These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Wardec balancing

First post
Author
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#61 - 2016-01-20 00:17:24 UTC
Hey OP, I'm currently under eight wardecs. Please advise?

They're not actually stopping me doing anything, except undock in Jita. Am I doing something wrong?

Roll
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#62 - 2016-01-20 00:18:02 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Rather timely:
Among the Stars: War


Hmmm... So, the best way to fight off a wardec in the current mechanic is to not fight at all..

Nope.. That's not broken one bit..


If you're that weak, you don't belong in a player corp to begin with.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Ralph King-Griffin
Lords.Of.Midnight
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
#63 - 2016-01-20 01:46:50 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
Hey OP, I'm currently under eight wardecs. Please advise?

They're not actually stopping me doing anything, except undock in Jita. Am I doing something wrong?

Roll

not whining enough.

quickly make thread about how structures need to be an effective off switch for agression
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#64 - 2016-01-20 02:05:32 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Rather timely:
Among the Stars: War


Hmmm... So, the best way to fight off a wardec in the current mechanic is to not fight at all..

Nope.. That's not broken one bit..


If you're that weak, you don't belong in a player corp to begin with.


Oddly enough, "The Mittani" states, in that thread, that your corp has a better chance of surviving by blue balling the deccer.

I'd rather see a mechanic where everyone has incentive to fight, and where fighting has a chance at the best possible outcome...
But I realize that goes in one ear and out the other when it comes to talking to you...
You don't want fights, you want kills... It's a very different thing.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#65 - 2016-01-20 02:18:02 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

Oddly enough, "The Mittani" states, in that thread, that your corp has a better chance of surviving by blue balling the deccer.


I guess you didn't bother reading this article past the entry paragraph, just like you never bothered watching the video from the last thread.

Because the article straight up states a number of ways in which the defender can just ignore the attacker, or prepare traps, or setup intel and other countermeasures against them. Many of which I have recommended and endorsed myself in previous threads, and all of which were deemed unreasonable by you.

Oh no, but your bullshit narrative is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to defeat the attacker. Whatever, loser. The article you clearly didn't read disagrees with you.


Quote:

You don't want fights.


Wrong.

I simply don't want my choices restricted to your dishonest, selfish definition of what a fight is. I don't want my player freedom handcuffed by petty little fascists like you who think a mechanic is broken because the better player wins.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#66 - 2016-01-20 02:40:40 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Joe Risalo wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
Daichi Yamato wrote:
Rather timely:
Among the Stars: War


Hmmm... So, the best way to fight off a wardec in the current mechanic is to not fight at all..

Nope.. That's not broken one bit..


If you're that weak, you don't belong in a player corp to begin with.


Oddly enough, "The Mittani" states, in that thread, that your corp has a better chance of surviving by blue balling the deccer.

I'd rather see a mechanic where everyone has incentive to fight, and where fighting has a chance at the best possible outcome...
But I realize that goes in one ear and out the other when it comes to talking to you...
You don't want fights, you want kills... It's a very different thing.


That article is geared toward people who are trying to avoid a wardec at any cost, though. How do you propose to "incentivize" the subset of players who would not willingly engage in PvP if every loss mail came with a random selection of pics from JLaw's iCloud account?

Oh, wait. You probably can't, which is why nobody ever has a feasible idea for doing so. They just barf up some generic idea - not even an idea, really, just a flat assertion - that they need an "incentive".

It's very much like this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkGMY63FF3Q

"We've already completed step 1!" Lol

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#67 - 2016-01-20 03:06:24 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:

Oddly enough, "The Mittani" states, in that thread, that your corp has a better chance of surviving by blue balling the deccer.


I guess you didn't bother reading this article past the entry paragraph, just like you never bothered watching the video from the last thread.

Because the article straight up states a number of ways in which the defender can just ignore the attacker, or prepare traps, or setup intel and other countermeasures against them. Many of which I have recommended and endorsed myself in previous threads, and all of which were deemed unreasonable by you.

Oh no, but your bullshit narrative is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to defeat the attacker. Whatever, loser. The article you clearly didn't read disagrees with you.


Quote:

You don't want fights.


Wrong.

I simply don't want my choices restricted to your dishonest, selfish definition of what a fight is. I don't want my player freedom handcuffed by petty little fascists like you who think a mechanic is broken because the better player wins.


Lol.. Man, you still can't admit when you are wrong...
You either have a lot of trollage within you, or you're stuck in a severe stage of mad bro..
Probably both.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#68 - 2016-01-20 03:39:28 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:


That article is geared toward people who are trying to avoid a wardec at any cost, though. How do you propose to "incentivize" the subset of players who would not willingly engage in PvP if every loss mail came with a random selection of pics from JLaw's iCloud account?

