| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
pershphanie
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
   |
Posted - 2006.12.24 08:31:00 -
[1]
At what point should an alliance surrender in a war? The general mentality in eve territoral warfare seems to be keep fighting and dragging out a war untill it isn't possible to do so any further and the alliance disbands or becomes a small bitter people who can't accept what has happend or to reform the alliance with a new name pretending they were not the ones who suffered the defeat and hoping all their old alliance's problems will cease to exist. I'm wondering why this is.
I think this mentality comes from the general belief that it is honorable to fall on your sword after losing a war and surrender is a discrace an organization can not recover from. I think this is flawed and should not apply to every circumstance. In most wars fought over space there is usually a time when one sides weaknesses get exposed so badly that not only do they have no hope of winning, but they no longer function as a group. They can no longer put up any real defense let alone attack. At that point is it really honorable to stick around and pretend that it is still a real conflict?
When you have no chance of victory, no realistic plan, and can mount no effective defense then why stick around? In that situation staying in the conflict doesn't seem noble or honorable at all. All it seems like a big lie to me. Not to mention it seems like a disservice to everyone who is still willing to fight and die for the alliance.
It is obviously better in every way to admit the truth, pull back to empire, contemplate what you want to do as an alliance, and then make a plan to achieve your new goals. Yet after several years of the game we still see people making that mistake.
Neither changing the name of an alliance by reforming nor sticking around and losing the alliance seems like a good plan. So why do we still see this so often? It seems like such a huge disservice to the corperations in those allainces and most of all their members. Why do alliances still choose the option of losing everything over being honest about their current situation by admitting the loss, then going in a different direction while they still have the chance to salvage some of what they worked for? Is not surrendering really the most honorable thing to do in every situation or is it a big lie and disservice to the alliances membership?
Not meant to refer to any conflict in specific, just something I've been thinking about.
 Originally by: CYVOK
If you surrender now we will consider letting you guys keep Fountain. -CYVOK-
|
Svett
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.12.24 08:36:00 -
[2]
You could always surrender, try to nap, and turn on all of your allies.
Oh wait, this isn't F-E we are talking about ;)
I agree that too many alliances try too bloody hard to hang on even when there is no chance to win any longer due to money, poor leadership, or lack of participation. Many of them still try to hang on today.. and it's quite sad. When you are done you are done. Try to save some face and man up to your loss. If you do that your foes may just show you some clemency and let you keep some of your things. After that move on to something else. It's not as hard as it sounds.
|
Evil Thug
Rage and Terror
Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2006.12.24 08:40:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Svett
You could always surrender, try to nap, and turn on all of your allies.
Oh wait, this isn't F-E we are talking about ;)
Sooo pwnd 
As for topic subject. No, back to killing pos stuff 
|
Kcel Chim
Caldari
Arcane Technologies
The Five
|
Posted - 2006.12.24 08:50:00 -
[4]
the problem in most cases is not within the playerbase but within the corp managment. When a war is lost, your territory caputred and some corps already jumping ship the other corps find themself without goal, without connections (cause most corps give up a diplomatic branch in favour of the general company line of the alliance) and without a region. To relocate assets, to form new ties and to move somewhere where everyone will feel cozy again requires alot of work. In many cases the managment will just let the ball roll for awhile and do nothing which leads to the entrenched bunker mentality.
Supported is this by the forum smack. Usually you see in every thread about 10 uninvolved guys cheering for a fight to the last bullet. In most cases those guys arent involved at all and have quiet simple motivations. They either want the entity they are cheering for "dead for good", "keep the other guy busy", "couldnt care less and just want some news with kills n stuff" or simply enjoy the forum banter.
Admitting defeat requires a great man. Despite big allianceleaders supposed to be the supreme echelon of the eve community most dont hold that water. Most rather want to fade away with bull excuses, quit to rl leaving a mess behind or form some shady deals to stay instead of manning up and accepting defeat.
