These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Countering Bumping ganks in highsec

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#501 - 2015-11-20 20:57:51 UTC
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Teckos Pech wrote:
When a -10 guy wants to move through HS what is a good way to do it? Via a pod? After all, NPCs wont pod them. A fast moving ship that both aligns fast and warps fast? I contend that both of these things are a result of risk aversion.

I've always contended that little scenario is an example of risk mitigation. Risk aversion would be simply not flying through HiSec as a criminal at all, because despite your efforts you may still get 'sploded.

Consider a simple game:

You have two buttons. If you press the button on the left, you will get £10. If you press the button on the right, you have a 50% chance of getting £1000 or a 50% chance of receiving an electric shock.

Risk aversion would be pressing the button on the left.

Risk mitigation would be pressing the button on the right while wearing a pair of thick rubber boots.

Played enough times, the player that employs mitigation will end up considerably wealthier. The risk averse player won't get any bad shocks, but they enjoy only meagre prizes.

It's all semantics, really. But it's just the way I see it.


People who mitigate risk do so because they are risk averse. Risk averse does not have to mean you take no risks, you are just prudent about the risks you take.

The risk seeker on the other hand would press the button on the right irrespective of their footwear.

For all intents and purposes, the freighter pilot being bumped...was pushing the button on the right while barefoot.

He knew which button he was pressing?


Heh, there is that....

"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
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#502 - 2015-11-21 00:51:23 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:

We "played a game" by dehumanizing another player and either destroying or taking what amounts to weeks of his efforts. Not content to let him sputter in anger, we then continued to harass him, mockingly sent him a survey to gauge his satisfaction, often destroyed a few more weeks of his work, and continuously provoked him into anger until he spouts gibberish in his impotent rage.

Then we pretend to take offense at his gibberish.
So you are doubling down on the "he blew up my imaginary space-pixels and made fun of me so I can threaten him with death in real life" maxim? I'd hate to see how you might raise your children.

I've had enough of you. Have fun on your futile campaign to change Eve into whatever version of it you have in your mind.

Edit: Death threats and racial slurs are not "gibberish". Calling me a "doo-doo head" is gibberish. Telling me to "**** off" is impolite, but still gibberish. Threatening to **** my children or calling me homophobic slurs is unacceptable in any situation and is seriously antisocial behaviour that should be outright rejected by the entire community all the time, full stop.



His threats are as imaginary as that spaceship, and both made of nothing but pixels. In fact, the spaceship was worth more because it took time and effort to get it on screen. Welcome to the internet where kids say stuff because they will never back it up.

If you don't like the things people say when you bully them, assault them, or otherwise do mean things to them, maybe you should think about not enjoying making them so angry.

As was pointed out, there are whole other areas of space where people are actually looking for that kind of play that won't be so angry when you blow there stuff up, but I doubt you are interested in such a good natured dynamic. If you were, those surveys would not be a thing.

Take your mock offense at their poor behavior that you provoked intentionally elsewhere.
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#503 - 2015-11-21 02:49:27 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
His threats are as imaginary as that spaceship, and both made of nothing but pixels. In fact, the spaceship was worth more because it took time and effort to get it on screen. Welcome to the internet where kids say stuff because they will never back it up.

Unless they do.

Quote:
If you don't like the things people say when you bully them, assault them, or otherwise do mean things to them, maybe you should think about not enjoying making them so angry.

They lost at a computer game. They didn't like it.

Decorate it all you like, they're sore losers, not victims of bullying.

Quote:
As was pointed out, there are whole other areas of space where people are actually looking for that kind of play that won't be so angry when you blow there stuff up, but I doubt you are interested in such a good natured dynamic.

So HiSec should be a no PvP zone, right? This is what you're suggesting right now.

It'll never happen. The entire concept of EVE revolves around the fact you can lose your stuff at any moment. Some people can't handle that and they're the ones who simply shouldn't be playing it. This is why EVE is a niche interest. It'll never dominate the MMO market but for those that do understand that bolded part, it's the best MMO experience.

