Balance Pass: Tech2 and Meta

Over the past few years there has been an enormous amount of well-deserved discussion regarding the balance of capitals in general and supercaps in particular. This is an ongoing problem in EVE Online, but CCP appears to be making meaningful steps towards a positive resolution. With the changes to battleship production complexity, and the decrease in cost to battlecruisers and below, it's clear that CCP is trying to make the game more accessible to new players, and less painful for them. I think these are great ideas. The game should get harder as you increase the "level" of gameplay. But there's another balance issue, an elephant in the room so to speak, that's just as important - especially if CCP wants to make a game that's friendlier to newbros.

The issue I'm talking about is Tech2 and Meta.

Tech2 is oppressive for newbies. When I was in Faction Warfare back in the early 10's, I encountered a lot of newbies: this was during EVE Online's "Golden Age", when PCU numbers kept breaking records. There was a huge influx of new players, and many of those new players made their way to FW. I found myself, even being a bit green myself, in the position to teach these players.

What I noticed was that there was a pressure, almost immediately, to train up for and use Tech2 everything in order to be competitive and useful. New players did not feel it was really worth it to try solo PvP until they could at least fill every module slot with Tech2. Tech2 was the "end game" for "gearing your toon". And newbies - even though I would argue this is not completely the case - felt pretty helpless until they could use Tech2. And they were mostly right: if your opponent does twice your DPS and has 20% more tank, taking player skill/ship matchup out of the equation, what hope do you have?

On the industry side of things: I encountered so many players who liked the idea of building at least some of their own ships and modules, but who abandoned it because Tech1 production, while accessible, would only produce obsolete garbage. Tech2 production required an army of alts. So they abandoned these projects and would just haul stuff in from trade hubs. Many of these players left.

There are some exceptions to this Tech1 vs Tech2 paradigm; sometimes Tech1 is just as good. For example: Tech1 destroyers vs interdictors. A Thrasher performs equivalent, roughly, to a Sabre - because a Sabre fulfills a specialized role (bubbling) but otherwise isn't an upgrade in terms of DPS and EHP. So you'd almost never bring a Sabre over a Thrasher unless you need a bubble (more on these "niche specializations later) or you have some kind of crazy fit that requires a Thrasher with 4 mids.

Tech1 vs Tech2 Modules: Not a Meaningful Choice

Tech2 modules are a problem in a particular way. Once you can fit Tech2, why would you ever use Tech1? There are a few special cases, such as with MWDs or scrams, where the Meta version is just about as good, but you save a little bit of CPU or something. You "meta" a module to make a fit work. Okay - fine. But for the most part, once Tech2 is available, it becomes a necessary upgrade, because it just performs that much better. And the necessity applies to all module slots. Yes, Tech2 modules have higher fitting requirements; but once a character has their core fitting skills trained up this higher fitting requirement isn't even noticed. It's a thoughtless decision; T2 the entire fit. If you go over on CPU (for example, oversized prop mod), just meta your scram or something.

A quick and dirty remedy for this is to make T2 rohibitively expensive to fit to ships: give players the meaningful choice of whether or not they want a full rack of T2 in their highs, lows, or mids. Or, a rack of T1 guns and a mixture of T2s in mid and low. I think this should apply for both T1 and T2 ships; the fitting resources should be pretty much the same.

Tech2 Modules: Should provide great performance upgrade but at the cost of major fitting requirements. No ship should have everything upgraded to Tech2. Create meaningful choices instead of just "Tech2 everything". If you can only fit, at best, 8 Tech2 modules on a ship, this would allow newbies to reach 'parity' with veteran players at a much faster rate - they could decide which set of modules they want to be able to Tech2 first. And this is what you want; you want newbies to have goals, but you also want them to start being at least competitive with veterans as early as possible to get them 'hooked'.

What About Meta Modules?

Another paradigm I think is problematic is the fact that NPCs drop Tech1 and Meta modules. Players either refine these modules or sell them on the market, putting downward pressure, however slight, on the value of minerals and modules manufactured by players. I think everything, perhaps with the exception of Officer/Faction modules, should have to be built by players. No module should drop off an NPC, only salvage and perhaps some components, and you increase the yield by actually salvaging.

