These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#221 - 2016-01-21 16:37:21 UTC
Lann Shahni wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Lann Shahni wrote:


okay will bite,
you postet this https://public-crest.eveonline.com/wars/
it's not realy in fomat easy to read, do you have a link to traslator or reader?



It's in JSON format. which is a fairly common standard for data exchange (kind of like XML).


Having som problems finding a reader that works, you woulded by any chance have link for one? plz


It's a data exchange format, any (useful) reader would likely have to be built specifically for parsing that data. ;)

But there are a ton of standard libraries for the programming language of your choice that make it quite easy to work with.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Black Pedro
Mine.
#222 - 2016-01-21 16:41:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Lann Shahni wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Lann Shahni wrote:


okay will bite,
you postet this https://public-crest.eveonline.com/wars/
it's not realy in fomat easy to read, do you have a link to traslator or reader?



It's in JSON format. which is a fairly common standard for data exchange (kind of like XML).


Having som problems finding a reader that works, you woulded by any chance have link for one? plz

https://medium.com/@paulgambill/how-to-import-json-data-into-google-spreadsheets-in-less-than-5-minutes-a3fede1a014a#.hpl1v8k01

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Lann Shahni
The Happy Grasshoppers
#223 - 2016-01-21 16:44:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Lann Shahni
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Lann Shahni wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Lann Shahni wrote:


okay will bite,
you postet this https://public-crest.eveonline.com/wars/
it's not realy in fomat easy to read, do you have a link to traslator or reader?



It's in JSON format. which is a fairly common standard for data exchange (kind of like XML).


Having som problems finding a reader that works, you woulded by any chance have link for one? plz


It's a data exchange format, any (useful) reader would likely have to be built specifically for parsing that data. ;)

But there are a ton of standard libraries for the programming language of your choice that make it quite easy to work with.


so it's not any format, not familiar with data exchange and some pragramming could use, since you have read it,
could you by any chance traslate into a more usefull format?
and post it?
if contains data in this subject i would realy like to read it!
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#224 - 2016-01-21 17:19:46 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Lann Shahni wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Lann Shahni wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Lann Shahni wrote:


okay will bite,
you postet this https://public-crest.eveonline.com/wars/
it's not realy in fomat easy to read, do you have a link to traslator or reader?



It's in JSON format. which is a fairly common standard for data exchange (kind of like XML).


Having som problems finding a reader that works, you woulded by any chance have link for one? plz


It's a data exchange format, any (useful) reader would likely have to be built specifically for parsing that data. ;)

But there are a ton of standard libraries for the programming language of your choice that make it quite easy to work with.


so it's not any format, not familiar with data exchange and some pragramming could use, since you have read it,
could you by any chance traslate into a more usefull format?
and post it?
if contains data in this subject i would realy like to read it!



Do it for you, huh? Deja vu. Lol

If I'm feeling magnanimous, I'll pull the top level summary stats (Aggressor, defender, ships killed for each, isk killed for each) for the most recent few thousand wars and dump them into google sheets. Will have to wait until after work, though.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Lann Shahni
The Happy Grasshoppers
#225 - 2016-01-21 17:49:28 UTC
lol even i had to take jap! Blink
thx that would be nice!
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#226 - 2016-01-21 18:08:34 UTC
Remove the ability to de-agress in view of station or gate guns and everything will be taken care of. If you changed mechanics such that once you engage in combat on a station/gate, the only way to dock is to leave grid (warp to another station/gate or warp away and then warp back to dock). This simple mechanic change would encourage only committed pvp and take away all the risk aversion tactics. Make leaving grid the start of your de-aggression countdown.
Lann Shahni
The Happy Grasshoppers
#227 - 2016-01-21 18:51:17 UTC
i know this might be a little fo topic, but some of this debate sparked an ide, most of know that mining is one most borring activities you can undertake in eve, or at least in my mind it is, i avoyd if i can!
But what about a "danger mining system" special mining sites that pop up a little like ghost sites, with very exspensive ore,
and as soon as you enter there area you flagged for PVP, and is legal target?
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#228 - 2016-01-21 18:56:25 UTC
Played around with the Sheets importer Pedro linked above over lunch. It's not perfect for this because it does a fairly naive flattening that misaligns data if the same columns aren't always present (and if a war is ongoing, the time finished isn't present and this happens), but I did pull a sample of 217 wars, just for funsies, and poked at them for a minute.

For War IDs 459784 - 460000, inclusive:

Mean number of aggressor kills per war: 1.6
Mean ISK destroyed by aggressors: 90 million

Mean number of defender kills: .03 (lol)
Mean ISK destroyed by defenders: 10 million.

