EVE Search - The Economic Realites of War in Eve.

All Channels

Corporation, Alliance and Organization Discussions

The Economic Realites of War in Eve.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Avernus Gallente Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2006.10.26 18:59:00 - [1] Since people are fond of taking potshots at FIX today, allow me to dispell a myth concerning economic power. The following is my own perception and point of view in regards to recent ASCN comments and actions, this is not an official statement from FIX. Corporations hold the bulk of isk when it comes to economic powerhouses, and in some cases, alliances themselves have strong reserves. It is quite likely that ASCN has some of the largest reserves in Eve, and their corporations likely include some very wealthy ones. Then you have individuals. In any alliance, no matter how rich the alliance itself is, there will be wide discrepencies between how much isk pilots themselves have in their wallets. I'll give you the stages of a prolonged war. 1. Everyone is fat and happy. Everyone brings out the best they can fly. - Losses mount up. 2. Individuals who aren't rich begin to fly smaller less valuable ships. Overall fleet power declines as a result, placing the burden on richer individuals to fly better ships; a natural result being they are primary targets in normal efforts to cause maximum economic impact in battles. - Losses continue to mount up. 3. Big ticket items, POS and Capital Ships are lost over the course of time, directly impacting corporation wallets. Pilots are rotated off the frontlines in an effort to get them flying better ships again. At this point in time, internal tensions begin to mount and arguements begin about who is pulling their weight. - Losses continue to mount up. 4. Even richer players are feeling the pinch, only the most wealthy are able to fly the best they can, and often a number of these people aren't willing to do so when they know that they'll become primary targets in short order. Some of the poorer corporations have instituted internal programs to keep their pilots in ships, building and providing them, and insuring them through the corporation. Even larger corporations are having to institute these measures at this stage. Tensions continue to mount internally, as people can't find visible progress to indicate that the alliance will pull through and win. - Losses continue to mount up. 5. Corps start to bail, individual pilots leave their corporations, alliance numbers drop, morale plummets. Only the diehards are still actually fighting. Decisions have to be made on what to do with alliance funds. Corporations are broke and looking for relief, passive alliance income has dried up and funds are now finite. - Losses continue to mount up. 6.a) Your alliance dies. 6.b) Your pilots are so hardened and stubborn, they can't figure out how to quit fighting. Eventually, the enemy backs off, and you can begin to rebuild. 6.c) A miracle occurs. Moral of the story: Don't make new enemies to the point that 1000 fat and happy Fixians jump on your stage 3 ass. Again, the above is a personal statement. Nothing in life is quite so sweet as the taste of payback.
Promon Delnai Scorn. Myriad Alliance	Posted - 2006.10.26 19:04:00 - [2] Cool. ________________ Whoops, I jumped.
Randay 0utbreak	Posted - 2006.10.26 19:08:00 - [3] This cod mean war! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Originally by: Reddari Now just be nice before I start to make life for the BOB devs (yes you have some) harder by exposing their player characters.
Seleene Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2006.10.26 19:10:00 - [4] I have it on good authority that Avernus is paying Omber Zombie for lessons on how to be more evil. - Movie: 9UY - Got Fighters?
Caldess 0utbreak	Posted - 2006.10.26 19:10:00 - [5] Avernus, if you continue to make these long posts it will be required of you to join JF... you know this, right? --------------
Waut 0utbreak	Posted - 2006.10.26 19:12:00 - [6] Every modern war is about economics. One of the reasons why PvP in Eve kicks ass Outbreak! F* Yeah! Coming again to save the motherf*ing day yeah! In Soviet EVE, roids pop YOU
Major Stormer Caldari Demon Womb	Posted - 2006.10.26 19:15:00 - [7] Good read :) -------------------------- Join Demon Womb! PVP, Rats, Industry, join the fun!
ImMeGaLoN Caldari Constructive Influence	Posted - 2006.10.26 19:15:00 - [8] Good post. Some people should learn from these words. Only one thing: there are no miracles...