My 2 cents.
|
pershphanie
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.12.24 08:52:00 -
[5]
Edited by: pershphanie on 24/12/2006 08:56:38
Originally by: Evil Thug
Originally by: Svett
You could always surrender, try to nap, and turn on all of your allies.
Oh wait, this isn't F-E we are talking about ;)
Sooo pwnd
 ok. ya got me there, but I never claimed to be nice and fully admit that I'm a horrible person. But still, isn't massively backstabbing other alliances still better than laying down and dying? I mean if you are elected/appointed to be in a position to make decisions in your alliance then your primary responsibility is to look out for the best interest of YOUR alliance even if it does make you look bad. The good of the people who trusted you to represent them should be more important to leadership than personal egos or public image.
So isn't doing pretty much ANYTHING better than doing nothing? I just don't get people...
Originally by: CYVOK
If you surrender now we will consider letting you guys keep Fountain. -CYVOK-
|
Sextus Licinius
Caldari
Celestial Apocalypse
Insurgency
|
Posted - 2006.12.24 08:58:00 -
[6]
Originally by: pershphanie
At what point should an alliance surrender in a war? The general mentality in eve territoral warfare seems to be keep fighting and dragging out a war untill it isn't possible to do so any further and the alliance disbands or becomes a small bitter people who can't accept what has happend or to reform the alliance with a new name pretending they were not the ones who suffered the defeat and hoping all their old alliance's problems will cease to exist. I'm wondering why this is.
I think this mentality comes from the general belief that it is honorable to fall on your sword after losing a war and surrender is a discrace an organization can not recover from. I think this is flawed and should not apply to every circumstance. In most wars fought over space there is usually a time when one sides weaknesses get exposed so badly that not only do they have no hope of winning, but they no longer function as a group. They can no longer put up any real defense let alone attack. At that point is it really honorable to stick around and pretend that it is still a real conflict?
When you have no chance of victory, no realistic plan, and can mount no effective defense then why stick around? In that situation staying in the conflict doesn't seem noble or honorable at all. All it seems like a big lie to me. Not to mention it seems like a disservice to everyone who is still willing to fight and die for the alliance.
It is obviously better in every way to admit the truth, pull back to empire, contemplate what you want to do as an alliance, and then make a plan to achieve your new goals. Yet after several years of the game we still see people making that mistake.
Neither changing the name of an alliance by reforming nor sticking around and losing the alliance seems like a good plan. So why do we still see this so often? It seems like such a huge disservice to the corperations in those allainces and most of all their members. Why do alliances still choose the option of losing everything over being honest about their current situation by admitting the loss, then going in a different direction while they still have the chance to salvage some of what they worked for? Is not surrendering really the most honorable thing to do in every situation or is it a big lie and disservice to the alliances membership?
Not meant to refer to any conflict in specific, just something I've been thinking about.
I can't think of anyone better than you to lead this propaganda, actually you're not wondering anything, you know better than anyone how an alliance can die, you experienced yourself no? 
"He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man" |
pershphanie
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.12.24 09:03:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Sextus Licinius
I can't think of anyone better than you to lead this propaganda, actually you're not wondering anything, you know better than anyone how an alliance can die, you experienced yourself no?
Asking a question isn't propaganda. It is a question your corp would know nothing about considering your corp's history of fleet footedness in alliances when they have any minor problem. So maybe best to go smack somewhere else k?
Originally by: CYVOK
If you surrender now we will consider letting you guys keep Fountain. -CYVOK-
|
Shadowsword
COLSUP
Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2006.12.24 09:04:00 -
[8]
Wars in Eve are generally about territory, so the losing side often has little interest in surrendering, as it's going to lose it's territory anyway. The losing side then get into a restructuration, those who don't care much about their alliance leave, the others go into guerilla/support mode, and still fight their enemy by attrition, by disrupting enemy isk-earning ops, and forcing them to commit pilots to play cat and mouse with them. Besides, for them pvp is a pleasure, they more often than not come to dislike those who beat them in fleet battles/pos wars, so doing what they can to hurt them is also a pleasure. So why should they stop?
