EVE Search - The real measure of victory in a war.

All Channels

Corporation, Alliance and Organization Discussions

The real measure of victory in a war.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
tehsuxOr Caldari Poor Old Ornery nOObs Turdz Asshatz N Grieferz	Posted - 2010.04.22 17:52:00 - [1] Like many of you COAD readers who are un-involved in the latest north vs south war, I like to take the time once in a wile to check the forums to see what's going on. I like to find out who's wining and who's losing. So looking through battle reports, killboards, and sites dedicated to comparing kills and "damage inflicted". That's where the seems to be a flaw, it is what most readers believe is the deciding factor in who is winning. Regardless of the accuracy I find it amusing that so many people still really believe this is the important statistic. True damage inflicted, would be the effect a war has on that entities ability to sustain it's generation of money. If you are for example being invaded you are likely defending your territory thus limiting the time you can spend generating money, and potentially losing things like moons generating an income. So long as the money you generate can cover the losses from an ongoing war, the war can be sustained. (ignoring morale) But when enough pressure is applied for a duration of time, those losses might get higher, and that time spent generating an income could be reduce. Then the defending entity would be running a deficit. Run a deficit for a long enough period of time, those money reserves could run out. Once that happens the war is not sustainable for the defending entity. Yet the attacking entity still has a fully untouched revenue from it's home. With the only real damage being inflicted is on ship losses. So why is everyone still comparing statistics for damage inflicted ships wise. Not ever mentioning the fact that there is certainly a bigger picture economic war going on? TLDR; Attacker Damage Inflicted: Ship Losses Defenders Damage Inflicted: Ship Losses + Reduced ability to generate revenue Let's get a more accurate definition of "winning" instead of ship losses only.
Twonik Minmatar Stellar Convertors	Posted - 2010.04.22 17:55:00 - [2] cool story, bro.
tehsuxOr Caldari Poor Old Ornery nOObs Turdz Asshatz N Grieferz	Posted - 2010.04.22 17:58:00 - [3] Also, what could be a way to semi-accurately show damage inflicted through loss of revenue generation. I'm sure there is a way to do it, just can't thing of it
Asiik Gallente Point of No Return Waterboard	Posted - 2010.04.22 17:59:00 - [4] i'm gonna guess that it will be difficult to tell who's winning until the war is over... it's hard to see what damage is actually being done since it's all economic... some one may eventually collapse and then there will be a winner
machtkerlegeschmeidig Minmatar Stellar Convertors	Posted - 2010.04.22 18:00:00 - [5] woah
tehsuxOr Caldari Poor Old Ornery nOObs Turdz Asshatz N Grieferz	Posted - 2010.04.22 18:11:00 - [6] Edited by: tehsuxOr on 22/04/2010 18:12:33 Originally by: Asiik i'm gonna guess that it will be difficult to tell who's winning until the war is over... it's hard to see what damage is actually being done since it's all economic... some one may eventually collapse and then there will be a winner Well what if for example using dotlan, we can verify what moon minerals there are in a specific system and and get a formula to figure out the daily revenue lost for that system. Not Only by moon minerals but lost income via NPC's killed. I know that dotlan allows for a 24 hour statistic. What if we made a request, to have a monthly average, or even a 6 month average, that would give us the ability determine how much was being generated from that system by NPC killing.
SATAN Amarr BURN EDEN	Posted - 2010.04.22 18:57:00 - [7] The war so far is not really a war, its a moon grab like Max campaign was. If it continues this way in the long run the SC pilots will get tired and poor from fighting and the NC will win. Fighting in EvE is all about morale, kill the enemy's will to log in and play and you win. Give the enemy good fights, victories of any sort, fun of any kind, ability to live their life unaffected besides the occasional roaming gang and you are doing nothing but loosing the war.
