.
--------------------------------------- Because evil is cool, and good is dumb. - Dark Helmet |
Riley Craven
Caldari Copacetic Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.04.02 22:38:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Riley Craven on 02/04/2007 22:36:09
Originally by: Cain Bloodlust What about all the people that accidently agro in high sec?
Additionally, seeing as suicide gankers go for haulers worth hundreds of millions, getting no insurance for a high sec agro isn't going to stop diddly.
My last problem with this oft-stated idea is that it would hamstring the fine players that dedicate their ingame careers to eradicating the scourge that is macro miners.
ok you have fine arguements.
To the first, I would say to take that up with CCP. I shot one of my gang mates wrecks and was globally flagged, I argued my case and won my ship back. I think that CCP understands that some mistakes deserve do overs.
To your second, I didnt say it would stop it, but it would def make a lot more sense than the current implementation and would actually ensure that gankers face some type of risk. Secondly, just because they are going after high stakes targets does not mean you should make the burden less harsh. The current problem is that hi sec gankers face very little risk vs a huge reward. Its not like there is a way to defend against such attacks.
To your third, its just silly. There is a a reason they are called suicide kessies. Furthermore, your arguement is just a rationalization. Its based on the fact that players should take matters into their own hands when they should be delt with by CCP. If you want to be a vigilante in high sec (which is what you are despite your motives) then you should pay the price like everyone else.
|
Cain Bloodlust
|
Posted - 2007.04.03 00:50:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Riley Craven
ok you have fine arguements.
To the first, I would say to take that up with CCP. I shot one of my gang mates wrecks and was globally flagged, I argued my case and won my ship back. I think that CCP understands that some mistakes deserve do overs.
To your second, I didnt say it would stop it, but it would def make a lot more sense than the current implementation and would actually ensure that gankers face some type of risk. Secondly, just because they are going after high stakes targets does not mean you should make the burden less harsh. The current problem is that hi sec gankers face very little risk vs a huge reward. Its not like there is a way to defend against such attacks.
To your third, its just silly. There is a a reason they are called suicide kessies. Furthermore, your arguement is just a rationalization. Its based on the fact that players should take matters into their own hands when they should be delt with by CCP. If you want to be a vigilante in high sec (which is what you are despite your motives) then you should pay the price like everyone else.
Im pretty sure CCP doesn't want to take up every concordokken with people. Thats what it would turn into if you could petition mistakes, like accidnetly shooting a gate instead of your enemy, etc. I'm suprised you got your stuff back tbh.
Insurance or not, the risk is the same given the very high rewards. The only thing you force high sec gankers to do without insurance is a) team up with cheaper ships or b) raise the minimum value of what they deem to be a worthy target. So a few more hauler get by without being hit, but it really changes nothing.
The third is not silly at all. Suicide attacks are the only way to protect high sec asteroid belts from decimation via foreign miner blobs. Do you expect high sec miner corps to simply pack up and move(a considerable investment in time and effort) whenever they petition and nothing immediatly happens? What would you do (other than not mine of course )
PS: by foreign, I mean to your system, not your real life nation of residence.
--------------------------------------- Because evil is cool, and good is dumb. - Dark Helmet |
Riley Craven
Caldari Copacetic Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.04.03 01:14:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Riley Craven on 03/04/2007 01:13:31
Originally by: Cain Bloodlust
Originally by: Riley Craven
ok you have fine arguements.
To the first, I would say to take that up with CCP. I shot one of my gang mates wrecks and was globally flagged, I argued my case and won my ship back. I think that CCP understands that some mistakes deserve do overs.
To your second, I didnt say it would stop it, but it would def make a lot more sense than the current implementation and would actually ensure that gankers face some type of risk. Secondly, just because they are going after high stakes targets does not mean you should make the burden less harsh. The current problem is that hi sec gankers face very little risk vs a huge reward. Its not like there is a way to defend against such attacks.