Regroup in empire to achieve new goals? That generally mean conquer another part of 0.0, and not many alliances having just lost a war will still have the strenght to invade another 0.0 region.
And there's something else: The one thing most pilots care more about than their isks is their reputation, and fighting a losing war is less damaging for reputation than surrendering. Is it logical? Not really, but it's the way it is...
------------------------------------------
Every ship has a base 60-70% resist against the primary damage type of the race that is the least able to vary it's damage types. |
pershphanie
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.12.24 09:08:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Kcel Chim
Supported is this by the forum smack. Usually you see in every thread about 10 uninvolved guys cheering for a fight to the last bullet. In most cases those guys arent involved at all and have quiet simple motivations. They either want the entity they are cheering for "dead for good", "keep the other guy busy", "couldnt care less and just want some news with kills n stuff" or simply enjoy the forum banter.
Yes, I've noticed that. Usually the same people too. They offer lots of moral support in wars yet are unwilling to actually participate the main conflict. You're right, usually they have some vested interest. But in the end through all the cheerleading the alliance at the center of the conflict is just being used and gets no support from these people.
Originally by: CYVOK
If you surrender now we will consider letting you guys keep Fountain. -CYVOK-
|
Sextus Licinius
Caldari
Celestial Apocalypse
Insurgency
|
Posted - 2006.12.24 09:10:00 -
[10]
Originally by: pershphanie
Originally by: Sextus Licinius
I can't think of anyone better than you to lead this propaganda, actually you're not wondering anything, you know better than anyone how an alliance can die, you experienced yourself no?
Asking a question isn't propaganda. It is a question your corp would know nothing about considering your corp's history of fleet footedness in alliances when they have any minor problem. So maybe best to go smack somewhere else k?
Err asking a question in a certain way IS propaganda, I could launch a whole battalion of rethorical questions, I would you know very well the answers to all those questions, but i just post them to make you think the way i want. You're not very smart are you, or you just think the forum readers are retarded and can't make a judgement for themselves. BTW getting pwned by your own alliance members at the beginning of this thread is priceless.
And now Persh, stfu for your own sake.
"He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man" |
Salr Ayshuermei
ECP Rogues
Dusk and Dawn
|
Posted - 2006.12.24 09:25:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Salr Ayshuermei on 24/12/2006 09:37:38
Everything you say applies to real life. In real life, no one likes war. As William Tecumseh Sherman once said, "War is hell." When you have a war in real life everything is at stake, your home, your family, your future and even your own life.
I know EvE is a great game, but it's a game. As much as we want to apply real life to it, it's just another computer program. You can log off, you can quit, you can move on and play something different. You can't do that in real life. You can make decisions ingame that you would never do in real life.
I think a lot of people forget why we play MMOs. It's the journey that is the fun part. We only look at the end result, whether it is to get that ship, build that titan, conquer everything, hit the level cap or get all that awesome gear. Then what? The reason 99.99% of people quit MMOs is because they feel they have done everything they could. It's no fun to log in and see that you have everything you want. The fun and challenge is getting there, and I think a lot of people forget about that. You enjoy the result because of what it took to get there. The significance of an accomplishment is directly related to the challenge. If everyone in EvE gave up the moment it looked like they're loosing, it wouldn't be very fun would it? I don't think the game would be where it is today. What's the point of all that isk if you're not going to use it? It's all just bits of 0's and 1's. And when you quit nothing is really going to mean anything anyway.
EvE is a pvp game, and there has to be conflict for it to be fun. Somebody has to win, somebody has to loose. The end result is not important. We gain pleasure from the fight. Some people love to fight against all odds. It's just the way they play. Others don't, and that's fine also. So long as everyone is having fun (yes it's hard to understand that term sometimes in an MMO) or I guess is addicted enough to keep logging on to do whatever, than that's enough.
Fighting to the last man is a very romantic idea. Remember the Alamo? (Sorry American reference) How many people get to experience something like that in their lifetime? How many would want to experience that in their lifetime?
