These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

AFK Cloaking™: Ideas, Discussion, and Proposals

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4041 - 2015-12-07 21:37:19 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
Two suggestions then so far.

1. A timer based mechanism. If a timer is either OP and "breaks cloaks" or UP and "cannot work", then it is neither. Middle ground between rendering cloaks useless and not creating real windows of vulnerability have to exist. Both complaints simply point to the importance of balancing a timing mechanism correctly.

2. A PvE based hunting mechanism. Allow Jovian assets to scan for cloaked ships occasionally as an element in the race's anti-entosis campaign. Non intrusive in sense that Jovian goal is to decloak by proximity, not kill. Allow players to exploit/piggyback Jovian decloaking by using prompts to indicate the Jovian hunt is on.


Oh now we are back to the timer issue.

Again, why should a non-AFK player have his game play nerfed by to get at AFK players? That is just simply bad game design.

And same with all of the various "scan them down" approaches.

And finally, if I am at a safe spot and I am cloaked....why should I have to be vulnerable considering that,


  1. I pose, literally, no actual risk to anyone.
  2. I acquire literally no in-game assets of any kind at all (aside from the same assets I could acquire in station--e.g. PI, managing market orders, etc.).


Frankly, I don't see the issue here. Not all ships face the same level of risk when in space. In fact, the level of risk is dependent not on just game mechanics, but also on player actions. For example, in which of the two cases is the ship more at risk?


  1. A carrier pilot jumps to a jump beacon without a scout.
  2. A carrier pilot jumps to a jump beacon with a scout.


Case 1 has the most risk.

  1. A carrier pilot jumps to a jump beacon with a scout.
  2. A carrier pilot jumps to a well placed cyno on station.


Case 1 again. Clearly we need to nerf something here because a player taking measures to be safe…why that’s ridiculous.

The cloaking parallel is not simply that there is a cloak fitted to the ship, but that the pilot took the time and effort to create a safe spot where his ship is safe while the cloak is activated. Just as the carrier pilot either took the effort himself or via a friend to set up a cyno on station allowing for very safe travel.


My position remains that all players in space should be subject to some risk of unsolicited PvP as a matter of principle. Enduring afk cloaky campers are problematic specifically because I believe (a belief that should be validated by dev data before any action is taken) that the permanent implicit risk they create removes access to game content and increases Eve player attrition.

Yah normative (what should be) positions.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Mag's
Azn Empire
#4042 - 2015-12-07 22:03:03 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
...snip...that the permanent implicit risk they create removes access to game content and increases Eve player attrition.
So we should focus on some notion regarding player retention, that's based on anecdotal evidence. But ignore local, even though it's directly involved?

We should then only nerf cloaks and still ignore local, because that will end AFKing?

Yeah right.

Jerghul wrote:
Please explain to me how a cloaked ship in a system is vulnerable to unsolicited PVP.
When you can explain how others in the system are from them, when they are cloaked. Two way street.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4043 - 2015-12-07 22:23:38 UTC
Mag's wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
...snip...that the permanent implicit risk they create removes access to game content and increases Eve player attrition.
So we should focus on some notion regarding player retention, that's based on anecdotal evidence. But ignore local, even though it's directly involved?

We should then only nerf cloaks and still ignore local, because that will end AFKing?

Yeah right.

Jerghul wrote:
Please explain to me how a cloaked ship in a system is vulnerable to unsolicited PVP.
When you can explain how others in the system are from them, when they are cloaked. Two way street.


I think I was pretty clear that player attrition is not verifiable by way of anecdotal evidence. Its something the Devs need to check out before taking action.

You truly do not understand what implicit risk means in this sense? I am not sure how many different ways I can rehash it.

Afk cloaky campers represent the threat that at any time, any number of very dangerous ships can attack any ship almost immediately. This vulnerability to unsolicited PvP exists for as long as the afk cloaky camper remains in system.

The afk cloaky camper is of course invulnerable to unsolicited PvP.

Its not hard to understand. The implicit threat they represent is far more limiting that any actual threat that might arise (as per normal game theory in for example chess; the threat potential is more potent than its execution).

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#4044 - 2015-12-07 22:30:46 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:

But it won't break them to make safety more of an active effort, and that effort would be evenly spread, not placed upon just one or another.



Well great, let’s apply the same thing to ratting and local intel.

