| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
SetrakDark
DarkCorp Capital Group
DarkCorp Imperium
115
   |
Posted - 2012.07.09 14:41:00 -
[1] - Quote
Lapine Davion wrote:Because GSF has never used bomber gangs to counter BS fleets in the past when bombs weren't broken.
Can we get Mr. Vee in here?
No, it's only unfair to people who are bad with bombers and need to use a patching error to make them work.
|
SetrakDark
DarkCorp Capital Group
DarkCorp Imperium
117
|
Posted - 2012.07.10 00:29:00 -
[2] - Quote
lol hisec forum warriors still think income wins wars
|
SetrakDark
DarkCorp Capital Group
DarkCorp Imperium
117
|
Posted - 2012.07.10 01:49:00 -
[3] - Quote
Marconus Orion wrote:I like how you downplay how important money is when it comes to wars. Made me laugh out loud. 
Tell us more about nullsec warfare, noted nullsec expert marlona sky.
|
SetrakDark
DarkCorp Capital Group
DarkCorp Imperium
119
|
Posted - 2012.07.10 04:13:00 -
[4] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Didn't the GSF lose Delve due to money problems?
Not having the ISK in the right wallet doesn't exactly qualify as an "income issue" in my mind.
:P
Quite literally I cannot think of one occasion in the three years I have followed nullsec wars where income played a role worth mentioning.
|
SetrakDark
DarkCorp Capital Group
DarkCorp Imperium
119
|
Posted - 2012.07.10 04:27:00 -
[5] - Quote
Heck, just look at the current war in the South. The supposedly poor techless alliances are throwing away t3 fleets almost daily and losing, while the supposedly wealthy tech alliances are mainly using drakes and winning.
The closest example I can think of was actually in terms of smart resource and logistics use, where WN had an entire backup supercap fleet waiting to go in POS in the drone regions, which was pretty decisive in finally stemming the NC advances in Geminate and turning the tide of the war. That had nothing to do with an income disparity though, and everything to do with the DRF spending their income wisely while the NC pissed it away on stations, JBs, and jammers in every system.
Again, the entire idea is so laughably wrong based on verifiable nullsec warfare history that only someone as clueless as marlona sky would champion it. |
SetrakDark
DarkCorp Capital Group
DarkCorp Imperium
119
|
Posted - 2012.07.10 12:11:00 -
[6] - Quote
Vera Algaert wrote:income (and distribution of income) effects morale, fleet compositions, FCs and logistics.
Just stop and think for a minute.
Your entire argument here is that you need "income" to fight a war. No ******* ****, idiot.
We're talking about income disparity deciding the contest, which is the basis for the suggestion that tech holding alliances cannot be beat strictly because they have tech.
Sure, four jerkoffs living in an NPC station can't beat Goonswarm, but it won't be because they can't afford an SRP program, it will be because they're just four jerkoffs. Yes that disparity exists, but it doesn't even come into play because far more relevant factors will decide the outcome first. On the other hand, when those other factors are more balanced, income will also naturally be balanced enough that it won't be an issue.
Again, people really need to stop talking about topics in which they are so painfully uninformed. It's a really bad habit and near-criminally obnoxious. |
SetrakDark
DarkCorp Capital Group
DarkCorp Imperium
119
|
Posted - 2012.07.10 12:24:00 -
[7] - Quote
Abel Merkabah wrote:Doesn't this kind of point to a problem? That the resources of all these alliances are so vast that depletion of your opponents funds is not a viable strategy? Should wars be more destructive? Perhaps the ability to destroy stations and the stock piled contents stored with in.
I'll be honest, no experience with null, but I do intend to move to null when I can (helping RL friends in their corp first), so this is a legitimate question hoping for experienced players' opinions.
I think "problem" is a strong word to use. Undesirable, suboptimal, disappointing? Absolutely, those are all valid. Using the word "problem", though, suggests that it interferes with the smooth running or enjoyment of nullsec warfare, and it really doesn't.
In CCP's defense, getting income, risk/reward balancing, and all that stuff right is an incredibly ambitious endeavor, one which they may never get right. In addition, the fundamental reason is that the pressures that would eventually come to bear on income disparity will break you by morale long before they get to the point where income becomes a factor.
So on the surface your perception is correct, and nullsec warfare will improve as you improve the distribution and strategic nature of income, but the game is still perfectly playable as is.
Good question. Thanks for asking for elaboration instead of just spewing uninformed tinfoil nonsense like some other people. |
SetrakDark
DarkCorp Capital Group
DarkCorp Imperium
119
|
Posted - 2012.07.10 12:44:00 -
[8] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:The problem is that people's morale break so ridiculously early that nobody have even any chance of even seeing the bottom of their alliance's warchest.
Precisely.
Now, does this mean that, in general, warchests are too big? Income too easy? Wars not destructive enough?
Those are all valid questions, and could be subjects worth looking at to improve the quality of nullsec warfare. However, as it stands we are all equally faced with the strategic nature of income in nullsec, and crying about income disparity in the conduct of warfare betrays an undeniable misunderstanding of the nature of nullsec warfare.
|
SetrakDark
DarkCorp Capital Group
DarkCorp Imperium
119
|
Posted - 2012.07.10 12:52:00 -
[9] - Quote
Ping Pang Pong wrote:Being able to replace entire fleets of super caps, baring their availability on the market, is a HUGE morale booster.
It's awesome when people betray their own argument in the first couple of lines.
Both the SoCo and the CFC could wipe out the market for available supers long before they wiped out their income to replace said supers. Any preparation done to have supers available beforehand to replace losses is tied to logistics and planning, not any income disparity.
Furthermore, one side will almost always have a clear supercap superiority, which means they will get to use the supers while the other side's will stay logged off. Nobody is going to throw away a supercap fleet just because they can replace it. The side with the bigger fleet will use it, while the side with the smaller fleet won't, income disparity on either side being a non-factor.
So, again, income has no mentionable role to play because other more important factors (morale, numbers, logistics, preparation, ect) will always trump one side before income becomes an issue.
P.S. Owned.
|
SetrakDark
DarkCorp Capital Group
DarkCorp Imperium
119
|
Posted - 2012.07.10 13:03:00 -
[10] - Quote
I should mention that I, like many people here, am all for a tech nerf. I think tech creates poor strategic incentives, as in the causes for war. However, I am absolutely confident based on verifiable experience that once started, income plays little to no mentionable role in nullsec warfare.
This discussion has nothing to do with protecting tech and everything to do with correcting the impressions disseminated by the painfully uninformed and likely mentally-unstable forum warriors of the GD sub-forum. |
| |
|