These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Proposal] Wormhole degrading bomb

Author
D'Tell Annoh
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#21 - 2011-12-12 16:05:26 UTC
Mike C wrote:
So you want to completely negate the risk of closing wormholes? No.
I think you just read the title of the thread and posted without reading any of the comments.

No. No, I do not want to completely negate the risk of closing wormholes. You're wrong. Read the comments.
Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#22 - 2011-12-12 17:48:42 UTC
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
Mike C wrote:
So you want to completely negate the risk of closing wormholes? No.
I think you just read the title of the thread and posted without reading any of the comments.

No. No, I do not want to completely negate the risk of closing wormholes. You're wrong. Read the comments.


No I'm pretty sure he read the posts.

Its likely you who refuses to undestand or see reason.

WHS is just fine....all you need to do is wait it out...camp with SB's and space bombs...bubble it...or shove some armor plated battleships through.

If its a class 1.... shove some armor plated Tier 3's through.

Problem solved.

The greater majority of WHS ehtusiasts have it down to a science...while aparently you are troubled or taking issue with said mechanic.

We do not need an insta-I win button for closing WHS.

In its current rendition there is risk of the ship being sent through getting trapped... or the risk of not able to collapse WH due to it being odd numbered as opposed to even numbered of hops. It forces you to take a calculated risk.

With a "degrading bomb" you would just pop the bombs out cnotinously until the bloody thing collapses And if your making it a partial...that is an utter and complete waste of time.

We do not need to add yet an another item to the long list of items.

But i suspect you will fail to "get the message" for the 1000th time so why I bother posting is beyond even me.

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152

D'Tell Annoh
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#23 - 2011-12-12 22:20:37 UTC
Drake Draconis wrote:
But i suspect you will fail to "get the message" for the 1000th time so why I bother posting is beyond even me.
Troll harder, son.

I accepted from the beginning that this idea probably would not get any traction. Because I anticipated it, I tried to come up with some ways to reign the idea in and try to make it difficult to utilize. Perhaps these measures aren't enough, the idea of any device closing a wormhole raises skepticism. Is there something sacred about the current process of closing a wormhole?

I would like to say that for all of the flaws people see in this idea, realistically, you have to admit that its not an insta-win button.

I'll ask this again, because at this point this question is about the extent of the effort I'm willing to put into this.

Question Does it break the game to have a bomb that takes 1 kg from a wormhole's available mass and costs 20 million ISK?
Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#24 - 2011-12-12 22:56:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Drake Draconis
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
Drake Draconis wrote:
But i suspect you will fail to "get the message" for the 1000th time so why I bother posting is beyond even me.
Troll harder, son.

I accepted from the beginning that this idea probably would not get any traction. Because I anticipated it, I tried to come up with some ways to reign the idea in and try to make it difficult to utilize. Perhaps these measures aren't enough, the idea of any device closing a wormhole raises skepticism. Is there something sacred about the current process of closing a wormhole?

I would like to say that for all of the flaws people see in this idea, realistically, you have to admit that its not an insta-win button.

I'll ask this again, because at this point this question is about the extent of the effort I'm willing to put into this.

Question Does it break the game to have a bomb that takes 1 kg from a wormhole's available mass and costs 20 million ISK?


why the #### Would I want to spend 20m a damn shot when its cheaper to get a battleship and do the job in the fraction of the time?

Id rather use that 20m to buy a shrapnel bomb.

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152

D'Tell Annoh
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#25 - 2011-12-12 23:13:28 UTC  |  Edited by: D'Tell Annoh
Drake Draconis wrote:
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
Question Does it break the game to have a bomb that takes 1 kg from a wormhole's available mass and costs 20 million ISK?


why the #### Would I want to spend 20m a damn shot when its cheaper to get a battleship and do the job in the fraction of the time?

Id rather use that 20m to buy a shrapnel bomb.
You didn't answer the question.

QuestionDoes it break the game to have a bomb that takes 1 kg from a wormhole's available mass and costs 20 million ISK?
Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#26 - 2011-12-12 23:46:13 UTC
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
Drake Draconis wrote:
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
Question Does it break the game to have a bomb that takes 1 kg from a wormhole's available mass and costs 20 million ISK?


why the #### Would I want to spend 20m a damn shot when its cheaper to get a battleship and do the job in the fraction of the time?

Id rather use that 20m to buy a shrapnel bomb.
You didn't answer the question.

QuestionDoes it break the game to have a bomb that takes 1 kg from a wormhole's available mass and costs 20 million ISK?


Your just not getting it aren't you?


Let me break it down for you since your failing to keep up.

If theres no point to it or no need..then yes it is.

All somenoe would need to do is get a pile of them and lob them at WH's until they pop the damn thing.

A concept you REFUSE to understand or see with your blind nature of your foolish notion of an idea.

To top that off...its also ludicrously expesive and inefficent at best.

All youd need is a couple battleships with armor plates and youd get the job done quick like.

Risk is a major thing in WHS...you take that risk away....your breaking the "game"


But alas..I suspect your going to once again...ignore me.

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152

D'Tell Annoh
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#27 - 2011-12-13 01:27:55 UTC
Drake Draconis wrote:
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
QuestionDoes it break the game to have a bomb that takes 1 kg from a wormhole's available mass and costs 20 million ISK?
If theres no point to it or no need..then yes it is.

All somenoe would need to do is get a pile of them and lob them at WH's until they pop the damn thing.

A concept you REFUSE to understand or see with your blind nature of your foolish notion of an idea.

To top that off...its also ludicrously expesive and inefficent at best.
I believe that you have the foundation of the paradigm correct, but your conclusion is incorrect.

You are right in that it is ludicrously expensive and inefficient. Taking down a wormhole 1 kg at a time is silly, even if the bombs were free. Your average wormhole has about a billion available mass. Can you imagine how long it would take you to fire a billion of these at a hole? I did the math; using a Bomb Launcher II, and firing every 135 seconds without any pause it would take you over 4,280 years to close the hole. If you have 10,000 friends to help you, you could all bang it out in 156 days.

You and I agree on this so far. There are cheaper, faster and more efficient ways to degrade a wormhole. Yet for some reason you are reticent to take the next step and agree that a 1kg device would not break the game. Perhaps you view such an admission as a camel's nose under the tent?
Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#28 - 2011-12-13 02:08:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Drake Draconis
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
Drake Draconis wrote:
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
QuestionDoes it break the game to have a bomb that takes 1 kg from a wormhole's available mass and costs 20 million ISK?
If theres no point to it or no need..then yes it is.

All somenoe would need to do is get a pile of them and lob them at WH's until they pop the damn thing.

A concept you REFUSE to understand or see with your blind nature of your foolish notion of an idea.

To top that off...its also ludicrously expesive and inefficent at best.
I believe that you have the foundation of the paradigm correct, but your conclusion is incorrect.

You are right in that it is ludicrously expensive and inefficient. Taking down a wormhole 1 kg at a time is silly, even if the bombs were free. Your average wormhole has about a billion available mass. Can you imagine how long it would take you to fire a billion of these at a hole? I did the math; using a Bomb Launcher II, and firing every 135 seconds without any pause it would take you over 4,280 years to close the hole. If you have 10,000 friends to help you, you could all bang it out in 156 days.

You and I agree on this so far. There are cheaper, faster and more efficient ways to degrade a wormhole. Yet for some reason you are reticent to take the next step and agree that a 1kg device would not break the game. Perhaps you view such an admission as a camel's nose under the tent?


YOU are the one giving the variables/specifications for YOUR idea.

turning my words agianst myself for specifications YOU choose is nothing short of aragoance and nothing more than bloated ego on your part.

If your going to turn this into a game then we're done here.

If you can't listen or read what other people are saying... then don't bother posting here.

I can't help it if your the one giving stupid variables and numbers for an idea thats full of fail or game breaking at best.

Wether the bomb is 20 mil or 200 mil..wether the bomb drops 5kg or 5 millon kg or even 5 billion kg.... this is uneeded and defeats the purpose of what WHS intends as far as risk/reward balance is concerned.

The Mechanic is working as intended.... if you can't deal with it...go back to high sec...and leave wormhole space to the professionals.

To me it was so very easy and simple...wait it out...or shove a ship through it.
Why complicate it....or break it? THAT is my reasoning and motivation for shooting your idea down.
Making it personal or calling me a troll...is childish at best.

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152

D'Tell Annoh
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#29 - 2011-12-13 03:22:50 UTC
Drake Draconis wrote:
YOU are the one giving the variables/specifications for YOUR idea.

turning my words agianst myself for specifications YOU choose is nothing short of aragoance and nothing more than bloated ego on your part.

If your going to turn this into a game then we're done here.

If you can't listen or read what other people are saying... then don't bother posting here.

I can't help it if your the one giving stupid variables and numbers for an idea thats full of fail or game breaking at best.

Wether the bomb is 20 mil or 200 mil..wether the bomb drops 5kg or 5 millon kg or even 5 billion kg.... this is uneeded and defeats the purpose of what WHS intends as far as risk/reward balance is concerned.

The Mechanic is working as intended.... if you can't deal with it...go back to high sec...and leave wormhole space to the professionals.

To me it was so very easy and simple...wait it out...or shove a ship through it.
Why complicate it....or break it? THAT is my reasoning and motivation for shooting your idea down.
Making it personal or calling me a troll...is childish at best.
Why are you so angry?
Ya Huei
Imperial Collective
#30 - 2011-12-13 12:47:14 UTC
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
Drake Draconis wrote:
YOU are the one giving the variables/specifications for YOUR idea.

turning my words agianst myself for specifications YOU choose is nothing short of aragoance and nothing more than bloated ego on your part.

If your going to turn this into a game then we're done here.

If you can't listen or read what other people are saying... then don't bother posting here.

I can't help it if your the one giving stupid variables and numbers for an idea thats full of fail or game breaking at best.

Wether the bomb is 20 mil or 200 mil..wether the bomb drops 5kg or 5 millon kg or even 5 billion kg.... this is uneeded and defeats the purpose of what WHS intends as far as risk/reward balance is concerned.

The Mechanic is working as intended.... if you can't deal with it...go back to high sec...and leave wormhole space to the professionals.

To me it was so very easy and simple...wait it out...or shove a ship through it.
Why complicate it....or break it? THAT is my reasoning and motivation for shooting your idea down.
Making it personal or calling me a troll...is childish at best.
Why are you so angry?

Why are u trolling your own thread ?
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#31 - 2011-12-13 14:33:55 UTC
This idea is about as bad as "outposts in wormholes". Or "moongoo in wormholes". Or "local in wormholes". Or "stabilised wormholes". Or any of the terrible carebear wormhole ideas.
D'Tell Annoh
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#32 - 2011-12-13 15:47:57 UTC
Ya Huei wrote:
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
Drake Draconis wrote:
YOU are the one giving the variables/specifications for YOUR idea.

turning my words agianst myself for specifications YOU choose is nothing short of aragoance and nothing more than bloated ego on your part.

If your going to turn this into a game then we're done here.

If you can't listen or read what other people are saying... then don't bother posting here.

I can't help it if your the one giving stupid variables and numbers for an idea thats full of fail or game breaking at best.

Wether the bomb is 20 mil or 200 mil..wether the bomb drops 5kg or 5 millon kg or even 5 billion kg.... this is uneeded and defeats the purpose of what WHS intends as far as risk/reward balance is concerned.

The Mechanic is working as intended.... if you can't deal with it...go back to high sec...and leave wormhole space to the professionals.

To me it was so very easy and simple...wait it out...or shove a ship through it.
Why complicate it....or break it? THAT is my reasoning and motivation for shooting your idea down.
Making it personal or calling me a troll...is childish at best.
Why are you so angry?
Why are u trolling your own thread ?
Each successive post from that guy has been more emotional and insulting. The end result may well be that he's furious, but that's his own doing. I've refrained from insulting him simply because we disagree, which is a courtesy I was not given.

I continue to discuss this because I like the idea. When someone points out a line of reasoning that I disagree with, I try to debate it.
Ya Huei
Imperial Collective
#33 - 2011-12-13 16:11:14 UTC
What is it you like about your idea then ? When I read it all I get from it is some form of "risk averse" method of closing wormholes.


Anything that reduces the amount of ships flying in space is a "Bad thing" in my opinion. Not having to cycle a wormhole by being able to stay safely at your end and lobbing some bombs from a distance just doesnt seem right to me.

Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#34 - 2011-12-13 17:49:30 UTC
Ya Huei wrote:
What is it you like about your idea then ? When I read it all I get from it is some form of "risk averse" method of closing wormholes.


Anything that reduces the amount of ships flying in space is a "Bad thing" in my opinion. Not having to cycle a wormhole by being able to stay safely at your end and lobbing some bombs from a distance just doesnt seem right to me.




Good luck convinceing him of that.

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152

D'Tell Annoh
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#35 - 2011-12-14 16:04:17 UTC
Ya Huei wrote:
What is it you like about your idea then ? When I read it all I get from it is some form of "risk averse" method of closing wormholes.

Anything that reduces the amount of ships flying in space is a "Bad thing" in my opinion. Not having to cycle a wormhole by being able to stay safely at your end and lobbing some bombs from a distance just doesn't seem right to me.
Admittedly this idea did solidify while I was closing more and more wormholes. It started off as a "wouldn't it be nice if we didn't have to jump back and forth" concept. However, I maintain that this device wouldn't be limited to carebears. It can be deployed on a hole that someone else wants to keep open. I would be irritated if someone used these things on my hisec openings, or trapped me in a system I didn't want to be in.

The main allure to me is forwarding the game; adding flexibility, options and growth. These devices would shake things up, and I expect that the result would be a far more interesting w-space experience.

I understand your concern about ships in space, and I don't envision these bombs removing that. I would like to see a balance struck where these bombs are rare enough, expensive enough, and limited enough that they only supplement, rather than replace the current wormhole closing methods. The ideal situation (in my opinion) would be to have the players treat the bombs as ideal in certain situations, but otherwise not worth the money or effort.

One last point I wanted to make was with the idea of risk, and I was thinking the other day that the use of these devices is a guaranteed loss. Once the bomb is fired, hit or miss that ISK is gone, but an armor plated, afterburner fitted battleship can close holes until it's luck eventually runs out. I admit, the bombs would make it safer to close wormholes (although, if this is a sticking point, I am happy to discuss ways to make it less so), but that safety costs ISK.
Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#36 - 2011-12-14 18:04:58 UTC
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
Ya Huei wrote:
What is it you like about your idea then ? When I read it all I get from it is some form of "risk averse" method of closing wormholes.

Anything that reduces the amount of ships flying in space is a "Bad thing" in my opinion. Not having to cycle a wormhole by being able to stay safely at your end and lobbing some bombs from a distance just doesn't seem right to me.
Admittedly this idea did solidify while I was closing more and more wormholes. It started off as a "wouldn't it be nice if we didn't have to jump back and forth" concept. However, I maintain that this device wouldn't be limited to carebears. It can be deployed on a hole that someone else wants to keep open. I would be irritated if someone used these things on my hisec openings, or trapped me in a system I didn't want to be in.

The main allure to me is forwarding the game; adding flexibility, options and growth. These devices would shake things up, and I expect that the result would be a far more interesting w-space experience.

I understand your concern about ships in space, and I don't envision these bombs removing that. I would like to see a balance struck where these bombs are rare enough, expensive enough, and limited enough that they only supplement, rather than replace the current wormhole closing methods. The ideal situation (in my opinion) would be to have the players treat the bombs as ideal in certain situations, but otherwise not worth the money or effort.

One last point I wanted to make was with the idea of risk, and I was thinking the other day that the use of these devices is a guaranteed loss. Once the bomb is fired, hit or miss that ISK is gone, but an armor plated, afterburner fitted battleship can close holes until it's luck eventually runs out. I admit, the bombs would make it safer to close wormholes (although, if this is a sticking point, I am happy to discuss ways to make it less so), but that safety costs ISK.


First: Battleships can shoot back. *Even if fired upon...those armor plates add a staggernig amount of EHP and its just enough to get backup called in at worst case. The guy tossing the bomb will likely die in 1 to 2 salvos*
Second: Your REMOVING RISK NOT ADDING TO IT.
Third and most miprotaintly: Your idea is far more expensive...a battleship is not likely going to die on the first shot...

Once again...you prefer to listen to yourself...and ignore everyone else.

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152

D'Tell Annoh
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#37 - 2011-12-14 21:54:29 UTC  |  Edited by: D'Tell Annoh
Drake Draconis wrote:
First: Battleships can shoot back. *Even if fired upon...those armor plates add a staggernig amount of EHP and its just enough to get backup called in at worst case. The guy tossing the bomb will likely die in 1 to 2 salvos*
Second: Your REMOVING RISK NOT ADDING TO IT.
Third and most miprotaintly: Your idea is far more expensive...a battleship is not likely going to die on the first shot...
Again I am baffled by your conclusions. You say that the battleship can defend itself, and is a tough nut to crack with all of the armor plating, while the bomb tosser is more fragile and easier to kill. To me, that sounds like it is a lot riskier to be the bomb tosser.

As for it being more expensive, you're right (although the 20 million is just a ballpark guess of what a good price might be). In the long run, using bombs like this likely will end up costing someone more money than just by using battleships. The bombs would add a different method for closing wormholes, that would provide speed/convenience/tactical advantage, but demanding a high price. In some cases, it might be the best option, in others it wouldn't. That decision ultimately will be made by the player. If people think these devices are a waste of time, they won't be used and the problem will self correct.
Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#38 - 2011-12-14 23:26:10 UTC
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
Drake Draconis wrote:
First: Battleships can shoot back. *Even if fired upon...those armor plates add a staggernig amount of EHP and its just enough to get backup called in at worst case. The guy tossing the bomb will likely die in 1 to 2 salvos*
Second: Your REMOVING RISK NOT ADDING TO IT.
Third and most miprotaintly: Your idea is far more expensive...a battleship is not likely going to die on the first shot...
Again I am baffled by your conclusions. You say that the battleship can defend itself, and is a tough nut to crack with all of the armor plating, while the bomb tosser is more fragile and easier to kill. To me, that sounds like it is a lot riskier to be the bomb tosser.

As for it being more expensive, you're right (although the 20 million is just a ballpark guess of what a good price might be). In the long run, using bombs like this likely will end up costing someone more money than just by using battleships. The bombs would add a different method for closing wormholes, that would provide speed/convenience/tactical advantage, but demanding a high price. In some cases, it might be the best option, in others it wouldn't. That decision ultimately will be made by the player. If people think these devices are a waste of time, they won't be used and the problem will self correct.


Your confused? I'm surprised your able to type let alone make coherent thougths with the things you say.

You tell me your baffeled...how much clearer can I get?

Have you ever flow a stealth bomber? If you had...you'd understand pretty danm quickly that its just a twig with a nuke strapped to it...and eff'ing big one at that.... one shot...maybe two...and its dead.

I happen to know from personal experince that is indeed..the case.

A battleship is harder to kill...but not impossible..but a might stronger and hardier than a bomber.


You propose the use of bombs...to close a wormhole...and yet counteless times... we the "wormhole space experinced peeps" ranging from mediocer to obsessive compulsive tell you repeatedly that its too easy to use time or a battleship to close it.

Yet you propose to use a fragile ship...at risk to losing itself...to attack....a very expensive item... and taking into calcuations how long it takes to research...manufacture an item that would likely cost as yo usaid.... 20 million ISK per bomb....only of which 2 to 3 can be used...and a pitiful amount of "effect" in the end to the WH.... that starts to add up to alot of wasted hours and time.

Further more.... the more you post....the more its very obvious you have no effing clue what your talknig about.

You think you know....you think you understand....and yet you continue to ignore us...and make outlandish cop outs and excuses saying we're the insane ones and you aren't.

You say you don't understand....maybe its just simply that...you don't understand because you have no experince in this area.
You just keep blaming us for your failure to comprehend.

I think its safe to say...after a 3 rd round of repeats..this idea is officially dead.

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152

D'Tell Annoh
Machiavellian Empire
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#39 - 2011-12-15 00:53:51 UTC
Drake, I think what is obvious to anyone who reads this thread is that you either are a troll (my opinion) or can't handle anyone disagreeing with you.

You've become increasingly belligerent, and have tried to use your anger and insults as a substitute for mature, rational discussion. You imagine that you being butthurt makes you right, or that at least people who read your rants will give your comments more weight because of your passion and indignation. But, really, your comments are hollow. You've offered very little to the debate.
Drake Draconis wrote:
You propose the use of bombs...to close a wormhole...and yet counteless times... we the "wormhole space experinced peeps" ranging from mediocer to obsessive compulsive tell you repeatedly that its too easy to use time or a battleship to close it.

Yet you propose to use a fragile ship...at risk to losing itself...to attack....a very expensive item... and taking into calcuations how long it takes to research...manufacture an item that would likely cost as yo usaid.... 20 million ISK per bomb....only of which 2 to 3 can be used...and a pitiful amount of "effect" in the end to the WH.... that starts to add up to alot of wasted hours and time.
Hours AND time? Do you think that I am proposing that the only way to close wormholes from now on should be through the use of bombs? Because that's not part of my idea at all. If the bombs are a "pitiful" waste of time, then I expect that they wouldn't be used.

You have gone back and forth from this being an insta-win, too powerful game breaking idea to it being a waste of hours and also time. Those are two completely opposite positions and for the sake of your credibility in this discussion, it behooves you to pick one.
Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#40 - 2011-12-15 01:20:44 UTC
D'Tell Annoh wrote:
Drake, I think what is obvious to anyone who reads this thread is that you either are a troll (my opinion) or can't handle anyone disagreeing with you.

You've become increasingly belligerent, and have tried to use your anger and insults as a substitute for mature, rational discussion. You imagine that you being butthurt makes you right, or that at least people who read your rants will give your comments more weight because of your passion and indignation. But, really, your comments are hollow. You've offered very little to the debate.
Drake Draconis wrote:
You propose the use of bombs...to close a wormhole...and yet counteless times... we the "wormhole space experinced peeps" ranging from mediocer to obsessive compulsive tell you repeatedly that its too easy to use time or a battleship to close it.

Yet you propose to use a fragile ship...at risk to losing itself...to attack....a very expensive item... and taking into calcuations how long it takes to research...manufacture an item that would likely cost as yo usaid.... 20 million ISK per bomb....only of which 2 to 3 can be used...and a pitiful amount of "effect" in the end to the WH.... that starts to add up to alot of wasted hours and time.
Hours AND time? Do you think that I am proposing that the only way to close wormholes from now on should be through the use of bombs? Because that's not part of my idea at all. If the bombs are a "pitiful" waste of time, then I expect that they wouldn't be used.

You have gone back and forth from this being an insta-win, too powerful game breaking idea to it being a waste of hours and also time. Those are two completely opposite positions and for the sake of your credibility in this discussion, it behooves you to pick one.


So if thats true....then everyone else whom have opposed you are trolls and belligerant.... ok... got it...thanks.

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152