Looking forward to Mike’s post: more safety for me, but not for thee reply.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#4045 - 2015-12-07 22:42:16 UTC
Jerghul wrote:


My position remains that all players in space should be subject to some risk of unsolicited PvP as a matter of principle. Enduring afk cloaky campers are problematic specifically because I believe (a belief that should be validated by dev data before any action is taken) that the permanent implicit risk they create removes access to game content and increases Eve player attrition.

Yah normative (what should be) positions.


First off the, the entire notion that AFK cloaking has any impact on player attrition/retention is completely speculative and based on literally no data/evidence at all. Further, I have found that almost all arguments that are couched in terms of “improving player retention” are inevitably geared to benefit a subset of the player base. Absent showing an unbalanced game mechanic that approach is unbalanced game design and also carries with it the risk that other groups noticing the “squeaky wheel” effect might start clamoring for more and more special treatment.

We have seen this kind of errant nonsense here in this thread in your posts Jerghul. You’re periodic use of the “implicit threat of cyno” statements. Cynos were indirectly nerfed considerably with jump fatigue. Yet here we are several months later using cynos as a justification for yet another nerf. It is a classic example of the “one more nerf and things will be balanced” phenomenon that has been seen on these forums.

And not all players are subject to unsolicited PvP when in space. For example, being inside PoS shields renders one completely invulnerable to attack. A fast moving interceptor rolling safe spots is pretty much invulnerable. Sitting outside a station within docking range makes me pretty much invulnerable (you’ll have to alpha me off the field before I dock up and for a variety of ships that can be problematic). So being “invulnerable” at a safe spot while cloaked strikes me as not that outside the bounds of other ways of being “extremely” or even “totally” safe.


"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#4046 - 2015-12-07 22:55:08 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
"So one clear counter to AFK cloakers...numbers. Rat like people mine. People who mine will have a number of mining ships, a boosting rorqual, a POS, and so forth."

Its impossible to match the unmeasurable potential of an enduring implicit threat. Mining fleets cannot do it, ratting fleets cannot either.

The only counter I know of is forming up a fleet and flash ratting while on the roam. Which is doable occasionally I suppose, but that is simply by not distinguishing between pvp and pve at all.

My issue is not a peak time problem in any event. So even that counter does not resolve my concern.


This is a load of garbage. We are back to the “cyno threat” even after cynos have been nerfed via jump fatigue. Further, this argument is flawed in that it assumes that there is always an unstoppable force that will be coming in via the cyno. Anyone who thinks this way should, IMO, cancel their subscription and then uninstall the game and go crawl into bed and pull the blanket over their head and hope there are no monsters under the bed.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4047 - 2015-12-07 23:01:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Teckos
The POS shield one I think we can ignore as a station surrogate (I did consider qualifying my statement, but sometimes things just get too wordy).

Rolling safes do not qualify, nor would burning offgrid to defeat being scanned down. Neither are invulnerable to PvP, though both are unlikely to get killed.

I am not looking for a mechanism that compels cloaked ships to engage in PvP combat, but rather a mechanism that make them vulnerable to PvP actions.

The vulnerability is all that is required. Human error will provide the practical balancing boundaries (the afk contribution assures it) that give even very limited vulnerability sufficient impact.

Edit
Goodness the trouble people have with the concept of implicit threat. Jump fatigue went a long way in resolving one of the game's implicit threat issues.

Enduring afk cloaky camping is simply another one of those things.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#4048 - 2015-12-08 00:42:54 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Teckos
The POS shield one I think we can ignore as a station surrogate (I did consider qualifying my statement, but sometimes things just get too wordy).

Rolling safes do not qualify, nor would burning offgrid to defeat being scanned down. Neither are invulnerable to PvP, though both are unlikely to get killed.

I am not looking for a mechanism that compels cloaked ships to engage in PvP combat, but rather a mechanism that make them vulnerable to PvP actions.

The vulnerability is all that is required. Human error will provide the practical balancing boundaries (the afk contribution assures it) that give even very limited vulnerability sufficient impact.

Edit
Goodness the trouble people have with the concept of implicit threat. Jump fatigue went a long way in resolving one of the game's implicit threat issues.

Enduring afk cloaky camping is simply another one of those things.


