So it begins

Upvote is the director corp of TEST alliance. After a pleasant discussion with one of the TEST diplomats, they created a "donation" line in the balance sheet, and just as I said last week, sent them the first 20B. Unless something bad happens, I'll keep sending 20B on every month 10.th.

So the bad news is that I won't have a titan. The good news is that maybe something great starts in the history of EVE, maybe industrious pilots follow this example and start donating their unused money to their alliance instead of spending it on ships they can't really fly. With just a few dozen pilots that 6% income I provide alone can easily jump above the Tech moons. Let's leave flying titans to those who actually do it right. No need for more daves dream.

I was also invited to join TEST which I'll happily do as soon as I'll have my logi pilot ready to fly. I have some things to finish in highsec, and then my "combat" pilots will be off to actually fly in nullsec. I already see that the most busy will be my Rorqual.

Since this is EVE, things can always turn out bad. But this plan definitely worth losing 20B that I'm not even using anyway.


Friday morning report: 144.0B, (5.5 spent on main accounts, 3.6 spent on Logi/Carrier, 3.2 on Ragnarok, 2.6 on Rorqual, 2.4 on Nyx, 2.8 on Avatar, 17.4 sent as gift)

Read More

MMO "individualism": lack of quadratics

I'm not playing World of Warcraft at the moment, but it will change with Mists of Pandaria coming out. I'm not planning to start any project or doing any form of endgame, just a journey in the game content. Blizzard is famous for creating good content and for screwing up gameplay terribly. WoW isn't a game anymore, it's an interactive movie.

Growing individualism in MMOs became a theme in blogs, including Tobolds and stubborns. They claim that WoW is an individualist game, where one with individualist mindset will win over those who are collectivist. They emphasize the solo leveling as an unquestionable proof of fostering individual play. Tobold said "WoW's problem is that playing alone offers the fastest progression". It is factually not true. There are four kind of WoW quests:

• Kill 10 wolves: you get kills for the wolves the other guy kill, so if you are N in the group, you have to kill 10/N wolves
• Kill big bad wolf: all of you have to do HP/N damage into the big bad wolf to die and you all get the kill.
• Take item from wolves lair: the item is protected by n wolves. In a party of N you have to kill n/N wolves
• Gather 10 wolf pelts: here you have to kill 10 wolves in group and in solo too. The only problem in group if the zone has less than 10*N wolves because you have to wait for respawn. However Blizzard adjusted respawn times according to players present, so wolves will spawn.

I played WoW leveling only in group, together with my girlfriend. It's even faster than the mentioned 1/2, as we designed our leveling builds that one of us could tank or heal, so we could pull all the wolves and AoE them down. All the mechanics to do that (AoE damage >> single target, holy trinity) were done by Blizzard. WoW leveling is designed to be easy in group. The individualistic design of EVE is stunning by comparison: two players on the same mission can't do it together, the agent gives different locations. Travel time takes much of the EVE mission time, so you are better off doing your missions separately.

I would guess WoW XP gathering is about 70% better in a team of two. Before Tobold would say "no", I'd ask him to do the same test and ask her wife just one hour to speed-level together. He'll see the XP just rolling in.

Why do people still level solo? One would naturally blame the morons and slackers who make grouping ineffective: they do low effort (they kill 2 wolves while you kill 8), they go AFK, forcing you to wait for them or drop group and they are extremely annoying with their jokes and lolspeak. However it's a wrong answer. You'd just have to find people of your own skill and the average players would level together happily.

The power increase from getting a groupmate is quadratic. Simple explanation: the team lives until the enemy eats their HP, time_to_live = HP*n/enemy_DPS where n is member count. They do DPS*n*time_to_live damage, so their overall damage is DPS*HP/enemy_DPS*n². This equation is written deeply into our psyche, as it was a very strong evolutionary bonus to be able to recognize when to fight and when to run. So anything less than quadratic increase feels lacking.

The quadratic increase is there in PvP. The EVE alliances that focus on numbers steamroll "elite PvP" groups, despite their gaming skill and the value of their ship is low even by their own confessions. It could be there in PvE too, but it's not. Its lack is felt strongly, causing aversion from group play. I mean if you are in a team of two, you subconsciously expect 4x more XP and you get 1.7x more. Then you - also sub-consciously - assume that the other player is leeching on you.