Meta module BPCs should drop from data and relic sites and should require the Tech1 module itself + a tiny bit of salvage, or data cores or something, to build. Meta should come in just a couple of varieties: either increased performance ("Upgraded") or decreased fittings ("Compact"). But whichever choice you make (Tech1, Meta, Tech2) - it's something players built, instead of just something that was looted as an afterthought in a mission or anomaly.

UPDATE: Perhaps meta module BPCs and some components needed to build them can be acquired through mission NPCs (not FW). This would create an ISK sink and a useful way to spend LP.

Tech1 vs Tech2 Hulls: The Relationship

Tech2 hulls are clear upgrades from Tech1. And that makes sense to a certain degree. Tech2 should be better than Tech1 - in some way. But they are such clear upgrades across the board that they render their Tech1 versions obsolete. Nothing should ever be obsolete - this is a clear sign of power creep which serves only to hurt games. And in EVE Online, it serves to hurt the newbies who have to wait a long time for all that fancy Tech2 stuff, meanwhile feeling powerless and ineffective unless they're in a fleet.

What is a healthy relationship between Tech1 and Tech2 hulls? If you look at Tech1 hulls and then look at Tech2 hulls, Tech2 hulls get a ton of bonuses. They get bonuses from the Tech1 hull skill as well as bonuses for the Tech2 hull skill. I want to take a moment to explain how one set of bonuses is a bit ridiculous when you think about it: level V for the Tech1 hull is requisite to flying the Tech2, so the bonuses "per skill level" for the Tech1 are really a role bonus.

So Tech2 ships get 2 sets of role bonuses and 1 set of bonuses from the advanced ship skill. Why ever use Tech1 except for cost? And as history has shown: cost is not really a factor for players. Unless, of course, you're a newbie, in which case it just means a lot of grinding before you can "get into" the game.

What if, ignoring cost, we balanced Tech1 and Tech2 around performance instead? How should Tech1 and Tech2 perform compared to each other? Well, originally, the relationship between Tech1 and Tech2 had Tech1 as the generalist and Tech2 was supposed to be specialist, as shown below.

Stitch Kaneland, writing in 2019, had this idea:

The problem with both visions is that they have Tech2 and Tech3 as a significant upgrade to, as well as a specialization from, Tech1. So Tech2 is both a linear upgrade, and a specialization. Tech1 is way down at the bottom, and doesn't even occupy any niche; it's not that versatile (read: generalized) nor is it that specialized. And it's the weakest as well. I think this is sad: a lot of developer time went into reworking Tech1 hulls over the years, in particular the work of CCP Rise when he was first hired. This time and effort is wasted if these ships are obsolete. 

I've modified Kaneland's chart:

What I've done is reduce the overall "improvement" of Tech3 and Tech2, and pushed them further into either specialization or generalization. Tech3 would be "generalization" only insofar as 1 ship can be configured to assume any role that a cruiser can assume (in the case of T3Cs, swap fit = new role) or 1 ship that can assume 1 of three roles on the fly (in the case of T3Ds). I've also situated Navy both as an upgrade from, and more of a specialization from, Tech1. Pirate, the highest upgrade, is also more general: pirate ships are very strong, they get two racial bonuses, making them more general, and better overall performance than Navy.

You'll also note that I have two categories for Tech2: one that is a bit of an improvement in a specialized way over Tech1, and another for unique ships that are very much more specialized over Tech1, but otherwise not very effective outside of their special role. For example, Stealth Bombers, HIC/DICtors, and Booshers which have no Tech1 equivalent. These very specialized ships perform worse than Tech1 overall, but are very good at performing a single niche function: bubbling, infinipoints, bombing, booshing, etc. I think these specialized ships are in a good place and not in need of that much attention.