Jerghul,

You will not scan down a ceptor who is constantly rolling safes. Even if you did get a scan result he'd be 2-3 safe's away before you got there. And even if you did land at the same one, if he warps in at range there is very, very little chance of actually catching him. A in a POS you are in space and invulnerable. In fact, you have one distinct advantage over being in a station: D-scan. Yet you are just as safe as if you were in a station...or cloaked at a safe. In fact, I see the two as quite analogous POS and cloaks (I know Mike thinks he made a convincing case against this, but he failed, IMO).

POS:

1. Can't really move. If you do you become vulnerable.
2. Can't target anyone.
3. Cannot be targeted.

Cloak:

1. Can't really move (if you do you become vulnerable, especially if warping near any celestials).
2. Can't target anyone.
3. Cannot be be targeted.

Gee...look quite similar to each other. Of course, if the POS has guns and you have the "trivial to train skills" you can target and shoot...very, very effectively.

So...sorry, I reject your claim. I am totally unconvinced.

And trust me, I get the concept of implicit threat. The thing is it is not infinite. That assumption (which ironically is implicit in your posts) is totally unrealistic. Yes, it could be a force large enough to destroy your force...or it might not. You can set that probability to 1, but then NOTHING will make you feel safe in NS. You simply should not be there. You are the wrong type of player to be there.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4049 - 2015-12-08 01:13:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
Teckos
Lets try yet another rehash of explaining the term "implicit threat"

Analytically, the enduring cloaky camp implicit threat issue is the same one that paralysed the use of capitals in Eve for quite some time.

The problem was not that supers could hot drop everywhere or would drop anywhere, or even anywhere, it was that they could potentially drop on your capital fleet.

Developers recognized that there was a limited number of pilots able to fly a larger number of ships, so they incorporated mechanisms that severely curtailed pilot movement. Hence jump fatigue and changes to the clone system.

Enduring Afk cloaky camping represents the same type of implicit threat on a much smaller and correspondingly much more widespread scale. By this I mean its effect a lot more of Eve's population directly.

The afk cloaky camping implicit threat is backed by innumerable subcap pilots in uncountable subcap ships, so of course has profound effects far deeper than the "waah, why can't I undock my capital without it possibly being unfair" group that saw fundamental changes shift mechanisms in their favour.

Afk cloaky camping removes access to content (and it of course follows that removing access to content increases player attrition) because implicit threats are very potent.

The fix here is of course to make enduring afk cloaky campers potentially vulnerable to unsolicited PvP occasionally.

Any vulnerability can be extremely light-handed as the afk element in enduring afk cloaky camping assures that human error will give virtually any vulnerability sufficient impact.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#4050 - 2015-12-08 01:33:48 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
Teckos
Lets try yet another rehash of explaining the term "implicit threat"

Analytically, the enduring cloaky camp implicit threat issue is the same one that paralysed the use of capitals in Eve for quite some time.

The problem was not that supers could hot drop everywhere or would drop anywhere, or even anywhere, it was that they could potentially drop on your capital fleet.

Developers recognized that there was a limited number of pilots able to fly a larger number of ships, so they incorporated mechanisms that severely curtailed pilot movement. Hence jump fatigue and changes to the clone system.

Enduring Afk cloaky camping represents the same type of implicit threat on a much smaller and correspondingly much more widespread scale. By this I mean its effect a lot more of Eve's population directly.

The afk cloaky camping implicit threat is backed by innumerable subcap pilots in uncountable subcap ships, so of course has profound effects far deeper than the "waah, why can't I undock my capital without it possibly being unfair" group that saw fundamental changes shift mechanisms in their favour.

Afk cloaky camping removes access to content (and it of course follows that removing access to content increases player attrition) because implicit threats are very potent.

The fix here is of course to make enduring afk cloaky campers potentially vulnerable to unsolicited PvP occasionally.

Any vulnerability can be extremely light-handed as the afk element in enduring afk cloaky camping assures that human error will give virtually any vulnerability sufficient impact.


No, it is not innumerable (too many to be counted). It could be a lot, or it could be a few. Now, if you want to believe it is some very large number that you cannot get any idea of then you really, really should consider just sticking to HS. You keep saying it is uncountable as if it is always a superior force. That is a flat out nonsensical statement. Yeah, it could be a superior force…or it could also be too small of a group to pose a threat to your group.