Omber Zombie Gallente Frontier Technologies	Posted - 2006.10.26 19:19:00 - [9] good read, and no, he isn't getting lessons from me. hides the suitcase full of cash ---------------------- [FTEK] Pwning Eve Carebear Style
EnglishBob 0utbreak	Posted - 2006.10.26 19:20:00 - [10] Nice post, Avernus. /EnglishBob checks his Nez-ticket. ------------------
Dianabolic Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.10.26 19:27:00 - [11] Stage three: Profit!
Crovan Eternity INC.	Posted - 2006.10.26 19:36:00 - [12] Excellent post. I would add one thing, or rather emphasize it, as you have already brought it out a bit, and that is morale. Granted, morale is closely tied to ISK in that you can use ISK damage to hurt morale, but there are other means of impacting the willingness of the enemy to fight (which don't really include forum smack IMO, despite what certain other alliances may or may not think ). One of the best examples of this is camping someone in. Sure, you can argue opportunity cost, but that's not what really irks a player being camped, I think. Having been on both sides of that coin, it's that you have totally shut down the player's game from every standpoint outside of forum whoring and Connect4. That was meant to be an addendum, btw, not an argument against you as, like I said, I really enjoyed and agreed with what you have to say. Originally by: Seleene Client - "You smash them." MC - "Ooooh! Good! Like to smash!"
APEXrevived Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2006.10.26 19:42:00 - [13] Edited by: APEXrevived on 26/10/2006 19:43:09 no, Avernus is not for sale as a 'loaner diplomat'. he's all ours and i think even those of you who are unbiased, unlike me, would agree he makes some quality posts. you really should start teaching some classes Av... First one being "How To Avoid Making Additional Enemies During Times Of War". /signed made my post a bit more clear... I thought since this game is called Eve that I'd play a female character. Is that a good enough excuse for a guy?
Karunel Nuevos Horizontes O X I D E	Posted - 2006.10.26 19:48:00 - [14] Originally by: Caldess Avernus, if you continue to make these long posts it will be required of you to join JF... you know this, right? Nice one. Originally by: elbenito The problem with large fleet engagements is that the hamsters stop to watch.
Taralesk Inshani Infinite Improbability Inc Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2006.10.26 20:03:00 - [15] Originally by: Avernus Moral of the story: Don't make new enemies to the point that 1000 fat and happy Fixians jump on your stage 3 ass. I love this part the most. . Quote: Oh, yeah, what are you gonna do? Release the dogs? Or the bees? Or the dogs with bees in their mouth and when they bark, they shoot bees at you?
Montaire Lynx Frontier Inc. Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.10.26 20:42:00 - [16] Having been through alliance wars, I would say this is 100% accurate. An alliance with a well funded Emergency Fund can survive longer. But alliance, like people, seem to have a hard time putting money away like this. They can prolong the transition from stage 2 to stage 3, but its probably inevitable as long as the war continues. You should probably interject at this point that those who are wealthy or Fleet Commanders (usually both) begin screaming at people who bring smaller ships. (PS My feelings, not those of my corp/alliance/grandmother)
Joerd Toastius Octavian Vanguard	Posted - 2006.10.26 21:06:00 - [17] And of course a huge number of those losses are by and large unnecessary, as the only really interesting fights in terms of territory are the ones involving dreadnaughts. Anything else is just a sideshow. In any event, the obvious, obvious answer to the described problem is for rich players to issue alliance-backed loans to poor players. That is to say, rich player gives poor player a couple of hundred mil to buy ships, and the alliance guarantees that the rich player will be paid back, either by the poor player or in extreme cases by the alliance, as and when the fighting is over and cash generation is resumed. The only drawback to this is that the alliance might actually lose and disband, at which point the rich player's SOL, but that aside it seems like a pretty obvious way to keep everybody happy. Hell, you could even institute a system whereby the alliance agrees to pay say 5% interest per month on loans issued in this way, so the rich players actually make a profit (that is to say, poor guy borrows 100m, pays it back a month later, alliance adds 5m to the payback).
