Originally by: Kaldaine

---

Originally by: JeanPaul Sartre

---

Originally by: Taraken

---

Originally by: Red Desire

---

Look at me I'm laughing - ha ha - we all laughing - ha ha - we all play this game to loose capital ships and conquer stations - ha ha -
We are so special, we laugh when we loose stuff hahahaha ... actually guys, you're quite pathetic in trying to turn this major loss and keep your morale up.
OMG i'm laughing, check my avatar his laughing also !!! My dog is laughing also lol lol

---

Bitter? Time to turn off the computer and have a walk?

On the other hand i see a classic Russian WWII tactic here. Guess all those millions dead didn't matter but they still raised the flag in Berlin at the end.

But yeah the only important thing at the end of the day is that you guys are having fun doing all this pew pew...

---

Excellent post. Didnt the Americans win WW2 tho?

---

The US defeated the combined French and Russian forces at the battle of Thermopylae, driving them back into Africa from where they came.

---

Originally by: Barthezz

---

From what I read this was indeed a lag-victory, I wont go into what produced the lag as its counter productive.

---

Originally by: thoth foc

---

Originally by: Barthezz

---

From what I read this was indeed a lag-victory, I wont go into what produced the lag as its counter productive.

---

It's not likely to be the 2 large fleets fighting, that would never cause lag...

---

Originally by: thoth foc

---

Originally by: Barthezz

---

From what I read this was indeed a lag-victory, I wont go into what produced the lag as its counter productive.

---

It's not likely to be the 2 large fleets fighting, that would never cause lag...

---

Originally by: Skye Cloud

---

Originally by: thoth foc

---

Originally by: Barthezz

---

From what I read this was indeed a lag-victory, I wont go into what produced the lag as its counter productive.

---

It's not likely to be the 2 large fleets fighting, that would never cause lag...

---

hello,

i think the overall point that is trying to be made here is that -

yes taking lots of people to battle causes lag

but

taking just carrier/mom/drone ships to the lag battle is best as they keep shooting disregarding lagging of players etc

---

Originally by: thoth foc

---

That may be the overall point of the post, it doesent make it correct or particularly relevant.. fleet fights lag without fighters, moms and carriers just as much..

lag exists because of blobs which is a game design and architecture issue.. at the minute lag is the only discouragement to blobbing until the nodes explode..

Maybe you are too new to remember the last drone nerf.. fleet fights lagged again within weeks of it.. until blobbing is discouraged again fleet numbers will easily keep up with whatever minor hardware/software changes are made..

---

Originally by: Barthezz

---

Dont people get that currently if you look at (for example) RSF vs McBob 's capital fleets your looking at way over 80 capitals on each side (max turnout).

That the capital fleet on each side will usually bring four times as many support (if not more), that the state of the server does not allow you to fight those numbers with the tools that eve gives us. That this issue increases each month where more and more people on each side get into capitals.

I dont see how CCP can honestly expect true alliance warfare to happen in eve if something isnt done. Yesterday McBob was in fat taking down pos's on a 'skeleton crew' (as they put it) which was 3-5 MS, 15 or so carriers and 10-20 dreads (and about 100-150 in local).

How on earth can you combat those numbers of capitals without completely and utterly lagging out a node? In most cases the fleet that jumps in / warps in is worst off, so a stand-off usually occurs.

If anything, mad props for RSF to jump into ZID, I probably wouldnt have made that call if I was FC and this is the second time they have done it.

But I would really like all alliances which are facing the lag issue to stand up to CCP and tell them they should fix the bloody game instead of adding 20 more battleships. Lag is ruining a great part of eve.

---

Originally by: Diehard Si

---

Goons were filling up 2-r with the usual t1 frigs etc to try and cause a lag fest for when we jumped in.

We didn't.

Goons then decided to attack us ( we were not actually setup for camping, people were trying to get out of the incoming doomsday).


We won.

On the day it was smart leadership from BOB and complete folly from Goons.... so nothing new there then.

If there had been less lag then the superior firepower of allied forces would of prob shone through anyway as the goons cheap ships got popped off.

---

Originally by: Diehard Si

---

Goons were filling up 2-r with the usual t1 frigs etc to try and cause a lag fest for when we jumped in.

We didn't.