And I understand the concept of implicit (you could also use the word implied or tacit). My point is that the implicit threat is not always an overwhelming threat. Or even completely unknowable. You can act like it is and be paralyzed as soon as you see a hostile in your system, AFK or not. But if that is the case, go back to HS. NS is not the place for you. If you see a guy in local…you got a name. Go look at his KB. See not only when he tends to get kills, but also how he does and with whom. Look at the biggest gang he was with on a kill. Also, try waiting for about 30 minutes or so and then open up the in game map and see how many pilots are in the systems within cyno range.

In short put on your big boy pants and do a bit of intel gathering beyond what local tells you.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Jerghul
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#4051 - 2015-12-08 01:45:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Jerghul
An implicit threat is by definition incalculable. The only known is what might be lost.

And of course loss of access to content causes player adaptation. That is sort of my point when I speak of player attrition.

Enduring afk cloaky camping has a far greater negative impact on the game than the the implicit threat hotdropping supers represented.

It is in principle the same type of issue.

Blocked list: Teckos, Sonya, Wander, Baltec1
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#4052 - 2015-12-08 03:54:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Voidstar
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:

But it won't break them to make safety more of an active effort, and that effort would be evenly spread, not placed upon just one or another.



Well great, let’s apply the same thing to ratting and local intel.

Looking forward to Mike’s post: more safety for me, but not for thee reply.


We already have that balance. Local works for everyone equally. I already acknowledged the issue with grid loading and support gate cloaks keeping you out of local. That tips things back in your favor. I will admit to not being sure if you can use dscan under the gate cloak...if you can that would be a significant boost in your favor. Intel has a lot more balance considerations than just cloaking. Looking forward to that thread.


Teckos Pech wrote:
And not all players are subject to unsolicited PvP when in space. For example, being inside PoS shields renders one completely invulnerable to attack. A fast moving interceptor rolling safe spots is pretty much invulnerable. Sitting outside a station within docking range makes me pretty much invulnerable (you’ll have to alpha me off the field before I dock up and for a variety of ships that can be problematic). So being “invulnerable” at a safe spot while cloaked strikes me as not that outside the bounds of other ways of being “extremely” or even “totally” safe


POS Shields- Nope. Structures aren't modules. Bumping, bringing down the shields, bringing down the POS. Granted, not trivial, but since we are comparing to a threat that has no real time limit, but it's definitely not as immune as a cloaked ship standing 30k away, much less at a safe.

Interceptor- Pretty good example... Except that this is very similar to what I am suggesting for cloaks with degradeable safety as well. While that interceptor is pretty safe, it's not an afk activity to be sustained while they are asleep and at work. Even just burning at max speed would make it hard to catch, but the difference between hard and impossible/immune is very important.

Docking Ring- Structures aren't modules. Bumping, Alpha, and being forced from the field into a station.

In each case, the 'safety' comes either from a structure specifically in game to provide safety, or active players participation, and usually both. Cloaks are neither, and safer than each of them when used to their potential, and allow greater freedom of movement and action- with the exception of the POS guns, but again you can shoot that stuff. In each case apply the "chance of afk explosion" test- only POS comes anywhere near it, and that was what it was put in game for in the first place...and still more vulnerable than the cloak.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#4053 - 2015-12-08 04:46:31 UTC
Jerghul wrote:

Its impossible to match the unmeasurable potential of an enduring implicit threat.



And it all comes down to this.

"Waah, I can't live with any uncertainty of any kind!"

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#4054 - 2015-12-08 04:59:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
I mean, come on. Has it ever crossed your minds at all, that maybe you just don't belong? If you can't hack it, and obviously you can't, leave the space to people who can.

There are people in Curse and Wicked Creek this very day, ratting with neuts in local(I personally saw the ones in Curse, while doing my Angel arc earlier). They don't care, they're not shaking in fear of this "implicit threat" that terrifies Jerghul so.

Are they some kind of Ubermensch? Or just real players?

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#4055 - 2015-12-08 05:26:21 UTC
Jerghul wrote:
An implicit threat is by definition incalculable. The only known is what might be lost.

And of course loss of access to content causes player adaptation. That is sort of my point when I speak of player attrition.

Enduring afk cloaky camping has a far greater negative impact on the game than the the implicit threat hotdropping supers represented.

It is in principle the same type of issue.


No, it is not. I just laid out how you can go about gathering additional information that can help you get an idea on the level of the threat you face.

Further, you have multiple players, if you are really that worried, hope in interceptors and do a quick recon of the area. With 5 or more people it would only take a relatively short amount of time.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#4056 - 2015-12-08 05:27:07 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:

But it won't break them to make safety more of an active effort, and that effort would be evenly spread, not placed upon just one or another.



