New Era for Aideron Robotics

As part of the development of Fortress Fliet, my corporation of the last four years Aideron Robotics has been working more closely with other Gallente Militia groups that invested in the system in light of the winter assault by the Caldari Militia led by Scylus Black and his band of fiends (vote Scylus Black for CSM 2017).

One group in particular, Mecha Enterprises Fleet corporation (ticker: XMETA), a long time militia partner turned out to work extremely well with us and relations developed beyond the previous cooperation. Thus it was decided to officially recognize our stronger relationship by forming a new alliance.

Introducing Federation Uprising (ticker: FEDUP):

This represents a new era for Aideron Robotics and I look forward to the challenges and rewards of working more closely with our new allies.

So That's What You're Going With

I do not claim to speak on many things authoritatively but Warhammer 40K is something that I feel I'm qualified to speak to. After all, at one point in time I was obsessed with the game and its universe to the point of owning three massive armies of miniatures (Eldar, Chaos Marines, and Lost and the Damned), as well as a Battlefleet Gothic chaos fleet and Epic Chaos Marine army. I spent over 15 years deep in the hobby and lore behind it, wrote tomes of fan fiction and bought almost every publication I could get my hands on. I finally left the 40K world 8 years ago when my sons were born.

I was surprised when I saw The Mittani's post doubling-down on the Imperium analogy. At first glance it makes sense: an Imperium of Mankind surrounded by gibbering horrors of the warp, Xenos threats like Eldar and Tau and Tyranids, and the threat of rebellion from within, staunchly swearing eternal vigilance and forever-war on any that defy them.

But if you look at the analogy closer you start to wonder if The Mittani thought this through. After all, in the 40K universe the Imperium is ruled by the Emperor who is nothing more than a living corpse kept alive in a comatose state by the Golden Throne which itself requires the sacrifice of 100 psykers (humans with psychic powers) every day, swept up by Black Ships from all over the Imperium in a constant flood of uncaring murder. Actually ruling in the name of this husk on the throne is a secret all powerful cabal of tyrants that answer to no one, whose decisions carry the weight of a world of lives being snuffed out or saved by mindless hordes of soldiers and a few elite psychopaths called Space Marines. Meanwhile, the technology is stagnant as no one alive understands how it works anymore (except the priests of Mars and they barely get what's going on).

You know what? Maybe the analogy was thought out.

Except for one minor detail. In the 40K lore its quite clear once you get to know it that the Imperium of Mankind is losing. For every world saved or reclaimed, two are lost. Orks enslaved and kill, Tyranids strip planets of all biomatter, Tau build their empire bigger, and chaos continues to woo the disenfranchised, and the Imperium slips closer and closer to doom more and more every hour.

Not the inspiring narrative I would have hitched my wagon to.

Blood In The Water

Taking a moment to step back from the recent shenanigans that has been the EVE Meta in regards to the Money Badger Coalition attacking the Goon-led Imperium coalition, let's talk about how we got here and what the future holds.

Image from Crrossing Zebras Article, no author given.

When the original Northern Coalition existed I was an unimportant line member signing up for fleets when I could and fighting the prolonged supposedly pre-emptive war with the Drone Region Russians over territory Geminate region. A stalemate in one sense where neither side could make headway against the other due to time zone dominances and sheer numbers. The dynamic dramatically changed when the Drone Russians purportedly hired Pandemic Legion to be the steel tip of the spear to bolster North American time zone efforts around the same time that the war weary Northern Coalition suffered a population decline with changes to values of anomalies throughout low  null sec.

The end result is that the coalition fell apart like a house of cards and fell into the dust bin of EVE history.

The parallels today are striking. 

Also from Crossing Zebras article.

The Imperium occupies similar space as the old NC and launched a supposedly pre-emptive war with largely low sec based entities which turned into a slog in low sec before more recent setbacks has seen the fighting return to null sec and the Imperium suffer territorial losses and allied defections. Are they doomed like the old NC to crumble under the pressure?

Its important to note that the Drone Russians was a cohesive coalition while the Money Badger Coalition is a rough group of alliances and corporations that basically are united in their disdain for Goons and their arrogant actions of late. Not that people needed a reason to hate Goonswarm before, but the last few months have seen an uptick in the rhetoric from the Imperium leadership designed to fan the flames. From the "Viceroy" program to Sion Kumitomo's ranting, its almost as if they are trying to build an Us Versus Them narrative beyond the usual Grr-Goons sentiments.

Something I found very striking in the article about the Imerpium's loss at 2DWM-2 system in Vale of the Silent on March 23rd:

Voltron deployed two large strike teams that made their way to assault the tower. The first team, Northern Coalition./The-Culture/friends armor T3 fleet FCd by Ajax33, combined with a TEST bomber fleet led by former Imperium FC Vily. The second strike team, a Pandemic Legion/Psychotic Tendencies/friends Rattlesnake fleet, was commanded by KillahBee, and combined with a Pandemic Horde armor ECM Scorpion fleet. Assorted allies came in other fleets and doctrines to round out the Voltron coalition. Waiting for their call, PL's supercapital fleet. A total of 1,150 pilots made their way deep into Imperium territory.
Imperial forces were expecting this fight and pinged most of the day. This was a priority defense. Hundreds pour into fleets, consisting of a Machariel fleet led by Asher Elias, a Circle-Of-Two Machariel fleet, and a Fidelas Constans/RAZOR Alliance/The Bastion Cerberus fleet. Their numbers were only half that of Voltron's, reaching 660. The Imperium usually outnumbers opponents, but this time they were facing more than 20 alliances.

 (Emphasis mine)
The Imperium almost always boasted a dominance in numbers, yet they were outnumbered 2:1 in a fight they "pinged most of the day" for. This is a serious problem for an alliance and coalition that always claimed they were "terrible at this game". While I don't buy into that, I think that Goons have plenty of good pilots, there is a concern that they have suffered a brain drain of experienced FCs and pilots due to having far too many blues and not enough excitement, or by alienating them from leadership due to not matching the group-think. (Echo chamber alert!) Also, without an existential threat many line goons could have stopped logging in or even starting their jabber clients. Goons *might* be a hollow rotten castle.

Strong emphasis on "might".

In the past, one has not been wise to bet against Goonswarm even when the chips are down. Perhaps this gambit of "defend the motherland from the barbarian hordes" will swell the Imperium fleets once more. Or perhaps the boy who cried wolf one too many times finds out what its like to be eaten by a pack of wolves.

Fun Per Hour

Brave Newbies is leaving null sec for a vacation in low sec to reorganize and gather themselves after a rough season. The topic is not about Brave per se, but more about fun in the various types of space.

First off, I'm defining fun purely from a combat PvP perspective as that is the most common type of fun people are looking for in EVE.

