If being part of the CSM would limit his ability to stream then that would make me think twice … 
You say that, but let’s not forget Ron invented the iPhone, amongst working with every major technology firm out there. I’m sure he’s very adept at multitasking, especially when it comes to technology…
3 Likes
Forgot to mention that as one of his failures.
2 Likes
I also have respect for the content creators of Eve, but what content does Ron himself create within Eve? Streaming what someone else is doing really isn’t creating content in my books. Also, Ron as stated many times on his stream that he would get rid of gate camping, cloaky camping, station camping, and ganking. He would close all warmholes and get rid of the big bloc alliances. Seems to me he is more interested in eliminating content than creating it.
Yes, this is very important if you want to pull income from your stream.
That would be great if it wasn’t for the fact that Ron takes advantage of their unfamiliarity of the game to fill their heads with incorrect and biased information. Take the Imperium for example, if I knew nothing about them except for what Ron says about them on his stream I too would think they need to be removed from the game entirely.
Maybe I should start streaming also so I can run for the CSM
2 Likes
If Ron cant balance streaming and keeping up with the demands of one post, what makes yall believe that he will be able to balance the demands of the CSM while trying to maintain a streaming community? Seeing how much ron streams, he is obviously a full time streamer, likely without another job. if i understand correctly, CSM is not a paid position. So which do you all think will be put on the back burner when money starts getting tight?
9 Likes
No, it won’t.
It will be impossible to establish. There is simply no solution that small groups can better implement than larger groups with at least a similar level of organization. I know people don’t like to hear that, but remember: if the optimal solution is a 10-man group, a 50-man group can just do 5 of them, simultaneously.
One of the advantages of large groups is exactly that: the ability to be small groups when needed, and be multiple small groups, all at once. Those small groups aren’t competing with one another, so they can freely share methods and experience, and move people freely between them as needed.
If 3 independent small groups of 10 people, who need 10 people to do an activity, each lose 2 people, that’s 3 groups that are just hosed. If a 30-man group, fielding 3 10-man groups to do the activity, loses 6 people… it still fields 2 10-man groups, with 4 people available in case they need standbys.
It doesn’t matter what the activity is, or how you try to use diminishing returns to add negative impact for larger participation—the larger group can simply self-select down for any specific moment, while still enabling a larger number of people.
As long as people can communicate with one another outside the EVE client, larger groups will always outcompete smaller groups, per capita. It’s a nice pipe dream, but it’s akin to ‘I want to flap my arms and fly to the moon’.
The real trick would be encouraging large groups to foment cultures that don’t need to sprawl across the entire map. That don’t need to hold 10-18 regions, and use other players as renters for the landlord alliances’ income. Let the little guys have their own space, without extorting ‘rental’ fees from them.
You want to really give small groups more potential and freedom in EVE, find a way to break the rental mechanics. I’m not sure that’s really possible, though, either.
5 Likes
This is too strong of statement and while I agree with your general sentiment I do believe that some emergent elements in the gameplay can be controlled to a considerable extent.
Just for the sake of the argument:
This is demonstrably not true. Alliance tournament is one example where a smaller group can and often has outperformed, on multiple occasions and within a short timeframe much larger groups. Number of people to select from was not the determining factor.
So, lets follow that path for just a moment and see what happens - can we use this approach.
Lets say, only for the sake of the argument, that SOV in EVE is changed to something like this:
- To gain control of a system a fleet must enter a special space: System Control Space - SCS (or some such name)
- This space has strict limits on fleet size and composition. (Like Abyssal space)
- To enter the System Control Space the fleet employs a single use filament, again abyssal style. This filament is issued to the corporation and cannot be transferred. A corporation has at most one such filament at any given time.
- When two fleets enter the fight begins - kind of like the arena.
- The winner of the fight gains control of the system.
- The winner of the fight receives another SCS filament, upon leaving the System Control Space.
SCS fleet is comprised from pilots who have been members of the given corporation (to which the filament belongs) for more than 30 days. IOW, you can not use the filaments from one corp to bring pilots from a different corp.
The corporation that loses the fight is issued another filament, 30 days later.
Again, this is only for the sake of the argument, and I believe it outlines (in very rough strokes) at least one approach that would allow smaller groups to successfully challenge the larger ones.
I felt compelled to add a bunch more details to the points above, but if you take the example in the spirit in which it is given - limit the ability of large groups to unconditionally control vast portions of space, while allowing smaller groups to carve their own place in space - then I hope the rough outline above is sufficient.
Also consider that I have not spent any time thinking of possible ways for large groups to circumvent the above scheme, it is not supposed to be a solution - it is only an example.
