Why Didn't the HBC and CFC Go to War?

Avatar
MY TINFOIL IS FUCKING READY.
Avatar
If I didn't live in a wormhole I'd unsub my accounts. I feel bad for all you faggots that get to live in a sea of blue and a great war is deterred because of a few individuals and their desire to metagame and make passive isk than actually blow up spaceships.
Avatar
All respect to Mittens but seems as if the idea that his propaganda influenced Shadoo, a salty oldtimer who has been around the block, is questionable.
Avatar
>write an article about why no war>doesn't mention OTEC>is james_315
Avatar
in other words, nothing new is going on in null..
Avatar
tl;dr Null sec is care-bearing.
Avatar
nothing but propoganda. Since when have sov mechanics stopped any big war? Every big war ever has had its own structure slugfest ... it is just all about the isk, nothing else
Avatar
My first thought when I saw that this article was written by james_315 was, "Oh dear, this is going to make some good points, but still be way too long."I was not mistaken.
Avatar
I'm not going to pretend to know what Monty/Mittens/Shadoo were really thinking, but from my perspective(TEST grunt) I find structure grinding boring but acceptable if I feel like there's a reason for it. Killing someone I dislike, we need more space, whatever. In this case we didn't need more space, I like most of the CFC and I really can't see any reason to grind structures.A shooty shooty war? Yes please. A structure grind for no perceptible benefit or reason? I'll pass.
Avatar
Let's just get it over with and call one side Horde and the other Alliance. That's ultimately what Nullsec is going to turn into. My finger was on the resub button if this thing kicked off. Ah well, the 4 days of drama was definitely entertaining.
Avatar
Well written, a good read with some very valid points.
Avatar
I find it very funny that at no point in that wall of text was the words ' Because of Tech'
Avatar
Thats why we aren't blue and just have a NIP (Non-Invasion-Pact), we can go kill them all the time we want without fearing timers!
Avatar
Shadoo, the leader of Pandemic Legion, informed Montolio that PL would not be going to war against the CFCCompletely wrong.
Avatar
you must be happy that means your low sec bat phone isn't vanishing when your in trouble
Avatar
Pretty sure Fox News is more reliable than this crap.
Avatar
Nice propaganda piece.I'm not surprised James_315 would not mention the CFC and PL not wanting to go to war in order to protect their Technetium moons. OTEC is price fixing the cost of Technetium, and protecting those moons for profit is more important to these groups than fighting. This is why the excuse of "sovereign warfare is bad" was made - to avoid any territory changing hands which might include Technetium moons. This is reinforced by the compromise of having staged/organized battles for both groups to blow off steam, but without any risk to their moons.James_315's group "The New Order" is designed to perform market manipulation - driving the cost of Technetium higher by suicide ganking miners. All of the other stated motivations are cover for this constant organized Hulkageddon initiative (yes, cue the conspiracy theorist debunkers). But the end result is these miners then have to replace their Exhumers, which a large portion of the materials required to build them is Technetium.
Avatar
As of this comment, GSF and TEST are neutral to each other - I don't know about the other alliances in the coalitions. Standings have been reset. There is war already, but it is not a full out sov contest.
Avatar
Living in a wormhole you have no idea how soul-crushing it is to grind sov. Currently, among many of the people in TEST the last sov grind is still too fresh in their memories.What people seem to miss is that these two coalitions are so large and so strong that if it truly comes to war, neither side can afford to let the other live. If the loser is allowed to keep any space, they can simply build back up and come back to haunt the winner. Now, with this in mind, take a look at the current sov map. Imagine having to grind ALL those systems down one by one, all by hand. It gets old really quick, I can tell you that. No amount of goodfites can make up for it.Additionally, I find it very interesting that people continue to underestimate the cost of war. I don't remember who said it, but at the level these two coalitions fight at, wars are won not only by doctrines and strategy, but also by who can reship the quickest and the most often. Sure, both parties have incredible amounts of income, but they also field incredible amounts of people and those people all need ships. At the same time, you can't have those people farming ISK for themselves, because time spent making ISK is time not spent in fleets. This means that the individual corporations need to have a well padded bank account if you're going to win the war.So for now, Shadoo's plan actually is the best solution for both sides. There's a good chance that this will work out and provide the goodfites and if not, there's always the option of escalating to all out war after all, but people first get to pad their wallets to the levels required for the epic scale war that would be HBC vs CFC.
Avatar
I felt the same way. If I lived in nullsec, I'd feel like this is the part where "Game Over" pops up on my screen and I turn off EVE. I really do wish nullsec was less shit or I might come back out of my wormhole.Luckily, this doesn't really affect me and if everyone else in null considers this fun, life goes on.
Avatar
wait. pl arent our batphone. they are just our main accounts surely u know this by now!
Avatar
TLDR: Because we're all a bunch of greedy space jew faggots.
Avatar
That's literally what this article just said idiot.An eternal hell of sov-grinding isn't what stopped the war; the fact that both Coalitions have more to lose than gain out of it is what stopped the war. As a line member, I'm still happy because it means I don't have to spend the next two years shooting building under TiDi.
Avatar
People who say Null Sec is "stagnant" don't live here. Been kicked out of and conquered many systems. It would have been hard to imagine the HBC SBUing VFK, but I guess that could of happened. We just finished a purge of Venal and we had a few good fights out of it and a really good drive by from a dread fleet. VOC decimated a fleet in Branch and continues to make life difficult for all Branch residence. Tribute has become the drive by capital of null space. Pretty much all the good ratting systems (that's where your grunt players make isk for ships), are near perma-camped. There is a cloaky hauler in O94U looking for a place to set up a enemy POS . So explain to me where this "sea of tranquility" exists. These are not complaints these are simply the facts, so don't whine to me that there is not combat or fights in null sec, I know better. I FUCKING LOVE IT!
Avatar
In the end its all about the tech, botting and RMT why go to war when you can fund your alliance and help pay bills? This war is what eve needed this game sucks without it
Avatar
That's a lot a nonsense... If the HBC was to winning he could stop in VFK and enjoy a strategic victory and let NC. and the like take back some regions in the North while CFC would be weak. HBC would have to take it all.
Avatar
PL didn't want to lose their Tech, Shadoo is a wuss, PL has fallen hard. Why try to make it about sov. Monty wanted to break FA. Don't need to take sov to do that. Just beat the ever living shit out of their fleets and make them not want to log in anymore.In related news Shadoo promotes simulated spaceship battles within a structured environment...with rules (wtf???) in a spaceshp video game...its called EVE Inception I think...What happened to GSF and PL, they have become everything they once opposed. Tragic day for EVE-O. Maybe even sadder is Monty seems to be the only Bloc leader who has no fucks to give and just wants to see space burn.
Avatar
And how do you figure that? The amount of people doesn't magically decrease with the amount of space they hold. Compress them and they will simply become more agile, able to respond with larger numbers more quickly. At the same time, as soon as one of the parties start winning, its enemies will be able to attack more easily since the 'winning party' is getting spread out across space.I know this is internet spaceships and all, but the principles of war still apply here. Actually, they probably apply more than they do in real life, since in internet spaceships death isn't permanent and a 'strategic victory' is much less valuable then in real life, amongst other things. I challenge you, if you feel that my arguments are wrong study up a little on how war works IRL, you'll see that there are more parallels between RL and EVE than you think.
Avatar
I thought James was rather succinct by his usual standards.
Avatar
Blaiming sov. mechanics is a cop out if I'v ever seen one, It all about protecting tech. CFC will gain very little by going to war, even if they did win, and well PL could get more tech, they already pull in more tech per capita then any other alliance in the game, the risk just isn't worth the reward.Now I'm not calling everyone out there claiming they dislike sov. mechanics a lier, but really if that how you feel you should probably not live in sov. space, or unsub because CCP isn't gonna have changes for sov. for atleast a year.
Avatar
>communicates using memes>is TEST
Avatar
This is hardly true. CFC numbers plummeted when they didn't take Tribute in the 2 weeks they thought it would. Fleet sizes dropped in half. Numbers depend on one thing alone. Morale. If you are getting your ass beat morale is low. Why log in just to whelp another fleet.That is also assuming that you even need to take all the regions. Id wager a good chunk of CFC alliances would jump ship the moment a war looked like a losing effort. Razor would be first imo after the coat hanger op GSF declined to help fend off.Of course you then also need to count the number of alliances who field little to no pilots such as Gents or Space Monkeys.Really you would only need to head shot VFK and just like ROLs holdings in the south, the CFC would begin to fracture as alliance leads start giving handjobs to would be conquerors to keep the space they currently suck mittens dick for.
Avatar
I don't. The metagame is one of the things that makes EVE awesome. I have toons in the CFC and toons in highsec. I can pirate, gank in highsec, pew in null (though I do have to roam far these days). My corp does WH day-tripping, including ganking industrials in WH's. I can also be a closeted carebear manufacturing and inventing. I'd much rather watch metagame drama and do all of the above than be forced to grind a lot of sov and sit on a lot of titans to defend my alliance's space.
Avatar
No reasonably intelligent person could ever believe this conflict was averted "because sov grinding sucks". The last 5 invasions weren't called off for that reason and neither would this one have been. It was averted because of tech moons, plain and simple. PL thought its precious tech moons would be endangered and told Montolio to shove it. End of story.
Avatar
There is a huge difference between a sov grind where you can drop a couple (drunk/distracted) supers to speed things along with a structure shoot and a sov grind where you have to be careful with supers because the other side will drop on and kill a handful of supers shooting structures. The difference between HBC fighting SoCo or CFC fighting in the north and a CFC-HBC war is like night and day as far as sov war goes.
Avatar
The unstated premise here is that there wasn't enough reward for the risk BECAUSe of OTEC. Sov grind isn't the problem (obviously), the economy and moon mechanics are.Also, I do have to give this site credit for calling out the BS of the man himself :D
Avatar
Everyone has missed the biggest reason why a Sov war between the CFC and HBC would be pointless, neither coalition has the people to populate more space. the majority of the systems that both coalitons own are ghost towns with no one using them, taking more sov would spread either coaliton too thin and open the door for outside forces to more easily attack.
Avatar
This would be another Great War. No need for backing down. Neither side wanted it.
Avatar
Welcome in wow battlegrouds, where winning as no consequences. Enjoy your themepark gameplay.Not having the threat of hitting assets makes fights a lot less likely, and a lot less stressing.
Avatar
Except this war was never meant to be about sov. Monty wanted FA broken. You don't need to take sov to break an alliance. You just beat the ever living shit out of their fleets until they don't want to undock or login anymore. Then you collect your internet tears and corpses and go home.The sov bs was entirely made up by those opposed to fighting a war because their Tech monies might be at risk...this has nothing to do with Sov, really all it is, is PL showing they are no longer a PVP alliance first, merely an ISK drunk Carebear alliance with some shiny toys they bring out when the odds are they won't lose any.
Avatar
I confirm wey'oun screams about armor hacs during fleets
Avatar
"such a war would be strategically unsound" "seasoned alliance leaders consider what they stand to gain by victory" " what it will cost (including the boredom factor), and most importantly, the likelihood of defeat" " The benefits of such a war were unclear, and the risk of defeat was unacceptably high" seems to be covered plenty. I'm sorry if you were too dense to notice, but everyone knows goons income is moons. And certainly it is PL's ONLY known income