So how do we get there? It's actually pretty simple. You don't nerf Tech2. You buff Tech1 so that Tech1 hulls got *all* the bonuses of their Tech2 variant but to a lesser degree (5% instead of 7.5%, for example) and Tech2 ships either

• Get only 1 set of bonuses, so they are worse than Tech1 in some way, and better in another or
  
• Tech2 ships can utilize either set of bonuses, but must fit a special high slot module to unlock which they want to use. I think this is the better option: Tech2 ships will be worse in one way, but better in another, and players will have the option (read: meaningful choice) to decide in which way that is the case.
  

So for example, a Thorax would get all the bonuses that a Deimos currently has, but less powerful. A Deimos would then have the option: Falloff and damage? Or damage and reps? And this would be a meaningful choice: The Deimos would perform better than the Thorax in some way, but would be worse in another, as it would not receive those bonuses.

I think the above changes would go a long way towards making a much more healthy game for both new players and veterans alike. Choices in tech selection would become meaningful. Tech2 would not just be an automatic "Iwin" button. New players would be competitive earlier on, promoting retention. And there'd be more "good fights" instead of one sided washes.

Life in Solitude: It's Actually Week 7?

Time flies when you're having fun, and fun I've been having. I guess somewhere along the way I missed a week or two of updates. I've actually been living in Solitude for 7 (8?!) weeks. Ah well. So this entry will mostly be a "war update", and then in the next couple of days I'll write up my thoughts on the new patch and the changes to WCSs and interdiction. Without further delay, the "war":

How Goes the Conflict?

The conflict has actually been dying down a lot lately. Not a lot of kills due to low frequency of contact: it's hard to kill people when most of the systems are empty, and when I do find a system with reds - they dock right up. I was so excited when Cruisers Crew joined and started mining in Ondree. I was really looking forward to ganking and bumping them. Alas, one little gank and they cut and run. I did manage to pop two Cruisers Crew barges in Ondree the other day, and then later noticed those same pilots mining in Yvelet. I'll have to stage some Catalysts there.

I do not deserve all the credit for this. I'm not the only one out hunting, nor am I even the most skilled - there are a couple of very prolific cloaky campers who have been very successful in interdicting gas huffers. I myself have been experimenting with a Purifier fit with a probe launcher and rockets to hilarious effect. Untanked Ventures die in a couple of volleys. I can pretty much catch and kill any huffer provided I land within 9km, which I almost always do because I bookmark the clouds. Combat probes scare people away - no one thinks twice about core scanners.

News From The Other Side: There's been more than a little internal strife over in <STFU> land. Recently much their leadership was demoted. While I was originally dumbfounded that they got so upset over 500m of moonpixels, it's all starting to make sense now:

Oof, that's not a good look. The alliance must really be hurting after that 250b loss in Aeter. How does <STFU> membership feel about being pestered over pennies?

 

 

That's gonna leave a mark. So essentially if you join <STFU>, you're just a number on a spreadsheet. You exist to make money for your overlords. And they will brook no moonpilfering! No amount is too small for their collection agents to pursue!

Know-Nothings, the main corp of <STFU>, has left the alliance and joined NSH (or was it LSH? I always confuse the two).

Know-Nothings was pretty much the most active corp US/EU TZ corp in <STFU>. But, I guess they weren't able to make enough ISK with no one feeling safe enough to mine and pay taxes, so now they're bouncing. Groups that try to "take over" Solitude never last very long - or so I'm told. The trick to living in Solitude is to get along; to work together, and not try to dominate the region. Otherwise people get mad and will make it untenable for you to be here. Sort of like the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

They still own the holding corp for the structures, but from this point on it's just a slow bleed. And as we learned in EMT training: all bleeding stops. Eventually.

Now <STFU> is left with AUTZ for their most active pilots. And their AUTZ isn't a very strong group; a couple of Catalysts or a cloaked scanner send them running for the dock button. They have a couple of good combat pilots, true - and I have nothing against QUOKA personally, or even Cruisers Crew for that matter (they just cast a bad bet, on a toxic, failed alliance). But QUOKA has fairly bad, toxic leadership (based on our chats at the diplomatic table) which isn't cultivating their newbros or promoting corp cohesion, and there are already cracks forming in the corporation. A few pilots have convo'd me to complain about leadership and the direction the corp is heading. QUOKA may stick around after <STFU> leaves, but not very much longer.

