High-sec piracy should be more complex and interesting

PvP Gameplay Center Warfare & Tactics
1

Non-consensual PVP is good. Ganking would be richer and more interesting if expanded and balanced.

INTERDICTION:

Being tackled in a PVE fit ship feels awful. With some changes, we could make it feel far less bad, without altering the game too much. These would have far-reaching impacts on the game, enough to warrant their own post, but they impact ganking so I included them here.

CHANGES:

Scrambling and disruption should increase align time. Said increase in aline time should scale with range. At 0 km the increase in align time should be 1300%. At 25 km the increase in a line time should be 300%.

Disruptors should have a 50km range. At 50km, the increase in align time is 30%.
Scrams should have a 30kmm range. At 30km, align time increases 20%.

Effects would stack. Two disruptors at 0km would increase align time by 2600%. Two disruptors at 50km would increase it by 60%.

Additionally, victims have a 1.5% chance of making a “critical” alignment calculation which automatically propels them into hyperspace.

(additional interdiction tool introduced in later section)

EFFECTS:

When you get tackled in an economic or pve ship, in the back of your mind, you can still hope to escape. That hope alone makes getting tackled in an economic ship feel much less bad.

More ganking victims would escape vs. current mechanics. But the increase in range would allow gankers to catch more potential victims too. Hunters in null and low in particular would catch people they currently wouldn’t.

Additionally, I think that more people will be willing to engage in PvP more often if there is a greater chance that they can escape if they are about to lose. Some of these fights would end without a kill. But more fights would happen. I have personally engaged hunters in my PVP domi simply because i had an MJW.

The traditional catalyst ganking fleets won’t be altered much by these, beyond losing 1.5% of their prey. They warp in at 0, and all fit points.

Concord response:

I think the way that Concord and FacPo currently operates in response to piracy could be a hell of a lot more fun and interactive.

The main problem I see is that Concord ends ganks/attacks too fast. I think there is a lot of opportunity for fun interactions between gankers and victims that concord currently denies. (next section details new tools that victims can use to defend themselves for longer, to balance out this increased concord response time).

CHANGES:

Reduce concord response times by 60%.

Reduce concord response strength by 60%

Stagger concord ship arrival by ship size. Concord frigs arrive first, then cruisers, then larger ships.

Concord response ships pull from a set pool of ships.

Concord brings some logi ships to try to save victims

EFFECTS:

SCENARIO: A Care Bear is munching rocks in proc. A pirate with a five catalyst fleet targets him him. The gank begins. The proc is fitted properly with tank modules. X seconds into the fight, two Concord frigs land on grid. The pirate now has a gameplay decision to make: Target and kill the frigs, in order to preserve his catalysts as long as possible, or keep fire focused on the victim. X seconds into the fight the first Concord cruisers show up: one DPS and one logistics ship. Again the gameplay decision: Target logi or keep fire on proc? From the victims standpoint, he is approaching the halfway point of being aligned to escape, and the logistics ship means that he might get there. It’s a bad spot but all hope is not yet lost.

Expanding on this, let’s further imagine that our pirate friend has two more pirate friends with 14 more catalysts lurking in the system. They warp in on the fight and manage to defeat the Concord friggs and cruisers. The increase in criminals triggers addition all concord ships to deploy to the fight. Three BCs land on grid… The proc slips away, but the pirates are thinking bigger now. They kill the Concorde battle cruisers and manag to warp a few catalysts a way to safety just yet more Concorde forces show up.
Why would they bother attacking Concorde over an actual player? Because it will take 24 hours for those Concord frigs to respawn, 2 days for the cruisers to respawn, and 3 days for the battle cruisers to respawn. Until then, Concorde responses in that system will be even weaker. That opens up further opportunities for the pirates to apply their trade with less interference from the law. And, should they manage to kill all concord forces in a system, they will effectively own the system for a few days, until the empire that owns the system deploys a massive fleet to take it back.

Alternatively, the gankers could simply ignore concord and focus on the gank, just like they do with current mechanics.

Victim Defense:

To balance the above section, let’s introduce new tools to make it possible for victims to survive until concord arrives to POTENTIALLY save them.