"Playing an MMO by yourself is like masturbating in the middle of an orgy." -Jonah Gravenstein
Iain Cariaba
#504 - 2015-11-21 03:24:34 UTC
Hiasa Kite wrote:
It'll never happen. The entire concept of EVE revolves around the fact you can lose your stuff at any moment. Some people can't handle that and they're the ones who simply shouldn't be playing it. This is why EVE is a niche interest. It'll never dominate the MMO market but for those that do understand that bolded part, it's the best MMO experience

Personally, it's why I play the game. Name a MMO and I've probably tried it, but EvE is the only one that ever got money from me past the free trial.

And Mike, I'm still waiting on the answer to my question from a couple pages ago. In case you missed it:

Quote:
Why is it too much to ask of you and the other carebears to actively play the game?

After all, actively playing the game and flying smart makes Red Frog 99.8% safe in highsec under the current mechanics. Why can't you do the same?
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#505 - 2015-11-21 03:25:49 UTC
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:

[Quote]As was pointed out, there are whole other areas of space where people are actually looking for that kind of play that won't be so angry when you blow there stuff up, but I doubt you are interested in such a good natured dynamic.

So HiSec should be a no PvP zone, right? This is what you're suggesting right now.

It'll never happen. The entire concept of EVE revolves around the fact you can lose your stuff at any moment. Some people can't handle that and they're the ones who simply shouldn't be playing it. This is why EVE is a niche interest. It'll never dominate the MMO market but for those that do understand that bolded part, it's the best MMO experience.


I didn't say high sec should be a no PvP zone. Less nonconsenual than the other 3 areas, as befits the rules, but no one has said anything about eliminating it.

Wardecs, kill rights, and criminal activity are the avenues it has been set up to allow without penalty. You can also straight up gank if you can do the job before concord gets there.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#506 - 2015-11-21 03:28:09 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Hiasa Kite wrote:
It'll never happen. The entire concept of EVE revolves around the fact you can lose your stuff at any moment. Some people can't handle that and they're the ones who simply shouldn't be playing it. This is why EVE is a niche interest. It'll never dominate the MMO market but for those that do understand that bolded part, it's the best MMO experience

Personally, it's why I play the game. Name a MMO and I've probably tried it, but EvE is the only one that ever got money from me past the free trial.

And Mike, I'm still waiting on the answer to my question from a couple pages ago. In case you missed it:

Quote:
Why is it too much to ask of you and the other carebears to actively play the game?

After all, actively playing the game and flying smart makes Red Frog 99.8% safe in highsec under the current mechanics. Why can't you do the same?


It's a non-question as nothing I have suggested affects the difficulty of ganking an unattended autopiloted freighter.
Iain Cariaba
#507 - 2015-11-21 03:54:35 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Hiasa Kite wrote:
It'll never happen. The entire concept of EVE revolves around the fact you can lose your stuff at any moment. Some people can't handle that and they're the ones who simply shouldn't be playing it. This is why EVE is a niche interest. It'll never dominate the MMO market but for those that do understand that bolded part, it's the best MMO experience

Personally, it's why I play the game. Name a MMO and I've probably tried it, but EvE is the only one that ever got money from me past the free trial.

And Mike, I'm still waiting on the answer to my question from a couple pages ago. In case you missed it:

Quote:
Why is it too much to ask of you and the other carebears to actively play the game?

After all, actively playing the game and flying smart makes Red Frog 99.8% safe in highsec under the current mechanics. Why can't you do the same?


It's a non-question as nothing I have suggested affects the difficulty of ganking an unattended autopiloted freighter.

Then your suggestion is unnecessary, since an active pilot with a single webbing escort has near total safety in highsec. The only freighters getting ganked are those who are autopiloting and those who think it's acceptable to solo a capital ship. Yourself just admitted that your suggestion would have no effect on autopiloting freighters, and nowhere in the game should capital ships be soloable.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#508 - 2015-11-21 04:05:11 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Hiasa Kite wrote:
It'll never happen. The entire concept of EVE revolves around the fact you can lose your stuff at any moment. Some people can't handle that and they're the ones who simply shouldn't be playing it. This is why EVE is a niche interest. It'll never dominate the MMO market but for those that do understand that bolded part, it's the best MMO experience

Personally, it's why I play the game. Name a MMO and I've probably tried it, but EvE is the only one that ever got money from me past the free trial.

And Mike, I'm still waiting on the answer to my question from a couple pages ago. In case you missed it:

Quote:
Why is it too much to ask of you and the other carebears to actively play the game?

After all, actively playing the game and flying smart makes Red Frog 99.8% safe in highsec under the current mechanics. Why can't you do the same?


It's a non-question as nothing I have suggested affects the difficulty of ganking an unattended autopiloted freighter.

Then your suggestion is unnecessary, since an active pilot with a single webbing escort has near total safety in highsec. The only freighters getting ganked are those who are autopiloting and those who think it's acceptable to solo a capital ship. Yourself just admitted that your suggestion would have no effect on autopiloting freighters, and nowhere in the game should capital ships be soloable.


I never argued otherwise. My sole point is the concern of pilots like the OP who feel that bumping should not be used that way. I happen to agree that it's dumb (not bad, just dumb), and further that if it's going to be ok to effectively tackle a ship the least that could happen is a suspect flag.

I also recognise bumping has other uses, so removing it as an option altogether does not seem reasonable. Making it require a definitive action of some sort, which could be as simple as adding a control on the HUD like the security locks on guns, so as to Gove the client some way of understanding that the bumping is not accidental seems like a compromised solution for people like the OP while still allowing it for all its used for now.

With the exception of enabling the unicorn riding white knights of EVE, this would have no effect on anyone. If it turns out that unicorns are more common than previously thought then another balance pass would be in order, but I doubt it would come to that.
Iain Cariaba
#509 - 2015-11-21 04:49:16 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Then your suggestion is unnecessary, since an active pilot with a single webbing escort has near total safety in highsec. The only freighters getting ganked are those who are autopiloting and those who think it's acceptable to solo a capital ship. Yourself just admitted that your suggestion would have no effect on autopiloting freighters, and nowhere in the game should capital ships be soloable.


I never argued otherwise. My sole point is the concern of pilots like the OP who feel that bumping should not be used that way. I happen to agree that it's dumb (not bad, just dumb), and further that if it's going to be ok to effectively tackle a ship the least that could happen is a suspect flag.

I also recognise bumping has other uses, so removing it as an option altogether does not seem reasonable. Making it require a definitive action of some sort, which could be as simple as adding a control on the HUD like the security locks on guns, so as to Gove the client some way of understanding that the bumping is not accidental seems like a compromised solution for people like the OP while still allowing it for all its used for now.

With the exception of enabling the unicorn riding white knights of EVE, this would have no effect on anyone. If it turns out that unicorns are more common than previously thought then another balance pass would be in order, but I doubt it would come to that.

Bumping is an effective tactic in PvP, even consentual PvP. Having to activate a module in order to keep a wartarget from crashing the gate is inane. Having to activate a module and get a flag before bumping the miner off his rock to see if he's AFK is dumb. Having to activate a module and get a flag before I bump a freighter, not to gank it but just because I'm a ****, is utterly ludicrous.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#510 - 2015-11-21 05:05:50 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:


I never argued otherwise. My sole point is the concern of pilots like the OP who feel that bumping should not be used that way. I happen to agree that it's dumb (not bad, just dumb), and further that if it's going to be ok to effectively tackle a ship the least that could happen is a suspect flag.

I also recognise bumping has other uses, so removing it as an option altogether does not seem reasonable. Making it require a definitive action of some sort, which could be as simple as adding a control on the HUD like the security locks on guns, so as to Gove the client some way of understanding that the bumping is not accidental seems like a compromised solution for people like the OP while still allowing it for all its used for now.

With the exception of enabling the unicorn riding white knights of EVE, this would have no effect on anyone. If it turns out that unicorns are more common than previously thought then another balance pass would be in order, but I doubt it would come to that.


How about two flags? One for the bumping ship and one for the bumped ship for being downright incompetent?

Yeah, didn't think so.

"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
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#511 - 2015-11-21 05:18:59 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Then your suggestion is unnecessary, since an active pilot with a single webbing escort has near total safety in highsec. The only freighters getting ganked are those who are autopiloting and those who think it's acceptable to solo a capital ship. Yourself just admitted that your suggestion would have no effect on autopiloting freighters, and nowhere in the game should capital ships be soloable.


I never argued otherwise. My sole point is the concern of pilots like the OP who feel that bumping should not be used that way. I happen to agree that it's dumb (not bad, just dumb), and further that if it's going to be ok to effectively tackle a ship the least that could happen is a suspect flag.

I also recognise bumping has other uses, so removing it as an option altogether does not seem reasonable. Making it require a definitive action of some sort, which could be as simple as adding a control on the HUD like the security locks on guns, so as to Gove the client some way of understanding that the bumping is not accidental seems like a compromised solution for people like the OP while still allowing it for all its used for now.

With the exception of enabling the unicorn riding white knights of EVE, this would have no effect on anyone. If it turns out that unicorns are more common than previously thought then another balance pass would be in order, but I doubt it would come to that.

Bumping is an effective tactic in PvP, even consentual PvP. Having to activate a module in order to keep a wartarget from crashing the gate is inane. Having to activate a module and get a flag before bumping the miner off his rock to see if he's AFK is dumb. Having to activate a module and get a flag before I bump a freighter, not to gank it but just because I'm a ****, is utterly ludicrous.


You have your opinion. That's cool.

You did misunderstand one point though. The flag would not appear until the actual bump occured. Taking whatever action is required to enable effective bumping isn't what gets the flag. Actually doing it would, and only in areas where any other form of overt interference (like shooting or Ewar) would carry a penalty.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#512 - 2015-11-21 05:23:28 UTC
Teckos Pech wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:


I never argued otherwise. My sole point is the concern of pilots like the OP who feel that bumping should not be used that way. I happen to agree that it's dumb (not bad, just dumb), and further that if it's going to be ok to effectively tackle a ship the least that could happen is a suspect flag.

I also recognise bumping has other uses, so removing it as an option altogether does not seem reasonable. Making it require a definitive action of some sort, which could be as simple as adding a control on the HUD like the security locks on guns, so as to Gove the client some way of understanding that the bumping is not accidental seems like a compromised solution for people like the OP while still allowing it for all its used for now.

With the exception of enabling the unicorn riding white knights of EVE, this would have no effect on anyone. If it turns out that unicorns are more common than previously thought then another balance pass would be in order, but I doubt it would come to that.


How about two flags? One for the bumping ship and one for the bumped ship for being downright incompetent?

Yeah, didn't think so.


Not so much.

I will however support you in an alternate use of the hacking skill to reset the destination of an autopilot to any place, like maybe that 0.4 system right over there--->

Then you might have to clear the rival gate campers, but if the guy does not look at his ship once in a while it's likely to wander off into someplace dangerous.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#513 - 2015-11-21 05:35:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
I like how you've set yourself up for championing the risk seeking and incompetent Mike. Well done. Roll

"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
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#514 - 2015-11-21 05:55:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Voidstar
Teckos Pech wrote:
I like how you've set yourself up for championing the risk seeking and incompetent Mike. Well done. Roll


You will have to explain that.

Hacking the autopilot seems like a fine compromise for the subject.

1. If the pilot is awake, he will simply reset the destination. No harm, no foul. Possibly annoying but he can just warp to zero himself manually if someone is a pill about it.