Well great, let’s apply the same thing to ratting and local intel.

Looking forward to Mike’s post: more safety for me, but not for thee reply.


We already have that balance. Local works for everyone equally.


Nope, not true. Local provides an early warning for the person already in system. This is a known fact.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#4057 - 2015-12-08 05:27:46 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Jerghul wrote:
An implicit threat is by definition incalculable. The only known is what might be lost.

And of course loss of access to content causes player adaptation. That is sort of my point when I speak of player attrition.

Enduring afk cloaky camping has a far greater negative impact on the game than the the implicit threat hotdropping supers represented.

It is in principle the same type of issue.


No, it is not. I just laid out how you can go about gathering additional information that can help you get an idea on the level of the threat you face.

Further, you have multiple players, if you are really that worried, hope in interceptors and do a quick recon of the area. With 5 or more people it would only take a relatively short amount of time.


But Teckos, that cuts into their isk/hr and is therefore "unreasonable!"

The only reasonable solution is to break and twist various mechanics (because you know damn well they'll go after cynos next) until nullsec has no uncertainty anymore.

Roll

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#4058 - 2015-12-08 05:33:48 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:

Teckos Pech wrote:
And not all players are subject to unsolicited PvP when in space. For example, being inside PoS shields renders one completely invulnerable to attack. A fast moving interceptor rolling safe spots is pretty much invulnerable. Sitting outside a station within docking range makes me pretty much invulnerable (you’ll have to alpha me off the field before I dock up and for a variety of ships that can be problematic). So being “invulnerable” at a safe spot while cloaked strikes me as not that outside the bounds of other ways of being “extremely” or even “totally” safe


POS Shields- Nope. Structures aren't modules. Bumping, bringing down the shields, bringing down the POS. Granted, not trivial, but since we are comparing to a threat that has no real time limit, but it's definitely not as immune as a cloaked ship standing 30k away, much less at a safe.

Interceptor- Pretty good example... Except that this is very similar to what I am suggesting for cloaks with degradeable safety as well. While that interceptor is pretty safe, it's not an afk activity to be sustained while they are asleep and at work. Even just burning at max speed would make it hard to catch, but the difference between hard and impossible/immune is very important.

Docking Ring- Structures aren't modules. Bumping, Alpha, and being forced from the field into a station.

In each case, the 'safety' comes either from a structure specifically in game to provide safety, or active players participation, and usually both. Cloaks are neither, and safer than each of them when used to their potential, and allow greater freedom of movement and action- with the exception of the POS guns, but again you can shoot that stuff. In each case apply the "chance of afk explosion" test- only POS comes anywhere near it, and that was what it was put in game for in the first place...and still more vulnerable than the cloak.


Mike,

The point is there are ways to be very safe while undocked. You write tripe like "structures aren't modules" as if that is some key insight. Problem is nobody has made that kind of statement. Heck if anything structures are better. They don't take up a high slot. POS can have guns so both offense and defense.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#4059 - 2015-12-08 05:49:59 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Jerghul wrote:

Its impossible to match the unmeasurable potential of an enduring implicit threat.



And it all comes down to this.

"Waah, I can't live with any uncertainty of any kind!"


Pretty much. I was making this point something like 100 pages back. Uncertainty is really the problem here. They don't know something so they assume the worst possible scenario and then log off.

Never mind going to zkillboard or some other website and looking stuff up. How old is the character, if he is 6 weeks old he probably does not have a covert ops cyno fit. Just training cynosural field theory to 5 will take at around 3 weeks and that is assuming you have optimized your attributes to train it...which will then slow you down for training for a ship to use said cyno. In which case we can calculate the probability of a huge armada coming through a covert cyno as being zero.

Okay, he might have a regular cyno. He juuuust might make it. So he could have a cyno...maybe. If he is younger than 6 weeks, probably not. In this case we can set the probability very low, IMO.

Point being...we can put some sort of bounds on this...if you just start thinking vs. just assuming the worst and logging off. You can find information that can tell you stuff to let you get at least some idea of the threat you face.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#4060 - 2015-12-08 06:28:06 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:

Pretty much. I was making this point something like 100 pages back. Uncertainty is really the problem here. They don't know something so they assume the worst possible scenario and then log off.


Page 2, first post. Cool

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.