To see the reason, let's return to the equation: total_damage = DPS*n*time_to_live. How much is time_to_live in WoW or EVE PvE? No, it's not HP*n/enemy_DPS. It's infinite. You just can't die. Both in WoW and EVE you can't die if you do level-appropriate quests unless you do something atrociously stupid.

OK, MMOs have to be accessible to different level of players, and a quest that is just OK for one is faceroll to another and impossible to the third. However there could be a solution: the rewards of enemies (XP, items) should be proportional to their strength. The main problem with WoW leveling is not at all rewarding questing into red. If I kill a monster much above my level, I get barely more XP than I'd get from one in the green, deep below me. Since there is no reward in killing hard enemies, there is no reason to try doing hard content, so the game will be facerolling to everyone regardless player skill. The only difference between a topguild member and Arthasdklol that the first facerolls yellow monsters while the second does deep green. I've done some missions for standing in EVE and found the same: there is no reason for a Badger II to fill up its hold with the mission cargo of a lvl 4 distribution, it's better to put the cargo of 4 lvl3s in it.

The solution to design games to be "collectivist" is to provide greater rewards for doing harder content. I mean much greater reward, in the sense that if that two destroyers can do just one lvl 3 together, they should get more rewards than farming lvl 1s all day or in WoW killing a monster 7 levels above you should grant you as much XP as killing 1000 7 levels below you.


No business reports because I'm AFK until Monday evening, can't process comments either.

Read More

The Apocalypses of hope

The HoneyBadger Coalition can't stop to amuse me. Not only because they managed to capture the most sov and by disconnecting from CFC, turning into an allied but individual coalition. I already praised their kitchen sink fleets, where members bring their own-funded ships to battle.

I already liked that they fielded Rokhs instead of the Drakes which have the badge of "New Eden welfare office against starvation". However now they managed to truly surprise me: they fielded Navy Apocalypse battleships. These things cost around 500M just for the hull. Now that's a huge jump from Drakes. And they work! I always told that ISK matter in fights and the "moar ppl" strategy only bring you to such point, but I did not expect it to be implemented so fast, and especially not by HBC, considering the stressed financial situation of TEST (PL probably fares better or at least has larger reserves).

Now I have a problem: where is the point when the best is good enough to take the good with the bad? I mean after long (and often hilarious) search I found how industrialists could be included into nullsec alliances: by getting their own donation board, a place for both personal pride and a tool to silence a "lol ima pvper ur a carebear" idiot by pointing out that his contribution, measured in ISK damage to the enemy is 5-10% of the contribution of a "carebear". The previous ideas (which were necessary steps to reach this conclusion), received extreme amount of laughter and mocking, but this one received only support and approval, so it has good chance to work.

However it won't be implemented now by any existing powerblock. Big things turn slow, especially if the changes affect the culture. They change only when forced. So I simply wanted to wait until they'll be in a dire financial situation enough to make changes. My plan was to amass enough money to single-handedly solve the bankruptcy of an alliance asking the implementation of the donation board in return. Two things are going bad for TEST, one is Tech nerf, the other is FW. FW offers much better ISK than highsec, offering even more moneymaking options to people than nullsec ratting that the alliance can tax. Also the FW LP print make faction items cheap, so more people can replace their T2 modules to faction, decreasing Tech prices even more.

But now I'm not so sure about this plan. HBC already did lot of good things and with the Navy Apocalypse fleet they clearly became much better for my taste than any other existing block. They shine out of the PvP herd mentality: "lol, we don't care about land, we had more kills." Instead they say "we don't give a damn on losses, we win land", just what I want to hear. There are three outcomes to consider:

• I wait until they are financially bled out. When facing losing sov because they (or someone else) can't replace fleets, they accept that industry is a necessary and valuable thing and implement some form of industry-respecting system. Maybe my donation board, maybe something else, but the point is that they will welcome players who contribute via ISK and not PvP time and consider them equally valuable. Anyway, my long term ideas would be fulfilled and "I made history".
• I wait and when they run out of cash, instead accepting industry, they return to cheap ships or lose some regions or simply failcascade and replaced by the PvP herd. Either way all the things I like about them (Slowcats, Navapocs, Supercap drops, kitchen sink, kicking the worst scammer of EVE) are lost. I can spend years in highsec, waiting for the next opportunity.
• I suck it up, accept the good with the bad and start sending them donation, asking no changes in return. I have 70B unused cash now, so I can safely donate 20B/month to them. This allows the reimbursement of 40 Navapocs/month and above all, finally stabilize the terrible budget of TEST. No history is made, but I helped improving the overall quality of nullsec.