Other folks will probably have different and more nuanced ideas that may achieve the same result. There are so many control vectors in the gameplay that is difficult to say that “It is impossible to do ”.
Perhaps you are correct, but I am not convinced at this point.
Ok, how about ‘in the sum total of human history, no such conditions have ever been found’? Any time you see a small group outperforming a significantly larger group, one or more of the following factors are in play:
- The small group is actually a specially-selected subset of a larger group—special forces, etc.
- The small group has a significant advantage in organization for those conditions. And example of this would be steppe nomads like the Huns and their incursions into the Roman Empire: the Huns were simply better organized for that scenario and…
- Your sample period is too small. In the above example, the Hunnic incursions eventually end. Atilla dies, Rome adapts, the Goths and Vandals move west and basically assimilate into the Empire’s system.
The same patterns arise in every aspect of human endeavor. What gets seen as ‘small groups’ tend to be specialized, select members of larger groups, temporarily innovating with new elements of organization, and when those innovations become widespread—when the level of organization becomes similar across groups—the advantage evaporates.
No, it’s not. First off, the AT teams are themselves select members of larger organizations. Even the orgs that exist just for the AT practice that: there’s the main team, there’s the standbys in case someone’s offline or ill, there’s the practice teams they work with, etc etc.
And when you look at those ‘small groups’ that outperform the large groups… they’re usually the large groups in disguise, like the Hydra team moving from alliance to alliance, collecting more skilled pilots as they lose people to the inevitable grind of time. And the large groups that underperform… don’t keep underperforming, as they build experience—as they get that ‘similar level of organization’ I mentioned.
Ok, so, first off:
Look at #3.
Now let’s look at a small nullsec alliance: Freight Train Diplomacy. They form up to defend their space under this system, against Goonswarm.
Because of the system you’ve introduced, you want to try to get 256 people into each corp, but don’t want more than say, 500 people in corporation. We’ll be nice to the defenders, and say that Freight Train splits their 937 guys into 4 corps of 234 pilots each, with the extra guy in a 1-man executor corp. They have 4 useable filaments.
Karmafleet, a single corp in Goons, puts their 5794 characters into 19 corporations of 300 each. Freight Train has to win basically 5 times for every victory Karmafleet’s guys achieve, because as soon as Freight Train loses once, they’ve lost that filament for 30d.
Now replace KF’s 19 300-man corps with the full 97 300-man corps GSF as a whole could do. Freight Train needs just a little short of 25 wins for each loss, because we can just keep throwing attacking fleets at them.
Let’s also add the unspoken, crippling problem for the little guys: Time. Even with just the 19:4 advantage, that means each of Freight Train’s pilots needs to be ready to defend their space for a full 6-hr shift, while KF’s pilots each take what amounts to a 90-minute rotation, if there’s no fight going down.
This is something we’ve long-considered: any measure that would try to ‘force’ a break-up of large groups just gets large groups splitting into a lot of small groups that manage their numbers carefully—like how NCdot has managed their numbers for a decade—and coordinate their activities outside the game client.
EDIT TO ADD: And look, I know all the objections. ‘This was a rough idea, it’s not perfect’, ‘don’t focus on this specific example, but on the principles behind it’, ‘there are other ways to…’
There aren’t. It doesn’t matter what twists and variations you add onto things. It doesn’t matter what specific measures you take. In the end, the larger group will have a larger number of physical brains with which to figure out what the optimal solution is. And then it can organize itself into smaller groups, specifically to better execute that optimal solution. And as the smaller groups each have their own experiences and learning curves, they share notes and improve one another’s performance across the larger group.
No matter what the curveballs that get thrown at them are, they can always do that… Because you can’t stop them from communicating. You can’t stop them from coordinating and sharing intel. It can’t be done, because in a lot of cases, they can just get together at a bar and talk it out, or call one another on the phone, exchange email, etc etc. And that’s assuming they’re not already using a tele-collaboration platform like Slack, Discord, or hell, just a group email.
1 Like
We, at least I, are not talking about real life situation.
There is no need to draw parallels with history, because it doesn’t apply in EVE.
Many examples exist where small nations have significantly outperformed larger ones in certain endeavors … but that is not relevant here, this is a game where we (or the game designers) have all the controls. (I am not going to argue this and am not attempting to convince you or argue RL history.)
The game designers can introduce whatever mechanics and challenges they see fit even if those don’t exist in real life, so there is hope.
No, this is not a requirement - the size of the fleet was left open on purpose. In fact the size of the fleet can be contingent upon the size of the system - so anywhere from 20 to 200 people in a fleet.
Perhaps you can come up with a better condition …
Indeed, I was thinking of that too.
