EVE General Discussion

It's about shooting structures :sovjoke:

Paging Lyris Nairn Chronicles of Narnia Sky Captain of ~our heart~ tomorrow's goonfleet dot com etc etc etc

The point is that every “impossible large and unbeatable” corp/alliance/coalition in the history of the game has been both beaten and reduced to small numbers.

So far: Two?
And the second has learnt from the mistakes of the first.

you are the worst pilot out there until now, however, you are in the right alliance, 10.000 bad pilots might be able to kill a good one... good job

Is the implication here that Harry considers himself a to be a better pilot than anyone in the CFC...
In absolute terms, a good pilot?

He does. He flies around Deklein every once in a while in a bomber while trying to "troll" us in local chat. We make fun of him for a while in our intel channels (because it makes him mad that we have intel channels) and then somebody will pop him on a gate (because he thinks warp stabs make him immune to bubbles) and he goes away for a little while.

yes with a few hundred people popping our cyno frigates and bombing lone haulers you'll conquer Deklein for sure

I double checked the statistics and you don't seem to have harmed our sov or our moons. I fail to see how you are winning. Unless you meant to say whining...that I do see a lot of from you.

^ do you see how there's a group of you and only one of me, but that still doesn't make you right? Let me help you guys out: I have HAD other characters in the PAST. I don't not HAVE those characters anymore. This is the only character that I HAVE and play EVE with. How did being in a group bring you guys any closer to "winning" that point? I would even say that being in a group HURT your chances of arriving at the truth in that instance, because rather than look at yourselves and try to do better, you just echoed what the other members of the group were saying.

One of balancing dynamics in the real world between large numbers and small numbers is that if your large group doesn't have the truth on their side (or are using the wrong tactic or strategy), then they are just wrong in large numbers (or die in large numbers).

Another balancing dynamic is that, because the world is so large and time is always moving forward and things happen so quickly, it is nigh impossible for a group, even an enormous one like the United States of America or even China, to always defend everything they claim sovereignty over.

Another balancing dynamic is that my force, my horses, my bullets, my bombs, my VX nerve agent, can also kill my friends and even myself.

Another balancing dynamic is that I only know the things that I, an individual, have come to know/understand. Now, I can befriend someone to fix my car or pay someone or even learn to fix it myself, but I may end up stuck waiting in the rain on the side of the road if I haven't done that BEFORE my car breaks down.

There are probably a lot more such balancing dynamics in life. Maybe you could think of a few, or maybe you could try to predict what would happen if such dynamics were "nerfed" or "buffed". What would the world look like, then?

There's a few problems with this argument.

1. I might actually BE elite.
2. The current sovereignty holders of a space might not have set the bar very high for taking their space. They may simply not have people who are good at the things they need to be good at. (I'm looking right at you, Test Alliance.)
3. You assume becoming good at activity X requires the same amount of time for both player A and player B, but maybe one is simply elite and gets better faster.
4. The main flaw in your argument is that I don't have to do ANYTHING better than the sovereignty holder. I only have to be capable of DISRUPTING what the sovereignty holder is doing to hold sovereignty. Is there a practical way to do that (within the game) given the current game mechanics besides resorting to brute force and sheer numbers?