So we just use 5x Wing leaders with drone assists on them for a full fleet?

Just saying...

So we just use 5x Wing leaders with drone assists on them for a full fleet?

Just saying...

So we just use 5x Wing leaders with drone assists on them for a full fleet?

Just saying...

Sigh learn to read.

And ffs you are in my alliance too.

Sigh learn to read.

And ffs you are in my alliance too.

We feel that drone assist, at a large scale, leads to passive gameplay that most players do not enjoy

absolutly agree.

BUT u just incresing target callers count. 50 dominix - 250 drones - 5 target callers.

So we just use 5x Wing leaders with drone assists on them for a full fleet?

Just saying...

Why 50? That still seems too much.

If you increase it to 100 per player, then carrier drone assist stuff is still relevant, just sayin (unless you think that is broken too).

As long as the members of those wings only have one drone each, then sure!

Hello, some news:

it still makes no sense .. how a ship can control more drones than its bandwidth allows which surely makes drone assist a ridiculous mechanic does it not???

Sigh learn to read.

And ffs you are in my alliance too.

I think from a 'realism' standpoint it isn't out of the question to expect your drones to use your ships bandwidth to echo the behavior of another ship's drones.

That said, a big part of our approach to this issue was to isolate the two problems at the top. There may be more discussions related to delegation as a whole, 'realism', usability for drones in general, etc, but for now we wanted to find the best solution to this very specific problem.

CCP Rise: Was the idea of disallowing drone assist for sentries ever discussed?

Hello, some news:

We've watched the discussion in the community evolve and also kept a close eye on TQ behavior.

As always, leave your feedback and we will do our best to answer any questions.

Why 50? That still seems too much.
I can only control 5 drones from my ship natively, but for some reason I can use 50 from others?

We believe a flat cap will:

Limit large scale assist substantially

Leave room for smaller scale assisting (there are several use-cases for assist that we wanted to preserve, such as incursion drone managers)

Be very easy to communicate to players

Affect carriers more heavily than sub-caps (because they can field 10 drones per ship rather than 5)

and will make further adjustments.

Well, kill2... no.
The socalled discussion was a number of unhappy whiny players, that were doctrinated to belive theyr own lies after a while, crying out loud because the game didnt allow them to win, despite having more ppl in fleets.
The drone assist carrier was founded and used to counter 250 celestis with 4damps locking beyond 200km in huge fleet fights.
Players addapted... using 100x expensier ships (20m celestis 2b carrier)

Im cool with you and fozzie nerfing everything the second masses start to cry. Its notning new after all... but your reasoning for doing so is just absurd.

Well, kill2... no.
The socalled discussion was a number of unhappy whiny players, that were doctrinated to belive theyr own lies after a while, crying out loud because the game didnt allow them to win, despite having more ppl in fleets.
The drone assist carrier was founded and used to counter 250 celestis with 4damps locking beyond 200km in huge fleet fights.
Players addapted... using 100x expensier ships (20m celestis 2b carrier)

Im cool with you and fozzie nerfing everything the second masses start to cry. Its notning new after all... but your reasoning for doing so is just absurd.

Well, kill2... no.
The socalled discussion was a number of unhappy whiny players, that were doctrinated to belive theyr own lies after a while, crying out loud because the game didnt allow them to win, despite having more ppl in fleets.
The drone assist carrier was founded and used to counter 250 celestis with 4damps locking beyond 200km in huge fleet fights.
Players addapted... using 100x expensier ships (20m celestis 2b carrier)

Im cool with you and fozzie nerfing everything the second masses start to cry. Its notning new after all... but your reasoning for doing so is just absurd.

Well, kill2... no.
The socalled discussion was a number of unhappy whiny players, that were doctrinated to belive theyr own lies after a while, crying out loud because the game didnt allow them to win, despite having more ppl in fleets.
The drone assist carrier was founded and used to counter 250 celestis with 4damps locking beyond 200km in huge fleet fights.
Players addapted... using 100x expensier ships (20m celestis 2b carrier)

Im cool with you and fozzie nerfing everything the second masses start to cry. Its notning new after all... but your reasoning for doing so is just absurd.

This is certainly the most common concern we ran into. As I said above, we think it's low enough. We didn't want to go lower because of the potential impact on other uses for assist, but if this doesn't work we will consider going lower at that point.

nice try

but i think drones MUST eat some capacitor

While you are at it, why not switch the name of the game to goons get what they want online. After all every time they tell you to change something, you do it. Nerf needed or not.