TheDevilsJury principle of motion R i s e	Posted - 2006.10.26 21:08:00 - [18] Originally by: Avernus Then you have individuals. In any alliance, no matter how rich the alliance itself is, there will be wide discrepencies between how much isk pilots themselves have in their wallets. I'll give you the stages of a prolonged war. 1. Everyone is fat and happy. Everyone brings out the best they can fly. - Losses mount up. 2. Individuals who aren't rich begin to fly smaller less valuable ships. Overall fleet power declines as a result, placing the burden on richer individuals to fly better ships; a natural result being they are primary targets in normal efforts to cause maximum economic impact in battles. I think avoiding stage 2 is probably the most important. Which is why my personal theory is that the best corporation and alliances are composed of individuals who are independantly wealthy (and who also have enough ships (wealth) near the frontlines), or where the corp/alliance takes away this stage by other means (100% collectivism, for example). As long as the individuals don't break, I hardly see a problem in progression to the corp/alliance breaking. Because in stage 2 is where pilot morale takes the first real hit. Anyhow good post from a generic perspective. ^^^^ Certified Anti-CHON Fit ^^^^
Avernus Gallente Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2006.10.26 21:16:00 - [19] People aren't fans of debt... and others are fans of lending. Financial pressure is the top singular reason that corps depart alliances. Hurt pilots wallets, and you hurt the corp; hurt the corp, and you've hurt the alliance. In short, individual losses, those 'side show battles', mean a lot. It is the primary means of inflicting financial loss upon the rank and file pilot of an alliance. When it comes to financial loss, everything trickles upwards. If you can't inflict decent damage to your attackers, and keep them from doing the same to you, you're going to follow those stages I outlined. If you could somehow take down your enemies POS and Outposts without doing any financial damage to individual pilots, then that alliance would be in the same position to react as they are were those assets intact. The individual is who puts pressure on others for their losses, the same why that it is the individual voices that complain in alliance channels and tell their CEO's that they have no money left. Pressure and fragmentation are the keys to killing alliances. Nothing in life is quite so sweet as the taste of payback.
Jenny Spitfire Caldari	Posted - 2006.10.26 21:24:00 - [20] Good read. This is why T2 should be expensive. It hurts. --------- It's great being a Caldari, ain't it? Technica impendi Caldari generis. Pax Caldaria!
Qual Gallente EMO Erotic Holoreel Studios	Posted - 2006.10.26 21:44:00 - [21] Originally by: TheDevilsJury (100% collectivism, for example). 100% corporate collectivism FTW! Nothing beats that. "The short version: Qual is right."
Kujin 0utbreak	Posted - 2006.10.26 21:48:00 - [22] excellent read av .. like always.... lets hope step 3 stays that important.. looks like some individuals have enuff cash these days to loose a dread every week of the year, and after that still have the option to call themselves rich f* . ...nerf wcs...**
Drake Modain Constructive Influence	Posted - 2006.10.26 21:58:00 - [23] Man this is a good thread. I agree with pretty much everything. You could even go into more detail on quite a few points but what's the point? In leiu of the ability to not sustain these losses, I think the only real way to counter this kind of self-fulfilling prophecy-like alliance issues is if a corp/alliance could be created where the alliance really is capable (based upon inflated tax rates) to fully fund any such war in its entirety. With both the production and the wallet to keep it going. Unfortunately you're not going to see this in Eve because there's no real accountability for fraud and what not, and the prospect of a few leaders holding what ammounts to thousands of players (50% of their net worth) to distribute as they please...well the same reason there's so many huge bank scams and what not in Eve. You can't exactly lock someoen away if the alliance falls apart, and people part ways and the leaders run off with umpteen billion isk. But that notwithstanding, I'm surprised more corporations don't have a much higher tax rate 20-30 etc that is banked away for just this type of purpose. This could possibly work if that money was accountable, and accounted for with monthly reports. Like if ASCN new that corp x y z all have 50 bil in reserves for the war effort, with a 30% tax rate replacing any losses. Anyway I ramble, point is it all comes down to individual impact. You kick out the buildnig blocks of a large structure, the structure tumbles, 1 way or another. Wheather they are locked into a base being camped (earning no isk, having no fun) or they are losing multiple ships and having to pay (all or in part) from their own pocket instead of from an alliance war budget, this inevitably happens. I don't think some alliances understand that. All the 'support corporations' really have no impact on a beast like the bob 4 if the bob 4 aren't losing enough ships to effect their wallets. If an enemy can't win at least a couple of fleet engagements against such a force, then sending out people to harass and camp bob rentee's and what not has literally no effect on the overall war effort. In fact a negative effect due to the fact that all those pilots aren't available in the battles. It's interesting. I myself see quite a few ascn interceptors flying around all the time, im a full time indy right now and they haven't got me once. Then you hear of a huge fleet battle where they couldn't get enough people to help turn the tide and you wonder...what do they think they're accomplishing? How can you cut off supply lines that aren't being used?....thinka bout it :) anyway...sorry for getting off topic, this thread applies to any war, I'm just rambling from my own viewpoint.