Avatar
Well, nullsec is the "endgame" according to CCP.
Avatar
Quick question. Is the NIP aggrement between the HBC and the CFC, coalition wide. Basicly can individual Aliances start Sov Warfare as long as the coalition doesnt join the Sov Warefare.
Avatar
The last head shot on VFK worked *very* well.
Avatar
Razor just accidentally the whole IRC so yeah, kinda. Yet when FA is being threatened, CFC prepares to defend their space.Sometimes it feels like a Crusader Kings II playthrough.
Avatar
The missing dimension to your analysis, as other commentators have pointed out, is technetium. Critically, the fact that the bulk of the HBC's tech moons fall within easy striking distance of the CFC's territory (e.g. Venal). This places the HBC at a massive disadvantage at the outset of any conflict - the CFC could more-or-less instantaneously mobilise to hit the HBC's revenue stream and the HBC would be left scrambling to react, let alone to counter-attack. As others have observed elsewhere, the only way to hedge against this risk would be a coalition-wide build-up of HBC assets in the north.In military terms, the HBC and CFC might be evenly matched, but in strategic terms the HBC is placed at a significant disadvantage by the physical distribution of tech moons. The logical conclusion? A firm no-thanks to war from PL.
Avatar
"Please leave your space so I can get your tech, I'd really like that"No, you can't have it.
Avatar
Yes Gents fielded like 2 dudes during the whole Tribute Vale war. thats why they got half of vale and 2 times the tech moons they had befor. :sarcasm:Why dont you looks shit up befor you post
Avatar
Look at this arm chair general.After all this time you people still haven't figured out how the CFC or the HBC got where they are today, that is almost tearing one-another apart, but hey.People are a more important resource than Technetium ever was.
Avatar
PL wont go to war with CFC purely becouse of the moons they have, they dont want to lose them so they would back out in the hopes CFC will not go after PL moon Towers
Avatar
lol the reason of no war is shadoo sucking mittens`s cock for tech simple
Avatar
Actually I was disappointed by the shortness. I had time to spend reading and it was over way too soon!Also, there was not a single sentence in the whole article that made me want to groan and facepalm. I am wondering whether this was written by the real james_315
Avatar
The existance of OTEC didn't prevent the CFC waging war against NCDot.
Avatar
"Just beat the ever living shit out of their fleets"You don't need to absorb -A- refugees, Raidendot, N3 and whoever else Goons have actually fought to 'beat up' one alliance.Sov isn't the only reason I'd imagine, but the Tech excuse is ringing hollow with prices steadily dropping and Neo (of which the HBC has a lot of) rising.
Avatar
you do realise you could do all that in a wh corp and not have to worry about any blues at all
Avatar
I didn't know until this day that The Mittani was the leader of TEST the whole time.
Avatar
I absolutely agree. I just spent some time with Black Legion up in Venal and we had great fun until we started reinforcing some strategic assets and then the GSF came in with supercap fleets and CFC was camping a station 23hrs per day for days on end. Nobody can tell me those people are bothered by boring gameplay if they are up for that.Fact of the matter is, that the large powerblocks have recruited new players for years with the promise of riches and fights without any risk involved. If they were to go to war then there would be risk, there would be actual loss, there would be tears. Their recruitment strategy would collapse. The time when Goonswarm was a rebellious bunch of iconoclasts is long over and TEST just wasted their chance to prove that they are anything but a bunch of risk-averse pets propped up by others.I'll be back in WH space soon too.
Avatar
A VFK headshot is strategic genius, surely nothing could ever go wrong with such a plan.
Avatar
Never stop posting, James_315.
Avatar
The fact that someone has been playing for a while doesn't make them immune to propaganda, silly.
Avatar
Sov should cost exponentially more per system.....ie.sov cost = 1,000,000 ^ (1+(number.of.systems/20)So the 1st system in an ALLIANCE (not corp) would cost = 1m per system....The 10th system would cost = 100m per system....1b for the set....The 20th system would cost = 1T per system....20T for the set....Thus it would be insanely cheaper to upgrade instead of expand. And a fully upgraded system should be able to support 100 players...so 1000 person alliance can easily hold sov, but a 5000 person alliance would have a hard time getting enough sov space.
Avatar
Good read, thanks. Doubtlessly too many words, not enough pictures, and too big words for some ... but a good read nontheless.
Avatar
If you make it about sov grinding, maybe CCP will fix sov mechanics.
Avatar
I didn't say anything like, I don't live in 0.0, and likely never will(again), as I hate it for some of the same reasons mentioned already, so I don't partake in it, I let CCP know I don't like it this way....... so way to take what I said out of context. I simply said, sov. warfare isn't going to change anytime soon, pretending your never going to take part in sov. warfare until CCP changes it is somewhat ridiculous, so why are you there? Your paying a monthly fee to take part in something you yourselves say you dislike. CCP is in no rush to fix 0.0 because as much as you all complain that you hate it your still there. It maybe that there are more pilots living in highsec, but most are alts of people that live in Null, Low, and W-space, meaning the most active pilots in the game live in Null, so in CCP's they must have done something right out there despite the people complaining on forums.
Avatar
The shrieking and wailing this has caused all over the eve-o forums is amazing."Why won't the two groups I hate destroy each other for my entertainment eve is dead abloobloobloobloo"
Avatar
And then the existing alliances just divide themselves into shell alliances to negate the escalating sov costs.
Avatar
"alliance leaders can't declare war anymore." Bullshit! If mittens says jump the CFC jumps. The CFC acts by the will of Goons and Goons only. It is why FA is continually found bleating by their side
Avatar
Your right. Since Razor got away with that Test and only test should attack FA. Then whole CFC would have to come help, which would cause all HBC members to come help Test. Its prefect. And to put the final nail in the coffin, after a few weeks of fighting, have all outside non-HBC alliances start a second front. Mittani is right. Its a coin flip between HBC and CFC. But its not a coin flip when you add a thrid group the same size. The CFC wont stand a chance, and Mittani knows it. I know of a few alliances that would LOVE a round 2 with the CFC (S2N, NC., and a few others)