CHANGES:

Introducing the ORE damage mitigation drug. It is a consumable item that costs somewhere between 5 and 10 million isk (medium). When consumed it boosts a ship’s resistances to 85% for 7 seconds. It can be consumed straight from the cargo hold. This creates a meaningful gameplay decision for the victim once they are tackled. Do you start burning these suckers back to back in order to hold out and get rescued by Concord no matter the price? Do you try to strategically time using these so that you use as few as possible while enabling Concorde to save you (assuming Concord is even coming)? There will be a small, medium and large version. Large ships can use the small version but will receive only a fraction of the benefit and larger versions will cost much more. Small ships can’t use large versions.

Introducing the ORE evasive maneuvers capsule. It’s another consumable item taken from the cargo hold that teleports your ship 25 km in a random direction. Again these are expensive. Creating a bit of distance will give you a bit of respite from those neutron blasters and allow you to up your alignment speed by placing you farther away from the screams and disruptors. But will it be enough? Will those catalysts catch up to you? Maybe those suckers will spread out a bit in order to anticipate your next micro jump. Only ships smaller than freighters or orcas will be small enough to actually utilize this device.

larger ships like freighters and orcas will have access to the brand new ORE hyper mirror device. When consumed this device turns a ship’s Shields, armor OR hull into a metaphysical substance capable of reflecting incoming damage back at attackers. The effect lasts for 10 seconds but it has after effects which then reduce a ship’s resistances of the affected area by 50% for 8 seconds. So if you use a “shield” hyper mirror your shield becomes the mirror but then your shield receives the subsequent Nerf. Complacent pirates might lose an entire fleet to their own blasters. Competent ones will hold fire and then smash their target once the effect has worn off. There is a cool down between using like types of this component - use one of the shield mirrors and you have to wait 40 seconds between using another shield mirror. It’s also extremely expensive costing over 90 million isk per unit.

EFFECTS:

It takes longer for concord to save victims. Now victims have ways of staying alive until that happens. Ganks are less “oh i died in two seconds” and more of a back-and-forth game of cat and mouse, where either side might come out ahead.

I didn’t bother trying to think of cool names for these components, the lore doesn’t interest me.

Sec Status:

In my original post I didn’t realize that the faction police were a thing. After reading about them, I think they are too restrictive.

The problem I see here is that there is no good way for people to counter-hunt gankers, because most gankers keep their fleets docked until the moment comes to strike their prey. PVP between gankers and anti-gankers could be a rich area of gameplay. I think it is currently restricted by FacPo and security status mechanics.

CHANGES:

Reduce FacPo response time drastically, but scale it by size of criminal fleet. A single criminal catalyst would be attacked by FacPo after 10 minutes on-grid. A fleet of 50 criminals would be attacked by FacPo after 2.5 minutes on-grid.

Warping to another point in a given system would reset the FacPo clock.

If a criminal docs at a player station you own, your own security status takes a hit.

Criminals can bribe officials at NPC stations in order to dock. A catalyst docking bribe should be approx 500.000 isk. A typhoon would be 4,000,000. Once docked, the ship can stay there for 12 hours, at which point the bribe would automatically be paid again. Similar bribes can allow criminals to dock at player stations without the owner of the station taking a security status hit.

Criminals can bribe FacPo officials to ignore them for periods of time. Two hours of time would cost the same as docking.

If a player with a high sec status attacks one with a low sec status, the sec hit to the attacker should be proportionately much smaller. Basically, empires frown upon vigilantism… but ignore it somewhat.

These changes apply to high-sec only.

EFFECTS:

Ganking fleets are now financially incentivized to keep their attack fleets in space while in high-sec, where anti-gankers can actually fight them.

Ganking fleets could be staged in low-sec systems cheaply and easily, until the time comes to venture into high sec to gank.

Docking at player-stations is technically still possible, but much harder to manage in the long run. I’m not sure if sec status affects a player’s ability to anchor a station currently. If not, then it should. Low sec-status players should have to pay daily bribes to keep their station in empire space, bribes that scale with how low your sec status is.

Evasive Piracy

I think it would be great fun if there was an option to steal from players without concord involvement, without taking a sec status hit, and even without destroying your victim’s ship.

CHANGES:

Introducing the Serapentis “quiet” maladaptive gel. It can be applied to existing weapons and modules When applied to a weapon it will decrease the overall DPS of that weapon by 50%… But in exchange firing that weapon on a capsuleer will not automatically be detected by Concorde. Instead there will be a probability of 2% per cycle that Concord will even notice that weapons are being fired in the system. In addition, Concord will have to work harder to pinpoint exactly where these quieter weapons are being used, so concord response time will increase by 75% as long as only quiet weapons are used.

