true that
This is exactly the sort of thing I would expect from the CSM. Arrogance, pride, and indifference.
1 Like
Ok, as much as you are a chill person in real life; this is one of the problems I have with you. This statement just isnât true.
The past several years pandemic horde, an empire you built; has routinely avoided any meaningful conflict above the scale of which would be considered risky. You are running your alliance more like a fixed annuity and even uprooting your staging system because of a single goon camping the undock for a few weeks.
You have the numbers, the resources and the personnel to mount an invasion on any of the other null blocs but you choose not too. You de-escalate fights as an alliance more than any of the other null blocs. Almost every single decision you and your senior leadership has made since 2017 has been about avoiding conflict and reducing risk.
Sure, risk mitigation and knowing how to pick your battles is the mark of any good leader but you take this to such a cartoonish extreme that it becomes a self-parody that everyone else can see but you. You are a well mannered and intelligent human being but you NOT the âconflict drivers guyâ.
2 Likes
You contradicting yourself here.
You are saying that it is impossible to fight over TTT because of mechanics.
Then you say you had âincessasntâ fighting over TTT before the deal.
So the factor that killed the content was the deal and not mechanicsâŚ
It is always the same. Big groups always ask for content-drivers but in reality what they want is a mechanic where they can teabag smaller groups with their cap fleet with the least effort possible and get a big reward for it.
If CCP brings passive moons back tomorrow the following will happen. There will be about 3 month worth of content where the big groups go a around with their cap fleets and bring any worthwhile moon under their control. (All the big leaders will cheer, âYeeeee great changes CCP great Contentâ)
After that phase only the big fish will be left. They could attack each other but they wonât. They rather make a backroom deal, where people like you decide what alliance is allowed to own what moons in what region. Basically in one form or another we will see OTEC 2.0 and content will be mostly dead shortly after.
If you bring up one good idea that doesnt follow this metric you can have my vote.
2 Likes
for passive moon the most easiest way to counter any oligopoly between bic bloc is to make them extreamly vulnerable, how can you defend them against anyone (even small group) if they are destroyed within a day ?
youâwill have to spread in order to defend them and if 2 group poke your moon then you will have to choice
and there was something else, with passive moon there was no jump fatigue any bloc could defend any structure in the entire universe with just 5-10m of travel, itâs not possible anymore
for the perimeter KS iâm a bit pissed aswell but i understand, you canât destroy it and Test/Goon canât let anyone destroy it, during the Test/Frat war fraternity wanted to RF the perimeter KS (in order to force Legacy to abandon every timer they had in the south) and that was a succes, but, after that Panfam put Winterco neutral and abandonned them for a week, politic is complicated
i guess no one can destroy it but maybe a coalition of non-sov holder can harass it and get a part of the deal
Firstly we are one of the top 3 most represented alliances in large battlereports as well as any metrics like killboard kills total or isk destroyed. Eve is not a game where you go far by just charging heads first into every conflict, and I would argue horde is one of the alliances to generate the most conflict while still staying alive. I donât claim to be a Gigx, however I do claim that my alliance is still breathing.
Second, this is about the CSM and bringing conflict drivers as a topic to the attention of CCP. Iâm the guy who did that. The minutes contain the evidence you need. You are conflating my claim as being âthe guy creating the most conflict in new edenâ which is obviously not true and not my claim at all.
You are out of your mind. Panfam did exactly that during the UALX war and it didnât work out.
You are wrong and ignorant about the mechanics. As I explained above you can contest the market to the point no one is making money, but you cannot secure it and keep the profits for yourself. This is poor design which inevitably leads to the warring parties realizing the only way anyone is going to make any money is by coming to a deal.
Once again ask yourself why Test, who were in control of the keepstar and never lost even a ks armor timer, would ever want to cut in horde if the above wasnât true.
2 Likes
Why is it always about the isk?
1 Like
The oligopolies were based on a few failure of the mechanics, among those:
- the barrier to contest these moons was too high, took too long for subcaps to ref the POSes
- most of those moons were in deep null and under cynojammers making it difficult for a rival fleet to get up there and destroy the POSes
- any destroyed moon could be recaptured within 24 hours by moving a large capital fleet and flipping the moon again
- the mechanic introduced to steal from afk moon owners (siphons) was flawed because API info told the owner how much moongoo is produced and instantly alert the owner if any was being siphoned
As an example, the moons in lowsec were heavily fought over, for example the conflicts goons had againt snuff before WWB, or the conflict panfam had vs snuff around anchuttes.
There are many ways to approach the issues above. One approach could be focusing the passive elements to lowsec and npc null at first.
Another approach could be tieing the passive income to a pipeline mechanic, where a chain of infrastructure must be in place between the resource and nodes in hisec. The resource would have to move through this pipeline and cannot be hauler manually.
This pipeline could then be attacked to stop or steal the flow of passive income at any section of the pipe.
This is one example of how you could solve toxic aspects of the old afk-resource harvesting as well as creating new interesting gameplay related to eveâs geography.
3 Likes
Just for clarification you have to say (in game) or (out of game) because Iâm not the only person who wrongly assumed you meant to say that you were a conflict driver (In game).
Thank you for clarifying that you meant specifically in the narrow context of CSM and talking about a subject matter.
Even if you had said
âI am the conflict driver guy (on CSM)â or âI focus on conflict drivers as part of my platform/focus on CSMâ
people in this thread would still point out that as an alliance leader you donât have much experience with driving conflict outside of low risk encounters. Tripping up over your own syntax is not the best way to show you have the communication skills required of somebody on the CSM. I reiterate that you ARE a smart and gifted individual but you need to back off this conflict driver stuff. Thatâs not your wheel-house man. Thatâs death, thatâs poision; anybody looking to hurt your campaign can just point at that. They can say âHey look gobbins is claiming to be a subject matter expert on conflict driversâ
Does this matter? Pretty sure he doesnât care, his sheep will elect him to the CSM anyway.
Does it matter in terms of being elected? No.
Does it hurt his brand and his credibility in the eyes of his constituency? Yes.
And theyâd be right.
As pointed out above Horde is one of the orgs most involved in fighting no matter what metric you want to measure it with. Ask goons or init which entities they can still get fights from, itâs mostly Horde.
Go check the recent dread brawl that made the headlines and who was in it.
Go check the entire pure blind campaign and the gef vs def Venal campaign before that.
1 Like
Gobbins, a legend in his own mind.
1 Like
still waiting for your propositions about conflicts driver btw, you talk a lot but the only thing you said was :
a CSM member act as a lobbyist at least Gobbins and some others have a vision how thing should work even if CCP arenât gonna include everything they said if a lot of CSM member say the same thing thatâs certainly gonna impact their actions, iâm not a fan of PH or any other nullbloc but his ideas about conflicts are interesting, from you i got this
even if in the end a wall of text or something this simple arenât gonna change something, if i had to choose the âconflict guyâ would win easilly
for what itâs worth i find your judgement displaced as a goon member, even Mittani recognize there no reason to fight any big bloc because the gamedesign prevent that, why that should change for Panfam or Legacy ?
and itâs not just the âNull blocâ even us as a small NS alliance we donât need to fight anymore because we already have sov and a lot of moons, soo we wait until someone kick us out and we will fight and conquer our new home, there no reason to fight when you donât need a home, even if you have a lot of target
If you are upset that I was humble in responding to your question about conflict drivers than maybe Gobbins is the candidate for you. Calling me a âgoon memberâ is also fart-logic because last time I checked the Gallente Militia isnât a part of goons. I might show my butt in a campaign video but unlike you and gobbins I donât use it as my primary means of communication.
FACT.
Brisc, in your next video, all you null sec CSM guys should stand around patting yourselves on the back for how great you all are.
Sorry, but I follow social distancing guidelines.
Sorry, Gobbins, but itâs the PH logo that is the problem.
I meanâŚreallyâŚ
gl
Almost all over methods are not gonna provide content because your either failing to get the core issue or are well playing lip service to this issue without really wanting to change it, here is a secret most groups that used to be active died because of there inability to form a 100+ dudes on a Wednesday in AUTZ, they got eating up by coalitions like panfam GSF or Tapi now what will you do for fleetâs of 20 people to get fights again and have a real chance of achieving well anything ?
Because changing the moons only matters if we have more then the big 3 fighting over them (historically there was a bloc of moons that was controlled by groups that where never big power houses) making it possible for other small groups to contest these moons, like so many things have changed in the game, that even if you recreated poses today many of the groups that used to be the groups fighting over them are dead, what prevents a new passive income source from just becoming controlled by the same 3 power blocks, how are you planning to make it possible for smaller corps to even try and control moons like they historically where able to.
Like the devil here is very much in the details.
Great letâs look at what the wardec changes really did for the game they removed all merc groups that where not part of the donut from highsec most of those quit the game, because really you either blue pirat or you might as well quit ( as they where the luckily winner in the race to get more folks and that means there is no longer space for another wardec group as really any time you come into conflict with pirat you either out fight them or your ability to wardec is gone ).
You seem to still miss the problem with the mechanic, being force to put 700 miliion into your first war and then pay 100 million for the next one after that etc benefits people with more active wars.
Like the people that benefited from the changes are null blocs that want to project there power into highsec, and bigger merc groups itâs almost as if the change was designed to benefit your allies why didnât you stop it then and how are you planning to fix this if at all ?
Like so far you claimed to want conflict but all the changes i see you talk about benefit stagnation and null blocs ability to use the power in space outside of null to export there shitty game play to the rest of eve, so where exactly is this guy that wants conflict or by conflict should we read that as stuff for null blocs to shoot at ?