To your third, its just silly. There is a a reason they are called suicide kessies. Furthermore, your arguement is just a rationalization. Its based on the fact that players should take matters into their own hands when they should be delt with by CCP. If you want to be a vigilante in high sec (which is what you are despite your motives) then you should pay the price like everyone else.
Im pretty sure CCP doesn't want to take up every concordokken with people. Thats what it would turn into if you could petition mistakes, like accidnetly shooting a gate instead of your enemy, etc. I'm suprised you got your stuff back tbh.
Insurance or not, the risk is the same given the very high rewards. The only thing you force high sec gankers to do without insurance is a) team up with cheaper ships or b) raise the minimum value of what they deem to be a worthy target. So a few more hauler get by without being hit, but it really changes nothing.
The third is not silly at all. Suicide attacks are the only way to protect high sec asteroid belts from decimation via foreign miner blobs. Do you expect high sec miner corps to simply pack up and move(a considerable investment in time and effort) whenever they petition and nothing immediatly happens? What would you do (other than not mine of course )
PS: by foreign, I mean to your system, not your real life nation of residence.
On your first point, while they may not want to, it doesnt mean it already doesnt happen in practice. They will never say that this will become a policy. But in practice players can petition anything. Under that system there is no way to stop who petitions what and when.
Your second point you basically gave to me. By saying that it forces them to make choices such as ganging up and or being more selective with targets, you are effectively saying that there is added risk. If there was no risk to an action then there would be no reason to evaulate a given situation.
The third is in fact very silly. First because high sec miner corps dont play into this at all. The problem is that whether you are a macro miner or not, everyone has a right to mine in a belt, I have personally, with my 4 accounts, mined a whole system out (everything in sys) Does that mean that I am a macro miner? No, it just means I had alot of free time one week and the ability to do such an act. Does that mean I should be attacked for it? Dubious at best. Just because you dont want to bare the risk or conseques for your actions doesnt mean that this would be a bad idea. Just that you are a lazy git. The problem with what you saying is that you could label anyone you didnt like a macro miner and take actions into your own hands. It doesnt make it right or justified. You just want to protect your terf and you want it to be easy. Actions have consequences and no matter how much you can rationalize your actions to yourself, it doesnt mean that you should get a free ride.
|
Cain Bloodlust
|
Posted - 2007.04.03 03:48:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Riley Craven
On your first point, while they may not want to, it doesnt mean it already doesnt happen in practice. They will never say that this will become a policy. But in practice players can petition anything. Under that system there is no way to stop who petitions what and when.
Your second point you basically gave to me. By saying that it forces them to make choices such as ganging up and or being more selective with targets, you are effectively saying that there is added risk. If there was no risk to an action then there would be no reason to evaulate a given situation.
The third is in fact very silly. First because high sec miner corps dont play into this at all. The problem is that whether you are a macro miner or not, everyone has a right to mine in a belt, I have personally, with my 4 accounts, mined a whole system out (everything in sys) Does that mean that I am a macro miner? No, it just means I had alot of free time one week and the ability to do such an act. Does that mean I should be attacked for it? Dubious at best. Just because you dont want to bare the risk or conseques for your actions doesnt mean that this would be a bad idea. Just that you are a lazy git. The problem with what you saying is that you could label anyone you didnt like a macro miner and take actions into your own hands. It doesnt make it right or justified. You just want to protect your terf and you want it to be easy. Actions have consequences and no matter how much you can rationalize your actions to yourself, it doesnt mean that you should get a free ride.
The actual number of haulers that will be relegated from valid target to not worth the time will be small indeed. My basic argument is that those are the only ones that benefit from this insurance policy, and that their number is hugely dwarfed by the number of people that would suffer that arent empire gankers.
--------------------------------------- Because evil is cool, and good is dumb. - Dark Helmet |
tikinish
|
Posted - 2007.08.09 02:08:00 -
[7]
signed topic worth reading http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=569893&page=1sp idea[/ |
Valandril
Caldari Resurrection R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.08.09 02:30:00 -
[8]
What if i insure in pirate insurance company ? ---
Not replying to alts, post with ur main or STFU |
Santa Anna
Caldari Blackguard Brigade
|
Posted - 2007.08.09 05:43:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Riley Craven Simply, people breaking the law in front of the police should not get any type of insurance period. This goes against all common sense.