Attackers, at least within this subset of data, killed 53 times as many ships, but only 9 times as much ISK.

78% of the wars ended with the aggressors killing absolutely nothing.

What's additionally fun about this, though, is that the attacker numbers are inflated by structure bashes. Head Shooter Team inc. destroyed 1.8 billion in a war against Without Remorse. It was a single ship kill, and a tower that was bashed by a bomber, a vindicator, and a vigilant. 3 people knocked it down. Nobody was killed defending it. Oh, and the tower was located in Funtanainen, 2 jumps from Jita. :D You would need to additionally break out the killmails to fully quantify this, and sheets isn't really the tool for that for reasons previously mentioned.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Lann Shahni
The Happy Grasshoppers
#229 - 2016-01-21 19:04:35 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Played around with the Sheets importer Pedro linked above over lunch. It's not perfect for this because it does a fairly naive flattening that misaligns data if the same columns aren't always present (and if a war is ongoing, the time finished isn't present and this happens), but I did pull a sample of 217 wars, just for funsies, and poked at them for a minute.

For War IDs 459784 - 460000, inclusive:

Mean number of aggressor kills per war: 1.6
Mean ISK destroyed by aggressors: 90 million

Mean number of defender kills: .03 (lol)
Mean ISK destroyed by defenders: 10 million.

Attackers, at least within this subset of data, killed 53 times as many ships, but only 9 times as much ISK.

78% of the wars ended with the aggressors killing absolutely nothing.

What's additionally fun about this, though, is that the attacker numbers are inflated by structure bashes. Head Shooter Team inc. destroyed 1.8 billion in a war against Without Remorse. It was a single ship kill, and a tower that was bashed by a bomber, a vindicator, and a vigilant. 3 people knocked it down. Nobody was killed defending it. Oh, and the tower was located in Funtanainen, 2 jumps from Jita. :D You would need to additionally break out the killmails to fully quantify this, and sheets isn't really the tool for that for reasons previously mentioned.


thx interesting data, do you know how many ended in no combat, where no one lost any thing?
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#230 - 2016-01-21 19:08:20 UTC
Lann Shahni wrote:

thx interesting data, do you know how many ended in no combat, where no one lost any thing?


Basically the same number. 48/217 had aggressor kills. 1 war had 0 aggressor kills and 1 defender kill, so 49/217 had kills, period.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Lann Shahni
The Happy Grasshoppers
#231 - 2016-01-21 19:24:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Lann Shahni
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Lann Shahni wrote:

thx interesting data, do you know how many ended in no combat, where no one lost any thing?


Basically the same number. 48/217 had aggressor kills. 1 war had 0 aggressor kills and 1 defender kill, so 49/217 had kills, period.


77% ended in no engngement, where either attacker or defnder refused combat,
most likely the defender, since the attacker probaly would chose a target they belive they can beat!

33% where actual wars or conflits, where figthing acurred
out those the data indicates that the attacker gets their ass handed to them, when the denfender can/and will figth back!

do we agree?
Lann Shahni
The Happy Grasshoppers
#232 - 2016-01-21 19:32:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Lann Shahni
Lann Shahni wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Lann Shahni wrote:

thx interesting data, do you know how many ended in no combat, where no one lost any thing?


Basically the same number. 48/217 had aggressor kills. 1 war had 0 aggressor kills and 1 defender kill, so 49/217 had kills, period.


77% ended in no engngement, where either attacker or defnder refused combat,
most likely the defender, since the attacker probaly would chose a target they belive they can beat!

33% where actual wars or conflits, where figthing acurred
out those the data indicates that the attacker gets their ass handed to them, when the denfender can/and will figth back!

do we agree?

sorry read wrong

33% where actual wars or conflits, where figthing acurred
out those the data indicates that the defender is lose 9 times as much value as the attacker, and lot more ships!

do we agree?
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#233 - 2016-01-21 19:43:31 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Lann Shahni wrote:
Lann Shahni wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Lann Shahni wrote:

thx interesting data, do you know how many ended in no combat, where no one lost any thing?


Basically the same number. 48/217 had aggressor kills. 1 war had 0 aggressor kills and 1 defender kill, so 49/217 had kills, period.


77% ended in no engngement, where either attacker or defnder refused combat,
most likely the defender, since the attacker probaly would chose a target they belive they can beat!

33% where actual wars or conflits, where figthing acurred
out those the data indicates that the attacker gets their ass handed to them, when the denfender can/and will figth back!

do we agree?

sorry read wrong

33% where actual wars or conflits, where figthing acurred
out those the data indicates that the defender is lose 9 times as much value as the attacker, and lot more ships!

do we agree?


A lot more ships and structures. You seemed to miss the part where I said, "The aggressor's stats are padded by structure bashes."

Look at my war history:
Tastes Like Lobster Vs. Space Llama Industries: Attacker killed 534 million. 534 million worth of offline POS, that is.
I lost another 834 million to Russian Thundersquad. Again, offline POS, I was away from the game at the time and couldn't be arsed pulling it down.

Meanwhile, I've also recently destroyed 300 million in offline POS modules.

A complete ******* simpleton might read this as "attackers destroy over 1.5 billion and defenders destroy nothing!" but the reality isn't nearly so interesting. Not a single one of these wars involved a fight. They were space debris cleanup. The defenders were likely not even subscribed to the ******* game at the time (I certainly wasn't, at least).

If you want to persist in naive interpretations, the fact that attackers ONLY kill 9x as much isk while killing 53x as many ships effectively means that every defender kill is worth far more than an attacker kill, and if they simply undocked and fought back they would quickly win the ISK war.

Of course, this completely ignores the fact that, in the 7 defender kills, one of them was a 1.3 billion isk Snake pod they managed to snipe... but you did want to go with the naive interpretation, right? Roll

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Lann Shahni
The Happy Grasshoppers
#234 - 2016-01-21 19:53:28 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Lann Shahni wrote:
Lann Shahni wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Lann Shahni wrote:

thx interesting data, do you know how many ended in no combat, where no one lost any thing?


Basically the same number. 48/217 had aggressor kills. 1 war had 0 aggressor kills and 1 defender kill, so 49/217 had kills, period.


77% ended in no engngement, where either attacker or defnder refused combat,
most likely the defender, since the attacker probaly would chose a target they belive they can beat!

33% where actual wars or conflits, where figthing acurred
out those the data indicates that the attacker gets their ass handed to them, when the denfender can/and will figth back!

do we agree?

sorry read wrong

33% where actual wars or conflits, where figthing acurred
out those the data indicates that the defender is lose 9 times as much value as the attacker, and lot more ships!

do we agree?


A lot more ships and structures. You seemed to miss the part where I said, "The aggressor's stats are padded by structure bashes."

Look at my war history:
Tastes Like Lobster Vs. Space Llama Industries: Attacker killed 534 million. 534 million worth of offline POS, that is.
I lost another 834 million to Russian Thundersquad. Again, offline POS, I was away from the game at the time and couldn't be arsed pulling it down.

Meanwhile, I've also recently destroyed 300 million in offline POS modules.

A complete ******* simpleton might read this as "attackers destroy over 1.5 billion and defenders destroy nothing!" but the reality isn't nearly so salacious. Not a single one of these wars involved a fight. They were space debris cleanup.

i do agree, some of the lost value is from POS, having a hard to determinat how great a part, the defender lost a great many more ships, but probaly less exspensive then the attackers, so 25% i would, mind that only a wild guess

as i see it indicates that the atttacker are much more succesfull then the defender, by a wery large margin!

the attacker shuld have greater chace of succes, or pll would do it, i agree there, but this much of differenc reduces in most case to only the to have the option of runnning
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#235 - 2016-01-21 19:56:34 UTC
Lann Shahni wrote:

the attacker shuld have greater chace of succes, or pll would do it, i agree there, but this much of differenc reduces in most case to only the to have the option of runnning


It's not a mechanical advantage whatsoever, so there is no case to be made.

"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
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#236 - 2016-01-21 19:59:06 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Lann Shahni wrote:

i do agree, some of the lost value is from POS, having a hard to determinat how great a part, the defender lost a great many more ships, but probaly less exspensive then the attackers, so 25% i would, mind that only a wild guess


Not hard at all. The killmail record for every war is linked in the war data.

Quote:

as i see it indicates that the atttacker are much more succesfull then the defender, by a wery large margin!

the attacker shuld have greater chace of succes, or pll would do it, i agree there, but this much of differenc reduces in most case to only the to have the option of runnning


No, to claim that defenders are not successful, you would have to first show that they actually TRIED.

The only thing this shows, by a VERY wide margin, is that if you are war decced you will likely not lose anything at all. Or, in other words, by a very wide margin, attackers are not successful in killing anything. Big smile

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#237 - 2016-01-21 20:19:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Lann Shahni wrote:

i do agree, some of the lost value is from POS, having a hard to determinat how great a part, the defender lost a great many more ships, but probaly less exspensive then the attackers, so 25% i would, mind that only a wild guess


Not hard at all. The killmail record for every war is linked in the war data.

Quote:

as i see it indicates that the atttacker are much more succesfull then the defender, by a wery large margin!

the attacker shuld have greater chace of succes, or pll would do it, i agree there, but this much of differenc reduces in most case to only the to have the option of runnning


No, to claim that defenders are not successful, you would have to first show that they actually TRIED.
In fact it's impossible for defenders to be remotely successful if they flatly refuse to even try.

Quote:
The only thing this shows, by a VERY wide margin, is that if you are war decced you will likely not lose anything at all. Or, in other words, by a very wide margin, attackers are not successful in killing anything. Big smile
Agreed, for the most part staying off the beaten track is a very successful way of avoiding wardecs, because most large wardec entities in highsec will stay in the places where the most targets are; and those are the hubs and the associated highways. The scattergun approach to whom they declare war upon isn't as random as it seems either, firstly it ensures they have people to shoot at because a large percentage of those decs will end in the defenders dropping and rolling corps or switching to alts, and secondly if people ply their trade in an irresponsible manner within their area of operations and it comes to their attention, they will take advantage of it.

As for OPs claims of the impossibility of newbies fighting back, that is utter bollocks; one of the most powerful entities in the game started life as newbies fighting back against superior knowledge and firepower, more recently one of the highsec wardec corps bit off more than they could comfortably chew when they wardecced a newbie corp started by a streamer.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#238 - 2016-01-21 21:16:19 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Some more fun observations from our set of 217 sequentially selected wars:

5 defenders are responsible for over 50% of the defender damage received.

They were:

Covert Economics (81 members) - These guys seem to be like the reverse of Marmite. They're some sort of perpetual punching bag, I don't know what their deal is, they die... a lot. Not very interesting deaths, just a lot of them, always, everywhere, all the time, no matter what. High sec wars, low sec, null, you name it, they're there and they're dying. :D Anyway, TL;DR, they lost a Fenrir full of ice products 2 jumps from Dodixie.

NightSong Directorate (Alliance, 315 members) - lost a freighter and an orca in an asteroid belt. This gets an * though, see below.

Without Remorse. (Alliance, 16 members, lol ). Lost a fail-fit tower 2 jumps from Jita. No ships killed in defense of tower.

EVIAN NATION (Alliance, 216 members) - Lost a few cheap ships, and an Orca in Du Annes, 3 jumps from Dodixie.

Sunshine connection (10 members) - These guys lost 1 orca and 1 pod 4 jumps from Amarr.

Respectively, their attackers were:
Public-Enemy (alliance, 67 members)
CATAHA 3A HAC. - Defunct, 0 members. A total of 7 people were members at some point (not necessarily at the same time).
Head Shooter Team inc. - 5 members.
Marmite - (alliance, 80 members)
M V D - 2 members.

In conclusion, the majority of the damage received across this sample of wars was by reasonably large organizations who are doing things that are completely ******* stupid. Orcas and freighters near a trade hub during a war? At an ASTEROID BELT? Fitting a tower with some guns and launchers, but no webbers/ecm? Not even showing up to defend it?

It's not "the little guy" getting curb stomped by some ******* horde of space mongols. It's not people valiantly trying to defend themselves, and getting their teeth kicked in. It's, "Herpderp, guess I'll undock a freighter and fly between two trade hubs in the middle of a war, derpdederpderp!"

*Reviewing killboard stats shows a sister corp later wardecced them as well (ID was probably out of my range), and they proceeded to lose, in total, 2 orcas and 2 freighters with a total of 4 aggressors involved. These people LOVE expensive lossmails. They also lost a machariel.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#239 - 2016-01-21 22:23:47 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Some more fun observations from our set of 217 sequentially selected wars:

5 defenders are responsible for over 50% of the defender damage received.

They were:

Covert Economics (81 members) - These guys seem to be like the reverse of Marmite. They're some sort of perpetual punching bag, I don't know what their deal is, they die... a lot. Not very interesting deaths, just a lot of them, always, everywhere, all the time, no matter what. High sec wars, low sec, null, you name it, they're there and they're dying. :D Anyway, TL;DR, they lost a Fenrir full of ice products 2 jumps from Dodixie.

NightSong Directorate (Alliance, 315 members) - lost a freighter and an orca in an asteroid belt. This gets an * though, see below.

Without Remorse. (Alliance, 16 members, lol ). Lost a fail-fit tower 2 jumps from Jita. No ships killed in defense of tower.

EVIAN NATION (Alliance, 216 members) - Lost a few cheap ships, and an Orca in Du Annes, 3 jumps from Dodixie.

Sunshine connection (10 members) - These guys lost 1 orca and 1 pod 4 jumps from Amarr.

Respectively, their attackers were:
Public-Enemy (alliance, 67 members)
CATAHA 3A HAC. - Defunct, 0 members. A total of 7 people were members at some point (not necessarily at the same time).
Head Shooter Team inc. - 5 members.
Marmite - (alliance, 80 members)
M V D - 2 members.

In conclusion, the majority of the damage received across this sample of wars was by reasonably large organizations who are doing things that are completely ******* stupid. Orcas and freighters near a trade hub during a war? At an ASTEROID BELT? Fitting a tower with some guns and launchers, but no webbers/ecm? Not even showing up to defend it?

It's not "the little guy" getting curb stomped by some ******* horde of space mongols. It's not people valiantly trying to defend themselves, and getting their teeth kicked in. It's, "Herpderp, guess I'll undock a freighter and fly between two trade hubs in the middle of a war, derpdederpderp!"

*Reviewing killboard stats shows a sister corp later wardecced them as well (ID was probably out of my range), and they proceeded to lose, in total, 2 orcas and 2 freighters with a total of 4 aggressors involved. These people LOVE expensive lossmails. They also lost a machariel.


To all that is listed here, I agree..
However, if you could tell me how the hell I use the data from that wall of garbled text, it would be appreciated.
I'm not wanting to gather statistics specifically to counter you, I'm more wanting to gather data to see if my personal assumptions are within the ball park of actuality.. It won't confirm any assumptions about wars hindering retention or anything.
..But, what I'm looking at the the relationship between combat ship loss (PVP Fitted and/or predominantly used ships such as Caracals) vs the statistics of derp derp targets of opportunity.

I agree that losing anything NOT intended for pvp, during a wardec, is because they're not all there in the head..
However, a correlation between pvp focused ships/fits being lost on the aggressor and defenders side would be nice.

What I see with the dec mechanic is that 77% (based I your statistics) were smart enough not to get killed in a dec and/or stayed docked.
i believe you stated approx. 50% of the remaining 33% were that vast majority of the isk lost, resulting from what we agree to be as... just.... dumb...
It's safe to assume that within the other 50%, there were derp losses, but not as significant..

So, if we assume (assumption because we haven't calculated) that 50% of the remaining 50% of the 33% were losses in relation to actively engaging in pvp conflict (fighting back) what was the relation between losses of the defender and losses of the aggressor.
Lets see... (doing math)
So, if the number of wars in which the defender fought back was 8.25% (again, an assumption because we have not tried to recover this data) then what percentage of that group (and thus what percentage of all wardecs) did the defender come out on top as far as isk destroyed goes?

Though, regardless of what is killed and what is lost, a decent portion of that 77% likely didn't fight, because not fighting has a better chance of the war ending than fighting does, which is my whole premise for providing some sort of out for the defender that they can consider a win.. Win being the end of the wardec, as they would have made it mutual if they wanted to fight.
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#240 - 2016-01-21 22:33:43 UTC  |  Edited by: SurrenderMonkey
Joe Risalo wrote:


What I see with the dec mechanic is that 77% (based I your statistics) were smart enough not to get killed in a dec and/or stayed docked.
i believe you stated approx. 50% of the remaining 33% were that vast majority of the isk lost, resulting from what we agree to be as... just.... dumb...
It's safe to assume that within the other 50%, there were derp losses, but not as significant..


To be clear, I just sorted by the amount of Attacker Isk Killed, and then went down until I had more than 50% of the total, which was only 5 corps. I haven't even looked to see how stupid the rest of them were. ;)

Quote:

Though, regardless of what is killed and what is lost, a decent portion of that 77% likely didn't fight, because not fighting has a better chance of the war ending than fighting does, which is my whole premise for providing some sort of out for the defender that they can consider a win.. Win being the end of the wardec, as they would have made it mutual if they wanted to fight.


All you can really tell is how many wars had no fighting. Short of polling the defenders, any attribution of "why" there was no fighting is purely speculative.

We have data that can tell you what IS, but we don't have data that can tell you what ISN'T. Maybe they stopped logging in. Maybe they all dropped corp and reformed. Maybe they quit the game. Maybe the attacker was after their POS, and they just pulled it down (I've had this happen - decced a corp with an offline POS, they showed up and took it down before the war began. I didn't pursue them, I was just after the loot pinata).

Quote:
However, if you could tell me how the hell I use the data from that wall of garbled text, it would be appreciated.


The very hacky way I played around with it was in the link in https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6291411#post6291411

It is not ideal, but was good for some off the cuff numbers. I might pull it all into a sqlite database later for easy relational comparisons, but :effort:. We'll see.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

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