These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

When NPCs become detrimental to PVP

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Etain Darklightner Agittain
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#341 - 2017-01-04 09:52:41 UTC
^ don't like being judged on comments, don't judge others. I made an observation. If it bothers you, change, or don't. Your health, not mine.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#342 - 2017-01-04 09:58:53 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


Long-winded irrelevant drivel


So, nothing new from you then? Okay.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#343 - 2017-01-04 10:00:31 UTC
Etain Darklightner Agittain wrote:
^ don't like being judged on comments, don't judge others. I made an observation. If it bothers you, change, or don't. Your health, not mine.


If I don't like it, don't do it to others? Maybe give this advice to those who started it.

I didn't, until they started. Don't pretend to be some "holier than thou" mediator without the full picture. If you're going to make "observations", then make accurate ones.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Salvos Rhoska
#344 - 2017-01-04 10:09:47 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
This system emulates player corp behavior, insofar as an AI can.

-If you aggress their capsuleers or NPCs, they react, and your standing with them drops.
-If you are attacked by a capsuleer in that corp, as they are an extension of it, this represents the corp being hostile to you, and your standings drop.
-If your standings drop sufficiently, you will be attacked on sight.
-You can raise standings by performing actions which increase the NPC corps opinion of you.

All of these above are the result of player behavior, directly.
Your standing, is a direct result of your own behavior, and those of other players towards you.
The NPCs reaction to you, is a direct result of player behavior.

NPC corps are not infact "non-aggressive" entities anymore in this system.Arguably, they never have been, because though standings did not result in aggression, they did result in other penalties in relation to that corp. This has always been a latent potential in NPC corps, but only now is it blooming into fruition.

NPC Corps are also distinct from CONCORD, which has a completely different rule set and function.

Though NPC corps emulate player corps, they are NOT player corps. They cannot be wardecced for systemic reasons owing to the limitations of programming a truly aware autonomous AI. Players in an NPC corp are restricted to being "linemen", there is no possibility to own or lead the entity. This is reciprocated for, by the NPC corp being unwardeccable, and external relations instead being represented and facilitated by standings.

It is also a necessary function for maintaining NPC Corp holdings THROUGHOUT EVE. If NPC Corps where wardeccable, it would mean all NPC holdings throughout EVE would be targets for destruction. NPC holdings in HS/LS and NPC Null would be wiped out within a week.

As has been pointed out, LS is still Empire space, complicit with a systemic NPC environment, and limited rules of engagement.

If you want an environment in which there are no rules of engagement, you must move to NS or WHs. This is how it is. This differentiation is endemic to the system security classifications in this game.

The real impetus behind your posts, is to try and remove restrictions in LS (where convenient for you), to make it more like NS, for your own specific niche behavior of solo hunting in LS belts.



Remiel Pollard wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


Long-winded irrelevant drivel


So, nothing new from you then? Okay.


So no rebuttal or refutation of valid, itemised, revelant argumwnts on the issue?

Ok the, they are all tabled then as uncontested.

If you wont take the effort to defend your position, you no longer have a position to defend.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Etain Darklightner Agittain
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#345 - 2017-01-04 10:10:57 UTC
It is accurate, I do understand what it is you were conveyong. No I don't see myself as better. You however do. No one started it. People replied and you started it. Nice try. No, to your last response. Done.
Salvos Rhoska
#346 - 2017-01-04 10:14:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Etain Darklightner Agittain wrote:
^ don't like being judged on comments, don't judge others. I made an observation. If it bothers you, change, or don't. Your health, not mine.


If I don't like it, don't do it to others? Maybe give this advice to those who started it.

I didn't, until they started. Don't pretend to be some "holier than thou" mediator without the full picture. If you're going to make "observations", then make accurate ones.


"They started it! Im not responsible for my own behavior! Its their fault! They made me do it!"

I dont think so.

It has repeatedly been pointed out to you by many posters, that it is you that is conducting yourself in an insulting, emotional fashion, resorting ro attacks on other posters in person, rather than the topic at hand and their arguments on it.

You statred it. You are responsible for your actions. You are the one that has constantly insulted just about everyone in this thread that disagrees with you and/or flat out ignored their ontopic arguments.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Etain Darklightner Agittain
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#347 - 2017-01-04 10:16:29 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
This system emulates player corp behavior, insofar as an AI can.

-If you aggress their capsuleers or NPCs, they react, and your standing with them drops.
-If you are attacked by a capsuleer in that corp, as they are an extension of it, this represents the corp being hostile to you, and your standings drop.
-If your standings drop sufficiently, you will be attacked on sight.
-You can raise standings by performing actions which increase the NPC corps opinion of you.

All of these above are the result of player behavior, directly.
Your standing, is a direct result of your own behavior, and those of other players towards you.
The NPCs reaction to you, is a direct result of player behavior.

NPC corps are not infact "non-aggressive" entities anymore in this system.Arguably, they never have been, because though standings did not result in aggression, they did result in other penalties in relation to that corp. This has always been a latent potential in NPC corps, but only now is it blooming into fruition.

NPC Corps are also distinct from CONCORD, which has a completely different rule set and function.

Though NPC corps emulate player corps, they are NOT player corps. They cannot be wardecced for systemic reasons owing to the limitations of programming a truly aware autonomous AI. Players in an NPC corp are restricted to being "linemen", there is no possibility to own or lead the entity. This is reciprocated for, by the NPC corp being unwardeccable, and external relations instead being represented and facilitated by standings.

It is also a necessary function for maintaining NPC Corp holdings THROUGHOUT EVE. If NPC Corps where wardeccable, it would mean all NPC holdings throughout EVE would be targets for destruction. NPC holdings in HS/LS and NPC Null would be wiped out within a week.

As has been pointed out, LS is still Empire space, complicit with a systemic NPC environment, and limited rules of engagement.

If you want an environment in which there are no rules of engagement, you must move to NS or WHs. This is how it is. This differentiation is endemic to the system security classifications in this game.

The real impetus behind your posts, is to try and remove restrictions in LS (where convenient for you), to make it more like NS, for your own specific niche behavior of solo hunting in LS belts.



Remiel Pollard wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


Long-winded irrelevant drivel


So, nothing new from you then? Okay.


So no rebuttal or refutation of valid, itemised, revelant argumwnts on the issue?

Ok the, they are all tabled then as uncontested.

If you wont take the effort to defend your position, you no longer have a position to defend.


We'll stated. Arguments are, as I understand them, meant to be learned from. Debates are no different. That is essentially what he had stated on the first post. This individual derailed himself by taking time out to target people based on personal bias. Wonder what his eve board looks like....
Diane Persis
#348 - 2017-01-04 10:20:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Diane Persis
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
So no rebuttal or refutation of valid, itemised, revelant argumwnts on the issue?

Ok the, they are all tabled then as uncontested.

If you wont take the effort to defend your position, you no longer have a position to defend.


It's not valid, your statement about how NPC AI "does this" as if this has always been the case in low sec and is logical, is simply not true. It's never been this way and it's no valid explanation other than you trying very hard to try and sound credible.

EVE is a player driven game, suddenly having NPC choose sides is against the sandbox idea. Just because someone is a miner doesn't mean he isn't capable, or isn't supposed to, take care of his own safety and well being by making friends and/or deals with others. Having CCP do that for them by rigging the game in regards to NPC is terrible.

The fact you've been trying this same " logic" several times before is a really good reason for someone to go "yeah yeah, disregarded".
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#349 - 2017-01-04 10:28:02 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


So no rebuttal or refutation of valid, itemised, revelant argumwnts on the issue?

Ok the, they are all tabled then as uncontested.

If you wont take the effort to defend your position, you no longer have a position to defend.


As I said, you have offered nothing new. You've just repeated stuff you've said before that I've already addressed. Again, you think just repeating stuff already addressed makes for a new argument. It doesn't. It really is just more irrelevant drivel, along with this attempt to "gotcha", which you most certainly did not. All you've done is, once again, demonstrate your own ignorance, and your own lack of understanding of EVE, which is fine, Salvos, you can do that all you like. It will remain as irrelevant as it was when you began posting.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Salvos Rhoska
#350 - 2017-01-04 10:28:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Diane Persis wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
So no rebuttal or refutation of valid, itemised, revelant argumwnts on the issue?

Ok the, they are all tabled then as uncontested.

If you wont take the effort to defend your position, you no longer have a position to defend.


It's not valid, your statement about how NPC AI "does this" as if this has always been the case and is logical, is simply not true. It's never been this way and it's no valid explanation other than you trying very hard to try and sound credible.