Goberth Ludwig Caldari eXceed Inc. HYDRA RELOADED	Posted - 2010.04.22 19:06:00 - [8] Originally by: SATAN The war so far is not really a war, its a moon grab like Max campaign was. If it continues this way in the long run the SC pilots will get tired and poor from fighting and the NC will win. Fighting in EvE is all about morale, kill the enemy's will to log in and play and you win. Give the enemy good fights, victories of any sort, fun of any kind, ability to live their life unaffected besides the occasional roaming gang and you are doing nothing but loosing the war. this there wasnt a single war in eve that was won because the isk ran out - its always one party deciding "screw this" and failcascading because they are not having fun/ they are losing face - Gob
Pheusia Gallente Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2010.04.22 19:24:00 - [9] Originally by: SATAN The war so far is not really a war, its a moon grab like Max campaign was. If it continues this way in the long run the SC pilots will get tired and poor from fighting and the NC will win. Fighting in EvE is all about morale, kill the enemy's will to log in and play and you win. Give the enemy good fights, victories of any sort, fun of any kind, ability to live their life unaffected besides the occasional roaming gang and you are doing nothing but loosing the war. Well I think I can definitely speak for INIT. when I say that the NC has been giving us nothing but fun fights for the last few months. o7 NC please keep fighting, this is pretty good fun Signed, Pheusia
tehsuxOr Caldari Poor Old Ornery nOObs Turdz Asshatz N Grieferz	Posted - 2010.04.22 19:53:00 - [10] Originally by: SATAN The war so far is not really a war, its a moon grab like Max campaign was. If it continues this way in the long run the SC pilots will get tired and poor from fighting and the NC will win. Fighting in EvE is all about morale, kill the enemy's will to log in and play and you win. Give the enemy good fights, victories of any sort, fun of any kind, ability to live their life unaffected besides the occasional roaming gang and you are doing nothing but loosing the war. Would you say that a part of that morale could be directly affected by it becoming increasingly difficult to generate revenue? As it could be demoralizing not to be able for the individual pilots to sustain themselves. It could cause a sort of ripple effect, day one maybe 1 pilot doesn't log in, but over the course of time the less activity the more it can be a catalyst for a whole slew of people not logging in. I certainly agree morale has a lot to do with it. But there are so many things that can affect the moral of an entity. What I'm looking for generally I guess would be a more accurate way of showing damage inflicted through statistics as it's a lot easier to provide then something like morale which is very subjective. So what would be really refreshing to see would be some additional statistics of on going wars through data collection. It would be quite feasible to be able to collect the approximate revenue generation from individual systems. For example if "Alliance X" conquered "Alliance Y's", system "ABC-DE". Let's say system ABC-DE, was generating 2b isk a month from npcing and moon minerals. Alliance X lost 5b isk in ships, alliance Y lost 4b isk in ships and the system ABC-DE. So the total damage done on each side in the battle for that system would be something like: Alliance X: -5b isk in ship losses Alliance Y: -4b isk in ship losses and -2b isk monthly revenue. So with the current view of winning based on ship losses for damage inflicted Alliance Y would be the victor. With this additional data it would show that alliance X would be the victor. Also it would be interesting to see a defending alliances total revenue generation from their controlled systems. So as systems are lost, it could be clearly seen what kind of revenue damage is being done. The real problem is figuring out as accurately as possible a system that can determine the revenue generation per system. It would surely require accurate moons scans to be able to automatically calculate revenue from moons. Perhaps by linking a list of the moon minerals to an application that calculates the value by eve-central or eve-metrics average moon mineral prices. Then you would also need dotlan to keep a database of NP kills in each system for longer durations then 24hr's to be able to see the reductions in npc being killed. No easy task but certainly not an impossible one. It would certainly paint a clearer picture of real damage being done.
SATAN Amarr BURN EDEN	Posted - 2010.04.22 20:38:00 - [11] Edited by: SATAN on 22/04/2010 20:39:51 The isk war will only affect the alliances wallet not the players wallet, all the hi end moon goo isk goes to line the wallets of the alliance leaders the average member is happy if his JB's are fueled. They don't question where the isk is going, and if they do they get quickly and quietly kicked for obscure reasons. The average eve player still has to earn a living somehow, and unless they have multiple accounts they need to use their main chars to do this. The way we judge an opponents state is by gang size, ship types(beginning, throughout and end of campaign), smack, etc, etc... Space conquered is irrelevant unless the enemy does not have the capabilities to take it back. Gob, stop kissing up am still mad at you for leaving me alone to deal with the incompetence.
tehsuxOr Caldari Poor Old Ornery nOObs Turdz Asshatz N Grieferz	Posted - 2010.04.22 21:15:00 - [12] Originally by: SATAN Edited by: SATAN on 22/04/2010 20:39:51 Space conquered is irrelevant unless the enemy does not have the capabilities to take it back. Well that doesn't seem right, as if Alliance X invaded Alliance Y, and Alliance Y lost half their space, wouldn't that be relevant? Sure Alliance Y is capable to take it back, but losing half your space would surely be considered as things not going so well. But I do agree that the gang size would be a very good statistic that could also show the status of a war. Might not be so difficult to track either. If we could track fleet sizes from battles on killboards, by monitoring the the the size of each fleet for these battles over the course of the war. Would be a bit more complicated to get it going but thats the theory.
General Windypops Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2010.04.22 22:25:00 - [13] Originally by: tehsuxOr Like many of you COAD readers who are un-involved in the latest north vs south war, I like to take the time once in a wile to check the forums to see what's going on. I like to find out who's wining and who's losing. So looking through battle reports, killboards, and sites dedicated to comparing kills and "damage inflicted". That's where the seems to be a flaw, it is what most readers believe is the deciding factor in who is winning. Regardless of the accuracy I find it amusing that so many people still really believe this is the important statistic. True damage inflicted, would be the effect a war has on that entities ability to sustain it's generation of money. If you are for example being invaded you are likely defending your territory thus limiting the time you can spend generating money, and potentially losing things like moons generating an income. So long as the money you generate can cover the losses from an ongoing war, the war can be sustained. (ignoring morale) But when enough pressure is applied for a duration of time, those losses might get higher, and that time spent generating an income could be reduce. Then the defending entity would be running a deficit. Run a deficit for a long enough period of time, those money reserves could run out. Once that happens the war is not sustainable for the defending entity. Yet the attacking entity still has a fully untouched revenue from it's home. With the only real damage being inflicted is on ship losses. So why is everyone still comparing statistics for damage inflicted ships wise. Not ever mentioning the fact that there is certainly a bigger picture economic war going on? TLDR; Attacker Damage Inflicted: Ship Losses Defenders Damage Inflicted: Ship Losses + Reduced ability to generate revenue Let's get a more accurate definition of "winning" instead of ship losses only. Yeah, way to go - yet another "who is winning" model that completely overlooks the brave forum warriors who put their necks on the line day in / day out on CAOD. Thanks Twitter:@genrlwindypops
StainLessStealRat Caldari Divine Retribution Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.22 22:52:00 - [14] Originally by: tehsuxOr Originally by: SATAN The war so far is not really a war, its a moon grab like Max campaign was. If it continues this way in the long run the SC pilots will get tired and poor from fighting and the NC will win. Fighting in EvE is all about morale, kill the enemy's will to log in and play and you win. Give the enemy good fights, victories of any sort, fun of any kind, ability to live their life unaffected besides the occasional roaming gang and you are doing nothing but loosing the war. Would you say that a part of that morale could be directly affected by it becoming increasingly difficult to generate revenue? As it could be demoralizing not to be able for the individual pilots to sustain themselves. It could cause a sort of ripple effect, day one maybe 1 pilot doesn't log in, but over the course of time the less activity the more it can be a catalyst for a whole slew of people not logging in. I certainly agree morale has a lot to do with it. But there are so many things that can affect the moral of an entity. What I'm looking for generally I guess would be a more accurate way of showing damage inflicted through statistics as it's a lot easier to provide then something like morale which is very subjective. So what would be really refreshing to see would be some additional statistics of on going wars through data collection. It would be quite feasible to be able to collect the approximate revenue generation from individual systems. For