(ISK) efficiency.
If an alliance can afford to loose 200 hundred ships to get a territory, they won't stop for a second to think "hey, my enemy could get this territory with 150 ships, they are more efficient, I should give it to them without a fight" or something like this.

Pretty sure unless you kill off their means of making a living, isk destroyed doesn't mean *that* much. You can kill a russians multi-billion isk officer/faction fit tengu and they'll be seen with the same tengu the next day (which isn't exactly a bad thing... )

"ISK efficiency" is meaningless on the current kb's but it's because they don't actually calculate isk efficiency. Simple example: I engage a single pilot in a BC 10 times in a row and kill him 9 times out of 10. I have a ~90% isk efficiency for doing so while that pilot has a ~10% isk efficiency. But then he goes out to null, whores onto a SC kill with a rifter (which also dies) and suddenly has 99.999% "isk efficiency." You tell me which is actually the more efficient player. None of the major kb's currently divide isk values by the number of people on the km. As such, none of them give anything even approaching a real isk efficiency.

And of course you're right, it doesn't necessarily reflect the fun factor. I've been known to suicide a fair number of ships for lols. It's not about winning, it's about seeing how many of the bastards you can take down with you.

So what you are saying is killmails should be removed from the game.

I approve of this message and/or service.

You are looking at it from one perspective only.

Lets say I am a soloer (oh I am!) and I want to fight unrelenting waves of bads (oh thats the majority of EvE).

I can't expect to engage them on any kind of 'fair' or 'even' terms but what I CAN do is engage larger numbers and win by destroying more of their resources than I myself lose.

How do I do this? WINNING THE ISK WAR WHILE BEING SUPER RENEGADE AND ENGAGING LARGER FLEETS OF BADS.

If I jump in like a suicidal maniac and take down a single tech II cruiser in the time it takes them to kill my own BC or whatever then not only have I won on ISK but I have thrown sand in the face of morons that think all PVP combat has to be done with the intention of staying alive & safe. RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!

I know I am approaching this from an individuals perspective but not everything in PVP has to be about gaining territory.

For all its fault's I think Battleclinic's scoring is the most indicative of general skill, primarily because it factors in fleet size.

Now, back to the OP.
War, you see, is about not just tactical victories but strategic victories. On killboards, every so often, you will see people put up campaigns. This records the kills and losses versus an enemy, for an objective or a set time or in a set corner of space. There is also then an ability to calculate the ISK efficiency of said campaign.

For instance, my alliance decided to remove Banderlogs from its rental system. We went in, shot the place up, dealt 120 kills for 2 or so losses (plus a few blues). ISK efficiency 95%. Kill to death ratio, as above. One may call this a success.

SniggWaffe has been trolling us for the past week with a POS in a strategic system that risks throwing our region open to BLOPs gangs, hotdrops and things that make our carebears cry in their picnic baskets. Currently the campaign has seen us destroy their POS and guns, 70-odd ships including their POS-dropping Nomad (luls, farked that up PL) and generally deny them from having an easy time of it. 80% ISK efficiency and a 2.5:1 kill to loss ratio....and ongoing.

At some point, SniggWaffe's PL overlords will get sick of diverting tech goo income towards this operation, and will either front in their supers and whup us, or they will decide that SniggWaffe sucks ass and pull the pin.

An 80% ISK efficiency and a good K:L ratio on our side doesn't mean we will stop them coming and trying, it just means that whoever is paying for the war is going to have to keep digging deeper for longer to fund our GF's.

ISK loss, as pointed out, equates to time or the time-value of money (hence why some killboards track real money equivalence). I killed a 5B Mach + pod the other day - nominally US$100 some russian guy may have spent if he had bought PLEX. Knowing Russians, he probably didn't buy PLEX, so who cares? Well, certainly if he had been ratting like a boss at 50M/hr he spent 100 game hours to afford that ship, which he lost to a Taranis which fell out of a POS in a wormhole 12 months ago. Who won that time-money battle? Me.

I look at ISK efficiency as a measure of the amount of time I made someone mine, haul moon goo or shoot red crosses, versus the amount of time I had to haul crap for market PVP. I am generally 95% ISK efficient, because I sure as hell haven't ratted for 100 hours in the past 12 months.

.. then not only have I won on ISK ...

Large ISK generating groups such as alliances have what you might call an absolute advantage (being able to field 200 ships/hold sov etc.). It would be stupid for them not to take advantage of their advantage, otherwise it wouldn't be an advantage. ISK efficiency is a comparative advantage, and in the long run, if you allow your opponent to keep that advantage, you will be jeopardizing your absolute advantage. To be ISK efficient is a way to maintain absolute advantage (and minimize absolute disadvantage) by denying your opponents comparative advantage.

ISK efficiency is essentially the same thing as time efficiency. No matter how quickly a player or corporation generates ISK, it still requires a measurable investment in time to do so, however much or little that may be. Of course, every player and organization will earn ISK at different rates, but the average for a large group such as an alliance will be comparable to other similar sized groups within a few percent.

The main threat to alliances are other alliances who will have comparable time efficiency profiles. Blob fighting is where this is really important because even the best officer fit **** boats can expect to last a few seconds once they're primaried even if the opposing fleet is completely T1 and failfit. Long story short, being ISK inefficient in the long run is actually handing an advantage to the enemy.

Don't confuse the battle for the war.

No you haven't. You lost ISK, they lost more. A typical lose-lose situation.

...
But we don't know who has more money, who makes money faster let alone who cares more about money in the first place, so efficiency is a kinda worthless quotient in my opinion.
...

None of the major kb's currently divide isk values by the number of people on the km. As such, none of them give anything even approaching a real isk efficiency.

He didn't say he won ISK you fool.