EVE Search - What we grrrrgoons going to do?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

What we grrrrgoons going to do?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7442	Posted - 2016.03.29 14:01:20 - [1] - Quote Mr Mieyli wrote: I'd not underestimate how much people would like to see goons wrecked. The funny part of this is that those people include highsec players who would be laughing about goons getting destroyed. But if they go get booted out of sov space, with citadels rolling out, there's every chance it might work out worse for many highseccers. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7443	Posted - 2016.03.30 00:23:17 - [2] - Quote Duke Killem wrote: There has to be a good book here somewhere at the end that could get Kickstarted, make someone loads in RMT!. If by "loads" you mean "pocket change" then sure. The vast majority of that budget was going to the writer, and the benefit to the community would have been profound, but ah well. Now back to the trash with you irrelevant NPC alt. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7443	Posted - 2016.03.30 06:47:50 - [3] - Quote Aiwha wrote: Akirei Scytale wrote: Did you SERIOUSLY just call CO2 the CFC's backbone? My sides. They've contributed the most pilots and ships to the conflict out of every CFC alliance. sniff sniff Smells like bullshit bub. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7443	Posted - 2016.03.30 08:55:35 - [4] - Quote Duke Killem wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: the benefit to the community would have been profound, but ah well. I think you need to look up the definition of profound. Nope, I'm well aware and it's spot on. The funny thing is if someone you didn't hate proposed the exact same project, you'd probably agree. That's the problem with bias. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7443	Posted - 2016.03.30 12:58:35 - [5] - Quote Speedkermit Damo wrote: I always wondered whether anyone actually fell for mittens Kool aid, and here you are. None of that came from Mittani, that was independently checked with the writer ad by looking at what their spending plan was vs likely costs. Unlike you I don;t automatically believe anything I'm told. Let's face it though, you hated it because it's Mittani. That just goes to show how insanely butthurt you are, that you can't even see past you own bias to come to your own independent conclusions. Aiwha wrote: If by "here to stay" you mean you'll sit in highsec till IWI gets tired of diddling you, then take some space in the ass end of nowhere, sure, you'll "stay". IWI will rapidly tire, since all the time they are spending isk paying scrubs to attack goons, they've got less to RMT. There's only so long they'll be willing to affect their bottom line. At the end of the day feeding us content isn't going to get rid of us, and ISK alone doesn't create the long term strategy that would be required to destroy the Imperium. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7449	Posted - 2016.04.06 08:47:30 - [6] - Quote Is Shadoo the ragey one? Who's Mitler? The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7449	Posted - 2016.04.06 09:34:51 - [7] - Quote Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Is Shadoo the ragey one? No, that's you. Take you long to think that one up? Legit though, I think Shadoo is the ragey one. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7449	Posted - 2016.04.07 15:05:38 - [8] - Quote Trudeaux Margaret wrote: Wew, there's enough salt there to fill five Dead Seas. It's completely understandable though. This war has gone totally pear-shaped for SMA, especially the poor line members. Yes yes, I'm sure everything is salt to you. In what way has it gone pear shaped? We've temporarily lost some space to players who have no intention of holding it, and in the meantime we get loads of the content that we as EVE players enjoy. I've been in considerably worse situations than this in the past - including being cut off from nearly all of my assets and trying to evac through hostile space before my time in SMA - and at that point I wasn't even rolling around in enough isk to keep me subbed until I died of natural causes like I am now. See what you're doing is projecting. Because if you were in the same situation you'd be bawling your eyes out and screaming about how it's the end of the game for you, you expect that's how we are dealing with it. But that's not who we are. We're battleworn veterans who can adapt to hard times. Sure, we won't win every fight and sometimes we have to suffer a loss, but in the long run we'll be back in fade, and your little coalition will be in pieces crying about the blue doughnut again. We weren't worried when you were BNI, you really think your name change worries us? Ed: Omigodz sorry for all the salt there guys. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7449	Posted - 2016.04.08 06:57:52 - [9] - Quote Trudeaux Margaret wrote: Me? I was never in BNI. I am ex-SMA, if only for a short time, so I know what the deal is inside your alliance. I don't even care about Horde's history -- that has nothing to do with me. You can't really say that while being in BNI. Trudeaux Margaret wrote: And as for your own claims about SMA: "Battleworn veterans" my posterior. You're a bunch of carebears. Own up to that; everyone in the universe knows it. And your line about coming back to Fade is straight from Mittani's lips. You've got to put all of your trust in him because that's all you've got right now. Maybe your alliance will survive this and you'll get Fade back, or part of it. Or maybe one of the MBC who have had no trouble taking it from you will decide they like living there and will want to stay. If that happens, I don't think SMA will be able to take it back. All your good FCs and PvP corps have left. In any case, I wish you guys luck, I think you'll need it. Proof enough that whatever time you were in SMA for was incredibly short and your exposure limited. MBC don't want the sov and even if they do want it they won't be able to keep it since fozziesov almost guarantees a loss for the defender in anything even resembling and even fight. And sure, maybe SMA won't survive, but the fun is in the trying. Anyone jumping ship now is simply proving they don't have what it takes to be an EVE player, let alone a wartime Imperium member. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7449	Posted - 2016.04.08 06:59:54 - [10] - Quote Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Mario Putzo wrote: They just lost SMA, their relevant leadership has left. Glorious: http://i.imgur.com/cRkf9Pr.png The spin from our resident forum monkey should be interesting. What spin is needed? Every time anyone leaves SMA people keep throwing it about on reddit like it's the end of the alliance, and yet here we still are. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7449	Posted - 2016.04.08 07:18:35 - [11] - Quote Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Tosses the bait....catches the fish. Almost instantly. Spin to go with it as well. I think I can go a lighter line next cast. Landing them is simple. Although, at this rate: http://puu.sh/oart3/3516009094.png all the fish will be gone soon. Sov in decline. Outposts in decline, corporations in decline. Rate of decline growing. Fail cascade on the cards. Do you not see the irony in you spinning then claiming I'm spinning? We certainly may not survive this but as of yet that's not the case. As it stands some popular names have gone and we've lost a big chunk of space. We've still got active leadership, we're still operating under SRP and have solid logistics. That's the verifiable truth with zero spin. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7449	Posted - 2016.04.08 07:28:02 - [12] - Quote Shae Tadaruwa wrote: 2 for 2. I think I just need a hand reel. They sure don't make NPC alt sperglords like they used to. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7449	Posted - 2016.04.08 08:35:52 - [13] - Quote It's no good, I just can't take any more of these searing blows. Biomassing now. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7449	Posted - 2016.04.08 09:20:42 - [14] - Quote Drago Shouna wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: It's no good, I just can't take any more of these searing blows. Biomassing now. Can I watch? and stuff, you know how it goes. Lol, you wish you could have my stuff, you'd certainly not be crying about putting up a large citadel If I were ever going I'd probably do something spectacular with it before I went. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7450	Posted - 2016.04.08 12:47:16 - [15] - Quote Trudeaux Margaret wrote: Sure, whatever you say. The high-profile players who have left in the last 24 hours don't have what it takes to play EVE -- well- known players like Kyle and Ivory. /sarcasm You know why they left, dude. Everyone knows why they all left. Trying to spin it as if they're the bad guys just makes you look really bad, yourself. In fact it looks downright trashy considering that all of them have gone out of their way to leave graciously and to not sell their former alliance out. You should have really stopped while you were ahead. So anyway, I look forward to moving back to Fade on deployment. I already have one ship parked in O1Y! Maybe I'll run into you there, eh? Whatever way you swing it, if you are leaving an alliance because times get tough and you suffer some losses, you don't have what it takes to be an EVE player. I'm not trying to spin it as anything other than what it is, you're the one trying to pretend that because some leaders left that the entire rest of the alliance is screwed. It very well may be we won't survive this as an alliance, but that's nowhere close to a given and there are still plenty of people that will fight to the end. And honestly, if and when we move back to fade, I don't expect you to still be there. Your alliance really is a renamed BNI, and if you weren't blue to groups like NC and TEST, they'd rip you to pieces in seconds. I fully expect to be fighting one of them, not steamrolling you. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7451	Posted - 2016.04.08 13:03:29 - [16] - Quote Poopicus Butts wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: And honestly, if and when we move back to fade, I don't expect you to still be there. Your alliance really is a renamed BNI, and if you weren't blue to groups like NC and TEST, they'd rip you to pieces in seconds. I fully expect to be fighting one of them, not steamrolling you. Are you honestly using the "I...if you weren't b...blue with that big alliance we'd crush y...you!" argument while being in the clusterfuck coalition? Nope, first off the clusterfuck coalition doesn't exist. Secondly, I'm just stating it as it is. It's a well advertised view that following this war MBC are going to stop being blue to each other, at which point they have to realistically be able to hold space against their attackers, which they've shown they would be unable to do. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7451	Posted - 2016.04.08 13:15:58 - [17] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Did I miss the post where SMA relocated to Egypt? Cuz they all seem to be in da Nile You me because some of us don't conform the propaganda on reddit and don't actually consider SMA dead yet? Alliances can lose quite a lot and not collapse you know. TEST lost basically everything, died on it's ass and yet now is back. If believing SMA is strong enough to survive hard times is considered denial by randoms on the forum, I'm OK with that. Jenn aSide wrote: I was on an op to coat hanger a CSAA night before last, and watched the intense and unbelievable spectacle of Imperium guys complaining about our blobbing in local. Imperpium. The biggest blob in the history of EVE.... Complaining about blobbling. From Imperium..... Aside from his post not actually being representative of what I actually posted, for some reason you don't see the irony in a bunch of people who have complained about blobbing and blue doughnuts for several years using those exact same tactics now CCP have shifted the mechanics in their favour too? Strange that. By strange I of course mean completely predictable. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7451	Posted - 2016.04.08 13:23:25 - [18] - Quote Aineko Macx wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: It's a well advertised view that following this war MBC are going to stop being blue to each other, at which point they have to realistically be able to hold space against their attackers, which they've shown they would be unable to do. A dynamic 0.0 certainly is better than the static and stagnant bloc the CFC is and the blocs before it were. I agree, but the current mechanics won't generate that. The biggest groups will always be able to stomp through any smaller groups at will. Literally the only thing allowing smaller alliances to hold space is the lack of desire to stomp all over their space. I'd much rather see a system where lots of small groups held, used and defended space because they actually want to use it rather that a system that's simply so cumbersome to deal with that the only people attacking sov are people who don't want it. Eli Apol wrote: MBC would reform at the drop of a hat if CFC looked like moving back into the North. I doubt that, but even if it were the case then that still makes you a coalition it just means you have an open PvP policy during peacetime. Eli Apol wrote: Also remember that CFC has pissed off pretty much all of these groups individually in their own way and we're not exactly suffering isk losses so even the IWI funding is irrelevant now (although it was definitely a necessary catalyst to get this started). You're not suffering ISK losses? Someone let sKB know their killboard is broken. Eli Apol wrote: I've heard talk that Burn Deklein might become an annual thing because it's so much fun. How can it become an annual thing if you're kicking goons out of Deklein? The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7451	Posted - 2016.04.08 13:34:34 - [19] - Quote Trudeaux Margaret wrote: Who will take the space in the wake of the war? Not the remnants of SMA, that's for sure, because SMA of all alliances absolutely can't hold sov on their own -- not without Goon intervention. We only can't hold (some of our) sov when a coalition larger than the Imperium is attacking it, so if you aren't blue to each other after the war and such a coalition no longer exists, why do you suddenly think we'd not be able to hold. Bear in mind that most of the timers we won early on against fleets outnumbering us 2:1 were done with very little coalition support. Trudeaux Margaret wrote: This has been amply demonstrated. 1000 people online; 50 of them turn out for fleets. That's not going to work out for you. If those were really the figures, you'd be absolutely correct, but since they are actually a complete fabrication they don't actually mean anything. Eli Apol wrote: The 'propaganda' on reddit...is leaked logs from your own alliance chat. We don't even need to make gifs anymore. e: For your edification: http://pastebin.com/gj9RHP7u < Goons skymarshals discussing their linemembers. http://pastebin.com/cv88r5VL < SMA alliance chat discussing the loss of leadership. The propaganda is the part where people assume the loss of the players and the existence of people sad about it to mean the alliance is dead. The issue is the false conclusions you're pulling from the chatlogs rather than their content. I'm not disputing that some leadership have left, neither am I disputing that some people are annoyed at it, I'm not even disputing that Imperium leadership have some issues with that too, but what I am disputing is any notion that them leaving means we're already dead. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7451	Posted - 2016.04.08 13:46:06 - [20] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: I personally could have SRP'd all of Test alliances losses yesterday - and I'm really really not space rich - but sure, take me literally if you want. What were their losses yesterday? So far in April as far as killboards are concerned, TEST have lost more ISK than SMA. Eli Apol wrote: TBH the amount of deadspace goodies on all the dead supers we killed would probably have cancelled out all our losses as well...so yeah isk positive just from PvP. Yeah us too. We also can't provide anything remotely backing this up, but it's still about as true. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7451	Posted - 2016.04.08 13:51:22 - [21] - Quote Trudeaux Margaret wrote: It was hyperbole, yes. But not far off. I remember sitting in P-2 while FCs spammed the chat channels in frustration trying to get numbers for fleets. I remember fleets being cancelled for lack of numbers. Lucas, you are clearly very committed to SMA and for that, I commend you. That is sincere. I hope, for your sake and for others like you, that it survives and that you guys can rebuild into something stronger. I wish you'd stop demonizing those who left, though. It doesn't reflect well on you. Yep, fleets aren't always possible, depending on a number of factors - time, location, fleet composition, enemy fleet size, to name a few. Thanks, I hope we do too. I don't demonize them and I wish them all the best, but that won't change my opinion that if you are leaving when a war turns and you suffer losses, that's very much a non-EVE player thing. That's not just leadership, that's literally any player. If you quit because the going gets tough then you really don't get EVE. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7451	Posted - 2016.04.08 14:17:26 - [22] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Around 10-15b for the one day afaik, closer to 10b. Easily affordable for any long term eve player let alone an alliance wallet. It's pretty much a certainty that we really don't need the IWI income anymore. The reason we've lost more than SMA this month is probably because we've been undocking and fighting ~ also we have nearly double the number of members of SMA now. You're right, we've totally not been undocking at all... We've totally been losing our ships inside stations which is why our losses aren't zero. You say it's a certainty that you don't need IWI income, but then you claim that your losses are low because you're fighting unopposed. That leads me to believe you think that for the remainder of this war you will fight unopposed. Good luck with that. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7451	Posted - 2016.04.08 14:38:39 - [23] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: http://i.imgur.com/G2D8dsh.png Can't wait for April's figures. Not really sure where those figures are from. I mean let's for simplicity just take the highball figure of 40b from Tribute as caused by Imperium and pretend all Imperium damage bars are the same height so I'm massively overstating the Imperium damage done for a moment. So across 10 regions their massively inflated march damage would be 400b. The coalition against the Imperium is pretty much "the rest of EVE". So since zkillboard shows most kills and things that on an alliance level Goonswarm alone did 3.36t damage in march, where and against whom did Goonswarm do the other 2.96t of damage? I imagine that these stats aren't so much March figures as "part of March" figures, and they were likely sourced by someone within MBC. Though if it's accurate it amuses me that I personally made more than we lost in fade in March. TBH though, I won't even dispute the idea that we've lost more than we've killed, it would surprise me at this point if that weren't the case, but I find it funny that you think nothing will change or that it means anything in itself. MoA have spent the past 2 years chirping on about how isk positive they are too. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7451	Posted - 2016.04.08 15:00:47 - [24] - Quote Aineko Macx wrote: RIGHT NOW the mechanics are doing just that, providing a dynamic 0.0 with lot's of action, taking space from entities unable to hold it, breaking apart moribund blocs. Eve is still a n+1 game, but I'll reserve judgement over the current mechanics to when the dust settles, say 6 months from now What game are you playing? RIGHT NOW the mechanics are pitting one giant coalition against another giant coalition in exactly the same way that wars have ever gone down. Following this there will still be big groups who get to decide who they let have sov, just now it takes less time and less commitment to boot someone out of their space. Eli Apol wrote: Those figures were from CCP's data dump: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6428000 Lots of redditors have made a variety of graphs in this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/4dty65/ccp_quant_releases_treasure_trove_of_kill_data/ Some of the others I particularly liked: http://i.imgur.com/dgxGSod http://imgur.com/xfJdqLW OK, so the graph you posted, what breakdown of those figures are being used and what grouping? Because if that's supposed to be the whole of march, then zkillboard is completely wrong (or more likely the graph is wrong as I believe the Imperium lost significantly more than 400b in March). Ed: To be honest a lot of those graphs look off so maybe it's the figures. How accurate are the isk estimations in that data? The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7451	Posted - 2016.04.08 16:17:06 - [25] - Quote Aineko Macx wrote: Your coalition is an anachronistic relic of game mechanics that do not exist anymore, and you are slowly realizing it. The new sov mechanics together with jump changes means that having lots of allies distributed over large swathes of space is pointless because they won't be able to help you hold your space. N3 realized this, that's why they reset and sold off their renting empire. CFC continued to exist until now simply because no one really put pressure on them after the changes. Well no, it's simply that when you aren't at war you can protect more space that when you are. With the new mechanics there's no commitment needed to assault each area so players are able to assault huge amounts of space in one go, meaning that when at war a defender needs to shrink. Once the war is over they can grow back out again. Sov is a lot more fluid now, and yes there's certainly a learning process for just how fluid it is, but we'll find the balance. What N3 realised is they were incapable of defending their renters and had no interest in integrating them. The fact that renting still exists and rusblock are spread to 13 players per system shows that the concept is not gone. Aineko Macx wrote: The coalition that is dismantling yours formed for that specific purpose. As you mentioned yourself, MBC entities won't remain blue after the war. The spoils of war will of course be divided among the winners, but there won't be another super-bloc afterwards. That prospect looks pretty good to me. You're completely insane if you think no super-bloc will exist afterwards. For starters, even if we do lose the war (which is in no way already decided like some of you seem to believe) the Imperium won't be gone. Even if we end up entirely in lowsec for a bit, the bulk of the Imperium will remain and will push back out eventually, so either BoB will have to remain a loose coalition anyway or the Imperium will reclaim their space. Outside of that there's already other super-blocs and have been others in the past so I'm not really sure why you think that basic human behaviour will change. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7451	Posted - 2016.04.08 16:51:42 - [26] - Quote Aineko Macx wrote: You misunderstood. Even if CFC (or what is left of it) win the war, they will never hold as much space again as they did at their peak. We never would have anyway, since we already downsized for fozziesov. Take 5 minutes of your life to stop reading reddit propaganda and look these things up for yourself and you'll see what already threw away loads of space to compact down our borders. I imagine if we win the war, our characters:system ratio will return to roughly what it was pre-war, we'll just have a better idea of what space will be scrapped in the event of a large scale war. Aineko Macx wrote: If the CFC lose the war and move to low sec, the CFC also dies, because goons weaker, dependent buffer alliances will crumble without holding space to rat in. In the end probably only Goons and RZR survive to restart anew. You overestimate how much those "dependent" alliances depend on the Imperium, and how important ratting is to be honest. Personally I don't rat so I'm now making more since we've been at war as I build and trade a lot of the goods both sides are using. Amusingly it seems that 1ronbank may have just made one of my alt corps stinkin rich for when I get home as well. Aineko Macx wrote: I agree that ad hoc coalitions might continue to form for aggression purposes, but the large static, defensive blocs like the old NC or CFC are a thing of the past because they are ineffective under the new mechanics. Except they're not, just their methods of defense are different. If anything it's now more important to have more players for defense, as you have to keep ADMs up as well as fight the front lines. This is why I'm convinced you are playing a completely different game. Smaller alliances are dead the moment a larger alliance or coalition chooses to kill them. Their continued existence is at the whim of the larger alliances around them. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7452	Posted - 2016.04.08 17:41:19 - [27] - Quote Aiwha wrote: Pretty ironic speech coming from a CFC pilot. Back in the day, the CFC pretty much rolled over anybody they didn't like. Not really seeing the irony. What I'm saying is that either we will continue rolling over anyone, or the new superpower will. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7452	Posted - 2016.04.08 17:48:07 - [28] - Quote Aineko Macx wrote: A reality check is in order. But you weren't talking about dependent on them to survive an assault from a large coalition, you were talking about general dependence. Outside of wartime or against alliances in our weight range we have very little reliance on the rest of the Imperium. Aineko Macx wrote: It only becomes easier to defend if you have more people concentrated in the same space. This goes contrary to the entities desire to hold more space for more profit. Except it doesn't, it simply means you need more people too. No matter how few systems you cram your people into, a bigger, stronger alliance will steamroll you. Aineko Macx wrote: How would you explain the lack of support from most of your allies in the defense of your region? Like I say, the amount of space able to be defended from light attacks at peace is higher than the amount while at full war. We can't actively defend that much space hit in that many places all at once, so compacting down while at war is a necessity. After the war expansion can continue. Aineko Macx wrote: You mean evict. An alliance dies when it's members leave. Sure. Aineko Macx wrote: You're describing SMAs relationship with the CFC. Even if smaller entities can't hold sov for long the fact that sov is more fluid now is very positive and will provide heaps of content. Indeed I am. We've just chosen the route of being an active participant in our defense as a group and get the rewards of the same unlike a small unaffiliated alliance who gain no benefits from the larger group yet can still be crushed at any moment the larger group chooses. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7453	Posted - 2016.04.08 18:07:43 - [29] - Quote Mario Putzo wrote: We are far removed from the days of a new super power. You don't honestly think guys like NC. or PL are going to remain part of a 50K sea of "soft" blues do you? Or the ~10K pilots made up by the 5 Low Sec groups forming Voltron? Horde won't be part of a new super power, they pick fights for PL to escalate too, same with Waffles. I don't expect them to stay together, but I fully expect several limited engagement pacts to be made between them (the old gudfites deals), and standout groups like PL/PH to be 10-15k players (and they are pretty much there). I don't know why you think PH would suddenly not be blue with PL, and I certainly can't see many of these groups ever going to all out war against each other. Mario Putzo wrote: Certainly another group will become dominant at some point, but that is a turn around many wars away yet. After the CFC there is not a single entity with the allies or organizational structure to do it. Its going to take a couple years for any group to become the steamroller. If there isn't another on then it will be the Imperium. This is what you don't seem to get. Even if Imperium lose the war (and we are a long way from that) the coalition will only be relocated, not destroyed, so the moment the BoB coalition breaks up they'll get attacked and be forced to reform. See the problem is you seem to think that what has been accomplished so far is it, now you just need to go ping some timers and the Imperium is dead and you can all dance around in circles. It's just not that simple. I doubt you even have the longevity to see it through to the end. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7453	Posted - 2016.04.08 18:23:05 - [30] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: Not going to war and being blue are very different things. Can you imagine if CFC alliances had just had NIP's with each other instead of having their safe ratting space? It's a completely alien concept for you. Except that's what we had with non-Imperium alliances and that's where all the complaints of the blue doughnut came from. When people said "blue doughnut" they didn't just mean "Imperium". The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7465	Posted - 2016.04.09 09:45:59 - [31] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: /me prepares some towels for the guys climbing out from da Nile Totally not heard that joke before, I swear. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7465	Posted - 2016.04.10 19:21:27 - [32] - Quote Mario Putzo wrote: Lucas Kell, With SMA announcing they are no longer going to be a member of Imperium, and moving to NPC Null Sec to "rebuild" the alliance, how does that make you feel? See previous answer on your weird questions. Trudeaux Margaret wrote: Not just NPC null but Outer Ring, far away from anywhere. River mentioned running SoE missions out there, but there are no SoE agents there at all -- just ORE, offering only mining missions, and there are only two level 4 agents in the entire region. It's going to be extremely rough rebuilding under those circumstances. I'm not sure how they're going to do it. It's actually really handy that it's outer ring. See I have two main things going on in EVE, one is being with SMA, the other in building a hub in Solitude. This moves them close enough together that I can work between the two. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7476	Posted - 2016.04.13 07:39:45 - [33] - Quote Khergit Deserters wrote: I have to give The Mittani his due, he does come up with some great b.s. humor. Not "World War Bee, the "Casino War." I think that one was Nosy actually. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7476	Posted - 2016.04.13 20:36:23 - [34] - Quote March rabbit wrote: Starrakatt wrote: Neuntausend wrote: Only that SMA is out, and the "Casino" stated that they only paid mercs against SMA. Will it still be a Casino War? Yes. IWI stated that it is now paying for total war against the Goons, courtesy of Mittens trying to get an angle on IWI out of game. You can read the article here. Yea... That was funny writeup: - we are out of game organization (IWI) - they (Mittany) cannot attack us in game - we (IWI) can attack them in the game - they (Mittani) used out of game means to fight us! = TBH, if there ever were a concrete argument for why sites like IWI simply shouldn't be allowed (beside allowing untraceable RMT), he's given it right there. They are an out of game entity that can't be touched in the game but can use their out of game isk generation methods to attack in game players. Botting is banned because it supports RMT and conveys an unfair advantage to users, so why would this not be exactly the same? The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7477	Posted - 2016.04.14 06:34:15 - [35] - Quote Pandora Carrollon wrote: There is ALWAYS an avenue to attack. A function running outside of the game would be starved by cutting off it's in-game funds. Except there is no way to do this. He's using third party software to make ISK, and there' no way to attack that because it's not in game at all. It's not even like a botter where you can still try to attack the pilots or mess up the market around them, it's untouchable. Like Zappity said, it's funny right now because it's goons, but it's obvious from how many anti-IWI people are suddenly swapping side that it's not always been the opinion before this war. Once it's over there's still the same problem that there's a player being actively allowed to break multiple rules to be in a complete unassailable position in game. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7478	Posted - 2016.04.14 07:17:59 - [36] - Quote Aiwha wrote: I guess that makes using TS3 to do, well, ANYTHING in game rule breaking. Wow, people still try to use reductio ad absurdum in arguments? I tell you what, let's go for it. Sure, let's say that TS3 does convey an in-game advantage (even though clearly it doesn't in anywhere close to the same way). First of there in-game tools to do the exact same thing. Secondly the software to do the exact same thing out of game is freely available so any player is able to leverage the exact same benefit. thirdly, the benefits given by TS3 aren't in-game benefits, they simply allow players to communicate. If logging on to TS3 made my ships tougher or stuck isk in my wallet then I'd fully expect it to be banned. The thing is I think if you took a step back away from your bias, as what IWI is doing is benefiting you thus allowing you to overlook the reality of it, you'd be able to see how a player being able to use uncounterable out of game tools to collect trillions of isk is game-breakingly bad. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7478	Posted - 2016.04.14 08:32:43 - [37] - Quote Chewytowel Haklar wrote: If you can't beat them, join them? Make a Goonambling site. That doesn't fix the problem though does it? Imagine if they resolved botting by saying "OK, well everyone else can just bot then". The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7479	Posted - 2016.04.14 10:37:16 - [38] - Quote Aiwha wrote: Two things, one, The Mittani DID launch a gambling site, it failed miserably. Because even his own membership didn't like it. So complaining that its not fair that somebody else did a gambling site better than you is just lame. Two, you literally JUST SAID that TS3 is indeed available to anybody. Just like a website is. Which you can put gambling stuff on. You're just bad at it. Not to mention IM clients, private forums, and all of the cloak and dagger tools that spies and counterspies in EVE use every day to try and gain in game advantages. All of which the emporium uses, and STILL can't seem to do anything but lose space and moons. Except they aren't available to anyone since you'd have to be able to write them. I could write a bot for EVE, and I could sit around using the excuse "anyone could write it so it's fine" but that doesn't make it true. Again, the only reason you support it is that it benefits you. If you take a step back and look at it objectively (which I doubt very much you are capable of doing), a player being able to use an uncounterable third party application to generate income is completely unbalanced. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7479	Posted - 2016.04.14 12:39:19 - [39] - Quote Starrakatt wrote: What is the diffrence betweem IWI and some random ultra rich NPC corp margin trader sitting in Jita? Both are 'intouchable' by in-game means, especially since a multi trillionaire trader would and will use an alt to anounce financing a war. Complaining about one or the other is pointless, both are invulnerable to in-game retaliation. Well for starters an NPC corp margin trader is using in-game mechanics to generate his income. Secondly, margin traders can be and are affected, either by finding out what they trade and affecting that directly or by affecting the economy around them. Thirdly they can be directly competed with by other players, meaning that in order to beat the enemy they have to be better at generating that income than their enemy using the same mechanics. That's the whole point of competitive games. But when someone uses a third party tool to gain a direct advantage, it breaks the balance. This is why botters aren't allowed. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7480	Posted - 2016.04.14 15:31:55 - [40] - Quote Pandora Carrollon wrote: I understand what you are trying to say but I think you missed what I was saying. He has a hard time attacking that stream of funds because of his own status in the game. He appears to have made something of a tactical blunder by trying to take the fight outside of the game and take down IWI with RL legalish mechanisms and complaints to CCP. This was a non-winner from the get go and while I understand his frustration, he's actually fighting himself here since there would be no lasting war without him being whom he is. Being a 'bank' or 'out of game' is something of irrelevancy. They function entirely off an in-game ISK stream. Without players adding to that stream, there is no money or will to fight. So, what causes that ISK stream is where you 'attack' them. Player perception of this is everything. How exactly do you stop players adding to that stream in game though? Impersonation rules mean you can't set up scam corps of a similar name to gain isk, and I doubt flying around saying "don't do that" is going to do much, so the only way is to go after their reputation. And the truth is that what they've been saying isn't really wrong. IWI does have a much higher rate of confirmed RMT cases, there have been multiple independent claims that they are using shills and weighted odds, and there are clear EULA violations that do seem to be ignored (operating an account as a business as an example). Pandora Carrollon wrote: If the Goonswarm looses this fight, it's not because they didn't try to defend their Imperium, or try to put out 'propaganda', it will be because their leader has made enough enemies of other players with just his personality/actions that it painted a target on him. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, it's just an observation from a 3rd party stance. I'm a neutral. When the Imperium loses this fight - and I say when, not if - it will be because they have no ability to fight against a third party application. It may take a long time but Imperium income is in-game, using legitimate mechanics which means it can be attacked, a core part of EVE, while IWI income cannot. The inevitability of this is that IWI will simply outlast the Imperium. Pandora Carrollon wrote: I could offer him some advice on how to stop this war in a matter of days and come out looking like the better person for it, but I'm not certain he'd be willing to listen. I sincerely doubt that. I'm sure you have ideas and believe they would really work on paper but reality is that there's no real winning solution. Survive and hope they get bored is pretty much the only viable solution. Pandora Carrollon wrote: If you compare the IWI CEO's letter (which is actually a tidy, smart bit of propaganda in and of itself) to the 'leaked' logs of the chat's within the Imperium's leadership, you can see the entire player base perception of the war in just two documents. The IWI appears to not be hiding anything, is open about their role and why they are in it. The Imperium leadership is coming across as well... you can read it clearly for yourself. Of course, because you're taking unedited IWI propaganda straight from IWI and comparing it to a reddit posters hack job of leaks specifically cut to maximize anti-goon impact. You're not comparing pro-MBC and pro-Goon material there, you are comparing pro-MBC and anti-goon material, both of which have the goal of putting goons in a bad light. Of course if you look at only things with an anti-goon bias you are going to see it that way. I do read it for myself and I don't just limit myself to looking at what MBC wants me to. For example, I look at the fact that the vast majority of the times where people have claimed Mittani is spinning, what he has said has been verifiably true. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7480	Posted - 2016.04.14 16:43:28 - [41] - Quote Cidanel Afuran wrote: They aren't fighting against a third party application. They are fighting, in reality, against thousands upon thousands of players who used a gambling service that they enjoy. There is a way to fight against IWI, and that's to discourage the playerbase from using it in the first place. Is that hard? Hell yes it is, but complaining about it is akin to grr goons. Don't complain about not being able to fight someone just because you haven't figured out how to do it successfully yet. By hard you really mean impossible. Feel free to prove me wrong, but I'm pretty sure convincing the entire EVE playerbase to not do something isn't actually possible. I'm not complaining about IWI just because of this war, feel free to check my posting history on IWI in the past. The fact remains that ignoring the parties involved, looking at this objectively, having one side using a third party application to gain isk with no counter and the other using legitimate game mechanics that can be countered, there's a clear balance issue there. One that evidently shouldn't exist, since gaining an unfair benefit through the use of a third party application is already against the EULA. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7480	Posted - 2016.04.14 17:03:29 - [42] - Quote Cidanel Afuran wrote: I see you're being as ridiculous as usual. IWI found a way to gain ISK from players by playing the social/politician side of EVE. You do realize that the game is about more than simply flying spaceships, right? Fight him the same way he earns isk, by playing the social, political side by use of propaganda. Don't resort to whining and cry about BSbreaches of the EULA because someone found a way to make ISK faster than the rest of us. Ridiculous in what what? Yes, IWI found a way to gain isk from players using a third party application. That is undeniable. You can't claim that the IWI site is not a third party application nor can you deny that without that application he'd not have been able to get all of the isk. If he were sitting around in game saying "if you give me isk I'll pay to kill the goons" there's absolutely no way he'd make trillions, and you know that full well. I love how you're calling me ridiculous then you're going off to deny basic facts about how he makes his isk. Further you're then going down the "the tears" route. I'm not whining or crying about the breaches of the EULA, I'm calmly, rationally and logically pointing out the very real breaches of the EULA that exists and questioning why CCP chooses to ignore it. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7480	Posted - 2016.04.14 19:47:06 - [43] - Quote Johnny ReeRee wrote: I haven't read this thread or played Eve in...well..years, but are Goons seriously making the argument that zomg this is so unfair because someone is using out of game resources? Goons, led by a guy who hasn't logged in in...well..years, who supports his activities with a gaming website? Who tried (and failed) to create a gambling site? Who has made every possible effort to monetize his Eve notoriety and use that a position to lead an in-game coalition? Goons, who had a client hack which gave them access to very useful tools long before they existed in the official client? No, I as a non-goon and speaking as an individual with an opinion I've held for years am stating that having a third party application - that cannot be countered in any way by players in game - providing income to a player conveys an unfair benefit and as such should be covered by the EULA clause against exactly that. Whether it's used against goons is irrelevant, no group could fight against it because regular players are playing by regular rules and the game is designed in such a way that regular mechanics have counters. Cidanel Afuran wrote: And the fact that a third party application is used matters...why? Uhh, because the EULA explicitly disallows the use of third party application with give an unfair benefit to players? That's like saying "but why does it matter if I use a bot". Cidanel Afuran wrote: Could the imperium (or ANY alliance) exist and make the ISK it does without third party applications to organize(voice comms, forums, etc.)? Could any of us play this game without zkillboard, tripwire, EFT, dotlan, etc.? No. Third party applications aren't a breach of the EULA. You're selectively picking one single 3rd party application because you don't like it. That's being nothing but ridiculous. No, I'm not singling out the 3rd party application because I don;t like it, I'm singling it out because it conveys and unfair in-game benefit while the others do not. Here, let me highlight the EULA clause for you. Cidanel Afuran wrote: You may not use your own or any third-party software, macros or other stored rapid keystrokes or other patterns of play that facilitate acquisition of items, currency, objects, character attributes, rank or status *at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary Game play.* Kindly explain to me how his third party application allowing him to accumulate trillions of isk - in a way that has no in-game counter no less - is not facilitating the acquisition of currency at an accelerated rate when compared with ordinary game play. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7480	Posted - 2016.04.14 19:54:00 - [44] - Quote Pandora Carrollon wrote: I admire your loyalty to your group, that's awesome. I think it's blinding you to what I'm trying to tell you though. I can't fight against spin nor do I wish to try. The prism of how you are viewing this is causing the distortion of what I'm trying to get across to you. You are looking for mechanisms or mechanics to fight against IWI, that's not the approach I'm telling you about, it's the wrong approach entirely. As long as you keep looking there, you will not stand a chance. Nope, you're just judging my opinions based on why you think I have them. This has nothing to do with the existing war and you are free to go back along my posting history to determine that this is in fact he same opinion I've always held. I'm not looking for any way to fight IWI, in this war, I have fully accepted the fact that an application that should have been banned long ago which has allowed a character to accrue game breaking levels of income will win any war since there's no way to counter it. Hell, I'm not even in the Imperium. Pandora Carrollon wrote: You keep pointing out that people are buying IWI prop and ignoring Imperium prop. I'm telling you there is a reason for that. I am not a consumer of it either way, I don't really have a dog in the fight. I don't keep posting it, I told you once that the two examples you provided, which you claimed gave an overview of both sides were both from the same side of the war. What I'm saying is that if you are neutral you're really really bad at it. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7480	Posted - 2016.04.14 20:21:41 - [45] - Quote Eli Apol wrote: In-game counter to IWI: Create an in-game competitor. The richest coalition in the game could easily have subsidised their own gambling website variant - offering massively increased percentages to win for their clients and thus stealing away his playerbase and income* But they didn't. RIP. Well that's not an in-game counter, that's an out of game counter. Aiwha wrote: Because the out of game app isn't acquiring the isk. Players are. Which is why IWI has bankers, they log into the game and move money around AS PLAYERS, because an automated system doing that would break the rules. The gambling site isn't gathering any isk, players are literally sending it to IWI. Do you want to remove the isk donation option from EVE? Pull a runescape and require all trades be "equal" in value? Oh OK, so a market bot is fine too then is it? I can go ahead and set up market bots in every region because it's not the application making me isk, it's all the players buying and selling goods while I maintain constant market dominance? The thing is the fact that one player is throwing trillions of isk made from a third party application into a war and outclassing a 40,000 character coalitions income solo is categoric proof that it's allowing income at a rate far beyond what can be achieved by "ordinary gameplay". The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7480	Posted - 2016.04.14 20:49:49 - [46] - Quote Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote: Comparing IWI to a Market bot (or any bot) is laughable. Bots automate gameplay, if you think IWI is automating anything in game then you would have a case for it breaking the EULA. Sure I would but that doesn't mean I don't still have a point. I made that comparison because supposedly if it's not actually generating isk and it's coming from players, using a third party application to make loads of isk is fine, right? Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote: IWI does the same thing as all the isk doublers you see in the trade hubs, its just on a larger scale and with a fancy website. They make their isk by persuading gullible players to donate them isk on a promise that they might get more isk back. Then you agree, the third party application allows him to do this at a rate unachievable by "ordinary gameplay"? Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote: Whilst personally I would ban all gambling, fake or real everywhere on the planet if I could. It doesn't break the EULA (as long as they don't go all RMT like most of them seem to) Nosy had some good stats on that showing how unlikely it is that the's no institutional RMT at IWI. There's no way for CCP to track if there is either. It's funny though, because if you make a site for a bank, and allow players to put money in and transfer it to other players within the bank who then draw it out, you'll get your site (and/or accounts) shut down because you're allowing ISK transactions that don't show up on CCPs logs. Strangely that too is a rule that seems to not apply to gambling sites. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7480	Posted - 2016.04.14 21:16:41 - [47] - Quote Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote: You have no point. IWI is not comparable with any bot programs. And yet both facilitate the acquisition of isk at a faster rate than normal gameplay. Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote: Players donating isk to the in game corp of IWI is ordinary gameplay. If SMA mailled all its members to ask for a donation to assist with it's move to a new home no-one would think SMA was breaking the EULA. Donations of isk between player/corps and alliances is an in game option. As far as I'm aware there is no cap on the amount of isk donations any entity can receive in Eve and since isk donations are coded into the game, its a huge leap to think isk donations are going to break the EULA. Except it's not just donations is it. If he were sitting around in game with no third party application asking people to send him isk, he'd not be earning trillions. The thing that allows him to gain isk at an accelerated rate when compared to normal gameplay is the site. To clarify, if CCP choose to block gambling sites from existing, I have no problem with him or anyone else sitting in Jita asking people to donate to them, since that is in fact normal gameplay. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7480	Posted - 2016.04.14 22:17:52 - [48] - Quote Pandora Carrollon wrote: No, being critical of the Imperium and not criticizing IWI does NOT mean I am not neutral. I don't really have any criticisms of IWI as they have been doing their side of the fight mostly correctly. I am not seeing ANY posts by Imperium Leadership hinting that they even understand or comprehend the reason they are losing the perception war to the degree necessary to stop the negative perception and reverse the tide. If they do understand it and are just not taking the proper actions, then that speaks volumes as well. I don;t disagree that not criticizing IWI doesn't necessarily make you not neutral, but surely you can understand that you saying "Here is what players see from both sides" then stating the MBC view of itself and the MBC propaganda of goons is not at all neutral. You can't compare a polished statement from one side and a bunch of leaked logs specifically cut to be out of context by the enemy and expect people to take your neutrality seriously. Pandora Carrollon wrote: If that IS your analysis as well, then you and I are on the same page and we can agree to agree and I apologize for misinterpreting your posts. If you disagree, then telling me I am misinterpreting you isn't helping explain your point(s), I am just not seeing how your POV has changed from it being hopeless and impossible to 'attack' IWI to 'yeah, there is a way but it will never happen' (which is at this point almost moot). My point remains that there is no in-game counter to a third party application like that. Regardless of whether or not the target is goons, no alliance could compete with something like that. You saying "there is but I'm not saying what, slap your leadership" is not exactly convincing, especially since you seem to have not noticed that I'm not an Imperium member. Chloe 'Eris' Morgan wrote: How does it go again..... Oh that's right, "We're not here to ruin the game, we're here to ruin your game". It's like a Burn Jita event but instead it's Deklein, it's great and I for one will continue to use IWI just to contribute to it. The sooner the Goons are gone the better. It's sooooo exciting. So translation "EULA breaking gameplay is fin as long as I benefit from it". Effectively you upset that goons used in-game mechanics to gank whatever highsec ship it was you were flying and so you'll back literally anything that would seem to give you a one up. Gotcha. Marking your opinions as irrelevant. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7480	Posted - 2016.04.14 22:42:24 - [49] - Quote Trudeaux Margaret wrote: But until you petition CCP for a final answer on whether your interpretation of the EULA is correct, you have no basis to state that IWI is afoul of the EULA. Sure, not by CCPs interpretation but I can certainly point out why I believe it is. I honestly can't think of any way using no third party tools that anyone could acquire that much isk, so have absolutely no doubt that the site allows the acquisition of ISK at a faster than that normal gameplay, and so can't see why it wouldn't be against the EULA. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7480	Posted - 2016.04.15 00:20:34 - [50] - Quote Trudeaux Margaret wrote: And you have pointed it out in this thread -- repeatedly. You'd think that even after such events as the Somer Blink fiasco and the aforementioned dustup between SMA and IWI which resulted in the banning and subsequent unbanning of a number of IWI's bankers, that CCP would have shut down casino operations by now. Yet they have not. I ask again why you don't petition them formally and lay out your case, and see if they give you a a ruling on the matter? Since it's a topic that seems to hit close to home to you, why not do that instead of cry about it on the forums? You're suggesting I haven't? Nobody here is crying. Chloe 'Eris' Morgan wrote: Hahaha that's a slightly whiney response, I've never been ganked by a Goon, Code or anyone for that matter (see for yourself on my KB, but then I am an alt!). Surely if the people using IWI are breaking the EULA then we would see the ban hammer? But alas we're not......Maybe CCP are sick of you lot too, oh yeah they are, FozzySov proves that. Whiney? In what way? You;'re babbling on about Burn Jita like in means a damn thing then rolling don the route of "can't wait for the end of goons HAHAHA ALL THE TEARS" which is classic defensive crap from highsec gank victims. Calling everything tears doesn't actually make it so it just makes you look desperate. Chloe 'Eris' Morgan wrote: as no one is listening to you Clearly they are otherwise there would be so many posts direct at me. TigerXtrm wrote: Gambling sites have been around for years, CCP is well aware of them and is condoning or even endorsing them by providing sponsorship or positive mentions. Nothing about this is currently against the EULA and if CCP thought there was some sort of problem with it the entire gambling niche would have been banned after the SOMER Blink fiasco. Between full on market traders and incursion runners, a single guy running a gambling site is hardly something that jumps out. Trillions upon trillions can be made by any clever player who is willing to put in the time and effort. And make no mistake, running a site like that and managing all the people working for it is no easy task. I'd say it's many times harder than making trillions station trading or running incursions. God knows especially the latter is so easy even TEST could do it. So explain exactly why you think that IWI which is undeniably a third party application, which allows the owner to acquire isk at a faster rate than normal gameplay isn't covered by the EULA clause covering exactly that? And often CCP don't act all the time there's no light being shined on things. And sure, there's other ways to make trillions, usually with a whole heap of work over a long period of time and still it's all dwarfed by a guy running a third party application. Not to mention that every single one of those in-gmae mechanics can be affected and attacked by players using in-game methods while IWI cannot. And I didn't state it was an easy task, I'm sure running 200 bots isn't an easy task, yet that's still banned. Just because it takes effort doesn't change whether it's right or not to allow it. At the end of the day, I still see this as a third party app that allows a player to effectively win EVE by have a completely uncounterable method of gaining more isk that even whole alliances can make. A lot of people are happy with it now because their target is goons and they don't like goons, but that doesn't make it right to allow it. There's no point in other players even trying to compete with that. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7480	Posted - 2016.04.15 00:34:58 - [51] - Quote Cidanel Afuran wrote: You absolutely are. Wrong. Cidanel Afuran wrote: When his website falls into that category, we can talk. He isn't using macros, he isn't using software that improves gameplay. People are volunteering to donate him money. The website doesn't make it any easier to do that. The website doesn't make gameplay any easier. So you are saying that if he didn't use that software and just did it in game, he would be able to acquire isk at the same rate he does now? I don't believe you, because that's obviously wrong. Cidanel Afuran wrote: He accumulated that isk because people chose to give it to him. Should minerbumping.com be brought down because they have accumulated so much isk through 'share purchases'? Since their share purchases are generally done on the forum, probably not. There's a slight difference between volumes of isk able to be made between the sites though, since minerbumping is literally just a blog, while IWI is a full web application. If anything minerbmping shows more realistically how little IWI would make if it really didn't use a third party app to acquire all that isk. Cidanel Afuran wrote: You should really read the EULA Lucas. Market bots mean a person isn't physically placing orders and moving money in game. IWI has actually players doing 100% of the work with 100% of the ISK gained in game. No, you really need to read the EULA. The rule is that third party applications may not facilitate the acquisition of items or currency at an accelerated rate compared to normal play. At no point does it state that it needs to be automated for it to be classed as bannable. Cidanel Afuran wrote: You keep using that term. Please define 'normal gameplay' for us Really? Log into the client full screen and don't use any outside tools or websites. Tada, everything you are looking at is "normal gameplay". The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7480	Posted - 2016.04.15 00:36:58 - [52] - Quote Aiwha wrote: Goons had fucktons of untouchable income for years in the form of tech moons. They weren't untouchable, they were simply defended. That's completely different (though it's still a very good thing that CCP balanced that all out). The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7480	Posted - 2016.04.15 07:12:10 - [53] - Quote Wexiz wrote: Not been in the captain's cabin for sometime, but casinos used to be advertised on the screen which would have been before the changes to the bounty system. Back then a lot of the most wanted characters were connected with casinos. So they were tolerated at least in the past. So was ISBoxer. Times change. Especially once it gets to the point that a normal player has no way of being competitive with in-game mechanics. Cidanel Afuran wrote: Not a single ISK has been generated by the website. 100% of it was generated inside the game through donations to players. Are you honestly going to disagree with that? N, I don;t, but the rules isnt; about generating isk, it's about acquiring isk. If it were only about generating isk there would be multiple tools like (like market bots for example) which would not be covered. Your inability to read the EULA is your problem. Let me know when you have a half decent argument not based on your misunderstanding. Archibald Thistlewaite III wrote: So, using the give isk option is normal gameplay. Indeed it is. So stop IWI from being allowed to use their site and let's see how much isk they acquire purely through asking for donations. I guarantee that without the third party application they can't acquire isk at the same rate, proving categorically that the application is what facilitates the acquisition of ISK. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7480	Posted - 2016.04.15 09:52:10 - [54] - Quote TigerXtrm wrote: The main problem here is, once again, that people need to stop interpreting CCP's EULA for them. They wrote the damn thing, they enforce the damn thing, they don't need you or me or any of their paying players to tell them wat is and isn't against the EULA. If CCP tells you that something is okay to do, what is waving the EULA in their face going to accomplish? It's not the US constitution and CCP isn't a government body bound by the EULA they themselves wrote. They can ignore and cherry pick the EULA whenever they damn well please and the only people who should be worried about that is CCP's own internal affairs staff. If you have an issue with something, make your case for it independently. Take it up with CCP, send in a ticket, send an e-mail, open a thread on the forum. But DON'T come in quoting the EULA as if it's somehow meant to limit what CCP can and can't do, because that's not what it's for. It's intended to limit what YOU can and can't do. And CCP is allowed to make exceptions all day long if they want. I'm not interpreting their EULA for them. Like with many other situations I'm just calling it as I see it and it's up to CCP to decide if they want to act. You're right, they wrote their EULA so it's up to them to decide how to enforce it, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't still call that enforcement into question. It's through people pushing for change that progress is made. TigerXtrm wrote: As for IWI, I think it's amazing that things like this can exist in our little game world. What other game has gambling sites that allow you to use your game currency to play, win things, lose things? And in what other game is that gambling site ran by an actual player who can turn around and decide the course of a game's narrative for thousands of people? As a community we should be proud that initiatives like this exist, it's what makes EVE unique. The only thing it requires is that CCP keeps a close eye on it to make sure such sites aren't abused for RMT purposes. Probably no other MMO does that, certainly not through a third party website, and that's because as is being demonstrated here it introduces game breaking levels of imbalance. What makes EVE unique is it's a powerfully competitive sandbox with less constricting and pandering rules. Competitive gets throws out of the window however when third party applications are allowed to be used to this extreme. Why would I be proud that a third pary application allows people to beat anyone playing the game through normal means? Are you proud of botters too as long as they don't RMT? The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7480	Posted - 2016.04.15 11:07:39 - [55] - Quote Chloe 'Eris' Morgan wrote: Whiney as in your first response to me was that I must have been ganked, highsec bear blah blah blah..... Well you were the one complaining about Burn Jita bro. Chloe 'Eris' Morgan wrote: Also I mentioned Burn Jita once in relation to the current burning of your space and how hilarious it is. I live in Deklein now? Since when? The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7480	Posted - 2016.04.15 11:19:32 - [56] - Quote Trudeaux Margaret wrote: That is all very noble on paper, but I would love to know for certain whether you have actually filed a formal ticket or petition with them about this. I don't even care to know about the answer, if any, because I understand that there may be rules about sharing private correspondence from CCP employees blah blah, that come into play. I just want to know how committed to this you really are. Seriously, it seems to me that you're brown-nosing The Mittani more than anything else. He brought this up in one of his dispatches to the faithful sometime last week and you've been on a tear about it ever since. Yes, it's been raised. And no, this has nothing to do with Mittani. Once again I invite you to peruse my post history and you'll find that my stance on these gambling sites has been the same for a long time, likely longer than I've been in the Imperium. The only thing the latest activities have done is compound my belief that they are bad for the game and encourage me to push even harder for their removal. Speedkermit Damo wrote: I don't recall seeing you taking issue with IWI, until after you lost all your space and your "mighty" coalition started failcascading. When what you recall dictates reality, let me know. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7480	Posted - 2016.04.15 12:44:11 - [57] - Quote Chloe 'Eris' Morgan wrote: I know I said I wouldn't be back but I couldn't resist...... Honestly, I'm shocked. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7482	Posted - 2016.04.15 15:32:10 - [58] - Quote Cidanel Afuran wrote: IWI hasn't acquired a single ISK outside of the game. No, they've aquired isk in game by using a third party tool out of game. Simply put, do you agree that if they didn't have the website, they would acquire less ISK? If you answer yes, then they are acquiring ISK in an accelerated rate to normal gameplay. If no, you're a complete liar. Jenn aSide wrote: http://www.ibtimes.com/eve-online-battle-control-most-boring-video-game-world-2352253 Quote: Known as The Mittani within the virtual world of GÇ£Eve Online,GÇ¥ Gianturco commands an army of 40,000 space pilots loyal to his Imperium coalition. He has a trusted band of lieutenants and uses propaganda, espionage and deception to retain his position as the gameGÇÖs most powerful player, describing himself as the Vladimir Putin of the GÇ£EveGÇ¥ universe. He has even leveraged his position to earn a living from GÇ£Eve Online,GÇ¥ setting up his own website and renting out his army of mercenaries to other video games. Just seemed relevant. Because making real money from a website while trading no in game items for it is bad? Better tell Rixx Javix to pack up his work then. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7482	Posted - 2016.04.15 15:53:07 - [59] - Quote Mario Putzo wrote: Except you know paying out the guys who write the articles that drive site traffic with ISK...you know the in game currency of EVE Online. But hey why let facts ruin a good story right. Which CCP explicitly allow, hence why sites like EN24 do exactly the same thing. Cidanel Afuran wrote: That website is part of normal gameplay. Just as is any other 3rd party tool. LOL. When I logged on a new account I didn't actually get a gambling site with it. I guess my copy of EVE must be broken. What gambling site do you own and operate that you got as part of logging on to EVE? Cidanel Afuran wrote: Simply put, could a coalition like CFC have grown to its size with zero out of game tools? If your answer is no, you're a complete liar. But would't your answer to that question also be no? I think you are confused. To be clear to you,yes, all third party tools provide a benefit, that's why they exist, but like CCP stated themselves, there's a difference between a fair benefit like TS3 provides and an unfair advantage that tools like ISBoxer provide. IWI is a tool that provides an unfair benefit to it's owner, and so should not be allowed. I do like by the way how you completely skipped over the question I asked you. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7482	Posted - 2016.04.15 16:13:31 - [60] - Quote Mario Putzo wrote: And CCP explicitly allows for gambling services to exist in EVE Online. So begs to question. Just what is your ******* point? Don't actually answer though because I really don't care what your opinion is. After all, its CCP's opinion that is final. They have't explicity allowed them, they've implicity allowed them. Also, we are all free to ask CCP to make changes. If you want to try to make them stop allowing articles to be paid for with isk, feel free. I, unlike you, won't turn up and start launching personal attacks at you simply because I disagree with your opinion. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7483	Posted - 2016.04.18 14:05:09 - [61] - Quote knobber Jobbler wrote: I think you're believing the propaganda a little too much. The MBC is comprised of many groups, all with individual post conflict goals. Some will keep sov, some will stop Goons from having Sov again, some will go off and do their own thing. The MBC is not one entity with a single leader, it shouldn't be measured against what the CFC is or was. And most will not be able to survive once they don't have the coalition together. knobber Jobbler wrote: And growth in membership means nothing. What matters is dudes in space shooting other dudes and entosising structures. MC is putting out bigger fleets than the CFC can manage and they are barely a fraction of the size of GEWNS, let alone CONDI. Of course that's what matters to you, because that's the metric that shows you in the most positive light. But at the end of the day you can't claim to destroy goons if goons aren't destroyed, no matter how many undefended timers you win. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7484	Posted - 2016.04.18 16:36:13 - [62] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: What is the difference between an impotent, docked, sovless goon and a destroyed goon? One is a player sitting in a station part of a group the other is dead or non existent. What's happening here is goons are being outnumbered and overpowered, so they are on the retreat so they can work on survival rather than throwing ships into their death trying to defend things they know they will inevitably lose. While it's bad they've had to do that it's not nearly as bad as many are claiming. The thing that confuses me is that TEST took a much quicker dive into the dumpster and yet still exists and has grown back to the third biggest alliance in the game and had a major part in the new biggest coalition in the game, so why people seem to think goons will be incapable of doing the same I don't really know. Brokk Witgenstein wrote: What metrics would you suggest? Depends on the objective. If it's to destroy goons then goon membership numbers would be a start. We know they aren't defending systems, so sov will inevitably be taken so using that as a metric seems pretty bad unless the only objective was to remove goon sov, in which case well done. Sov used to be pretty much the metric because taking sov was hard, and so to be able to stomp through someone's sov it was a pretty big indicator that the defender was losing heavily. But as people keep pointing out sov has changed, and the view of it has to change too. It's much more fluid than it used to be. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7484	Posted - 2016.04.18 17:27:46 - [63] - Quote I'm lightened up, no worries So far I'm still net positive on the war so all is good. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7486	Posted - 2016.04.19 14:37:15 - [64] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: But this war has left a real bad taste in my mouth. It seems like they turned into the standard "I I can't be sure of a win i won't even try" types of players EVE has always had, rather than the bold Rifter flying "screw it, it's a game, CHARGE" types they used to be. But it's not they cant be sure of a win, they can be sure of a loss if engaging in direct combat. The enemy has more players, more supers and an infinite unbreakable warchest. It's the same thing that any other group would do in their position, hell, it's what PL did when they fell back after B-R instead of pushing forwards. As much as you may think it's just the leadership, rank and file goons don't want to lose all their SRP and their own assets fighting a futile war either. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7486	Posted - 2016.04.19 16:06:36 - [65] - Quote Seven Koskanaiken wrote: Marginally more players. MBC fleet numbers peaked at ~3000. The Imperium was 40k strong at the start so for matching numbers of 3000 would require of 7.5% participation across the coalition. That's it. An entirely achievable number considering it was a fight in your home space for the survival of that space. Not when you consider how many of the Imperium numbers are alts. Remember that holding sov now requires mandatory ratting and mining, meaning that numbers are bulked up by our non-combat alts so we can achieve that in a reasonable time frame. Then there's all the cyno alts needed for travelling about. Not to mention that some of the alliances don't do purges, such as goonswarm meaning their numbers are inflated with inactives. MBC on the other hand grew primarily from active players as its people jumping in specifically to go to war, so to expect a smaller coalition of inactives and alts to stand a chance against a large PvP driven coalition with infinite funding is pretty silly. Seven Koskanaiken wrote: Supers have negligible use in Fozziesov and as for warchests, where has 6-7 years of ratting taxes, rental income, r64, technetium bubble, FW exploit and market manipulations ISK gone? Supers still help decide the larger battles. Imperium warchests are vast but not infinite, and can be destroyed. Up against effectively infinite funding coming from a third party application that can't be affected in-game, there's no chance. A war of that size would come down to funding and infinite funding beats out finite funding any day of the week. Seven Koskanaiken wrote: BRAVE knew they weren't going to win the war but they still killed Hurley's titan, won a station with a t1 cruiser having final shot against a super fleet, and formed 1000 to defend their home station on the eve of defeat. TEST drove fleet after fleet of battleships into dreadnoughts in 6VDT, reshipping three, four, five times in the night and made gaming history. WALLTREIPERS held out in a one single system while massively outnumbered, dropping supers on SBUs right under everyone's nose. All those stories they can take away and will last forever because they realised it was only a game they were playing. Sure, and in all of those cases there came a time when they had to call it a day rather than continuing to throw everything at it. That time just came earlier for the Imperium due to the damage done by CO2 leaving and handing out information of active super builds. Even without counting the builds in progress and restricting fleets, the Imperium has lost several trillion isk. I know you want them to run headlong into a meat grinder, but they'd be stupid to do so. It's pretty amusing that you think they are playing wrong because they aren't willing to take everything they've built up in years of playing this game and throw it in the bin over some e-honor bullshit. Doubly so when you consider most of MBC is only doing it because they are being funded while for years they've been unwilling to throw up this war with their own isk. Seven Koskanaiken wrote: The only thing Imperium will be remembered for is being basic bitches who gave up and ran away, or were too scurred over their imaginary pixels to even take part in the first place. Seriously doubt that. Hawke Frost wrote: micdrop.jpg The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7486	Posted - 2016.04.19 17:14:56 - [66] - Quote Pandora Carrollon wrote: Also, you can't actually lose everything, your SP's don't go away (well, you can lose some flying a T3 ship). You could be a 30 mill + SP toon, lose everything you have and still end up with a FREE rookie ship and go have fun with it and rebuild your empire from scratch. Not being funny mate, but not many people in EVE that have managed to build up to anything of value would be up for building it all from scratch again. Most people will simply do what most people have done, opt to either join the winning side of the war or out of it completely. It's a sandbox, we build it up the way we want to play it and most people will protect that over some vague notion of e-honour. Pandora Carrollon wrote: I strongly suggest you not keep all your eggs in one basket. Have an alt in an NPC corp acting as your rainy day fund, with ISK and ships and all kinds of backup stuff. If your main boat goes down with your corp buddies and your alliance, your alt comes over in the dinghy, picks you up, and gets you back on your feet in a heartbeat. All the while, your main looks awesome for going down and losing a bunch with everyone else. It also lets you go 100% at your foes. They have no idea about your rainy day fund. You can hit them full tilt and know you have a parachute. But by having a rainy day fund, you aren't going 100% at your foes. And if you are going to cut your losses before you lose everything, why not cut them as soon as you know you can't win? Seven Koskanaiken wrote: Those would all be good points, if the Imperium were the innocent victim minding its own business and suddenly found itself being invaded. and had to survive. Except, it was the Imperium itself who claimed they were going to make everyone "bend the knee and enjoy the benefits of The Imperium, or be evicted and replaced with someone who will" and, on top of viceroying the whole of nullsec, somehow thought they would make incursion into lowsec to take their moons as well just for laughs. So effectively they were planning to take on all that makes up the MBC today. Obviously, at that time, they didn't consider themselves a coalition of "inactives or alts" or otherwise they would never have tried such a thing. Never in the history of this game have I seen the self-perception of a group, the delusions of grandeur, and the nonstop chest beating just soooooooooo far removed from the actual reality of things. Lol, they are good points regardless of the various motivations for the war. You are saying that they are playing wrong because they aren't throwing themselves onto your swords and feeding you easy kills, and that they are obligated to do so because they chose to start a fight in the first place? So they picked a war with some groups, loads of other groups (including one of the Imperium alliances) and an infinitely rich funder join in leaving them no chance of success, but because thy started it they are wrong for protecting themselves and should instead be willing participants in their own slaughter just to provide you with content? Ed: Let's put this another way. You keep saying "it's just a game" and you're right, so since games are designed for entertainment, what entertainment value is there in throwing ISK away on a sure loss? And why do your own fleets disengage when they meet overwhelming numbers since welping fleets is supposedly so fun? The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7486	Posted - 2016.04.19 17:56:06 - [67] - Quote Seven Koskanaiken wrote: You keep saying "sure loss", I guess if you've already talked yourself into it, then it becomes true. It's true because it's what have been evidenced to happen and things have only got more in favour on MBC since then You can't honestly suggest that the Imperium stands even a remote chance in all out combat in this war. Then even if they manage to break even, they are paying out of a finite wallet with diminishing sources of income while your pockets are infinite and untouchable. The common sense approach is to let you dudes do what you're doing then look at rebuilding when they're in a less precarious position. Seven Koskanaiken wrote: FYI: every Deklein timer I have entosed has been in a half fit sabre. I actually think "I'm a sitting duck here, if anyone bothers to come I'm pretty much dead". Well yeah, everyone takes out cheap throwaway ships to sling on a node. I'd pretty much hit orbit then go play PS4. That you undoubtedly get SRP for it makes it even less of an issue. Seven Koskanaiken wrote: Last night Ya0 passively regen'd back to secure because literally no one bothered to show at all. These would be "sure wins", if anyone cared enough to try, except they don't. No they wouldn't, the moment an Imperium fleet shows up to do anything about it, everyone would dogpile into the system and obliterate them. This is what has happened every time they've put up a defense fleet this war, which is why I don't understand why you're so shocked and appalled that they've stopped doing that. Ed: At the end of the day you've done well, you guys have set up a war you are sure to win and should be justifiably proud. But don't be surprised if the enemy chooses not to willingly feed you kills. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7486	Posted - 2016.04.19 21:12:55 - [68] - Quote Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: Do you know what you sound like right now? An EVE player? Brokk Witgenstein wrote: That's not what I heard in this thread. In fact, please allow me to quote some highlights: All that shows is that times change. Early on in the war the opinions were different but as it became rapidly apparent that it was a completely futile attempt the stance changed. Are you seriously suggesting because early on I had faith in our ability to push through that my opinion is never allowed to change no matter what the circumstance? Trudeaux Margaret wrote: DBRB taking out a few "sword fleets" on his Twitch stream hardly counts as seriously trying to defend, Lucas. And those aren't the only fleets that went out. That may be the case now because there's no point in sending out anything else. Noone sane throws away ships into a fight they can't possible win and can't even draw. There's simply no point in the Imperium fielding fleets at this point. That you guys seem to think that preserving their ships is against whatever e-honour bullshit you've made up is irrelevant. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7486	Posted - 2016.04.19 22:16:22 - [69] - Quote Mithandra wrote: Win lose draw, its content Then why do any players ever run from a fight? Why do people spend all day playing docking games rather than just losing their ships? Why do warp stabs, nullfied ships and cloaks even exist? Why don't people fill ships with plex and fly headlong into war targets scream "YAY CONTENT". People are all fine with running and hiding until it's their enemy doing it, then suddenly it's bad form. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7486	Posted - 2016.04.19 22:54:34 - [70] - Quote Isaac Armer wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: Then why do any players ever run from a fight? Why do people spend all day playing docking games rather than just losing their ships? Why do warp stabs, nullfied ships and cloaks even exist? Why don't people fill ships with plex and fly headlong into war targets scream "YAY CONTENT". People are all fine with running and hiding until it's their enemy doing it, then suddenly it's bad form. Because most people are carebears and incredibly risk averse. Yep, pretty much agreed, that's EVE. Why is it suddenly a problem now goons are doing it? The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7486	Posted - 2016.04.19 23:48:15 - [71] - Quote Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Docking up in the face of uncontrollable risk doesn't make you risk averse, whether you are a bee guy or someone else. It's just simply that people are not openly suicidal with their assets when they face a situation they correctly conclude they can't win. There are the rare 420blazeit types who just go for it anyway, but even they don't do that all the time. If you are faced with a level of risk you know you can't counter, avoiding that situation doesn't mean you are risk averse. It just means in that one particular encounter you weren't in a position to control it, either to make you stronger or to at least make the odds relatively even. There are a lot of players who undock when things are even'ish and take a risk. But what's the point undocking to just be hammered. That isn't fun for most people unless there is another motivating factor. But this stupid call of 'risk aversion' is silly. Goons have shown over and over that they aren't risk averse, so why all of a sudden are they now. They aren't. They have just correctly surmised they can't win certain engagements, so would prefer to save their ships rather than feed fun to the enemy. That seems a perfectly reasonable decision that most would make. Completely agree. Pandora Carrollon wrote: You either didn't understand the context of the comment or you just wanted to spin to get that response. I was speaking about your 'main' that's in the corp/alliance. If you have backup funds, you blast away like mad with the rest of your corp/alliance mates. If you lose, you only lose the money/assets they can see and what you have invested. So, in essence, you've lost as much as they have. If they are doing the same thing, you guys went down fighting but hey you lived to fight another day. No need to appear to retreat or surrender space. You fight at full power. You certainly can cut them as soon as you know you can't win... this is called a peace accord and it's how wars end. You make a deal and that's that. However, you also have to deal with the fallout of that. I both understood and had no intention of spinning. If you are keeping something back then you are not going 100%, and if you are keeping something back there's no reason not to keep more back when you know you will just lose anyway. I might buy 100 ships intent on going out and fighting, and after losing 50 ships realise that nothing I can do will allow me to win. I wouldn't then keep undocking the other 50 knowing full well I'd lose them, would I? I'd hold them back and rebuild until I had a chance. A peace accord is an agreement with the enemy over a fight. What goons are doing is retreating, which is a valid and widely used tactic. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7486	Posted - 2016.04.20 10:15:36 - [72] - Quote Geronimo McVain wrote: Look at Lucas complaining about IWI. 40000 members + renters and Goon can't match 1 guy with a gambling empire? Your real? If you take a closer look at the war chest of your members and not only on the corp chest IWI is a pauper! Of course they can't. Aside from IWI being able to rake in trillions legitimately, they can also shill out extra isk when they need it, and there's no way of stopping them. On the other hand, everything goons to to make isk can be stopped by their enemies. This is what happens when only one side has to play by the game mechanics and the other is free to use a third party application instead. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7486	Posted - 2016.04.20 11:09:57 - [73] - Quote Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Weren't some SMA members part of the IWI network? Isn't a theft by SMA of 300 Billion a big part of the motivation for IWI to fund the allies? Seems, if the bee guys and the broader Emporium want to now complain about IWI, then possibly they shouldn't have killed the golden goose. Then they could still be taking in that same ISK you are now complaining about. Apparently ok while SMA are slurping at the trough, but bad after they've shot themselves in the foot. Some SMA members helped build it. The "theft" was actually just a butthurt SMA player who tried to take back what he'd given to his corp and was denied that. After that IWI threatened to withhold isk SMA members were owed and SMA members who knew someone with access rights recovered it. It really doesn't matter who's getting the isk, it's bad for the game to have an untouchable income source either way. Even before this war I was of that opinion. Geronimo McVain wrote: Okay, does anyone have numbers how much IWI invested? IWI may be really rich but they don't have some ISK printing machine. They have to maintain their normal business so they have limits how much money they can spend on the war. They practically do. They have trillions and even through normal operation earn more than any alliance does. With shilling they have access to practically unlimited funds. This is why for a laugh they bought enough SP to cap a character. People are happy with it now because it's goons getting their teeth kicked in, but the reality is that IWI could afford to destroy any alliance in the game and there no way to actually attack them with in-game mechanics. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7486	Posted - 2016.04.20 15:28:25 - [74] - Quote Isaac Armer wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: This is what happens when only one side has to play by the game mechanics and the other is free to use a third party application instead. Playing the meta game is valid game mechanics. Goons tried to start a gambling site and failed. Accept that IWI beat them at that particular part of the very valid way of earning ISK and move on. But that's not "playing the meta game". That's like saying hitting the server with A DDOS is metagaming, it's ridiculous. It's just cheating, plain and simple. And IWI beat everyone. How can you move on knowing that one group of players have free reign to pick and choose who else gets to play because they use third party software to give them an uncounterable edge. I know you're too blinded by bias to get it, but consider that what they are doing is only good for you because it's goons they are hitting. They could very well do the same to any alliance and there'd equally be no way to stop them. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7487	Posted - 2016.04.20 22:16:21 - [75] - Quote Isaac Armer wrote: And now we're back to "anything that Lucas doesn't like/can't do with EVE is cheating" No, we're not, we're back to you saying it's fine that someone can earn trillions of isk with a third party program which they would not be able to earn without it. Isaac Armer wrote: Grow up. EVE literally wouldn't exist without third party software. Sure, but then it wouldn't exist if bots were able to run rampant either because they give an unfair advantage to the user. Isaac Armer wrote: Why do you think I'm biased? I'm not on either side of this war. I couldn't care less what the outcome is. I am 100% neutral, whereas you were forced to leave CFC because of this. Between the two of us you are the only one with any personal biases here. Because it's impossible for me to see a third party application which gives an advantage this great as fair, so for you to see it that way, it screams bias. Plus let's face it, your comments have hardly been without a hint of bias. There's also the whole "I must call then CFC" thing which pretty much guarantees it. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7487	Posted - 2016.04.20 22:20:07 - [76] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: Now we're getting somewhere. You do realise this is how many of us saw Goons too, right? (or any other big bloc for that matter -- the only thing keeping big blocs in check is the presence of other big blocs). Once we saw nobody could stand up to The Goon, we trod very carefully knowing that one group of players had free reign - and we moved on. The same problem will arise when all of a sudden, "PL can't be stopped!" ... except there is no entity that cannot be stopped. This war happening has greatly improved my faith in EvE, not diminished it. This IS moving on. Have faith that everything and everyone can be challenged. But that was only ever in-game mechanics. You chose not to attack because you thought the enemy too powerful. In the case of IWI, there is no way to fight it, since it's not in game. It's a third party application. Prt Scr wrote: He could stop paying today and it would make no difference, the blood is in the water, the feeding frenzy has started. When goons have lost all sov. there maybe a reduction in action and numbers against them, but if they want to go back to what they where a month ago....it just wont happen. As long as Mittens is in game as a hate figure they are truly screwed. It won't make a difference here but it certainly will for whatever target he chooses to remove from the game next. IWI have won EVE, so everyone else may as well not be here. It's not like any other players can actually be competitive against that. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7487	Posted - 2016.04.21 00:28:55 - [77] - Quote Trudeaux Margaret wrote: You know what, Lucas? It is fine. Why is it fine? It's fine because CCP allows it. When they decide it isn't fine, then it isn't fine. Until then, all your whining about it is just that, whining. And why do you think it is CCP makes decisions? Because players give feedback. I get it, I have an opinion that differs to yours, therefore you feel I should not be allowed to express that. I disagree. Isaac Armer wrote: Literally no major alliance could earn the trillions of ISK they do without out of game third party tools to manage their organizations. Your cherry picking is ridiculous Except it's not cherry picking, as previously detailed, it's simply prioritising. I'd happily be rid of all third party software, but I consider an application like IWI which allows a select group of people to make trillions of isk in a short space of time a considerable more unfair advantage than people using jabber for example. You seem to consider them equal which is fine. Ridiculous, but fine. Isaac Armer wrote: We aren't talking about bots. Stay on topic. No, we're talking about a different piece of third party software that has a similar - and in fact considerably more pronounced - effect of distorting the economic balance of players within the game. Isaac Armer wrote: So anyone who disagrees with your personal opinion is biased? That's not even remotely what I said, but feel free to keep smacking that strawman if it makes you feel better. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7489	Posted - 2016.04.21 07:46:59 - [78] - Quote Bleedingthrough wrote: You overrate the importance of ISK. Here is why you are wrong: No, you are just underestimating it. Yo claim people need a motivator, but isk can be that motivator. Any other rich player has a finite amount of isk and in-game methods of earnin it which can be affected by other players IWI has an effectively unlimited supply as cannot be affected by any in-game methods. That's the problem, it all comes down to whether there a way in game to attack the enemy. IWI uses third party software to earn their isk, so there's no way another player can stop them short of breaking some real life laws. Geronimo McVain wrote: Not everyone is a evil goon. I'm sure goons aren't the only people IWI don't like.They could kick out anyone they don't want, and there's nothing anyone could do to stop them. Geronimo McVain wrote: Lets face it: Most people are in because they want to hurt goons and the money is a nice extra. That might be the case now that momentum is going, but it's undeniable that this is happening because of the money. Geronimo McVain wrote: Second: I would bet that goons can match this amount of money, they had huge Sov, and renters etc for many years. So either Mitten spend it all for weed or the goons should easily match this money plus a lot more if you take a look at the personal warchest of goonmembers. Not a chance. Not only will the warchest definitely be smaller than what IWI have saved, but goon income can be (and is) attacked. Nothing IWI does to earn isk can be attacked, so they don't even need to spend from their saved cash they can happily spend their income. On the article they did with polygon one guy explains he is personally spending over a trillion a week and covering most of that with his weekly income. Geronimo McVain wrote: You are reminding me of some German soccers teams: When they win they are the best, when they loose it's the referees fault not their own short coming or that the other team was simply better. So please stop whinning about IWI, grab a ship, cash out you assets and even the odds: ingame! Even the former leader of Goon is leaving and will you accuse him to be afraid of IWIs Isk? Except of course that I complained about these casinos long before this war. All this war has done is emphasise the need to get rid of these casinos which I've wanted for years. There's no odds to even, IWI cannot be attacked and all the time that's the case they can just keep throwing ships into the mix. there's no way the Imperium will survive that. SMA are out of the war now and I'll give it a good go at helping them rebuild, but quite honestly failing that I'll just shut down all but a couple of accounts, move to highsec and just go back to casual ganking and a little trading to keep the lights on. No point in spending time in the rest of the game if CCP are allowing cheaters to run rampant. It's impossible to compete with players like that, so it should just not be attempted. That's not whining, that's reality. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7489	Posted - 2016.04.21 11:14:34 - [79] - Quote Darek Castigatus wrote: The problem with the 'IWIs ISk is the only reason this war is happening' narrative is it ignores the part where goons spent the best part of six years making people hate them enough to want to dogpile them if the chance arose. Take that away and what have you got? A bunch of mercs with no motivation beyond getting paid who stick rigidly to the contract then go home once its done, whereas what we have now is a group thats been motivated enough to blast through six whole regions of sov lasers and node fights and still has the will to make sure goons are ended before we declare things done. Taking LSV as an example, we had every reason to come and help kick the imperiums ass even before IWI offered us a share of the money. Most of LSV had been fightng the Imperium for almost a month before the IWI thing even broke so their Isk literally means nothing to us, IWI could give up tomorrow and we'd still be out there fleeting up killing goons and burning their stuff. This war in its most basic form is the imperium in general, and goons in particular, reaping what they've spent years sowing. Except if it wasn't to do with the ISK, there's no reason it wouldn't have already happened. You're seriously trying to suggest that people just so happened to get riled up enough to have this war just at the same time IWI started paying people just by sheer coincidence? Sister MaryElephant, go back to reddit or at the very least learn to troll a little better. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7489	Posted - 2016.04.21 12:31:35 - [80] - Quote Chandelin wrote: End of the day you have had it good and the wealth has poured in. But when you have to defend it its just a big failscade. I think we're still la while from a failscade. And personally I'm still up on isk compared to before the war. No sense into pouring isk into a war against a infinite revenue stream, rather pay for low cost, local entertainment. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7489	Posted - 2016.04.21 14:37:03 - [81] - Quote Trudeaux Margaret wrote: I agree, SMA has't totally failscaded, yet. http://evemaps.dotlan.net/alliance/SpaceMonkey's_Alliance But you just took a huge hit with the departure of Lisnave. We've taken a lot of hits, we'll press on though. Chandelin wrote: Wasn't specifically pointing the finger at SMA,. I guess I should have elaborated a bit more. What I meant was the loss of systems wide was a failscade. With relevance to the whole of the imperium. I think goons stated it was a tactical retreat and they managed to pull one back today which is good for them. At least out of this war you will know who your mates are and who the real ones are. Losing stuff in an of itself is not a failscade. A failscade is when negative actions trigger further negative actions and the ultimate loss of the alliance. At this point all of the alliances hit are working to survive rather than collapsing. Geronimo McVain wrote: Sorry, but would you sing the same tune if IWI was supporting goons? Would you agree with the defenders that it is unfair and the goons should stop? Goon lost BEFORE IWI joint the war against the low sec Corps. In the end: live with it. Goon may go down or not, I don't know. The real question is if they can go down with style. Just stop whining that it's all so unfair. Docking up doesn't count as style IMHO. I think that's what you would have told the everyone if IWI had supported goon and goon was winning. Sure I would, I had that opinion long before they were against goons while they were neutral and the same about all casinos that have existed including the goons one. It's their entire concept of the third party applications I disagree with, not their specific actions. The actions in this war have only convinced me even more that I was right to disagree with them in the first place. Jenn aSide wrote: http://eve-search.com/stats/thread/474913-1 Not surprising at all. Heh, winning again! The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7489	Posted - 2016.04.21 16:13:12 - [82] - Quote Isaac Armer wrote: So you're in favor of getting rid of all 3rd party voice comms, slack, message boards, hauling calculators, zkillboard, evemon, dotlan, not to mention every alliance's custom apps they use? Yes or no please. Yeah, I'm in favor of getting rid of anything that gives and advantage to varying degrees of benefit and availability. Something like voice comms or killboards I'm not going to argue too much with CCP about keeping, things like IWI i definitely will, and if CCP ever said "bots are fine" I'd quit before I accepted that decision. Isaac Armer wrote: You keep throwing around the term 'unfair' and I'm quickly learning 'unfair' to you translates to "anything I personally am unwilling or uninterested in doing in game" But that's not what it translates to, and I've said nothing to suggest it is. Your own preconceptions might make you read it that way but it's not. Like I said above, it's mainly down to two major factors for me, the degree of benefit gained and the availability of that benefit to the playerbase. Killboards for example I would consider to give a low benefit, as they only help make decisions, and they are open to all players, so they have a wide availability. 3rd party voice comms again are wide availability, and I'd say moderate to low benefit, as they only give a small improvement over in game voice comms in terms of coordination. Bots I would say are high benefit medium availability, since they are relatively easy to obtain and use if you have the knowledge and provide income far exceeding a normal player. IWI I would say is high benefit and low availability, since the isk gained is incredibly high, which the availability is pretty much limited to players who can write it themselves. A third factor I also consider but in a lesser way is potential for abuse. IWI can be used to mask RMT which makes it pretty risky to allow. There's also the problem of enforcement. Some applications like excel spreadsheets would be impossible for CCP to prevent the use of, so there has to be a reasonable expectation that CCP could actually prevent an applications use. Isaac Armer wrote: No we aren't. We're talking about an organization that earns 100% of their ISK by in-game bankers working in game to get donations. No botting, no software. Just people getting donations in game. Note I said "similar effect", not "similar method". The effect is very much similar. Isaac Armer wrote: That's 100% what you've been saying. It's been proven to you time and time again that you're cherry picking one 3rd party app that you don't like, while point-blank ignoring every other 3rd party app that benefits other groups. That's not just saying anyone who doesn't have your opinion is wrong, it's flat out hypocritical. But I'm not. As I've explained in depth above and in passing multiple times when you've thrown the same argument at me, I simply have priorities. not to mention that I've specifically stated two applications I believe should be removed rather quick, one is IWI, the other is eve-o preview, an application I use on a daily basis. It's not my fault if you aren't reading posts. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7489	Posted - 2016.04.21 16:57:21 - [83] - Quote Isaac Armer wrote: You haven't explained anything. You simply keep repeating "no fair, he's cheating!" Lol? I literally went into great detail as to why that's not the case. The fact that's you've simply dismissed that proves that you're wither so biased you can;t be bothered to read an opposing viewpoint or you are simply trolling. Isaac Armer wrote: I ask why you don't start a competing business to combat his and you never give a response. I give you a response every time. An out of game application should not be a requirement to remain competitive. Isaac Armer wrote: The fact that you think major alliances can make the trillions of ISK they do by holding the space they do without the benefit of anything out of game is simply moronic. And again, I never claimed that, you've simply made that up so you can oppose that argument rather than the real arguments I'm making. Isaac Armer wrote: I've read everything you have posted in response to me That is obviously not true. vOv The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7489	Posted - 2016.04.21 18:40:00 - [84] - Quote Isaac Armer wrote: /sigh. Out of game apps are required to remain competitive for literally any major alliance in EVE. Don't you ever wonder why literally every person on these forums disagrees with you? Everyone else must be wrong, not you, right? And they shouldn't be. You certainly shouldn't have to write software to remain competitive, which is what you are suggesting. Isaac Armer wrote: One more time Lukey. If out of game apps shouldn't be required to be competitive, then logically you will want to ban the slew of out of game apps that every single major alliance in the game uses to remain competitive. I know right? Which is why when you asked me that exact question I said yes. Once again, you're inability to read has nothing to do with me. Isaac "I can't be bothered to read opposibng arguments yet still have the nerve to claim they are wrong" Armer, everyone. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7489	Posted - 2016.04.21 19:53:21 - [85] - Quote Darek Castigatus wrote: Yes thats exactly what I'm saying, the only thing that had to happen was that the Imperium needed to show weakness, which they did when the viceroy program failed and again when LSV kicked them out of lowsec entirely. Look I dont doubt IWIs contributions have helped bring in a bunch of people who might otherwise have sat out the war but as soon as the blood hit the water something like this was going to happen, it was just a matter of when and how big. It might be the case that they would have wanted to, but without the isk to do so they may not have actually done it. The wya I see it, if a dude can afford a trillion a week to pay for mercs then no group is safe, and there's no in game means to fight back. Isaac Armer wrote: I respect that that's your opinion, but I disagree. A sandbox environment adds a lot of complexity making it a better game. You don't have to know how to write code. You just have to know how to leverage people in game who do. Sandboxes still have their boundaries. At the end of the day if it were fully open then there should be no rules. What people can do they should be able to, so bots should be fully allowed if your want a sandbox with no boundaries. Isaac Armer wrote: I hear what you're saying. I disagree with it. I would respect what you're saying more if you weren't cherry picking 3rd party software. Your stance is hypocritical, which is why I can't respect it. But I'm not cherry picking, I'm prioritising. Like I said, I'd be happy to see all third party software banned, but some I give more effort in fighting than others based on the impact they have. If anything you are the one with the hypocritical stance, since you're happy to have bots banned, but not happy to have IWI banned. Why is that? They are both third party software and both undeniably give an advantage. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7489	Posted - 2016.04.21 20:25:39 - [86] - Quote Isaac Armer wrote: I'm 100% convinced you don't listen to yourself when you talk now. Bots aren't people playing in game. IWI gains 100% of isk by player donations to other players actively at a keyboard in game. They haven't earned a red cent outside of the game. Market bots earn 100% of their isk by players buying and selling their items in game. Even mining bots collect only resources which are then sold. And in ALL of those cases - including IWI - the gaining of the income is increased over a normal player by the use of the third party application. Without the application IWI would not make that much isk. Isaac Armer wrote: since you seem to have a comprehension problem That means absolutely nothing coming from the player who has repeatedly argued against arguments I never made. Isaac Armer wrote: As long as it's a player making the ISK in game through in game means (which IWI is, given 100% of ISK trades hands by active players in game) there is no problem. Oh, you mean like ISBoxer did for example? Oh wait.. Hell, try to make an EVE bank which allows characters to transfer isk to each other and charge them an isk fee for it, see how quickly you get shut down. Isaac Armer wrote: Following your logic, we should ban people from paying ISK for putting together a google doc spreadsheet for an ore buyback program, which is just as ridiculous as what you're saying. Well since I've already agreed that all third party apps should be disallowed, that makes total sense. Again though the priority for their removal would be based on how much benefit they give and how available they are to other players, so I'd get rid of IWI before I get rid of ore buyback applications, but I'd get rid of ore buyback programs before I got rid of killboards for example. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7489	Posted - 2016.04.21 21:48:58 - [87] - Quote Isaac Armer wrote: stuff Whatever way you swing it they are all third party applications designed to facilitate increased income. Stop being such a hypocrite. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7489	Posted - 2016.04.22 09:08:29 - [88] - Quote Isaac Armer wrote: stuff You support some third party programs but not others, hypocrite. If you're going to completely ignore everything I say and keep stating the same BS, then I will too. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7489	Posted - 2016.04.22 11:41:02 - [89] - Quote Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Everyone has known this for a while. You completely ignore what others say and keep stating the same BS. Maybe now you've realized that you'll stop, but I doubt it. Except of course that's not what's happened at all. I read the questions, I give full answers, then people like Isaac completely ignore everything said and throw up another straw man. People like you then sit around chiming in with insults and memes. I'm up for a civil discussion, but apparently that's too difficult for many people on here. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7489	Posted - 2016.04.22 16:16:07 - [90] - Quote Isaac Armer wrote: stuff No, what's sad is that you feel you can completely fabricate my points of view then call me a hypocrite. You don;t actually want to bother reading posts so I'm not going to bother writing them, I'll just switch to your tactic. That's a fair point except for one thing, IWI have no reason to wardec anyone unless they specifically go out of their way to ** IWI off just like SMA did. Lenny only went ahead with the merc program because Eep and Ironbank said they would back him and why would they do that if he decided to dec someone who has done nothing to affect IWI in any way. Darek Castigatus wrote: That's a fair point except for one thing, IWI have no reason to wardec anyone unless they specifically go out of their way to IWI off just like SMA did. Lenny only went ahead with the merc program because Eep and Ironbank said they would back him and why would they do that if he decided to dec someone who has done nothing to affect IWI in any way. It's a game. Noone really has any reason to declare war against anyone, yet wars get declared. You're happy not fighting against having a third party application allowing someone to have an untouchable income stream, that's fine and I respect that opinion, but I can't agree with it. Darek Castigatus wrote:** Youve been obsessing so much over the fact they CAN do this thing that you've been ignoring the factors governing if they WOULD do that thing. I shouldnt have to say this but IWI is in the business of making money and its the height of bad business practice to go around blowing up your customers when that's your overall objective. There has to be an overwhelmingly good reason to go against their interests like that and outside of cases where people deliberately poke the bear I just dont see that happening. I doubt any single group contains a big enough portion of their customer base to be worth not attacking, not to mention that attacking their alliance doesn't necessarily mean the individual members stop using IWI. As they've stated about this war though, their activity has doubled by funding this war, meaning more income. That seems like a pretty good reason to me to do it again. Ed: and with the citadels release there's nothing stopping IWI pushing to hold the new Jita too. They have enough income from their third party application to pay mercs against half of eve if they have to until it's self sustaining, something not many other alliances would be capable of doing, as everyone else earns isk with in-game mechanics. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7490	Posted - 2016.04.22 17:48:38 - [91] - Quote Isaac Armer wrote: yet more stuff I do answer direct questions, you simply ignore the answer. Now stop being a hypocrite. Brokk Witgenstein wrote: I read your arguments, but I still don't believe ISK is the problem here. Solely focusing on PvE activities for years, ISK is pretty much the only thing you had (and still have) in spades. It was manned guns that lost the war, not empty wallets. That's great if we're talking about just this war, but we're not. It's easy to point at this war and say "all the other factors, etc, etc" but outside of this war it still doesn't change the fact that there's a third party application allowing the acquisition of a staggering amount of isk giving one set of players an advantage over players who are just playing EVE the way it's built. Brokk Witgenstein wrote: Please remember your posts reflect poorly on the Spacemonkey Alliance as a whole - whether you like it or not. Do you really need to display more weakness, more tears, more salt? Is it wise to invite more response from those who would farm you for lulz? vOv, couldn't care less, and if SMA care enough they can boot me. And if a bunch of 12 year old reddit posters want to sit around declaring opinions as salt and tears, they are welcome to do that too. At the end of the day I'm not going to change my opinion just because someone thinks fighting for balance is displaying weakness, and certainly not if their method of attacking that is in the form of overused memes rather than reasonable thought out counterpoints. Brokk Witgenstein wrote: In my humble opinion - and I may be off the mark here - but in my opinion, SMA needs time to regroup, recover from the blow and craft new plans. It is a time to lay low and bide your time to at some point later on emerge from the ashes and step into the spotlight of relevance. You are not doing your alliance a favour. Sure we do, and that's what we're doing. My posting doesn't affect the fact that we remain on friendly terms with the Imperium, and so it makes no difference as people will be paid to attack us until we don't exist or we set goons red. Quite honestly if someone is so upset by my posting they choose to continue an entire war against my alliance for it then I'm deeply honoured and take it as a reinforcement of my points. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7490	Posted - 2016.04.23 08:10:19 - [92] - Quote Josef Djugashvilis wrote: Dearest Lucas, if CCP had a problem with IWI they would deal with it, as this does not appear to be the case thus far, then IWI are perfectly entitled to fund anything they want to for any reason. CCP set the rules of the play-box, stop crying and deal with it. And I'm perfectly entitled to disagree. Nothing would ever change if people didn't push for change. Isaac Armer wrote: stuff You're yet to prove anything wrong, hell you're yet to even respond to most of my points, you just keep smacking those strawmen and being a hypocrite. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7491	Posted - 2016.04.24 08:15:56 - [93] - Quote I'm not sure who that is, why I should care or why you feel my ships are in a precarious position, and if I were to suddenly have a problem shipping my stuff I certainly have no idea why I'd send it all to a random forum alt. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7493	Posted - 2016.04.25 21:16:39 - [94] - Quote IWI totally legit. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7493	Posted - 2016.04.25 21:35:04 - [95] - Quote Isaac Armer wrote: Lucas Kell wrote: IWI totally legit. 12 people in IWI were accused of RMT, the entire site must not be legit. So if 12 people in SMA were accused of botting or RMT-ing, all of SMA should be called cheaters and banned, right Luke? People making ISK legitimately (like IWI) but then using it to RMT has always been ban-able. How is that news to you? Except the people banned were bankers, and as Nosy has gone into before, the're no real chance of having that number of people banned for RMT without it being systemwide RMT. If 12 SMA directors were caught RMTing, I'd find it hard to believe SMA weren't inherently an RMT alliance. At the end of the day this is now even more evidence that there's RMT within IWI, and drops it down to zero evidence that they aren't as their whole story was "well they got unbanned so they weren't". What exactly is it you require before you believe there's RMT there? And are you still trying to hold up this whole "I'm neutral, honest" thing? The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7493	Posted - 2016.04.25 22:07:14 - [96] - Quote Isaac Armer wrote: So basically what we have now is you couldn't prove to anyone that IWI has an 'unfair advantage' in making isk, and knowing you lost that fight you've turned to trying to pin RMT on an entire organization by the actions of a few line members? Do you ever give up on the spin and rhetoric? Your level of stubbornness indicates my father must be running your account. No, it's an undeniable fact that they gain an unfair advantage, and now in addition there's more evidence that they RMT (which you'll note is something else I've said all along). It's truly unbelievable that you can see this much against them, from reputable sources like Nosy no less, and still try to claim that you're defense of them is completely neutral. Judging by other people's comments elsewhere you might find your side is a pretty lonely place before too long. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7493	Posted - 2016.04.25 22:13:05 - [97] - Quote Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Why has this thread switched to talking about the multi-dollar media empire? Oh hang on....apparently it hasn't. OK, RMT away Emporium. Feel free to provide the evidence of TMC RMTing whenever you want to. I guarantee if you show verifiable evidence of that I'll be against them too. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7493	Posted - 2016.04.25 22:26:19 - [98] - Quote Isaac Armer wrote: "I gave my opinion that literally no one agrees with, so it's obviously an undeniable fact" You should be a US politician Lucas. You'd go far. No, it's an undeniable fact because having more isk is an advantage and without the IWI site they'd not be able to leverage the level of isk income they currently have. Just because a few vocal people with every reason to be against hat went "NOPE!" doesn't somehow disprove that. If anything most of the arguments you guys made was that it does provide an unfair advantage but other applications do too. Oh wait, yeah I forgot you didn't actually bother reading any of the previous posts so you pretty much are starting from scratch here. My bad, never mind. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7493	Posted - 2016.04.25 23:11:31 - [99] - Quote Shae Tadaruwa wrote: So this is just a straight double standards thing from you then? You post evidence of IWI RMT. You seem to be against them for it with no evidence. What individual bankers have been banned for is no different to what a number of indivual goons have also been banned for. Individuals actions don't equate to systemic processes, unless you apply that same standard to both organisations. Lol? So CCP's director of security saying that if it were up to him all 12 bankers would have been permabanned, that's not evidence enough? You literally just have you and other grr goons players stating "hurf blurf Emporium RMT". I mean hell, you haven't even given a good explanation of how they would RMT without being caught, because let's face it, you've not thought it out. This is why pretty much everything you say gets dismissed. At the end of the day though you can keep trying to stand by your ever diminishing group of IWI cheerleaders in denying it, but you can't deny the truth forever. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7493	Posted - 2016.04.25 23:13:06 - [100] - Quote Isaac Armer wrote: "someone disagrees with me, so obviously they didn't read what I wrote" Actually it wasn't the disagreement, it was that you were disagreeing with points I'd never made. This was also something explained to you which is again something you seem not to have read. Brokk Witgenstein wrote: I'm not a proficient forum warrior. Is there any way to hide replies quoting someone whose posts I've hidden? Once the lolfactor wears out it's getting old. Please advice. You could stop reading the thread, or just read the name before you read the post. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7493	Posted - 2016.04.25 23:57:07 - [101] - Quote Shae Tadaruwa wrote: If they had been RMTing, they would have been banned. That's the concrete evidence that is available. Except of course the director of security claiming that if he had it his way they would have been banned permanently and confirming they were involved in serious RMT. Shae Tadaruwa wrote: I'm not grrr gons. I quite like them. lol, good one. Complete BS, but good one. Shae Tadaruwa wrote: The only thing I dislike is the tears and whining now occurring because you've lost. Except that's not why, you can go back to long before this war even started to see I held the same opinions. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7493	Posted - 2016.04.26 00:42:25 - [102] - Quote Let's not start this thing where you just say "stuff" then a completely random troll post again. Just hush up until you think up a valid point. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7493	Posted - 2016.04.26 07:53:46 - [103] - Quote Josef Djugashvilis wrote: Lucas, if you have any evidence regarding wrong doing by IWI then present it to CCP. They will consider it and reach a decision which we all need to accept. Right now you just come across a sad, whinging loser on the wrong side of World War Bee. Perhaps you are persisting with this hopeless cause to say on the right side of the increasingly paranoid mittens? Read the link I've posted to Nosys blog. According to CCPs head of security, even when they do have evidence they don't act on it. And again these have been my opinions for a logn time, it has nothing to do with the Imperium. I know you guys find it impossible to separate personal opinion for the tag under someone's name, but most normal people don't. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7493	Posted - 2016.04.26 13:38:06 - [104] - Quote Reiisha wrote: I haven't read the entire thread to be honest, but i'm wondering what point you're trying to make. IWI's isk is funding 2 alliances, not all the 20+ in the MBC. The CFC has roughly the same amount of ISK as the entire MBC combined, but the people who control it don't feel like spending it. IWI was a catalyst to get events rolling, nothing more - If you think that IWI is the only thing that keeps the conflict going, i guess (ex) CFC line members have been brainwashed more than i thought. I don;t think the Imperium have anywhere close to the ongoing ISK coming in from IWI. And I don't think IWI stopping will stop the war, I don;t even think the funding of the war was a bad thing, it's very good and has created a huge amount of content. The problem I have is that a third party application is still being used to allow an enormous amount of income that would not be possible without it. Having anyone able to source that level of income using a method that can't be countered by in-game mechanics is a bad thing. Not to mention that IWI is almost guaranteed to be involved in RMT, which is now pretty much confirmed by CCP. Reiisha wrote: Any discussion about IWI has no relevance whatsoever on 'providing an advantage', as they provide very little of it if at all. ISK alone doesn't set up logistics chains, manufacturing locations, FC's, fleet members or even competence. If you believe that just having ISK provides any advantage whatsoever, look at CFC: All that isk, and they still have less space than a newbie alliance. Take ISBoxer or bots as examples. Those too allowed the collection of isk at a greater rate, and didn' set up logistics chains, manufacturing locations, FC's, fleet members or even competence. Yet they are deemed to be an unfair advantage because a normal player playing the game as it is would have no hope of competing with them. Just like no player using normal gameplay mechanics has any hope of competing with IWI. Isaac Armer wrote: You've repeatedly point-blank ignored the 3rd party apps that every major alliance uses to gain isk while condemning IWI. Except of course that I haven't. I specifically mentioned multiple other applications, I've answered your questions on them and explained exactly why I feel some are bigger problems than others. That's not ignoring them. If you choose to not bother reading that, your incredible failure to make a reasonable counterargument is entirely on you. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7493	Posted - 2016.04.26 14:09:42 - [105] - Quote Isaac Armer wrote: Right right, you casually dismissed them as 'not a big deal' so you could keep up your whining. Actually I gave in depth descriptions of why I think an application that is only available to a limited subset of players who can build it that allows you to rake in trillions of isk is more of an advantage than a slightly more configurable set of voice comms that are freely available to all. The funny thing is that the fact that you have no good counterarguments and keep spouting "but you don't want to ban teamspeak so IWI is not a problem" actually solidifies my argument. If my arguments were weak you'd have no problem finding actual counters without having to resort to strawman arguments and personal attacks. Brokk Witgenstein wrote: I don't. Either there is proof, or there is none. Post the proof and be done with it, or hold your peace. The proof is clear. Without their application IWI could not source the amount of ISK they do, and having trillions of isk rolling in is an undeniable advantage. Hell, even the people arguing against me aren't denying this, they are going down the route of "teamspeak also provides an advantage therefore IWI should not be banned unless TS is too" because they can't deny it and a desperate to find a counter. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7493	Posted - 2016.04.26 15:23:29 - [106] - Quote Prt Scr wrote: If you had actually meet and talked to the head of CCP's director of security you would know that the guy has a hard on for bans. If he had his way all RMT accounts would be banned (as is the applied rules), but he would also ban anyone who has done a contract or trade of any sort with a proven RMT and remove all articles made or sold by a banned RMT client no matter who now owns it or the way it was purchased.He would also remove the purchased isk no matter where it is. I personally am glad he does his job so well , but am also thankful that CCP does keep him on a short leach. Except he stated that the RMT they had been involved in was serious. ther rules state that anyone selling ISK does receive a permaban, and all isk related to it is removed even if it is passed on to an unconnected third party, that's all normal every day business. Why this wasn't applied in this case is yet to be seen. Prt Scr wrote: I suspect though CCP will never conferm or deny that the 12 bankers probably had isk deposits from people who used RMT to gain the isk to gamble. This in itself is a ban-able offence if ccp deem it to be them trying to hide that they bought 'illegal RMT isk' and tried to hide it. It's just the same if i bought a **** ton of isk from a RMT and then transferred it to you....when i am banned, so would you be for investigation. But that's not what anyone would be likely to classify as "serious" RMT. You're seriously trying to claim that the director of CCPs security counts unknowing third parties to RMT as involved in "serious" RMT deserving of a permaban? Gonna need you to cite a source on that one buddy. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7493	Posted - 2016.04.26 15:41:12 - [107] - Quote Reiisha wrote: You may want to revise those thoughts. CFC has a LOT more than 3-4T a week coming in. Maybe less now, but quite a bit more before the war started. If you really think the war coffers must be empty by now... Yeah, you don't basically AFK/multibox farm 4+ regions for 4+ years straight without having something to show for it. Are you talking the actual CFC itself or individual members combined income? Because I have no issue believing that most nullsec ratters make 100m/week, but if you're suggesting the Imperium itself pulls in 4T per week after losses from taxes and moon goo, you're crazy. And bear in mind as a comparison one banker from IWI is paying out a trillion a week and most of that is being covered by his income. That's one player. You are also missing the point that CFC income is finite ant attackable. People are able to fly around destroying goons income. It's impossible to fly around and destroy IWI, since it's a third party application, not an in-game mechanic. At the end of the day this has nothing to do with the Imperium specifically, it's to do with a third party application allowing a small number of players to outperform thousands of players with no ability to be countered. You're happy now because it's the Imperium being hit, but they could outclass any alliance they wanted to. We may as well congratulate them on their Palatine Keepstar now. Reiisha wrote: Again, you're trying to make it seem like IWI is the lynchpin of why CFC is being attacked right now. They are not. They were the catalyst, as i said, but nothing more. That said, you seem to be under the delusion that the CFC was playing 'fairly' all this time. Or do you really believe no one was exploiting the **** out of being able to rat/pve however much they wanted without being interrupted at all all this time up north? No, I'm not. I'm specifically avoiding that because like I said multiple times this isn't about a single conflict, this has been an issue for a long time and will continue to be long after the Imperium is dead. Your concept of what is "fair" appears to be pretty broken here, since you seem to think taking and defending space then utilising it is unfair. Strangely, you seem to have no problem with the Russian groups who have done this far far far more than Imperium groups have. Reiisha wrote: Then why are you making such a huge fuss about IWI? They don't matter squat in the grand scheme of things, especially as others (a lot of whom are CFC members) are just as 'guilty' of doing the same things. Because it's a third party application being used to gain an massive advantage. And guilty of what exactly? People like you tend to do this a lot, banging on about how guilty the Imperium are, then providing absolutely no examples of what it is they are doing. Probably because when you start writing it down you suddenly realise they are just players on an opposing team. You also seem to be unaware that I'm not an Imperium member. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7493	Posted - 2016.04.26 15:46:24 - [108] - Quote Josef Djugashvilis wrote: If proof is given to CCP then they will take the appropriate action as they see fit. Apparently what CCP see fit is to let them slide even though they now confirm that they were involved in serious RMT. And mate, the forums are for us to voice our pinions. I get you don't agree with my opinions and you have some issues with allowing other people to have opinions you don't share, but that won't stop me voicing them as loudly as it takes for CCP to take notice. And Isaac, shush now. If you are going to try to troll, at least get a little better at it. Unless you start bring up a valid counterpoints (which I highly doubt will happen) I'm pretty much going to skip over your posts since feeding you really is going nowhere. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7493	Posted - 2016.04.26 17:41:40 - [109] - Quote Josef Djugashvilis wrote: Dear Lucas, you have voiced your opinion, which is fine and dandy, but you have been repeating the same (complaint - whinge - delete as appropriate) for quite some time, to no avail. Supply CCP with actionable proof or give it a rest. They've had proof, and they've now admitted to basically ignoring it. So back to voicing opinions. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7495	Posted - 2016.04.26 23:02:34 - [110] - Quote Reiisha wrote: You're veering away from the point - Again. You keep harping on about IWI, but it's crystal clear that that's not the actual problem. The CFC is being attacked, and is currently on the losing side, which is what the thread is about. IWI was brought up as a reason why it's happening, and how this is unfair. Then it was about 'how IWI is bad for the game' to divert attention away from the actual issue. Except of course that I had the same issues with all of these gambling sites long before this war. I'm not veerign away from anything, you just can't deal with the idea that someone might have a problem with IWI without it being related to the current war. But that's your problem to deal with. Reiisha wrote: The problem is, it DOES have to do with the CFC. Otherwise you would never have brought it up in the first place. Incorrect. Feel free to go back and check. Reiisha wrote: IWI does not have any space you know. CFC did. Exactly. IWI has no space, no in space assets and no reason to undock. Everything they make is through a third party application and so they cannot be attacked the same ways every other alliance can. Reiisha wrote: because "we're not here to ruin the game, we're here to ruin your game". Good lord you guys need to stop crying about that saying. All that means is the same thing every competitive group means, that they will aim to win and aim for you to lose and failing that aim for you not to have the luxury of a victory. Hell, even CCP have gone with that "Build Your Dreams, Wreck Their Dreams" thing. Reiisha wrote: To name just one basic example: Can you say you've never used EFT? Or are you going to try and find arguments for why 'that doesn't count'? How about the countless corp and alliance tools that help manage any massive organization in the game? POS timer tools? For crying out loud, Microsoft Excel falls in that category and should obviously be banned, right? A lot of tools exist that help you maximize your ISK earning potential, maybe this one just sits closer to the metal than most. Of course I have and like I said last time I was asked the question, I'd be happy to see all third party tools banned. But I prioritises ones that I feel have more impact or less availability. IWI is only available to people who can write an application of that level, and it rakes in trillions of isk. EFT is available to everyone and it helps you fit a ship. You can't honestly say you believe the advantage gained from EFT is on par with the advantage from IWI. "In fact, this whole thing started because the SMA was screwing around with IWI, to take advantage of their system and stealing their stuff." You should probably check your facts. One of the IWI bankers was stealing from SMA, got mad when he got outplayed when he tried to have his stolen stuff shipped out after he was booted. From there IWI backed him demanding SMA pay him out or they would withhold ISK SMA had within IWI. That's when SMA took what they could. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7495	Posted - 2016.04.26 23:08:45 - [111] - Quote Jade Krendraven wrote: You know I honestly thought the guy was just some random troll when he came to /r/eve and tried to spin Mittani into some defenseless victim of cyber-bullying I never said he was a helpless victim, I simply pointed out how much of a hypocrite you are for getting on your high horse while simultaneously supporting personal attacks on a player. And as if to prove my point you just show up here to insult me. Good times. Have you considered trying to have civil discussions at all? The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 7592	Posted - 2016.04.27 14:07:40 - [112] - Quote Reiisha wrote: Either you are spinning hard and are a mittens alt or you really did fall into the pit and are clinging desperately to your dignity... I feel for you man, i really do. Nope, I just happen to source my information from more than just reddit. Being there first hand helps a bit too. And why would mittens spin about SMA? It would benefit him more to go with the reddit line on it to distance himself from the reasons the war started and to an extent he already did that on one of the SOTGs. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

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.