If you don't AFK through empire in an untanked hauler full of valuables you won't be suicide ganked.
The game should never be changed to promote AFK play.
This change, designed specifically to promote a common AFK practice, should therefore not be implemented.
If you want a good change to insurance that will punish risk-takers and reward the risk-averse, scale the premium by security status so that those who frequently get flagged (low sec status) pay more for a given level of protection.
I'm not a fan of any change in insurance (people are risk averse enough under the current system), but if there is a change it should be a change in insurance cost, not in insurance availability. _____ CPU Love |
Morrigu Storm
Darwin With Attitude oooh Shiny
|
Posted - 2007.08.09 09:24:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Morrigu Storm on 09/08/2007 09:25:37
Originally by: Cain Bloodlust What about all the people that accidently agro in high sec?
Additionally, seeing as suicide gankers go for haulers worth hundreds of millions, getting no insurance for a high sec agro isn't going to stop diddly.
My last problem with this oft-stated idea is that it would hamstring the fine players that dedicate their ingame careers to eradicating the scourge that is macro miners.
Should be a case of tough luck if you accidently agro someone in Hi-sec. You'd have to be really stupid to let it happen more than once!
PS, suicide empire gankers are just carebears themselves because by defination of the term they play for no risk themselves.
|
|
Washell Olivaw
|
Posted - 2007.08.09 10:11:00 -
[11]
With the current low mineral cost, a fully insured T1 fitted fleet of 10 Domi's costs about 10 to 50 million to lose. Without insurance payout it would be 500 to 600 million.
That will save way more then a few haulers.
Quote: Everybody has a photographic memory, some people just don't have film.
|
Ellaine TashMurkon
MetaForge Ekliptika
|
Posted - 2007.08.09 10:15:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Santa Anna If you don't AFK through empire in an untanked hauler full of valuables you won't be suicide ganked.
The game should never be changed to promote AFK play.
AFK play FTW! I play Eve because I can play it AFK!
|
Awox
Advanced Logistics
|
Posted - 2007.08.09 10:26:00 -
[13]
I wouldn't mind seeing some kind of Insurance nerf. I tried suicide ganking once, it was very fun, and profitable. On my first day I made almost 500m ISK, 440m ISK profit or something silly like that.
Giving Insurance payouts for criminal actions a nerf would make suicide ganking less of a bother for newer players, the ones that can't afford or don't know how to sturdy up a industrial. Newer players can sometimes lose their entire fortune (50-100mil) to a Brutix or Hurricane or something.. protect the noobs! - CCP <3 ISK sellers Boost Dictors (a bit) |
deathlords
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 19:13:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Riley Craven Edited by: Riley Craven on 02/04/2007 22:36:09
To the first, I would say to take that up with CCP. I shot one of my gang mates wrecks and was globally flagged, I argued my case and won my ship back. I think that CCP understands that some mistakes deserve do overs.
I did the same thing and did NOT get my ship back. And I was in the same gang with salvagers and salvage material.
So what is the policy CPP?
|
VJ Maverick
Caldari Maverick Specialized Services
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 19:30:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Riley Craven Simply, people breaking the law in front of the police should not get any type of insurance period. This goes against all common sense.
Interesting. When I was younger, I was involved in a high speed police chase on my motorcycle. My bike hit the back of a police cruiser at 142 MPH, totalling both. I tumbled down the highway for 300 feet and got pretty banged up. Yes, I got into a lot of trouble. But guess what, my insurance covered it. Does that make sense? It does to me. The insurance is there to cover your loss. And outside of outright insurance fraud, it doesn't really care how the loss occurred.
Originally by: Bodhisattvas
by the way you keep on missing the "a" from pwn, do you need any help with its pl |
Washell Olivaw
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 22:19:00 -
[16]
Originally by: VJ Maverick
Originally by: Riley Craven Simply, people breaking the law in front of the police should not get any type of insurance period. This goes against all common sense.