Avatar
My first thought was.. oh no. not more bullshit from a that carebear extortionist..
Avatar
It's about tech, and preserving OTEC (again, about tech). Having the 2 largest coalitions unstable would make the north unstable. It would make for an attractive target and CFC, HBC, and PL all have a large stake in tech moons.
Avatar
By making the coalitions, they created the huge terrirory of sov. By bluing half of null, and by projecting force across the whole galazy, they created it.They dug their own grave.
Avatar
And -A- come back out of the woodwork like the cockroaches they are, and take back SOV in the south while everyone is up north, so then PL deploys to the south to fight -A- and the CFC start taking back space that they lost in the north. PL will get very sick of going back and forth because noone else in the HBC can win a fight and will just start fighting everyone. It's amazing how many people think the HBC could outright win a war against the CFC. Goons have done this all before, TEST with Montolio and the milk dripping down his chin after his latest feed, and all it's 12 year old dreddit trolls will crumble.
Avatar
Sure it did.Engage war with unfriendly neighbor to the tech, who pose a possible threat to the tech. Go to war, protect the tech.
Avatar
"Fact of the matter is, that the large powerblocks have recruited new players for years with the promise of riches and fights without any risk involved."I agree - I think at the moment neither TEST nor GSF have any idea what their long-term fleet participation would look like without a SRP.When I started playing EVE (in 2008) most 0.0 alliances still required their members to be self-sufficient in terms of income (which usually meant alts for high-sec lvl4s, trading, ... ).Today only a few notable corps/alliances run without comprehensive SRPs and most players simply don't have the infrastructure in place to fund their pvp expenses without relying on alliance handouts and sov space.It would require a very long time for this to change - maybe Soundwave's crusade against passive income sources will eventually lead to a point where alliances can no longer afford subcap SRPs...But unless CCP forces this change in behavior no amount of "prepare for war" will convince enough players to find alternative income streams to make a difference.
Avatar
Someone who has never fought in a sov-war, and is entirely unaware of null mechanics might not know this:Sov Grind = Not FunResets = Funto take it a little further....Fun = ParticipationParticipation = Content GenerationContent = Fun!a self-reinforcing loop. and on the other hand...Not Fun = No ParticipationNo Participation = No ContentNo Content = No FunThis is not hard to understand.
Avatar
Generic post about how this is all really about tech moons, blah blah blah blah.. I would scroll down and read the other shit tonne of posts stating the same thing, but really? what would be the point? So i'm just going to post my own comment, because everyone needs to know the truth!!!!!111!!1! Maybe I should write something really offensive about someone eve-famous that's involved now... OMG that shadoo guy, he should totally go back to breast feeding and be more like montolio so we can haz warz!!
Avatar
" maybe Soundwave's crusade against passive income sources will eventually lead to a point where alliances can no longer afford subcap SRPs"The other alternative is alliance only afford subcap SRPs, and let supercap pilots look after themselves.Its not a great plan, but 'We'll fight them in UTZ under cybojammers" has worked before.
Avatar
What effected Shadoo, in my view, is that the war could have gone either way, and if he won the new moons would have split between Test, Test allies, NC., Nulli and PL.If he lost, then the CFC isnt exactly going to let him keep PL's moon holdings in Venal.A 50% chance of getting a medium slice of new holdings, versus a 50% chance of losing a large slice of existing holdings.
Avatar
Implying is way better than the other 9000+ memes out there, we got off lightly here.
Avatar
GSF's finances are publically posted on their forums. I'm gonna go ahead and call you out for being a moron.
Avatar
Judging by your posting you've always been part of a pet alliance, and are quite inexperienced with having actual friends, much like IRL.
Avatar
You must be some kind of sorcerer to have such a solid understanding of what is in the minds of the people involved.Technetium is a terrible excuse and the CFC and the HBC have long been proponents of t2 production requirements (the actual problem) being changed. They just make their case by being dicks about the isk made from it (which is by far more effective at getting change than eve-o threads or comment section bitter-posting).Even assuming Montolio has / had 'some idea about whats wrong with nullsec' he didn't even manage to convince his own leadership that war was in the HBCs best interests.
Avatar
I think Syaran hints about an excellent point that no one else seem to make in this whole mess. Forget about the broken state of capturing sov itself, remember the broken state of engaging in sov-scale war altogether.GSF sits on the most numerous and well-organized cost-effect body in the game right now. PL sits on the most numerous and well-organized high-risk asset body in the game. Any war between the two would quickly devolve into a Maelstroms vs. Supers game that is just as boring for everyone as grinding structures is. You have a war that everybody know where it will head to anyway. Nothing but Supers (buffer, RR) counters a abundant amount of alpha when it comes to taking/holding grids.GSF has to break the Supers (in one fell swoop) and PL have to bleed the coffers of cost-effective ship-mass. This will end up blue-balling each other on specific occassions more than anything else. It's not just the strategic aspect that is mind-numbing, the tactical aspect of the whole thing is as well. It would be pointless for them fielding any other ships, which is what the current situation enable them to do.While others are quick to forget i'm sure the Y2- incident is still etched into the memories of PL. It showed the value of numbers in Sov, it also showed the implications of a high-risk asset game. The war could take years (more likely due to blueballs) or end extremely quickly. PL stand nothing to gain from entering into a sov-war with Goons, and PL's entire strategy is based around fighting a tech-war (where they can throw their body around on isolated POS-timers in contrast to grouped SOV-timers) that GSF is probably not too eager