My prediction: Unless <STFU> manages to recruit a really good corp - and what really good corp would want to join a failed husk of an alliance - they're on their way out. Even with LSH or NSH or whoever holding their hand. Sure, it might be impossible for the current players to take out any structures under their blue umbrella (~wink wink~), but there's not much a cap fleet can do when people are just ganking your explorers, miners, haulers, and gas huffers. If you don't feel safe enough to make ISK where you live, you can't live there. Time to move on.

I give them 2 months on the outside, perhaps sooner. QUOKA might be around a bit longer, but not by much. I don't know how AUTZ responds to seasons. In the US, summer means lower activity. Our seasons are inverse but Australia is such a strange land, who knows?

Until next time. Fly safe, space cowboys.

Grief is Good

There was some talk recently on Talking in Stations about griefing - in particular, HiSec ganking. This is a long standing debate in EVE Online, and the culture of the game tends to shift a little bit in one direction before swinging back in the other. But now the topic has been discussed on a very popular EVE media outlet, so I feel I need to weigh in and throw my two cents to keep the culture balanced. Since these sorts of discussions have a tendency of getting heated very quickly (see: Caleb), I want to preface this article by saying that I like Talking in Stations. I like Matterall and I like Caleb. I think it's a high quality program and, as far as I can tell, fairly unbiased. It is not the purpose of this article to trash TiS or any of the TiS folk. Instead, I want to respond to this installment of the show with my own perspective: I think griefing is good for both the griefers and the people they grief within certain constraints.

Multifinality: A Double Edged Sword

Griefing and ganking are activities with a high degree of multifinality; that is, they are a single set of activities that can have multiple outcomes; either leading to player retention as CCP has determined, or driving players away from the game as countless anecdotes go to show. I would argue, however, that the amount of players who engage with griefing and ganking with the level of malice and antagonism that would drive players away is smaller than the amount of griefers who are either neutral, or helpful. And I would also argue that the type of person who would be driven to quit EVE Online as a result of a gank is not the sort of person who should be playing EVE anyway. You don't have to like ganking; you just have to be willing to tolerate and adapt to the risk without asking CCP to hold your hand by removing the mechanic.

Oh and before anyone calls me an apologist, here's one of my alts:

I have to live with the same reality as everyone else.

Griefing is a double edged sword and one edge - the negative edge that drives people away - is more dull than the positive edge that leads to player retention. And it's not so much the ganking itself that drives players away; it's the toxicity from the gankers. Ganking is then a net positive for the game, even if a small cadre of players engage in copious amounts of the salt harvesting that leads to players logging off permanently. Just peruse the EVE-O forums; there is a lot of talk (read: engagement) over ganking and anti-ganking. CODE. went from being one dude bumping ice miners in a single system to a large HiSec alliance creating content for thousands of players. There are ganking groups and anti-ganking groups. Players adapt to ganking by joining corporations and mining in fleets with defense (shield boosts, logi, etc). If ganking was outright removed - or even just nerfed heavily - all of this content, all of this engagement (the thing that leads to player retention) would vanish.

I do have to declare my bias here. I am a "griefer". Griefing is something I do, not only for fun, but as my primary means of engaging in conflict. It's how I wage war. While other groups will form up fleets of combat vessels and try to win by shooting each other and grinding structures, I prefer a more asymmetric approach. Instead of shooting your structure, I would rather that you just unanchored it on your own. Instead of going toe to toe with your combat fleet, I 'd like it if you just redeployed somewhere else. I will encourage you to make these choices by griefing you: I will make it as uncomfortable, frustrating, and nerve wracking as possible for your line members to be here. And I will do it, ad infinitum, until you yield outright or enough of your membership has left that you fail cascade. So "griefing" - including HiSec ganking - is a means of engaging in asymmetric, guerilla warfare. And it's pretty effective:

After less than a week of griefing, he was ready to capitulate.