Can we take this as a sign, then, that CCP holds the opinion that capitals should offer even fewer advantages to offset the increased cost, effort, risk, and skills required to effectively field them, as compared to simply fielding big piles of subcaps?

Also, a broader question - do you intend to leave any force multipliers in EVE, Rise, or simply reduce it to whoever has more dudes in T1 subcaps, or alternatively, in bombers? It seems to be trending a lot that way lately, and I'm just curious if that's intentional or simply persistent oversight.

so aren't the CSM at all concerned with the frigate abuse of drone assist?

As always, leave your feedback and we will do our best to answer any questions.

Part of the utility of drones is to provide a counter to EW in general.

No we aren't. Not even slightly.

At least limit it to 25 per person with the 50 drone cap on gallente Command Ship.

Heaven forbid more people have fun than just those with the biggest toys.

WOW!!! so you think a condor controlling the alpha of 50 sentries with a lock time of what 2 secs is balanced?

While you are at it, why not switch the name of the game to goons get what they want online. After all every time they tell you to change something, you do it. Nerf needed or not.

Please clarify yourself here. What do you mean "if this doesn't work" ?

it just seems bizzare that a fleets drones dps can be controlled by so few yet all gun/missile ships don't have the same luxury..

Please ccp keep fixing the things that Goons dont like. instead of working on things that would reduce your server load, likeeeee after 50 drones on are field they generate no model.

Everyone knew drone assist to carriers was insanely broken. It made carriers dps, tank and logistics all at once while having instant lock and immune to EWAR. If you can't see that is was one of the most OP things in the game then you sir are an idiot.

Shoot the condor?

If you remove it from frigs the blobs will just use a T3 with sensor subsystem and re-sebo.

At least you can kill the condor.

I'm all for having fun, but I'd like to see it be balanced and spread across the entire spectrum of the game. I've sat here and watched CCP buff the **** out of everything cheap and T1, barely improve T2, and talk widely about planning to nerf T3, and now give some indication (in this post) that they consider changes which nerf capitals more than subcapitals to be desirable.

"Everyone having fun" is all well and good as a slogan, but the reality is that force multipliers have and should remain a key part of EVE - if you don't have a big pile of dudes, your options are more restricted, but there have always been strategies you can pursue to punch above your weight. CCP is removing those, slowly but surely, and as a member of a group that enjoys not being blue to 70% of EVE, that's a bit frustrating to watch. I'm simply curious whether that's the direction CCP wants us to go - whoever has more dudes wins, end of discussion - or if it's simply an accident on their part?

I am starting to see a big time trend here thats gone back several years.

If the CFC or Goons encounter somthing that decimates thier fleets they yell for nerf, they yell for changes and qq whine and complain and stomp thier feet untill ccp doesnt somthing that will benifit them. A way for a inferior amount of numbers to counter a much larger group was invented, and while it let the small group counter the much larger one the smaller one put more risk in isk and ship out there. CFC didnt like this and much like titan tracking screamed for nerf.

Did you stop and think how this would negativly effect mining fleets? As it is youv allready nerfed mining in non empire to ****, making mining sites not need to be scanned, putting null ice fields on a 4 hour cycle, letting ceptors warp through bubbles. Now one of the last things that miners had to defend with and that was a cloud of drones is gone.

Please ccp keep fixing the things that Goons dont like. instead of working on things that would reduce your server load, likeeeee after 50 drones on are field they generate no model.

I can't put a number on it, but currently Dominixes are responsible for somewhere in the ballpark of 5 times the PVP damage dealt of the next most popular fleet battleship, if that's still the case in a few months this will have 'not worked'.

Also I think Mittani may need to get treatment from a doctor for acute smugness overdose.

I am starting to see a big time trend here thats gone back several years.

If the CFC or Goons encounter somthing that decimates thier fleets they yell for nerf, they yell for changes and qq whine and complain and stomp thier feet untill ccp doesnt somthing that will benifit them. A way for a inferior amount of numbers to counter a much larger group was invented, and while it let the small group counter the much larger one the smaller one put more risk in isk and ship out there. CFC didnt like this and much like titan tracking screamed for nerf.