example if "Alliance X" conquered "Alliance Y's", system "ABC-DE". Let's say system ABC-DE, was generating 2b isk a month from npcing and moon minerals. Alliance X lost 5b isk in ships, alliance Y lost 4b isk in ships and the system ABC-DE. So the total damage done on each side in the battle for that system would be something like: Alliance X: -5b isk in ship losses Alliance Y: -4b isk in ship losses and -2b isk monthly revenue. So with the current view of winning based on ship losses for damage inflicted Alliance Y would be the victor. With this additional data it would show that alliance X would be the victor. Also it would be interesting to see a defending alliances total revenue generation from their controlled systems. So as systems are lost, it could be clearly seen what kind of revenue damage is being done. The real problem is figuring out as accurately as possible a system that can determine the revenue generation per system. It would surely require accurate moons scans to be able to automatically calculate revenue from moons. Perhaps by linking a list of the moon minerals to an application that calculates the value by eve-central or eve-metrics average moon mineral prices. Then you would also need dotlan to keep a database of NP kills in each system for longer durations then 24hr's to be able to see the reductions in npc being killed. No easy task but certainly not an impossible one. It would certainly paint a clearer picture of real damage being done. Confirming no one on either side has L4 mission alts and we can only make money ratting. Moral is where a war is won or lost. Moral was high on both sides in delve that's why it lasted so long. Please re-size your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels. Zymurgist
DigitalCommunist Gallente November Corporation	Posted - 2010.04.22 23:54:00 - [15] War? This ain't no war, its a bloc party.
Funkcikle Gallente DEATHFUNK Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.23 00:04:00 - [16] If anyone can see me, can u tell if I'm winning yet ?
takedoom Gallente Maelstrom Crew Paradigm Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.23 01:20:00 - [17] Whoever holds the field is the winner in the end.
Shamad Conde Gallente Destructive Influence IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.23 01:56:00 - [18] All one needs to do is keep the alliance forum moderated. Delete everything that comes out as a negative perspective and leave everything that sounds fairly good. The morale will always be at it's peak.
DurrHurrDurr Caldari Dreddit	Posted - 2010.04.23 02:03:00 - [19] Originally by: Shamad Conde All one needs to do is keep the alliance forum moderated. Delete everything that comes out as a negative perspective and leave everything that sounds fairly good. The morale will always be at it's peak. Hey guys let's make sure that our alliance members aren't free to speak their mind without the say-so of their super amazing overlords. Because no one thinks being actively censored sucks...
Bobbeh Minmatar Navy of Xoc Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2010.04.23 03:03:00 - [20] Originally by: Shamad Conde All one needs to do is keep the alliance forum moderated. Delete everything that comes out as a negative perspective and leave everything that sounds fairly good. The morale will always be at it's peak. same Philosophy as not posting losses. Short term it might work long term just ****es the pilots off
zombu2 Caldari The Maverick Navy IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.23 03:27:00 - [21] Edited by: zombu2 on 23/04/2010 03:36:18 Quote: Like many of you COAD readers who are un-involved in the latest north vs south war, I like to take the time once in a wile to check the forums to see what's going on. I like to find out who's wining and who's losing. So looking through battle reports, killboards, and sites dedicated to comparing kills and "damage inflicted". That's where the seems to be a flaw, it is what most readers believe is the deciding factor in who is winning. Regardless of the accuracy I find it amusing that so many people still really believe this is the important statistic. True damage inflicted, would be the effect a war has on that entities ability to sustain it's generation of money. If you are for example being invaded you are likely defending your territory thus limiting the time you can spend generating money, and potentially losing things like moons generating an income. So long as the money you generate can cover the losses from an ongoing war, the war can be sustained. (ignoring morale) But when enough pressure is applied for a duration of time, those losses might get higher, and that time spent generating an income could be reduce. Then the defending entity would be running a deficit. Run a deficit for a long enough period of time, those money reserves could run out. Once that happens the war is not sustainable for the defending entity. Yet the attacking entity still has a fully untouched revenue from it's home. With the only real damage being inflicted is on ship losses. So why is everyone still comparing statistics for damage inflicted ships wise. Not ever mentioning the fact that there is certainly a bigger picture economic war going on? TLDR; Attacker Damage Inflicted: Ship Losses Defenders Damage Inflicted: Ship Losses + Reduced ability to generate revenue Let's get a more accurate definition of "winning" instead of ship losses only. Awww. You just told the NC there's no Santa Claus!
Shade Millith Caldari Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2010.04.23 10:26:00 - [22] Unless it's a complete whitewash, there's no real way to tell who's "winning" in a prolonged war. As someone else said, it's got more to do with moral of the pilots to keep fighting and loose ships repeatedly. Basicly who's more stubborn. At least baring a full alliance failcascade. ------------------------
King Dave Gallente Shut Up And Play	Posted - 2010.04.23 11:47:00 - [23] I count winning a war as when you cause the enemy alliance/ corp to disband and leaders quit the game. See Goonswarm or Lotka Volterra. "Evil Edna > just get director roles, put child **** in the corp bio and then petition ccp"
Emperio Shanhai Caldari HardRock Mining Corp On the Rocks	Posted - 2010.04.23 13:17:00 - [24] Originally by: King Dave I count winning a war as when you cause the enemy alliance/ corp to disband and leaders quit the game. See Goonswarm or Lotka Volterra. or VOLTRON
OninoTimmo Minmatar ElitistOps Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2010.04.23 13:57:00 - [25] lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose lose loose
Motseth Caldari Red Federation	Posted - 2010.04.24 16:34:00 - [26] That is the EVE main pvp problem, when an alliance starts to lose cant really recover from it, because there are no room for military tactics (I mean battlle tactics, not grand strategy) so the blob always win in the end, its pointless to make a resistance in disadvantage, that should be one the best pvp things in EVE, be in numerical disadvantage and continue to give the enemy a hard time, just like in RL warfare, in EVE guerrilla is completely fail, what guerrilla can do is kill some industrial ships that make close to no difference. The problem seems that EVE pvp is built in an inversal way to RL warfare, from big to small, instead of from small to big, at first glance this might seem not very important but if you think or study the subject you will understand that it makes the game warfare completely unreal from a RL perspective. Since the dawn of men warfare has been always built on some basic rules that we can predict with 99.99% of certainty that will remain the same. One of the key concepts is power versus susceptibility to be hit.
JABBIE Gallente Alcatraz Inc. Tactical Narcotics Team	Posted - 2010.04.24 17:51:00 - [27] So there was this time that i had a few drinks... and when i say a few...i really mean drank a 26r of V in an hour... Ultimately leading to falling down and nearly passing out by the fire pit. My little brother came over to make sure I didn't fall directly IN the fire pit, kicked me and asked me if I wanted another drink.... My reply: "Izer ne vodka lft?" His reply: "No but there is beer." My reply: "kbeer bring 2cuz i cant gittup." The morale of the story is.... The war is never over so long as you have a brother with beer and boots. Jabbie Director of The Pristiq and Alcohol Experiment Alcatraz Inc
King Dave Gallente Shut Up And Play	Posted - 2010.04.24 18:44:00 - [28] Originally by: Emperio Shanhai Originally by: King Dave I count winning a war as when you cause the enemy alliance/ corp to disband and leaders quit the game. See Goonswarm or Lotka Volterra. or VOLTRON Voltron wasn't in any proper wars, nor did it have any enemies that actually gave 2 craps about it. No-one really claimed to win any war when voltron deformed, so your statement is wrong and your trolling attempt is dreadful. I do however wish, On The Rock's the best of luck in there endeavors. "Evil Edna > just get director roles, put child **** in the corp bio and then petition ccp"

Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.