There is a bit of a hero in all of us.
|
Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
|
Posted - 2006.12.24 09:32:00 -
[12]
Originally by: pershphanie
At what point should an alliance surrender in a war? The general mentality in eve territoral warfare seems to be keep fighting and dragging out a war untill it isn't possible to do so any further and the alliance disbands or becomes a small bitter people who can't accept what has happend or to reform the alliance with a new name pretending they were not the ones who suffered the defeat and hoping all their old alliance's problems will cease to exist. I'm wondering why this is.
I think this mentality comes from the general belief that it is honorable to fall on your sword after losing a war and surrender is a discrace an organization can not recover from. I think this is flawed and should not apply to every circumstance. In most wars fought over space there is usually a time when one sides weaknesses get exposed so badly that not only do they have no hope of winning, but they no longer function as a group. They can no longer put up any real defense let alone attack. At that point is it really honorable to stick around and pretend that it is still a real conflict?
When you have no chance of victory, no realistic plan, and can mount no effective defense then why stick around? In that situation staying in the conflict doesn't seem noble or honorable at all. All it seems like a big lie to me. Not to mention it seems like a disservice to everyone who is still willing to fight and die for the alliance.
It is obviously better in every way to admit the truth, pull back to empire, contemplate what you want to do as an alliance, and then make a plan to achieve your new goals. Yet after several years of the game we still see people making that mistake.
Neither changing the name of an alliance by reforming nor sticking around and losing the alliance seems like a good plan. So why do we still see this so often? It seems like such a huge disservice to the corperations in those allainces and most of all their members. Why do alliances still choose the option of losing everything over being honest about their current situation by admitting the loss, then going in a different direction while they still have the chance to salvage some of what they worked for? Is not surrendering really the most honorable thing to do in every situation or is it a big lie and disservice to the alliances membership?
Not meant to refer to any conflict in specific, just something I've been thinking about.
Short answer; They hate your guts?
Ourselves Alone |
pershphanie
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.12.24 09:39:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Shadowsword
Wars in Eve are generally about territory, so the losing side often has little interest in surrendering, as it's going to lose it's territory anyway.
Wars may be about territory, but alliances are about the people in them. Your alliance is the perfect example. You lived in the south, then up and decided you were going to live in venal for a few months, then moved down to curse. I'm not trying to say you lost, I have no idea why you guys move around. It is just shows that alliance are not their space, they are people. Even if losing space is a sure thing alliances still have the opertunity to keep their alliance and do something positive with it.
Originally by: Shadowsword
the others go into guerilla/support mode, and still fight their enemy by attrition, by disrupting enemy isk-earning ops, and forcing them to commit pilots to play cat and mouse with them. Besides, for them pvp is a pleasure, they more often than not come to dislike those who beat them in fleet battles/pos wars, so doing what they can to hurt them is also a pleasure. So why should they stop?
A guerilla force being able to disrupt isk earning for an entire alliance is one of the biggest myths in eve IMO. Doesn't happen. You can stop a couple people from npcing/mining, but that really doesn't do anything to the alliance as a whole even if you do it every day.
Yes, pvp is fun. But is getting owned by the same people every night fun? I don't think so. Nor is sitting at a safe spot because you got blobbed. That is usually what happens when an alliance losses a war, shrinks, and goes into guerilla mode. I've yet to see it accomplish anything.
Originally by: Shadowsword
Regroup in empire to achieve new goals? That generally mean conquer another part of 0.0, and not many alliances having just lost a war will still have the strenght to invade another 0.0 region.
Don't have to goto empire necessarily. Lots of alliances are willing to host groups while recovering from a loss for a 5-15% refining tax. I disagree with your premise that losing a war in one area means you won't be able to have success elsewhere. Fighting always makes you a better fighter. Even if you lose. Not all enemies are the same. Why not go recover losses for a month and then find another alliance that is unprepared for you. Now more than ever there are opertunities to claim 0.0 space in eve. Space is devided up and changes hands often. Wouldn't be hard to find someone you could catch offguard and blitzkrieg their space. I think it is a viable option.
Originally by: Shadowsword
And there's something else: The one thing most pilots care more about than their isks is their reputation, and fighting a losing war is less damaging for reputation than surrendering. Is it logical? Not really, but it's the way it is...
See. there it is. That's the thing that makes no sense to me. The opinion of a few forum smacking retards who don't even know you becomes more important than your actual reality. Do people really care about what people they don't know/barely know think about them that much? WHY!!!!???!!!
Why is being looked at as a bitter lunatic fighting for a pointless cause considered a reasonable option by most people yet admitting defeat in one war is far too humiliating for anyone to go through.
50% of all people in a war lose. Thats the reality. Why is that such a horrible prospect for everyone?
Originally by: CYVOK
If you surrender now we will consider letting you guys keep Fountain. -CYVOK-
|
pershphanie
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.12.24 09:47:00 -
[14]
Edited by: pershphanie on 24/12/2006 09:48:00
Originally by: Sextus Licinius
You're not very smart are you, or you just think the forum readers are retarded and can't make a judgement for themselves. BTW getting pwned by your own alliance members at the beginning of this thread is priceless.
And now Persh, stfu for your own sake.
You're right. Challanging the general consensus of eve groupthink makes me stupid. I guess everyone who has an opinion that differs from the majority is an idiot. I should be imbaressed for disagreeing with something. Thank you for pointing that you. You are very incitfull and clever. Thank you for your contribution.
Originally by: CYVOK
If you surrender now we will consider letting you guys keep Fountain. -CYVOK-
|
Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
|
Posted - 2006.12.24 09:47:00 -
[15]
Usually they're not on equal terms going into the conflict, I'd say 25% of people generally speaking are on the losing side of any war, it at all alive and that's just the thing, here people get to survive their defeat and live it down. Which sure ain't being made easier by the amount of smackmonkeys about.
Ourselves Alone |
killerco
Gallente
Confederation of Red Moon
Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.12.24 10:02:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Svett
and it's quite sad.
i disagree and quiet frankly thats insulting.
At the end of a conflict those who fought can leave there space with there heads up high and know that they tried everything they could too safe there space.
They leave with honour and that is not sad.
Don't be a great man just be a man |
Shadowsword
COLSUP
Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2006.12.24 10:12:00 -
[17]
Originally by: pershphanie
Wars may be about territory, but alliances are about the people in them. Your alliance is the perfect example. You lived in the south, then up and decided you were going to live in venal for a few months, then moved down to curse. I'm not trying to say you lost, I have no idea why you guys move around. It is just shows that alliance are not their space, they are people. Even if losing space is a sure thing alliances still have the opertunity to keep their alliance and do something positive with it.
Why we moved out of Venal? Because the Tribute campaign taught us we couldn't win (as in, conquer stations out of venal) alone against the whole north, we just didn't have the numbers for that. We had two choices: Stay in Venal and keep the D2 block busy, or accept one of the offers that were made to us after Tribute. We didn't really lost, we just couldn't break the statut quo, and keeping it wasn't interesting.
Originally by: pershphanie
A guerilla force being able to disrupt isk earning for an entire alliance is one of the biggest myths in eve IMO. Doesn't happen. You can stop a couple people from npcing/mining, but that really doesn't do anything to the alliance as a whole even if you do it every day.
Yes, pvp is fun. But is getting owned by the same people every night fun? I don't think so. Nor is sitting at a safe spot because you got blobbed. That is usually what happens when an alliance losses a war, shrinks, and goes into guerilla mode. I've yet to see it accomplish anything.
Certainly, a few guerillas can't really hurt a whole alliance. But the damage they can do (if tehy're good at it) is still out of proportions for a handfull of people. Careless haulers with billions in cargo ganked. Expensive ratting ships destroyed. And if you blob them, the man/hour cost is going to cost you far more than it will cost them. Not really hurting an alliance, but it will keep some of their enemies busy, or if ignored, it will grow in size. Maybe even start to include capital ships strikes... Fountain comes to mind...