I've written about Brave and how null sec is fun until its not. If you are looking for raw fun per hour for your organization, null sec is not it. Null sec is about Empire Building and clash of cultures wars, and as such can have vast amounts of quiet time and build up followed by frantic explosive battles. Overall, fun per hour is low but the highs are higher and bigger and the satisfaction derived from control of systems / structures / empires is larger and deeper.

Wormhole space also runs low on the fun per hour ratio. Its more about stealthy-stealthy-ninja-surprise! fun which has many fans and definitely makes wormholes interesting for many people. But the hardships of logistics, living out of POSes, scanning down connections, looking for fights cuts into the sheer amount of fun that can be derived per hour of game time.

High sec is a virtual desert for any PvP outside of arranged wars like Red versus Blue, or groups that like constant suicide ganking. For a large group looking for fun dynamic PvP, high sec will not work out.

And then we come to low sec. I've written before that low sec is the best place for consistent and destructive PvP and I suspect the whole "Fun per Hour" concept that is susposed to be part of Brave's DNA comes from having gestated in low sec in the first place. Quite simply, low sec is the best area of the game to maximize fun per hour, and to highlight that I want to present this excellent article from Crossing Zebras portal called The Battle of Kehjari:

A handful of times each year, Factional Warfare erupts from restless simmer into a protracted bloodbath. Days on end of relentless slaughter leave space littered with wrecks in the thousands. These kinds of multi-day battles are unique to FW and are always an amazing thing to be a part of.
Such was the recent battle for Kehjari, a well known north-western system in the infamous Black Rise region. Unfortunately for me I was on a much needed vacation at the time. Fortunately for all of us, Epikurus (Mjolnir Bloc CEO) and Veratrix (Spaceship Bebop FC) saw fit to join forces and write the amazing report you see below. Get a hot cup of tea and sit comfortably, this tale spans four days of bloodshed. – Niden

I'm not going to quote the whole thing, but let me quote parts of it (emphasis mine):

Critically, experienced HECON and Templis FCs were able to start effective defensive operations and to begin trying to slow the assault down. For four hours, from 1600 to 2000, the CalMil Coalition forces under allied command prevented any further gains. However, as Gallente numbers increased again in EU prime, the contested level started rising again. EU prime saw 3-4 hours of heavy fighting with GalMil being overwhelmingly victorious, and their numerical advantage only increased during the transition to US prime.
[...]
By 0500 eve time on Saturday morning, the situation looked very bleak indeed for the Caldari defenders. The initial Gallente assault had pushed Kehjari up to 75% in its first 24 hours, sweeping aside most resistance. However, GalMil was now moving into a timezone during which the Caldari Militia has recently dominated. Whilst GalMil had complete AU dominance during their sweep of the warzone last year, the return of The Church of Awesome, a highly experienced and dedicated AU corp, in the early months of 2015 had changed the equation dramatically. This allowed the Caldari Militia Coalition to maintain 20-man fleets on the field throughout the period up to and immediately following downtime. Gallente planners took this imbalance into account and hoped additional pilots would stay up late and get on early to try to keep things even in this timezone. The tactic paid off on Saturday morning. Gallente fleets held the contested level steady for most of the AUTZ though CalMil forces were able to pull back 10% in one sustained burst.
[...]
In the face of ferocious fighting, the Gallente managed to make slow but steady gains over the next 10 hours, hanging another 12% on the system by midnight, averaging an advantage of one-and-a-half plexes per hour. Exploiting their generally higher skill point levels, GalMil deployed its Zealot/Guardian fleet to dominate the medium and the large plexes, constraining Caldari efforts to the smaller plex sizes. In response to this, Caldari State Naval Operations [CSNO], the primary EU corp in HECON, redeployed their stocks of Guardians and faction cruisers across the warzone to Kehjari, generously handing them out for free to defending pilots. After some skirmishing, though, the Caldari fleet was defeated in one of the more notable pitched battles of the weekend.
[...]
This fight was symptomatic of a new ‘environmental factor’ in Kehjari. The large numbers of kills started to draw in third parties from across the map. Most notable among these were the enthusiastic local posters of Pandemic Horde [THXFC]. The Horde brought fleets of 30-40 pilots on a regular basis during EU and US timezones throughout the rest of the battle, causing problems for both sides. They generally avoided pitched fights with the Caldari and Gallente fleets, opting to camp the station and plex gates as well as gunning for solo and small gang plexers who were detached from the main militia fleets. On those occasions that they did engage directly, the Horde tended to be comprehensively defeated by the hardened militia pilots, but their ongoing harassment remained a significant irritant throughout the rest of the weekend.
[...]
Affecting the concerns about the supply situation was the fact that the fighting in Kehjari only got more intense as the day wore on, reaching a peak of violence with a gruelling non-stop fight that began at 1834 between two 30-man fleets with large logistics wings rolled on until 1848. After 14 minutes of intense and constant destroyer and frigate PvP, the remaining fleets had become kitchen sinks of whatever the pilots could find nearby and 98 wrecks sat gathered around the button in the plex. The ship losses were 60/40 in favour of the Gallente, but the tide had turned at the end with GalMil out of instantly available reshipsl. When it was clear that the fight was unwinnable, they warped out, conceding the plex to the Caldari.

Read the whole article, sure parts of it can be dry but its an excellent read about an intense battle for a single system in low sec. Sure, these battles don't happen very often but smaller versions of these battles for control of a system here and there are common enough and the entire area is constantly inundated of small to largish groups roaming and looking for fights, militas, pirates, and visitors.

If you are looking to maximize fun per hour, if its part of your corporate DNA, then you should strongly think about whether or not you want to live in null sec.

By the way, if you want a preview of what CCP wants from Fozzie Sov, read that article and imagine it writ large across null sec in multiple battles at any one time. Let's hope it works.

Null Sec Is Fun...

The drama surrounding Brave Collective and their retreat from catch with Pandemic Legion nipping at their heels, combined with the coup and counter-coup within their leadership ranks, serves a powerful reminder to me of why I ended up in low sec.

Don't get me wrong, null sec can be vast amounts of fun. There is a certain level of satisfaction of seeing your associated group come together to build something grand, something that individually would be impossible to achieve. Even if you are just a scrub in a frigate, there is a feeling that you are part of a greater whole, a cog in an important machine, build towards something glorious. Even in those fights when you do nothing but target called primaries and hit F1 you feel a sense of accomplishment. "I was there!" Sitting on the forums and discussing plans, seeing ops scheduled, watching for pings on jabber, buying the new doctrine ships... I can still feel the tingle and many days I miss it.

Null sec is fun... until its not.

The flip side of all that organization is that when the wheels come off the bus, the bus doesn't just go into the ditch, it flips and bursts into flames and everyone runs around throwing piles of flaming shit at each other. I've been there; chaos ensues, every carrier for themselves, for every bright spot of self sacrifice there are ten instances of rats abandoning the ship (disclaimer: I've been both).

Once I got out of the null sec grinder and really moved into low sec via piracy and then faction warfare, I discovered a truth. Null sec is more fun for those in leadership positions than those in the lower echelons. As a front line grunt, you don't get to see the diplomatic shenanigans, the wheeling and dealing, the strategic level planning, the secret ops, the glory of building the coalition and the agony of when it burns. From low sec I was able to clear my head, look back, and while appreciating the feeling of being part of something larger I was able to understand that in order to own my own fate I would need to forge it in low sec where the demands are lighter and the risks less destructive. Your alliance looses a station in null sec and your assets in there are locked up tighter than fort knox. In low sec in faction warfare, you send in a neutral alt.

Low risk lower reward for sure, but if you are looking for pure fun per hour (as certain organizations claim to do) then for the front line pilot low sec is the answer. More kills in a concentrated area means more action at almost all fleet sizes from solo to large fleets, excepting the largest which is the domain currently of null sec. For large scale castle builders your fun is more likely found in null sec.

I expect Brave will continue to try and exist in null sec despite the evidence that low sec is a better fit for them. I understand, null sec is addictive and there is always the belief that this time will be the time the coalition will succeed.

Good luck Brave, but if you change your mind, low sec is waiting ;)

Willful Ignorance

I've been listening to the interviews of CSM 9 candidates on Cap Stable podcast and got to the one for Sion Kumitomo, one of the CFC / Goonswarm candidates (with Mynnna being the other official candidate). Listening to his interview infuriated me.

In November of 2012 I wrote about the stagnancy of null sec in a post called "Why So Stagnant?". Let's review what I said then:

The reason for the stagnation is that the null sec alliances at the top have been too successful for their own good.

What do I mean by that? Well, I think that the reason we don't see new FCs rising into the spotlight is because we don't see new alliances and power blocs rising into the spotlight anymore, and the reason we don't see alliances coming on strong out of the gate is because the current null sec power holders have become so good at the fleet doctrine meta that any new competition is quickly smashed and routed before they can get a foothold. The only way to get a new alliance into null sec is to find a benefactor or sponsor and thus accept their FCs and doctrines and command structure over yours. In other words, new FCs are not rising to prominence because current FCs are already so good at their jobs. 

Now this is not to say that current alliances are purposefully keeping new pilots out of fleet command opportunities. In fact, every alliance I've ever been associated with has had training programs to create new FCs and I have no reason to doubt the current powers that be are any different. But the reason we don't see any new major coalition level FCs (or at least very many) is because the current class is very very good at their job already. 

Contributing to this stratified ceiling is the increasing size and coordination of fleets that the current power blocs can muster (specifically the HBC and CFC but not limited exclusively to them). In the past, a big fleet was 100-150 pilots for a major conflict, and getting all pilots in the right ships with the right fits was an exercise in near futility. These days it seems that each side can fill out multiple fleets and each one has pilots in perfectly standardized fits that work in the doctrines. If you are not up to the numbers and professionalism of the current crop of null sec alliance war machines, you are not going to be in null sec long. More importantly, you are not going to break the stagnation as a result.

Here we are, about 15 months later, and nothing has changed. Even worse, if we take Sion Kumitomo as an exemplar of high level sov null sec opinion, the current leaders of sov null sec can't see that they themselves are to blame for the stagnation, not CCP's mechanics. Sure, the Dominion mechanics do not help in the matter but the fact is that the professional gamers in the null sec coalitions' leadership have min-maxed those mechanics to the point where they have built a great wall around sov null sec to keep everyone out but themselves and then sit around complaining there is no one new to fight. And should someone new try to scale that wall, the incumbents use those same mechanics to strangle the life out of them.

At this point, I can only assume that Sion and other leaders of null sec are practicing willful ignorance. Everyone there refusing to admit their own culpability in the state of null sec because they all sit there with guns to each other's head knowing if they accept responsibility and put down the gun that the others will execute them for trying to break the stagnation.

Another point I had issue with was Sion's disdain for renting empires. He seems to think that renting was forced upon them by the changes to Technetium but doesn't see renting as a good alternative. I thought to myself, what is the alternative? Renting is actually a pretty good system for sov null sec: the income is derived bottom up by lots of pilots instead of a handful, and renting empires are distributed and vulnerable to disruption by the enemy... if massive agreements/treaties like the B0tLords Accords didn't exist to prevent meaningful combat in those arenas. Would Sion like to go back to a single source of income so the coalitions could fund their massive wall-protecting war machines again? Ultimately, as long as alliances and coalitions "live beyond their means" of their own pilots and space, renting is the best of bad options for income generation. Perhaps CCP can add more income generators for these space communist empires, but I suspect now that they are hooked on sweet renter payments, they will never give them up. These are professional EVE players after all, and will always move to min-max the equation.

In the end, I fear the only way the wall will come down is for the current null sec residents to quit from boredom. Any change that CCP introduces will be consumed and gamed by the entrenched professionals whose investment in the status quo ensures that only their desire to stop guarding the wall will see it breached.

Bottoms Up

When the Goons announced that they (read: the greater CFC) would be renting out space I was flabbergasted as that was one of the distinguishing marks of some CFC propaganda: "we're not weak slumlords, we are a coalition of the willing that work together and the weak are not welcome". Not to mention the years of scamming people trying to get into Goonswarm itself or its space.

In an analysis piece at Jester's Trek Ripard Teg looks at the reason for this game changing move and wonders if this is a good thing or not:

Now in practice, this hasn't mattered since Dominion was released in late 2009, and the reason -- ironically enough -- was the moons themselves. In a lot of ways, they acted as control rods for the nuclear reactor of a large sov alliance. We refer to "the north" as a unit because that's where the tech moons tended to be clumped and for the longest time a single coalition held "the north." That single coalition has changed over the years but the natural boundaries have not. Alliances in that area took the valuable moons, and then humans being human and because we like clean endings and round numbers, tried to establish buffer zones at the regional borders. Once those borders were established, the alliances behind them tended not to stray too far from home because few alliances could project power across a wide enough sphere to both launch invasions far from home and protect the moons held there.
But now those moons aren't worth as much, are they?
Alliances used to measure their budgets based on the number of moons they held but as I established yesterday, that's unlikely to be a thing for much longer. Alliances will probably be a bit more casual about losing moons knowing full well that individual moons here and there probably aren't going to be fought over to the extent that they have been, they won't be defended quite so vigorously, and they'll therefore be easier to take back when needed. To a large extent, EVE has lost a conflict driver... a pretty big conflict driver.

[...]

But if they're successful, the "big blue doughnut" has a chance of becoming much more fact than fiction. As I said, rental income scales very well and the eventual war between the CFC and N3 seems inevitable at this point. If the CFC starts conquering new regions in the south, they could find themselves once again in control of nearly unlimited wealth... wealth that the graph above shows would dwarf their previous fortunes made on the tech throne. And more importantly, wealth that would be even easier to maintain.
Without the natural control rods holding back the growth of sov and sitting on an easily scalable income source, it might be very tempting for the CFC (or N3, should they start winning the war) to just expand... and expand... and expand some more.
Did things just get better or worse?

Sorry for quoting so much but I wanted to make sure the context is clear of his post. To summarize, moon income has dropped in the Odyssey environment and the R64 moons conquered in Fountain, the casus belli for the conflict with TEST alliance, has proven insufficient for the addiction that is Space Communism. Ripard's concern is that the income from holding space and renting it out dwarfs that of moon income and, according to Ripard, scales well such that he envisions a coalition possibly growing and growing to encompass more and more space.

I've always had an issue with moon mining. Despite being a resource that has to be gathered, the fact that its gathered by a few specialized trusted people in an alliance/coalition in a secure facility that requires significant force to attack, with a reinforcement timer to allow defenders to rally. Entire coalitions of thousands of pilots were held up financially by the work of a fraction of the number of pilots in very secure working environments. After all, how many times did you see killmails for moon goo being moved from null sec to market? Moon POSes and jump freighters made it impossible to interdict that gravy train.

The resulting financial model is a Top-Down where for all intents and purposes the value of the moon goo is injected directly into alliance coffers and then filters down to the base via sov bills, jump bridges, and ship replacement programs. And only coalition warfare could sufficiently threaten it in any meaningful way.

Renting is completely different. The typical structure is that the pilots of the renting alliance work the "fields", i.e. belts and anomalies, to make ISK and a portion of that is collected via taxes or fees by the corporation, of which a portion (or all) is diverted to the renter alliance, which then pays a fee to the renting alliance. This bottom up model means that ISK is generated low on the pyramid by the pilots and has to filter up to the top before it filters back down as alliance activities.

I like this model better for several reasons.

First of all, more space being used. Instead of swathes of empty systems sitting idle because no one really needs to rat or mine to generate ISK there, the renters will put those "ghetto" systems to work and increase null sec population density. And what does increased population density mean? MORE TARGETS!

And not just an increase of targets for hostile entities, but in increase in vulnerable targets. Renters, as a generalization, tend to be less plugged into intel channels, have lower average PvP skills, and tend to be less attentive overall. Unlike reinforcing a moon, a small force can roam through a constellation and look for targets that they can kill and escape before the local policing alliance can respond.

Which brings us to another point: a concentrated effort to disrupt an alliance's financial backbone has more chances to succeed against a model with many small vulnerable ISK generators than few solidly defended ISK generators. Its simply harder to defend many points at once than fewer.

So, what about scalability? Ripard contends that the moons as alliance/coalition acted as "control rods" and prevented a coalition from growing beyond its natural boundaries, holding up the various incarnations of the coalitions in the north as examples. I'm not one hundred percent convinced by his reasoning. The original Northern Coalition existed prior to Technetium becoming super valuable and the boundaries changed many times over the years. I think the case is that the North is geographically natural zone for common defense, much like a similar zones in Fountain-Delve-Period Basis area in the south and the Dronelands in the east. The moon wealth that concentrated there for the past years has increased that natural zone, but is not solely responsible for it.

Will renting allow the CFC to grow beyond the North and Fountain? Well, renting is not a new concept in Eve and we've never seen a coalition that used renters grow abnormally large, even when its renter alliance grew to become one of the largest alliances in the game at the time (ref: Shadows of xXDeathXx).Granted, the Goon-led CFC is a different beast and if anyone could pull it off, they could.

But I have my doubts. I suspect the new world of landlord will be a hard hat to wear for the goons. Time will tell.

Ways To Lose

There are many ways to lose a war in Eve, and  a lot of the time the way in which you lose a war can indicate the future of your corporation/alliance/coalition. Here are the few most common.

The Abject Surrender
AKA: The "Give Up", The "Fuck This Shit", The "Oh Hell Why Bother"
Epitomized By: IT Alliance
Characteristics: Faced with losing an important battle or the entire war, rather than fight or strategically withdraw, the leaders decide to abandon the war and pull out everything and everyone. Typically to NPC null sec or low sec.

So we've all been there; circumstances have developed such that the enemy has the upper hand and the writing is on the wall, So what does your leadership decide to do? Order everyone to give up, pack up, and move out. This is the ultimate in demoralizing losses, more effective than almost anything the enemy can do.

In some extreme cases, like in IT's defeat, the alliance/coalition disbands on the spot.

Future Outcomes: Most likely is fail cascade, but occasionally you will see alliances rebuild from the loss. Depends a lot on alliance cohesion and the exact circumstances of the loss, i.e. how much blame your side takes for its fortunes.

The Whelp
AKA: The "Oh Shit", The "CVA Special"
Epitomized By: CVA alliance at D-GTMI
Characteristics: In a pitched war or even a losing war, a single big battle can turn around fortunes or end them. In this case, one side goes into a battle and gets beaten so badly, so humiliatingly, that they never properly recover and the war, for all intents and purposes, is suddenly and usually unexpectedly over.

Although CVA didn't officially surrender to AAA after the debacle that was D-GTMI, losing 131 capitals to basically nothing effectively ended the war and no significant fighting occurred there afterwards.

Future Outcomes: Again, Fail Cascade is the most likely outcome as the losers suffer the embarrassment of getting shellacked so badly, but sometimes the pride of trying to fight allows an organization some measure of pride out of the experience.

The Rocky
AKA: The "Never Quit/Never Surrender", The "You Can Pry It From Our Cold Dead Hands"
Epitomized By: Most recently, TEST and Tribes alliances
Characteristics: Faced with steep odds, a side still decides to fight and, although losing, leaves the field with the satisfaction that they fought their best. The biggest difference from The Whelp is that the losers did not fool themselves on the outcome.

Future Outcomes: Losing any war has risk of organizational collapse, but this method of losing has the best chance of alliance/corporation survival. Partly it depends on if the force has space to retreat to for rebuilding and regrouping, and if they are pursued by the winning forces or other hostile entities.

The Inherent Dangers of Space Communism

Communism, as defined in common western society,

is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless[1][2] and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order.[3]

 (Source: Wikipedia)

But typically what I mean when I say "communism" is a state where everything is owned by a central authority, and everyone's work effort goes into a common pool and is doled out by the central authority as it sees fit for everyone's benefit. The idea is that the central authority ensures everyone has what they need to survive and thrive and that no one gets more of the resources than they deserve to the detriment of others, especially if they end up contributing less to the common pool.

One would think that in a game like Eve where individual wealth and ownership is so paramount to e-pride and gloating privileges that a concept of toiling for the common good to lift everyone equally would not find fertile soil. Yet more than a few major null sec alliances have described themselves as "Space Communists", most famously the Goonswarm Federation.

Are they really?

On the other hand, Fascism is defined as "a form of radical authoritarian nationalism" that

seek to unify their nation through a totalitarian state that promotes the mass mobilization of the national community,[3][4] relying on a vanguard party to initiate a revolution to organize the nation on fascist principles.[5] Hostile to liberal democracy, socialism, and communism, fascist movements share certain common features, including the veneration of the state, a devotion to a strong leader, and an emphasis on ultranationalism and militarism.

(Source: Wikipedia)

"Mass mobilization", "veneration of the state", "strong leader", "militarism"... does that not sound more like Goonswarm that words like "classless, moneyless and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production"?

NOTE: I am not comparing Goonswarm to Nazis nor am I criticizing their form of organization! I don't care how ruthless or authoritarian you make your space empire because in Eve people have the option to leave or avoid said empire, unlike the civilians in real life.  

I only bring this comparison of definitions up because I want to make a point: a true communist society would typically attempt to live within its means, while fascist societies with "mass mobilization" and "militarism" on the mind would require more resources to accomplish their goals.

But whatever; this is internet spaceships and we can make up our own goddamned terms to describe internet space empire organizational structures if we want to. To that end, what are the properties of Space Communism?

- Resources extracted by the central authority (corporations/alliance) are used for programs to improve pilots and their willingness to participate in operations (ship reimbursement, skill books, etc), as well as general alliance upkeep (towers, jump bridges, sov bills, upgrades, etc)
- pilots are expected to be connected to central authority as much as possible (forums, jabber, intel channels, etc)
- pilots are expected to "x up" for fleets as often as possible
- all organizational units are in a constant ready state for war, and indeed are encouraged to wage war themselves when the entire state is not already at war

This is a rough approximation and as you can see, most of it applies to all space empires in Eve. The really unique thing about the "Space Communism" is the increased emphasis on helping pilots get into ships, either by outright paying for the ship in the first place or assisting in skill books required (such as for expensive ones like capital skill books).

All that being said the takeaway is that running an alliance is expensive but running a space communistic alliance is very expensive, even in peacetime if you continue to run your ship reimbursement program because want to encourage your pilots to keep their PvP skills sharp and honed.

Which brings us to the Fountain War.

I admit I was skeptical when the war began that the reason was about taking moons. After all, look at any map of null sec sovereignty and you see that the CFC controls a vast swathe of space.

Null Sec North West Corner

Surely, one thinks, that is more than enough resources for the alliances living there to make it work. But there was the moon rebalancing that completely nerfed the value of Technetium moons in the north, and traditionally the north has been less fortunate in number of profitable R64 moons. One could speculate that after becoming accustomed to supping at the table of the Technetium Throne for so long that, much like Western Civilization and oil, they became addicted to a certain lifestyle to the point where they decided it would be preferable to go to war for moons to replace the Technetium than to learn to live within their means in the new reality.

Now, some have said that the war between CFC and TEST is a war to extinction for one side or the other. I never got that feeling. I still think that the CFC, Goons in particular, still think of TEST as family and that this war was about moons and saying to TEST that "we're the big older brother and you are the younger smaller one; remember your place". Perhaps when the HBC was alive and kicking it their might have been a tone of fear in that relationship but I think the CFC spymasters and political manipulations took care of that problem earlier this year.

Space Communism is very expensive and very addictive. And like any addiction, you think you control it but in the end it controls you as long as you give into it.

Sand Castles

Over at Fiddler's Edge, Mord Fiddle wrote me my very own post called The Perils of Prognostication in response to my Fountain War: Prognosis post earlier this week. Honestly, I'm flattered by the attention as I love Mord's blog and his writing style. I was very excited to get my own post.

His main opposition to my post seems to center around the Crossing Zebra's post I referenced in which two Pandemic Legion pilots and Xander spends a considerable amount of verbage decrying the participation rates and organization of TEST alliance. Mord's position seems to be that Xander, being part of the CFC, and Pandemic Legion, being not really part of the effort against the CFC, are giving a slanted pro-CFC point of view. Thus resting my opinion on this source is like building a Sand Castle on a beach: one good wave of reality and it falls apart.

However, my "prognosis" was built on a lot more than that one interview. Pilot balance issues between the CFC and TEST fleets have been brought up in several venues, including the podcast Cap Stable which is run by TEST pilots. Reports on the news websites and blogs also indicate similar trends.

But I based most of my prognosis on past experiences. Back when I was in null sec I was in a few winning and losing major wars. I know what holding the line feels and sounds like, and I know what collapsing house of cards feels and sounds like too. And at the end of the day, my gut leans more towards the latter than the former.

Now, by all admission I am no null sec expert commentator (its more of a hobby) but I'm sticking to my guns on this one for the reasons I gave in my original post: TEST is on track to lose this war.

* * * * *

As a side note, I think Mord insinuated in a comment yesterday on my Project Vulcan update that I might be shilling my blog as a propaganda piece for the CFC for rights to build capitals in their sov space. I'm honoured he thinks I might be that devious. :)

Fountain War: Prognosis

Last week I asked some questions and I got answers in comments, emails, EveNews24, podcasts and from just plain digging around. I admit my original questions were leading to suggest that this war between CFC and TEST was more of an arranged and controlled thunderdome and not a true unbridled war but I've heard enough to convince me that this war seems real. And I've come to a conclusion.

TEST is screwed.

Best Case Scenario

What is the best case scenario for TEST right now?
- Excellent participation rates
- ship reimbursement program humming along
- finances in good shape
- allies committed and coordinated
- enemies distracted by attacks from third parties

And where does reality diverge from this ideal?

Reality

- On the Crossing Zebras interview two Pandemic Legion head honchos deplored the state of TEST's participation numbers multiple times

- In the same interview, they commented how their fleets are not coordinating with TEST and Nulli and NCDOT fleets very closely compared to CFC fleets

- TEST made a big deal last week about being up to date on their ship reimbursement program, but rumours abound that private donors made contributions to make up the shortfall of 40 billion ISK. More rumours and insinuations can be found everywhere that TEST's finances are in shambles

- Pandemic Legion has admitted publicly to having one foot out of the door on this war already. They like the fighting but if things start to fall apart or stop being fun they will simply back out and go find something else to do.

- Nulli has been distracted and pulled away by the disbanding of their renter alliance and a resurging SOLAR Fleet alliance. People with tin foil hats might point out that Goons have traditionally had good relations with Russian alliances and that a contribution to SOLAR's war chest from CFC coffers would make a lot of sense

- CFC were having problems with Black Legion and friends in the north, so paid them off to stop attacking so as they were free to concentrate on Fountain

As you can see, while things are not absolute worst case scenario, they are far from the best case. If I were TEST leadership, I'd be thinking about my exit strategy at this point before this war grinds your alliance apart. Losing a major war does not have to be a death knell for an alliance, but it can be.

Fountain War: Questions

I've been following the Fountain war from a distance on blogs, newssites, and podcasts and some questions have arisen for me that I'm hoping someone has the answers to.

- Technetium is less profitable than prior to Odyssey but its still pretty lucrative. What happened to all those moons Pandemic Legion has up North? Were they given away or taken away by the CFC when PL joined in on TEST's side in the war? If so, when and how? If not, why not?

- If the CFC gain momentum and TEST is on its heels, will PL double down the effort to help TEST or will they just pull up stakes and leave? Or worse turn around and shoot TEST?

- How does TEST feel about having such a mercurial ally? How does CFC feel about it?

- Seeing how CFC reacted to Black Legion's harassing attacks up in the north, including an unprecedented pay off to get Black Legion to let them extract a capital fleet from a station, why haven't TEST and allies done more to send/recruit forces to do more backfield attacks?

- Why have we not heard of seen more of CFC forces hell-camping TEST staging systems? Or vice versa?

- Where are the jump bridge network attacks? Are they occurring and just not being reported? Or are the forces just too well prepared to defend against them?

- Why does this supposed great war seem more like a very big and well organized thunder-dome experiment? Is it that I'm too far removed from the action for the details, or are the details missing?

Denying Fights - Short Term Win vs Long Term Loss

Without further comment I'm going toe repost something from a post by Unforgiven Storm on his blog, failed CSM8 candidate and Goon, titled The Will to Login is a Two Way Street:

Then The Mittani made a post where he explains that our “foremost goal is always the denial of the enjoyment of the enemy: no fun allowed for our enemies”. He’s forgetting that he is also denying fun for his people, but he is the boss and this is not a democracy, so shut up and fight. And that I did. 

We now decided to include in our tactics blue balling, we form up 1000 people in 3 or more fleets, the enemy joins 1000 people to fight us, makes 20 jumps under TIDI, takes then 1 hours to come to us and we dock. They get pissed like hell and go back under TIDI and takes them another hour. Fun yes, for a moment, I get some laughs but not has fun has fight them and killing them would be, that is for sure. 

Yesterday I went on the new Baltec fleet, the FC decided to blue ball them and went to a pos, after 2 hours of showing them our dicks we come back home and they left furious. Everybody was laughing, hahaha… 

After dinner I see 2 pings for Baltec and Tengu fleets… I closed my computer and went to bed earlier.

(Emphasis mine)

Montolio Was Right

EDIT: I composed this post prior to getting news of Pandemic Legion and other alliances working with TEST to fight the goons in J5A. It remains to be seen if this is a "good fight" opportunity for PL or a strategic shift. 

This morning's post was going to be a rebuttal to Glevon Goblin's Eve News 24 post about how the Mitanni made a mistake and the CFC was thus doomed:

He now made a mistake. His first one within EVE (suicidegate was outside EVE). And probably his last one too. I believe this mistake will be his undoing.

But Corelin did a fine takedown of that ridiculous assertion that I have nothing to add to it.

I do, however, want to talk about TEST alliance for a minute.

Right and Wrong

Back in January I predicted that the Honey Badger Coalition (HBC) and the Cluster Fuck Coalition (CFC) would never go to war this year:

There has been several suggestions around the meta-community lately along the lines that a war between the Goon-led Cluster Fuck Coaltion (CFC) and the TEST-led Honey Badger Coalition (HBC) is brewing and practically inevitable this year. 

First off, let's define what we mean by "war". I'm not talking about a dust up over some moons, or a conflict between a few alliances that are parts of each coalition, or an exercise in war-games over a constellation or a region. We are talking about full scale sov war with the goal being the utter destruction of one side or the other, or at least pushing one side out of null sec sov holder status which usually precedes a breakup and a few alliance closures. Total war, if you will; an existential threat to both sides. 

And for CFC and HBC, that's not going to happen in 2013.

And I am totally correct so far and I'm confident to say that I'll remain correct for the rest of 2013. Unfortunately, I am correct for the wrong reasons and the spirit and base assumptions behind my prediction is wrong.

My prediction was based on this reasoning:

There are many reasons why I am making this prediction, but primarily it has to do with one simple fact: the core of each coalition, Goons and Test respectively, still like each other. Remember that Goons mentored the early Test pilots, giving them space to live and grow without the rough period of finding their feet in the wilds of null like a lot of nascent alliances must do. A Big Brother / Little Brother metaphor if you will. And although Test alliance has grown up and can stand on their own two feet for some time now, there is still a banked amount of goodwill between the leadership of these two alliances. As Goons/Test goes, so goes the majority of the alliance in their respective coalitions. 

On other words, they still like each other so war will be avoided. For now, 2013 at least I predict will be clear.

However the HBC collapsed. There is no other accurate word for it. It convulsed and came apart at the seams like a poorly made suit. Over the past six months hints have come out about why it collapsed and much of the blame can be laid at the feet of Pandemic Legion who were really only in the coalition for "good fights" and not sov level warfare, especially not sov level warfare that threatened the precious moons that line their pockets with copious amounts of ISK. Need to pay for all that fuel used in hot drops don't you know!

Seeing Montolio and much of TEST chomping at the bit for a sov level war with their partners in Technetium cartels, Pandemic Legion activated the Emergency Procedures and effectively neutered TEST right out of their control of their own coalition. Seeing they were no longer in control of their own destiny, TEST decided to bail and salvage some pride. Seeing the rambunctious little adopted brother exposed and mostly on their own (quite by design), CFC leadership moved in this past few weeks for the beat down lesson.

Real Challenge

Make no mistake: there are a lot of other easier regions CFC could have got new moons for their levies to support their infrastructure than Fountain. This is merely an excuse to deliver a backhand slap to TEST for the temerity to challenge big brother Goon. Only metagame-clueless morons like Glevon think differently.

And another mistake not to make: TEST is going to lose this war and lose it badly, if they haven't already. The only interesting part of the outcome is to see what happens after they lose the first real challenge to their sov level existence. Will they concede and come back under an understanding Goon paternal arm with their tails between their chastised legs? Will they take their beating and try to rebuild in low sec? Or will they, after finally facing a real challenge on their own and failing (and failing badly), break apart like the terrible coalition they built?

Interesting times.

Remember TEST, Montolio was right.

CSM 8 Election - CCP Should Have Done More

We heard on various podcasts and media outlets that CCP was going to launch a publicity offensive to make players not plugged into the external metagame of the election and  encourage them to vote.

Media watchers like me observed and waited and wondered what CCP would do to drive voters to the polls that traditionally have stayed away. And what did we get?

- The usual splash screen banner that no one clicks.

- The usual news link in the character selection screen.

Both of these are terrible in that a player logging into the game must be taken out of the game when they click on those links. I know that when I'm logging in the first thing I don't want to do is not actually log into the game. At best the player thinks about doing it later and at worst they say "meh, why bother?"

- A horribly unimaginative and uninformative 38 second video. Words do not suffice for describing my disappointment. I love CCP Xhagen but the guy put me to sleep with his one line. This video should have been accompanied or replaced by a larger more vibrant video describing a) what the CSM is, b) how they are important and plug directly into Eve's development process, and c) what great things they have done in the past. And done it with energy like the Crimewatch video.

- A mass mailing that one character of mine got. One. Out of eight.

Now maybe they have some metric for deciding characters that are active and yet still need a prod to go vote, but considering all my accounts had voted by this point and this character was no more active other ones, I don't know what metric they would be using.

To add to these failings I have to say the voting itself was painful. At least it was drag and drop but required my full screen and even then it was hard to get my voting boxes on with all the candidates. A side by side design would have been much better and easier to use.

I expected more. A lot more.

For something as important as the CSM and getting the vote out for a more representative CSM makeup, CCP's effort has been underwhelming. Here are my suggestions for next time:

1) Longer and better video that, as I said above, has more life and describes not only what the CSM does but things it has accomplished already. Explain why people should want to vote.

2) Integrate voting into the client. No more having to go out of game to vote because that extra step is going to turn off a lot of people who want to play Eve, not internet spaceship politics.

3) More adverts in game like on billboards or automated notices in local chat with links to the in game voting tool. Make it easy for people playing the game to play politics and you will get your involved voters.

4) Bigger mass mailing campaign to get the word out. One out of eight characters is not enough CCP Dolan.

* * * * *

I predict as it stands right now that voting turnout will be below 16% of the active playerbase.

The CSM Is Important - So Go Vote

Voting is open and its more important than even that everyone votes with all their accounts. In fact, despite the process being annoying as hell, you should vote for a full slate of 14 candidates.

Why? Because the CSM is important.

At the very least, the CSM forces developers and managers and product owners at CCP to check themselves and their thought processes when they have the face to face meetings with the CSM members once or twice a year. This is an invaluable check as it forces them to look at their assumptions and conclusions and make sure they are internally consistent.

Then on top of that, the CSM has a chance to challenge those assumptions. Sure, CCP may not listen; Incarna was proof enough of that. But at least the process has that feedback so when things go wrong (horribly horribly wrong) then CCP has that feedback to look at and say "oh, yeah, we see it now." Without the CSM, they may not have had that moment when the lightbulb went off.

On top of that CSM functions as a valuable sounding board for developers at CCP, giving direct advice on changes long before us the playerbase see them. And more recently the CSM has earned a real seat as a stakeholder. I'm 90% certain that without the CSM the POS changes announced as goals for Odyssey would not have been on the table.

The CSM is important. But its only as effective as the amount of effort we the players make in determining its composition. The more votes the more CCP has to take the CSM members seriously.

So go, vote. Make it matter.

Earning Endorsements

Choosing who to vote for in the upcoming CSM elections is harder than ever.

For one thing, the Single Transferable Vote means that you need to identify 14 people to vote for instead of just one. Sure, you can only fill out your ballot with a smaller number but if you do that you effectively give more power to people with the patience (or vindictiveness) to fill out all 14 slots. And if your vote gets transferred below your list of desire candidates than it effectively gets wasted. Don't waste your vote.

For another, the role of the CSM has evolved far beyond anything it was when it started years ago. It has moved from a player sounding board only halfheartedly used by CCP to a full stakeholder in development. CSM 7 has had unprecedented access and input into the process and CSM 8 should be continuing in that vein, thus choosing representatives for that elected body is more important to the future of Eve than ever. No jerks nor assholes need apply.

So we, the voters, need to put more effort than ever in finding the right people to assign our votes to. What follows is my criteria list of what I want in a good member for CSM 8.

1) Shares my Eve values.

What I mean by this is that at the end of the day we agree on a large majority of the big issues and questions facing Eve in the future, or at least our visions on "the way things should be" are compatible in the board strokes even if they differ in the fine details.

Respects different types of game play? Wants greater variety in types of space? Believes super cap jump range is an issue? Concerned about lack of sub cap options to deal with super caps? Wants local in null sec to be delayed? Wonders if greater protection for newbs would be a good thing? Wants the directional scanner revamped? Thinks moon mining is a abomination? Wants to move alliance income into "bottom up" model? Wants to give corporations more power and alliances less? Etc etc etc.

Now I'm not looking for a complete match, that would be near impossible. As long as their reasons and logic for why they think things should be different from what I think seems based in reality and strong rational thinking, I'm willing to give them the consideration of my vote. However, if they agree with me but got there but a completely ludicrous and illogical set of steps, I'd consider voting for someone else.

Which leads to...

2) Is Intelligent and thinks logically.

For the most part, Eve players are pretty damn smart. But you need to be a cut above the average pilot in order to be considered for CSM in my opinion. You need to be able to look at CCP's plans and ideas and pick them apart point by point in a short order of time, because you can bet for sure if you don't some of the players will when it hits a dev blog near you. Find the loopholes, mechanic blunders, and possible outcomes simply based off a slide show in a meeting. Its a challenge and you need to be able to do it to serve the CSM adequately.

3) Can communicate well.

Being smart and sounding smart are two different things. You want someone who can be both: smart enough to swim in the deep end of the mechanics and social outcomes pool and capable of explaining your opinions on these issues to people in the CSM, the developers at CCP, and ultimately the player base.

And communicating does not always mean with friendly parties. You need to know how to communicate in hostile situations, how to drive home points when the opportunity strikes and how to back off when the channel is obviously closed. Somehow the CSM member needs to be able to build bridges and not burn any down despite the best efforts of people around them.

At the same time, as part and parcel of point (2), they need to be able to listen well and be willing to revise their opinions based on new information or information shown to be incorrect that they believed was true. Its hard to change your mind when being aggressively attacked; our pride can make us defend a point long past rationality, but a good CSM member will be able to do so.

That's very useful for...

4) Making Compromises.

A good negotiator knows that to get something you sometimes need to give something up. The CSM is made up of 14 of the biggest egos in the game at any one time and a person looking for my vote needs to be able to work with them (or at least the active ones) in order to reach consensus without abandoning all principles. That means knowing it may be necessary to give ground on one topic and digging your heels in on another. You don't to always give way or else you are nothing but a nodding head; you don't always want to demand your way or you are impossible to work with. Finding that balance is the hallmark of a great team member.

On top of all that, once you as CSM have reached a consensus with the other members, you then need to be able to take that and reach compromises with CCP. And then turn around and sell those compromises and agreements to a playerbase totally removed from the process.

You know what? Add this to the list...

5) Willing to take a lot of abuse.

CSM is a thankless job. Some people at CCP see you as a bunch of entitled yahoos with no realistic knowledge of game design or how "things were meant to be before the players ruined it". Some players see you as useless windbags and propaganda machines of CCP's marketing department.1 Its a safe bet based on previous CSMs that half the members will be dead weight at best. All for no appreciable advantage in game and a questionable "free trip" to Iceland that costs you vacation time and time away from family.

On top of all that, you are expected to put in 10-20 hours a week on average (according to current active CSM members) to discuss all the items and processes which leaves less time to actually play the game.

Um, tell me again why you want to do this? Why anyone would want to do this? In the real world people get paid for this type of work.

6) Joy of the game.

Ultimately, one thing I want in a CSM member is someone who really truly loves the game and wants it to be better. Passion is hard to quantify but I know it when I see it. I also can tell when someone is running for the attention instead, and let me tell you, it burns me when they get elected and end up doing nothing. I want to find the people who voted for them and give them a shake.

* * * * *

The worst part of all of this is I have to make a determination on all of these points based on what I know of someone in Eve. At best you have a couple years of posting on forums and blogs to make a judgement call. At worst you never have heard of them before they announced they were running. In real politics you can see what they have done in the past based on public record and investigative reporting. With Eve, everything is suspect and part of a possible giant troll or plain old lie.

What this means is that you need to give the people running for CSM some benefit of the doubt and assume, unless shown evidence to the contrary, that they are being sincere in the fora and blogs and podcasts you observe them in.

So now that I've outlined my guidelines for what I am looking for in a candidate to vote for, I am going to compile my list and when the voting is about to begin I will give my endorsements.


1 - Its also useful if you have a thick skin and don't get riled easily. Some people on CSM 7 really need to take a chill pill. ;)

Single Transferable Vote - Impediment to Democracy?

UPDATE FROM TWITTER:

CCP Fozzie@kirithkodachi FYI You can vote for any number of candidates from one to fourteen. No requirement to vote for more than you want to.

So there you go. :) Thanks CCP Fozzie.

-Original Post-

So the CSM election process is getting a face-lift this year with the announcement that they are going to use the Single Transferable Vote system. I'm all in favour of this system as I think its superior to the previous system.

However, when reading the dev blog I saw one thing that concerned me:

We will be moving to a Single Transferable Vote (STV) based voting system where instead of voting for a single candidate, each voter will pick their top 14 favorite candidates and rank them from 1 to 14.

Whoa, rank 14 candidates?!

As a casual observer and follower of the CSM I typically take the field of candidates and filter them down to the five I care about, and do my research from there, ignoring the rest. Now in order to make informed decisions I'm going to have to spread my attention around a lot more and thus dedicate less time to a few candidates I care about.

I'm concerned because this might put off a lot of casual voters from voting at all when faced with this list of 28 names and having to pick 14 of them. If the vote tool is clunky, I can see a lot of people not bothering. I personally think that picking a lower number for the ballot per account, say 5 or 6, would be far more reasonable.

I guess time will tell.

A Challenger Appears!

Yesterday's post was expected to ruffle some feathers and I had a comment from someone I respect very much that I wanted to pull out into its own mini-post.

Famous Wilhelm Arcturus, aka The Ancient Gaming Noob, posted this comment:

Your hand waving dismissal seems at least as shallow as their acceptance of the sov grind theory.
Yes, a lot of wars have gone by. The last year alone has seen several wars of conquest. And how many of them were a short, sharp conflict, followed by a cascade fail and an easy sov clean up? That certainly sounds like what happened with White Noise, Raiden, Nulli Secunda, and IRC.
Meanwhile, the war with Northern Coalition, which did not have all that many systems or towers to deal with, dragged on for quite a while, to the point that people were pointing and shouting "Goon Fail!" because the CFC wasn't winning fast enough.
Now, count all the systems and towers that represent the CFC or the HBC, assume neither will be a quick cascade fail, and then go back to your list of wars and tell me how many of them represented those sorts of numbers and that kind of commitment.
Saying structure grinds were not a factor seems as silly as saying that it was the only factor.

There have been many knock down and drag out wars since Dominion was released.  I listed just some recent wars off the top of my head because I'm not aware of an archive of history of sov wars to reference (but if anyone knows of one, please point me to it!). But most wars in Dominion are marked by an initial pitched battle period followed by one side capitulating when they feel the writing is on the wall. The war between the old Northern Coalition and the Droneland Russians went back in forth in Geminate for months before the NC finally broke (I was there!).

Still, your comment seems to imply that "man, we looked bad!" is the thing you want to avoid. I assume that is not what you meant as you go on to talk of commitment. This seems to stem from the thought that total war equals taking every system by hand. I don't buy that.

For one thing, the "total war" directly implies "must grind all the structures" is a fallacy. Typically the grinding of the structures happens after a war if you want to move in, otherwise you get the new tenants to do it. War between the HBC and CFC would probably be a war for ... I dunno, something, maybe e-honour or plain old "gud fites"... but not, most likely, territorial gain. So to say that the numbers of structure hitpoints was crunched and factored into the decision to go to war or not is a smokescreen, one that was developed after the decision was made and has been accepted as fact by a large number of people, especially in the CFC it seems.

Of course, like any good ruse it works so well because it appeals to the individuals' opinions already.

Leadership - "Don't like structure grinds?"

Masses - "Hell no!"

Leadership - "Well, that's why we avoided this war."

Masses - "Good, thank you for looking out for us!"

Now I'm exaggerating to make a point, but I stand by that point: I don't believe structure grinds were a factor for the HBC/CFC leadership clique in deciding whether or not to go to war.

Don't Buy Your Own Propaganda

On the latest episode of Shunners and Sinners podcast they get into a short discussion of the almost-war between CFC and HBC and start talking about how the war was averted because no one wanted to grind the trillions of structure hitpoints involved to wage this war.

Huh.

Really?

The structures we are primarily talking about, TCUs, SBUs, and IHubs, existed as of November 2009 when Dominion was released. Another structure to grind, POSes, have existed since many years earlier.

You got that? This shit is not new.

How many wars do you think the members of the alliances that make up the CFC and HBC have been in since late 2009? That's 3+ years for the chronologically impaired, and includes more recent highlights like the scouring of IT from Fountain and Delve, the crushing of White Noise and NCdot, the brushing aside of the Southern Coalition and vanquishing of Triple A... etc etc etc. Go ahead, think on it for a minute. I'll wait.

Back?

Ok, now consider this: what the hell has changed in early 2013 to suddenly make the thought of an all out war with an enemy that will bring huge good fights that, ostensibly, everyone wants such an unbearable burden that the leaders of said coalitions will do anything to avoid all out war?

The answer is, of course, nothing... and everything. But this post is not about the reasons for why that war was aborted. No, this post is a message to all those CFC and HBC grunts who are spouting structure grinds as a reason for not having a war, and the message is simply this: don't buy into your own propaganda. It makes you look foolish.

This is not about structure grinds, its about protecting space empires.