Interesting. When I was younger, I was involved in a high speed police chase on my motorcycle. My bike hit the back of a police cruiser at 142 MPH, totalling both. I tumbled down the highway for 300 feet and got pretty banged up. Yes, I got into a lot of trouble. But guess what, my insurance covered it. Does that make sense? It does to me. The insurance is there to cover your loss. And outside of outright insurance fraud, it doesn't really care how the loss occurred.
Well, usually there's a subclause somewhere in the policy or general terms that tells you the insurance is voided if the vehicle is used for criminal activity.
Your high-speed chase may, in the end, have only rated as a misdemeanor or you managed to pick a company/policy that didn't have that subclause.
Quote: Everybody has a photographic memory, some people just don't have film.
|
VJ Maverick
Caldari Maverick Specialized Services
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 23:04:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Washell Olivaw
Originally by: VJ Maverick
Originally by: Riley Craven Simply, people breaking the law in front of the police should not get any type of insurance period. This goes against all common sense.
Interesting. When I was younger, I was involved in a high speed police chase on my motorcycle. My bike hit the back of a police cruiser at 142 MPH, totalling both. I tumbled down the highway for 300 feet and got pretty banged up. Yes, I got into a lot of trouble. But guess what, my insurance covered it. Does that make sense? It does to me. The insurance is there to cover your loss. And outside of outright insurance fraud, it doesn't really care how the loss occurred.
Well, usually there's a subclause somewhere in the policy or general terms that tells you the insurance is voided if the vehicle is used for criminal activity.
Your high-speed chase may, in the end, have only rated as a misdemeanor or you managed to pick a company/policy that didn't have that subclause.
Funny, my current policy doesn't have such a clause either.
Originally by: Bodhisattvas
by the way you keep on missing the "a" from pwn, do you need any help with its pl |
Adunh Slavy
KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 01:22:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Santa Anna If you don't AFK through empire in an untanked hauler full of valuables you won't be suicide ganked.
If bumping were stoped or officialy deemed an exploit, I'd go with you on this 100%. Till then I'd have to agree with the OP's basic premis. -AS |
VJ Maverick
Caldari Maverick Specialized Services
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 01:43:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Adunh Slavy
Originally by: Santa Anna If you don't AFK through empire in an untanked hauler full of valuables you won't be suicide ganked.
If bumping were stoped or officialy deemed an exploit, I'd go with you on this 100%. Till then I'd have to agree with the OP's basic premis.
Bumping has nothing to do with it. Tank your hauler. Better yet, get into a T2 hauler and AFK all you want because 1) you're much less likely to be targeted, and 2)if targeted, you will have a 99.99% chance of outlasting your attackers.
Originally by: Bodhisattvas
by the way you keep on missing the "a" from pwn, do you need any help with its pl |
Adunh Slavy
KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 02:22:00 -
[20]
Originally by: VJ Maverick Bumping has nothing to do with it. Tank your hauler. Better yet, get into a T2 hauler and AFK all you want because 1) you're much less likely to be targeted, and 2)if targeted, you will have a 99.99% chance of outlasting your attackers.
I have quite a few T2 haulers, they tank very well thanks. I personaly have not been suicide ganked and I don't fly AFK either, If I have to go away from my desk, I safe spot or dock. Everyone should follow these rules. I agree that if you take the risk, you should suffer the consequences. However, there is nothing someone can do if the ship is a slow turner and the gate is behind you and some big gang comes and starts bumping and throwing ships at you while concord pops them. A webber escort can help if the timing is right, and a scout can help a little, but some of these corridors are very busy places, it is tough to tell on a fly by the difference between a war and a suicide squad setting up shop for the afternoon. And once the bumping starts, the webber escort is basicly useless.
I agree 100%, if you're afk, take the risk. My concern is when you're not afk and you're placed in a situation where there are no viable options, and it is worse for noobs by a long shot. -AS |
|
VJ Maverick
Caldari Maverick Specialized Services
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 02:54:00 -
[21]
Are you trying to tell me that suicide ganking T2 haulers in hi-sec is a common occurrence?
Originally by: Bodhisattvas
by the way you keep on missing the "a" from pwn, do you need any help with its pl |
Adunh Slavy
KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 03:23:00 -
[22]
Originally by: VJ Maverick Are you trying to tell me that suicide ganking T2 haulers in hi-sec is a common occurrence?
I do not recall having indicated that. However forum straw man arguments are a common occurence. But nerfing those would not be fun. -AS |
Shaemell Buttleson
Darwin With Attitude oooh Shiny
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 03:29:00 -
[23]
Originally by: VJ Maverick Are you trying to tell me that suicide ganking T2 haulers in hi-sec is a common occurrence?
Not alot it's just that the victims make alot of noise about it and alot of the players who are the antagonists like to brag about it.
I don't think insurance should be payed at all of any % if a person loses a ship while engaged in criminal activity and think maybe the whole insurance system should be worked on and updated. While we are on the subject of criminal activities the bounty system is still long overdue a revamp to make it actually worth something and meaningfull.
*snip* Do not use your signature to troll or insult other EVE players even if the little turds deserve it! -Rauth Kivaro ([email protected]) |
VJ Maverick
Caldari Maverick Specialized Services
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 06:36:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Adunh Slavy
Originally by: VJ Maverick Are you trying to tell me that suicide ganking T2 haulers in hi-sec is a common occurrence?
I do not recall having indicated that. However forum straw man arguments are a common occurence. But nerfing those would not be fun.
It's not a straw man. It's entirely relevant. You're just a little too puffed up on yourself to see it. My suggestion to protect yourself from suicide ganks was to fly a tanked hauler like a T2. You rebutted that suggestion with a "but still" argument and provided an example of a situation where even a T2 hauler is vulnerable. While I admit that there are never any guarantees in this game, in order for your rebuttal to defeat my suggestion is to demonstrate that the situation you described is common enough to render my suggestion without merit. So I ask again: is the suicide ganking of T2 haulers in hi-sec a common enough occurrence to make flying a T2 hauler a hopeless proposition?
Originally by: Bodhisattvas
by the way you keep on missing the "a" from pwn, do you need any help with its pl |
Meg Griffin
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 06:43:00 -
[25]
Originally by: VJ Maverick
Originally by: Adunh Slavy
Originally by: VJ Maverick Are you trying to tell me that suicide ganking T2 haulers in hi-sec is a common occurrence?
I do not recall having indicated that. However forum straw man arguments are a common occurence. But nerfing those would not be fun.
It's not a straw man. It's entirely relevant. You're just a little too puffed up on yourself to see it. My suggestion to protect yourself from suicide ganks was to fly a tanked hauler like a T2. You rebutted that suggestion with a "but still" argument and provided an example of a situation where even a T2 hauler is vulnerable. While I admit that there are never any guarantees in this game, in order for your rebuttal to defeat my suggestion is to demonstrate that the situation you described is common enough to render my suggestion without merit. So I ask again: is the suicide ganking of T2 haulers in hi-sec a common enough occurrence to make flying a T2 hauler a hopeless proposition?
Pwnt!
|
Adunh Slavy
KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 06:57:00 -
[26]
Originally by: VJ Maverick It's not a straw man. It's entirely relevant. You're just a little too puffed up on yourself to see it.
Do you win forum points for making those kinds of remarks? Take the polite insults someplace they'll be appreciated.
Quote:
My suggestion to protect yourself from suicide ganks was to fly a tanked hauler like a T2. You rebutted that suggestion with a "but still" argument and provided an example of a situation where even a T2 hauler is vulnerable. While I admit that there are never any guarantees in this game, in order for your rebuttal to defeat my suggestion is to demonstrate that the situation you described is common enough to render my suggestion without merit. So I ask again: is the suicide ganking of T2 haulers in hi-sec a common enough occurrence to make flying a T2 hauler a hopeless proposition?