EVE is a player driven game, suddenly having NPC choose sides is against the sandbox idea. Just because someone is a miner doesn't mean he isn't capable, or isn't supposed to, take care of his own safety and well being by making friends and/or deals with others. Having CCP do that for them by rigging the game in regards to NPC is terrible.

The fact you've been trying this same " logic" several times before is a really good reason for someone to go "yeah yeah, disregarded".


NPC Corps have always reacted with a standing loss when you aggress them, or perform actions for other NPC Corps.
Th is an aggressive response, albeit not one of ship destruction.

NPC Corps have always defended themselves against attack.
NPC Corps have always immediately attacked a Mission runner that shows up to their site with hostile intent.
NPC Corps have always reacted with standing loss/improvement when PLAYERS perform actions in their favor/against them and their aligned NPC corps in the NPC web.

These are FACTS.

All of these are a direct result of player behavior.

Lol this poor attempt at cherrypicking points that are already explained in my post above.

Ypur position is categocirally and demonstrably false. Easily so.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#351 - 2017-01-04 10:30:10 UTC
Etain Darklightner Agittain wrote:


We'll stated. Arguments are, as I understand them, meant to be learned from. Debates are no different. That is essentially what he had stated on the first post. This individual derailed himself by taking time out to target people based on personal bias. Wonder what his eve board looks like....


I've already addressed everything he's said, and all he's done here is repeat those arguments I've already addressed. I haven't 'targeted' anyone that didn't either target me first, or engage in intellectually dishonest debate, like you're doing right now, except without the debate, because you haven't actually said anything on-point.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Etain Darklightner Agittain
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#352 - 2017-01-04 10:32:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Etain Darklightner Agittain
persis,

This does not occur in null sec. I'd hasten to remind you that npc mechanics, as far as player actions against said npc corp or player character who has joined an npc corp, still falls under what is acceptable. They do not, as far as I know, do this in null. It does not go against low sec npc mechanics.

Salvo's response was on point.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#353 - 2017-01-04 10:33:59 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Diane Persis wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
So no rebuttal or refutation of valid, itemised, revelant argumwnts on the issue?

Ok the, they are all tabled then as uncontested.

If you wont take the effort to defend your position, you no longer have a position to defend.


It's not valid, your statement about how NPC AI "does this" as if this has always been the case and is logical, is simply not true. It's never been this way and it's no valid explanation other than you trying very hard to try and sound credible.

EVE is a player driven game, suddenly having NPC choose sides is against the sandbox idea. Just because someone is a miner doesn't mean he isn't capable, or isn't supposed to, take care of his own safety and well being by making friends and/or deals with others. Having CCP do that for them by rigging the game in regards to NPC is terrible.

The fact you've been trying this same " logic" several times before is a really good reason for someone to go "yeah yeah, disregarded".


NPC Corps have always reacted with a standing loss when you aggress them, or perform actions for other NPC Corps.
Th is an aggressive response, albeit not one of ship destruction.

NPC Corps have always defended themselves against attack.
NPC Corps have always immediately attacked a Mission runner that shows up to their site with hostile intent.
NPC Corps have always reacted with standing loss/improvement when PLAYERS perform actions in their favor/against them and their aligned NPC corps in the NPC web.

These are FACTS.

All of these are a direct result of player behavior.

Lol this poor attempt at cherrypicking points that are already explained in my post above.

Ypur position is categocirally and demonstrably false. Easily so.


Yes, NPC corps become aggressive when you become hostile to the NPCs in them.

I'm going to explain, one last time for you Salvos, in the simplest terms possible, for your simple little mind, that I don't have a problem with this.

I'm not, however, going to repeat what the problem actually is, as I've stated it numerous times, again in very simple terms, for simple minds like yours to comprehend, throughout this thread. That you continue to misrepresent my positions here is a product of your own ignorance and/or intellectual dishonesty, which makes it a personal problem, and not mine. But it's exactly why I consider you less precious than wet dog crap.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Salvos Rhoska
#354 - 2017-01-04 10:36:20 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Etain Darklightner Agittain wrote:


We'll stated. Arguments are, as I understand them, meant to be learned from. Debates are no different. That is essentially what he had stated on the first post. This individual derailed himself by taking time out to target people based on personal bias. Wonder what his eve board looks like....


I've already addressed everything he's said, and all he's done here is repeat those arguments I've already addressed. I haven't 'targeted' anyone that didn't either target me first, or engage in intellectually dishonest debate, like you're doing right now, except without the debate, because you haven't actually said anything on-point.


No, you have not.