Oh, wait. You probably can't, which is why nobody ever has a feasible idea for doing so. They just barf up some generic idea - not even an idea, really, just a flat assertion - that they need an "incentive".

It's very much like this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkGMY63FF3Q

"We've already completed step 1!" Lol


The article has no direction as to whom it applies to.
It is not geared towards those that wish to avoid a wardec.

As a matter of fact, it actually implies that this refers to all players who have been decced.

Quote:
It’s a beautiful thing, wintertime. We have feasts, holidays, and festival launchers to look forward to. If you're like me, you also have real world obligations which take you out of New Eden for a large chunk of December. So now that the holidays and hangovers are done, it's time to log back in. After that beautiful new loading screen you arrive wherever you left your pilot, and lo and behold you have a notification. You wonder what it tells you as you click on it, and your heart sinks a bit as you read:

“So-and-so has declared war on you.”

What now?


The specifics of this are left open.

Quote:
This is relatively cheap, but it’s still a cost, and is the key to defeating a war corp. The principle is pretty simple: people won't pay for something they get nothing out of. After that first week of a wardec, the aggressor generally won't renew it if they have gotten zero kills for their cash. So as cowardly as it may feel, your best counter is to blueball your aggressor. Give them no kills, give them no fun. I, and the CEOs who advised me on this article, can't emphasise this enough: give your enemy no kills.


This section, and more importantly the underlined section, actually implies that the best strategy for the defender is denial.
Again, it does not specify that this implies to those who do not wish to fight, and actually seems to imply that this applies to everyone.

The article in NO WAY implies that it is intended for the risk averse or those that do not wish to fight a war.

Quote:
Thanks go to a certain CEO for asking for a guide on how to fly under a dec. He asked for anonymity, but deserves credit for asking the right questions to make his corp a success!

This comment here actually seems to imply that this is for any defender, though you can likely assume it does not apply to purely pvp focused corps.
It basically applies to anyone who does anything more than pvp.

Go ask any CEO.. They will tell you, regardless of their corporate PVP capabilities, this is the guide to follow unless you are in a fleet that intends to engage.
Though, they will likely also tell you that any fleet that poses a reasonable threat will likely not be met by a hostile fleet..
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#69 - 2016-01-20 04:00:45 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Joe Risalo wrote:


The article has no direction as to whom it applies to.
It is not geared towards those that wish to avoid a wardec.


I guess if you have no functional understanding of the word "context", and are only interested in making an argument that is disingenuous and deliberately obtuse, you might see it that way. Roll

Given that they entire article is about how to avoid ever being shot at, it's quite clearly inapplicable to any corp that is actually willing to fight.

Quote:

As a matter of fact, it actually implies that this refers to all players who have been decced.

Quote:
It’s a beautiful thing, wintertime. We have feasts, holidays, and festival launchers to look forward to. If you're like me, you also have real world obligations which take you out of New Eden for a large chunk of December. So now that the holidays and hangovers are done, it's time to log back in. After that beautiful new loading screen you arrive wherever you left your pilot, and lo and behold you have a notification. You wonder what it tells you as you click on it, and your heart sinks a bit as you read:

“So-and-so has declared war on you.”

What now?



Really? You think this suggests "All players"?

If Bob's Discount AFK Miner-Slayer Corp takes it upon themselves to wardec Break-A-Wish, do you think Vimsy and co's hearts will sink when they log in?

Think they'll send out a big corp mail, "Okay guys, it's blueballin' time! We know they are out there and we are docked up!"

Lol

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Iain Cariaba
#70 - 2016-01-20 05:00:49 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:

Oddly enough, "The Mittani" states, in that thread, that your corp has a better chance of surviving by blue balling the deccer.


I guess you didn't bother reading this article past the entry paragraph, just like you never bothered watching the video from the last thread.

Because the article straight up states a number of ways in which the defender can just ignore the attacker, or prepare traps, or setup intel and other countermeasures against them. Many of which I have recommended and endorsed myself in previous threads, and all of which were deemed unreasonable by you.

Oh no, but your bullshit narrative is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to defeat the attacker. Whatever, loser. The article you clearly didn't read disagrees with you.


Quote:

You don't want fights.


Wrong.

I simply don't want my choices restricted to your dishonest, selfish definition of what a fight is. I don't want my player freedom handcuffed by petty little fascists like you who think a mechanic is broken because the better player wins.


Lol.. Man, you still can't admit when you are wrong...
You either have a lot of trollage within you, or you're stuck in a severe stage of mad bro..
Probably both.

Lol.. Man, you still can't admit when you are wrong...
You either have a lot of trollage within you, or you're stuck in a severe stage of mad bro..
Probably both.

Every single word applies more to you here, Joe.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#71 - 2016-01-20 05:25:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Joe Risalo
SurrenderMonkey wrote:


I guess if you have no functional understanding of the word "context", and are only interested in making an argument that is disingenuous and deliberately obtuse, you might see it that way. Roll

Given that they entire article is about how to avoid ever being shot at, it's quite clearly inapplicable to any corp that is actually willing to fight.


This "context" you speak of does not exist, as he presents no context as to whom the article applies to.
It even appears to suggest to those would be fighters not to fight back when he claimed that following this strategy 'may seem cowardly'.
He even explains that it is a smart strategy specifically because it causes the aggressor to spend ISK for nothing.

So BOOM. That there is enough to show that it doesn't apply solely to those that do not wish to fight, as it suggests not fighting is better.

The article puts NO emphasis on 'this is how you avoid a dec' and instead puts the emphasis on 'this is how you handle a dec.'

Sure, the context is fully avoidance, but that's after it tells you that avoidance is the best route, thus telling you to avoid and THEN telling you how to avoid.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#72 - 2016-01-20 05:27:28 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:

Every single word applies more to you here, Joe.


Lol.. I love watching people defend Kaarous when he spews garbage..
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#73 - 2016-01-20 05:38:13 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Joe Risalo wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:


I guess if you have no functional understanding of the word "context", and are only interested in making an argument that is disingenuous and deliberately obtuse, you might see it that way. Roll

Given that they entire article is about how to avoid ever being shot at, it's quite clearly inapplicable to any corp that is actually willing to fight.


This "context" you speak of does not exist

...

Sure, the context is fully avoidance,



I just thought I would illustrate how ridiculous you are by putting those statements in juxtaposition. Lol


Why would causing the aggressor to spend an insignificant sum of ISK for nothing be better than, say, causing actual damage by destroying their ships?

The entire rationale is to prevent them from renewing the dec. This is explicitly stated.
Quote:
The principle is pretty simple: people won't pay for something they get nothing out of. After that first week of a wardec, the aggressor generally won't renew it if they have gotten zero kills for their cash.



Ergo, it is quite literally a document for people who who promptly wet themselves when a wardec comes in. Marmite, et al, tend not to renew their kill-less decs. They also tend not to renew the ones where they get their asses beat (and it most certainly does happen).

You're making an argument that is 100% contingent on the defender necessarily wanting to do whatever they have to do to prevent a renewal, while simultaneously trying to claim that this applies to literally every war. Roll

Incidentally, if you actually read the comments, you'll discover a few additional interesting things, such as:

Helix wrote:
a much better article would have been to advise wardecced corps to go have fun with platinum insured cruisers and frigs at the expense of those who declared the war. Blueballs works both ways.


To which our author (who - I'm not sure if you understand this - is actually just some fairly clueless guy who wrote a blog post that happens to be published on themittani.com, and isn't actually THE MITTANI) replies:

Quote:
That could be awesome. Just play the insurance up, welp trade 4 thoraxes in change for a 300mil HAC, and laugh over the ISK war.

From what I've seen though, a lot of wardec corps just enjoy popping anything with a pulse and an engine. So they'd just enjoy slaughtering T1 ships, killboard be damned. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that however.


Yes, kids, we're dealing with a hardened veteran and subject matter expert here, for sure. Guy wrote an entire article on "What to do if you're war decced" without it ever occurring to him that you could, in response, go score cheap kills... until someone else pointed it out for him. Roll Even then, though, he missed the point of the suggestion. He's still operating under the assumption that getting them to drop the war is somehow imperative.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#74 - 2016-01-20 06:08:16 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Joe Risalo wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:


I guess if you have no functional understanding of the word "context", and are only interested in making an argument that is disingenuous and deliberately obtuse, you might see it that way. Roll

Given that they entire article is about how to avoid ever being shot at, it's quite clearly inapplicable to any corp that is actually willing to fight.


This "context" you speak of does not exist

...

Sure, the context is fully avoidance,



I just thought I would illustrate how ridiculous you are by putting those statements in juxtaposition. Lol


Why would causing the aggressor to spend an insignificant sum of ISK for nothing be better than, say, causing actual damage by destroying their ships?

The entire rationale is to prevent them from renewing the dec. This is explicitly stated.
Quote:
The principle is pretty simple: people won't pay for something they get nothing out of. After that first week of a wardec, the aggressor generally won't renew it if they have gotten zero kills for their cash.



Ergo, it is quite literally a document for people who who promptly wet themselves when a wardec comes in. Marmite, et al, tend not to renew their kill-less decs. They also tend not to renew the ones where they get their asses beat (and it most certainly does happen).

You're making an argument that is 100% contingent on the defender necessarily wanting to do whatever they have to do to prevent a renewal, while simultaneously trying to claim that this applies to literally every war. Roll

Incidentally, if you actually read the comments, you'll discover a few additional interesting things, such as:

Helix wrote:
a much better article would have been to advise wardecced corps to go have fun with platinum insured cruisers and frigs at the expense of those who declared the war. Blueballs works both ways.


To which our author (who - I'm not sure if you understand this - is actually just some fairly clueless guy who wrote a blog post that happens to be published on themittani.com, and isn't actually THE MITTANI) replies:

"That could be awesome. Just play the insurance up, welp trade 4 thoraxes in change for a 300mil HAC, and laugh over the ISK war.

From what I've seen though, a lot of wardec corps just enjoy popping anything with a pulse and an engine. So they'd just enjoy slaughtering T1 ships, killboard be damned. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that however."


Yes, kids, we're dealing with a hardened veteran and subject matter expert here, for sure. Guy wrote an entire article on "What to do if you're war decced" without it ever occurring to him that you could, in response, go score cheap kills... until someone else pointed it out for him. Roll Even then, though, he missed the point. He's still operating under the assumption that getting them to drop the war is somehow imperative.


Fair enough... Though, I will say the first quote you posted here is completely out of context.

The two times I mentioned that word were in relation to two different things.
First, the 'context' that it was written with focus purely on those who do not wish to fight.
The second was a focus on the 'context' of the article being focused on avoidance.

It doesn't specify that it's speaking to those who don't want to fight, and implies that some that may want to fight, shouldn't.
Where as it does speak on avoidance as a whole.
It's two different references of context.

Though, I will agree that the author should have presented some options if you do wish to fight back,'as opposed to suggesting that you shouldn't fight back.
SurrenderMonkey
The Exchange Collective
Solyaris Chtonium
#75 - 2016-01-20 06:14:40 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Joe Risalo wrote:

Fair enough... Though, I will say the first quote you posted here is completely out of context.

The two times I mentioned that word were in relation to two different things.
First, the 'context' that it was written with focus purely on those who do not wish to fight.
The second was a focus on the 'context' of the article being focused on avoidance.


Yes, yes, your thoughts regarding the context of the use of "context" are very interesting in the context of a thread in which you've thoroughly demonstrated you've no grasp of context.

Quote:

It doesn't specify that it's speaking to those who don't want to fight, and implies that some that may want to fight, shouldn't.


I can't even imagine the mental gymnastics you must be performing to convince yourself that an article in which the author doesn't even broach the topic of actually fighting back during a war wasn't written specifically for an audience with no intention of ever doing so.

The entire piece is structured around, "Don't ever get killed at all so they definitely drop the war after one week."

How do you imagine this would ever be applicable to anyone who isn't overcome by crippling anxiety at the mere thought of a friendly exchange of plasma with internet space-foes? Ugh

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

Iain Cariaba
#76 - 2016-01-20 07:06:56 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:

Every single word applies more to you here, Joe.


Lol.. I love watching people defend Kaarous when he spews garbage..

I call it as I see it, you should know that by now, Joe. Big smile

Joe Risalo wrote:
Fair enough... Though, I will say the first quote you posted here is completely out of context.

The two times I mentioned that word were in relation to two different things.
First, the 'context' that it was written with focus purely on those who do not wish to fight.
The second was a focus on the 'context' of the article being focused on avoidance.

It doesn't specify that it's speaking to those who don't want to fight, and implies that some that may want to fight, shouldn't.
Where as it does speak on avoidance as a whole.
It's two different references of context.

Though, I will agree that the author should have presented some options if you do wish to fight back,'as opposed to suggesting that you shouldn't fight back.

Or maybe the author assumed, incorrectly it seems, that anyone reading it would realize that if they're actually willing to fight back, the article isn't aimed at them.

But then, in none of these wardec threads I've seen you participate in have you ever acknowledged that fighting back can be an option. It's always the victim stance and how evil the wardecers are.
Shelick
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#77 - 2016-01-20 11:25:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Shelick
Lann Shahni wrote:
I recently returned to eve again, and mw and a few of my irl friends wanted to up a corp together, having fun producing some goods and selling them, and as a start we put a small pos, to get things going, whit in less then a week we got wardec!

After that I started digging a bit into reasons why, and discovered that far most high security wardec are pll wanting steal your stuff!
I don't know if that is the intention with the wardec system, but I think it's sad, and crusing system for any starting or small corp, making it nearly impossible for them, because of constant wardec

I suggest increasing the ridiculously low cost of starting a war from 50 mil to 500mil, and maintaining 50 mil a week for keeping it up!
Also increasing the delay from one day to a week, giving pll whit irl responsibilities a chance to respond!


So to sum this up:

- You are a pussy a** carebear who wants 100% safety in a PVP orientated game
- You want to increase war dec costs because for some reason you think that will keep people away from you
- You openly admitted that you have a tower in highsec on the forums

Expect a war from us too, and oh I will find your tower, and post the KM right back in this thread (if someone else hasn't done it already, I gave up reading after page 1)

- Shel

edit: From: CONCORD
Sent: 2016.01.20 11:28

Shelick has declared war on Anderson Technologies on behalf of Archetype..
Iain Cariaba
#78 - 2016-01-20 12:13:24 UTC
Shelick wrote:
Lann Shahni wrote:
I recently returned to eve again, and mw and a few of my irl friends wanted to up a corp together, having fun producing some goods and selling them, and as a start we put a small pos, to get things going, whit in less then a week we got wardec!

After that I started digging a bit into reasons why, and discovered that far most high security wardec are pll wanting steal your stuff!
I don't know if that is the intention with the wardec system, but I think it's sad, and crusing system for any starting or small corp, making it nearly impossible for them, because of constant wardec

I suggest increasing the ridiculously low cost of starting a war from 50 mil to 500mil, and maintaining 50 mil a week for keeping it up!
Also increasing the delay from one day to a week, giving pll whit irl responsibilities a chance to respond!


So to sum this up:

- You are a pussy a** carebear who wants 100% safety in a PVP orientated game
- You want to increase war dec costs because for some reason you think that will keep people away from you
- You openly admitted that you have a tower in highsec on the forums

Expect a war from us too, and oh I will find your tower, and post the KM right back in this thread (if someone else hasn't done it already, I gave up reading after page 1)

- Shel

edit: From: CONCORD
Sent: 2016.01.20 11:28

Shelick has declared war on Anderson Technologies on behalf of Archetype..

We need an applause smiley. This definitely deserves one. Twisted
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#79 - 2016-01-20 12:43:12 UTC
Joe Risalo wrote:

Lol.. Man, you still can't admit when you are wrong...


And I see you still project like it was your job.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#80 - 2016-01-20 12:52:07 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:

Or maybe the author assumed, incorrectly it seems, that anyone reading it would realize that if they're actually willing to fight back, the article isn't aimed at them.

But then, in none of these wardec threads I've seen you participate in have you ever acknowledged that fighting back can be an option. It's always the victim stance and how evil the wardecers are.


The guy who wrote

Quote:
Check your aggressor’s killboard. This will show you what they fly regularly, and can give you solid intel if you want to plan any traps for your enemy.


is offering advice to people who want to fight back.

And as for my point of just ignoring the war and going about your business, which is something I have contended many times, he says the following:

Quote:

  • Ship naming. If you have your default name set it will display the ship name and type on directional scan, and make it faster for someone to locate you. When you are warping a barge off, even a few seconds help, and renaming your Procurer to “Veldspartan,” or “Plagiocrazed” will keep someone from narrowing you down as fast. If Mr. X is the target in system, it's a good guess that “Mr. X’s Mackinaw” is the ship you want.

  • If you are doing missions, don't use Mobile Tractor Units. They're very easy to scan down, and give a good warp in. Loot and salvage is not worth your ship.

  • Watchlist everyone in their corp if possible. To do that, select the character, add as contact, set standing to red, and tick the box for adding them to your watchlist. And don't select the box that sends them a notification. If you're a CEO, make sure your corp knows to do the same. It will show you when they log on and off, and give you a good idea of what hours they keep.


That's not advice for cringing cowardice. That's not advice for people to just dock up the whole time like Joe claims is the ONLY acceptable option during a war.

It's advice for people to actually do something to avoid the aggressors, and continue their gameplay. Something I thoroughly approve of, and endorse myself.

"blueball" does NOT mean "stay docked up like a cringing chickenshit."

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.