2. No gank ships were harmed. In fact, by setting the destination to somewhere in losec you can now gank these ships without a single loss to concord.

3. Given the low impact on an active victim I don't even see the need for a flag of any kind. I suppose some interesting options of a flag for a failed attempt could be put in place.

4. Even if the losec gate is hosting a camp the gankers don't want to clear, they can set the autopilot to the next system over. The ship jumps and just stops. Unless the pilot is awake the gank proceeds as normal, no bumping needed at all. Downsides being the audio cue "autopilot disabled" which is more likely to alert the pilot than merrily chugging away into losec to their doom, and the gank squad will be concordokken as normal.

5. Complaints of these attacks happening in high sec go away. All they had to do was pilot their ship and they would be fine.

6. More PvP is created, as there is now a real benefit to controlling the losec side of a losec gate.

Combined with changes to make bump tackle flag the ship so that even an active ship was still vulnerable to regular hazards that nevertheless conform to hi sec standards, I would think this was a fine solution.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#515 - 2015-11-21 07:18:52 UTC
Been away for a business trip so please excuse the pages behind responses.

baltec1 wrote:
Hunting carriers/dreads/supers/titans.

Feel free to tell me how you get a capital away from the edge of a POS without bumping it.

They have killed 5 carriers in the last week, no bumping required. But then they do not station camp, they prefer to hunt them down in space and kill them like the worthless pieces of trash that they are.
However since you mention it, if it helped remove the entire station camping, station games crap from the game then as far as I am concerned that is reason enough to remove bumping.

Hiasa Kite wrote:
Here's the thing: You say it'd be a waste of time, but it reads to anyone that's spent more than a few minutes reading this thread that you simply can't support your claim. Considering the amount of time you've spent writing dozens of forum posts, spanning over several days ineffectually arguing the matter flies in the face of your excuse.


They once said man could never fly under his own power, yet there were pioneers and visionaries who refused to believe and they kept trying new ideas until they made it work. A group of engineers and scientist at Motorola in the 60's looked at the communicators from the original Star Trek TV series and said why not and today we have cell phones because of their vision and their willingness to try something that others said was impossible. These people share one common trait, not one of them ever sat back and said show me the video so I can believe that this is possible. No I am not comparing things in a game or myself to these people or their accomplishments. But we do share something in common, we were willing to try something that others said was impossible simply to see if it worked and none of us sat back and said "show me the video or I will not believe".

You can continue to be one of those who says show me the video so I can see that it does work. Or you can go see if you can figure out how to make ti work the same way myself and a few others did, in the end the choice if yours. And to be honest I really do not give a damn if you or anyone else believes me.
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#516 - 2015-11-21 08:32:10 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:

[Quote]As was pointed out, but I doubt you are interested in such a good natured dynamic.

So HiSec should be a no PvP zone, right? This is what you're suggesting right now.

It'll never happen. The entire concept of EVE revolves around the fact you can lose your stuff at any moment. Some people can't handle that and they're the ones who simply shouldn't be playing it. This is why EVE is a niche interest. It'll never dominate the MMO market but for those that do understand that bolded part, it's the best MMO experience.


[Quote]I didn't say high sec should be a no PvP zone. Less nonconsenual than the other 3 areas, as befits the rules, but no one has said anything about eliminating it.

Oh but you did. You didn't realise it, but you did.

"there are whole other areas of space where people are actually looking for that kind of play that won't be so angry when you blow there stuff up"

There's no way to tell if any given target will take the loss on the chin or if they'll drown you in their tears. Ergo, the way to satisfy your suggestion is to not shoot other players in HiSec at all.