But I don't always grief to drive people away: I also grief for fun and the sublimation of aggressive tendencies. Here's a thread I wrote somewhat documenting my activities near Amarr before the moon mining nerf. This was new content for me, and I had to get creative with how I waged my "war". I had no real aim here, I was simply having fun with an opportunity that presented itself to me. The end result was good: the system became much more active as people were actually logging in to engage with me and "drive me off". They also began forming proper fleets - complete with logi and combat ships - instead of mining independently in their little cliques. A couple of members of the corp I was "griefing" even convo'd me to tell me how much fun they were having.

In the end, I unfortunately ended up going too hard; I was a poor sport and did not allow my "adversaries" enough opportunities for victory (yes, I know - it was the first result on Google, but the psychology they cite is sound). I leveraged my experience and knowledge of the game too strongly, and ended up overwhelming the locals. Eventually the system was dead and they had stopped running their moon beams. I had achieved an objective that wasn't even set, and farmed my own content dry. Had this been an actual turf war this would have been a clear and decided victory. They've since recovered, and I only hope that, despite my mismanagement, their membership is better off and having more fun in EVE because of my shenanigans.

So there's two reasons to "grief": to actually hurt people such that they will leave or do what you want, pay you ransoms, give you mining rights, etc - or to provide fun and entertainment to all parties involved. If you remove the former, you will remove the latter. You'll throw the baby out with the bathwater. As Matterall rightly suggested - griefing and ganking are the secret sauce of EVE Online.

We Have Enough Safe Spaces
Or: HiSec Isn't "Civilized"
Or: Leave my sublimation alone.

Caleb made a comment about how HiSec is "civilized" space. I'm not sure Caleb has read much EVE lore. HiSec is full of pirate NPCs who operate ad libitum without any resistance from either CONCORD or the faction navies. Sansha invades constantly, abducting millions of citizens to become zombies in their fleet, and nobody does anything (except the capsuleers who can be bothered). The four Empires are perpetually on the brink of war. The Amarr practice chattel slavery. The Caldari practice corporate slavery. The Minmatar are... well, the Minmatar; they engage in terrorism. All four factions practice torture. Freaky space aliens came and literally sucked entire systems into some weird Abyssal void and FOB's regularly send out fleets of elite ships to gank people in HiSec.

HiSec is not civilized. No part of New Eden is "civilized". Human life has little value. It's a grim, dark, dystopian landscape. HiSec is just HiSec; you get some added protection in the form of deterrence but for the most part you're on your own. It's is not TotalSec or MaxSec. It is just HiSec. Being undocked is a risk in HiSec, as being undocked in EVE Online is a risk. We don't need CCP holding our hands; if you want "civilized space", it's up to the players to hold each other's hands and civilize it themselves.

And this is a good thing. Gamers have enough hand-holdy safe spaces. In most games griefing isn't allowed, either because the game mechanics don't allow for it (shit, Blizzard went so far as to make your gathering nodes instanced to the player, so no one can "steal" and I don't think PvP deaths even damage equipment anymore...) or the EULA expressly forbids it. My account was actioned on FFXIV simply for swearing at someone. I was temp-banned on retail WoW because I ganked the same dude too many times. Give me a break - there isn't even any loss involved in WoW ganking!

If you want a safe space where you can endlessly run your dopamine loop farming resources and currency without interruption then go play one of those games. EVE has gotten soft enough already.

As human beings we occupy the intersection of the "good" - prosocial, helpful, virtuous, and the "bad" - sinister, antisocial, destructive. Freud, for all his failings, rightly observed that people need outlets for all their drives; a drive "repressed" (either by the person themselves or society pressuring them) will reassert itself in some way, often manifesting as strange maladaptive behavioral oddities or some kind of mental dysfunction. This is where the concept of sublimation comes from; taking a hostile or antisocial drive and harnessing it for some productive activity, such as sports or the military. For many people EVE Online is a space where they can blow off steam, say or do things that would otherwise get them in serious trouble in meatspace, and just let it all go. And this is a good thing. You want people blowing off steam on a computer game.