Apply this gel to a warp disruptor and the disruptor will slow its targets allige time 50% less effectively… but there will only be a 15% chance per cycle time that Concord will notice that violence is happening.

Multiple quiet gels can be applied to the same weapon or module and the effects will stack proportionately. You could end up with a neutron blaster that only does 5% of the max damage but will be able to fire for very long periods and effectively never be noticed by Concord.

Introducing the guarista cargo hacking module. Each cycle time gives a 15% chance to force the victim to eject a random amount of a random cargo. Each cycle time also brings a 0.5% chance of forcing its victim to eject a random module. The can that is created from ejected cargo will not be accessible by the victim.

Introducing the angel cartel quiet mobile bubble device. It creates a bubble similar to the null-sec version, but this bubble only has a 4% chance of pulling a ship that passes through them out of warp drive. Ships that land in this bubble will still be able to warp, but with a 20% increase to aline time. These cost more than their null-sec version, around 35mil each. Each minute that it is operating in high-sec brings a 5% chance that Concord will notice it and once they do they will show up to destroy it within 4 minutes. This bubble device will show up on overviews, however, so anti-gankers will be able to warp directly too it as soon as its in operation.

EFFECTS:

Taken together these mechanics represents a whole new way of approaching piracy. Tackle your victim without Concorde noticing. Extract valuables from them without interference. And if you leave the scene before Concorde shows up then none of this activity will affect your security status. Gankers could actually take every bit of cargo and every module from a victim, without having to rely on the loot fairy to reward their efforts. Imagine the salt you’ll get as you slowly but surely relive that blingy pve marauder of all its purple mods.

From the victim’s side, being stripped of everything but your ship is preferable to losing everything. And the longer you stay alive, the better than chances are that you can call some friends to help you out, or survive until anti-gankers or even concord come to your rescue.

In short, these mechanics could be more profitable for gankers, less ruinous for victims, and be a focal point of pvp interactions that currently aren’t possible.

The new mobile bubble device gives gankers a way to tackle haulers without having to pull concord. I always though “pulling” concord was a silly mechanic. In addition, it could act as a focal point of conflict between gankers and anti-gankers.

One of the major benefits of this new quiet approach to high-sec piracy as I see it as that it will prolong piracy engagements. Now will be time for dialogue between pirates and victims in high-sec. Can you extore your victim, or would they rather die than send you isk?

Vigilantism

One more new mechanic to promote anti-ganker pvp opportunities.

Introducing the sisters of Eve distress beacon. This is a consumable item that when ejected from a cargo hold creates a warp signature that anybody in the system can warp directly to. So if you are a victim, but you have friends in the system or you reach out on local and find that there are some pirate hunters in the system, you can eject a distressed beacon that will show up on the overview that the good guys can warp to.

Uses of quiet weaponry should be a statistic that shows up on the star map, just like how many ships or pods are destroyed in a given system

In Conclusion

So how would these reimagined mechanics alter Eve?

I think that traditional ganking activity would be reduced, but not eliminated. Since the costs of traditional ganking would increase then profit motivated gankers would have to work harder and would probably engage in less ganking, and some might shift to evasive piracy.

Kill motivated gankers could simply ignore all of these changes. And that’s okay.

In my mind, piracy as an activity would probably increase in high sec.

I think these mechanics could also lead to more PVP content in general occurring in high sec.

I would love to see some powerful pirate groups throwing their weight around against Concord and some heroic ant-pirates rise up to try to stop them.

Would high SEC be a more dangerous place than it is now? Yes and no. The average player would probably face more piracy interactions overall, but the consequences of those interactions on average would probably be less catastrophic than they are now.

One last thing: please try to evaluate these changes in totality. If you pick out one of the mechanics above and place it into the game all by itself, it will definitely be unbalanced in some way. I have tried to think about all the above changes so that some changes are balanced out by other changes which are balanced out by other changes.

2

I’ve edited my original wall of text. Hopefully it is digestible now.

3

Tldr.

5 Likes
4

a fair summation

7 Likes
5

rework to scrams so the delay align as opposed to stopping warp. range determines effectiveness.

Being able to bribe concord to overlook ganks.

a consumbale that basically acts like an assault damage control

Thats roughly when i gave up.