Please note that it wouldn't be "buying myself in", the donation would not demand any changes of recruitment policy, so I still wouldn't fit in. If I wanted to get in on their terms, I could for free, all I need is an anonymous alt. I want to join as an industrialist who sometimes fly (only when structures are involved) and not as a PvP pilot who carebears on some hidden highsec alt, so they wouldn't take me. The question is, shall I support an alliance where I don't fit in, one that consider the people like me "lol carebears", with 20B/month just because they are better than the rest?

I'll have to think a lot about that and would welcome ideas, especially from those who see a HBC entity from inside. Feel free to contact me about this topic in game convo or mail (Gevlon Goblin). Please don't use the goblinworks channel for that, it's offtopic for a trading channel.

I neither want to give up on the idea to get industry recognized in null, nor I want to see the only coalition that fields non-freak fleets to lose or simply stop doing the things I like. Going for both goals can end up achieving neither. Accepting either is giving up on (or at least postponing) the other. Now I feel that EVE is real.


Friday morning report: 159.9B, (5.5 spent on main accounts, 3.6 spent on Logi/Carrier, 3.2 on Ragnarok, 2.6 on Rorqual, 2.4 on Nyx, 2.8 on Avatar, 2.6 received as gift)

Read More

Freakshow and carebear hate

The Mittani told that "[the general gaming media says] as if New Eden were a freakshow rather than the only remaining pure-PvP sandbox, populated primarily by hypercompetitive 30something college-educated professionals." If practically everyone agrees in something, it has a reason. Not surely a good one, but has one. No, it's not "sandbox", I've never heard a bad word about Tale in the Desert, nor it's "PvP", WoW arena was never called freakshow.

There is a strange - seemingly unrelated - issue in EVE: the media created by pro EVE players (blogs, forums, sites) usually treat PvE EVE players as the lepers. They are mentioned on the foul name "carebear", their extermination (only in game of course) is demanded and everyone who kills a few gets celebration. Now it's strange. I mean most players don't hate other players who are different from them. I never heard hate for roleplayers in WoW, rather a "yes, they are weird but who cares" attitude. There is no such hate for wormhole players in EVE, despite they are a small minority. Why do they hate "carebears"?

Every MMO has a common point: character progression. From Everquest to GW2 every single MMO offered players to improve their characters either by strength or by giving them "achievement points". They did it differently, they had different settings, different gameplay, but at the end, if you played well, your character improved. PvP is no exception here. If you won arenas in WoW, you climbed the ladder, got closer to Gladiator title and received better rewards. EVE is not considered freakshow by the mainstream because lack of such character progression. If it wouldn't have it, the game simply wouldn't be considered MMO and would be ignored by MMO media like, Second Life. EVE is an MMO because you can progress your character. You gain access to bigger, stronger, better ships, just like this TEST Alliance video says (from 2:20). If we'd look just at the game, we'd see nothing but an MMO where you get spaceships instead of magic swords.

Highsec is "spaceship MMO". The "carebears" do what every single MMO player out there does: progress their character, gaining more ISK and better ships. But the PvP-ers give up character progression in every single way! The linked TEST video is not true for most PvP-ers: today's battecruisers are tomorrows battlecruisers and they will fly Drakes until CCP decides to switch off the servers. Also, the constant podding combined with poverty stop them from using implants, making them get less skillpoints (so they whine to remove it from the game).

EVE is not considered freakshow at all. The typical EVE PvP-ers are considered freaks. If we'd try to find a WoW analogue, the best would be twinks. These characters are locked at lvl 19 or 29, stopped in progression and be much-much weaker than a top-level character. Twinks are created for the sole purpose of inconveniencing newbies by massacring them on low level battlefields. Twinks are considered griefers and freaks. So the average MMO player who tries out EVE (and then writes a review in the mainstream gaming media) will find that EVE is a standard MMO with a bit lame quests, boring material gathering, repetitive but fun NPC grinding and legions of childish griefers, lot more than in other MMOs. No, they would not see "hypercompetitive 30something college-educated professionals" since competition needs some goal and prize. Killing each other over breadcrumbs or even less: lolz is not something that a college-educated professional would do. It's what homeless junkies do in the ghetto.

The "carebears" are MMO players who find the EVE setting good enough to stay. The PvP-ers hate the carebears because they - along with the other MMO players - consider them freaks, griefers, losers. So at least they have the excuse that the PvE players hated them first. But it's hard to like them. My earlier posts where I did not consider them freaks, griefers and losers but the "elite of EVE" and wanted to join by contributing as much as I can became jokes for both sides. The difference between me and the average MMO player is that I can see larger pictures than my own character. I can see that capturing systems on the Sov map, making difference for many other people is something bigger than replacing an ilvl 333 leggings with 346. In WoW I always tried to make something bigger than that. Also I see the value of "griefing" for ones psychological progression. But I'm a rare bird and the MMO players want stronger characters by playing well. PvP is no difference here, PvP-ers merely accept that if they fail, they get weaker (like WoW arena player losing rating). But accepting that you remain forever in a ship that a "carebear" outgrows on the second month of his life even if you are chain-winning is just "freak".

Please spare me from the "in EVE every ship is equal, Drakes are not worse than Rokhs", because it's a plain lie. A battleship in the hands of an equally good player would always win over a battlecruiser, just like the BC would always win against a cruiser, like that against a frigate. There is truth in "every ship is useful", and a 2 days old frig can contribute in a battleship fight while a lvl 2 WoW character cannot do anything in a lvl 85 battleground. But just because a BS is just 10x stronger than a frig and not 100000x like in WoW, it's still worse and before it in the progression path.

The ball is at the field of CCP. They must change the game in a way to make PvP more than freakshow, to make it the way to increase ones power in the game. Currently AFK mining Veldspar beats it.

Alternatively players can make something great here by creating a powerblock that is not a freakshow but a clear progression up from the highsec state. I mean when the 2-3 months old newbie who is starting to get the picture of EVE look into a video, he should say, "yes, I want to be those guys" instead of "why do they fly my old ship? Are they roleplayers or something?". The slowcat fleets, the supercapitals and the recent Navy Apocalpyse fleet are all can be viewed as a "progression", something a newbie can aim for. More about this option tomorrow.


Thursday morning report, which is still not really reliable: 158.9B, (5.5 spent on main accounts, 3.6 spent on Logi/Carrier, 3.2 on Ragnarok, 2.6 on Rorqual, 2.4 on Nyx, 2.8 on Avatar, 2.6 received as gift)

Read More

How to properly nerf highsec?

CCP constantly nerfs highsec income to drive people off highsec. They made highsec Planetari Interaction a joke with taxes, they plan to make the same with missioning with Faction Warfare. (the current system is accepted to be bad and will be changed, I talk about the new one where FW pilots get 3x more LP) They plan to nerf highsec refining, manufacture and blueprint research/copy.

I fully agree that nerfing highsec is necessary. My income is 10-20% of the largest sov-holder entity without taking any risks. And it's not just me. I'm selling 100-150M worth implants that are totally luxury products. Their bonus is usually 5% to some skill and you can buy a +3% one for 10-20M. I'm not making these, just trading. So there is a huge audience that can afford 100M (which is 1/5 of a month gametime) for 2% ability increase and they can't even be bothered to do some jumps or wait for a buy order to fill up. The dwellers of highsec are all rich. Maybe not as rich as me, but still would laugh on the idea to fly any of the crap the low/null people fly.

The problem is that the nerf won't help at all. Nerfing more wouldn't help either because neither one addresses the problem: unless you make something extremely stupid, you have no losses in highsec, so - just like in WoW - if you log in, you progress. Nerfing would only slow it down, but doesn't change that if you spend time in the game, you always have more assets when you log out, while in low-null you often have losses. Most highsec players are risk-averse and very happy with this space WoW. They will whine a bit on the nerf and then keep on doing everything as they were doing. They will still have a positive income, even if 20-30% less. Who cares? They like playing that way, so any positive reward is reward.

Putting risk into highsec would probably just drive most of these players away, not to mention how devastating it would be to newbies. However there is an alternative to risks: costs. In low-null you have to pay for security, mostly with your own time. In high, Concord works for free. Change that, add costs to security and you have a highsec nerf that not only stop highsec players from being dirty rich, but also give them a preview about low-null security costs.

The suggestion is that Concord protection shouldn't be automatic. Concord only responds to attacks against you, if you have license. Having license is visible to other pilots. Without license only the gate guns and the faction police responds, making highsec much like lowsec. License depends on ship type. If you want to undock a bigger ship than your license covers, you'll have a warning message "your Concord license does not cover this ship. If you proceed with undock, you lose your license and Concord will not protect you. I suggest to upgrade your license first."

The license cost is weekly and if your license expire, you get a warning box too, or you can set your license auto-recurring. The suggested license costs (weekly):

• Pod: free, Concord always responds to podding
• T1 frigate, destroyer: 10K, newbies get it for almost free
• T1 cruiser: 1M
• T2, faction and pirate frigate 10M
  
• Battlecruiser; T2, faction and pirate cruiser; T1 industrial and mining barge: 25M
• Battleship: 50M
• T2, faction and pirate battleship; strategic cruiser; T2 industrial and exhumer: 100M
• Freighter, Orca: 200M
• License to fit faction modules and ammo: +50M
• License to fit deadspace modules: +100M
• License to fit officer modules: +250M

It wouldn't just be a great ISK sink, but would stop the forever progression: the higher you climb, the more you have to pay. This wouldn't bother true newbies but hit the bling-flyers hard (1.5B/month for a purple Tengu). This suggestion would also allow low-null organizations to be competitive with their protection fees. Currently you just can't offer anything to PvE players because Concord does it better and for free.

Wednesday morning report, which is still not really reliable: 157.9B, as the PLEX sale pushed the price down so I bought some extra (4.5+1 spent on main accounts, 3.1+0.5 spent on Logi/Carrier, 2.7+0.5 on Ragnarok, 2.1+0.5 on Rorqual, 1.9+0.5 on Nyx, 2.3+0.5 on Avatar, 2.6 received as gift)

Read More

August business report

A month ago I was happily reporting 50B/month without hassle or even bothering to find anything new.

This time it wasn't so shiny. When Inferno expansion hit, CCP left in a serious bug/design error: capturing the faction warfare zone and upgrading it to T5 allows decreasing the ISK portion of the LP store prices, turning it into a money print (as opportunity cost). The exploiting ran rampart and the fix, despite announced, still not arrived. Now everyone and his mother are AFK-farming FW sites printing LP that they turn into LP store items during organized cashouts.

I wrongfully believed that the discounts only affect LP prices and also that CCP will be as fast with fixing and punishing the exploiters as they were with those who found a different loophole and used it to create millions of LP. The LP store exploit affects me directly since many of my item list are purchasable with FW-LP:
My business model needs a stable price: I purchase implants one by one from missioners and sell them to users on the same station or in another hub. The profit on an item is 10-15M and I sell a lot. The FW cashouts make the price hectic. When they push to T5 and cash out, the prices drop deep. Every subsequent cashout pushed deeper than the previous, as more and more people join the exploiters. The first T5 was practically invisible as most people remembered the initial exploit and that the perpetrators were negwalleted. The second T5 was visible but small as much more people were involved. The current one, a week ago pushed the prices below the highsec LP store costs. Despite I expected it, sold my items before it and set up buy orders for all-time low, I still lost serious profit, as I had to hold them for a week to sell them. While selling something for 110M that you got for 70M isn't bad profit, selling one every day for 10M profit is 2x more.

Thanks to this, since July 31 I made 40.7B, 1.2B/day, which is pretty bad. Losing 950M to a mistype didn't help either:

There goes my "50B/month laid back". I have to make significant changes to my item list if I was going to make 50B/month again. At first I have to find items that aren't affected by FW until CCP finally fixes it. It won't be easy as mostly I trade implants, but I'll manage. The bigger question is to dance once more with FW T5 cashout. I mean if I set up buy orders for 50-60M (for implants that cost 73M +73K LP in the highsec LP store), I might be able to sell them for 80-90M. After the last cash-out, it took a week for the price to regenerate. I'm not sure if it'll regenerate at all next time as the huge income of the previous T5 probably lured another bunch of players to FW and the original exploiters surely launched thousands of new accounts with AFK-orbiting frigates. The safe move would be completely liquidate the LP affected items and suck up the lower income (but lower time too). The risky way is to set up those 50-60M buy orders and hope. I'm not happy speculating, you might heard that. However it's a pretty safe one as the market will regenerate when they fix it. But keeping 30-40B locked down for 3 months, even for 100% profit is worse than character trading.

Anyway, while 1.2B/day is pretty bad for me, it would be still enough to stabilize the budget of the largest sov-holder alone, so maybe my disappointment is a bit Marie Antoinette-ish.


Tuesday morning report, which is still not really reliable: 159.6B (4.5 spent on main accounts, 3.1 spent on Logi/Carrier, 2.7 on Ragnarok, 2.1 on Rorqual, 1.9 on Nyx, 2.3 on Avatar, 2.6 received as gift)

Read More

FW fix and the future of highsec missioning

Contrary to the spreadsheats of Gamerchick42 FW LP income will be seriously nerfed. To understand that, let's look at Cybernetic subprocessor - improved, the +5 int implant. As you can see, you have to pay 65M ISK and 65K LP to get one, still you could buy them in Rens for less than 65M when Minmatar hit T5 last time. How? The trick is that the above prices are from a highsec LP store that equals to T3 faction control prices. At T4 the prices are currently half of this and in T5 they are quartered. Both the ISK and the LP prices. Please note that it's an opportunity cost ISK print as an implant purchased in the FW LP store at T5 instead of a non-FW LP store will remove 48.75M less from the player economy than it should.

The new system will be implemented in the winter expansion (or maybe earlier if the ISK print goes rampart). At T3 will give +100% LP gain, T4 +150%, T5 +200%. The important change is that the ISK costs will no longer be reduced. Below I show how much ISK one can get for 1 "old LP", which is the unit of effort, since at T5 you do the same effort, just get 3x more LP to cash out, which is equal to getting 1 "old LP" and cashing it out at 1/3 price. The X axis is the sell price of the implant, the ISK you get from the buying player on Jita:
If you can sell an implant for 65M, you made no profit from the LP as you paid 65M at the LP store. It's true for highsec and for the fixed system. In the current system even at T4 you get bigger profit on this 65M sale than you could get in highsec for selling at the all-time high 120M. Only when I read recent posts I realized that ISK costs are discounted too, making LP a sure and safe ISK print. It is totally broken and to be honest I wouldn't settle with just fixing it (now, not in the winter expansion), but I would negwallet everyone for the ISK discount he got in T4-T5 as he (even without exploiting intent) was using a totally broken mechanic. It seems not only I missed this point, the calculation of Gamerchick42 also ignores the ISK cost discount, that's why she says that it buffs the T4 income, despite it's a huge nerf (or rather, fix).

Anyway the new system will provide fix 3x higher ISK/LP for FW missioners than highsec ones and it seems to be the intended usage. I mean in the current FW fix posts there isn't a word about the status quo: Minmatar and Caldari totally own their FW zones, Amarr and Gallente are non-existing. With the new defensive plex LP rewards they will further solidify the current zone domination. I think the point was never faction war, it was to move profitable missioning to lowsec from highsec. The iterative changes make highsec safer and safer but less and less profitable. The end goal seems to be changing highsec a newbie zone where newbies are completely safe but totally poor, just like they are in the current starter systems. It is a great change as it finally make PVE players be motivated to seek cooperation with PvP entities. Further steps this way are the highsec station nerf and the mining barge buff. This sounds surprising but the increased barge EHP and ore hold rewards AFK mining and botting, putting the active players out of business in highsec. They can only mine in low-null, where being active gives bigger protection than any EHP.

On the long run I expect the LP/ISK ratio halved for Minmatar and Caldari items, practically driving away "serious" missioners of these spaces, leaving only casuals and newbies who can't care less of their ISK/hour. The Amarr, Gallente and pirate LP/ISK ratio will suffer a 20-30% drop due to several items are shared with Minmatar/Caldari (like learning implants) and the displaced highsec and non-FW lowsec missioners will switch to these factions.


Sunday morning report, which is still not really reliable: 155.8B (3.5+1.0 spent on main accounts, 2.4+0.7 spent on Logi/Carrier, 2.2+0.5 on Ragnarok, 1.6+0.5 on Rorqual, 1.4+0.5 on Nyx, 1.8+0.5 on Avatar, 2.6 received as gift)
Monday morning report, which is still not really reliable: 157.1B (4.5 spent on main accounts, 3.1 spent on Logi/Carrier, 2.7 on Ragnarok, 2.1 on Rorqual, 1.9 on Nyx, 2.3 on Avatar, 2.6 received as gift)

Read More