Maybe the gist of the "Make smaller better." argument is that in the real world, one hellbent pilot with an airplane full of fuel and explosives can put an aircraft carrier out of action.

Real world has collision damage....would you really want to give The Order collision damage? I would, but only if a well-tanked mining barge (ha) could survive it.

In many situations, a very small group can annihilate an unprepared larger group.

For instance, an 8 man bomber wing vs any size fleet of sniping Tier 3 BCs. Or a group of bomber wings vs a battleship fleet.

Small and prepared beats up big and unprepared quite often in EVE. (Look at the way PL operated until recently. A small group was able to run roughshod over groups many times its size because they fielded competently lead composed fleets against groups that used the "everyone bring whatever" composition, or because they were willing and able to field capitals or Supers anywhere in EVE on short notice (before supers it was Dreads that PL were able to drop at will) against enemies who were not equally willing and able.)

What you're complaining about is that, given equal preparedness, morale, ships, fittings, and leadership, bigger almost always wins. You've yet to establish why that should not be the case.

In other words, you're assuming that "smaller" = "more competent" when you've provided nothing to support that assumption.

In many situations, a very small group can annihilate an unprepared larger group.

For instance, an 8 man bomber wing vs any size fleet of sniping Tier 3 BCs. Or a group of bomber wings vs a battleship fleet.

Small and prepared beats up big and unprepared quite often in EVE. (Look at the way PL operated until recently. A small group was able to run roughshod over groups many times its size because they fielded competently lead composed fleets against groups that used the "everyone bring whatever" composition, or because they were willing and able to field capitals or Supers anywhere in EVE on short notice (before supers it was Dreads that PL were able to drop at will) against enemies who were not equally willing and able.)

What you're complaining about is that, given equal preparedness, morale, ships, fittings, and leadership, bigger almost always wins. You've yet to establish why that should not be the case.

In other words, you're assuming that "smaller" = "more competent" when you've provided nothing to support that assumption.

If game mechanics were geared so that small numbers of frigates would be advantaged to take out large numbers of various larger ships, battles would be large groups of frig vs small groups of frigs.

If game mechanics were geared so that small numbers of frigates would be advantaged to take out large numbers of various larger ships, battles would be large groups of frig vs small groups of frigs.

I find your definition of small groups being confined to "bombers" only somewhat restrictive to say the very least. Not that it is bad mind, but it could be so much more. Frigates and cruisers are plentiful after all and right now you talk as if bombers are the right tools for pretty much any job involving small groups.

I see that some are still stubbornly locked on the false assumption that this whole discussion is all about straight up fights only.

I'd love to hear examples of how he thinks "smaller groups" should be able to harass, take sov and defend sov from "bigger groups" as a matter of course.

Well, bombs and Bombers were *supposed to be the answer*

Because, we all know that when a fleet of 1000+ players online, they all sit on the same grid and are all clustered in a 15km radius area right .... oh no, that's almost never possible / true.

One of the biggest issues is that bombers vs 1000+ people live about .0002 seconds ... so their bombs don't go off.

- First (A) change bombs to ALWAYS go off, bomber alive or not, or (B) Make bombers have assault frigate resistances
- Second double the range of the bombs
- Third, lower the number of bombs that can be fired to 5

Don't make it abusable by anyone, but make it actually *effective*.

Well, bombs and Bombers were *supposed to be the answer*

Because, we all know that when a fleet of 1000+ players online, they all sit on the same grid and are all clustered in a 15km radius area right .... oh no, that's almost never possible / true.

One of the biggest issues is that bombers vs 1000+ people live about .0002 seconds ... so their bombs don't go off.

- First (A) change bombs to ALWAYS go off, bomber alive or not, or (B) Make bombers have assault frigate resistances
- Second double the range of the bombs
- Third, lower the number of bombs that can be fired to 5

Don't make it abusable by anyone, but make it actually *effective*.

Let's see, change in bomber mechanics means BS fleets are just flat out unusable.

Oh well.

I'd love to hear examples of how he thinks "smaller groups" should be able to harass, take sov and defend sov from "bigger groups" as a matter of course.

You see, if the really large alliances are busy fighting off countless of groups of small-fries, this will require effort and money to deal with. On top of that you still have the regular threats from other power-blocks, unlike now where they are the ONLY threat.

Sure, let's say for example that one of the powerblocks ends up crumbling after extensive harassment that is not handled properly + several large scale wars. Lots of free space to nab so maybe a bunch of the smaller groups nab themselves a system each or so. The odds that large groups would move in and take over would be minimal because they already have enough space to worry about as it is.

Reaching that crumbling point without pulling a goon infiltration like with BoB or alternatively similar internal backstabs requires economic collapse.

Judging by the consistent mass-production of capital ships ever since their introduction, I dare say that EVE probably haven't had a single collapse of an alliance based on economic failure, ever. Simply because there has never existed any economical targets that can be targeted at a reasonable risk and efficiency by small groups to begin with.

But hey, feel free to prove me wrong by presenting me any single powerblock today that is going in the red.

So in other words, what you're saying is that the sov system needs to suck less dicks, and alliance income needs to come through alliances' membership actually using their space.

Funny, I think I've been saying something to that effect for well over 1.5 years now.

IT's collapse didn't require a goon infiltration or an economic collapse, in fact IT alliance remained sovholders several months after they collapsed, because nobody could be arsed to put in the required effort in taking over empty space. CVA wasn't evicted because of a goon style infiltration or an economic collapse, -A- didn't get buttfucked by a goon style infiltration or an economic collapse, they just flat out sucked. We didn't take over what, 50-60% or whatever the **** we hold now of nullsec space by utilizing goon style infiltration or bankrupting our enemies, we took it by force. Perchance not a lot of force in some cases (fountain war, cloud ring etc) because the people living there packed up and left after a few weeks of mild fighting, but it was still taken through force.

Here's an idea, let's make changes to how alliances make isk in nullsec, so instead of having money come from moons etc (which are the first strategic asset anyone hits in a war, btw), they get their money from people living in their space. This way, small groups can harass and have an impact on their economics, even if they may be much, much smaller.

In all of these examples of these grand collapses that you have presented, how much of it was contributed by the small groups? It is kinda a moot point that you are making if the collapse comes due to a massive war, a back-stab or even sheer neglect because the small groups were never part of any of it anyway. Isn't this the very core issue that we're debating about - how to get these guys involved?