EVE General Discussion

The problem is that people's morale break so ridiculously early that nobody have even any chance of even seeing the bottom of their alliance's warchest. Cloud Ring/Fountain? 2-3 weeks, total. Branch? A few more weeks. War against soco? They more or less lost it 2 days after the declaration of war, when they said "retreat to NPC stain!".

I keep hoping for a war where it will actually take all the resources the alliance/coalition has, and I've been completely disappointed the last two years. And it has nothing to do with in-game resources. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Nuh-uh. It's all about morale.

"It's all about morale."


Which you have effectively bought with **** poor distribution of map resources by CCP. Being able to replace entire fleets of super caps, baring their availability on the market, is a HUGE morale booster. Call in your pets with their super caps and say "if you get popped you have another one waiting for you". What do you think that person is going to do? Sit around in their super cap in a bubble or go get one of the few uses they can out of it because it will automatically be replaced? For most alliances a super cap is a huge investment and losing one is a devastating blow. To the CFC with their moon goo riches it is like dropping a dollar on the floor.

The logic you guys use to try to defend your positions is honestly one of the most ridiculous things I have witnessed in some time. I swear the goon posters must get paid by your alliance to troll the forums with utter stupidity.

Precisely.

Now, does this mean that, in general, warchests are too big? Income too easy? Wars not destructive enough?

Those are all valid questions, and could be subjects worth looking at to improve the quality of nullsec warfare. However, as it stands we are all equally faced with the strategic nature of income in nullsec, and crying about income disparity in the conduct of warfare betrays an undeniable misunderstanding of the nature of nullsec warfare.

It's awesome when people betray their own argument in the first couple of lines.

Both the SoCo and the CFC could wipe out the market for available supers long before they wiped out their income to replace said supers. Any preparation done to have supers available beforehand to replace losses is tied to logistics and planning, not any income disparity.

Furthermore, one side will almost always have a clear supercap superiority, which means they will get to use the supers while the other side's will stay logged off. Nobody is going to throw away a supercap fleet just because they can replace it. The side with the bigger fleet will use it, while the side with the smaller fleet won't, income disparity on either side being a non-factor.

So, again, income has no mentionable role to play because other more important factors (morale, numbers, logistics, preparation, ect) will always trump one side before income becomes an issue.

P.S. Owned.

I should mention that I, like many people here, am all for a tech nerf. I think tech creates poor strategic incentives, as in the causes for war. However, I am absolutely confident based on verifiable experience that once started, income plays little to no mentionable role in nullsec warfare.

This discussion has nothing to do with protecting tech and everything to do with correcting the impressions disseminated by the painfully uninformed and likely mentally-unstable forum warriors of the GD sub-forum.

I could multi quote past 10 forum post but i wont. To hook into the super thing... CFC has ALLLOOOT supers, ether bought by tech isk or built from tech isk (relative free isk, no personal isk ect). Corporate super accounts are made with lots of supers. The purchage or builds happend in past 9 months. Combined with increased recruitment benifits due above resoning (buttefly affect). They have simply much better odds ect. I do not pick any side in this whole thread but i dont see SoCo building any supers anytime (and they hvnt put in built due logic resoning) soon due number advantages in all Area's of CFC caused by the neglection of CCP to fix this whole tech issue when it was still fixable. Its obvius were long past that point. You can twist it whatever you like EVE = ISK and it always is relatable to that. Ether direct or indirect.

And no, they are easy to be bought when the price is right. On eve-o forum there are atleast 4-6 for sale each week. Over 2000 moms have been made. They are not all on inactive accounts. I dont see an alliance that is stashed with isk bothering about getting gauged for 5b over 5 super sales. I dont think they would care.

TIL Goonswarm = Devswarm, because they control the tech and have as many supers as their competitors

:tinfoil:

Heh, you've been raging up the wall, and you're actually trying a "umad" move? Cute.

As for repeating myself, if you're going to insist on repeating the same fallacy time and time again, you should expect to receive the same smackdown time and time again, too.

Now, how about we go about telling CCP to nerf tech and remove combat roles from supers, eh? I would be all for that.

Pls stop trolling its useless, everyone sees trough it and lols at you


Nope, current CFC coalition has more that are also very easy (free) to replace


I believe its well known by now that they are getting out blobbed 4-1 everytime they undock by the complete OTECH, why is that? maybe because of the tech or the devided income that it genarates for all participants?

Make moons work more like PI? That is, the moon as a whole stays constant but actual deposits move around and people would have to adjust their harvesters manually every X number of cycles - with shorter cycles paying out more as a reward for diligence? That would mean actually adding harvesters et al like PI has, but hey, it's more realistic than having a space station magically suck rocks out of the crust from a L5 point in orbit.

Just throwing that out there, I really have no idea if that would be better or not. Would still be interesting either way.

If the mythical Dust/EvE crossover ever actually happens, maybe then people could launch ground attacks on PI and MI facilities. Again, may be cool, may suck, but would definitely be interesting.

As for the whole issue of what regions get what... well, that happens everywhere with everything else, so why not moon-goo too? Even novice Empire space miners know that they're going to find different rocks in Gallente space than they will in Caldari space, and that there is a market for people willing to ship stuff between the haves and have-nots. Why should null-sec be any easier?

Because, of course, there is a catch: If an Empire space miner/trader wants to move things from Point A to Point B, all they need is to have neutral or better standings with both the respective NPC Empires. In null-sec, however, "Not blue? KOS" + 23/7 gatecamps makes things a bit more complicated for the would-be neutral freighter captain, because in null-sec there is no such thing as a neutral freighter captain. Thus resources do not get distributed with the same fluidity that they do in Empire space.

My conclusion, then, is that what looks like the problem is in fact only a symptom. The problem is in distribution after moon-mining, not before. If the Minmatar want some rock or blueprint or whatever that is only found in Amarr space, well cold-war be damned, they can just send a neutral alt over there to pick it up for them. Trying to get moon-goo from the space of a rival player alliance, however, requires a lot more effort (and risk) than simply raising your Diplomacy skill another point. Add that to the fact that some people hoard ("Can't risk putting it on the market, lest it falls into the hands of the enemy!) and you get the classic DeBeers situation of artificial scarcity further making things difficult.

Solution? I don't know. Maybe Chribba should start his own transport & freight company. Someone that no one is going to shoot at & thus be able to move some of that moon-goo around and get things flowing again.