6 Likes
6

I appreciate that you care enough about piracy to write so many words about possible improvements to it. However, I think you don’t have the solid grasp on the current mechanics that you really need to come up with viable alternatives.

First of all, it’s apparent that when you say “piracy”, you are referring specifically to suicide ganking. Ganking is obviously only one activity out of many that most players would consider piracy.

There’s no way I could possibly address everything, but I’ll just touch on a few points which really reveal your own lack of experience and understanding of the current system.

You want CONCORD to scam down players with low security status in highsec, so they constantly need to evade NPCs, making it more difficult to operate. It’s almost as if you have never heard of the faction police. In short, this mechanic already exists. They are just called FacPo rather than CONCORD.

You think the cost of security tags is negligible and needs to be raised. It would be obvious to everyone who has ever needed security tags that in fact they are a significant expense. Formerly, the only way to raise security status was to grind rats, often for weeks at a time. This was a massive punishment, not only to suicide gankers, but to anyone who ever PvPed in lowsec. The current prices of sec tags are actually pretty well balanced so as to be punitive but not prohibitive.

You want CONCORD response to be changed into a scenario where gankers are getting involved in battles with NPCs. People choose piratical playstyles because they don’t want to do PVE. Forcing PVE fights on PvPers is a non-starter. Two thumbs down. We’re here to shoot at players.

You want warp disruption to be chance based. Many non-ganking piracy styles involve interdicting a ship and holding it until the pilot pays ransom. If the mark can simply stall a minute or two until your warp disruptor stops working, why would they ever pay ransom?

I could go on. There’s some merit to some of your ideas but a lot of this is just you not knowing very much about the current state of EVE piracy and ganking. I strongly suggest that you make ganking your primary playstyle for a few months, learn the mechanics and the history, and then revisit all this.

One thing everyone needs to understand is that ganking is at an all-time low. We’re on the tail end of dozens of nerfs to the playstyle over a period of two decades. The only reason that it still happens at all is because a decade ago, James 315 saw that ganking was going the way of the dodo and organized a team of gankers financed by a huge crowdfunding project to preserve the playstyle. Then after James’ untimely death (peace be upon him), others like Princess Aiko stepped up to the plate to continue and iterate on the project.

Any nerfs intended to make ganking more difficult at this stage would be extremely misguided. The “ganking problem” isn’t that ganking is too easy, it’s that it is too hard.

5 Likes
7

The side effects of your proposed warp scram/disruptor are so large and deep that in discussing this idea alone ganking is such a tiny part of the conversation. If your first idea was a prescription medicine, “death” would be listed in fine print as a side effect. Which probably should be called out and highlighted for its wider impact.

Well then I encourage you to actually do piracy in Eve and learn. Low sec status means faction police pursue you. The rest of your second idea focuses only on Concord but doesn’t at all deal with the status quo of there being 3 things for you to consider: Concord, Faction Police, Faction Navy. A lot of good effort but perhaps undermined from the get-go due to a lack of understanding of current mechanics.

The problem with your third idea is that the “throwing the PVP-ers a bone” is “throw more PVE at them”. That already happens today: you can rat and get sec status back up above -2 or above 0. This is boring though, hence the ability for folks to pay off Concord already with tags. Which was neither mentioned in your sec status novel, nor in this third idea. So you can already pay Concord off. See my previous point about you doing piracy to learn the mechanics.

Plus, the point is that there are people that want to PVP, they don’t want to PVE. Gating PVP behind PVE only increases the problems of today, where people feel the need to mindlessly grind doing PVE and then magically they’ll reach a point where their mentality, like a butterfly, metamorphosizes and suddenly they go into “PVP-mode”. That rarely happens, instead usually a person makes up their mind about PVP and that’s that. The actual problem is that PVP rewards are not nearly obvious, consistent, nor high enough to entice people that “PVE grind to fund their PVP” to just skip wasting their time with PVE and just PVP.

And if pirates want to do PVE, they spin up an alt and do it there. Concord PVE getting in the way of PVP isn’t appealing.

Your fourth point is tackling “the big problem”? This is how PVP work in general and is not specific to ganking. You’re essentially calling all PVP in Eve a problem, because the only way fights happen is at least one of the belligerents thinks they have a solid shot of winning, regardless what the other belligerent thinks/wishes/desires. And most fights are one beliligerent choosing to engage, not both.

Also, this statement reflects a kind of helpless mentality. “The fight is already over”. The only thing I’ll say is: no matter how many fancy mechanics you add to this game, there will always be a kind of player who thinks “I’m just gonna YOLO my ■■■■ across high sec and hope to Bob it gets there safely and if I get ganked then that’s that, the fight will be over from the get-go”. You can only lead a horse to water, as they say.

You also see this â– â– â– â–  mentality in the form of empty-frigates in FW plexes and 100MN filamenting ESS robbing stabbers that just rely on turning active rewards into passive ones as much as possible, and geared for escaping.

2 Likes
8

First of all you are correct everything I wrote is concerning ganking in high sec. I really didn’t think about low sex no SEC worm holes or any other area of space. I will amend my initial post to reflect this thank you.

I don’t see the Concord changes as forcing PVE on PVP players. I’m proposing that Concorde respond more slowly and with fewer ships than they currently do. If traditional ganking is your goal then you would be free to simply ignore Concorde forces as they destroy your catalysts - just the way people do now.

Why would a Target pay Ransom if they could escape in a minute or two? Because if you both know they can do that then you’ll just destroy them before they get away and scoop up whatever the loot fairy drops. But because it’s chance-based neither of you knows exactly when he’ll slip away so you’ve both got to make gameplay decisions can he stall you long enough? When do you turn your neutron blasters on full force?

You are correct that I do not engage in the piracy playstyle. It’s all of this is just something that I have been thinking about for a while and I thought I would write it down just for fun. I appreciate that you don’t see me as a knowledgeable participants in this arena however I don’t think that anything is harmed by me writing a forum post. I do appreciate that you’ve taken the time to respond to some specific points!

9

I don’t think that all PVP in Eva is a problem. However I do think that the changes I propose to scrams and disruptors would make it more interesting. Perhaps that is a personal opinion that others don’t share. And that’s fine! I certainly would not remove scrams and disruptors from the game. If anything the way they currently are is a bit too limited imo, I see them actually being more capable of interdiction the way I’ve described them due to the large range buff.

I think you’re dead on in the way you’ve described the mentality of two prospective belligerents leading into how fights form. It’s almost always one person killing another as opposed to two people thinking they can both win. But I view this current status quo as curtailing potential content, not just in high SEC piracy but across the board. I would certainly take more risks if I knew that I might get away if I bite off more than I can chew. And I think especially newer players would as well. If I’m in a ship and I see another ship on d-scan and I don’t know whether or not I will win I will simply not engage because experience has taught me that not knowing whether or not I can win means I definitely won’t and that means the certain loss of my ship. Elite pvpers know what they can attack and know what they can beat, but newer players are probably hesitant to risk expensive (to them) combat ships in the current meta because being lacking knowledge usually means losing ships.

10

I hate to say it but if your ship is fit for Pve and not PVP then odds are overwhelming that anyone who attacks you is going to kill you. This is a fundamental thing that I think curtails content in Eve: grinding out ask is such a challenge that you almost have to mold your entire fit towards maximizing isk per hour, but doing that means that you won’t want to fight anybody at all with that ship because anybody who attacks you will definitely be fit for PVp and will therefore have a huge advantage over you. Maybe if CCP loosened the purse strings and allowed players to collect isk faster than people wouldn’t mind mixing in some PVP modules with their PVP ships. But in current meta being tackled in a PVE ship is heartbreaking.

11

That’s a self-defeating mental block everyone has to overcome at some point. If your only experience in PVP are the “I’m sure I will win” then you won’t learn the boundaries of what a ship can do – and the surprising outcomes where a ship can “punch up” so to speak.

I do my PVE in a PVP fit ship. It sacrifices the “min-max mentality” for being able to dictate range control. Other people make conscious choices and think there the “PVE fit” should be standard when really it is truly greedy.

1 Like
12

I have done my share of farming FW plexus in empty unfit frigates. Grinding isk is hard! I’ve also done my share of plexing in FW in fully fit destroyers. I didn’t choose unfit frigates because I thought I was helpless I did it because I was doing something else other than being at the computer. I kind of hate that AFK playstyles are kind of necessary in Eve but I’ve come to accept that they are some of the best ways to grind disc because they allow you to utilize found time instead of having to spend all your active play time grinding isk. So the next time you find an empty frig in that FW Plex… Well just think of them as a bot or something I suppose not another player.