Catching 0.0 alliances off-guard was true before, but with the way Power blocks are now, is it true anymore?
Originally by: pershphanie
See. there it is. That's the thing that makes no sense to me. The opinion of a few forum smacking retards who don't even know you becomes more important than your actual reality. Do people really care about what people they don't know/barely know think about them that much? WHY!!!!???!!!
...
It's up to each player to determine what his goals are in Eve, in the long term. Some choose to be rich, and pilot pimp ships. Others just want the fun of pvp. Many, I think, like to flatter their ego by being well known, and not as a thief, coward or smack-talker. And since getting an individual reputation by honorable means is kinda hard to achieve, being part of a group with a good reputation become a good way to do just that.
Besides, public image has an important impact on diplomacy.
------------------------------------------
Every ship has a base 60-70% resist against the primary damage type of the race that is the least able to vary it's damage types. |
ArmedSolid
Generals Of Destruction Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.12.24 10:19:00 -
[18]
Edited by: ArmedSolid on 24/12/2006 10:20:21
whoops excuse the sig dont come here often 8)
|
pershphanie
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.12.24 10:24:00 -
[19]
Originally by: killerco
Originally by: Svett
and it's quite sad.
i disagree and quiet frankly thats insulting.
At the end of a conflict those who fought can leave there space with there heads up high and know that they tried everything they could too safe there space.
They leave with honour and that is not sad.
fair enough. but in conflicts (not refering to you specifically. any conflict) where you have no realistic plan for victory you are not fighting for your space. You are not fighting for your space when even if in the best case sceanario you still lose the space in question.
If you think you fighting for your space then you are fighting for a lie and vanity. If you are a member of an alliance who's leadership is telling, suggesting, or leading their members to believe they are fighting for their space then they insructing their members to die for their lie and your ego.
Dishonesty and vanity are not honorable. Why is fighting for those things honorable? Why is that something that should make anyone proud?
Admitting the truth about defeat and moving on does not mean you can never fight again. It doesn't mean you can't fight another war and win. It just means you will have the opertunity.
Originally by: CYVOK
If you surrender now we will consider letting you guys keep Fountain. -CYVOK-
|
Thor Xian
Vertigo One
E.A.R.T.H. Federation
|
Posted - 2006.12.24 10:28:00 -
[20]
Reputation in Eve is worth more than anything else, and since you can't actually die, the value of surrender is not very high.
What would you gain by surrendering that would outvalue what you lose by not fighting to the death?
~Thor Xian, Material Defender
"For all your Material Needs, Vertigo One."
Corp/Alliance Services |
Heritor
Caldari
The Wailing Doom
|
Posted - 2006.12.24 10:28:00 -
[21]
Originally by: pershphanie
At what point should an alliance surrender in a war? The general mentality in eve territoral warfare seems to be keep fighting and dragging out a war untill it isn't possible to do so any further and the alliance disbands or becomes a small bitter people who can't accept what has happend or to reform the alliance with a new name pretending they were not the ones who suffered the defeat and hoping all their old alliance's problems will cease to exist. I'm wondering why this is.
I think this mentality comes from the general belief that it is honorable to fall on your sword after losing a war and surrender is a discrace an organization can not recover from. I think this is flawed and should not apply to every circumstance. In most wars fought over space there is usually a time when one sides weaknesses get exposed so badly that not only do they have no hope of winning, but they no longer function as a group. They can no longer put up any real defense let alone attack. At that point is it really honorable to stick around and pretend that it is still a real conflict?
When you have no chance of victory, no realistic plan, and can mount no effective defense then why stick around? In that situation staying in the conflict doesn't seem noble or honorable at all. All it seems like a big lie to me. Not to mention it seems like a disservice to everyone who is still willing to fight and die for the alliance.
It is obviously better in every way to admit the truth, pull back to empire, contemplate what you want to do as an alliance, and then make a plan to achieve your new goals. Yet after several years of the game we still see people making that mistake.
Neither changing the name of an alliance by reforming nor sticking around and losing the alliance seems like a good plan. So why do we still see this so often? It seems like such a huge disservice to the corperations in those allainces and most of all their members. Why do alliances still choose the option of losing everything over being honest about their current situation by admitting the loss, then going in a different direction while they still have the chance to salvage some of what they worked for? Is not surrendering really the most honorable thing to do in every situation or is it a big lie and disservice to the alliances membership?
Not meant to refer to any conflict in specific, just something I've been thinking about.
Translation:- BoB has no staying power 
Always where your seatbelt, its far harder for the aliens to abduct you! |
CDS Leader
Caldari
Eve Forum Warriors
|
Posted - 2006.12.24 10:36:00 -
[22]
Edited by: CDS Leader on 24/12/2006 10:37:07
If I was ASCN, I would Give the perception that I am fighting to the end, so that way the fellow allies can get their stuff out while I act as a wild goose for bob to chase and focus on.
But I personally think what is happening is that nobody wants to be known as the first corp to leave ASCN during these times, so thats probebly why they have not disbanded yet.
Join Eve Forum Warriors
Free Wardecs on Alliances! A Pirates Dream! |
pershphanie
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.12.24 10:47:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Thor Xian
Reputation in Eve is worth more than anything else, and since you can't actually die, the value of surrender is not very high.
I agree about the value of a surrender. But you don't really gain reputation by not admitting the truth of a conflict. In most cases it just makes you look like a bitter lunatic.
Originally by: Thor Xian
What would you gain by surrendering that would outvalue what you lose by not fighting to the death?
A few things. You keep your corp and alliance together who have hopefull learned something as a group from the experience, you gain the ability to go have fun elsewhere. Most importantly though is definatly time. In most big territorial conflicts usually last about 6months or more past the time when the result of the conflict have already been determined. 6months in eve is a long time sometimes alliances hang around after they have lost for a year or longer. In 6months you could resupply your alliance and kill off someone else, take their space, and partially redeem yourselves for the past loss. That has to be a better use of your time than 6months of smacking from a safe spot and trying to lie to everyone about how it's not over while your corp and alliance fall apart.
Look at the history of eve. When has any alliance ever benifited from hanging around after it's over. How is foundation doing these days? How about PA?
Originally by: CYVOK
If you surrender now we will consider letting you guys keep Fountain. -CYVOK-
|
MacDuncan
Minmatar
Unknown Society
|
Posted - 2006.12.24 10:49:00 -
[24]
Erm....i maybe lost it within the last months of reading this forum, persh:
Where did YOU admit the defeat of F-E or surrendered to ATUK before you actually turned 180¦ and joined them later on?
Most of your post leaves (or should at least) a bitter taste to all ppl knowing some stories...
--
Might
As well
Train
Another
Race |
Xendie
Forsaken Empire
The Forsaken Empire
|
Posted - 2006.12.24 10:54:00 -
[25]
Originally by: MacDuncan
Erm....i maybe lost it within the last months of reading this forum, persh:
Where did YOU admit the defeat of F-E or surrendered to ATUK before you actually turned 180¦ and joined them later on?
Most of your post leaves (or should at least) a bitter taste to all ppl knowing some stories...
atleast now the F-E Alliance name is back in the hands of the proper owners, F-E the corp
Quote:
Nertzius > having fun being incompetitent?
|
Helen
STK Scientific
Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.12.24 10:58:00 -
[26]
Originally by: pershphanie
Yes, pvp is fun. But is getting owned by the same people every night fun? I don't think so. Nor is sitting at a safe spot because you got blobbed. That is usually what happens when an alliance losses a war, shrinks, and goes into guerilla mode. I've yet to see it accomplish anything.
RA went into guerilla mode back when they went down to one station fighting what 5 alliances? Seemed to work for them to come back and take back space.
Or is that the exception that proves the rule in your book?
Oh Merry Xmas y'all.
|
Monahlott
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2006.12.24 10:59:00 -
[27]
Die with honour is preferable to cry your way to back to empire I suppose.What would you do persh? |
Zhaine
Coreli Corporation
Corelum Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.12.24 11:01:00 -
[28]
Hmmmn skipped half the thread so far but:
When RA had only C-J left almost everyone else in Eve would have said they were in a hopeless position, with a huge blob of allianced bearing down on their final station. I may dislike RA for many legitimate reasons but give them credit for knowing that they could in fact come back, and that however bad their situation looked to everyone else, there was a point to carrying on fighting.
Your enemy always has a weakspot, however small (or in the case of RA, the huge weakspot of critically weak or small alliances foolishly installed in their former territory). And once your enemy relaxes and think they've won there's always still a point in striking.
Anyway, even if your alliance is ghost of its former self you can, at least in certain circumstances, make life for the new occupiers very very difficult with a gurilla style war, and for some people that is enough having seen their territory and property taken by their enemies.
- - - - - - - - - -
Our boosters make you happy. . . |
Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
|
Posted - 2006.12.24 11:04:00 -
[29]
Originally by: pershphanie
Originally by: killerco
Originally by: Svett
and it's quite sad.
i disagree and quiet frankly thats insulting.
At the end of a conflict those who fought can leave there space with there heads up high and know that they tried everything they could too safe there space.
They leave with honour and that is not sad.
fair enough. but in conflicts (not refering to you specifically. any conflict) where you have no realistic plan for victory you are not fighting for your space. You are not fighting for your space when even if in the best case sceanario you still lose the space in question.
If you think you fighting for your space then you are fighting for a lie and vanity. If you are a member of an alliance who's leadership is telling, suggesting, or leading their members to believe they are fighting for their space then they insructing their members to die for their lie and your ego.
Dishonesty and vanity are not honorable. Why is fighting for those things honorable? Why is that something that should make anyone proud?
Admitting the truth about defeat and moving on does not mean you can never fight again. It doesn't mean you can't fight another war and win. It just means you will have the opertunity.
You've clearly never heard of 'scorched earth', fall back and disrupt whilst making life hell for the invaders, making them never want to face that kind of boredom ever again.
Ourselves Alone |
pershphanie
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.12.24 11:14:00 -
[30]
Originally by: MacDuncan
Erm....i maybe lost it within the last months of reading this forum, persh:
Where did YOU admit the defeat of F-E or surrendered to ATUK before you actually turned 180¦ and joined them later on?
Most of your post leaves (or should at least) a bitter taste to all ppl knowing some stories...
Maybe so. But I had options at the end of the war with ATUK. I also felt an obligation to those who fought for FE to do whatever I could so FE succeed no matter how bad it made me look. I ended FE at the moment I knew we had no future because I felt moving on was best for everyone in the alliance. There wasn't a scenario where we slowly died and I dragged it out. Up untill the end of the war with ATUK then the end of the war with PA/NBSI we could still put up 100man fleets everyday and were effective. When I knew that was over, we disbanded. Anything else would be failing the people I represented. TBH I don't care if people I don't know dislike me for it. I did what I did and if people don't like it they can kiss my ass.
Still, as a reminder my questions in this thread are about the mentality of eve as a whole not about any specific situation. Slandering me personally does not answer my questions nor does it change my questions or the answer to them.
So back to the topic;
I'm not advocating running away at the slightest sign of danger. If an alliance still has a realistic plan to win then by all means they should persue that. If that means staying and fighting then that is what they should do.
What I am saying is that if an alliance has no realistic plan for victory then continuing a futile war is a disservice to the members and a huge lie. In that case it the alliance should end the war immediatly and persue other goals.
I still do not understand. Why is fighting for vanity and the lie that you are "fighting for your space" considered honorable in eve?
Originally by: CYVOK
If you surrender now we will consider letting you guys keep Fountain. -CYVOK-
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |