These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Intergalactic Summit

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Federation: Have We Lost Ourselves?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Alexander Draegar
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#41 - 2014-10-27 04:02:06 UTC
Diana Kim wrote:
Liam Antolliere wrote:

Freedom is not free and it cannot be forced upon an individual.
If we truly espouse freedom then we must respect the right of an individual to choose their chains.


You can execute me now, but I think this is the first time I fully agree with a gallentean.
If all the gallenteans could follow it, there would be no wars, and not even hostility to gallentean peoples.


I second this statement.

In addition, there is little wrong with Federation ships. Whatever they're doing there, they're doing it right. Keep up the good work, and I hope that you work towards cage-free labor in these matters, with the same diligence that I have pursued for mine.

"To kick ass harder, swing foot faster. To kick more ass, keep swinging foot!"

~Alexander Draegar
James Syagrius
Reclamation
#42 - 2014-10-27 04:09:30 UTC  |  Edited by: James Syagrius
Djimbo Pakkat wrote:
Mister Syagrius,

It is not often my intention to dicuss politics, but merely carry on, and help those in need. Your assumptions though, I would deem wrong, illogical, and most likely ill informed.

The amount of time the Intaki Assembly have dealt with such issues, and witnessed strife in their own systems, I do not doubt that communications have been made to improve the situation. Our people are more inclined to betterment through peaceful means. Of course we have taken up arms when need be, but on our part, peaceful resolution of our problems would be prefered.

Applying logic here, I would say that our Assembly has already requested this change, and the Federation, living up to its own apparent values of freedom has chosen to ignore this. As for yourself, I assume you are well connected within the Federation, but I also assume that you could not know everything that happens within your Federation - by that, I do not demean your favour or connections, I merely mean there is much hustle and bustle in Federation politics.

I wish you prosperity.

Msr. Pakket I made no assumptions, you however seem to have made many.

Please don't misunderstand me, logic and assumptions are fine things in and of themselves, but I prefer facts.

I would enjoy seeing corroborating evidence of any of your many assumptions as I dare would most of the news agencies within the Federation.

The history of the current security situation and related historical commentary are fairly easy to find with the minimum application of due diligence.

I would humbly suggest your educate yourself before calling me an out of touch idiot in a public venue.

While an admitted has-been I still take a dim view of such.

“Here also are the heralds of his praise."
Bataav
Intaki Liberation Front
Intaki Prosperity Initiative
#43 - 2014-10-27 23:06:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Bataav
I'm reluctant to distract attention away from the original discussion on what the Federation has become, the paradoxes it struggles with, and how it undermines itself, but I feel it necessary to respond to some comments regarding Intaki:

James Syagrius wrote:
The history of the current security situation and related historical commentary are fairly easy to find with the minimum application of due diligence.

True enough, but its interesting how those on either side of the debate present this history.

For those defending the Federation, Intaki's request for any Federation Navy presence to be kept to a minimum within the Intaki system is heralded as the single cause of any security concerns. Who else can possibly be to blame than the Intaki themselves?

For those of us challenging the Federation's record, we point out that this argument ignores the fact that New Eden was a very different place then, as were the threats:

The Federation was still in its founding days, the black markets of the Intaki Syndicate were not yet in existence, Serpentis had not yet been established, and the Caldari State with which the Federation wages a proxy war through its amoral capsuleer militia did not exist.

However, even today the Intaki Assembly reinforces that original request for a minimal Federation Navy presence in the system. It did refuse entry to a Federal Navy fleet in YC112, and instead awarded their security contract to Mordu's Legion.

And so today, the Legion works in the Intaki system, and the Assembly is rightly held accountable for what happens within its own borders.

What then is the Federation's excuse for what it has allowed to happen, to what had been Intaki colonies, across the rest of Placid?

Bataav

Mahesha | Intaki Liberation Front & Intaki Prosperity Initiative
Liam Antolliere
Doomheim
#44 - 2014-10-27 23:48:52 UTC
Bataav wrote:
What then is the Federation's excuse for what it has allowed to happen, to what had been Intaki colonies, across the rest of Placid?


There isn't a sufficient one, Monsieur Bataav.

One could argue that the collective negligence of Intaki colonies was an extension of the Intaki request for limited military intervention and presence but it would only be a hollow justification.

One could also state that the Federation was bound by legal agreement in the CEWPA to relent those areas to the war zones, but I suspect this would also be seen as a hollow justification.

The only honest answer would be that me and my people have not done a sufficient job for you and your people.

"Though the people may hate me, that does not relieve me of my charge."
Diana Kim
Kenshin Katana.
United Caldari Space Command.
#45 - 2014-10-28 00:44:26 UTC
Liam Antolliere wrote:
Bataav wrote:
What then is the Federation's excuse for what it has allowed to happen, to what had been Intaki colonies, across the rest of Placid?


There isn't a sufficient one, Monsieur Bataav.

One could argue that the collective negligence of Intaki colonies was an extension of the Intaki request for limited military intervention and presence but it would only be a hollow justification.

One could also state that the Federation was bound by legal agreement in the CEWPA to relent those areas to the war zones, but I suspect this would also be seen as a hollow justification.

The only honest answer would be that me and my people have not done a sufficient job for you and your people.

Denied them from having colonies, put their homeworld right into war zone... isn't it sufficient job already? What else Intaki should suffer from Federal hands?

Honored are the dead, for their legacy guides us.

In memory of Tibus Heth, Caldari State Executor YC110-115, Hero and Patriot.
Elmund Egivand
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#46 - 2014-10-28 01:34:05 UTC
Alexander Draegar wrote:
Diana Kim wrote:
Liam Antolliere wrote:

Freedom is not free and it cannot be forced upon an individual.
If we truly espouse freedom then we must respect the right of an individual to choose their chains.


You can execute me now, but I think this is the first time I fully agree with a gallentean.
If all the gallenteans could follow it, there would be no wars, and not even hostility to gallentean peoples.


I second this statement.

In addition, there is little wrong with Federation ships. Whatever they're doing there, they're doing it right. Keep up the good work, and I hope that you work towards cage-free labor in these matters, with the same diligence that I have pursued for mine.


There is nothing wrong with Federation ships but I can't help but notice that they are designed either for daredevilry or for obsessive-levels of micromanagement. It gives an impression that the common Federation soldier is either a glory-hound or a smug master of board games. Both types are dangerous to have in any military organisations.

Please clarify if this is true.

A Minmatar warship is like a rusting Beetle with 500 horsepower Cardillac engines in the rear, armour plating bolted to chassis and a M2 Browning stuck on top.
Gwen Ikiryo
Alexylva Paradox
#47 - 2014-10-28 02:20:19 UTC
Elmund Egivand wrote:
There is nothing wrong with Federation ships but I can't help but notice that they are designed either for daredevilry or for obsessive-levels of micromanagement. It gives an impression that the common Federation soldier is either a glory-hound or a smug master of board games. Both types are dangerous to have in any military organisations.

Please clarify if this is true.


When a culture holds individualism as one of it's highest virtues, it is probably wise to make of it a strength in battle.
Liam Antolliere
Doomheim
#48 - 2014-10-28 11:03:58 UTC
Elmund Egivand wrote:

There is nothing wrong with Federation ships but I can't help but notice that they are designed either for daredevilry or for obsessive-levels of micromanagement. It gives an impression that the common Federation soldier is either a glory-hound or a smug master of board games. Both types are dangerous to have in any military organisations.

Please clarify if this is true.


Not quite, though it is interesting to learn that this is the perception our ship design offers.

Federation ships are designed for individual initiative. This means they are designed to permit a pilot to control the ship in a variety of ways that most suits their style and preferences. The reason for this is simply that we have been pioneers of artificial intelligence but have learned that you cannot replace the human element on the battlefield - no matter the capability of the AI, the human instinct and adaptability offers an edge that is irreplaceable.

Thus, combining the strengths of highly advanced AI with ship design that is intentionally versatile to emphasize individual pilot instinct and adaptability, we have created an effective hybrid design for our vessels.

The sacrifice, as you observed, is that they can require elevated levels of micromanagement and are extremely ineffective in situations where the pilot does not know how to respond to the situation.

"Though the people may hate me, that does not relieve me of my charge."
Elmund Egivand
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#49 - 2014-10-28 12:21:34 UTC
Liam Antolliere wrote:
Elmund Egivand wrote:

There is nothing wrong with Federation ships but I can't help but notice that they are designed either for daredevilry or for obsessive-levels of micromanagement. It gives an impression that the common Federation soldier is either a glory-hound or a smug master of board games. Both types are dangerous to have in any military organisations.

Please clarify if this is true.


Not quite, though it is interesting to learn that this is the perception our ship design offers.

Federation ships are designed for individual initiative. This means they are designed to permit a pilot to control the ship in a variety of ways that most suits their style and preferences. The reason for this is simply that we have been pioneers of artificial intelligence but have learned that you cannot replace the human element on the battlefield - no matter the capability of the AI, the human instinct and adaptability offers an edge that is irreplaceable.

Thus, combining the strengths of highly advanced AI with ship design that is intentionally versatile to emphasize individual pilot instinct and adaptability, we have created an effective hybrid design for our vessels.

The sacrifice, as you observed, is that they can require elevated levels of micromanagement and are extremely ineffective in situations where the pilot does not know how to respond to the situation.


This satisfactorily explains the design of the 'Drone Boats' but not the notoriously short-ranged but highly damaging 'Blaster Boats'. Please clarify the rationale behind the design of the 'Blaster Boats'.

A Minmatar warship is like a rusting Beetle with 500 horsepower Cardillac engines in the rear, armour plating bolted to chassis and a M2 Browning stuck on top.
Jace Sarice
#50 - 2014-10-28 12:31:08 UTC
Liam Antolliere wrote:

Contrarily, the Federation operates under a more active participation from its citizenry. It is not uncommon for legislative actions to be brought to a public vote nor is it uncommon for the population to directly influence executive operations of the government. Public opinion is a powerful thing in the Federation, which ironically, is both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness. This more active participation is known as a democracy, not a republic and is why the rest of your assessment is not entirely accurate.


Public initiatives mean little when they are merely voting on laws already designed by officials. Their options are dictated by officials, but are told that they are choosing their own path - it is a confidence game at best. This is why 'democratic republics' are first and foremost republics. The public is merely taken along for the ride, periodically asked if they'd rather turn slightly to the left or right - but the general direction is already determined before they participate.
Liam Antolliere
Doomheim
#51 - 2014-10-28 12:41:29 UTC
Jace Sarice wrote:


Public initiatives mean little when they are merely voting on laws already designed by officials. Their options are dictated by officials, but are told that they are choosing their own path - it is a confidence game at best. This is why 'democratic republics' are first and foremost republics. The public is merely taken along for the ride, periodically asked if they'd rather turn slightly to the left or right - but the general direction is already determined before they participate.


I see your line of reasoning, but I suspect there is a bit of a misunderstanding. In the Federation, legislation is placed to public vote before it is written in many instances. The public actually does help shape the law and decide on its ins and outs, as the saying goes.

It is not uncommon for one group to approve a facet of legislation and another to disapprove which then requires the law to go before a majority vote simply to ratify one detail on the law not even the entire law. This is partially why the Federation can, at times, appear to be a monolithic entity that doesn't progress as quickly as one would think it would.

"Though the people may hate me, that does not relieve me of my charge."
Liam Antolliere
Doomheim
#52 - 2014-10-28 12:45:13 UTC
Elmund Egivand wrote:


This satisfactorily explains the design of the 'Drone Boats' but not the notoriously short-ranged but highly damaging 'Blaster Boats'. Please clarify the rationale behind the design of the 'Blaster Boats'.


A history of skirmishes with one-man frigates and guerilla tactics provided a need for high-speed, high damage output ship design that would allow fast retaliation and quick disabling power to specific targets. This design proved extremely effective and versatile and was therefore adapted at large in Gallente ship design.

This design also works in tandem with our electronic countermeasure systems: sensor dampening. By weakening an opponent's sensors, we can limit their engagement range and or significantly increase the amount of time it takes them to lock their targets, allowing our high-speed designs to quickly close or withdraw as necessary and giving us a measure of control over the range and speed of an engagement.

"Though the people may hate me, that does not relieve me of my charge."
Jace Sarice
#53 - 2014-10-28 12:50:09 UTC
Liam Antolliere wrote:
Jace Sarice wrote:


Public initiatives mean little when they are merely voting on laws already designed by officials. Their options are dictated by officials, but are told that they are choosing their own path - it is a confidence game at best. This is why 'democratic republics' are first and foremost republics. The public is merely taken along for the ride, periodically asked if they'd rather turn slightly to the left or right - but the general direction is already determined before they participate.


I see your line of reasoning, but I suspect there is a bit of a misunderstanding. In the Federation, legislation is placed to public vote before it is written in many instances. The public actually does help shape the law and decide on its ins and outs, as the saying goes.

It is not uncommon for one group to approve a facet of legislation and another to disapprove which then requires the law to go before a majority vote simply to ratify one detail on the law not even the entire law. This is partially why the Federation can, at times, appear to be a monolithic entity that doesn't progress as quickly as one would think it would.


This is less of a 'misunderstanding' on my part than it is a difference of interpretation of Federation political structures, i.e., neither of us thinks it works the way the other believes it to and think they are lacking in understanding of it. The conversation has ceased to have a purpose.
Elmund Egivand
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#54 - 2014-10-28 13:12:32 UTC
Liam Antolliere wrote:
Elmund Egivand wrote:


This satisfactorily explains the design of the 'Drone Boats' but not the notoriously short-ranged but highly damaging 'Blaster Boats'. Please clarify the rationale behind the design of the 'Blaster Boats'.


A history of skirmishes with one-man frigates and guerilla tactics provided a need for high-speed, high damage output ship design that would allow fast retaliation and quick disabling power to specific targets. This design proved extremely effective and versatile and was therefore adapted at large in Gallente ship design.

This design also works in tandem with our electronic countermeasure systems: sensor dampening. By weakening an opponent's sensors, we can limit their engagement range and or significantly increase the amount of time it takes them to lock their targets, allowing our high-speed designs to quickly close or withdraw as necessary and giving us a measure of control over the range and speed of an engagement.


Though my experience dealing with blaster-armed warships had shown me that very frequently, they tend not to have the speed required to close the distance fast enough to unleash the fearsome inferno that is plasma fire, frequently due to the mass of the ships themselves. Is this, perhaps, a design oversight? Or the vessels were never designed for solo engagements?

A Minmatar warship is like a rusting Beetle with 500 horsepower Cardillac engines in the rear, armour plating bolted to chassis and a M2 Browning stuck on top.
Liam Antolliere
Doomheim
#55 - 2014-10-28 13:38:21 UTC
Jace Sarice wrote:

This is less of a 'misunderstanding' on my part than it is a difference of interpretation of Federation political structures, i.e., neither of us thinks it works the way the other believes it to and think they are lacking in understanding of it. The conversation has ceased to have a purpose.


On the contrary, I find your understanding to be informative. No matter what I say or think I know, it is important to understand how others interpret things as well. Clearly you are not ignorant of the inner workings of the Federation, so your opinion and understanding must be derived from somewhere; you're not simply making it up.

My counter arguments are simply borne from my personal experience with the system, but I perhaps have more rose-colored lenses when viewing the Federation than you do, no?

"Though the people may hate me, that does not relieve me of my charge."
Liam Antolliere
Doomheim
#56 - 2014-10-28 13:42:28 UTC
Elmund Egivand wrote:

Though my experience dealing with blaster-armed warships had shown me that very frequently, they tend not to have the speed required to close the distance fast enough to unleash the fearsome inferno that is plasma fire, frequently due to the mass of the ships themselves. Is this, perhaps, a design oversight? Or the vessels were never designed for solo engagements?


Perhaps it is a flaw in the design?

I imagine to a pilot familiar with the minimalist design of Minmatar Engineering, any ship would feel bulky and cumbersome. Yet, on the reverse, any pilot familiar with the intensified plating and mass of Amarr Engineering would find most other vessels to be light and agile (if not fragile).

In my, albeit limited, experience, the frigates of Gallente design are second in speed only to Minmatar vessels unless the pilot has favored armor plating over armor repair systems. If the ship is configured to maximize repair systems, then the ships remain relatively agile and swift when compared to all but Minmatar and the most agile of Caldari vessels.

"Though the people may hate me, that does not relieve me of my charge."
Elmund Egivand
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#57 - 2014-10-28 13:50:16 UTC
Liam Antolliere wrote:
[quote=Elmund Egivand]
If the ship is configured to maximize repair systems, then the ships remain relatively agile and swift when compared to all but Minmatar and the most agile of Caldari vessels.



Considering that the Federation had no small amount of experience battling the State, I would assume that the Drone Boats are designed specifically to cover Fed-designed Blaster Boats' disadvantages when dealing with the Caldari's more agile vessels?

A Minmatar warship is like a rusting Beetle with 500 horsepower Cardillac engines in the rear, armour plating bolted to chassis and a M2 Browning stuck on top.
Jace Sarice
#58 - 2014-10-28 14:11:29 UTC
Liam Antolliere wrote:
[quote=Jace Sarice]
My counter arguments are simply borne from my personal experience with the system, but I perhaps have more rose-colored lenses when viewing the Federation than you do, no?


I have seen no part of the Federation that functions in the way you have recently described - it certainly isn't the Senate or any of the localities I have visited over the years. Perhaps there is one of the Federated states that functions in such a way that I am aware of, but there is little evidence that the Federation itself utilizes public initiatives in the way you suggest.
Steffanie Saissore
Tyrathlion Interstellar
#59 - 2014-10-28 14:13:57 UTC
Elmund Egivand wrote:
Liam Antolliere wrote:
[quote=Elmund Egivand]
If the ship is configured to maximize repair systems, then the ships remain relatively agile and swift when compared to all but Minmatar and the most agile of Caldari vessels.



Considering that the Federation had no small amount of experience battling the State, I would assume that the Drone Boats are designed specifically to cover Fed-designed Blaster Boats' disadvantages when dealing with the Caldari's more agile vessels?

I have less experience with the frigates and destroyers, but yes, something like the Vexor or Dominix seem to be made to handle more agile hulls by the use of drones.

That said, the introduction of the mwd module for battlecruisers makes the Bruitix to be feared now.

I am more familiar with the Gallente battleships though and with the proper training and fittings, blasters can reach out a fair distance. Still, nowhere near the range of rail or cruise missiles.

We travel in the dark of the new moon,

A starry highway traced on the map of the sky
Deacon Abox
Black Eagle5
#60 - 2014-10-28 15:00:10 UTC
All this Caldari bullshit is just divide and conquer. Roll They don't give a rat's ass for Jin Mei or Intaki freedom or their own people for that matter. It is all about the overarching business motivation, the profit motive. Any other reasons given for their actions is just a smoke screen to achieve that end.

CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting off button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.