to engage in. It makes no sense for PL to engage in GSF sov or for GSF to upset PL tech.It's not just the grind of structures that will be mind-numbing, the blueballing of fights and stagnance or monotony of fleet-concepts (doctrine) will be too. Any variation brought will just be stomped by the other side, or will not have effective impact.All of this point back to the issues almost everyone seem intent on solving these days, but with CCP still moving too slow (still collecting data for roadmaps 18 months after Incarna):- Supers in mass (PL)- Cost-effect in mass (GSF)- Passive income (and influx-outlet balance) (Tech minerals and Tech I balance / Insurance).The disheartening bit is that time has recently been spent redesigning Tech I ships which is one of the identified problems above. The above problem has seemingly not sunk in. Not that the balance itself is bad - the isolated balance between Tech I Frigates, Cruisers and Battlecruisers is likely to be much better now, but it has excerbated the problem of influx-outlet balance since they represent new sinkplugs. They have also fairly recently remade FW income levels and introduced Incursions which represent new faucets. Along with that they have done targetted (themepark) design to appease only select portions of the playerbase with war-declarations, bounty-hunting markets and other FW changes (FW which is only a part of Lowsec, which in turn is apart of the game).The only upside is that recent changes like Crimewatch or Bounties actually have a game-wide impact so CCP have finally, in some aspects, re-learned how to build a sandbox (ie., features that affect everyone, not targetted features for portions of the playerbase).This is also why those three identified problems are so important, because while they may be exemplified with GSF, PL and Nullsec - they are game-wide changes. Cost-effect affect everyone (this includes the boredom of fighting free 10-man Cruiser-gangs in lowsec over time: it may be fun now, but it's meaningless and will doubtfully be lasting fun) and Supers are not only owned by block-level groups alienating their surrounding either - there's plenty of small-gang Super hotdrops too (even if those may not represent the same problems, since they often lack mass of Supers, nevertheless they are changes that would affect those players equally.So how do we adress those things?- Supers?Do the Shadoo and turn them into mobile stations; think satellite pirate-hideouts for staging; or slogan with Seleene... Tortuga! Give them some new sort of sneaky bonuses with a balanced risk-use effect (something like being at risk to dock into, but not putting them at risk docking out from - so they have to be active and at risk when you want to reap the benefits of them, but limit the risks of someone awoxing them and making sure they don't have to be online to let other players get out and play the game).- Cost-effect? Make sure every ship in the game have a pricetag attached to it. Consider ISK-balance in the balance work and perhaps take up Garmon's suggestion of shifting more value into the modules (that drop) and less value into the hulls that go poof with insurance. That means more ISK will trade hands through PvP. Killing things will be important and a PvP carreer will actually have the potential to yield ISK rather than to starve ISK and living off SRP and passive income crumbs.- Passive income?Well, everybody already knows this. ISK-generation back in player hands through local ratting and mining. This will in turn promote ships in space that promote ship-ship interaction that doesn't alienate smaller groups and instead provide active small-gang targets and content. SiS over WiS, Farms & Fields, Ring mining etc.
Avatar
I remember Delve 1 and Delve 2 with rose-coloured glasses as well, but the fact of the matter is it really wasn't better.Grinding stations with a dozen people in battleships, crippling lag with 400 in local, grid-fu, being bogged down in a single station system for weeks and pos warfare to name a few.Also IT was a terrible alliance.
Avatar
I forgot to add this: Realize that those three issues are co-dependent.You can't just change one and forget about the others, as CCP have done time and time again (nano, without adressing numbers and slowly seeing roaming turned into lowsec Cruisers; or Falcons and slowly seeing Logis and projection buffer with LR-point and LR-web completely overstomp everything else; at which point people begin to ask for counters to Points, Webs and Drakes without realizing that those counters used to be the LR-ECM and Damps that got nerfed). That kind of idiocy is what you get when you design the game based on popularity rather than potential. Stupid.The HBC is similarily the direct result of CCP nerfing Supers the last time around and marginalizing PL who adapted to the increased numbers game. So did many other groups who used Supers are numerical equalizers. They made larger coalitions. So the direct result of CCP nerfing Supers was larger (and fewer-) coalitions. Stupid.You can weep and soak all you want about the ingame actions of those best at exploiting the shit we've been served for the past 5-6 years or you can direct your anger where it belongs. Towards those who are actually responsible for fixing this game (hint: they are Icelandic).
Avatar
lol these grunts are retarded.
Avatar
While having something to lose or gain makes war actually interesting, this isn't about that, the idea behind the soft reset and 'RvB' style war is to let people cool off.Test has had some major leadership changes in the last few days, Montolio stepping down and Rob3r disappearing into the ether, the new leadership needs time to mend bridges and regain control of the divided parties.By leaving things unchecked and blood-lust unsated, the pro-war parties on both sides will eventually cause some more petty drama and we'll be back at square one again.
Avatar
Technetium may no longer be a factor if / when waging a war is actually 'fun' for all involved, ironically if the bottle necks are once again moved to r64's as was originally intended, the HBC will become dirty stinking rich in fortress Delve.But everyone who has ever completely owned Delve has eventually gone bat-shit insane, so that's always a fun wild-card.
Avatar
While I don't disagree, the most fun I've had in this game is when there was a genuine threat of losing everything.I believe these resets to just be a cooling off and transition period for both sides.
Avatar
I usually agree with James 315
Avatar
This article literally does not even mention the word 'tech' once. That's some fucking amazing delusion right there.
Avatar
I'm sure all 9000 pilots in GoonSwarm are losing metric shit loads of sleep over the very fact that you harbor no respect for them.
Avatar
Thank you for not answering a shit, repeating the message does not change the truth. Its a game remember, if you want to continue this EU world peace shit leave the game and let other people take over. In this game players prefer african warlords before strategic world peace leaders. The only reason you get away with it is because the grunts are extremly loyal to their corp and unfortunately to your hero leaders, now stagnated though, of the past.
Avatar
Pathetic from all sides.
Avatar
nothing new on the nullsec front!!! ^^
Avatar
The reason not to fight was 100% due to PL not wanting their free CFC-protected Tech to go away. What a pathetic excuse for a space game this has turned into.
Avatar
That also mean that 540 of your 10.000 members contributed 100m each, that's not even a single ship from 5% of your playerbase. You make 54bn sound like alot when you put it up like that, but for an entity like TEST 54bn is about as much total economic muscle as the 5% participation rates we see from alot of groups in block-level fleets. Regardless of what coalition they pertain to. The 54bn is something a single player could give away today - that's the scale it's a hefty sum at - the individual scale.I think a pretty glaring example of EVE at present is that fielding a Recon have about the same price indications as fielding a Carrier. The Recon costs some 250m + 150m for a bonused mod you more or less need to survive the ramped up projection-game. A Carrier cost about 1bn in minerals and then insure for 300/700 or something similar leaving hull-cost around 600m compared to the 250m of the uninsurable Tech II ship while Carriers as they are being used today do not suffer the same pressure investing into an expensive module that greatly improve their performance (though i guess you can argue that a capital-transfer is more or less mandatory). It makes little difference though: the point isn't which is more expensive, the Carrier is of course, but it's cost-effect looking at comparative performence is mile upon mile ahead - and then i'm comparing it to a ship class that actually see alot of use. The "just over 500m" mark is also an indication where many other popular ships end up: faction BS, Tech III etc. Most of them are about equally cost-effective. Many other ships (BC2, BC3, BS etc.) are more cost-effective.Take your average Domi, it's free, tech II mod it and res-rig it for about 10-20m and slap Tech I sentries on it. It's acceptable fleet-level performance for 10-20m. The same goes for turret-BS and BC3 with Tech I guns. Those 100bn in payouts would require losses of 5000-10.000 so every other member would need to lose a ship. A ship they could themselves grind back in 10min time.If you think that is /really fucking expensive/ you are doing it wrong.
Avatar
As soon as WHs get more crowded the fighting will get more serious as more will be at stake. Even today they are cooperating and it will just progress towards more of it just like it did in 0.0.
Avatar
They were totally part of the DotBros.But Tri are completely crap allies, so they didnt lift a finger while Razor killed them.
Avatar
You had to make a real effort to write this and then not bring up technetium or the economics of the situation once.
Avatar
Since when does it have to be an all-or-nothing war? Take one region, that side can pretty much claim victory and the war can call cease-fire.
Avatar
it's also funny that the "stagnant nullsec" theory is considered void just because HBC / CFC have been fighting sov wars over the last year..... the "stagnant nullsec" theory imo is about HBC / CFC dominating to an extend where they (or subsets of the 2 coaltions) can always win because the next escalation is just a batphone away.Look at HBC calling in CFC in Delve and Razor getting help (just once) in Cobalt Edge - the enemy is broken because the batphone exists. The best way to solve this would be the war that was just canned.... sad for null sec Eve.
Avatar
Agreed. "Don't fly what you can't afford to lose" "Risk vs Reward" etc.
Avatar
~The Tech must flow~
Avatar
Lol. HBC and CFC are a not-so-secret mega-coalition.This is propogranda to convince us and CCP that Null Sec isn't really a blue donut.
Avatar
Well they didn't only get rewarded for the Tribut alone...
Avatar
Except we love to go down there and kill their ratters :)
Avatar
2008 also everything was way cheaper, just look at the prize increase....
Avatar
Too bad you don't own a region, we could take it, declare victory over your idiocy, and go back to ratting and welping our stupidly expensive officer fit frigates!
Avatar
Some where half way through reading this that Charlie Brown telephone voice kicked in and I scanned down to the bottom. How can you not mention Tech Moons? Do you live in a cave ? Not mentioning tech moons would be like saying there is absolutely no oil interest for the US in the Middle East - come on get a fucking clue! This is about Tech and that the HBC on it's own (with out the rest of Eve) fight the CFC. Now you factor in other players in Eve who despise the CFC and will make their run on any CFC held space, now we are talking some serious business. Whatever people said to Montolio, he should realize it for what it is - fear - and really test the strength of his alliance/coalition. The leadership of the CFC have gotten fat and lazy off of Tech. Share the wealth! Maybe some day someone with some balls will stand up to the CFC - cause clearly Mittani doesn't have any or there would be a war right now. Viva la revolution!
Avatar
HBC did not go to war because their war chest is low. Expansion in the south was costly, they even had to ask CFC financial help; cash & tech moon. If HBC attack CFC, they will quickly lose their tech moon. Their renters will flee.Their untrusty allied will be attacked in the south by AAA, ROL, RA. HBC alliances will then give up on north front to south defense. Solar will certainly move down to regain territory & lower pression on their CFC unofficial allies.Then HBC finances will break up. CFC will take Fountain, south will collapse, HBC rats will flee... It will be the end. Most of TEST members would rally a new TEST alliance member of CFC wich would meet Solar fleet somewhere in the south.Pax Galactica, CFC win the game.Its not 50-50 probabilities, more 90% sure.
Avatar
This post gave me brain cancer. You must be related to Gevlon.
Avatar
Confirming propaganda. The CFC and HBC wouldn't be able to live with themselves if they weren't able to justify not attacking each other's sov to the pubbie masses.
Avatar
You know that NCDot was one of the founding members of OTEC, don't you? When OTEC formed they held enough Tech moons that could have easily broken the OTEC hold.
Avatar
Wait, so PL is in GSF?I think most of eve will find this as news.

WHY DIDN'T THE HBC AND CFC GO TO WAR?

Together, the HBC (led by TEST and Pandemic Legion) and the CFC (led by Goonswarm) control most of nullsec. If the two coalitions went to war, it would be the most titanic struggle ever witnessed in EVE. Not since the Great War has nullsec seen a conflict on such a scale. EVE players have long pondered the possibility of a war between the HBC and CFC. In the last several days, with Montolio (TEST's CEO) openly advocating war, it almost became a reality. But it didn't happen. Why not?

Shadoo, the leader of Pandemic Legion, informed Montolio that PL would not be going to war against the CFC. Montolio immediately announced that the war was off--and that he would be taking a short break from EVE.

News of this horrifying outbreak of peace was met with angst across the EVE galaxy. The enemies of the CFC and HBC were understandably disappointed to learn that their foes would not be devoting their time and resources to destroying each other. Null-watchers were frustrated to see a potentially epic story arc slip from their grasp. And some CFC/HBC line members just wanted a bit of pew-pew action.

According to conventional wisdom, much of the blame goes to EVE's game mechanics. Sovereignty wars involve a lot of structure-shooting and time zone nonsense. Shadoo posted an explanation for his decision on the TEST forums. Parsed carefully, one can see the presence of other factors involved--the recency of their last big war, the size of the CFC--but most have focused on the grinding nature of taking sovereignty. After the announcement, EVE forums everywhere lit up with complaints about sovereignty mechanics and how they spoiled a potentially great war. Nullsec is becoming a "sea of blues", they say, because the terrible game mechanics discourage people from fighting each other.

Taken to its logical conclusion, this line of thinking suggests that Pandemic Legion would have jumped right in, and a cataclysmic war between the CFC and HBC would have ensued, if only sov mechanics had been retooled to make it more fun to fight.

There's some merit in the complaints about sov mechanics, no doubt. People have been complaining about the mechanics of sov warfare from the beginning, and in spite of every "improvement" CCP has implemented. We can be certain that all of the leaders involved on both sides--with the possible exception of Montolio--took the "grind" into consideration when they contemplated war.

But is that the whole picture? Was the CFC/HBC tension ultimately defused by the prospect of boring game mechanics?

Well, no. Not even close.

A STRATEGIC DECISION

The biggest flaw with the "broken sov system" theory is that recent history has been filled with lots of sov war. A quick look at the EVE influence map over the past couple years shows that vast swaths of territory all across nullsec have changed hands due to sov wars. These wars frequently included--more often than not, in fact--the very same participants who supposedly can't be bothered to deal with boring structure shoots today. If we were to judge by actions rather than words, then we would say that Goons, TEST, and Pandemic Legion not only tolerate sov warfare, they love it. Conventional wisdom would have us believe that none of those wars was prevented by the soul-crushing boredom of sov grinding, but the CFC/HBC war was.

The EVE influence maps also show us that the proponents of the "stagnant nullsec" theory are wrong about the reason why much of nullsec is dominated by a "sea of blues". People weren't unwilling to fight; they did fight. Nullsec is dominated by blues because the reds died. Their space was conquered by the CFC and HBC, through sov grinding.

The repetitive nature of sov grinding is factored into the calculus of whether an alliance chooses to embark on an aggressive war. (Defenders have little choice but to participate.) Given the extent to which sov warfare has been occurring, the "boredom factor" can't be too overwhelming. Granted, CFC/HBC would require more grinding than the previous wars, but whether you're fighting a series of medium-sized wars or one big war, you're still grinding. That leaves the strategic factors.

Shadoo and Pandemic Legion decided not to declare war against the CFC not because they are unwilling to engage in sov war, but because they determined such a war would be strategically unsound.

Before going to war, most seasoned alliance leaders consider what they stand to gain by victory, what it will cost (including the boredom factor), and most importantly, the likelihood of defeat. As with all PvP in EVE, players generally engage in war only if they're confident of success or they're tricked/forced into it by an enemy who's confident of success. EVE players are risk-averse. There are exceptions, but the galaxy is not filled with exceptions.

In his CEO update, The Mittani claimed that a war between the CFC and HBC would be a "coinflip". I suspect Pandemic Legion's leaders reached a similar conclusion. Similar, though not necessarily identical, because they might have felt the odds favored them. But a 60% chance of victory is still a 40% chance of catastrophic failure.