Content = Engagement = Retention

EVE Online is a game that really lacks content. I mean what is there really to do? There's mining/industry, missions, and incursions... what else? Farming WHs? No - in EVE Online players make the content. CCP gives us a set of tools, and the rest is up to us. Hulkageddon, MiniLuv, CODE., Safety., anti-ganking, minerbumping.com and James315.space, Belligerent Undesirables, safaris, and suspect baiting - this a short list of the emergent content players have come up with given the tools provided by CCP. And it's all wonderful and engaging for those involved - even those on the receiving end of the grief stick.

Players who are engaged with the game have higher rates of retention. The first time I got canflipped, way back in 2010, I had no idea what had just happened, but it was very frustrating and absolutely amazing. It really caught my attention. As I lost more ships to NPCs and players, I thought: this game is really challenging and frustrating. I must figure this out and succeed! And listen to when Caleb talks about griefing, in particular HiSec ganking. You can hear the anger and indignation in his voice. The passion. This is grist. This is something to chew on! When Caleb was talking about griefing, he was really engaged. While I don't agree with Caleb's perspective, I appreciate that he has that perspective, and that he feels so passionately about it. Because this is the purpose of griefing, at least for me: to evoke strong emotions. Because these strong emotions are the really real; they're authentic and raw.

Of course, you can have too much of a good thing. Too much stimuli becomes aversive, and this has a negative impact on retention and engagement. Many people can't get into EVE Online because the game just has so much depth - there's just far too much to learn and keep in mind and be aware of. It's just too much stimuli for some people; it's vertiginous, leads to them feeling overwhelmed, and eventually they leave. My own style of griefing - at least when I'm on a mission - is to overstimulate my victims (with frustration, humiliation, anxiety etc) so that they will decide to leave. So it is possible that griefing and ganking can be taken to such an extreme that people quit the game. But I do question the effect size on overall player retention. I'm sure there are things CCP needs to prioritize; ganking isn't one of them.

I disagree with Caleb on many points: It's not all decided by the griefers. It isn't all calculated out ahead of time. There are ways around us. There is absolutely nothing stopping HiSec miners from forming up fleets together, tanking their ships, using shield boosts, and having logi on grid. In other words: being engaged. People can run logistics through WHs, have a corp mate scout them, don't haul too much value in a single trip, etc. In other words: just take basic precuations.

If ganking were to be removed from the game, it would have to come at a serious compromise: the conversion of most of HiSec to LowSec and the removal of much PvE content from HiSec. That would be the only way to balance the newfound invulnerability of HiSec players. Actually, maybe CCP should just go ahead and do that anyway; create more HiSec islands surrounded by LowSec space. I'm sure they could come up with some lore reason for it.

Anyway so those are my thoughts on "griefing". I think griefing is absolutely fine where it is right now. CCP isn't here to hold your hand and protect you from losses. There are mean people out there who want to blow you up and take your cargo or just ruin your day for lulz; plan accordingly. Until next time space cowboys - fly safer. o7

Life in Solitude: Week Five

Money Stuff

Not much to report on in this front. I've been trying out the new gas sites. Yes, the gas is lucrative, but it's also very high volume, so moving it is a pain. I think 1 DST load was only worth about 250m. The value will only continue to drop as more people begin to edge in on this niche. Right now there is slightly more demand than supply as indicated by the volume of buy vs sell orders. What this basically means is that people are not posting enough sell orders or dropping into buy orders to keep up with the demand. This drives prices up, as people become more willing to pay more for a scarce commodity. But this won't last; it's a bit of a bubble. Eventually the price is going to rationalize, probably somewhere around 10-15k/unit given the availability of the gas sites and the low barrier to entry.

I have way too much raw material and not much to do with it right now:

And the final tally on what I was able to build before the update. I really wish I'd built more Nestors and Rattlesnakes, but c'est la vie:

Note: There's still time to buy your deadnaughts and carriers before the prices start to climb. But don't wait too long.

Changes to Expect: Now that the industry changes have gone live, here are some changes I think we can expect to see:

1. The price of T1 ships sized frigate to battlecruiser will not only drop, but normalize. The differences in prices will be due only to demand for the hulls, and not build price.
2. Consequent with their reduction or outright removal from many build recipes, the price of Nocxium, Zydrine, and Megacyte will also drop. Tritanium may take a small dip. Mexallon and Pyerite should remain somewhat stable relatively speaking. This is long-term; right now the market is still rationalizing.
3. LowSec ores will still be valuable, and with the new gas and exploration sites, expect to see an increase in traffic.
   
4. Battleships will go up in value. Current build cost (at current material prices) is about 450-500m. This will descend and probably settle around 350m.
5. Capitals currently cost about 18-24b to produce. These prices will drop, but don't expect dreads to drop below 10b production costs anytime soon - if ever (this is, of course, dependent on the supply of raw materials and bottlenecking).
   
6. Pirate hulls will be dramatically more expensive. Current build price for Rattlesnake is 2.1b. This will probably drop to about 1.5b.
   
7. Navy hulls might go up a bit, but not a whole lot due to their availability from FW.
8. Ice products (including fuel blocks) and PI will probably go up in value. Commodities that depend on these resources will also increase in cost.
   

 Conflict Updates

The conflict with <STFU> is going very well. Ninja mining operations continue and total 1.5b in R64's. At this point it's not even mining moonpixels, it's mining tears and frustration. More and more people are coming to the cause (apparently people really dislike some dude named "Red Kardia") and there are some big surprises in store. Intel leaks are now coming increasingly from within <STFU> proper:

Cracks are starting to form. Membership is unhappy about not being able to go out and mine or run combat sites. Allies are also becoming disillusioned with <STFU>. They know about the AWOXing and the past betrayals. They're tired of the conflict and wars. It's not just because of me, either; the 'coalition' channel continues to increase in participants. There are a lot of hunters, and prey has begun to dry up. Word on the street is that <STFU> begged <SPORK> to renew their NAP after getting their faces melted. Who knows how long before <STFU> gets cocky and has another go? Should be interesting.

In total I have directly destroyed 5.03 billion ISK worth of <STFU> assets, and my actions have led to a further 1.5b in losses (stream sniping, which makes me sad - leave the moonkrabs alone guys!). This might not seem like a lot, but considering this is the tally of one person, and inflicted almost entirely on their money making assets, it's significant - especially in light of their 250b loss in Aeter. They say this isn't having an effect on them, but I know what the ore anoms are worth and how much ISK is in their moon pulls. They are not recouping their losses, not by a long shot.

[QUOKA] corp is currently set up for a fail cascade. They can't get anything done unless they have 30 people online, which they usually don't, and even then it only takes some light bomber harassment before they run out of patience and log. Last night I warped to an ice belt where about 8 of them were mining. As I landed they all warped to station and logged off. My friend reported that [QUOKA] pilots 2 jumps out also logged shortly after.

Due to the fact that <STFU> now stays largely docked/runs away when I'm around, there's not a whole lot to report other than what I've already mentioned.

Some notable kills from this week:

The Vedmak was taken on kill rights, the result of some unfortunate and premature smartbombing. The Leshak was CONCORDed when he did the same (and has subsequently granted me yet more kill rights). About 300m dropped, but unfortunately I had to pop the wreck. In total, <STFU> has lost 1.3 billion ISK simply reinforcing an empty, unfitted Athanor in HiSec.

The Salt Bin

I normally don't post a lot of salt. But I know there are a few people from Belligerent Undesirables and Safety. who read this blog so I figured I'd indulge them a bit. Generally the smack talk around here isn't that interesting. A lot of gloating over killing a T1 Catalyst and much hurfablurf about how I'm "having no effect on the alliance" - after docking up for hours when I enter Local. But nonetheless, here's something for those who prefer a more bitter cuisine:

 

 Oof, and people tell me I'm toxic.

 

As an absolutely shit-tier multiboxer, this really warms my heart. I don't think I've ever been reported for something in-game, at least as far as I know. And to be reported for input broadcasting, while I alt-tab at a snail's pace, after killing a single Retriever. Glorious. Absolutely glorious.

I really hope <STFU> and Co never leave Solitude. I don't know what I would do without them. Make ISK? Bah! This is so much more entertaining. ^-^ Stay tuned for some big surprises if people come through on their plans.