These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Perimeter Citadel Battle

Author
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#41 - 2016-05-02 13:20:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
They aren't weak, though. They're actually pretty powerful, their EWAR is very effective, they neut a ton, are completely immune to electronic and capacitor warfare, do more dps than any sub capital ship that exists and they don't require any skills to use. The problem being experienced by this defender is that strength is relative to the threat.

When the threat is twenty guys with a coherent fleet of battleships and logistics who know what to expect. It's like sitting in space in a capital and expecting to be able to solo a twenty man subcapital fleet unsupported.



To be blunt the force you detailed should be able to take it down, you won't get any counter argument on that from me, my understanding is that it required 5 BS worth of damage which is fine in terms of the time and EHP, the next equation is dealing with the damage that it puts out and three Guardians is about right to me.

For me a Citadel should be a force multiplier for a defending fleet and my initial feeling was that it was about right, people gave the impression it was easy which is why I called it chickenshit level, but if it requires 5 BS and three logi then that is the correct level to me.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Black Pedro
Mine.
#42 - 2016-05-02 13:25:57 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
I may join a coalition in defending one and have already been suggesting this as something to do. But there is no point with a Medium, no benefit at all. If they are so weak then its an expensive kill mail and a waste of effort, not that I care about losing ships and all, but you want to do something logical and needed in a logical game, not put up something with no functionality that is likely to die if someone sneezes on it.

Anyway I am waiting for a Large to join in on, a Medium is wasted effort...
I find your motivations hard to comprehend. You have no problem spending your game time coming to the aid of completely unarmed freighters, whose armament is non-existent and which can be exploded in 20 seconds, but somehow aiding an armed battlestation which (will) have a cost less than a freighter, and takes a minimum of 90 minutes to explode, is not worth it? It can't be the success rate as you often fail at saving a freighter (but granted, you succeed from time-to-time). Why would defending a Citadel be any less logical than defending a freighter?

I'm not trying to pick a fight here, I just don't quite get it. Content is content. If you are fighting bad guys for fun, Citadels should be a great place to do that the structure itself auto-points the attackers so you can get the drop on them and their support capabilities are significant. Ultimately, who cares if you can't save every citadel, just like you can't save every freighter, as long as you are having fun.

Larges should generate bigger fights, but I also bet those who put them up are more able to defend them, especially if they are offering market services. Those would be fun to fight over too, but you might make more of a difference helping small corps defend their mediums.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#43 - 2016-05-02 13:34:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Black Pedro wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
I may join a coalition in defending one and have already been suggesting this as something to do. But there is no point with a Medium, no benefit at all. If they are so weak then its an expensive kill mail and a waste of effort, not that I care about losing ships and all, but you want to do something logical and needed in a logical game, not put up something with no functionality that is likely to die if someone sneezes on it.

Anyway I am waiting for a Large to join in on, a Medium is wasted effort...
I find your motivations hard to comprehend. You have no problem spending your game time coming to the aid of completely unarmed freighters, whose armament is non-existent and which can be exploded in 20 seconds, but somehow aiding an armed battlestation which (will) have a cost less than a freighter, and takes a minimum of 90 minutes to explode, is not worth it? It can't be the success rate as you often fail at saving a freighter (but granted, you succeed from time-to-time). Why would defending a Citadel be any less logical than defending a freighter?

I'm not trying to pick a fight here, I just don't quite get it. Content is content. If you are fighting bad guys for fun, Citadels should be a great place to do that the structure itself auto-points the attackers so you can get the drop on them and their support capabilities are significant. Ultimately, who cares if you can't save every citadel, just like you can't save every freighter, as long as you are having fun.

Larges should generate bigger fights, but I also bet those who put them up are more able to defend them, especially if they are offering market services. Those would be fun to fight over too, but you might make more of a difference helping small corps defend their mediums.


Well actually if someone wanted to put up a Medium and talked to people first about forming a defensive coalition that is the same as getting a webber and not being afk. I am not here to baby sit idiots, for example the other day some guy in the same corp did a duel with his own freighter removing all the AG reps, I told the guys to leave the bloody idiot to his fate.

A freighter is taking stuff to the market, that market is key to surviving in hisec, also the loot goes to the gankers to fund more ganks, so its strategic, while there is nothing strategic about a Medium Citadel, it does absolutely nothing. The market services being removed from a Medium was a death blow to them as being useful. Why use them?

I have no intention to spend time saving idiots so putting up a Medium is idiotic, if they want refining use a small POS and turn it off after the refining has completed and leave it off line. Seriously...

EDIT: I thought a little bit more on your question, but what is the point in putting up something just for a fight when I can just run into lowsec or 0.0 and get one, if there is no reason to put one up other than a fight then we might as well have arena's. Its not a trick question, for me it has to have value to defend it. Now I could put one up if all of my corp members were active and invite a fight and have the force multiplier, so a PvP corp has a benefit, but anyone else has no reason to put one up.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#44 - 2016-05-02 13:34:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Vimsy Vortis
Dracvlad wrote:
For me a Citadel should be a force multiplier for a defending fleet and my initial feeling was that it was about right, people gave the impression it was easy which is why I called it chickenshit level, but if it requires 5 BS and three logi then that is the correct level to me.

That's exactly what it is. Fighting that and an actual competent defense fleet at the same time would be horrendous without having a huge numerical advantage. It's like having the mutant spawn of a Scorpion, Armageddon, Lachesis and torpedo spewing typhoon fleet issue on your nuts the entire time, except it's also invincible.

It gives the defender a tactical advantage that is huge in a small scale fight, but the advantage diminishes as the scale of the fight increases and the attacking fleet gains more power and redundancy. When you reach the point where you can tank the DPS of the citadel and have enough redundant logistics (no less than 3) that the jams are not affecting your ability to tank the advantage of the citadel is almost entirely negated and you need to bring a fleet.

It would absolutely be able to provide adequate defense against disorganized bads that people erroneously believe that all highsec PVP groups consist of, but the reality is that those kinds of groups no longer represent the majority of highsec PVPers, since the highsec PVP meta has over time shifted in favor of larger groups with more organization and collective resources due to significantly increased barriers to entry and costs. So expect lots of blown up citadels until they become a common occurrence.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#45 - 2016-05-02 13:47:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
For me a Citadel should be a force multiplier for a defending fleet and my initial feeling was that it was about right, people gave the impression it was easy which is why I called it chickenshit level, but if it requires 5 BS and three logi then that is the correct level to me.

That's exactly what it is. Fighting that and an actual competent defense fleet at the same time would be horrendous without having a huge numerical advantage. It's like having the mutant spawn of a Scorpion, Armageddon, Lachesis and torpedo spewing typhoon fleet issue on your nuts the entire time, except it's also invincible.

It gives the defender a tactical advantage that is huge in a small scale fight, but the advantage diminishes as the scale of the fight increases and the attacking fleet gains more power and redundancy. When you reach the point where you can tank the DPS of the citadel and have enough redundant logistics (no less than 3) that the jams are not affecting your ability to tank the advantage of the citadel is almost entirely negated and you need to bring a fleet.


Well that sounds about right to me then, I had read that is the level that CCP was aiming for and I wanted to see if that was true, as you guys were part of the fleet that reinforced it then I appreciate your insight. Now its a question of kicking people to see that they have to get a fleet in space to defend it which is what I was hoping would develop in hisec. Why these people cannot sort out friends before doing so is beyond me

There is another problem in that there is absolutely no value in putting a Medium up period, unless you want it as a a force multiplier. I mean I would do it for that if all my corp mates were active that is...

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#46 - 2016-05-02 13:51:13 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
There is another problem in that there is absolutely no value in putting a Medium up period, unless you want it as a a force multiplier. I mean I would do it for that if all my corp mates were active that is...

They're pretty much only useful for refining as far as I'm aware, that and getting people to declare war on you.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#47 - 2016-05-02 13:55:29 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
There is another problem in that there is absolutely no value in putting a Medium up period, unless you want it as a a force multiplier. I mean I would do it for that if all my corp mates were active that is...

They're pretty much only useful for refining as far as I'm aware, that and getting people to declare war on you.


Big smileLol You are right on the war dec side of things...

They are not really worth it for refining, its much better to just online a small POS, run your refining job then put it offline again and in any case when the new refining structures come on line they will nerf the refining, there is no reason to put one up as a mining or indy corp period.

The people who put one up in Perimeter looked like a low sec entity, I guess that was for bragging rights or **** waving...

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#48 - 2016-05-02 13:59:13 UTC
I am always right about war decs.

SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT
TigerXtrm
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#49 - 2016-05-02 14:05:33 UTC
gnshadowninja wrote:
TigerXtrm wrote:
I really hope CCP is going to change wardec mechanics before the rollout of all structures is complete, because at this rate not many high sec structures will ever exist. Current war dec mechanics were already broken before this, but they are highly incompatible with the way structure vulnerability works.


Most stupid comment of 2016 award given.

War dec mechanics are only broken for us mercs who cannot hunt targets who keep jumping corp/alliancr.


Lol yeah sure okay Lol

My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!

My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums

Natural CloneKiller
Commonwealth Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#50 - 2016-05-02 14:08:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Natural CloneKiller
If the owner of the citadel wants to pay us not to kill the citadel they can. We can even turn them into clients and they or whoever can start to pay us to protect their structures.

Tbh tonight is more than likely not going to happen. With all the hype and publicity there is more than likely a blob of war targets wanting to get involved. In that case we will look to fight but were not going to lose a load of ships to a blob when we can come back next week or the week after when everyone gets bored and allows us to get on with our business :)

Tbh we just wanted to see how this all works and start to refine doctrines to go on the offensive. The defender has so much time now to deal with our threat that this could be a problem.

VMG is officially in the business of taking down and defending your citadels. Hire us!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGILP9w6F7k
Shalashaska Adam
Snakes and Lasers
#51 - 2016-05-02 14:12:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Shalashaska Adam
I dont think anyone should argue that a medium citadel should be able to withstand 5 battleships and 2-3 logi without a defence fleet. If it did then they would be too powerful in lowsec/wspace.

I think the issue rather, is simply that such a force does not need to be paid for, and the fleet formed, soley to exact revenge upon a single citadel. With indescriminate mass wardec mechanics, such a small force could reinforce and destroy a dozen citades or more a day, and there needs not be any other reason for doing it than simply the 1bil killmails.

The killmail is the payment, the reward, its the sole reason that billions get spent on wardecs each and every day. Theres not dozens of people waiting outside jita just for you, they are there to farm hundreds of people, citadels are no different.

Just need someone with a notepad of all their vulnerability times and away you go reinforcing every single one that cant mount an equal defence.

They dont have to be probed down or hunted for, they are all visible in space and on the structure window.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#52 - 2016-05-02 14:13:23 UTC
I saw you explode it was the funny.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#53 - 2016-05-02 14:14:27 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
I am always right about war decs.

SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT


Well we had an exchange on war decs a couple of years ago, while I could see your point of view the simple final end point was what if the person decided not to log in for a week if they were locked in and then not at all if it kept rolling on what then?

I said to you at the time that there had to be something they had to defend, something with value, sadly the Medium Citadel is not it for the reasons I explained as it has no current value. I find the blanket war dec to get targets at hubs and along the main pipes an absolute joke but understand why you do it as you need targets to keep interested and your own players interested.

CCP made a gross error in making these Medium Citadels useless.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Drago Shouna
Doomheim
#54 - 2016-05-02 14:17:40 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
There is another problem in that there is absolutely no value in putting a Medium up period, unless you want it as a a force multiplier. I mean I would do it for that if all my corp mates were active that is...

They're pretty much only useful for refining as far as I'm aware, that and getting people to declare war on you.



They're useless for refining due to the price of them, to make them viable to use rather than a pos you need to rig them. The Ice refining rig atm is 70mil, but in a medium you need 4 rigs....2 for the different ores, 2 for the different Ices.

Now besides only having 3 rig slots, you'll also not be able to fit defensive rigs if you want it just for refining, then you need the modules, then add on 120 fuel blocks minimum per module per day.

The refining module is 64m atm.

Someone better be doing a **** ton of mining and refining to ever think about getting any profit out of it.

This is in hs btw.

OH, the Cloning centre is 1.3bn atm if anyone was thinking to make a profit that way. Thats 720 fuel blocks to online it and 10 per hour on top.

Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..." " They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."

Welcome to EVE.

Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Pandemic Horde
#55 - 2016-05-02 14:21:55 UTC
Shalashaska Adam wrote:
I dont think anyone should argue that a medium citadel should be able to withstand 5 battleships and 2-3 logi without a defence fleet. If it did then they would be too powerful in lowsec/wspace.

I think the issue rather, is simply that such a force does not need to be paid for, and the fleet formed, soley to exact revenge upon a single citadel. With indescriminate mass wardec mechanics, such a small force could reinforce and destroy a dozen citades or more a day, and there needs not be any other reason for doing it than simply the 1bil killmails.

The killmail is the payment, the reward, its the sole reason that billions get spent on wardecs each and every day. Theres not dozens of people waiting outside jita just for you, they are there to farm hundreds of people, citadels are no different.

Just need someone with a notepad of all their vulnerability times and away you go reinforcing every single one that cant mount an equal defence.

They dont have to be probed down or hunted for, they are all visible in space and on the structure window.


All of which means "don't put it up if you can't defend it".

Natural CloneKiller
Commonwealth Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#56 - 2016-05-02 14:39:58 UTC
Shalashaska Adam wrote:
I dont think anyone should argue that a medium citadel should be able to withstand 5 battleships and 2-3 logi without a defence fleet. If it did then they would be too powerful in lowsec/wspace.

I think the issue rather, is simply that such a force does not need to be paid for, and the fleet formed, soley to exact revenge upon a single citadel. With indescriminate mass wardec mechanics, such a small force could reinforce and destroy a dozen citades or more a day, and there needs not be any other reason for doing it than simply the 1bil killmails.

The killmail is the payment, the reward, its the sole reason that billions get spent on wardecs each and every day. Theres not dozens of people waiting outside jita just for you, they are there to farm hundreds of people, citadels are no different.

Just need someone with a notepad of all their vulnerability times and away you go reinforcing every single one that cant mount an equal defence.

They dont have to be probed down or hunted for, they are all visible in space and on the structure window.


The corp who put up the structure can also undock and fight. It is Eve after all.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#57 - 2016-05-02 15:01:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Natural CloneKiller wrote:
Shalashaska Adam wrote:
I dont think anyone should argue that a medium citadel should be able to withstand 5 battleships and 2-3 logi without a defence fleet. If it did then they would be too powerful in lowsec/wspace.

I think the issue rather, is simply that such a force does not need to be paid for, and the fleet formed, soley to exact revenge upon a single citadel. With indescriminate mass wardec mechanics, such a small force could reinforce and destroy a dozen citades or more a day, and there needs not be any other reason for doing it than simply the 1bil killmails.

The killmail is the payment, the reward, its the sole reason that billions get spent on wardecs each and every day. Theres not dozens of people waiting outside jita just for you, they are there to farm hundreds of people, citadels are no different.

Just need someone with a notepad of all their vulnerability times and away you go reinforcing every single one that cant mount an equal defence.

They dont have to be probed down or hunted for, they are all visible in space and on the structure window.


The corp who put up the structure can also undock and fight. It is Eve after all.


For Citadels I won't disagree with you but he is making a point on blanket war decs which I agree with, but I will in terms of the refining, production and research structures, because the majority of corps in hisec cannot fight you and their defences are weaker. The question is how much will those cost and how long will it take to tear down and then if not within 24 hours we get into risk vs reward. If CCP introduces indy structures that take 7 days to pull down that are easy to locate which I totally expect, then it will be a bit of a train wreck.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#58 - 2016-05-02 15:46:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Vimsy Vortis
Dracvlad wrote:
CCP made a gross error in making these Medium Citadels useless.

The failure of CCP to provide either content driving objects and resources in highsec or mechanics that enable content creation is pretty legendary at this point.

There's two distinct factors there, things that create conflict and mechanics that enable it. CCP is worse at the later, the general desire to blow things up compensates for the former to some extent.

The problem is there's the more than one group of people who perceive anything pertaining to PVP in highsec as being inherently bad for various ridiculously ill-conceived reasons. So when someone says something like "CCP should remove faction police because that would actually enable a massive amount of anti-ganking/criminal hunting player-enforcement gameplay like people keep saying they want" all the people who don't actually care about highsec PVP gameplay and just want characters who have low security status for whatever reason to have as many penalties stacked on them as possible all whine relentlessly about it. And that's before you even get to the people who think all highsec gameplay should just be straight up bad (I've literally seen people straight up state that it's good for highsec to have bugged, unintuitive gameplay), because they're elitists about the kind of space they live in and think everybody should be there.

Heaven forfend that all types of space might have good gameplay opportunities.

Even if there were more things of value to shoot you'd still be limited by the fact that the only way to do anything whatsoever to structures is war declarations, which are a rich man (and his friends) game. A better highsec PVP environment would require more mechanics facilitating PVP and those ideas won't gain traction because they always face huge amounts of opposition from people who don't have or want to have any involvement in highsec PVP, but think it shouldn't exist.
Pandora Carrollon
Provi Rapid Response
#59 - 2016-05-02 16:07:29 UTC
I would approach this from a dynamic viewpoint. The sample test of 1 in this case is not an entire study. I think CCP will be dialing the offense/defense argument up and down for many years to come.

Just sit back and enjoy it folks.

And yes, I wouldn't put up ANY kind of citadel without a committed group of players that could defend it- regularly.

Citadels should also be 'carriers' as well IMO. They should have fleets of fighters at their disposal with the 'proper' bays and such. Normally fighters/drones can be dealt with in Lo/Null with smart bombs, but this is what sets HiSec apart, those fighters become more powerful as you can't just AOE them. The odds of hitting a neutral in HiSec would get Concord on you promptly. In fact, a tactic might be to have a neutral alt just hang out in the opposing fleet to prevent that.

You COULD use HiSec rules to help the Citadel, you just have to be clever about it.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#60 - 2016-05-02 17:10:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
CCP made a gross error in making these Medium Citadels useless.

The failure of CCP to provide either content driving objects and resources in highsec or mechanics that enable content creation is pretty legendary at this point.

There's two distinct factors there, things that create conflict and mechanics that enable it. CCP is worse at the later, the general desire to blow things up compensates for the former to some extent.

The problem is there's the more than one group of people who perceive anything pertaining to PVP in highsec as being inherently bad for various ridiculously ill-conceived reasons. So when someone says something like "CCP should remove faction police because that would actually enable a massive amount of anti-ganking/criminal hunting player-enforcement gameplay like people keep saying they want" all the people who don't actually care about highsec PVP gameplay and just want characters who have low security status for whatever reason to have as many penalties stacked on them as possible all whine relentlessly about it. And that's before you even get to the people who think all highsec gameplay should just be straight up bad (I've literally seen people straight up state that it's good for highsec to have bugged, unintuitive gameplay), because they're elitists about the kind of space they live in and think everybody should be there.

Heaven forfend that all types of space might have good gameplay opportunities.

Even if there were more things of value to shoot you'd still be limited by the fact that the only way to do anything whatsoever to structures is war declarations, which are a rich man (and his friends) game. A better highsec PVP environment would require more mechanics facilitating PVP and those ideas won't gain traction because they always face huge amounts of opposition from people who don't have or want to have any involvement in highsec PVP, but think it shouldn't exist.


First and second paragraph I agree with.

The problem is that anyone who criticises bad mechanics gets labelled straight off as a whining carebear, for example the risk free bumping issue, which is a poor mechanic and bad for game balance because there a bumper can hold someone in place without any real consequences. People saying this was wrong got unfairly labelled as such. I have pushed for docking penalties because I want CODE and other gankers to have to have a Citadel in space or a POS, you see where I am going with this, its to create meaningful content, not because I want to punish them and yet I have been accused of stacking penalties because I don't like their game play. That was not a whine but many people will accuse me of whining.

Earlier on the AG channel I bemoaned the fact that the collateral system had no mechanic to control that amount of collateral against the value of the items moved, to me it just seems stupid that people have to take this on blind trust, because its not realistic, yes its a game but its more fun if its realistic at least to me. As a result some guys made 200bn with no risk at all. A number of people in the AG channel said it would not be Eve and they are right, it just annoys me that its such high return low risk.

I have seen people getting upset because the old mechanics which often resulted in a confused carebear being shootable for no explainable reason were replaced by crimewatch 2.0. I saw a lot of people completely bemused how they ended up being shot or got CONCORDED. And people bemoaned that change, are they serious...

I want you war dec corps and alliances to have meaningful targets and battles and loot, which is why one has to have something in space that needs to be defended, the Citadels could change all that, and a Large or XL will certainly create some fairly interesting combat as long as the people who put it up get the support of enough people against the war decs that are sure to come.

But I really do not think this hub and pipe camping is really fun at all for both sides, I do believe that war dec's will have more meaning with these new structures but only if they are useful, can be defended or cheap enough that it does not matter.

It is all a question of game balance and what I found refreshing about the AG channel is that the majority of people in there want PvP and ganking in hisec, but they want it to be balanced and that is not whining or moaning.

The key thing to make war decs meaningful is to have something worth defending, the rest is utter rubbish...

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp