It is doable, but it has too many factors what we cant control. For example i could dock up with my carrier and go afk the moment you choose to hunt carriers. It is somewhat rng based imo. Some day you might kill a carrier every hour, on another day you will not even find a carrier. Neither of the two situations make you good or bad, more like lucky and not lucky
(skill comes into play only AFTER you found the carrier)
You cant play smart?
Damn.
Maybe EVE isnt for you.
I know 
But according to Salvos if you canât get more than 1 in 5 hours youâre a bad player
I know itâs mostly all up to luck, but hey, Salvos is a pro
@Salvos_Rhoska quote the whole thing instead of the part you want to focus on
1 carrier for however many participants in the roams, for 5hrs of effort, is bad.
If we assume the roam was 30 players, thatâs 150 man hours, just for 1 carrier.
Seriously, its just not worth it.
Are you trying to tell me you cant fly smart with delayed Local intel?
No its not. Usually people with carriers do not rat for long periods of time, because it is pretty intensive, unlike vni semi-afk ratting. They could have hunted carriers in the wrong timezone or anything really.
Iâm pretty sure I made my point clear enough that a kid in kindergarten would understandâŚ
How can you prove you can do something with parameters that are non-existing?
Please explain that to us, the community.
I think they did a lot of things wrong.
Id be very unhappy with an FC that led a roam for 5hrs with 30 players, and netted only 1 carrier for 150hrs of man hours.
Not worth it.
Roam lacked intel, and as is the entire premise of this thread, with instant local intel, its a trivial matter for anyone except a retarded/afk/botter to warp to safe before they are ever at real risk.
You are free to think whatever you want, but we do not know what happened there. I was in coalition ops for 7 hours and in the end we lost. â â â â happens but it was worth it because we had fun. This is the only thing that matters.
He still thinks it was a roam, oh my godâŚ
What was it then, if not a roam?
How many players?
Show us the kill.
Is hunting in EVE not synonymous with roaming?
If not, how are they different?
Nope
roam
rĹm/Submit
verb
gerund or present participle: roaming
move about or travel aimlessly or unsystematically, especially over a wide area.
hunt¡ing
ËhÉn(t)iNG/Submit
noun
1.
the activity of hunting wild animals or game, especially for food or sport.
Thanks Google
Re-read the question.
It specifically says âin EVEâ.
<snipped waffle about why he canât point to any actual risk in 0.0>
OK, so how exactly do you propose anyone prove that huge 0.0 alliances are too powerful?
Right so itâs not that youâre OP, itâs that youâre really clever⌠
And youâre saying there shouldnât be balance in the game if somebody took advantage of the imbalance.
It is not our problem you do not understand risk in game.
It is your concernâŚyou have to figure that out.
OP how? You are aware of the fact that Goons have been on the losing side of conflicts as well as the winning side. You say this as if it is obvious. You really come off badly.
Whenever somebody writes, âAnd you are sayingâŚâ they inevitably look like an idiot. I am not saying anything of the kind. But if a player or a group of players âplay smartâ and gain an advantage that is totally fine in a MMO like EVE. EVE is a game where players pursue different strategies. Some are going to have better strategies than others and those with the better strategies will succeed.
This post basically says, âHi, I donât understand EVE Online, but I think it is broken even though Iâm wildly ignorant.â You could be right, but so far you havenât posted anything supporting your assertion. There is nothing informative, thoughtful, or useful in just about all your posts.
It is your problem that you canât point to any risk in 0.0 and thus have to pretend I donât understand it.
No. I was just checking if you were at all open to discussion. Apparently not.
Thereâs literally nothing that you can point to that youâd accept as proof. Therefore I donât have to satisfy your burden of proof.
Whenever somebody writes, âAnd you are sayingâŚâ they inevitably look like an idiot.
Letâs assume youâre right about something for once. You then immediately followed it up with:
This post basically says, âHi, I donât understand EVE Online, but I think it is broken even though Iâm wildly ignorant.â
Hoisted by your own petard⌠
itâs the exact same thing
thereâs not 2351 definitions to the words, thereâs one
stop being knowingly ignorant
e: 
donât
Theese words made me check your killboard and huh it looks good 
Of course there is risk in 0.0. Go look at the lossmails in any NS region. There you go.
This is hilarious coming from such an obscurantist such as yourself.
You are claiming certain alliances are too powerful. Make the case. If you canât then STFU.
If I point to it of course Iâd accept it as evidence (proof is only possible in logic and math).
The STFU.
No. It is a summary of your posts to date. You donât engage at all. You canât even support your own contentions. At all. Ever. If you do have a good idea it would be an accident.
Your inability to understand how risk works in game is a fine example. Mitigating risk is what players are supposed to do. That they do it is not, in and of itself, bad. You unfortunately appear to be incapable of grasping this point. If CCP gives tools or changes mechanics that makes it mitigating risk to easy or too successful then there might be an issue. But you canât even make this kind of an argument. And this criticism goes with just about any topic you participate in.