The point is that Karma Fleet (or some such), will have to protect their own space, so lets say they have 12 (out of 19) corps with good pilots to form a competent fleet and they want to retain control of 6 essential systems. That leaves them with 6 corps with which to try and gain new ground, but then as soon as they gain a new system they have to leave one of those competent fleets to defend that system otherwise leave themselves open to loosing one if the essential systems.
I agree that this is a difficulty and was trying to figure out if there is a way around it - hence the rough example, where the larger group will assume ever larger risk if it has to defend more systems and smaller (focused) groups will be able to gain space. It is true that a big group, as in your example, can use all of its corps (19) to perpetually attack a smaller group and eventually win, but in the process of doing that, if the large group loses some of the initial fights then that exposes them to losing their own space to another well prepared corp, because they will be out of filaments to use for defense.
What I am hoping is not a guarantee that the small corps will have their space, but rather that a small corp will have a reasonable chance to gain space even against a much larger group. Meanwhile the larger groups are going to have some advantages, this is unavoidable, but at least it shouldn’t be the same situation as it is today.
I entirely agree with you regarding the renting aspect of the game - it is insidious and IMO terrible part of the game, even though I am currently accustomed to it and using it.
Yes, this is a problem. Larger groups, who have more space, will be forced to form more fleets to defend and so this time issue will impact them as well and if they are not careful it may hurt them just as much (if not more) than the smaller corp that needs to defend just one system. (They have limited number of filaments with which to defend their space.)
As a side note:
It is not compelling to me accept this situation and abandon seeking a solution.
To some extent this reminds me of that joke about the King of the Worms (perhaps you know it):
King Worm: “Gather around. I have a bad news and a good news to deliver to you. Which one do you want first?”
Peasants: “ughh … The bad news. The bad news!”
King Worm: “There is no more food to eat. Only sht is left."
Peasants: “Booo. Terrible. Awful! Booooo…!”
Peasants: “… what’s the good news?”
King Worm: "We have infinite amount of sht.”
Peasants: “Hooray … Long live the King!”
No, not really. After all, the enemy has to get to the system where they plan to use their filament, right? So you just hit them on the gates coming in a system out. You can secure large swaths of space behind singular choke-point systems… like the Delve/Fountain choke point.
Futility is humanity’s birthright. I prefer to focus my energy on problems that can be solved.
2 Likes
These are details - I don’t have answers to huge number of possible issues. It was just a quick example to show that it is possible, at least IMO, to limit the ability of large groups to control huge portions of space.
I understand and accept that you disagree with that and that my arguments/example have not convinced you or even slightly changed your viewpoint.
Fair enough, but then there is …
or
In any case,
Thank you for the cordial discussion,
It is appreciated!
Right, but you’re looking at two very different situations there.
In one, you’re talking about physics, and what’s known vs what’s yet to be discovered.
In the other, we’re talking about human interaction… which really hasn’t actually changed in… ever.
And if we boil things down further on both scenarios? Edison and William Thomson were both betting against what can be done with the shared efforts of a large group. The Wright Brothers didn’t have to discover all of physics themselves—they were just a small sample of a larger group of brains working on the problem and communicating with one another.
And look at how many aircraft companies existed only 15 years after their first flight.
2 Likes
I guess Ron gave up?
1 Like
Ron said on his stream the other day that everyone here is just lying about him so there is no point responding.
1 Like
I mean he hasn’t even addressed people who speak in good faith towards him. I think this puts him in the same camp as Hywuanto, they both think too high of themselves to see themselves as equals with the community, and therefore don’t feel they are obligated or desire, to engage in conversation about their positions or stances that they have on subjects. They simply feel they are right, and we are dumb.
3 Likes
This was a joke. Carneros was in stream and someone from chat asked “Who are the good guys?” and he replied “All of us :)”. If you asked in stream who the bad guys were, it was Meerkats. It was a joke.
I am not interested in putting people I don’t know on stream. Good luck with your CSM run.
1 Like
Not “everyone”, but if someone accuses me of calling other people Nazis… I lose interest in talking with them.
On another note, Why are you so passionate about this thread? You stated in the very beginning that I’m horrible, bad at the game, yet you keep coming back to the thread to get me to debate. If you don’t like me, that’s fine, you don’t have to vote for me.
I didnt know Redeemer was all over this thread putting in work. I consider it a compliment because he is very well spoken.
Yes, it’s an issue. If sitting perfectly safe all day and just killing ships is carebearing, that’s exactly what they do. Look at any of the asset safety stations and you can see people that lose a single ship every month… but kill 20-40 a day. That’s not risky. Campers might even be the biggest carebears of all time.