Supposing the odds were good enough that PL was willing to risk them, they would still need to consider the cost and benefits. What would it take to win? What would they stand to gain if they won? That's where TEST's leader, Montolio, failed--he made no effort to persuade or communicate with his ally on either of those fronts. More on that later.

Note that strategic considerations were absolutely absent from Shadoo's official explanation for why PL would not go to war against the CFC. Perhaps it wouldn't look good to admit that the HBC wasn't going to war, in part, because they might lose. The Mittani was surprisingly frank when he publicly gave his own coalition 50/50 odds. Then again, he was trying to avoid war, and suggesting the CFC was favored could arouse the ire of the HBC and make his troops salivate for war; suggesting the CFC was disfavored would depress the troops and embolden the HBC. 50% was the most diplomatic figure, but probably an honest one nonetheless.

Thus, the HBC declined war against the CFC for the same reason that The Mittani wanted to avoid war: The benefits of such a war were unclear, and the risk of defeat was unacceptably high. That's what set this aborted war apart from all the wars that did take place.

IT'S THE COALITIONS, STUPID

The shift of nullsec's focus from alliances to coalitions has been so remarked upon these days that it's almost cliché to bring it up. However, the fact that people talk about it doesn't mean its implications have been fully grasped. They haven't, as recent events made clear.

As the tension between the CFC and HBC reached its peak, a fair number of EVE players asked an important question: Why all the propaganda? Why the justifications, narratives, and spin? Why can't the two coalitions just go to war, if that's what they want to do? It's just a game, after all.

In the old days--the very old days--alliances didn't always bother with propaganda and public image. Sometimes they did, but often they would just go to war. The Band of Brothers alliance became famous for simply saying, "Nice region, we'll take it." If BoB's leader, SirMolle, felt like it, his alliance would invade. If not, they wouldn't. As Montolio and Shadoo demonstrated, that's not enough anymore.

In hindsight, it's obvious. If actions are taken by coalitions rather than alliances, then alliance leaders can't declare war anymore. They must persuade the leaders of their fellow coalition members (the most important ones, at least) to jointly declare war. It may not sound like such a big change, but it makes nullsec politics much more complicated.

In the past, SirMolle might have taken his alliance to war because he wanted to expand his empire, or because the leader of another alliance angered him. Today, an alliance leader needs to think about a war in terms of how it would benefit others, not just himself. If you expect your coalition members to join you in the war, they need to be told--explicitly and in advance--what they stand to gain from it.

Note that some reasons for war may be taken off the table as a result. Suppose an alliance leader is angry or offended at someone else. That might give him ample reason to want war, but will his coalition partners be similarly motivated? Probably not. Other motives must be supplied.

That's where the propaganda comes in. As the conflict between the CFC and HBC escalated, The Mittani unleashed a propaganda barrage against Montolio. This offended Montolio to the point that he was willing to go to war. But it didn't give TEST's coalition partners reason to want war--the attacks were only aimed at Montolio. In fact, the propaganda painted Montolio in such a negative light that it likely reduced the rest of the HBC's willingness to join a war effort. The fact that your coalition partners must be persuaded into war means that your enemies have a new avenue of attack: They can persuade your coalition partners not to go to war. Military strength is now directly tied to public image to an extent that it wasn't before. Hence, all the propaganda.

Montolio was put into a tricky position. On the one hand, he could back down and seek peace, which is what the CFC wanted. On the other hand, if he sought war in response to The Mittani's attacks, he would appear hotheaded, just as the propaganda depicted him. So what was the correct move, and how can the deadlocked sea of blues in nullsec be broken?

TOMORROW'S WAR

Granted, Montolio didn't need Pandemic Legion's permission to go to war. If he wanted, he could have brought TEST and any willing HBC members into a war without PL's help. Line members of TEST who only wanted a brawl and who weren't much concerned about the consequences can't blame PL for spoiling things. But they would have faced the entire CFC. "Our coalition's space is being invaded" is a good argument for persuading your coalition partners to join the effort. If Goonswarm could count on the entire CFC, then Montolio needed the entire HBC (or at least PL). Perhaps the defender has an advantage these days.

Reading this post won't do much to allay the fears some people have about a stagnant future for nullsec. The fact that multiple coalition members must sign off on a war makes war less likely. So does the fact that nullsec is dominated by two coalitions who fear the other is too powerful to invade with sufficient confidence of success.

The answer to the problem of peace, again, has to do with the difference between alliance-based and coalition-based politics. Alliances are brittle, more likely to break than bend. When an alliance shrinks, it's because it's dying, having been beaten in a war. Coalitions are much more fluid.

If Montolio wanted to get revenge against The Mittani and Goonswarm, the answer wasn't to go to TEST and shore up support among his own alliance. Nor was the answer to go to Pandemic Legion and the other HBC members. The way to win a coalition war is to have a bigger coalition than your enemy. That means the answer is to go to unaligned third parties--and even to your rival's coalition members. They won't join you in a war effort today, but they might join you in peace. If a sufficient number of alliances are sufficiently drawn into your orbit, then your coalition becomes powerful enough to be confident of victory. And then they will show a surprising willingness to shoot structures and grind sov.

As time goes on, the wars of nullsec will increasingly be won not on the battlefield, but in the court of public opinion--on websites like this one. Today, some alliance leaders seem to realize this. As for the rest, time will tell.

Jame 315
MinerBumping.com

James 315
James 315 has a distinguished history of combat in nullsec, mostly fighting against the Band of Brothers alliance, which was a bad alliance. Recently he has moved to highsec, where he currently serves as Father of the New Order and Saviour of Highsec