Goons then decided to attack us ( we were not actually setup for camping, people were trying to get out of the incoming doomsday).

We won.

On the day it was smart leadership from BOB and complete folly from Goons.... so nothing new there then.

If there had been less lag then the superior firepower of allied forces would of prob shone through anyway as the goons cheap ships got popped off.

---

Originally by: Diehard Si

---

Goons were filling up 2-r with the usual t1 frigs etc to try and cause a lag fest for when we jumped in.

We didn't.

Goons then decided to attack us ( we were not actually setup for camping, people were trying to get out of the incoming doomsday).

We won.

On the day it was smart leadership from BOB and complete folly from Goons.... so nothing new there then.

If there had been less lag then the superior firepower of allied forces would of prob shone through anyway as the goons cheap ships got popped off.

---

Originally by: Ambre Blanche

---

Originally by: Barthezz

---

Dont people get that currently if you look at (for example) RSF vs McBob 's capital fleets your looking at way over 80 capitals on each side (max turnout).

That the capital fleet on each side will usually bring four times as many support (if not more), that the state of the server does not allow you to fight those numbers with the tools that eve gives us. That this issue increases each month where more and more people on each side get into capitals.

I dont see how CCP can honestly expect true alliance warfare to happen in eve if something isnt done. Yesterday McBob was in fat taking down pos's on a 'skeleton crew' (as they put it) which was 3-5 MS, 15 or so carriers and 10-20 dreads (and about 100-150 in local).

How on earth can you combat those numbers of capitals without completely and utterly lagging out a node? In most cases the fleet that jumps in / warps in is worst off, so a stand-off usually occurs.

If anything, mad props for RSF to jump into ZID, I probably wouldnt have made that call if I was FC and this is the second time they have done it.

But I would really like all alliances which are facing the lag issue to stand up to CCP and tell them they should fix the bloody game instead of adding 20 more battleships. Lag is ruining a great part of eve.

---

Couldn't say it better. As long as CCP is desilusional about the fact they HAVE to limit the amount of ships that can fight in a single system, we will see this kind of sucky "victory" more and more. Why do you think Blizzard limited it's larger PvP Battleground to 80 people max? Because we are paying to have fun! So do something now CCP and stop to bull**** old and new players alike with your "Need for Speed Initiative" :(

Thank you,
Ambre.

---

Originally by: Diehard Si

---

Goons were filling up 2-r with the usual t1 frigs etc to try and cause a lag fest for when we jumped in.

We didn't.

Goons then decided to attack us ( we were not actually setup for camping, people were trying to get out of the incoming doomsday).

We won.

On the day it was smart leadership from BOB and complete folly from Goons.... so nothing new there then.

If there had been less lag then the superior firepower of allied forces would of prob shone through anyway as the goons cheap ships got popped off.

---

Originally by: corporal hicks

---

Originally by: Ambre Blanche

---

Originally by: Barthezz

---

Dont people get that currently if you look at (for example) RSF vs McBob 's capital fleets your looking at way over 80 capitals on each side (max turnout).

That the capital fleet on each side will usually bring four times as many support (if not more), that the state of the server does not allow you to fight those numbers with the tools that eve gives us. That this issue increases each month where more and more people on each side get into capitals.

I dont see how CCP can honestly expect true alliance warfare to happen in eve if something isnt done. Yesterday McBob was in fat taking down pos's on a 'skeleton crew' (as they put it) which was 3-5 MS, 15 or so carriers and 10-20 dreads (and about 100-150 in local).

How on earth can you combat those numbers of capitals without completely and utterly lagging out a node? In most cases the fleet that jumps in / warps in is worst off, so a stand-off usually occurs.

If anything, mad props for RSF to jump into ZID, I probably wouldnt have made that call if I was FC and this is the second time they have done it.

But I would really like all alliances which are facing the lag issue to stand up to CCP and tell them they should fix the bloody game instead of adding 20 more battleships. Lag is ruining a great part of eve.

---

Couldn't say it better. As long as CCP is desilusional about the fact they HAVE to limit the amount of ships that can fight in a single system, we will see this kind of sucky "victory" more and more. Why do you think Blizzard limited it's larger PvP Battleground to 80 people max? Because we are paying to have fun! So do something now CCP and stop to bull**** old and new players alike with your "Need for Speed Initiative" :(

Thank you,
Ambre.