13

Last one for now: regarding your point about changing scrims and disruptors being a huge point that merits his own discussion. Yep. I’ve honestly felt that scrams and disruptors are underpowered for a while now, and I think these changes would help them. I would also make the same kind of change to webifiers. Double the range but have a fall off mechanic where at 40 km you’re not slowing them down very much at all.

Anyways my question to you is… You say my scram and warp disruptor changes would be huge… How do you see it playing out? Big changes can be good.

14
  1. Verisimilitude- Games aren’t designed and balanced for verisimilitude. It’s why we have a endless stream of memes making fun of video game logic. Moreover, it’s kind of funny how most people don’t seem to care about it unless looking for justifications to nerf their enemies. I mean, where are the endless streams of people asking for the submarine physics in space to be changed?
  2. Asymmetric Game Play- Yeah, it’s called asymmetric game play, and it’s not inherently bad. In fact, most people don’t tend to mind it so much in most games. Suddenly it’s a huge problem though when it comes to getting ganked in Eve. Wonder why? Regardless, if you don’t like it, we can get rid of it by getting rid of the mechanic that causes it -concord. But, of course, players don’t want that. So they come up with all sorts of schemes to nerf ganking more.
  3. Nerfing Scrams and Points- Yeah, let’s change how points and scrams work for the entire game, and give a huge buff to PvP avoidance because some players can’t figure out the trivially easy task of not figuring out how to be ganker bait. Because, you know what this game needs -less risk, less challenge, more ways to escape the negative consequences of poor play, less PvP, and fewer kills.
  4. Sec Status- Yeah, if sec status penalties don’t matter, you should have no problem with us getting rid of the downsides that are in place -right? Sigh. So, sec status makes it extremely difficult to gank people that get off the beacon/warp in point, prevents them from loitering on gates/grids, makes it so that anti-gankers can kill them just by tackling them, or requires them to buy tags, which is a huge operating expense for active gankers. But that’s not good enough, because we’re trying to kill ganking, not balance it. And not for nothing, but your suggestion demonstrates a lack of understanding about how gankers operate. Because they already can’t linger anywhere for more than a few seconds without being tethered because of Facpo. And, if they’re tethered, that just means they can dock. You do not understand the play style that you are trying to change nuke.
  5. Newbros shouldn’t be coddled. It stunts their growth as players, and gives them more time to accumulate wealth, helping to ensure that their first losses will be even more painful. You are not helping newbros, you are sabotaging them.
  6. Ganking Ganking doesn’t need to be made more expensive. It’s already really easy to make yourself an unprofitable ganking target, gankers already have to deal with single use ships, anti-ganker activity, failing ganks, and failing to secure the loot drop, and being able to use cheaper ships by bringing more numbers is how the entire rest of the game works.

You know what, I’m done. I might come back and pick apart the rest of your wall of text later. For now, suffice it to say that (1) you literally do not understand how some things work, and (2) are clearly just trying to nuke the play style of your enemies because you’re too lazy and or stupid to figure out how to manage the risk from a type of player killing that has already be nerfed to laughable levels.

Sigh, it would be so nice if the people who didn’t want to play a challenging UPvP game went and played something else, instead of trying to ruin Eve.

7 Likes
15

Yet another thd to be merged? :roll_eyes:

3 Likes
16

That sure was a lot of effort just to create high sec ganking whine thread #1,837,491

4 Likes
17

:rofl: If these players put less than half as much time in avoiding ganks as they do whining/typing than they do playing, then this thd would have been dead a long time ago.

It takes far less time to not get ganked in game than it does to type out what the op posted…

6 Likes
18

TLDR: Stupid crybaby carebear wants NPCs to protect him so he can earn isk while AFK.

9 Likes
19

Video Game!

Also you know in the lore we are inmortal right?

So Ganking makes sense to me…

I got Ganked once in an Orca… I was full Pvp fitted :smiley: I won xD dead Catas everywhere :slight_smile:

Don’t Get Caught.

Scouting? Tank Mods? Alt with a Web?

and now back to the wall of text

Best thing so Far, back to reading xD

Bored now, TLDR tried to read, died inside.

4 Likes
20

Poor gankers. Y’all seem pretty traumatized. I hope CCP buffs your playstyle soon.

Ideally by making Concorde respond far more slowly in high SEC and also with fewer ships.