I have repeatedly proven your arguments false, misrepresentative, lacking and ultimately veiling a selfish niche interest of your particular content in EVE, rather than the overall good of the game.

You have categorically ignored rebuttals, and included personal insults and ad hominem in the overwhelming majority of your posts.

You arent interested in honest, civil discussion of the issue.
You are only interested in ignoring and insulting anyone that argues with you, as if those would constitute a defence of your position.

They dont.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Salvos Rhoska
#355 - 2017-01-04 10:39:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Diane Persis wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
So no rebuttal or refutation of valid, itemised, revelant argumwnts on the issue?

Ok the, they are all tabled then as uncontested.

If you wont take the effort to defend your position, you no longer have a position to defend.


It's not valid, your statement about how NPC AI "does this" as if this has always been the case and is logical, is simply not true. It's never been this way and it's no valid explanation other than you trying very hard to try and sound credible.

EVE is a player driven game, suddenly having NPC choose sides is against the sandbox idea. Just because someone is a miner doesn't mean he isn't capable, or isn't supposed to, take care of his own safety and well being by making friends and/or deals with others. Having CCP do that for them by rigging the game in regards to NPC is terrible.

The fact you've been trying this same " logic" several times before is a really good reason for someone to go "yeah yeah, disregarded".


NPC Corps have always reacted with a standing loss when you aggress them, or perform actions for other NPC Corps.
Th is an aggressive response, albeit not one of ship destruction.

NPC Corps have always defended themselves against attack.
NPC Corps have always immediately attacked a Mission runner that shows up to their site with hostile intent.
NPC Corps have always reacted with standing loss/improvement when PLAYERS perform actions in their favor/against them and their aligned NPC corps in the NPC web.

These are FACTS.

All of these are a direct result of player behavior.

Lol this poor attempt at cherrypicking points that are already explained in my post above.

Ypur position is categocirally and demonstrably false. Easily so.


Yes, NPC corps become aggressive when you become hostile to the NPCs in them.

I'm going to explain, one last time for you Salvos, in the simplest terms possible, for your simple little mind, that I don't have a problem with this.

I'm not, however, going to repeat what the problem actually is, as I've stated it numerous times, again in very simple terms, for simple minds like yours to comprehend, throughout this thread. That you continue to misrepresent my positions here is a product of your own ignorance and/or intellectual dishonesty, which makes it a personal problem, and not mine. But it's exactly why I consider you less precious than wet dog crap.


Nothing in ypur post refuted anything I argued.
They are thus tabled and conceded by you without contest.

State here, now, clearly and concisely, for the record, what your central points are.

Do not raise issue which have already been refuted, argued and quashed.
Only what remains as untabled outstanding points.

If you cant, then that is your intellectual dishonesty laid bare, are too simple and weak to articulate them feom what has already been refuted, and your position is the equivalent of you trying to serve us a wet dog crap put through a blender, and expecting us to swallow it.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Omar Alharazaad
New Eden Tech Support
#356 - 2017-01-04 10:39:41 UTC
Personally, the part that interests me is that a minority of the player populace can game this mechanic to provide them with NPC aid in PVP in high security space.
I'm talking deliberately, not incidentally.
Granted, setting the circumstances up to make it happen requires both work and luck. However, if you do pull it off you get a hotdrop of a friendly NPC fleet repping you without fear of losing their neutral logi... because they have the rest of their kill fleet present to defend said logi.

Mind you, it doesn't trouble me that this can be used as a trap.
What concerns me is that it is limited only to special snowflakes such as myself, or others who've ground like bloody murder to be deemed almost as awesome by DCM.
It's almost like CCP has decided that anyone who's not Deities is a scrub or something.

Come hell or high water, this sick world will know I was here.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#357 - 2017-01-04 10:43:42 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
I know you are you said you are so what am I.


Circles, Salvos, just more circles. You haven't said anything that I haven't refuted with my demonstrably superior knowledge and understanding of EVE Online, and those with a similar understanding can see this just fine. You can deny it all you want, throw all the tantrums that you want, and expatiate all the pretentious paragraphs you want in denial of it, the fact is, you're wrong.

Again, it's really as simple as, if this was an intended consequence of attacking players in low sec, then the response fleets would come when you attacked them. You and others keep saying, "oh this is fine for low sec", but not a one of you lives there, or goes there, or has anything to do with it. The nulbears and wh rats all think this is cute because why should they care? They won't go anywhere or even log in half the time without 300 or more of their buddies on standby anyway. And not a one of you has any demonstrable, credible solo PVP experience to speak of. I do find it highly amusing that the vast majority of people in disagreement/denial of this reality are in NPC corps, though (or in your case, starter corps).