---

While a interesting idea that might stop the lag blobs it would also cause more whining and grief as say a limit of 100 ships in system is implemented as long as a hostile alliance has a 75% majority of ships in system it will be very hard to combat them. and they can rotate pilots in and out and keep the system locked down totally.

Also Alliance mining operations would be very hard to distrupt by enemies with a alliance just needing to make sure it has 100 people in the system to make there ops invunrable to attack.

There is no easy solution, alliance v Alliance warfare needs dreads to take down the pos, dreads need carriers in support and carriers and dreads need battleships/cruisers/frigs ect in support so work the numbers.

so really no point complaining about things, its up to the players themselves, the enemy has 50 in system ok lets bring 50-60 and fight them..err no wait lets bring 300 and fight, great idea anyone for a slideshow?

---

Originally by: Malachon Draco

---

Originally by: corporal hicks

---

Originally by: Ambre Blanche

---

Originally by: Barthezz

---

Dont people get that currently if you look at (for example) RSF vs McBob 's capital fleets your looking at way over 80 capitals on each side (max turnout).

That the capital fleet on each side will usually bring four times as many support (if not more), that the state of the server does not allow you to fight those numbers with the tools that eve gives us. That this issue increases each month where more and more people on each side get into capitals.

I dont see how CCP can honestly expect true alliance warfare to happen in eve if something isnt done. Yesterday McBob was in fat taking down pos's on a 'skeleton crew' (as they put it) which was 3-5 MS, 15 or so carriers and 10-20 dreads (and about 100-150 in local).

How on earth can you combat those numbers of capitals without completely and utterly lagging out a node? In most cases the fleet that jumps in / warps in is worst off, so a stand-off usually occurs.

If anything, mad props for RSF to jump into ZID, I probably wouldnt have made that call if I was FC and this is the second time they have done it.

But I would really like all alliances which are facing the lag issue to stand up to CCP and tell them they should fix the bloody game instead of adding 20 more battleships. Lag is ruining a great part of eve.

---

Couldn't say it better. As long as CCP is desilusional about the fact they HAVE to limit the amount of ships that can fight in a single system, we will see this kind of sucky "victory" more and more. Why do you think Blizzard limited it's larger PvP Battleground to 80 people max? Because we are paying to have fun! So do something now CCP and stop to bull**** old and new players alike with your "Need for Speed Initiative" :(

Thank you,
Ambre.

---

While a interesting idea that might stop the lag blobs it would also cause more whining and grief as say a limit of 100 ships in system is implemented as long as a hostile alliance has a 75% majority of ships in system it will be very hard to combat them. and they can rotate pilots in and out and keep the system locked down totally.

Also Alliance mining operations would be very hard to distrupt by enemies with a alliance just needing to make sure it has 100 people in the system to make there ops invunrable to attack.

There is no easy solution, alliance v Alliance warfare needs dreads to take down the pos, dreads need carriers in support and carriers and dreads need battleships/cruisers/frigs ect in support so work the numbers.

so really no point complaining about things, its up to the players themselves, the enemy has 50 in system ok lets bring 50-60 and fight them..err no wait lets bring 300 and fight, great idea anyone for a slideshow?

---

The whole lynchpin of sovereignty warfare is the POS. Change that and the whole dynamic of war changes. Do it right and you can even reduce blobs IMO.

The whole concept of blobs and sovereignty was introduced to prevent station pingpong. What if we stopped making POS the one determining factor in sovereignty, and introduce a system where actual USE of a system is a much greater factor in sovereignty.

---

Originally by: Nlewis

---

How though? I fully support changing the dynamics of sov warfare but they are going to have to come up with a pretty ****in original idea. Just sitting here thinking of ways they could change it, I have no idea whatsoever. it is going to be a long long time until pos warfare is over

---

Originally by: Cringeley

---

Originally by: Darcuese

---

The best part is that even along the RA and rest of your friends you still keep losing battles over and over, even though most of your chars have enough SP (at this time) to properly run BS or even capitals, you have more then enough numbers, etc,etc. And since majority of simple pilots play this game for pure PvP, it put smiles on our faces over and over again.

Props to acomplishing your objective though

---

Remember when ATUK had its own empire?

---

Originally by: Cupdeez

---

We are on rotation. Goons loose some capships big deal cause the other alliances in the fight still have some.

Maybe CA will be the next alliance in the bunch to lose come capital ships to BOB. Then we can rotate to IAC, TCF, and then possibly to RA.

We all love to share!!

---

Originally by: Taj Zela

---

Originally by: Cringeley

---

Originally by: Darcuese

---

The best part is that even along the RA and rest of your friends you still keep losing battles over and over, even though most of your chars have enough SP (at this time) to properly run BS or even capitals, you have more then enough numbers, etc,etc. And since majority of simple pilots play this game for pure PvP, it put smiles on our faces over and over again.

Props to acomplishing your objective though

---

Remember when ATUK had its own empire?

---

Remember when goon fleet had its OWN empire?

Oh wait, it belonged to serpentis.

---

Originally by: Tayler Derden

---

we have balls to jump into hostile camp even if we all can die
bob dont have balls to do it
its all.

---

Originally by: violator2k5

---

Originally by: Tayler Derden

---

we have balls to jump into hostile camp even if we all can die
bob dont have balls to do it
its all.

---

i believe you need to get a recap of the situation instead of making stupid comments like that. We jumped into 9-9 several times when Goons + whoever else were there with the majority of the gates bubbled up while maintaining larger numbers then that of our fleet and also using the fighter swarm too.

anyway shouldnt you be in your cov-ops ship looking for more 10/10's

cant say much about the fight that happened in ZID as i was away RL n all that, but with the amount of cap's lost im wondering how many more cap's can RSF keep chucking into the field if a few more battles like this happens

---

Originally by: violator2k5

---

Originally by: Tayler Derden

---

we have balls to jump into hostile camp even if we all can die
bob dont have balls to do it
its all.

---

i believe you need to get a recap of the situation instead of making stupid comments like that. We jumped into 9-9 several times when Goons + whoever else were there with the majority of the gates bubbled up while maintaining larger numbers then that of our fleet and also using the fighter swarm too.

anyway shouldnt you be in your cov-ops ship looking for more 10/10's

cant say much about the fight that happened in ZID as i was away RL n all that, but with the amount of cap's lost im wondering how many more cap's can RSF keep chucking into the field if a few more battles like this happens

---

Originally by: violator2k5

---

cant say much about the fight that happened in ZID as i was away RL n all that, but with the amount of cap's lost im wondering how many more cap's can RSF keep chucking into the field if a few more battles like this happens

---

Originally by: Niraco79

---

As i see again the debate about blobs and lag and i actually love big fleets battes, but i hate slideshows (yes somehow i still think a 100 vs 100 is still a large battle) i will write my crazy idea about sov changes.

As i see, all that need to change is the imposed objectives of the battle. In actual system u need to get sov on the target system, putting the towers into reinforced, killing them, onlining your own towers.

What about if instead on this u could actually target an outpost and conquer if u reinforce and destroy a certain number of towers in several target sytems. Each outpost should have let`s say 5 POS`es with a module called "Outpost Power core" (or something more cool if u think of it). U cannot online more than one of each module/system/outpost(but u can have more modules in one system for different outposts). These towers have a low stront bay let`s say max 24 hours, and must kill 4/5 in a certain time frame.

That will ensure a continuous battle in several systems, with multiple engagements, no trench warfare (as the defenders cannot blob only one system cause the attacked have the chance to take the outpost with the 4/5 condition). If this system would be doubled witha server node architecture that will put these systems on different nodes (like one outpost sov pos system/node) we will see more lag free battles.

Even is just an idea, vrey rough and probably with a lot of flaws and not balanced, i still would like to see your oppinion.

---

Originally by: NATMav

---

Originally by: Niraco79

---

my stuff.

---

Meh. There's an easy fix. Make it harder to repair stations. If you pull everyone out of your home systems to go invade some space you don't need or really want, there should be a penalty for not having anyone around to defend. If someone takes out your station services, it should be significant, not a small job for a couple of carriers. If someone can sit outside your station for a couple of hours shooting services, you should probably be more focused on securing your own space, rather than attempting to claim "all of 0.0"

---