These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Do Level 4 missions pay too much compared to 1 through 3?

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1261 - 2013-09-09 16:35:05 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
It's hard to keep up the demand if players decide that the ISK they get it's not worth paying 15 euros a month. Twisted
Since the ISK they get will still be plenty to buy them anything they want, it's not likely that their cash won't be worth it.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1262 - 2013-09-09 16:35:12 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
If you nerf highsec income by 50% you are not going to see a 50% price increase for things sold in highsec.
If you nerf highsec income by 50% you are not likely to see any price increase at all since demand and supply won't change.


It's hard to keep up the demand if players decide that the ISK they get it's not worth paying 15 euros a month. Twisted

(Albeit some may come back for 9.15 euros a month...P)


Oh so we're back to "if I don't get my way I will quit/if ccp nerfs highsec everyone will quit." I call your terrible argument and raise you a "a good product sells itself and the free advertising from the unique events that happen in said good product will more than make up for the minority of hysterical morons who leave."

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#1263 - 2013-09-09 16:40:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
La Nariz wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Or they might stay at the same price until the seller tires of it not selling and starts to drop the price daily trying to get something for their find. People are not going to spend more when they have less.

If you nerf highsec income by 50% you are not going to see a 50% price increase for things sold in highsec. Selling and sold have a subtle difference. You can sell t1 damage controls for 50 million each. But how many at that price are actually sold?


So now we've shifted from "if highsec gets any nerf players will unsub" to "if highsec gets any nerf the markets will die." Highsec certainly to change its story when it starts losing.



I didn't shift the conversation. Maybe CCP is listening to you. Continue ignoring what everyone is saying and posting middle school rage induced hyperbole.

At the end of the day our money speaks louder than your rants. And that's all that matters.

And if it weren't the case you'd spend less energy saying nothing and more delighting in the impending nerfs. Of course those nerfs aren't impending which is why u mad bro.
embrel
BamBam Inc.
#1264 - 2013-09-09 16:45:38 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
If you nerf highsec income by 50% you are not going to see a 50% price increase for things sold in highsec.
If you nerf highsec income by 50% you are not likely to see any price increase at all since demand and supply won't change.



Prices sure will change. The form of S/D curves will remain, but they'll intersect at another P.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1265 - 2013-09-09 16:46:32 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
If you nerf highsec income by 50% you are not going to see a 50% price increase for things sold in highsec.
If you nerf highsec income by 50% you are not likely to see any price increase at all since demand and supply won't change.


It's hard to keep up the demand if players decide that the ISK they get it's not worth paying 15 euros a month. Twisted

(Albeit some may come back for 9.15 euros a month...P)


Oh so we're back to "if I don't get my way I will quit/if ccp nerfs highsec everyone will quit." I call your terrible argument and raise you a "a good product sells itself and the free advertising from the unique events that happen in said good product will more than make up for the minority of hysterical morons who leave."


THat point cannot be verified tho because we don't know what part of the retention rate goes where in game. It would be really sad but maybe a lot of people join because it's easy to make ISK. How many people come from other "easy" MMO and try EvE because it's "harder" and then see they are "succesful" in the harder game?

It's a sad point of view I have to admit.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1266 - 2013-09-09 16:47:20 UTC  |  Edited by: La Nariz
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Or they might stay at the same price until the seller tires of it not selling and starts to drop the price daily trying to get something for their find. People are not going to spend more when they have less.

If you nerf highsec income by 50% you are not going to see a 50% price increase for things sold in highsec. Selling and sold have a subtle difference. You can sell t1 damage controls for 50 million each. But how many at that price are actually sold?


So now we've shifted from "if highsec gets any nerf players will unsub" to "if highsec gets any nerf the markets will die." Highsec certainly to change its story when it starts losing.



I didn't shift the conversation. Maybe CCP is listening to you. Continue ignoring what everyone is saying and posting middle school rage induced hyperbole.

At the end of the day our money speaks louder than your rants. And that's all that matters.

And if it weren't the case you'd spend less energy saying nothing and more delighting in the impending nerfs. Of course those nerfs aren't impending which is why u mad bro.


So you can't produce a coherent argument against nerfing highsec and you have decided to throw a:

~~~~o7o7o7o7m8m8m8m8~~~~ Highsec Tantrum ~~~~m8m8m8m8o7o7o7o7~~~~

Before you do that.
I suggest you form a coherent argument and make some claims.
So we can have some sort of discussion here without you having to continue lieing through your teeth.
However hilarious meltdowns are okay as well.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#1267 - 2013-09-09 16:48:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
5s were moved to low sec to influence players leaving high sec. It didn't work. 4s are being suggested to move to low sec and that won't work either. Oh sure you have asberging circle talkers pretending its about the economy. But its not. Its another failed attempt at trying to force people to do what they do not wish to. And while they pay to do it no less.

Like ive stated before move every mission but level 1s to low or null. See if anything changes.

Youll end up with a dead highsec and a dying nullsec. I say dying because there will be a few who fly around doing their thing waiting for the server to announce its closure.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1268 - 2013-09-09 16:48:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
embrel wrote:
Prices sure will change. The form of S/D curves will remain, but they'll intersect at another P.

…but neither supply nor demand would change, so they'd intersect the same as before. As they've been so fond of pointing out, such a reduction wouldn't actually affect their buying power.

Caliph Muhammed wrote:
5s were moved to low sec to influence players going to null.
No, they weren't. Stop lying.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1269 - 2013-09-09 16:50:11 UTC
Tippia wrote:
embrel wrote:
Prices sure will change. The form of S/D curves will remain, but they'll intersect at another P.

…but neither supply nor demand would change, so they'd intersect the same as before. As they've been so fond of pointing out, such a reduction wouldn't actually affect their buying power.


WOuldn't price of LP stores item go up sicne the supply would be lower because of all the so numerous null player retiring thier now useless high-sec alt since they could make thier ISK in null?
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1270 - 2013-09-09 16:52:34 UTC  |  Edited by: La Nariz
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
5s were moved to low sec to influence players going to null. It didn't work. Fours are being suggested to move to lows and that won't work either. Oh sure you have asberging circle talkers pretending its about the economy. Bt its not. It another failed attempt at trying to force people to do what they do not wish to. And while they pay to do it no less.

Like ive stated before move every mission but level 1s to low or null. See if anything changes.

Youll end up with a dead highsec and a dying nullsec. I say dying because there will be a few who fly around doing their thing waiting for the server to announce its closure.


Deny the information presented to you all you like, that does not make the facts untrue.
Unlike your statement L5s were moved due to fixing a bug.
Misinformation may have been your problem but, Tippia has informed you of this before so you are lieing again.
Bug fixing does not constitute a nerf to highsec and L5s were never intended to be run there.
Although from your prior posting I can see why you think that is what happened.
So I suggest you stop denying facts that have been presented to you before.
Since we are far more likely to take what you say seriously if you stop lieing through your teeth.

~~~~Highsec is Safe~~~~

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#1271 - 2013-09-09 16:53:19 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
If you nerf highsec income by 50% you are not going to see a 50% price increase for things sold in highsec.
If you nerf highsec income by 50% you are not likely to see any price increase at all since demand and supply won't change.


It's hard to keep up the demand if players decide that the ISK they get it's not worth paying 15 euros a month. Twisted

(Albeit some may come back for 9.15 euros a month...P)


Oh so we're back to "if I don't get my way I will quit/if ccp nerfs highsec everyone will quit." I call your terrible argument and raise you a "a good product sells itself and the free advertising from the unique events that happen in said good product will more than make up for the minority of hysterical morons who leave."


EVE didn't survived its early years by being a good product, but by being the right product. It's a small but meaningful difference, because "good product" is a subjective definition, whereas "being the right product" is objectively hit or miss.

If EVE was as you meant it to be, maybe would be "good" in your terms, but would miss to sell itself to everyone who's not buying it because of your gameplay style.

And, honestly, hiseccers are a larger minority than anyone else, and CCP would regret their departure sooner than later.

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#1272 - 2013-09-09 16:53:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
You have to understand the activity ecology. Paying subscribers will abstain if the ecology forces them to go and live under the tyranny of douchebags.

The third tangent is that EVE isn't free and as such they have a choice in whether what is offered is worth their money. Speaking for myself i'm not going to remain subbed to eve to do level 3s in a marauder. And no I won't be dodging gate camps in null either. Others may.
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
#1273 - 2013-09-09 16:56:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Yonis Kador
I'm not convinced the game needs to be balanced like an algebra equation.

When I read things like high-sec players are "entitled pubbies" "who can be replaced," if they disagree with having their games nerfed, I just shake my head in disbelief. Of course they're going to disagree. You're arguing for their games to be made more difficult. Hell, I'm disagreeing and it hasn't even happened. Our playerbase isn't some extremity that can be severed and allowed to regenerate. The playerbase "is" EVE and the guys who do not share your playstyle are just as important as anyone. Some players contribute more to pgc than others, but we're all cogs in the machine.

The metrics of favored playstyle, favored sec, and whether high-sec mission runners are "really" null alts who can't make enough isk in null should be able to be determined by CCP internally. At the end of the day, this is a game - a product - and its success depends on customer loyalty to some degree. If a huge percentage of the playerbase prefers risk-averse gameplay, altering the isk tables is pointless. You will not make risk-averse people become risk takers by starving them.

And if the goal isn't improved pgc via player fluidity and dispersal, just a "no, YOU make too much" ad nauseum tennis match, well, what's the point of that? Balance for the sake of balance? Really?

In the absence of official CCP data that can be skewed to support both sides of the argument, we're left with our own unique experiences to use as a point of reference. I've been reading this topic for days now. Ill be approaching my 6th year anniversary in game and I've certainly never made 100m/hr. running lvl4 missions. (What am I doing wrong?) I "have" devoted 12+ hrs to mission running before and earned 3-400m in a day but that's about it? Some of the numbers tossed around as fact on earlier pages defy belief. All I know is that when I'm busy and can't play often, I depend on the quick 50 mill I'm going to get from running "The Blockade" or "Worlds Collide" in an hr. or so to maintain my accounts.

I just think there's too much algebra in this discussion. It doesn't take into account the players, their needs, and a litany of variables that affect player income beside high-sec loot drops. It also doesn't address other ways the same effect could be achieved without altering mission rewards and loot tables. The recent "invincible npc" change is a great example. Nearly every npc now requires an extra volley of missiles or a couple extra shots, adding time to completion and reducing profits. And nobody had to ensure that BS wrecks drop nothing but metal scraps for that to occur.

YK
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1274 - 2013-09-09 16:57:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
You have to understand the activity ecology. Paying subscribers will abstain if the ecology forces them to go and live under the tyranny of douchebags.
…which no-one has ever suggested that it will or that it should. So that's just you going after those poor grassy guys again.

Quote:
Speaking for myself i'm not going to remain subbed to eve to do level 3s in a marauder. And no I won't be dodging gate camps in null either. Others may.
So what?


Yonis Kador wrote:
In the absence of official CCP data that can be skewed to support both sides of the argument, we're left with our own unique experiences to use as a point of reference. I've been reading this topic for days now. Ill be approaching my 5th year anniversary in game and I've certainly never made 100m/hr. running lvl4 missions. (What am I doing wrong?) I "have" devoted 12+ hrs to mission running before and earned 3-400m in a day but that's about it? Some of the numbers tossed around as fact on earlier pages defy belief. All I know is that when I'm busy and can't play often, I depend on the quick 50 mill I'm going to get from running "The Blockade" or "Worlds Collide" in an hr. or so to maintain my accounts.

…and that's ok. That just means you're not a high-end mission-runner and that you probably wouldn't even be affected by an adjustment of L4s. And yes, balance for the sake of balance rather is the point, for the simple reason that balance is good. Proper progression is good. A healthy ecology of activities to suite everyone's tastes without making any particular choice objectively stupid to pursue is good.

Very little of this has anything to do with forcing people to do things they don't want or go places they do not want to go. In fact, it's rather the opposite: to ensure that it becomes easier to do what you want where you want, without having a completely out-of-whack benchmark that obsoletes a ton of content and makes fine-tuning far more difficult than it has to be.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#1275 - 2013-09-09 17:03:00 UTC
Yonis Kador wrote:
I'm not convinced the game needs to be balanced like an algebra equation.

When I read things like high-sec players are "entitled pubbies" "who can be replaced," if they disagree with having their games nerfed, I just shake my head in disbelief. Of course they're going to disagree. You're arguing for their games to be made more difficult. Hell, I'm disagreeing and it hasn't even happened. Our playerbase isn't some extremity that can be severed and allowed to regenerate. The playerbase "is" EVE and the guys who do not share your playstyle are just as important as anyone. Some players contribute more to pgc than others, but we're all cogs in the machine.

The metrics of favored playstyle, favored sec, and whether high-sec mission runners are "really" null alts who can't make enough isk in null should be able to be determined by CCP internally. At the end of the day, this is a game - a product - and its success depends on customer loyalty to some degree. If a huge percentage of the playerbase prefers risk-averse gameplay, altering the isk tables is pointless. You will not make risk-averse people become risk takers by starving them.

And if the goal isn't improved pgc via player fluidity and dispersal, just a "no, YOU make too much" ad nauseum tennis match, well, what's the point of that? Balance for the sake of balance? Really?

