These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

War Decs as a griefing tool

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#521 - 2014-09-01 10:22:50 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Well, I'd point out that Valkyrie is already more or less done, and if Facebook doesn't manage to kill the Occulus Rift then Valkyrie, as it's flagship launch, is likely to get a lot of attention.

And by all accounts it's actually pretty cool.

Nevermind that Valkyrie's engine is done, not in the production phase, not going through endless reworks, done. Something that WoD had never managed. Pity, too, because if they had actually managed to make a "EVE Online; Vampire Style", it would have been an interesting thing to play.
Even if the rift isn't killed by facebook, it's still questionable whether it's going to be succeesful anyway. Sure, it's interesting tech, but then so is Kinect, and yet that has found itself falling away from mainstream games. I for one won't be spending hundreds of pounds for the opportunity of replacing my right analog stick with my head.


Nobody wants to play a game that involves flapping your arms around wildly while you trip over the cat.

Rift is something we have all wanted but the tech was never in place to make it work. I for one would love to play space fighters from a litteral first person view.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#522 - 2014-09-01 11:23:56 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Nobody wants to play a game that involves flapping your arms around wildly while you trip over the cat.

Rift is something we have all wanted but the tech was never in place to make it work. I for one would love to play space fighters from a litteral first person view.
No, of course they don't, this has been shown. I don't believe most people will want to wear their TV on their face either. Rift is interesting from a techy point of view, but I think the average gamer is unlikely to want to pay out for something that has very limited use beyond flight sims and the odd FPS which puts it in as a gimmick.

Like the Kinect, the problem will be dependency. If your game requires it, you are limiting your playerbase to only those who own it, and if you don't require it but optionally support it, you are limiting your game to only features that can also be played well without it. This they tried to resolve by bundling Kinect with the XB1, but soon had to go back on that idea.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#523 - 2014-09-01 11:46:43 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Nobody wants to play a game that involves flapping your arms around wildly while you trip over the cat.

Rift is something we have all wanted but the tech was never in place to make it work. I for one would love to play space fighters from a litteral first person view.
No, of course they don't, this has been shown. I don't believe most people will want to wear their TV on their face either. Rift is interesting from a techy point of view, but I think the average gamer is unlikely to want to pay out for something that has very limited use beyond flight sims and the odd FPS which puts it in as a gimmick.

Like the Kinect, the problem will be dependency. If your game requires it, you are limiting your playerbase to only those who own it, and if you don't require it but optionally support it, you are limiting your game to only features that can also be played well without it. This they tried to resolve by bundling Kinect with the XB1, but soon had to go back on that idea.


As far as I know you dont need rift to play CCPs game, its just something extra. You worry too much.
Misty Allure
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#524 - 2014-09-01 12:05:57 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Nobody wants to play a game that involves flapping your arms around wildly while you trip over the cat.

Rift is something we have all wanted but the tech was never in place to make it work. I for one would love to play space fighters from a litteral first person view.
No, of course they don't, this has been shown. I don't believe most people will want to wear their TV on their face either. Rift is interesting from a techy point of view, but I think the average gamer is unlikely to want to pay out for something that has very limited use beyond flight sims and the odd FPS which puts it in as a gimmick.

Like the Kinect, the problem will be dependency. If your game requires it, you are limiting your playerbase to only those who own it, and if you don't require it but optionally support it, you are limiting your game to only features that can also be played well without it. This they tried to resolve by bundling Kinect with the XB1, but soon had to go back on that idea.


I know what you're saying and I agree, while being completely immersed in the virtual world might be cool at first it remains to be seen how much appetite people will have for this long term. I can't imagine playing a game for hours on end where I can't see my surroundings. No glancing at the TV/other monitor, no drinking, no smoking and no real communication with other people around you. Hell, I have a 3D tv but I only stick the glasses on for a proper movie night because of the inconvenience of them.

I'm yet to be convinced it'll be anything other than a very cool gimmick.
Xuixien
Solar Winds Security Solutions
#525 - 2014-09-01 12:45:23 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
So therefore, no reason to remove NPC corps, so people can continue to avoid wardecs entirely in a nice, effort free way.

And it's not the changing the foundation of EVE online to change the balance of power between classes of players. That's done all the time. The problem is, when someone suggest anything that makes the tiniest reduction in risk to a carebear, you hear "MAKE ALL HIGHSEC RISK FREE", evidently because you have comprehension issues, and therefore you rush to incorrect judgements.