I do not recall specificaly saying a T2 hauler was vulnerable as you describe me saying it. Can you kindly point out to me where I said that? Nor did I indicate your idea was with out merit, though it appears you wish I had. If your idea was with out merit, then me owning T2 haulers would be kind of silly, wouldn't it?
It would appear you want to have a little forum spat more than discuss the issue at hand. If that is your goal, then do please continue alone, I've no intrest in your drill. If on the other hand civility has value, then do refrain from your stance. |
VJ Maverick
Caldari Maverick Specialized Services
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 14:47:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Adunh Slavy
Originally by: VJ Maverick
I do not recall specificaly saying a T2 hauler was vulnerable as you describe me saying it. Can you kindly point out to me where I said that?
Here you go: Originally by: Adunh Slavy However, there is nothing someone can do if the ship is a slow turner and the gate is behind you and some big gang comes and starts bumping and throwing ships at you while concord pops them.
Originally by: Bodhisattvas
by the way you keep on missing the "a" from pwn, do you need any help with its pl |
Adunh Slavy
KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 15:08:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Adunh Slavy on 30/10/2007 15:09:21
Originally by: VJ Maverick
Originally by: Adunh Slavy
I do not recall specificaly saying a T2 hauler was vulnerable as you describe me saying it. Can you kindly point out to me where I said that?
Here you go: Originally by: Adunh Slavy However, there is nothing someone can do if the ship is a slow turner and the gate is behind you and some big gang comes and starts bumping and throwing ships at you while concord pops them.
Oh, so "slow turner" means T2 hauler to you? I'll have to make sure to update my thesaurus. |
Eleana Tomelac
Gallente Through the Looking Glass
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 15:23:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Eleana Tomelac on 30/10/2007 15:25:01 Maybe concord should not only be a reatliation force, but should 'protect and retaliate', in this precise order!
So, if you do something illegal, they break your locks, web you to 0, scramble you, neutralize your cap, then you pay a fine for what you did (in morrowind, guards chased you so you pay the fine, and you could pay or kick their butt). But first of all, they falled on the victim, repairing his ship so they could prevent the loss.
It needs also a change in the retaliation for different events : -Shooting a wreck not at war with you or not flagged : neutralizing the aggressor and pays fine to the victim, flag to the victim -Shooting someone not at war with you or not flagged : flag to the victim, Neutralizing, big fine (depending on the victim ship type), if the victim is destroyed, destroy the attacker(s) ships and give the insurance of the attacker ship to the victim. -Repairing a pirate NPC : Neutralizing you ship (then the guy can finish his NPC) for some amount of time, flagged to the players in the current grid (the global flag is not great...)
More situations exist, but beginning with this, it would avoid immediate obliteration of your ship when you make a mistake. -- Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast !
Say hello to my tiny friends ! |
VJ Maverick
Caldari Maverick Specialized Services
|
Posted - 2007.10.30 15:23:00 -
[30]
Edited by: VJ Maverick on 30/10/2007 15:25:09
Originally by: Adunh Slavy Edited by: Adunh Slavy on 30/10/2007 15:09:21
Originally by: VJ Maverick
Originally by: Adunh Slavy
I do not recall specificaly saying a T2 hauler was vulnerable as you describe me saying it. Can you kindly point out to me where I said that?
Here you go: Originally by: Adunh Slavy However, there is nothing someone can do if the ship is a slow turner and the gate is behind you and some big gang comes and starts bumping and throwing ships at you while concord pops them.
Oh, so "slow turner" means T2 hauler to you? I'll have to make sure to update my thesaurus.
It does if it comes on the heels of my T2 suggestion and is used to rebut it. You talked your way into a corner and now you're dancing around your own argument because you realize how weak it is. You're not smarter than me and no amount of italicized admonitions and e-peen stroking will change that.
I'm out. All I have to say to the hi-sec suicide gank whiners is this: get a T2 hauler and your troubles will be over.
Originally by: Bodhisattvas
by the way you keep on missing the "a" from pwn, do you need any help with its pl |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |