Except they didn’t function. Their CEO protected his personal assets but members of his corp were still killed, in large part because of the absence of corp leadership that could have given them better advice or organized support. That’s the worst of both worlds, feeding the aggressor corp easy kills to keep them interested and failing to hurt them back and discourage them from further attacks.
And, again, “dock up and avoid combat” works in some situations. But when you claim to be interested in building up a capital fleet and attacking the major nullsec powers the fact that your only response to a much weaker enemy is to dock up and beg CCP to make the war stop it’s a pretty clear concession that you are a dismal failure as a CEO.
He clearly did handle a highsec war.
No, he really didn’t. His members were dying, he was off playing other games, and there was no sign of an end to the war. The only reason the war ended was that CCP changed the mechanics. Without the intervention of a more powerful entity there was no sign of hope for ICANP.
Again, it only “worked out” because CCP changed the mechanics. Had CCP left things as they were the war was going to continue indefinitely, and ICANP would keep losing members. That is not a win by ICANP.
If you claim to want to build up a capital fleet then get attacked before you have any of that fleet, why would you engage?
Because it’s a demonstration of skill that states to everyone, your own members and your enemies/allies, that you are a threat to be respected. If you intend to attack the major nullsec powers then a mere highsec war should be a trivial issue, just a warmup game before the real fight. But instead the only thing ICANP could do was try to avoid fighting, knowing that they would not win on the battlefield.
Not that he really has any intention of going after nullsec, it’s very obvious that the reason he wants highsec capitals is for safer and more profitable farming. His behavior in this war just proves it beyond any doubt.
What’s your point? Whether or not it was an exploit the only reason the war ended was that CCP forced it to end, despite his inability to end it without CCP’s help. Having some imaginary moral high ground that the war wasn’t “legitimate” doesn’t change the fact that ICANP was unable to win it.
Dragging a PvE corp into an all out war is a demonstration that you have no idea what you’re doing.
So we agree that ICANP is a PvE corp that can not exist without CONCORD protection, and it’s CEO’s claims of PvP goals are blatant lying?
It’s not that it’s obvious
I know it isn’t to you. I’m aware that generations of inbreeding have given you severe brain damage, and simple concepts like this are difficult for you to grasp. But for everyone else it is very obvious that when someone says “I want this for PvP” but their actions say “I do not want to participate in PvP” that they are lying about their desires.
I can’t prove beyond any conceivable doubt from a troll like you, but I can point to the fact that ICANP was having is members get killed and quit while the people attacking them showed no interest in ending the war. There is no reason to believe that this trend would have magically changed any time in the foreseeable future.
No
Then you’re an idiot. The only question I have left is whether you’re just an idiot troll, or if you are genuinely stupid enough to believe that he is interested in PvP.
And I will refrain from personal attacks when you refrain from posting on the EVE forums. Until then you are my punching bag and I will say whatever I like about you.
Nope. Only in your delusional world is 100% absolute proof beyond any conceivable doubt the standard used in a discussion like this.
And I can point to their actions which were to call out the exploit for what it was and have it petitioned successfully.
That isn’t a win through in-game means, or by effort of their own. It’s CCP deciding to change the rules of the game despite their failure to accomplish anything.
If you want me to actually respond to you, behave like an adult.
You are greatly mistaken here. I don’t want you to respond to me. I have zero hope that you will ever see reason and become less of a useless troll, my posts are entirely aimed at any other people reading this thread. I want to criticize your idiotic posts and have the discussion end there, it’s a great time savings for me if you stop posting endless and equally stupid responses to everything I say.
And you haven’t given any evidence that it would have been fought differently. At least I have the example of how the war happened in reality to extrapolate from, you have nothing but empty speculation.
They didn’t fight it because it was an exploit.
Which is a pathetic excuse to hide behind. The reason for the war is irrelevant, ICANP corp members still lost their ships and were forced to dock up and stop playing EVE. A respectable corp would have fought back and won the war even if they didn’t agree with the reasons for it existing, but ICANP is not capable of doing that.
That was their in-game action.
Oh really? What in-game activity by ICANP members caused the end of the war?
(Please remember that filing a petition or making a forum post outside of the game is not an in-game activity.)
I think I heard about that customs office gantry thing, and it really does sound like a bug that should have been fixed a long time ago. It doesn’t make Sabus any less skeevy, though.
Oi!
BAD! Bad girl! No calling people inbred retards! No! No!
That gag’s become a bit repetitive by now, Galaxy Pig. Maybe you ought to switch it up a little, use some newer (or older) material to keep things from getting stale?
And I have provided evidence: the actions ICANP and its CEO did take in the actual war. Whether or not you find this evidence 100% indisputable is irrelevant, it is still evidence and still more than you have provided for the alternative theory. Now do you actually have anything useful to say, or just more of your tedious whining about “GIVE MORE EVIDENCE NOW”?
If someone uses an exploit you report it to CCP.
And then you still have to decide how to handle it in-game. The simple fact is that the “exploit” (which was never declared to be an exploit and was not punished) did not in any way change how the war was going to function. This was not a case of, say, finding an exploit that makes your ship invulnerable, where the only possible response would be to dock because victory is impossible. The war was exactly the same war that ICANP would have faced if they had deployed any other structure, and their ability to win the war would have been exactly the same.
Now, are they required to fight? Of course not. But it does completely demolish their CEO’s claim to want to attack the major nullsec powers when his response to a much weaker threat is to dock up and complain about how the war isn’t legitimate.
Please refrain from honestly evaluating my intelligence and character.
CCP don’t usually ban for exploits, heck, the infinite tracking exploit abused for months and months didnt get anyone banned, and most exploits they don’t shut down discussion of either.
Only the long term ones they can’t fix do they do that for.
The fact CCP fixed it indicated they did feel it was an exploit.
Sorry to be back on topic, but if anyone reading this is interested in ganking SICO Porpoises and Procurers with cheap T1 fitted Catalysts, contact me in game. I’d rather not have to gank them with T2 fits, but T1 fits require more gankers than we usually have available atm.