Well I never said anything about NPC corps. But if someone wants to deal with the higher tax and all the other negatives that go with an NPC corp to avoid war, I'd say that it's a fitting consequence. Honestly I think NPC corps should have even harsher penalties; 30% tax and industry jobs cost 2x as much and no chat channel. But this is entirely off-topic.

Second, give some examples of "balance of power between classes of players" that has been changed in the past. Instead of letting you off the hook when you make empty statements I want to see you back them up.

Lucas Kell wrote:
It doesn't have to, no, but then it's my opinion that it should a little. I believe there room for change without damaging the fundamental mechanics but opening up the game to a slightly wider range of players. Considering how many layoffs CCP are going though, more players are going to become a necessity at some point, and I'd rather see them in a smaller trickle from small changes now than in waves from panic changes later down the line. It's perfectly OK for you do disagree with that opinion, but it doesn't make me automatically wrong, and it certainly doesn't mean you can go ahead and misrepresent my opinions to give you ways to attack them.


CCP is already working on that with the NPE.

Lucas Kell wrote:
See what I mean about misrepresentation? I never say wardeccing industrial corps is "bad" as in not a valid choice. It's a perfectly acceptable choice, I just don't think it has the right impact on the game. Much like how drone assist was removed because it was making null fights boring as sin, I think the wardec mechanics have become stale and need to be looked at.


Well Lucas you sat there ranting and raving and saying all these negative things about PvP corps who WarDec PvE corps so it just stands to reason that you consider it a bad thing that you don't like. This is not a misrepresentation of your argument, this is a conclusion drawn from your own statements.

Lucas Kell wrote:
There's a difference between one sided and two sided content. One sided content, which ganks are, only entertain one side, with the other not being entertained. The whining about the "blue doughnut", that's a response to one sided content, and it's why sov mechanics need a good beating. To be honest, most of the older mechanics need a good looking at, and wardec mechanics are not an exception.


There is no such thing as one sided and two sided content, Lucas. There's just "content". If I blow up your ship, that's content for me, and it's content for you. It might not be content that you particularly enjoyed, but it's still content, and just because you didn't enjoy having your ship blown up doesn't mean the content needs to be changed.

Lucas Kell wrote:
And of course there's bad content. It doesn't mean that there has to be an imbalance in how much fun there is overall in a mechanic, but if there's all the fun on one side of it, and no fun on the other, it's a bad mechanic.


Well terribly sorry Lucas, but, again, the fun is up to the players. If a corp gets WarDec'd they can either run away from it and join NPC corp and continue to mine and mission, or they can decide to turn it into a fun event and form up kitchen sink fleets full of ECM and damps to troll the corp that dec'd them, or they can decide that it's a negative thing and cry on the forums instead.

There's plenty of examples of a HiSec corp that gets WarDec'd and they decide, either as an entire corp or as individuals, to break from your narrow narrative and move to LowSec, or into a WH, and get involved in PvP activities there, or to fight the Deccers and have fun doing it.

The argument you've presented is weak man. Surely you can realize that.

Epic Space Cat, Horsegirl, Philanthropist
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#526 - 2014-09-01 12:54:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
baltec1 wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Nobody wants to play a game that involves flapping your arms around wildly while you trip over the cat.

Rift is something we have all wanted but the tech was never in place to make it work. I for one would love to play space fighters from a litteral first person view.
No, of course they don't, this has been shown. I don't believe most people will want to wear their TV on their face either. Rift is interesting from a techy point of view, but I think the average gamer is unlikely to want to pay out for something that has very limited use beyond flight sims and the odd FPS which puts it in as a gimmick.

Like the Kinect, the problem will be dependency. If your game requires it, you are limiting your playerbase to only those who own it, and if you don't require it but optionally support it, you are limiting your game to only features that can also be played well without it. This they tried to resolve by bundling Kinect with the XB1, but soon had to go back on that idea.


As far as I know you dont need rift to play CCPs game, its just something extra. You worry too much.



CCP have in fact stated that Valkyrie will be Rift-only in the beginning. It's the reason I'm not getting it.

Edited with link.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#527 - 2014-09-01 12:59:45 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
And of course there's bad content. It doesn't mean that there has to be an imbalance in how much fun there is overall in a mechanic, but if there's all the fun on one side of it, and no fun on the other, it's a bad mechanic.



This makes every competitive multiplayer game bad according to you. Every multiplayer mode in an FPS? Well that's just a bad mechanic because the losing side isn't having fun. GTA Online? Well that's just bad mechanics because it's no fun to have your ride blown up by someone else's tank in a public session.

Whenever there's competition, there's a fun side and a not fun side - nobody likes losing, even if they accept their loss gracefully they don't like it and they don't have to. It's not fun. This is an absolutely ridiculous criteria for determining what's balanced and what's not.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#528 - 2014-09-01 13:12:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
And of course there's bad content. It doesn't mean that there has to be an imbalance in how much fun there is overall in a mechanic, but if there's all the fun on one side of it, and no fun on the other, it's a bad mechanic.



This makes every competitive multiplayer game bad according to you. Every multiplayer mode in an FPS? Well that's just a bad mechanic because the losing side isn't having fun. GTA Online? Well that's just bad mechanics because it's no fun to have your ride blown up by someone else's tank in a public session.

Whenever there's competition, there's a fun side and a not fun side - nobody likes losing, even if they accept their loss gracefully they don't like it and they don't have to. It's not fun. This is an absolutely ridiculous criteria for determining what's balanced and what's not.
Pretty much this, Eve is a competitive game, somebody has to lose in order for somebody to win.

Not learning anything from it is where people go wrong.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#529 - 2014-09-01 13:17:50 UTC
Xuixien wrote:
Well I never said anything about NPC corps. But if someone wants to deal with the higher tax and all the other negatives that go with an NPC corp to avoid war, I'd say that it's a fitting consequence. Honestly I think NPC corps should have even harsher penalties; 30% tax and industry jobs cost 2x as much and no chat channel. But this is entirely off-topic.
So you think that people that dont; play the way you do should be even more penalised. I'm shocked. Honest

Xuixien wrote:
Second, give some examples of "balance of power between classes of players" that has been changed in the past. Instead of letting you off the hook when you make empty statements I want to see you back them up.
Concord no longer being tankable for example. Mining barges being balanced out. New exploration type ships. Crimewatch changes. Stuff like that.

Not much more of that post warranted a response.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Xuixien
Solar Winds Security Solutions
#530 - 2014-09-01 13:23:00 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
So you think that people that dont; play the way you do should be even more penalised.


No, I think that risk/reward should be appropriately balanced. If by "play the way you do" you mean "willing to take risks" then sure.

Lucas Kell wrote:
Concord no longer being tankable for example. Mining barges being balanced out. New exploration type ships. Crimewatch changes. Stuff like that.


And what "classes of players" are involved in any of that? How was the "balance of power" changed? You're not getting off that easy Lucas.

Lucas Kell wrote:
Not much more of that post warranted a response.


Too hard for you to face, I understand.

Epic Space Cat, Horsegirl, Philanthropist
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#531 - 2014-09-01 13:31:12 UTC
Xuixien wrote:
Honestly I think NPC corps should have even harsher penalties; 30% tax and industry jobs cost 2x as much and no chat channel. But this is entirely off-topic.

LOL. Yeah. And no missions for them. And take away their battleships too. Screw 'em. If they ain't going to be playing the way I play they should not be allowed to have as much fun as those of us that play the way I approve.

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#532 - 2014-09-01 13:31:42 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
This makes every competitive multiplayer game bad according to you. Every multiplayer mode in an FPS? Well that's just a bad mechanic because the losing side isn't having fun. GTA Online? Well that's just bad mechanics because it's no fun to have your ride blown up by someone else's tank in a public session.

Whenever there's competition, there's a fun side and a not fun side - nobody likes losing, even if they accept their loss gracefully they don't like it and they don't have to. It's not fun. This is an absolutely ridiculous criteria for determining what's balanced and what's not.
There's a difference though. In those games you are semi-randomly paired or paired based on levels of skill. In EVE, that's not the case, people can and do choose to attack the weakest possible opponents, and do so repeatedly.

Imagine if you played an FPS and you were alright at it and enjoying yourself, but then the same group of people came in and owned you repeatedly, then when you tried to change session they came along and did the same again. It wouldn't be the best designed mechanic, would it?

So the problem isn't "losing isn't fun", losing can be fun, but repeatedly losing to the same group because they see you as weak, and rather than choosing a challenge choose to repeatedly display their power over you, that's no fun. It's for a similar reason most people would agree sov mechanics need work.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#533 - 2014-09-01 13:35:53 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
This makes every competitive multiplayer game bad according to you. Every multiplayer mode in an FPS? Well that's just a bad mechanic because the losing side isn't having fun. GTA Online? Well that's just bad mechanics because it's no fun to have your ride blown up by someone else's tank in a public session.

Whenever there's competition, there's a fun side and a not fun side - nobody likes losing, even if they accept their loss gracefully they don't like it and they don't have to. It's not fun. This is an absolutely ridiculous criteria for determining what's balanced and what's not.
There's a difference though. In those games you are semi-randomly paired or paired based on levels of skill. In EVE, that's not the case, people can and do choose to attack the weakest possible opponents, and do so repeatedly.

Imagine if you played an FPS and you were alright at it and enjoying yourself, but then the same group of people came in and owned you repeatedly, then when you tried to change session they came along and did the same again. It wouldn't be the best designed mechanic, would it?

So the problem isn't "losing isn't fun", losing can be fun, but repeatedly losing to the same group because they see you as weak, and rather than choosing a challenge choose to repeatedly display their power over you, that's no fun. It's for a similar reason most people would agree sov mechanics need work.


Planetside 2.

My Blenheim mk IV in dogfights vs biplanes in warthunder

Every Battlefield game.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#534 - 2014-09-01 13:38:47 UTC
Xuixien wrote:
No, I think that risk/reward should be appropriately balanced. If by "play the way you do" you mean "willing to take risks" then sure.
I don;t disagree that risk and reward should be balanced. That's pretty much why I think wardecs need a balance. The risk of fighting an industrial corps is minimal, and the reward (as shown by many merc groups) is a 95+% efficiency and heaps of loot. The risk of taking on a competent PvP group is considerably higher, and the chances of a high efficiency and good loot considerably less.

So I'll repeat my opinion: wardecs should be more rewarding when taking on a challenge, and less rewarding when going after soft targets, with the end result being that wardeccers choose to pick fights with tougher targets.

Xuixien wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Concord no longer being tankable for example [high sec dwellers in general vs gankers]. Mining barges being balanced out [Miners vs gankers]. New exploration type ships [Exploration site runners vs hunters]. Crimewatch changes [PvE players vs bait gankers]. Stuff like that.
And what "classes of players" are involved in any of that? How was the "balance of power" changed? You're not getting off that easy Lucas.
Added above.

Xuixien wrote:
Too hard for you to face, I understand.
No, I just keep my responses to trolls minimal to save time.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Prince Kobol
#535 - 2014-09-01 13:54:08 UTC
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
Xuixien wrote:
Honestly I think NPC corps should have even harsher penalties; 30% tax and industry jobs cost 2x as much and no chat channel. But this is entirely off-topic.

LOL. Yeah. And no missions for them. And take away their battleships too. Screw 'em. If they ain't going to be playing the way I play they should not be allowed to have as much fun as those of us that play the way I approve.


The worst argument anybody can use.

Nobody is saying people can't mission, mine or any other boring High Sec crap, the problem with NPC corps is that they do not promote, offer, teach anything of value.

Again, I do not want them removed as they do serve a purpose, but I do not believe that CCP intended players to stay in them for months, years at a time or in some cases, permanently.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#536 - 2014-09-01 14:05:46 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:


So the problem isn't "losing isn't fun", losing can be fun, but repeatedly losing to the same group because they see you as weak, and rather than choosing a challenge choose to repeatedly display their power over you, that's no fun. It's for a similar reason most people would agree sov mechanics need work.


Rarely do I get matched with 'equal' opponents in other games. They usually wipe the floor with me, or I'm on the side that wipes the floor with them. The best matches are the close ones, but they are few and far between. All the best attempts at 'matchmaking' software aside, one side is still always going to lose.

And if losing is 'fun' for you then why bother trying to win? There's a good reason why calling someone a loser is considered a pejorative.

Some people just lose, repeatedly. Doesn't matter who they're up against, they just keep losing. Usually because they don't learn how to win, or learn from their mistakes, or learn in general. They just throw tantrums and controllers at wall and bitey forum threads about what's 'fair' and what to be done to fix it from their perspective.

Just as there are people that struggle to be competitive, there are those that find it no challenge. None. There is no challenge in the game for them, because they're that good. They weren't always that good, though, they just paid attention, had a good attitude and learned from it all.

Lucas Kell wrote:
Imagine if you played an FPS and you were alright at it and enjoying yourself, but then the same group of people came in and owned you repeatedly, then when you tried to change session they came along and did the same again. It wouldn't be the best designed mechanic, would it?


EVE doesn't have different sessions to change to. EVE doesn't have... you know what, I'm not even going to entertain this, EVE is what it is and you log on everyday knowing that, and if you don't then you need to learn, because expecting to change the nature of EVE from what it is instead of adapting to it is more akin to finding someone you're attracted to physically, but finding out their personality doesn't quite suit you, so you try to change them. The thing is, then, that it's not them you want, it's someone else, you just like how they look.

The difference is that what you noted above as being a problem is part of the nature of EVE. If you want that changed, then you're looking for a different game entirely.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#537 - 2014-09-01 14:11:37 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
Nobody is saying people can't mission, mine or any other boring High Sec crap, the problem with NPC corps is that they do not promote, offer, teach anything of value.

Again, I do not want them removed as they do serve a purpose, but I do not believe that CCP intended players to stay in them for months, years at a time or in some cases, permanently.
Totally agree. But if NPC corps get nuked to the point they can't be used, or if people get removed from them after a while, that's also not teaching them anything. They will simply be targeted by the players who are far better at EVE than them and used as fodder. If you want people to move out of them, you can't expect all of the concessions to be made by them. There has to be give and take. Fine, increase tax on NPC corps, but at the same time make it harder or less appealing to wardec the weakest targets en masse.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#538 - 2014-09-01 14:14:21 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:
Nobody is saying people can't mission, mine or any other boring High Sec crap, the problem with NPC corps is that they do not promote, offer, teach anything of value.

Again, I do not want them removed as they do serve a purpose, but I do not believe that CCP intended players to stay in them for months, years at a time or in some cases, permanently.
Totally agree. But if NPC corps get nuked to the point they can't be used, or if people get removed from them after a while, that's also not teaching them anything. They will simply be targeted by the players who are far better at EVE than them and used as fodder. If you want people to move out of them, you can't expect all of the concessions to be made by them. There has to be give and take. Fine, increase tax on NPC corps, but at the same time make it harder or less appealing to wardec the weakest targets en masse.


Having wardec immunity is already a massive benefit over player corps. An 11% tax is hardly all that terrible given the average corp tax is 10%. Bumping it up to 20% would give you a reason for leaving an NPC corp.
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#539 - 2014-09-01 14:18:35 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
Xuixien wrote:
Honestly I think NPC corps should have even harsher penalties; 30% tax and industry jobs cost 2x as much and no chat channel. But this is entirely off-topic.

LOL. Yeah. And no missions for them. And take away their battleships too. Screw 'em. If they ain't going to be playing the way I play they should not be allowed to have as much fun as those of us that play the way I approve.


The worst argument anybody can use.

Nobody is saying people can't mission, mine or any other boring High Sec crap, the problem with NPC corps is that they do not promote, offer, teach anything of value.

Again, I do not want them removed as they do serve a purpose, but I do not believe that CCP intended players to stay in them for months, years at a time or in some cases, permanently.

I'm glad to hear that you find these arguments terrible, considering that I've heard them floating about and spewed by some of the most vocal elitists on these forums. Perhaps next time they're seriously proposed you'll be among those pointing out how silly indeed they are.

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#540 - 2014-09-01 14:20:20 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
The best matches are the close ones, but they are few and far between.
So we have that in common. Why not aim to make that occur more often?

Remiel Pollard wrote:
And if losing is 'fun' for you then why bother trying to win? There's a good reason why calling someone a loser is considered a pejorative.
Losing can be fun. Purposely losing generally isn't and constantly losing isn't, but a tough battle which you lose in the long run is far more fun that winning or losing by a landslide.

Remiel Pollard wrote:
EVE doesn't have different sessions to change to. EVE doesn't have... you know what, I'm not even going to entertain this, EVE is what it is and you log on everyday knowing that, and if you don't then you need to learn, because expecting to change the nature of EVE from what it is instead of adapting to it is more akin to finding someone you're attracted to physically, but finding out their personality doesn't quite suit you, so you try to change them. The thing is, then, that it's not them you want, it's someone else, you just like how they look.

The difference is that what you noted above as being a problem is part of the nature of EVE. If you want that changed, then you're looking for a different game entirely.
EVE is what it is, but that doesn't mean it never changes. What I find amazing is how many people go on about "This is EVE! Don't be asking for changes! This is what is is!", then they go ahead and suggest that things need to change to push people out of NPC corps, or to make PvE more risky.

Even more amazing is people arguing that wardecs should remain the way they are so people can repeatedly gank easy targets, then claiming that EVE is a hardcore game! It's utterly ludicrous. WoW must be a hardcore game, because if I join a PvP server and level up, I can 1 hit noobs while they try to level. HARDCORE!

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.