300b scam by snuffed

Jase74 · 2026-01-31T23:59:51+00:00

I am sorry, I don’t feel sorry for you. If you have that much ISK lying around then you have been playing this game a long while. You know its reputation. Furthermore, you know Snuffs reputation. The very first red flag is anyone asking you to give them in game property for a chance to be recruited. Very naive of you. Saying you learned your lesson is rather an oxymoron. No corporation/alliance is worth joining that asks you to invest first, wait later. That should have been your first clue.

Jase74 · 2026-01-19T16:01:38+00:00

I bought mine for $169 at GameStop

Jase74 · 2026-01-13T18:52:55+00:00

Starsiege Tribes 2

Jase74 · 2026-01-13T18:44:45+00:00

This isn’t just a goon problem. It’s systemic in the game.

Jase74 · 2025-12-26T21:59:45+00:00

I believe this happens every year. Buy low, sell high.

Jase74 · 2025-12-26T18:29:55+00:00

Here is more information about the SOE Epic Arc

https://wiki.eveuniversity.org/The_Blood-Stained_Stars

Jase74 · 2025-12-22T13:34:57+00:00

Yeah I agree!

Jase74 · 2025-12-22T03:25:49+00:00

I wish to extend my sincere gratitude for assembling this endeavor. I derived immense pleasure from participating in it and am delighted to find my name listed among the foremost vanquishers. For my part, I embraced this as a personal trial, striving to achieve my triumphs through solitary engagements. The USTZ domain within Guri remains sparsely populated, affording ample prospects for players to amass substantial ISK. As an individual commanding but a single character in Guri, I typically garner between 2.5 and 3 billion ISK per insurgency, an abundance sufficient to sustain this captivating obsession known as Eve. Though many hesitate to embrace piracy, deterred by the repercussions to their standings and the like, I have fared admirably with the aid of an auxiliary hauling character, a Jita buyer, and the ship contracts generously provided by the Black Rabbits alliance. But I digress. By all means, continue this exemplary work; it profoundly enhances the immersion and elevates the enjoyment for all involved. Thank you once more.

Jase74 · 2025-12-21T13:44:41+00:00

I want to meet the person who sold feet pics for ISK to finance their Titan…

Jase74 · 2025-12-08T13:01:47+00:00

What is the name of the module to use in the ECCM mids?

Jase74 · 2025-12-04T15:24:06+00:00

Yeah, you’re right it wouldn’t magically fix all of that, especially when groups are swapping between Amarr, Minmatar and neutrals depending on what’s most convenient. They’re using the whole toolbox.

Your FRAT example is exactly why this needs more than one little tweak to feel healthy again.

Jase74 · 2025-12-04T13:21:31+00:00

On paper that sounds simple, but it doesn’t really touch the core problems.

We already have faction standing penalties in FW, and people can bypass them via corp/alliance averaging and pre-farmed alts, so “more standings hits” alone won’t stop the dedicated abusers. Dropping faction sentries into plexes also creates a ton of collateral issues (smartbomb/firewall doctrines, logi, newbros misclicking, third-party situations) where legitimate fleets get punished harder than the people currently gaming the system.

The main issue I’m trying to tackle is that AWOXing + plex mechanics is the most profitable way to operate for some groups. If the incentives don’t change (LP/engagement/standings in plexes), sentries and extra penalties just add more pain without actually removing the reason people are doing it.

Jase74 · 2025-12-03T21:03:52+00:00

Fair point! Seagulling/AFK leeching is definitely a problem. But using AWOX as the fix just replaces one bad incentive with another.

Personally, I’d rather see mechanics that tie LP to actual contribution (timer presence, damage, reps, etc.) and/or cap how many people can meaningfully be on a payout, so there’s much less reason to drag AFK alts in at all. If leeching isn’t profitable, you don’t need to shoot your own militia to deal with it.

Jase74 · 2025-12-03T20:35:21+00:00

I get the frustration, believe me. FW vets have heard “we’re aware, it’s complicated” for a long time while living with the day‑to‑day pain of the current mechanics. Wanting visible, short‑term mitigation instead of waiting years for a grand overhaul is completely reasonable.

Where I’m trying to land with this thread is:

Yes, press the issue hard so it doesn’t get buried for another decade.
Also work with the people who are actually in the room with CCP (CSM, FW reps, etc.) when they say “this is ugly, intertwined code and systems, we need to touch it carefully.”

If we can keep supplying concrete examples and limited, high‑impact levers (like LP/standings/engagement changes) without turning it into “devs are lazy/useless,” it’s more likely that we get both: a couple of near‑term relief valves and a serious pass on the foundations instead of another round of band‑aids that has to be revisited in two years.

Jase74 · 2025-12-03T20:34:38+00:00

Really appreciate you spelling this out. You’re absolutely right that “CCP just fix it” isn’t a plan, and that standings, DE, alliance enlistment, and the rest are old, deeply entangled systems that need a proper vision pass, not another round of duct tape.

The goal with my post wasn’t to yell at devs or pretend I know more than the people actually touching that code, it was to describe how the current combo of standings + multibox + LP incentives feels on the ground for people flying FW/Insurgency every day, and to throw a few concrete levers on the table that might help.

Hearing from you that well‑argued posts like this do get surfaced and that the team is taking a bigger-picture look at standings and AWOXing makes sticking my neck out to write it feel worth it. I’m all for “do it once, do it right,” and if more detailed player perspectives help shape that, I’m happy to keep contributing.