"Playing an MMO by yourself is like masturbating in the middle of an orgy." -Jonah Gravenstein
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#517 - 2015-11-21 08:34:46 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Hiasa Kite wrote:
It'll never happen. The entire concept of EVE revolves around the fact you can lose your stuff at any moment. Some people can't handle that and they're the ones who simply shouldn't be playing it. This is why EVE is a niche interest. It'll never dominate the MMO market but for those that do understand that bolded part, it's the best MMO experience

Personally, it's why I play the game. Name a MMO and I've probably tried it, but EvE is the only one that ever got money from me past the free trial.

And Mike, I'm still waiting on the answer to my question from a couple pages ago. In case you missed it:

Quote:
Why is it too much to ask of you and the other carebears to actively play the game?

After all, actively playing the game and flying smart makes Red Frog 99.8% safe in highsec under the current mechanics. Why can't you do the same?


It's a non-question as nothing I have suggested affects the difficulty of ganking an unattended autopiloted freighter.

Yes you did.

"Playing an MMO by yourself is like masturbating in the middle of an orgy." -Jonah Gravenstein
Iain Cariaba
#518 - 2015-11-21 08:37:32 UTC
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:

[Quote]As was pointed out, but I doubt you are interested in such a good natured dynamic.

So HiSec should be a no PvP zone, right? This is what you're suggesting right now.

It'll never happen. The entire concept of EVE revolves around the fact you can lose your stuff at any moment. Some people can't handle that and they're the ones who simply shouldn't be playing it. This is why EVE is a niche interest. It'll never dominate the MMO market but for those that do understand that bolded part, it's the best MMO experience.


[Quote]I didn't say high sec should be a no PvP zone. Less nonconsenual than the other 3 areas, as befits the rules, but no one has said anything about eliminating it.

Oh but you did. You didn't realise it, but you did.

"there are whole other areas of space where people are actually looking for that kind of play that won't be so angry when you blow there stuff up"

There's no way to tell if any given target will take the loss on the chin or if they'll drown you in their tears. Ergo, the way to satisfy your suggestion is to not shoot other players in HiSec at all.

Then there's this lovely gem:

Mike Voidstar wrote:
I will however support you in an alternate use of the hacking skill to reset the destination of an autopilot to any place, like maybe that 0.4 system right over there--->

Inferring that is you want to PvP, you should take it to lowsec.
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#519 - 2015-11-21 08:39:28 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
My sole point is the concern of pilots like the OP who feel that bumping should not be used that way.

The point everyone has been trying to make is that it needs to be a part of the game to keep freighters balanced.

I agree with you on one point: it's not fun being on the receiving end of a bump. Your ship lives, but you know it's going to die without help. I can appreciate the frustration of the situation where the bumper receives no punishment.

It's not necessarily fun (for all) but it is balanced.

By all means, nerf the everloving snot out of bumping, but freighters would need a nerf to keep them in line with all the other haulage and freight options.

"Playing an MMO by yourself is like masturbating in the middle of an orgy." -Jonah Gravenstein
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#520 - 2015-11-21 08:45:52 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
They once said man could never fly under his own power, yet there were pioneers and visionaries who refused to believe and they kept trying new ideas until they made it work. A group of engineers and scientist at Motorola in the 60's looked at the communicators from the original Star Trek TV series and said why not and today we have cell phones because of their vision and their willingness to try something that others said was impossible. These people share one common trait, not one of them ever sat back and said show me the video so I can believe that this is possible. No I am not comparing things in a game or myself to these people or their accomplishments. But we do share something in common, we were willing to try something that others said was impossible simply to see if it worked and none of us sat back and said "show me the video or I will not believe".

You can continue to be one of those who says show me the video so I can see that it does work. Or you can go see if you can figure out how to make ti work the same way myself and a few others did, in the end the choice if yours. And to be honest I really do not give a damn if you or anyone else believes me.

Very poetic, but you're still demonstrating that you're willing to spend many hours telling others they're wrong rather than spend a mere few minutes proving it.

You can say you don't care, but it raises the question: If you can't prove there's a problem, how can you hope to pioneer for change?

"Playing an MMO by yourself is like masturbating in the middle of an orgy." -Jonah Gravenstein