Did you stop and think how this would negativly effect mining fleets? As it is youv allready nerfed mining in non empire to ****, making mining sites not need to be scanned, putting null ice fields on a 4 hour cycle, letting ceptors warp through bubbles. Now one of the last things that miners had to defend with and that was a cloud of drones is gone.

Please ccp keep fixing the things that Goons dont like. instead of working on things that would reduce your server load, likeeeee after 50 drones on are field they generate no model.

THIS is bullshit!

but Init. and Darkness. CSM... so ... yeah whatever

Did you stop and think how this would negativly effect mining fleets? As it is youv allready nerfed mining in non empire to ****, making mining sites not need to be scanned, putting null ice fields on a 4 hour cycle, letting ceptors warp through bubbles. Now one of the last things that miners had to defend with and that was a cloud of drones is gone.

I'm all for having fun, but I'd like to see it be balanced and spread across the entire spectrum of the game. I've sat here and watched CCP buff the **** out of everything cheap and T1, barely improve T2, and talk widely about planning to nerf T3, and now give some indication (in this post) that they consider changes which nerf capitals more than subcapitals to be desirable.

"Everyone having fun" is all well and good as a slogan, but the reality is that force multipliers have and should remain a key part of EVE - if you don't have a big pile of dudes, your options are more restricted, but there have always been strategies you can pursue to punch above your weight. CCP is removing those, slowly but surely, and as a member of a group that enjoys not being blue to 70% of EVE, that's a bit frustrating to watch. I'm simply curious whether that's the direction CCP wants us to go - whoever has more dudes wins, end of discussion - or if it's simply an accident on their part?

I can't put a number on it, but currently Dominixes are responsible for somewhere in the ballpark of 5 times the PVP damage dealt of the next most popular fleet battleship, if that's still the case in a few months this will have 'not worked'.

Did you just say carriers were immune to ewar? My sides.

Did you just say carriers were immune to ewar? My sides.

WOW!!! so you think a condor controlling the alpha of 50 sentries with a lock time of what 2 secs is balanced?

You really ought to check wihch character you're logged into the eve online forums before posting. Thanks for revealing yet another N3PL spy in a CFC alliance.

Dude, just shoot the condor.

you can still do the same thing, you just need more people as triggers :(((((((((((((((((((((

And so eve returns to the same old blob wins at everything game design CCP thinks is best.

Hello, some news:

[b]Coming soon, in a Rubicon point release, we are planning to add a hard cap to the number of drones that can be assisted to a single player. Currently, we are planning to set that cap at 50.

Well, kill2... no.
The socalled discussion was a number of unhappy whiny players, that were doctrinated to belive theyr own lies after a while, crying out loud because the game didnt allow them to win, despite having more ppl in fleets.
The drone assist carrier was founded and used to counter 250 celestis with 4damps locking beyond 200km in huge fleet fights.
Players addapted... using 100x expensier ships (20m celestis 2b carrier)

Im cool with you and fozzie nerfing everything the second masses start to cry. Its notning new after all... but your reasoning for doing so is just absurd.

A quick look shows that you recognized a problem in the game

looked at various solutions to said problem

spoke to players and the csm about said solutions

recognized and addressed any issues that may come up as a result of the change

and gave us something we want.


this was a perfect execution of a game change, and while i wish it had come sooner i am glad you took the time to think out all the effects on diverse group's game play from a fundamental level. now you guys should put together a seminar for the other devs on how to make game changes. (maybe things like ess would have been proposed at the state it's currently in and not the hot mess it was).

News flash, we did win.

Why 50?

To arrive at 50 we began by starting at complete removal of assist, and worked our way back up until we had caught all the use-cases for assist that we didn't want to impact negatively. That included frigates on gates trying to catch cloakers, small fleets trying to use assist to avoid e-war, logistics pilots who are too busy to manage their drones, and most importantly, incursioners.

Before I go, I want to say that we've been looking at this for some time now. We've watched the discussion in the community evolve and also kept a close eye on TQ behavior. We began discussing this change with the CSM via internal forums just prior to the summit, and then spent significant time discussing it in person with them during the summit. Their feedback was valuable, as always, and gives us confidence that this is a good direction.
.

It only took you 54k + people from the cfc and the entire russian coalition to beat somthing that was 2/3 the numbers of the cfc alone. Grats.

this would limit the amount of drones being assigned and also make it more personal skill and such vrs something this heavy handed.

