These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

First post First post
Author
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1421 - 2013-09-17 18:24:28 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Yes, They would no longer be able to at random come back undetected to scout and prep intel, having worked down their opponents into either moving or taking a massive risk while AFK.
That said, I wouldn't suggest this specifically as the ideal solution, but it's simple and effective..

It also removes any risk associated with the return of a pilot considered AFK until that point.

Would you want the status kept at this level, or would you change it in other ways?

Keep in mind, you are removing the risk associated with the so-called AFK Cloaked pilot.

It wouldn't change anything except mean systems don't empty out, so what else would need to change? I'm still at risk of being shot by an active player, and an active player can still hold the system hostage as long as he likes. That change alone would be enough to ensure players have to actually play to attack null.

Well, that sounds nice, but we both know the PvE pilots will dock, and either reship or stay docked.

With the current system, how would a hostile actually threaten a PvE pilot, IN the PvE ship itself?
And by threaten, I mean catch and shoot full of holes, not inconvenience by sitting in the system so noone undocks.
How does Joe Ganks-A-Lot catch someone?

Is he relying on pilot error, or is there a tactic or skill by which he can catch null PvE pilots?

If you can sell this point, we can make the rest happen with a groundswell of support, so please consider this carefully.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1422 - 2013-09-17 19:16:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Did you not read this post?

It shows I am thinking about this problem. I discuss both benefits and losses. Granted it is hugely simplified, but FFS this is a discussion form and not some academic paper where I can start getting into upper-hemi continuous functions, quasi concave utility functions and trotting out Fatou's Lemma. Nor do I have the data necessary to do a thorough analysis on how to change things and the implications.

Once again, you are wrong. I have not advocated simply removing local. I want local to be a chat channel with intel being a separate mechanic.
Yes, I did in fact read that. And I disagree. YOu state it like the loss of local would be a benefit to an industrialist. It wouldn't It would be yet another way to get killed for an already diminished income. IT was bad enough that the gravs got changed so any pirate can jump in system then warp straight to a grav, no probes needed. Now you advocate us not even seeing him until he's already on grid with us. In no way shape or form is that a benefit. It would simply move more industrialists to an already packed high sec.


Didn't you see the part about a separate intel mechanic? "English mother ******, do you speak it? Say what again."*

You'd have a chance at seeing them coming with a new intel mechanic. One that is less perfect than local currently is, but you'd also have no more AFK cloaking and a means to hunt cloaked ships if people did try it....at least that would be part of the changes I'd go for.

*Sorry, couldn't resist from an awesome movie, Pulp Fiction.

"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
#1423 - 2013-09-17 19:29:32 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
No, I clearly stated he's either a liar, or inexperienced.


There you go again insulting others. I don't mind if it is me cause I admit I can be a bit of a**hole. But Nikk is usually very temperate in his posts.
It's not an insult. It's my honest opinion. One of those two must be true, or he wouldn;t be suggesting inefficient mining, since inefficient null mining is an enormous waste of time. It takes 10 days to train a high sec alt with higher isk/hour than a venture, or you can solo rat for about 4x a solo venture income. So unless he really likes watching mining lasers tick round, one of those two must be the case.


1. An honest opinion can still be insulting.
2. You aren't factoring losses now are you. You are assuming perfect mining environment which is the WRONG environment as you can lose your ship, you may have to dock up due to a roaming gang, have an extended down period due to an AFK cloaker. In your case you make zero isk in that latter scenario. Nikk would make positive isk.

"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

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1424 - 2013-09-17 21:10:20 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Did you not read this post?

It shows I am thinking about this problem. I discuss both benefits and losses. Granted it is hugely simplified, but FFS this is a discussion form and not some academic paper where I can start getting into upper-hemi continuous functions, quasi concave utility functions and trotting out Fatou's Lemma. Nor do I have the data necessary to do a thorough analysis on how to change things and the implications.

Once again, you are wrong. I have not advocated simply removing local. I want local to be a chat channel with intel being a separate mechanic.
Yes, I did in fact read that. And I disagree. YOu state it like the loss of local would be a benefit to an industrialist. It wouldn't It would be yet another way to get killed for an already diminished income. IT was bad enough that the gravs got changed so any pirate can jump in system then warp straight to a grav, no probes needed. Now you advocate us not even seeing him until he's already on grid with us. In no way shape or form is that a benefit. It would simply move more industrialists to an already packed high sec.


Didn't you see the part about a separate intel mechanic? "English mother ******, do you speak it? Say what again."*

You'd have a chance at seeing them coming with a new intel mechanic. One that is less perfect than local currently is, but you'd also have no more AFK cloaking and a means to hunt cloaked ships if people did try it....at least that would be part of the changes I'd go for.

*Sorry, couldn't resist from an awesome movie, Pulp Fiction.

Yes, I saw the intel mechanic. But since it seems it would take enough effort to required dedicated people, it seems to still take more effort to find a cloaker than a cloaker need to simply warp in. It's a one sided change.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1425 - 2013-09-17 21:12:12 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
No, I clearly stated he's either a liar, or inexperienced.


There you go again insulting others. I don't mind if it is me cause I admit I can be a bit of a**hole. But Nikk is usually very temperate in his posts.
It's not an insult. It's my honest opinion. One of those two must be true, or he wouldn;t be suggesting inefficient mining, since inefficient null mining is an enormous waste of time. It takes 10 days to train a high sec alt with higher isk/hour than a venture, or you can solo rat for about 4x a solo venture income. So unless he really likes watching mining lasers tick round, one of those two must be the case.


1. An honest opinion can still be insulting.
2. You aren't factoring losses now are you. You are assuming perfect mining environment which is the WRONG environment as you can lose your ship, you may have to dock up due to a roaming gang, have an extended down period due to an AFK cloaker. In your case you make zero isk in that latter scenario. Nikk would make positive isk.

If you don't have a near perfect environment, you should be in high sec. I don't think you get how little the gain is in null from high sec mining. And like I said, I never would get a 0 yield, as I'd simply fly or jump to one of my alternate systems.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1426 - 2013-09-17 21:41:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Lucas Kell wrote:
Yes, I saw the intel mechanic. But since it seems it would take enough effort to required dedicated people, it seems to still take more effort to find a cloaker than a cloaker need to simply warp in. It's a one sided change.


Not necessarily, it could be from anchored structures much like a cyno jammer or jump beacon. It might be hackable, and certaintly destructable, but you surely get warnings for the latter, and maybe warning for the former (i.e. maybe if the hacking fails). There might be a slight delay as well. So you might actually be able to get better intel than the current approach of using alts/relying on blues. I don't know, just a possibility.

Plus only you'd get to see it (i.e. if you are part of the Sov holding aliance, you see the intel) anybody looking to cause trouble in your space would have to use D-scan and/or probes to see if you are in system. D-scan wouldn't tell them where you are specifically, and probes take time...so you could still scoot to safety if you are diligent.

So a cloaker is not going to just jump in system and warp in on top of you.

And please, these are just some rough ideas, nothing concrete so don't take these suggestions as absolutes. Don't get hung up on minutiea and trivia of a speculative system here.

"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
#1427 - 2013-09-17 21:52:07 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
No, I clearly stated he's either a liar, or inexperienced.


There you go again insulting others. I don't mind if it is me cause I admit I can be a bit of a**hole. But Nikk is usually very temperate in his posts.
It's not an insult. It's my honest opinion. One of those two must be true, or he wouldn;t be suggesting inefficient mining, since inefficient null mining is an enormous waste of time. It takes 10 days to train a high sec alt with higher isk/hour than a venture, or you can solo rat for about 4x a solo venture income. So unless he really likes watching mining lasers tick round, one of those two must be the case.


1. An honest opinion can still be insulting.
2. You aren't factoring losses now are you. You are assuming perfect mining environment which is the WRONG environment as you can lose your ship, you may have to dock up due to a roaming gang, have an extended down period due to an AFK cloaker. In your case you make zero isk in that latter scenario. Nikk would make positive isk.

If you don't have a near perfect environment, you should be in high sec. I don't think you get how little the gain is in null from high sec mining. And like I said, I never would get a 0 yield, as I'd simply fly or jump to one of my alternate systems.


Then you should move to high security space. No offense, but null is going to have things that often make doing specific activities problematic. It was designed that way...e.g. no Concord, no gate guns, no sec status hits for shooting stuff, it is lawless space...aside from what law you can enforce. Somedays you'll get awesome mining....other days you wont.

Frankly your comment reminds me alot of the guys who'd complain about getting ganked in high sec. Then you look at their fits and you see they are maxed out for mining yeild or maybe cargo capacity and that they have zero tank, or maybe a lone DCU in one of the lows. It is like, "I"m in high security space I should never have to fit a tank!" Well...okay, but if you do that you are much, much easier to gank and people have been known to do it just for the lulz, but your choice.

Me...I fit a tank. Sure I mine less, but you know what, I don't die nearly as much.*

And yeah I know mining in null doesn't pay as well as other activites. I think that is one thing CCP needs to change.

*If some group of players is dead set on ganking you, they will eventually succeed.

"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

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1428 - 2013-09-17 22:51:06 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Then you should move to high security space. No offense, but null is going to have things that often make doing specific activities problematic. It was designed that way...e.g. no Concord, no gate guns, no sec status hits for shooting stuff, it is lawless space...aside from what law you can enforce. Somedays you'll get awesome mining....other days you wont.

Frankly your comment reminds me alot of the guys who'd complain about getting ganked in high sec. Then you look at their fits and you see they are maxed out for mining yeild or maybe cargo capacity and that they have zero tank, or maybe a lone DCU in one of the lows. It is like, "I"m in high security space I should never have to fit a tank!" Well...okay, but if you do that you are much, much easier to gank and people have been known to do it just for the lulz, but your choice.

Me...I fit a tank. Sure I mine less, but you know what, I don't die nearly as much.*

And yeah I know mining in null doesn't pay as well as other activites. I think that is one thing CCP needs to change.

*If some group of players is dead set on ganking you, they will eventually succeed.


I can stay where I want. I have no problems with the system as it currently is. Since they are unlikely to change local to destroy null sec industry, I'm sure it will stay that way for a while.
You seem to like throwing subtle insults at me like that. But it's got **** all to do with me specifically, but to do with industry as a whole. If they make it all risk and no payoff, it's going to fail. As it is more mining is done in high sec that anywhere else, and that number is ever increasing. A couple more bumps to null sec mining and/ore the mineral index and it will be shockingly inefficient and not worth bothering for most.

As for gankers in high sec, you realised other than a procurer/skiff, it really doesn't matter what you fit since it takes at most 3 T1 catalysts to kill any fit of the others.

Well you can go ahead and fit whatever tank you want. I fit enough to survive rat and use evasion. I run 10 miners across null and high, and I think I've only lost a single one to PvP over the past few years, so clearly I'm doing something right.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1429 - 2013-09-17 23:05:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Lucas Kell wrote:

I can stay where I want. I have no problems with the system as it currently is. Since they are unlikely to change local to destroy null sec industry, I'm sure it will stay that way for a while.
You seem to like throwing subtle insults at me like that. But it's got **** all to do with me specifically, but to do with industry as a whole. If they make it all risk and no payoff, it's going to fail. As it is more mining is done in high sec that anywhere else, and that number is ever increasing. A couple more bumps to null sec mining and/ore the mineral index and it will be shockingly inefficient and not worth bothering for most.

As for gankers in high sec, you realised other than a procurer/skiff, it really doesn't matter what you fit since it takes at most 3 T1 catalysts to kill any fit of the others.


Mining of low ends is primarily done in high sec...been that way for a very long time. It is unlikely to change with current mechanics.

As for risk and benefit, it is like you aren't reading what I wrote or certain words mean different things to you. I have not endorsed making it all risk no benefits. I've specifically noted the expected benefit to risk ratio should not decrease, and if risk goes up, then benefits need to go up to counter act that. You do understand this...right? Not trying to be a jerk here, but damn....I write something very specific and you respond as if I had written something entirely different.

Quote:
Well you can go ahead and fit whatever tank you want. I fit enough to survive rat and use evasion. I run 10 miners across null and high, and I think I've only lost a single one to PvP over the past few years, so clearly I'm doing something right.


So in other words, the claims about the safety of null by guys like Nikk, The Gunslinger, et. al. are totally correct. It is already quite safe, even with AFK cloakers.

Thanks for thise confirmation.

"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

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#1430 - 2013-09-18 00:14:18 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
As it is more mining is done in high sec that anywhere else, and that number is ever increasing. A couple more bumps to null sec mining and/ore the mineral index and it will be shockingly inefficient and not worth bothering for most.

I isolated this on purpose.

Most do not recognize this, only referring to it obliquely by saying how L4s in high are better profit.

Now, here is the shocker.

Risk and reward are tied together, and if one is low, the other will follow.
ISD Cura Ursus
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#1431 - 2013-09-18 00:40:21 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Cura Ursus
Thread locked temporarily.


I am not even sure what to do with this thread.


I was attempting to bring you guys back from the brink.

I really do not want to get out my razor and start slicing and dicing this thread.


Really. Drop the convo about who insulted who and how.

Let's just discuss the issue at hand......and remember that you may not agree with what others say, but insulting other will _NOT_ help your position.


Saying someone is either a liar or inexperienced is not a good way to continue a convo, and quoting a line from a movie that insults another grasp of English is not good either.


C'mon, fellas I really do not want to cut out large swathes of this thread.

ISD Cura Ursus

Lieutenant Commander

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

ISD Cura Ursus
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#1432 - 2013-09-18 01:07:07 UTC
Oh and thread unlocked.

ISD Cura Ursus

Lieutenant Commander

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

Andy Landen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1433 - 2013-09-18 02:11:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Andy Landen
Lucas, you are representing the non-pve-ganking-fixated group quite well. The problem with many of these people in this thread is that they are so fixated on the high value pve targets, that they will afk cloak a system which they believe has such targets in them for extremely long periods of time with the belief that they are entitled to their kills. Little do they realize that most of the pve players are either doing research on them or moving on to another system or staying in station doing the odds and ends that they put off for such times.

And when I put forth the idea to prevent the cloak and the cyno from being fit at the same time, there was a hush each time, because the separation of the two modules actually resolves everything. Without the cyno, their solo stealth bomber cannot clear out an entire system by itself. As the solo stealth bomber decloaks and points its first victim, a group of pve ships quickly appear pop it in a second as the insignificant threat that it is. They whine about it being too hard to solo gank a battleship or group of them with their frigate, and laughter fills the room as people realize that there was a hope of a single solo frigate taking down a group of battleships. It is the CYNO which messes up the cloaky issue, because SOLO non-cloaky FRIGATES can be scanned down and dispatched relatively easily. But the pve-ganking-fixated group knows this and tries their best to ignore how integral the cyno is to this issue.

I'll say this one more time so please pay attention to the following summation:

The AFK cloaky is NO ISSUE IF it can NOT FIT A CYNO at the same time as its cloak. In wormhole space, the fitting of a cyno on any ship is pointless because cynos are not allowed and thus there is no issue with the AFK cloaky. In fact, there is an expectation in the wormhole that there are probably several hostile cloakies and the residents would behave just the same if those cloakies appeared in local (they can actually appear by chatting).

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein 

Derath Ellecon
Lotek Academy
#1434 - 2013-09-18 03:22:36 UTC
Andy Landen wrote:
The AFK cloaky is NO ISSUE IF it can NOT FIT A CYNO at the same time as its cloak. In wormhole space, the fitting of a cyno on any ship is pointless because cynos are not allowed and thus there is no issue with the AFK cloaky.


Huh?

The whole no cyno in WH space is a pointless argument. In WH space you don't NEED to cyno in a fleet to pull of a successful gank.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#1435 - 2013-09-18 04:30:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Derath Ellecon wrote:
Andy Landen wrote:
The AFK cloaky is NO ISSUE IF it can NOT FIT A CYNO at the same time as its cloak. In wormhole space, the fitting of a cyno on any ship is pointless because cynos are not allowed and thus there is no issue with the AFK cloaky.


Huh?

The whole no cyno in WH space is a pointless argument. In WH space you don't NEED to cyno in a fleet to pull of a successful gank.


And you don't need a cyno in K-space to pull of a successful gank. I don't get it either.

Andy, maybe you should start a thread on cynos and cloaks and how together they are overpowered.

By the way, I wasn't trying to be snide above. It seems a very serious issue to you Andy and it strikes me, at least, as smaller subset to the whole AFK cloaking issue. So perhaps it would be better having its own topic.

"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

Azrael Dinn
Imperial Mechanics
#1436 - 2013-09-18 06:09:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Azrael Dinn
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Seriously, these tools are lowering the bar on game play. Will the next incursion be featuring Orcs too?


Space Marines / Grey Knights!!!

oh wait... wrong game P

While we are talking about this 99% safety also I want to say that even without local if I can manage my gameplay so that I can be 99% times in safety then why can't I be. They are my actions that allow me to be safe and like other said it's your job to counter them and realy gets to me is that I cannot do anything about your cloaked ship while you are cloaked and that is what raely bugs me in all of this.

Don't get me wrong I don't mind loosing ships in battle and I know there is the risk of loosing my ship when I'm in space but I still see this the way that if I'm not cloaked / hiding you just can't get to me unless I realy realy horrible mess up.

After centuries of debating and justifying... Break Cloaks tm

TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#1437 - 2013-09-18 07:58:41 UTC  |  Edited by: TheGunslinger42
Lucas Kell wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
LMAO do you really think hitting the warp button the second local changes - before the other guy has even finished loading system - is using skill? It's not, bro.

Let me put it to you this way: What can the hunter to do catch you? Not counting mistakes/glitches on your end, what can he do - what effort can he put in, what skills can he use - to catch you reliably?

None. You yourself have said the mechanics - local, that is - provides you 100% safety.

That is imbalanced, because you should not be able to reap the rewards of null in 100% safety. I cannot believe you think you are entitled to that.
I didn't say it was good skill, but it's still a skill. It's still something I have to consider and I have to do. It's not automatic.

And no, if I'm perfect on my timing and have been well prepared, then I get away. That's how it SHOULD be though, since my ships is DESIGNED TO ESCAPE. If I was in a battleship, chances are I can;t align as quick as you could get to me. If I was in an orca, I definitely can't. But a barge is designed to escape, so why are you so surprised it excels at doing that.

On the other side though, without local, you could simply jump on me between loads as I arrive, and I'd have no chance to escape. You feel that is somehow fair though?

Its ONLY 100% safety because I DO WHAT I AM SUPPOSED TO DO. How are you missing that. If you do WHAT YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO, then you are 100% safe too. You are saying that regardless of what I do, no matter how well prepared I am, I should have to die because you chose to attack me. You are saying bomber > exhumer thus exhumer must always lose. That's total nonsense.


Edit: Cleared up to be more friendly.

Lucas, that is not what I am claiming at all. I have never claimed you "should have to die", I have literally stated the opposite multiple times: you should have the ability to escape, definitely. But the other party must have the ability to succeed sometimes too, otherwise it's imbalanced.

It helps no one when you construct an argument I didn't make and then refute that argument. You're essentially only arguing against yourself, and not against what I, or others, are actually saying.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1438 - 2013-09-18 09:16:52 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
As for risk and benefit, it is like you aren't reading what I wrote or certain words mean different things to you. I have not endorsed making it all risk no benefits. I've specifically noted the expected benefit to risk ratio should not decrease, and if risk goes up, then benefits need to go up to counter act that. You do understand this...right? Not trying to be a jerk here, but damn....I write something very specific and you respond as if I had written something entirely different.
And how do you suggest the make mining more valuable in null? There's near on infinite ore with belt cycling, so you can't just add more ore as a solution, since you couldn't mine it all. You could speed up cycle times, but you'd need to increase them to pretty unreasonable levels, and you'd really need to do that in high sec too.

Teckos Pech wrote:
So in other words, the claims about the safety of null by guys like Nikk, The Gunslinger, et. al. are totally correct. It is already quite safe, even with AFK cloakers.

Thanks for this confirmation.
Yes, IF I WORK MY ASS OFF FOR IT, I remain safe, the same as EVERYONE ELSE. My PI guys never get ganked either, so they are too safe. My logistics guy has never been ganked either while shipping, so shipping must be too safe. Hell, I ran level 4 missions a lot too in my early days and never got ganked, so that's too safe too.
The point is, you can't ***** that something too safe because someone goes out of their way to ensure their safety. Look at the killboards, it's clear that the activity in general is not safe, since so many people die doing it. The fact that I successfully avoid combat (usually, I bounced on a veld rock and lost a mack and pod :D) doesn't mean the whole system is too safe, it simply means I am doing it safely.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1439 - 2013-09-18 09:20:20 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
As it is more mining is done in high sec that anywhere else, and that number is ever increasing. A couple more bumps to null sec mining and/ore the mineral index and it will be shockingly inefficient and not worth bothering for most.

I isolated this on purpose.

Most do not recognize this, only referring to it obliquely by saying how L4s in high are better profit.

Now, here is the shocker.

Risk and reward are tied together, and if one is low, the other will follow.

So how come L4s done right have 0 risk, and a massive reward, and that's fine, yet if I do everything right to reduce my risk to a minimal level, you think I should be punished by reducing my reward further or heavily increasing my risk? It's double standards.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#1440 - 2013-09-18 09:23:56 UTC
ISD Cura Ursus wrote:
Thread locked temporarily.


I am not even sure what to do with this thread.


I was attempting to bring you guys back from the brink.

I really do not want to get out my razor and start slicing and dicing this thread.


Really. Drop the convo about who insulted who and how.

Let's just discuss the issue at hand......and remember that you may not agree with what others say, but insulting other will _NOT_ help your position.


Saying someone is either a liar or inexperienced is not a good way to continue a convo, and quoting a line from a movie that insults another grasp of English is not good either.


C'mon, fellas I really do not want to cut out large swathes of this thread.

There's only one thing you can do. Convince CCP devs to decide once and for all if this is something that will or won't be looked at, post it officially then drop the subject. This is going to continue to be a heavily polarised issue, with a lot of people on both sides, and with the EVE community being the way they are, it's going to end up in a lot of arguments. How long does this need to go on before it gets talked about officially?
Use your magic ISD powers to convince the devs to respond!

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.