These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next page
 

Do You Want Stability Between Empires?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rouen-Michel en Lefevre
#1 - 2014-08-27 16:47:15 UTC
Setting aside the likelihood of stability in the cluster, I am curious as to how many capsuleers desire stability between the empires. It is not uncommon to see people communicate the pointlessness of the proxy conflict or the cultural and historical antagonisms. But acknowledging their pointlessness is not necessarily the same thing as desiring for those conflicts and antagonisms to cease. Nor does belief that the conflicts are important necessarily mean someone believes they should continue.

Setting aside those in nullsec that claim to not care about the empires, do you desire empire stability and relative peace?
Samira Kernher
Cail Avetatu
#2 - 2014-08-27 16:51:58 UTC
Yes.
Pieter Tuulinen
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#3 - 2014-08-27 17:03:08 UTC
"If fighting will bring victory then you should prepare for war."
"Whilst a quick war has often led to disaster, no state has ever profited from an extended war."

---The Battlesages.

For the first time since I started the conversation, he looks me dead in the eye. In his gaze are steel jackhammers, quiet vengeance, a hundred thousand orbital bombs frozen in still life.
Jinari Otsito
Otsito Mining and Manufacture
#4 - 2014-08-27 17:09:03 UTC
I'm not entirely sure, to be honest. This has conditions I'm not finding too desirable. It means disregarding serious issues in each other, which should be rectified. It means stagnating improvement through merit. It means a certain degree of isolation. The list is long and tedious, in the end.

The advantages are also many, of course. I just don't see them outweighing the drawbacks.

On the face of it peace is preferable, but it also means a tacit approval of the crimes committed by others if you have the means to fight them and won't. It means the stagnant and broken can limp on, instead of falling and being replaced by something new and improved.

Stability and peace is good, but only for so long. There'll always be something worthy of conflict that will strengthen one or more of the participants and push us to become better and reach new heights.

Prime Node. Ask me about augmentation.
Samira Kernher
Cail Avetatu
#5 - 2014-08-27 17:19:48 UTC
Desiring stability and peace doesn't mean turning a blind eye. In fact, true stability and peace usually require rectifying the issues present otherwise they will invariably cause problems later.

Changing from this current, pointless pendulum war to a true, total war, for example, is still a path to stability and peace, just as diplomacy is, even if the short term is a larger conflict.

What Pieter said is very apt. The issue isn't war and conflict, but rather extended war and conflict.
Jade Blackwind
#6 - 2014-08-27 17:30:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Jade Blackwind
Stability between the empires?

Oh, come on. Please wake me up when there'll be *actual* instability between the empires. As in - Closed stargates, no-sov or lowsec buffer zones complete with pirate gatecamps instead of the current busy trade routes, baseliner navies fully mobilized and guarding the borders killing everything hostile that moves, etc. No, not today's patrols poorly equipped to catch capsuleers, I mean at least customs-grade detachments, not a handful of token red shirts.

The entire seamless CONCORD high security zone continues to function as it did since its inception. The proxy war is totally, absolutely irrelevant and will continue to be until the last militiaman dies of boredom of tech attrition (aka Error While Cloning Has Occured). The stability between the empires had a minor shake-up during the Elder Fleet/Sarum/Heth thing, but since then is mostly balanced itself back to zzz.

I spent four years in their ******* meatgrinder for idiots. Never Again.

TL:DR: There is no instability.

Thank you.

And yes, I'm intoxicated almost into oblivion -- but my point still stands.
Jinari Otsito
Otsito Mining and Manufacture
#7 - 2014-08-27 17:33:18 UTC
Indeed. My answer was as unrealistic as the question itself, as we won't be seeing peace and stability in New Eden until a lot of very egregious scores have been settled. Some things in New Eden will be the cause for war until they are gone. The only other path to peace and stability however, is exactly what I mentioned. Put on the blinders, stick your fingers in your ears and pretend really hard the other empires don't exist, which would in turn lead to isolation, stagnation and generally be bad news.

The safe money remains on New Eden remaining a battlefield in perpetuity.

However, I still can't say that's a bad thing. It's a potent force for change and improvement, whereas peace and stability can easily be a force for stagnation.

Prime Node. Ask me about augmentation.
Esna Pitoojee
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#8 - 2014-08-27 17:51:30 UTC
Well, I certainly do.

You can argue all you want that the current situation isn't really "unstable", but the fact is that compared to just a few years ago it is not stable either. One way or another, lives are being pointlessly lost. This needs to change.
Karynn Denton
Astrometrica
#9 - 2014-08-27 18:09:59 UTC
Absolutely not.

Let the empires and their loyalist puppets tear each other apart.
Katanga Caravan will be there to supply them with all the boosters they need to do so.

Karynn Denton

Caravan Master
Kucial Ghavera
Minmatar Republic
#10 - 2014-08-27 19:29:30 UTC
I don't have strong feelings either way.
Bryen Verrisai
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2014-08-27 20:53:26 UTC
Jinari Otsito wrote:

However, I still can't say that's a bad thing. It's a potent force for change and improvement, whereas peace and stability can easily be a force for stagnation.

Keep in mind that the question specifically addressed peace between the empires; not an era of wholesale galactic peace (at least as far as I can tell from reading it). Even if the conflicts between the empires came to an end, there would still be battles to fight against pirates, Nation, and perhaps even nullsec capsuleer entities that get too uppity.
Jinari Otsito
Otsito Mining and Manufacture
#12 - 2014-08-27 20:59:24 UTC
Bryen Verrisai wrote:
Jinari Otsito wrote:

However, I still can't say that's a bad thing. It's a potent force for change and improvement, whereas peace and stability can easily be a force for stagnation.

Keep in mind that the question specifically addressed peace between the empires; not an era of wholesale galactic peace (at least as far as I can tell from reading it). Even if the conflicts between the empires came to an end, there would still be battles to fight against pirates, Nation, and perhaps even nullsec capsuleer entities that get too uppity.


This is true. There's still the small matter of resolving the rather grievous issues between some of us before such a stable situation could occur, but your point holds water.

Prime Node. Ask me about augmentation.
Kyllsa Siikanen
Tuonelan Virta
#13 - 2014-08-27 22:16:11 UTC
Yes.

“Crying is all right in its own way while it lasts. But you have to stop sooner or later, and then you still have to decide what to do.” 

― C.S. Lewis 
Nauplius
Hoi Andrapodistai
#14 - 2014-08-27 22:38:14 UTC
I believe in a Reunited Amarr-Blood Raider Empire-Covenant stomping the subhuman Minmatar underfoot.
Che Biko
Alexylva Paradox
#15 - 2014-08-27 23:10:06 UTC
Jace Sarice
#16 - 2014-08-27 23:23:56 UTC
Such a general question has little usefulness. Under a particular set of circumstances, virtually everyone but profiteers would say yes.
Elmund Egivand
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#17 - 2014-08-28 01:28:17 UTC
But as human nature has it, as long as there's two groups of people still existing in the universe someone will want to bash someone else's head in with a rock. Usually someone of the 'other' group.

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.
Lao Xin
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#18 - 2014-08-28 04:27:55 UTC
There will always be suffering and strife. There will always be joy and happiness. Two opposites create balance. I profit off of war. I profit off of peace. I profit off whatever the cosmic winds bring.
Diana Kim
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#19 - 2014-08-28 13:08:42 UTC
Yes. Definitely. For all three Empires.
And The Federation must be destroyed.

Honored are the dead, for their legacy guides us.

In memory of Tibus Heth, Caldari State Executor YC110-115, Hero and Patriot.
Stitcher
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#20 - 2014-08-28 13:40:24 UTC
The question falsely equates "stable" with "peaceful".

Stability just means that you're not trending inexorably towards total collapse. And it has its place. Think of cap-stability in ship fitting. Sure, if you're in for a long-haul fight and are well supported then cap-stability is a desirable trait, but in fact you don't need to be cap-stable to get the job done. An unstable ship will kill a cap-stable ship if the cap-stable ship explodes before the unstable one runs dry. The whole principle behind overheating is that you play some brinkmanship, weighing the dwindling tolerances of your equipment versus your foe's durability.

One the other side of things, a cap-stable ship doesn't remain indefinitely on 49% cap or whatever. It'll wobble around and below that mark as various modules call upon the ship's reserves.

So "stability" is just the situation you're in where the losses are counterbalanced by the gains, and vice versa. Or at the very least, where the losses are acceptable and can be compensated for. Stability, in other words, just means that you're not on a one-way trip to failure.

Which we're not. The CEMWPA isn't going to lead to the failure of any of the Big Four. There IS stability between them in that sense.

But there's not peace. And yes, on balance, I'm in favour of peace.

AKA Hambone

Author of The Deathworlders
123Next page