Father Calistas ANZAC ALLIANCE Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.10.26 22:18:00 - [24] Originally by: Randay This cod mean war! Thankfully, these cod will never threaten us again! http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38553000/jpg/_38553071_cod238.jpg FC
Joerd Toastius Octavian Vanguard	Posted - 2006.10.26 22:29:00 - [25] Originally by: Avernus In response to Joerd: Oh, I'm not arguing that non-dread battles have no effect on morale, equipment levels etc - I'm just saying that they're not (directly) relevant to the outcome of territorial battles. Lots of fights in this kind of conflict are basically unnecessary, but it's these fights which bring about the morale fatigue you describe and ultimately drag alliances down. Given the current mechanics, if you're interested in controlling territory, the smart strategy seems to be just to focus on POS and outposts and avoid other battles wherever possible. If your logistics arm is stronger than the enemy's you don't need to fight outside POS wars, and if it's not, you're going to lose anyway. All the grandstanding about kill ratios, capital kills etc is kinda pointless. I mean, I was chatting to someone yesterday, and they were pointing out how bizarre some of ASCN's dread loadouts were on BoB's killboard - fixed-link cap rechargers and the like. Well, frankly, if ASCN can afford to replace dreadnaughts lost like this, then it's worth throwing badly-trained and cheaply-equipped pilots into the firing line as a meatshield to try and preserve more of your highly-skilled, faction-fitted POS killers intact. I mean, a dread's only what, 1.5bn isk? That's a lot for an individual but one assumes coming near to pocket change for an industrial alliance like ASCN, falling to basically nothing if they have the mins and the prints and are too busy fighting to sell stuff in empire. If you can dread-blob your enemy's POS into submission, steamroll a few of their outposts, lock down large numbers of assets and production facilities etc then, well, that's probably a war-winning tactic. BS kill ratios? Has basically no effect - the only role of a BS in a POS war is to prevent your dread fleet from being picked off by an enemy fleet. With carriers and cynos even gatecamps are only of interest in that they let you bring replacement BS into the system. Dread kills only matter if they're either beating off a POS assault or the enemy can't replace them quickly. I suspect that both sides can afford to win, in terms of fielding the necessary amounts of dreads and POS - the question is, does either side have the logistics capability and the focus on the correct goals to actually score a decisive victory? As I understand it, the current score is 1-1 with ASCN in the lead due to scoring an away goal... Anyway, coming back to the actual thread topic, my point is that while yes, this phenomena is very real and present, the best way to combat it in the current environment is simply to tell your pilots and your FCs to avoid combat wherever possible, thus minimising losses and keeping up morale. At best, this will allow you to press home your eventual victory with largely fresh combat forces, clearing out the final pockets of resistance in your newly-conquered regions. At worst, it'll allow you to at least stay solvent and unbroken when you lose. But where between these two extremes you end up will have little to no connection to your kill count or ratio. Discuss :P
Randay 0utbreak	Posted - 2006.10.26 22:43:00 - [26] Originally by: Father Calistas Originally by: Randay This cod mean war! Thankfully, these cod will never threaten us again! http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38553000/jpg/_38553071_cod238.jpg FC Its a old-school-FIX-inside-joke, step away from the fishsticks and put the deep frier down. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Originally by: Reddari Now just be nice before I start to make life for the BOB devs (yes you have some) harder by exposing their player characters.
Avernus Gallente Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2006.10.26 22:46:00 - [27] Happy to discuss your points, and they are fair ones at that. On my end, I'm going to pull out Exhibit A: Fountain Alliance (apologies to all ex-FA members). The strategy consisted of two facets, avoiding giving fights like the ones you describe, and an attempt to bore the enemy into departing their space. When they came under the gun, they followed a similar philosophy to the one you subscribe to; Now this is a simplification and generalization of what actually happened. However, the strategy was a complete backfire to it's desired purpose. Moral was the first casualty of the war, before even many ships had been lost. The enemy won't care if you don't come out to engage in fleet fights, their response will be to camp you into your stations and outposts, and deny you of any meaningful activity in Eve. Meaning the choices left to you are to either fight them (now on their terms since you have lost all initiative), or let them have the run of your space. Some of your members won't be able to stand for the strategy that has been set before them either, they will try to fight back regardless of orders (and my hat off to them as well). The effect on the rank and file can't be underestimated either when everything is added up. Those that do fight, get killed, because they have no backup. Those that don't fight, see the only guys fighting get killed and begin to think that the situation is hopeless. Ghandi, bless his pacifist soul, would get his ass handed to him in Eve. The short of it is this: Avoid battle, and you give up the initiative. Once you lose that, then you are on the defensive, and your enemy is calling all the shots. The longer you allow that situation to remain in place, the harder it is for your alliance to recover. ASCN hasn't lost the initiative btw, they've attempted to take the battle to their enemy BoB. But in order to do that, they've absolutely had to engage in battle, and not just for the purposes of attacking or defendings POS.... which leads us back to the original post. Nothing in life is quite so sweet as the taste of payback.
Rebellion Caldari Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.10.26 23:33:00 - [28] Edited by: Rebellion on 26/10/2006 23:34:36 You left out a way to prevent step 2 from moving to step 3: Admit defeat and work out surrender terms. A lot of corporations and alliances in EVE go kaput because they fail to realize when they have already lost the initiative. Being oblivious to that makes you unable to retake the initiative. Also, the failure to admit mistakes makes it impossible to resolve the mistakes. Once the loss of initiative is admitted, and the mistakes are accepted, change is necessary. It is easier to change in an atmosphere of calm compared to being forced to change while dealing with the pressures of war. The normal course of action of many corps and alliances is to deal with mounting defeat by coming up with more and more ludicrous plans, and demanding what their mates cannot sustain. This creates a rift inside the group, and breaks it apart. The usual cause of this are leaders that refuse to admit their mistakes for fear of losing power in their corporation or alliance. The right thing to do is tap the skills of the people in your group. There's bound to be someone that has good ideas. Identify them and don't be afraid to support them and grant them internal power. However, those in power don't want to give it up. The defeat therefore is not really because of the enemy, it's because the group itself does not trust each other. They are as strangers to each. Sun Tzu's words are loaded with deeper meaning when he says that both knowledge of the enemy and knowledge of the self are necessary. Fantastic thread BTW.
Danari Amarr Syncore Ascendant Frontier	Posted - 2006.10.26 23:38:00 - [29] It's quite straightforward to fund a war at the corp level with insurance payouts plus empire sales to make up the difference. Karl Marx is a compelling read in this context.
Exortius Amarrus The Clearwater Society	Posted - 2006.10.26 23:49:00 - [30] An excellent read. ------------------------

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: 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.