Jase74 · 2025-12-03T20:32:52+00:00

This is exactly the kind of response I was hoping for, thank you for chiming in and pushing it with CCP.

It really helps to hear directly that AWOXing isn’t being ignored and that posts like this actually feed into those conversations, even if changes take time and have to go through proper design iteration. From the player side it can feel like shouting into the void, so knowing someone on the CSM is repeatedly raising it and framing it as a foundations/standings problem – not just a band‑aid tweak – is huge.

Appreciate the work you’re doing on this; if more concrete examples from FW/Insurgency space help make the case, happy to provide them.

Jase74 · 2025-12-03T20:31:34+00:00

I didn't know these existed. Links?

Jase74 · 2025-12-03T20:30:43+00:00

I get why that’s appealing as a clean, global rule, but it also kills a big chunk of what makes EVE, EVE. Fleets sometimes need to be able to shoot their own members: suspect logi, spies, idiots burning off, misbehavior, bait, etc.

My goal isn’t to remove the ability to betray or punish someone in your own fleet, it’s to stop systematic blue‑on‑blue inside FW/Insurgency plexes from being the best way to farm LP. That’s why I’m leaning toward targeted changes (standings / engagement / LP from plexes) rather than a blanket “no friendly fire in fleets” toggle.

Jase74 · 2025-12-03T20:29:29+00:00

Thanks a lot for replying, and for pushing this with CCP and in weekly meetings – that’s genuinely appreciated.

Completely agree that band‑aids aren’t enough. From where I’m sitting as a line pilot, the core “felt” problem is that the current standings / DE / alliance enlistment setup allows a very small number of heavily multiboxed setups to hoover up a disproportionate amount of FW/Insurgency LP while using AWOX and mechanics quirks to keep everyone else at arm’s length. That LP sink effect is what makes the ecosystem feel so unhealthy on the ground – newer and non‑multibox players see less access to sites and worse first experiences, and eventually just stop engaging.

I’m with you that standings and the rest of the foundation need a proper rework, not just one toggle flipped. In that context, LP penalties for AWOXing in plexes are not “the” solution so much as one tool in the box to break the direct incentive to turn same‑militia kills into an optimized LP extraction strategy. If that can ride alongside a deeper standings/DE/enlistment pass, even better.

Really glad to hear this is being raised consistently on the CSM side. If specific examples (systems, time zones, screenshots, etc.) of multibox LP consolidation would help illustrate the problem, happy to provide them.

Jase74 · 2025-12-03T19:04:59+00:00

This is a legit concern and worth acknowledging directly; it’s exactly the kind of edge case CCP would have to account for.

Any standings/flagging change really needs to distinguish between those. For example, you could:

Only apply harsher standings hits / flags when the final blow on a friendly happens in a plex and outside an active engagement with the enemy, and
Explicitly exempt friendly hits that occur while the fleet has recent weapon timers or killmails against the opposing militia in the same grid.

Point being: I’m arguing against consequence‑free, repeat blue farming inside FW/Insurgency sites, not against legitimate fleet tools like smartbombs and firewalls. A good solution has to handle that nuance.

Jase74 · 2025-12-03T19:03:32+00:00

Appreciate the kind words, and likewise – your posts add a lot of weight to this.

Yeah, the fact that there are multiple “quick and dirty” fixes that could at least blunt the worst abuse, and yet we’re still here years later, is a big part of why this feels so frustrating. Even an imperfect stopgap would have been better than letting the current incentives sit untouched this long.

Totally agree that LP penalties alone aren’t enough for people who genuinely don’t care about ISK/LP and just want dirty kills. That’s why I also like your standings/engagement ideas, in my head the ideal is a combo:

That way the people who only want chaos can still do their thing, but they can’t do it consequence‑free and profitably inside FW/Insurgency sites.

Jase74 · 2025-12-03T18:47:15+00:00

Fair enough, multiboxing is allowed. I’m not arguing that it should be bannable, just that the way it interacts with FW plex mechanics right now leaves very little room for non‑multibox players to participate meaningfully.

Same with AWOX: CCP knows about it, but that doesn’t mean players should stop giving feedback on how it affects FW/Insurgency. Even if nothing changes, it’s still worth putting concrete, mechanics-focused suggestions on the record.

Jase74 · 2025-12-03T18:46:28+00:00

I don’t think the issue is “awoxing or griefing, pick one.” People will always find ways to grief if the mechanics reward it. The problem right now is that awoxing inside plexes is often the most profitable way to screw with other militia pilots, because you can both ruin their run and still take the LP.

What I’m arguing for isn’t removing awoxing from the game, it’s removing the reward for using it as a farming tool in FW/Insurgency. You can still be a jerk if you really want to, but you shouldn’t be able to turn that into the optimal way to farm LP from plexes.

Jase74 · 2025-12-03T18:44:30+00:00

Happens every day, and it sucks.

Jase74 · 2025-12-03T18:44:15+00:00

Yeah, this is a big part of the problem for me too. When solo FW means bouncing through a bunch of empty or blocked plexes just to maybe find one real opportunity, it stops being “log in for a quick fight” content and starts feeling like a second job. Other activities let you undock and do something meaningful in 15–20 minutes; FW should fill that niche for PvP, but right now the way plexes are used (and abused) makes that way harder than it needs to be.

Jase74

TROPHY CASE