In the absence of official CCP data that can be skewed to support both sides of the argument, we're left with our own unique experiences to use as a point of reference. I've been reading this topic for days now. Ill be approaching my 5th year anniversary in game and I've certainly never made 100m/hr. running lvl4 missions. (What am I doing wrong?) I "have" devoted 12+ hrs to mission running before and earned 3-400m in a day but that's about it? Some of the numbers tossed around as fact on earlier pages defy belief. All I know is that when I'm busy and can't play often, I depend on the quick 50 mill I'm going to get from running "The Blockade" or "Worlds Collide" in an hr. or so to maintain my accounts.

I just think there's too much algebra in this discussion. It doesn't take into account the players, their needs, and a litany of variables that affect player income beside high-sec loot drops. It also doesn't address other ways the same effect could be achieved without altering mission rewards and loot tables. The recent "invincible npc" change is a great example. Nearly every npc now requires an extra volley of missiles or a couple extra shots, adding time to completion and reducing profits. And nobody had to ensure that BS wrecks drop nothing but metal scraps for that to occur.

Yeah in the end highsec income needs a boost because of things

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#1276 - 2013-09-09 17:03:08 UTC
Yonis Kador wrote:
I'm not convinced the game needs to be balanced like an algebra equation.

When I read things like high-sec players are "entitled pubbies" "who can be replaced," if they disagree with having their games nerfed, I just shake my head in disbelief. Of course they're going to disagree. You're arguing for their games to be made more difficult. Hell, I'm disagreeing and it hasn't even happened. Our playerbase isn't some extremity that can be severed and allowed to regenerate. The playerbase "is" EVE and the guys who do not share your playstyle are just as important as anyone. Some players contribute more to pgc than others, but we're all cogs in the machine.

The metrics of favored playstyle, favored sec, and whether high-sec mission runners are "really" null alts who can't make enough isk in null should be able to be determined by CCP internally. At the end of the day, this is a game - a product - and its success depends on customer loyalty to some degree. If a huge percentage of the playerbase prefers risk-averse gameplay, altering the isk tables is pointless. You will not make risk-averse people become risk takers by starving them.

And if the goal isn't improved pgc via player fluidity and dispersal, just a "no, YOU make too much" ad nauseum tennis match, well, what's the point of that? Balance for the sake of balance? Really?

In the absence of official CCP data that can be skewed to support both sides of the argument, we're left with our own unique experiences to use as a point of reference. I've been reading this topic for days now. Ill be approaching my 5th year anniversary in game and I've certainly never made 100m/hr. running lvl4 missions. (What am I doing wrong?) I "have" devoted 12+ hrs to mission running before and earned 3-400m in a day but that's about it? Some of the numbers tossed around as fact on earlier pages defy belief. All I know is that when I'm busy and can't play often, I depend on the quick 50 mill I'm going to get from running "The Blockade" or "Worlds Collide" in an hr. or so to maintain my accounts.

I just think there's too much algebra in this discussion. It doesn't take into account the players, their needs, and a litany of variables that affect player income beside high-sec loot drops. It also doesn't address other ways the same effect could be achieved without altering mission rewards and loot tables. The recent "invincible npc" change is a great example. Nearly every npc now requires an extra volley of missiles or a couple extra shots, adding time to completion and reducing profits. And nobody had to ensure that BS wrecks drop nothing but metal scraps for that to occur.

YK



Quoting a well thought out post.

What you are doing wrong is not playing like a low life basement dweller that analyzes everything in EVE to the NTH degree and then stops "playing" the missions in favor of treating them like a job.

In more simplistic terms you aren't a sexless, lifeless, neckbeard.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1277 - 2013-09-09 17:09:51 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Yonis Kador wrote:
I'm not convinced the game needs to be balanced like an algebra equation.

When I read things like high-sec players are "entitled pubbies" "who can be replaced," if they disagree with having their games nerfed, I just shake my head in disbelief. Of course they're going to disagree. You're arguing for their games to be made more difficult. Hell, I'm disagreeing and it hasn't even happened. Our playerbase isn't some extremity that can be severed and allowed to regenerate. The playerbase "is" EVE and the guys who do not share your playstyle are just as important as anyone. Some players contribute more to pgc than others, but we're all cogs in the machine.

The metrics of favored playstyle, favored sec, and whether high-sec mission runners are "really" null alts who can't make enough isk in null should be able to be determined by CCP internally. At the end of the day, this is a game - a product - and its success depends on customer loyalty to some degree. If a huge percentage of the playerbase prefers risk-averse gameplay, altering the isk tables is pointless. You will not make risk-averse people become risk takers by starving them.

And if the goal isn't improved pgc via player fluidity and dispersal, just a "no, YOU make too much" ad nauseum tennis match, well, what's the point of that? Balance for the sake of balance? Really?

In the absence of official CCP data that can be skewed to support both sides of the argument, we're left with our own unique experiences to use as a point of reference. I've been reading this topic for days now. Ill be approaching my 5th year anniversary in game and I've certainly never made 100m/hr. running lvl4 missions. (What am I doing wrong?) I "have" devoted 12+ hrs to mission running before and earned 3-400m in a day but that's about it? Some of the numbers tossed around as fact on earlier pages defy belief. All I know is that when I'm busy and can't play often, I depend on the quick 50 mill I'm going to get from running "The Blockade" or "Worlds Collide" in an hr. or so to maintain my accounts.

I just think there's too much algebra in this discussion. It doesn't take into account the players, their needs, and a litany of variables that affect player income beside high-sec loot drops. It also doesn't address other ways the same effect could be achieved without altering mission rewards and loot tables. The recent "invincible npc" change is a great example. Nearly every npc now requires an extra volley of missiles or a couple extra shots, adding time to completion and reducing profits. And nobody had to ensure that BS wrecks drop nothing but metal scraps for that to occur.

YK



Quoting a well thought out post.

What you are doing wrong is not playing like a low life basement dweller that analyzes everything in EVE to the NTH degree and then stops "playing" the missions in favor of treating them like a job.

In more simplistic terms you aren't a sexless, lifeless, neckbeard.


So now the people arguing against you are sexless, lifeless, neckbeards. Go on... :allears:

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1278 - 2013-09-09 18:06:52 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
5s were moved to low sec to influence players leaving high sec.


They were never in high sec.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#1279 - 2013-09-09 18:07:40 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Yonis Kador wrote:
I'm not convinced the game needs to be balanced like an algebra equation.

When I read things like high-sec players are "entitled pubbies" "who can be replaced," if they disagree with having their games nerfed, I just shake my head in disbelief. Of course they're going to disagree. You're arguing for their games to be made more difficult. Hell, I'm disagreeing and it hasn't even happened. Our playerbase isn't some extremity that can be severed and allowed to regenerate. The playerbase "is" EVE and the guys who do not share your playstyle are just as important as anyone. Some players contribute more to pgc than others, but we're all cogs in the machine.

The metrics of favored playstyle, favored sec, and whether high-sec mission runners are "really" null alts who can't make enough isk in null should be able to be determined by CCP internally. At the end of the day, this is a game - a product - and its success depends on customer loyalty to some degree. If a huge percentage of the playerbase prefers risk-averse gameplay, altering the isk tables is pointless. You will not make risk-averse people become risk takers by starving them.

And if the goal isn't improved pgc via player fluidity and dispersal, just a "no, YOU make too much" ad nauseum tennis match, well, what's the point of that? Balance for the sake of balance? Really?

In the absence of official CCP data that can be skewed to support both sides of the argument, we're left with our own unique experiences to use as a point of reference. I've been reading this topic for days now. Ill be approaching my 5th year anniversary in game and I've certainly never made 100m/hr. running lvl4 missions. (What am I doing wrong?) I "have" devoted 12+ hrs to mission running before and earned 3-400m in a day but that's about it? Some of the numbers tossed around as fact on earlier pages defy belief. All I know is that when I'm busy and can't play often, I depend on the quick 50 mill I'm going to get from running "The Blockade" or "Worlds Collide" in an hr. or so to maintain my accounts.

I just think there's too much algebra in this discussion. It doesn't take into account the players, their needs, and a litany of variables that affect player income beside high-sec loot drops. It also doesn't address other ways the same effect could be achieved without altering mission rewards and loot tables. The recent "invincible npc" change is a great example. Nearly every npc now requires an extra volley of missiles or a couple extra shots, adding time to completion and reducing profits. And nobody had to ensure that BS wrecks drop nothing but metal scraps for that to occur.

YK



Quoting a well thought out post.

What you are doing wrong is not playing like a low life basement dweller that analyzes everything in EVE to the NTH degree and then stops "playing" the missions in favor of treating them like a job.

In more simplistic terms you aren't a sexless, lifeless, neckbeard.


So now the people arguing against you are sexless, lifeless, neckbeards. Go on... :allears:

It means you lose

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#1280 - 2013-09-09 18:08:02 UTC
How does it feel to be called names by morons on a discussion forum about internet spaceships?

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?