It only took you 54k + people from the cfc and the entire russian coalition to beat somthing that was 2/3 the numbers of the cfc alone. Grats.

How about limiting by bandwith? Allow assisting 1250 Mbit/sec. That way sentry/heavy drones are limited to 50 drones, but light and medium can assist 250 and 125 respectively. This will let incursion fleets of all sizes still have a drone bunny since incursion pilots always have guns/reps/webs/painters to operate and do not generate tidi.

This could work in conjunction with replacing carrier drone bonus with a "+20% per level drone damage, +20% per level drone bandwith use" and DCU function with "+20% drone damage, +20% drone bandwith use per module".

Why 50?

To arrive at 50 we began by starting at complete removal of assist, and worked our way back up until we had caught all the use-cases for assist that we didn't want to impact negatively. That included frigates on gates trying to catch cloakers, small fleets trying to use assist to avoid e-war, logistics pilots who are too busy to manage their drones, and most importantly, incursioners. We believe 50 will leave all these uses unharmed while also heavily discouraging large fleet use.

While you are at it, why not switch the name of the game to goons get what they want online. After all every time they tell you to change something, you do it. Nerf needed or not.

While you are at it, why not switch the name of the game to goons get what they want online. After all every time they tell you to change something, you do it. Nerf needed or not.

+1 that way we can start flying baltec fleet again, Megathron fleets are sexy as hell.

We feel that drone assist, at a large scale, leads to passive gameplay that most players do not enjoy

absolutly agree.

BUT u just incresing target callers count. 50 dominix - 250 drones - 5 target callers.

As long as the members of those wings only have one drone each, then sure!

I don't care much for drone doctrines, so personally I don't get too fuzzed about this. However, what makes me annoyed is that you seem incredibly keen on nerfing symptoms, rather than actual issues.

Letting one person control the combined drones of an entire fleet is bad. Okay, fair enough. But why oh why, is it absolutely fine for one person in the entire fleet be the prober, the fleet warper and the broadcaster of targets for the entire fleet? How is that in any way different from drone assisting, in terms of what is required of a player? Oh no, you have to shift+clik and push F1, mad skills there!

If you really wanted to make players more involved in these fights, you would put more responsibility on the individual pilot, for instance removing fleet warp and broadcasting targets, and only being able to warp/broadcast to your own wing.

I would think that changing how fleets work altogether should be the goal, to require more pilot involvement, but instead you are trying to cure underlying mechanics by putting on a bandaid on the most superficial wound. It is the exact same pattern as with the changes to supers vs. the underlying problem of sov mechanics and too easy movement of big fleets.

Did someone mention that the last AT was won by 39 Sentries?
so why dont go to like 20?

Did someone mention that the last AT was won by 39 Sentries?
so why dont go to like 20?

Putting cap for 50 drones is good direction, but:
- fast locking ceptor having assist of 50 sentry drones is still way OP
- fleets will go from assist to drone bunny to assist to your squad leader. ( this is still very bad )

My proposal:
- frigates/destroyers/cruisers/battle cruisers can have max 5 drones assisted.
- other ships can have 25 drones assisted with the exception for command ships that can go to 50 drone cap when fitting some new module reserved only for Command Ships.

No, no you haven't. 50 is not even enough for a typical VG fleet (12 pilots) and certainly not for an HQ with 40 pilots.

Just make the assist depend on drone bandwidth. That way you can limit alpha with sentries which can be considered main weapon while not interfering with light drones which are used as secondary damage application.

1250 bandwidth and this change is at least reasonable.

Can we take this as a sign, then, that CCP holds the opinion that capitals should offer even fewer advantages to offset the increased cost, effort, risk, and skills required to effectively field them, as compared to simply fielding big piles of subcaps?

Putting cap for 50 drones is good direction, but:
- fast locking ceptor having assist of 50 sentry drones is still way OP
- fleets will go from assist to drone bunny to assist to your squad leader. ( this is still very bad )

My proposal:
- frigates/destroyers/cruisers/battle cruisers can have max 5 drones assisted.
- other ships can have 25 drones assisted with the exception for command ships that can go to 50 drone cap when fitting some new module reserved only for Command Ships.

2 people have to take care of their own drones. ISK/h ruined. -17 accounts. Thanks CCP.

I don't care much for drone doctrines, so personally I don't get too fuzzed about this. However, what makes me annoyed is that you seem incredibly keen on nerfing symptoms, rather than actual issues.

Letting one person control the combined drones of an entire fleet is bad. Okay, fair enough. But why oh why, is it absolutely fine for one person in the entire fleet be the prober, the fleet warper and the broadcaster of targets for the entire fleet? How is that in any way different from drone assisting, in terms of what is required of a player? Oh no, you have to shift+clik and push F1, mad skills there!

If you really wanted to make players more involved in these fights, you would put more responsibility on the individual pilot, for instance removing fleet warp and broadcasting targets, and only being able to warp/broadcast to your own wing.

I would think that changing how fleets work altogether should be the goal, to require more pilot involvement, but instead you are trying to cure underlying mechanics by putting on a bandaid on the most superficial wound. It is the exact same pattern as with the changes to supers vs. the underlying problem of sov mechanics and too easy movement of big fleets.

This.

Since you are removing the upsides of drones what about the downsides? Will they get any boosts? Like more better resists for drones to increase their lifetime on the field? Given how stupidly easy it is to strip drone doctrines that are not capital based of their dps?

As an active incursion runner I strongly believe this change will (negatively) affect incursions as it's not uncommon to see more than 70 drones(small and medium) at a single site.
On the other hand, heavy drones and sentries aren't used due to their slow dps application(heavies) or the need to keep moving(sentries).

Is it possible to have separate caps for sentries and small/medium drones? The current 50 for sentries and let's say 100 for small/medium drones?

normally id be with you, but there are a number of hearing impaired people who require broadcasts to be able to do anything in big fleet pvp

Lol sad people brutally discovering that they actually need to play the game to make isks.

Being able to let someone else control your ship while afking is stupid by definition. This mechanism shouldn't exist in the first place.

WOW!!! so you think a condor controlling the alpha of 50 sentries with a lock time of what 2 secs is balanced?

missing the point entirely here.......

Drones, especially sentries, are a main weapons platform. It's one thing to "broadcast" a target to an entire fleet. A broadcast is simply an electronic message, so to say. Fleet warp isn't broken. I've never seen anybody complain about entire fleets being able to be warped by one dude. It's too bad you can't see the difference between main weapon systems of an entire fleet being controlled by one dude with a fast lock ship and fleet broadcasts.

Assigned sentry fleets are literally one guy playing the game (fighting the battle) while the rest of the fleet goes off to make a sammich. Guess it's back to lock/press F1/keep at range time again for you sammich makers.

Wish peeps would stop grizzling about the way that CCP's designs are utilized, after all it's a game feature your talking about here, one dreamed up by the Dev's that they did not apply enough thought to at the time.

Better to grizzle at CCP to update the games coding and the servers rather than complain that players use the games features to there best advantage.

To CCP directly, if your going to insert new features in to the game do not be so intent on trinkets, think about the impact of your designs on game play and server load, better more updates that improve content and work over change just because you thought it was a good idea.

Building from your point. Would a "lock time" delay on the drones first shot help with that. ? Like a 3-5 secs delay to simulate the drone actually "locking" the target. hence removing the "insta-lock" effect from assisting fast tacklers.

Just a tought.

What's the lock range on a Condor?

No we aren't. Not even slightly.



WOW!!! so you think a condor controlling the alpha of 50 sentries with a lock time of what 2 secs is balanced?

Dude, just shoot the condor.


missing the point entirely here.......

What's the lock range on a Condor?

What's the lock range on a Condor?

And seriously, how is Shift-click, press F1, wait 10 minutes in any way, shape or form less passive than the Ishtar/Domi sentry fleets where you assign drones, then tackle and a hostile and go afk 10 minutes? The first argument in the Dev post is that they want to move away from passive gameplay. How is having 1 person probing down the hostile fleet, warping the entire fleet to said hostile fleet, broacasting all the targets neeeded encouraging active gameplay for the individual pilots?

Yay, we fixed drones. Now the battles in 10% Tidi requires you to press 1 more button in Baltec, Proteus, Eagle or whateverfleet, and then go afk, due to the fact that 1 individual basically can run the entire fleet, except for the 2 clicks with a mouse.

How awesome and revolutionary this will be for the actual activity of individual pilots in fleet fights!

2 people have to take care of their own drones. ISK/h ruined. -17 accounts. Thanks CCP.

Also having to do math on 17 lights+ 12 mediums + 3 heavies + 11 sentries sounds like so much fun.

I can't put a number on it, but currently Dominixes are responsible for somewhere in the ballpark of 5 times the PVP damage dealt of the next most popular fleet battleship, if that's still the case in a few months this will have 'not worked'.

Well, kill2... no.
The socalled discussion was a number of unhappy whiny players, that were doctrinated to belive theyr own lies after a while, crying out loud because the game didnt allow them to win, despite having more ppl in fleets.
The drone assist carrier was founded and used to counter 250 celestis with 4damps locking beyond 200km in huge fleet fights.
Players addapted... using 100x expensier ships (20m celestis 2b carrier)

Im cool with you and fozzie nerfing everything the second masses start to cry. Its notning new after all... but your reasoning for doing so is just absurd.

While you are at it, why not switch the name of the game to goons get what they want online. After all every time they tell you to change something, you do it. Nerf needed or not.

I don't care much for drone doctrines, so personally I don't get too fuzzed about this. However, what makes me annoyed is that you seem incredibly keen on nerfing symptoms, rather than actual issues.

Letting one person control the combined drones of an entire fleet is bad. Okay, fair enough. But why oh why, is it absolutely fine for one person in the entire fleet be the prober, the fleet warper and the broadcaster of targets for the entire fleet? How is that in any way different from drone assisting, in terms of what is required of a player? Oh no, you have to shift+clik and push F1, mad skills there!

If you really wanted to make players more involved in these fights, you would put more responsibility on the individual pilot, for instance removing fleet warp and broadcasting targets, and only being able to warp/broadcast to your own wing.

I would think that changing how fleets work altogether should be the goal, to require more pilot involvement, but instead you are trying to cure underlying mechanics by putting on a bandaid on the most superficial wound. It is the exact same pattern as with the changes to supers vs. the underlying problem of sov mechanics and too easy movement of big fleets.

Probing a good warpin and acting on that can win or lose a fight.
Assiting your drones or hitting f1 at the right time isn't anywhere near the same thing.

Don't ship this without fixing fighters. It's cool for subcaps but kills carriers as a counter against subcaps

Don't feel bad, there are people in INIT. who unironically think that removing AoE doomsday was wrong. It just goes to show.

1 squad commander controlling 7000dps of fully obedient drones is still better than 1 squad commander commanding 10 humans who may miss or mistake orders.

Just after spending the last two months training drones skills, I am less then two days from T2 sentries.

Can I have my skill points back, please CCP?

or

Since I will not be using T2 sentries now.

PLEX for Removal of Unwanted/Unused Skills

Probing a good warpin and acting on that can win or lose a fight.
Assiting your drones or hitting f1 at the right time isn't anywhere near the same thing.

so when we getting a hard cap on power projection? should there not be deminishing returns when you have over 2k people shooting one frig?

While I know this game is balanced for PVP first and formost (as it should), this change will have a much bigger effect on large Incursion communities that run Headquarter sites than people might realize.

Is there any way that drone assists for small combat drones stay the same as it is now, while all other combat drones get a max of 50?

And seriously, how is Shift-click, press F1, wait 10 minutes in any way, shape or form less passive than the Ishtar/Domi sentry fleets where you assign drones, then tackle and a hostile and go afk 10 minutes? The first argument in the Dev post is that they want to move away from passive gameplay. How is having 1 person probing down the hostile fleet, warping the entire fleet to said hostile fleet, broacasting all the targets neeeded encouraging active gameplay for the individual pilots?

Yay, we fixed drones. Now the battles in 10% Tidi requires you to press 1 more button in Baltec, Proteus, Eagle or whateverfleet, and then go afk, due to the fact that 1 individual basically can run the entire fleet, except for the 2 clicks with a mouse.

How awesome and revolutionary this will be for the actual activity of individual pilots in fleet fights!

That's the point

Don't feel bad, there are people in INIT. who unironically think that removing AoE doomsday was wrong. It just goes to show.

so when we getting a hard cap on power projection? should there not be deminishing returns when you have over 2k people shooting one frig?

rip 2000 drones shooting all at once.
rip going afk during a fleetfight.

oh no now i actually have to play eve ;_;

thanks ccp