EVE General Discussion

This is something people only say when they know they're wrong but don't want to admit it.

Uh, you're posting without reading again James.

But it still wouldn't matter, because I, like you, are not a dev(unconfirmed). All we do is post opinions so the devs can get an understanding of how the players feel and make changes how they see fit.

Right or wrong has no bearing since we are not the decision makers anyways.

So I think your quote actually applies to you more than me since you only reply with retorts and do not actually contribute anything at all.

Kids: When you type this you don't seem clever.


Of course it matters who says something, when 2 people say an asteroid is going to hit earth and one is some homeless guy with a piece of cardboard and the other is a spokesperson for NASA who do you think is more credible? This is exactly the same situation, someone lives this every day in Eve, and someone else has seen 1 small, second-hand example which he thinks is sufficient evidence to counter someone with real experience.


Mechanics like this allow smaller groups to tangle with larger opponents.


P.S Check my killboard, my last loss was to a large power-projected group of carriers. Do i whine on the forums asking for them to be nerfed? NO. HTFU.

Clearly not as clever as dismissing basic didactic reasoning.



Sure you showed how how much opportunity it gives to small entities by welping 17 dred on goon blob. For someone that discards use of deductive reasoning you sure care little for inductive reasoning too.

You quoted the answer to your question. Multiple times.

The larger group splitting up into smaller forces makes it easier for smaller forces to "survive", especially if you follow the rule of "strength in numbers". Whereas it might be difficult to kill 1 carrier out of 20, if you have a smaller group split off, it's easier to kill smaller numbers. Just because the larger force has splinter groups, doesn't mean the smaller group is alone. You are directly comparing the 2 again sir.

And again, a small fleet of bombers is by far way easier to manage and can mobilize faster, and isn't as expensive as that fleet of battleships and carriers, but could be used to devastating effect. Large alliances aren't the only ones who fleet them.

Oh, and on that note... how do you know that smaller groups are poorer than large? You speak in an absolute like it's a rule. Plenty of smaller groups fly bigger bling than larger. Some groups, like Goons, pride themselves on flying masses of cheap frigates to accomplish things. Some depend solely on supercaps. Fleet doctrines as well as e-peen drive different people to follow different methods. Not all corps HAVE to use a ship replacement program for instance.

Making the JFs harder does indeed hurt the smaller alliance as well as the larger.. but not MORE. Because to feed a larger family you need more. You can stealthily manage smaller trips more often without worrying about commiting such a large force to acomplishing that. But that's besides the point, because in the end it is not comparing the 2 equally, but to scale.

That scale makes all the difference. The 2 different sized groups don't necessarily employ the same tactics, because both sides finds a way to do things. They might be the same, they might also be different.


But if you think that null is perfectly in harmony the way things are going, then there are going to be a multitude of issues, whether it be "working as intended" and doesn't need growth or new players, or you are going to never again ask for a change, which we know would be ignorant.

And if it becomes a matter as to whatever alliance I am part of can't survive, I still seriously think that jump drives are going to be the cause. But I do think changing them could have a positive impact, regardless of its' negative.

Forgive me, but I do not see where you gave an example as you listed. I do see where you directly compared, but not an example to where that has been proven (such as the links I furnished when told I needed to prove it).

Maybe they have some friends that are blue to them :v:

Though when boat can scream and get a supercapital for every single person in your corp and an extra 10 subcaps as well, yeah...

Well, we should really start to worry if that's the case!

They can't be worse at making friends than we are, right? Because we're terrible people, after all. And anti-social.

They're not splitting up into multiple groups going different places. They're splitting up on paper only.

The large groups "splinter groups" are the same size as the small group's main force. Saying that the small group is teaming up with others is simply saying "The small group wins because it becomes a big group, therefore small groups are better."



And a small fleet of bombers cannot take SOV when the timer's being defended by a group of BSes, which is what we're talking about, so what's your point?



Last time I looked at GSF's public books, their net income (after all expenses, including their incredibly generous SRP) was about 1T ISK/month. So their warchest grows by ~10T/year and has been doing so for a while. I think it's safe to say that large, established groups are richer.



The mittani article demonstrated exactly how a JF nerf hurts small groups more.

It sounds like you've never heard of "economies of scale."



If the small groups tactics work better, the large group can split into groups and use the same tactics but with multiple groups at the same time. That's the strategy stealing argument that I already presented and you haven't made any attempt to rebutt.

Take boat, for example, he's the best at getting all these people excited.