Again, I'm not arguing against consequences, or the removal of consequences. I'm asking for them to be balanced. You know this, Salvos, and I know you know this, which is why I know you're being intentionally disingenuous with your argumentation. I know you're not actually stupid, but acting like you are won't help your case.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Salvos Rhoska
#358 - 2017-01-04 10:49:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
I know you are you said you are so what am I.


Circles, Salvos, just more circles. You haven't said anything that I haven't refuted with my demonstrably superior knowledge and understanding of EVE Online, and those with a similar understanding can see this just fine. You can deny it all you want, throw all the tantrums that you want, and expatiate all the pretentious paragraphs you want in denial of it, the fact is, you're wrong.

Again, it's really as simple as, if this was an intended consequence of attacking players in low sec, then the response fleets would come when you attacked them. You and others keep saying, "oh this is fine for low sec", but not a one of you lives there, or goes there, or has anything to do with it. The nulbears and wh rats all think this is cute because why should they care? They won't go anywhere or even log in half the time without 300 or more of their buddies on standby anyway. And not a one of you has any demonstrable, credible solo PVP experience to speak of. I do find it highly amusing that the vast majority of people in disagreement/denial of this reality are in NPC corps, though (or in your case, starter corps).

Again, I'm not arguing against consequences, or the removal of consequences. I'm asking for them to be balanced. You know this, Salvos, and I know you know this, which is why I know you're being intentionally disingenuous with your argumentation. I know you're not actually stupid, but acting like you are won't help your case.


To our distinguished panel,

Remiel refused to concisely express his remaining outstanding and central points.

He refused this sincere offer and challenge to re-assert his position as an evolution of 18 pages worth of discussions, in favor of typical ad hominem, insults, irrelevancies, generalisations, appeal to repetition and other disingenuous methods.

He could have done so, and returned the discussion to his central points.
He refused, and instead submitted the piece of stinking, unusable excrement above.

This proves his intellectual dishonesty, un-tenability of his position, that he has no interest in debate/argumentation of the facts and issues, and is trying to serve us a dog-**** smoothie and expecting us to swallow it.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#359 - 2017-01-04 10:53:12 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
I know you are you said you are so what am I.


Circles, Salvos, just more circles. You haven't said anything that I haven't refuted with my demonstrably superior knowledge and understanding of EVE Online, and those with a similar understanding can see this just fine. You can deny it all you want, throw all the tantrums that you want, and expatiate all the pretentious paragraphs you want in denial of it, the fact is, you're wrong.

Again, it's really as simple as, if this was an intended consequence of attacking players in low sec, then the response fleets would come when you attacked them. You and others keep saying, "oh this is fine for low sec", but not a one of you lives there, or goes there, or has anything to do with it. The nulbears and wh rats all think this is cute because why should they care? They won't go anywhere or even log in half the time without 300 or more of their buddies on standby anyway. And not a one of you has any demonstrable, credible solo PVP experience to speak of. I do find it highly amusing that the vast majority of people in disagreement/denial of this reality are in NPC corps, though (or in your case, starter corps).

Again, I'm not arguing against consequences, or the removal of consequences. I'm asking for them to be balanced. You know this, Salvos, and I know you know this, which is why I know you're being intentionally disingenuous with your argumentation. I know you're not actually stupid, but acting like you are won't help your case.


To our distinguished panel,

I refuse to acknowledge Remiel's points because it would mean actually representing them correctly in my arguments.

This proves my intellectual dishonesty, untenability [sic] of my position, that I have no interest in debate/argumentation of the facts and issues (let alone an understanding of them), and am trying to pretend I know more than I do.


FTFY

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Salvos Rhoska
#360 - 2017-01-04 10:57:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
There is nothing left to discuss on this issue with OP.

All matters in it have been debated, quashed, refuted and tabled over 18 pages.

In that period, Remiel has repeatedly ignored and insulted every single person that has attempted to participate but with whom he disagrees, rather than arguing the points they raised.

Remiel was offered a sincere opportunity to concisely re-assert his remaining outstanding central positions, so as to re-invigorate the discussion on those.

He refused to do so, which means there is nothing left to discuss.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent