Fun-selfishness

The anti-social in me tells that people cannot be trusted, they would harm me if it serves them and possible for them. The things I've seen never disproved this. My social studies shown me undisputed research on the existence of altruism, friendship and love.

Playing games a lot and dealing with the "play for fun" crowd finally allowed me to combine the two into a new concept: fun-selfishness. People are completely selfish and interested only in maximizing their fun, ignoring the others. However, this doesn't manifest in material selfishness, since most of them do not find material wealth fun. Depending on their feelings, their mental state can move them to do things I'd consider selfless, like helping out a "newbro" or enlisting to the army of their country. However they never did these for the "newbro" or the country, but from the fun they gained from feeling generous or patriotic. When that fun disappear, they'd stop doing it.

People wrongfully assume such "selflessness" towards them to be trustable. "My wife loves me and will stays with me" - they say, while the truth is that she is only with you for a selfish reason: she is having sexual and emotional fun with you. As soon as she finds someone who offers more of these, she jumps ship. Similarly when groups find "loyal" members, they merely found ones who kept having good fun in the group. If anything changes and they lose this fun: there goes your Revenant!

So the situation is neither social or anti-social but rather objectivist-materialist with a twist: using an unmeasurable currency "fun". You are safe in a relationship while the other party has more fun via cooperating than he'd have by defecting. So to secure yourself you need to make sure that the other party is having enough fun, and especially your negligence doesn't open a way that would give them more fun by messing with you. Let me give an example: in an EVE alliance you can be sure that no one sets up a scheme to awox your T2 fit T1 ratting battleship or fleet ship. Why? Because the fun of having a battleship killmail is much smaller than you can have by chatting and flying with other members. But if you start mining in a titan, you will be awoxed, since killing a mining titan is more fun than "having bros" in this alliance, or to be exact, the cost measured in fun of moving to another alliance, setting up new services and enduring the initiation period.

The good news is that you don't have to "catch them before they catch you". The bad is no one can be trusted. The truth is that you are in a constant marketplace of "fun" and you have to keep your eyes on the rates to not lose customers. You can manage your risks, therefore assume control of your situation and well-being by offering the people around you fair trades.

Read More

Roleplaying "bros": the source of ALL drama

You wouldn't rob a stranger. You would definitely not kill a stranger just against boredom. You wouldn't rob the safe of your corporation. You wouldn't shoot your coworkers even if it was legal. Similarly, if faced with evil ones, you wouldn't attack them with blazing guns against odds. You wouldn't give a large sum to a young person just because he is an adorable newbie. You would definitely not work for your employer without payment.

You are neither a mass murderer, nor a saint. You are an ordinary person who plays a massively multiplayer online role-playing game, where your avatar is a villain or hero. A spaceship pilot, a dragon slayer, an orc or some other weird thing.

But some people take the game too seriously. Things happen to their avatar in-game, and they act like it happened to them, in real life. The internet is full of people raging over a game. People who post angry rants. And people who quit over something that happened to their avatar.

I was thinking about this, reading the parting words of a prominent member of the MMO group I play with. He was upset because another leadership member was removed due to inactivity: "people are all `Hey this is what you should expect because you were unavailable etc etc.` Sure, if we were a Fortune 500 company or even if we paid X some real life salary, I would agree. But let me tell you what the reality of this is. X is someone who has devoted ungodly amounts of time to this alliance over the past 18 months or so. X done this all for practically nothing".

This is absolutely wrong. X spent "ungodly amounts of time" in a video game. The reward for playing a game cannot be anything else than enjoying the game and maybe learning something from it. If such things didn't happen, then it was time badly spent. You can't expect other real life people reward you for playing a game.

Within the game, X roleplayed a director in a company. This avatar stopped doing the director duties and was removed. This happened in the game, according to the logic of the roleplayed world. Would you fire a friend of yours for being unavailable for a few weeks, for serious family matters? Of course not, you would probably help him with these matters.

But the sad truth is that we aren't friends. Our avatars are friends. We are roleplaying being bros, standing side by side till the bitter end against the evil spaceship empire. You, the person, the player, can expect nothing else from the fellow players than what laws, EULA and human decency demands. Things like "don't threaten him with IRL violence or call him a [racist homophobic slurs]". You definitely can't expect gratitude for playing the same video game.

Drama starts when someone perceives that his friends betrayed his trust. In the game our avatars are friends and one can betray the other. The other can retaliate in-game by hunting him down, getting him kicked from groups, and so on. But you, the player has absolutely no reason to be upset. The other guy beyond the avatar was never your friend. He was a random player whose avatar happened to come to the circles of your avatar. Thinking that random player as friend is just as crazy as performing violent crime against a player whose avatar violenced yours in the game.

Clarification: I'm not against statements like "he did so much for the alliance that he deserves X reward". Many people devote serious resources to help out in-game groups. But it must be understood as "he given up time spent roaming or time spent farming ISK for the alliance" and not "he given up real life time for his alliance". For a non-player family member "FC-ing in Asakai" and "running lvl4s in highsec alone" are both classified as "sitting at his computer playing EVE".

Read More

"Separate but equal"

Why to resist CFC? Why to lose Fountain when all we had to do is to bow to Mittens and keep it as CFC members? Why throw away HBC and pick up the "rebel" gimmick?

There are several alliances in the CFC. Formally they are equal. No one calls them pets inside. But, despite shared jabber, mumble and fleets, they are in separate alliances. "Separate but equal" was the legal justification of the Jim Crow laws which prescribed separate "white" and "colored" rail cars, restaurants, barber shops, pubs, schools, drinking fountains and practically all places. Legally they were equal, practically very much not. The "colored" versions were always worse, even when there were attempts to provide equal services. The reason for that is simple: the white users were generally of higher status, and they could leverage this for better services. For example an "only white" restaurant could charge higher on average, therefore hire more staff, providing better services than a "colored", even when the individual customers had equal requests and money. This was the basis of the ruling overturning "separate but equal" stating that separation necessarily lead to inferior services to colored.

Even if there are honest attempts from CFC leadership to keep them equal, the pets get inferior treatment, due to the important figures mostly being Goons, and they naturally look after their people, while pets don't get this attention. However I doubt if there are even attempts. From time to time we here this or that alliance kicked from CFC for "underperformance". However Goonwaffe members don't even have to comply to formal standards. The position of the line Goon is safe without doing anything, by his "birthright" of coming from SA. On the other hand if a pet doesn't perform properly, he is punished. GSF had half as many troops to 6VDT than TEST, despite equal size. Will anyone has to fear consequences of this pathetic performance?

This creates and inequity between the line members of the core group and the pets. The legendary line was "you don't talk back to -A-", instead of "you don't talk back to Makalu". Makalu was a leader who had reasons to demand respect. But a line -A- was just as much an F1-basher as a line "pet". Yet, he was treated better, just like white men over "colored".

The CFC is in the state of the pre-emancipation society of institutionalized racism. There are "white" Goons and "colored" others. This is why TEST broke away from Goon pet state and kept fighting alone against the 3x bigger CFC. Being chased to Esoteria or Impass is better than being a pet.

It was asked if Tribe is a TEST pet? Since Tribe clearly cannot defend itself without TEST or from TEST, it holds its land only at the will of TEST. So Tribe had to do its best protecting TEST space, while cannot automatically expect the same. In this sense, yes, Tribe is a pet. The fact that TEST members and leaders never purposefully wronged them doesn't change that. Human rights needs to be guaranteed by systems and not the goodness of the power holders. If you read TEST forums, you will find a suggestion from me to offer them alliance merge, exactly to stop this situation and make them one with us, change the "separate but equal" into "mixed". Hell, I changed my forum signature to "Can we merge with TRIBE? We already fight as one, let's be one!"

If you are a member of a stable coalition (as opposed to a temporary cooperation of separate entities, like BL and PL at Asakai), and the leadership isn't from your group, you are a pet. Maybe a well-treated one, but still a pet. They might even "jokingly" use the N-word or other racist/sexist slurs on you. It is not funny. Not at all.

Read More

I was there

6VDT-H: July 28, 20:30 EVE Time. When all records were broken.


4050 in local, 1400 from the alliance. At the start we had only TRIBE on our side with 400!!! pilots. No other EVE battle was this big. No other alliance ever fielded so many people. GSF, the alliance fielded only half, but with pets, 2600.


Karan, our staging system got 10% TiDi just from us getting to titans.


Landing on grid. The overview just show logis.


I have a pod overview, looking at it gives a good approximation of the battle. It was losing for TEST from the start.

CFC bridged in fleets before us, which proved to be critical towards the outcome. We stood down from forming slowcats and the drop of dreads was canceled too. After my client died 6 times, I abandoned my original plan to drop a dread no matter what and went in with a simple logi. Bridging in took ages, CCP was clearly not prepared for this magnitude.

Surprisingly reps held for a while, but everything was terribly slow. Then I realized that I'm probably just repping people from bomb damages and mistaken fires, primary targets died before lock (10 mins in real time). The TiDi and lag was extreme. How did the battle end for me? I got jammed (next to the 11 damps) and noticed that my aggression timer is off (probably calculates timers badly because the 20 seconds jam was just halfway). So I figured out a "genius" idea to dock to clear damps and jams and undock. Docking took 23 minutes and couldn't cancel it. Undock? Didn't happen. So unlike most TESTies, I failed to end in a wreck.

What can I tell about the outcome? CFC clearly won Fountain. But TEST didn't just do an "OK" last stand, but broke all records. I don't think "failcascade" will be mentioned. We will retreat to Delve and will either hold it alone, or leave it as the most battle-hardened, compentent and motivated group. A single alliance fielding 1400 people isn't going to fade away.

The most annoying thing: NC. and some of our forces couldn't bridge in because of system cap. CCP wasn't prepared that more than 4K pilots want in. If we'd bridge in first, we could have locked out several Goon fleets, engaging 1:1 at the station. Next time CCP will figure out some solution to handle battles in the age of coalitions.

Finally, the most important aspect of the battle: the losses of us and our allies are about 100B.
The value of the time of 1700 pilots for 4 hours with 50M/hour ratting income: 340B
I doubt anyone bothers about that "lost time". And if we don't bother for 340B, we shouldn't bother about 100. If everyone involved spends 1/4 time making ISK, it's already replaced. What I wrote when the donation board came up still stands: "TEST can no longer bankrupt. Moons can be taken, members not. As long as there are members log in, there will be ISK in the chest, therefore there will be SRP."

Update: seems we won the ISK battle.

Read More

CCP Games and EVE community are not related

Jester wrote about the bitter departure of a podcaster. I've never heard of her because I never listened to podcasts. Reading a text is about 3 times faster than listening to the same text spoken. Also you can't scroll and search that easily, can't embed charts and figures easily. I think podcasts and "guy talking" videos are bad forms of media.

But it's not the point. She ragequit because of what CCP games did to the community: hiring Mintchip, not listing her podcast in some sublink of the official page I've never heard of and letting an inappropriate song into one of the broadcasts.

This is pants on head retarded. CCP games provides the physics of the game and not the content of it. EVE is a sandbox, content is created by the players. Raging on CCP for whatever the players do is like I was raging at CCP because Goons took SPLE-Y. After all CCP could just take down the node or give 10x more HP to our IHUB. They didn't. So they are pro-Goon. Ragequit! I delete my accounts and close my blog! And post an angry rant. Would it be idiotic? Yes, and she just literally did that.

CCP games is responsible for the servers being up, TiDi being low (they fail in that hard) and the game being free of bugs. They are responsible for the existence of the world we are living in. But they aren't responsible for the ways we live in it.

Leftist people often demand some government to solve their problems with competing people. CCP games should promote my blog, CCP games should teach the people to don't be racist, CCP games should stop Goons.

No. You should do these. It's not easy. But it's possible and when you succeed, you succeeded. I keep on flaming/blocking fleetmates who link filth or call game PvP raping, I keep on fighting for the inclusion of "carebears" to nullsec and for the defeat of Goons. I will not beg for CCP games to hold my hand and won't ragequit when they refuse to.

Read More

Capital superiority IS "morale"

"We need more dudes in fleets!", "In Nullsec keeping morale is everything!", "If we believe we can win, we will!" I'm sure you are just as tired of this bullshit as I am. No one has a "morale" meter. They say low morale can be seen from bad fleet numbers. And what causes bad fleet numbers? Bad morale! You got it: bad morale causes low numbers which means bad morale. Also, I've never seen any useful guide to rise morale, that's why there are embarrassing forum topics to "raise morale".

"I'm 1/20th of a shitfit dread. I feel so useful now." This is a quote from the TEST alliance forums from a member who just learned how the DPS of the bombless bomber he is flying relates to Dreadnoughts. In EVE every ship has a role and they excel in it, while fail in other roles, making every ship vulnerable to something else (except for unbalanced supercaps). Stealth bombers are great ships, they can decimate whole fleets in a bombing run. They can move undetectable, they can jump to covert cynos, they can light cynos and they can do many more. Grinding down multi-million HP Sov structures is not among them. Making people fly "siege fleets" has the same effect on their willingness to log in again as making them fly remote-repping Rokhs.

This isn't a problem on its own until you get a Sov war. You can just grab your ship - whatever ship - and find a role for it. You can go on a frigate roam and kill things, having fun. Of course there are fights you cannot take, but frigs are good at running. No one will force you to run lvl 4 missions or attack smartbombing battleships with your frigs. But if you are in a Sov war, you have no options: you must destroy and rep multi-million HP structures. Failing to do so ends you up with no Sov, stations and POS-es. You can no longer choose your way of playing to your ships, you must choose your ships to the task. You can't say "I won't take this fight" without consequences like a frigroamer.

Of course you can choose to run LvL4 missions with 10 frigates. Probably can be done. Probably gives the most horrible ISK/hour one can imagine. Make people do it long enough and they stop logging in. You can of course try to persuade them with social manipulation and it can work for a day or two, but you can't make someone log in again and again and again just to do something ridiculous like running L4s in frigates, remote rep in Rokhs or shoot SBUs in bombers.

But there is more: there is an amount of time one can spend in EVE without failing exams, losing jobs or finding out that his family left him a week ago. No amount of "fight for your bros" tribal drumming can change that. Time is a limited resource and if it's wasted, it will be missing. Sure, you can make surges, typically after a longer period of time when nothing happened in game and people cut back on their playtime. If your exams are fine, you have enough days off work and spent every evenings with your family for weeks, you can afford to go nuts for a day or two and spend huge amount of time in a video game. Welcome to 1-SMEB, where TEST alone shown up in an unimaginable 1300-men force. Fast forward two weeks, your new exams are upon you and you studied nothing, your days off work used up and your wife is packing. You have to cut back on gaming, you have to use that little time efficiently.

"Morale" of TEST is great. People are posting happily, fleet coms are in cheering mood and everyone is having fun. But the numbers are still low because horrible amount of hours were wasted in bombless bombers. People are no longer capable of playing excessive amount, and in the limited amount of time you can fly only a few fleets. It is very possible that TEST members spend more hours in game a week than Goons. It just have no effect as the hours are wasted in bombless bombers. Similarly, look at SOLAR: they lost no members and corps over the year, you can't show better proof for dedication of members. Yet they lost all their Sov. Seems "morale" did no good to them.

The side in the Sov war that is holding capital superiority is capable of saving its strength. Its pilots are participating in useful ops, they don't have to play excessive amounts to get things done, so they can log in when needed, and can even afford to go nuts sometimes like doing a 3:00 AM alarm clock op. The side without capital superiority has to spend inhuman hours grinding structures and will eventually lose. To win, an alliance doesn't need more drumming and even more embarrassing threads, but ISK for capitals.

Read More

Insurance

There is a feature called "insurance" in EVE. You activate it in any station, clicking on the insurance service on the station services menu below the undock button. You need to pay insurance cost to activate it. You receive insurance payout when your ship explodes. It covers the hull only, not modules or cargo. Let's check out its numbers to see exactly how it works and when does it worth having.

This is the insurance page of my Moros. Let's put the numbers into Excel and see what we get: What can we see? At first that if you pay nothing, you still get some money. It's a welfare provided by CCP, the infamous "40%" insurance. The second thing is the 2.0x on the fitted line and the fact that the line perfectly fits. It means that whatever you paid for the insurance, you get its the double back.

From that, we can tell when to insure: if you believe that the ship has more than 50% chance to be lost in the next 12 weeks, you should pay money to insure it, as 0.5*2 = 1, you will get more money out than you put in. Typically in highsec ships live longer, so insurance doesn't pay out.

Secondly: if you choose to insure, always platinum insure. If getting X money is good, getting 2xX is better, so always put the maximum in to get maximum out. Buying in-middle insurances is dumb.

Ships vary in insurance value. T1 ship insurances cover most of the price (you can buy Moros for 2.5B), while T3 ships can be insured very bad. But it doesn't affect the above, getting 10M is better than getting 4M, so if you have more than 50% chance to lose it in 12 weeks, insure it!


PS: undisputed moron of the week.

Read More

PvP vs objectives

In nullsec frigroams are considered "fun" and "PvP experience" is required to join. I'm in nullsec with zero frigroams behind me and no FC ever complained on my performance in fleets. Seems, someone is wrong. Instead of pointing fingers, let me look this problem on a different perspective. Actually on the perspective on two different perspectives.

The competitive people are sorting things as "PvP" and "PvE". The decision is made on "attempting to gain dominance over other person". The objective-oriented person is sorting things as "effective" and "waste of time", based on reaching their goal or not. The two are not opposites, rather speaking in different languages. Let me give some examples:

• Getting ISK: for a competitive person, that's a boring grind, a chore needs to be done. For an objective-oriented person it's an accomplishment which he does with involvement and effort.
• Ganking: for a competitive person that's a dumb activity, since it only proves that a Catalyst is stronger than a mining barge, regardless of player skill. If an objective oriented person wants to climb the killboard, this is a rewarding and involving activity.
• Frigate PvP: for a competitive person, it's an involving activity since frigates are the fastest, demanding the best player reactions. For an objective oriented person - unless he flies in alliance tournament - it's a big waste of time as the losses and gains are trivial.
• PvP roams: a competitive person finds much fun in it, since not only he wins in PvP but does so with friends. For an objective oriented one, it's a waste of time as killing random targets have no gain.
• Strategic operations: for both of them it's rewarding, for different reasons. For a competitive one - like a roam - it's an opportunity to dominate another group with his friends, while an objective oriented receives a direct objective: the system/station/POS ownership

The last point is important, because unlike all previous ones, they agree on it. Without it, they would be two opposing groups. However this point allows them to coexist in the same group.

However to do so, they must understand each other and it's missing now. A competitive group typically demand "PvP experience": killboard history. Since the player couldn't participate in startegic fleets in highsec, it is equal to demand him roams and small-ship PvP what he hates. This demand isn't "evil", just self-centered, assuming that if someone didn't like roams, he will surely hate large fleets, therefore he won't show up.

In an imaginary "carebear alliance" probably a stable of doctrine ships would be demanded and poor roamers would be dismissed as "he won't have the ship and won't show up in structure-only fleets". Which is similarly not true.

This is a problem for me, because I could never get the requested "PvP experience", but - unlike the PvP-ers would predict, I perform on strategic fleets without problems. I'm sure there are many-many people in highsec who could very well fit in nullsec alliances, but don't get a chance to get there due to being gated by small-ship PvP.

Read More

The loneliness of nullsec industry

Playing a missioner, ratter, PI, manufacturer or miner is a valid playstyle in EVE. It's also necessary as without them there wouldn't be any ships, ISK, modules, implants. However this playstyle is completely asocial. You can't do it with other people outside of WH space. Actually you can, it's just horribly unprofitable.

I've covered highsec: if you join a corporation, you open yourself to awoxers and wardeccers while receiving little rewards as other players can't really cooperate with you outside of incursions.

Now nullsec has complexes that are better done with a group. Also, in nullsec you must belong to a real player corporation to dock on non-NPC stations. However in nullsec the force projection of cynos made an awkward effect: the larger group you are in, the more likely you die. In WH space if you rat in a group, the roaming gang needs to be a larger group. However in nullsec a single frigate can find you, light a cyno and pour a larger gang in.

Since you are in PvE ships, you have little chance to fight back. Your best option is to remain unnoticed. If no one knows where you are, if you aren't lighting up the system in the various statistics, you can only be found by chance. Also, even if you are found, they may consider you not worthy enough to use their bridge. So they rather just leave you be.

Add spies to the picture and you get into a situation where everyone fears blues as much as they fear reds. Every blue can be a spy or someone who just brings attention. So you rat, mine, PI, manufacture all alone, with your alts. For most people it's not a fun gameplay. How about being the gang that drops? That's fun! Except they have nothing to drop on, because everyone already learned his lesson: PvE alone, dock up when someone comes. Maybe something should be done with force projection.

PS: if you still want to try out living in nullsec, no strings attached, come to Delve as a renter. Don't forget to mention me as your referral!

Read More

The efficient usage of cynosural fields

People use their cyno alts to get in their capital ship. Which is a waste. Why spend 10 minutes of your time to get in one capital when you can get in two:
This silly weekend minipost is a celebration that I successfully activated jump drives first and second time in EVE and still have the capitals.

Which won't last long as they head to Fountain. I guess I'll still be a carebear, because the structures I'll shoot/rep won't shoot back.

Anyway, go and trade people and you can fly capitals as recklessly like average people do with battlecruisers.

By the way, they are T1 ships, so insure them:
Some tips: fill the fleet hangar of your carrier with extra fuel and refuel yourself in midpoints. Have extra cyno generators and Liquid Ozone too to refuel cyno alts.
On the cyno alt, set the destination to the station you dock to and activate autopilot. When the cyno is down or you are in a pod, the autopilot docks!

And only 17 hours I bought my dread:

Read More

Rational self-interest in donation

Giving out donations doesn't look too rational. Actually it looks pretty leftist and socialist. The strong shall carry the weak. The thing I hate most.

First, you have to see that real life welfare gives money to support a lazy person to continue to do nothing. If you donate to NASA for example, you can rightfully expect that they spend it on researching space. It is possible that some (or all) of your donation is stolen. However there is a large chance that it will be consumed for a goal you wanted to support.

Now let's look at EVE Online and the donation system at TEST. You want to win the war, that's your goal. If it's not, then you shouldn't be in an entity fighting that war. If your goal is getting lot of money, your place is in highsec where no one bothers you with anything else than making money.

Now, let's see what 30B can buy for you in regards of DPS/HPS and EHP: "Power" is EHP*DPS*(1+1/n)/2, because if a ship has 2x higher EHP, it causes 2x more damage. The 1/n is there to count for the fact that a Nyx losing 90% of his EHP is still shooting with 100%, while a fleet shoots with 10% after losing 90% of the ships.

You get the picture: the same money gets more and more powerful fleets as you get into smaller but more numerous ships. Of course you can't bring in 30000 Rifters since you lack the pilots. Also, below a size the fleet become too easy to be bombed. However bringing in 99 rifters + 1 Nyx is definitely weaker fleet than 100 Rokhs. Therefore if you can guarantee that your money is spent on other pilot flying in combat (as opposed to him ratting less at your expense), you are better off keeping the other guy in ships than upshipping yourself. The SRP guarantees that, he can't get your money any other way than losing his in the war.

Of course one can ask why I should donate for the SRP of the other guy when we are supposed to be equals: simple, I am more motivated than him. He is clearly more casual on this war thing. Push him to contribute equally and he stops logging in. On the other hand the victory will be more rewarding to the one who is motivated, than to the one who just jumped on a fleet doesn't really caring where it goes. But keep in mind: no matter how little he gives, he still gives to the alliance. He gets nothing for himself from the SRP.

The various "free ship" programs (besides the trivial-cost ones to fresh newbies), are trickier, since you can easily hand out someone a new ratting carrier that he'll lose to some gang. People quitting EVE after getting their first titan are infamous. In such cases, I'd rather pay them salary for being on capital op than giving them a capital.

Since the donation board was created, TEST collected 270B. In less than a week. If you want to support us in our holy crusade against the Band of Bees, just send money to Upvote (executor corp of TEST) and put "donation" to the description.

I'd like to emphasize how different this war is from all previous: they were won by one of the sides losing morale, stop logging in or leadership turning on each other. Neither CFC, nor TEST can end these ways. They are not "elite" alliances that define themselves on green killboard or "l33t skills", they just laugh on whelps (not so much on stand-downs). They both have a central corp that gives 50%+ of the strength of the alliances, these can't fracture like BL/NC. did in the North. These wars will continue until one side simple lose too much money to field capitals, allowing the enemy to grind down structures in no time, degrading the enemy into a "Pizza-state". This war will be decided by finances and not propaganda.

---

Some Fountain war photos. The fleets are usually running around reinforcing and repping things. On the first fleet I was in a Guardian, repping the SBUs:
We also shot some towers, with dreads as decent people do:
My second fleet was less entertaining: A Prophecy fleet where I was in an Oneiros. We had no dreads. This shall not stand. We must raise enough money to put dreads to every reinforce op.

Read More

Introduction to trading: the first steps to riches

How to become a trader? It's easy, you don't have to do anything for it. If you ever used the marketplace, you are a trader. The bad news is that you are a trading in the same sense as a Hulk pilot is PvP-ing during Hulkageddon. If you play EVE, trading is just as unavoidable as PvP. You can act like it's not important, but it only result in you being ganked. The good news is that you can learn it without any capital, investment or anything, just with your ordinary trades.

What makes one poor on the marketplace? Impatience and inability to plan. These manifest in the two cardinal sins: buying from a sell order and selling to a buy order. Whenever you do these, you lose money. Sometimes not enough to care. I do buy from sell orders when they are close enough to buy orders to give a damn. But this is dumb: 50M profit after taxes for a few clicks from people who just can't set a buy order.

The first step is thinking ahead of you. Do you fly a Rokh? Then you'll need Rokhs. So instead of buying an overpriced one when you are podded back to your staging system, how about setting a buy order a few days before? If you could wait 3 months training to fly a Rokh, you can wait 3 days to get one much cheaper. If there are no buy orders, check the price in Jita (if you don't have a Jita alt, you are dumb), and set a buy order 10-15% below it. Not deeper, it will never fill. Do the same if there are laughably small buy orders. If there are already buy orders above Jita-15%, set above the highest by 1-2%. Not 0.01, that just get re-0.01-ed. Let's say a Rokh is 250M in Jita, lowest buy is 210M, set yours to 215M. Check it a day after. If it got "overcut", set it to 220M and so on. Sooner or later it'll be high enough for someone to sell. If you are not planning to transport from Jita or manufacture it or whatever, continue elevating the price after the Jita price. Same goes for sell orders. Don't sell to a low buy order, set a sell order 20-25% above Jita, cut it every day until it sells. Again: if you don't plan to transport it yourself, continue cutting under Jita prices.

The second step is manufacturing/transporting: you want the item, but your buy order does not fill, despite it's high enough for profitable transportation. But no one wants to transport or manufacture it. Step in! Check the hauler services available or haul yourself if it worths your time. This way you can get the item cheaper than accepting a high sell order. Again: it needs time, so doesn't help you if you are in the hurry. Don't be in the hurry, plan ahead!

The third step is what really makes you rich: if the first and second steps saved you money, it will save to someone else too, and he will pay you. You can buy one item from buy order or transport it for your own saving. Why not buy or transport more and sell the ones you don't need? This answers the most annoying question I use to get: "what items are good for trading?" The answer is "anything you get for yourself"! After all, you know at least one buyer: yourself. Unless you are doing something exotic, there must be many others like you. Every time you want to say "damn this price is a ripoff", you found a profitable trading niche! Under/overcut that price!

Remember, every time you are buying from a sell order or sell to a buy order, you are losing money. Becoming a billionaire needs nothing else than be the guy who has these orders.

Read More

EVE AUR to save DUST

DUST isn't doing well. The reason is widely accepted: it has 2-3 years outdated graphics and offers little difference from other FPS games. I mean you spawn, shoot the randoms who happen to be the opposing team, die, respawn.

EVE Online isn't just a WoW-clone with spaceship avatars. There is politics, meta-game and huge losses. EVE has carved its own unique playerbase. I'm sure that there is a similar playerbase among FPS players, but DUST fails to reach them. Why? Because DUST doesn't offer the same empire-building metagame as EVE.

CCP made the move of merging the EVE and DUST universe and make the games affecting each other. Some of the cross-effects are meaningful. More could be introduced, like moving all IHUBs and stations to Temperate planets if available and make planetary dominance meaningful in IHUB/station timers. Hell, they could even introduce IHUB flip, where the hull-damaged IHUB can be invaded by marines and the system instantly changes hands keeping its sov level instead of just blow up.

However none of the cross-effects are used, simply because EVE empires can't motivate the DUST players. The economies are largely separated with EVE-ISK being different from DUST-ISK. I can't just give 10B to DUST marines to invade enemy planets. The reason for that is the different business model of the games. EVE is a subscription game, where every account is payed by real money (even if not by you). DUST is a free-to-play game where you gain items both from ISK farmed and real money paid. If EVE players could send ISK to DUST players, DUST would not generate revenues. EVE-ISK does not affect the income of CCP, DUST-ISK does. Therefore the two currencies can never be interchangeable.

However AUR is real money in both games. In EVE you can only buy cosmetic items, while in DUST you can buy power items. The solution is that DUST marines can be hired for AUR. EVE players can turn ISK into AUR using PLEX, assuming that someone else paid for that PLEX and put it to the market. Then they can use the AUR to hire DUST marines. The DUSTie completing his contracts receives AUR, practically real money, paid via real money by some EVE player. The inverse way is possible too: DUST player requesting planetary bombardment for AUR, that the EVE player can convert back to PLEX to fund his account.

This way DUST marines would be a meaningful way to change EVE wars and DUST would gain its unique selling point: you can truly play for free if you perform contracts, affecting the EVE universe.


PS: what is the worst thing about several alliances fighting together? Different comms. Yesterday finally there was a fleet in my timezone. Of course I couldn't figure out how to get to NC. TS3 before they undocked.

Read More

Beyond my wildest dreams

"Beyond my wildest dreams" is a new gimmick in TEST, coined by an awoxer who stole a smartbomb from the fleet hangar of a titan and awoxed some retrievers. He explained his actions as the value of the loot was beyond his wildest dreams and couldn't resist it.

For more than a year I was suggesting that alliances should finance themselves on player contribution. I mean players already donate huge amount of time to their alliances, like flying stealthless-bombless stealth bombers grinding structures. If 200 people flying such crap for 2 hours without personal benefit is OK, 200 people ratting/mining and giving away the income (200*2*0.05 = 20B) should be equally OK.

But it's not, because shooting an IHUB is awesome PvP fun, while mining is a horrible PvE activity that only carebears do. And no self-respecting PvP-er would tolerate filthy carebears in his alliance. Goons surely not who gave the order to their pet SMA to kick half of their members for being carebears. TEST is probably the only exception, with official squads for industry and ratting and people openly discussing ISK-making.

I recently rejoined TEST and suggested to have a killboard-like toplist for donators. It was built in record time. You can see it too, it's not passworded, it's open like the killboard. So, I offered 10B every month if they make it and foolishly offered to match any donations.

I expected people to give a couple ten millions. After all 1000 people donating one hour of ratting fruits is 50B. Corps may give a billion or two. Well, the results exceeded my wildest dreams. Members gave billions with ottawolf donating his whole saving for a supercarrier, 40B. Matching that was felt even by my wallet. Anyway, in the first few days of this running, 160B was collected, almost as much as the monthly moon income of Fountain. The list isn't even complete, as many donated goods and not ISK, that needs to be manually added to the system.

This is just the beginning. Lot of people can and like making ISK, they just have no reason to. They farm enough to PLEX their account and buy a ship or two and that's it. Unlike fleet PvP, there was no reward attached. No killboard, no people around to defeat or fly with. Now it became a badge of honor, these "carebears" are keeping the SRP running. Many will pick up their ratting or mining ship, pull out PI pilots out of the mothball or reactivate a highsec moneymaker. Because making ISK is no longer "spending unfun time for pixel money" but the mean to win the war. Also, moneymaking isn't bound to fleet pings, you can do at any time, so it can overall increase activity. Please note that 1/3 of the donated money already came from the "long tail", lot of little guys giving a few millions.

The propaganda of TEST bankruptcy will end just as fast as "N3 is destroyed by the sov-dropping director". TEST can no longer bankrupt. Moons can be taken, members not. As long as there are members loging in, there will be ISK in the chest, therefore there will be SRP. As long as there is SRP, there will be PvP-er to fly them. As the funds increase, more will be available for "get your first battleship for free" or "hourly pay for structure grinders" or free slowcats.

The "Goon idea" has lost the war. Goonswarm may not as they shown fast adaptation skills. Maybe the next Mittani move will be evaluating corps based on ISK given to the war chest and everyone will be expected to recruit carebears. But the idea of "grr carebears, kill them all, PvP forever" is as dead as the master-pet system of BoB and -A-.


If you are not in TEST but want to support us in our sacred war against the Band of Bees, you can donate too:

PS: The donation board will also make the "you just made up your 0.5T" posts pointless. After all, it's irrelevant how much I have. What matters is how do I use it. I think most of it will slowly but surely go to the TEST coffers. Also, my Ragnarok pilot will soon complete his skill plan, so I must get liquid for that too.

PS2, personal note: all services set up and logi pilot joined, stratops here I come again... too bad that most of them are US TZ which I can't attend at weekdays. But there will surely be fleets in the EVE time 16-21 range.

Read More

Sisters marauder

Here comes a long-awaited ISK-making post, aiming to give highsec missioning a boost.

Have you heard of the Sisters of EVE? They are not just here for roleplaying, they have a lvl4 mission agent in the Osmon system. What makes Sisters special? That their LP conversion is not 1000 ISK/LP, like the rest of the Empire factions, but over 2K, like pirate factions. (for example 10x Sisters core scanner probe: 5.3M Jita, need 1.2M cash, 10x normal probe for 0.1M, 1800 LP, 2200ISK/LP) Then why would anyone not mission for them and work for other factions for much less?

Because of this. And this. And this. Not to mention this, this, this, this, this and many-many more. Osmon, Inaya, Korsiki and Olo are paradise for missioner gankers. So after losing a 1.5B Tengu to a single Tornado, most missioners decide it's not for them.

I simply couldn't let this opportunity to pass by. So I did what I swore I won't do in EVE, security missions. Great thanks to my girlfriend as I don't have a combat pilot while she can fly battleships well and also T2 hybrids. Still, 2 months of training needed to create this post. Please note that none of the following is EFT-brainfart, everything was tested and re-modified again and again to create you an 1500DPS, 1000 DPS omni-tank, auto-salvaging, perma-MWD-capstable- without-perfect-skills monster that drops about 1/3 as much loot as the pricetag of the Tornadoes needed to gank.


No multiboxing skills or software is needed to fly them. You just fleetwarp to the gate, warp the Kronos in first and start moving it to break invulnerability. Warp in the logi, lock the Kronos, start orbiting, start remote sensor booster and local tank. Alt-tab back to Kronos, lock the logi and the first set of NPCs, start energy transfer, shoot one or two rats. Alt-tab back to logi, start all remote modules and the MWD, launch drones and start salvaging. From this point, unless something goes wrong, you don't have to bother the logi ship until you finish with the packet.

The Kronos has impressive 1100 DPS without drones with Null ammo, shooting up to 45km with 4 seconds cycle time. Even without level 5 skills, you can get 0.08 rad/sec tracking, which translates to 800m/s transversal at 10km. Little comparison: a Cormorant with small railguns have worse tracking and similar optimal. So you can pop frigates like you'd be in a destroyer. With a little practice you never need to summon your scout drones to handle orbiting frigrats. Cruiser rats die in two volleys usually. After you cleared up the trash, you turn MWD on and while shooting one, get close to another rat battleship, typically to the named one. Switch to Void ammo, and finish it with the staggering 1500DPS that the blasters can provide. If you are lucky and the rats are flying those Machariel-looking battleships, they do you the favor of gathering to your optimal (which is their optimal too). Here are some from the Record Cleansing storyline mission which is calls for "extreme tank":
Unless you mess up something, you use nothing but salvage drones on both ships, which constantly collect a little side income for you, while creating little cans that your two tractor beams pull in. Since the limiting factor in the missions is not killing the rats, having Science 5 for the T2 tractors and Salvage drone operation 5 for faster drone salvage has priority over T2 guns and practically anything besides basic ship-flying skills.

The marauder has 400M fitting while having 100K EHP omni-tank on gates, 85K without shields and missing one repper cycle worth of armor. With 600 EHP/sec tank coming from the logi, the Marauder never was below 95% armor during the 50-something missions I made. Tanking the logi is a trickier issue, since the Marauder can't run remote reps as giving up a tractor beam is out of question. So it got a 60M faction hardener and a 60M storyline local repper, providing 170 EHP/second rep on EFT, which is rather 200 in reality as the reactive armor hardener will adapt to rat damage. As a Guardian has high resist by default, the rat-specific resists are often over 85%: If this tank wouldn't be enough, you can always stop, switch of the MWD so the signature of the logi falls to 70m and unleash 5 medium repper drones from the Kronos, providing another 200 DPS tank. You might think it's overkill and the logi can give up rig slots and maybe a low for faster drones or more utility. I thought that too, but then I was convinced by the Sleeper AI, that max-tank + rep drones on standby is needed:
What about mission gankers? There are two kinds, one is ganking on gates, you are totally safe of those, no one ganks a 100K EHP ship for 400M fitting (or a 60K EHP, 70m sig one for 120M). The real mission ganker follows you into your mission, kill trigger rats so you get swarmed by NPCs. Once you get to low armor, his single ship can finish you. One of them visited in Drones Attack, unleashing all waves. Then he waited, waited, the Kronos armor remained over 95% while 10 battleships were shooting it, because the frigs and cruisers were primaried. I mean if those could get close, the Hobgoblins had to be sent out, which would slow down salvaging. He didn't come back again. Nor any other who shown up once in my pocket looking for a DCU-less, 9K armor, resist holed, half-armor-damaged 2B marauder. Meet one of the gankers who expected crazy damage but saw nothing but a full HP Kronos casually locking up containers for tractoring while keeping salvage drones:
Of course the above is only true if you resist the urge to bling your ship. Officer or even deadspace modules would give a few % DPS, speed or tank at the cost of becoming profitably gankable.

Since missioning is about ISK, let's see the results. Spending 2:45, the following missions were run: The bounties and rewards were copy-pasted from the Journal, the loot and salvage value was calculated by the in-game approximation, the LP was converted to Virtue implants and Sisters probes and sold on Jita Well, clearly not trading income, neither supercarrier ratting or even incursion. But 66.6M/hour in highsec, practically safely from any PvP isn't bad at all. Especially if we add that the skills were far from perfect (Security connection 5 would increase LP significantly) and missions still had to be looked up. As you can see, rewards and LP are just half of the income, so I advise against Blitzing. Blitzing was developed when salvaging and looting meant docking up and undocking a Noctis, while in this setup 10 Salvage drones and 2 bonused tractor beams do it while you are killing the next pack.

Tips and tricks:

• Create an item filter that filters out your ammo, gatekeys and other items you want to keep. Then you can select all the loot and remove from your ship.
• Empty your hold after every mission
• You can rearrange your locked targets by grabbing and moving one. Move your logi always to the same place.
• Your logi should not be in the same corp as you, because corpmates can shoot each other. A misclick and you killed your own logi. Obviously set your safety to green.
• If the rats are in far places, loot and salvage the first group before moving to the next. You can try pulling them by shooting them.
• If you left a wreck 100km away, don't go back for it
• When the mission is finished and only a few wrecks left, the Marauder can return with the quest, while the logi finishes salvaging.
• When the logi finished salvaging, warp it to the station, but don't dock. The undocking Marauder can fleetwarp it
• When you are about to log out, request one more mission, so you can reject it without standing loss
• Don't turn on the MWD of the logi at the start, only when you start moving after clearing up the nearby rats.
• Check your journal for storyline mission while returning, if you got one offered, don't complete the current mission, go and pick up the storyline, complete and then complete the normal
• Storyline missions give lot of standing which translates to lot of rejectable missions. Don't skip the storyline, even if it's harder than the normals.
• Dread Pirate Scarlet mission has several pockets and jamming rats. Skip.
• Watch out for webbing drones. They can web your logi and you can leave it behind.
• Cargo Delivery can be blitzed in a shuttle, just loot the warehouse and warp out.
• Recon is a 3-step mission, can be blitzed without shooting. You have to reach the gates, in the first 2 do it in a shuttle, in the third use the marauder alone to fly trough the toxic field. Put on a local rep and a cap booster.
• If you already anchored up with the logi, don't blitz, kill them all
• You can guarantee that the Marauder arrives first to the mission: initiate warp to the mission, stop ship when the speed is around 60%, squadwarp
• You don't have to click on the big icons to switch active target, you can do it on the overview, so you can always shoot the closest

What about second account costs? An account can easily pay for itself by training and selling characters or running 3 blueprint research characters on it. However one legitimate question can arise: if you start a second logi account now, it will be able to fly the above Guardian in like 4-5 months and even then you'll have to make compromises with the fitting. Here is the solution: replace the T2 magstab with a strong local rep on the Kronos and on the second account fly this, literally on the second day:

[Augoror, energy only]
'Meditation' Medium Armor Repairer I
1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I
Prototype Armor Explosive Hardener I
Prototype Armor Kinetic Hardener I
Prototype Armor Thermic Hardener I

Experimental 10MN Afterburner I
Phase Switching Targeting Nexus, Optimal Range Script
Linked Sensor Network, Targeting Range Script

Medium 'Regard' Power Projector
'Regard' Power Projector
'Regard' Power Projector
'Regard' Power Projector
'Regard' Power Projector

Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I

Salvage Drone I x4

The Auguror remote reps are bonused only at high Amarr Cruiser skill, but the energy transfers are bonused as role bonus, so it can easily keep the Marauder at full cap while it's running MWD and local faction rep constantly. Of course you can't go in head-long with this as it only has afterburner, so slower than the Marauder and you can't leave it behind so have to play with speed. Also, its tank is much weaker than of the Guardian, so you'll need to send out those medium repping bots more often. But still, this ship can follow and support your Marauder with energy, remote sebo and even with a tracking link to make up for the larger engagement distance. Later, when you can fly the Guardian but with bad skills, you can use deadspace remote reppers. They are 10-20M as no one uses them.


PS: I've designed and tested a theoretically better setup:
Replace 2 tracking computers with sensor booster and heavy cap booster. Replace the energy transfer with remote armor rep. The logi setup is:

[Oneiros, for Kronos]
1600mm Reinforced Steel Plates II
Imperial Navy Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane
Capacitor Power Relay II
Armor Explosive Hardener II
Damage Control II

10MN Afterburner II
Shadow Serpentis Tracking Link, Optimal Range Script
Tracking Link II, Optimal Range Script
Tracking Link II, Tracking Speed Script

Medium Remote Armor Repair System II
Large 'Solace' Remote Bulwark Reconstruction
Large 'Solace' Remote Bulwark Reconstruction
Drone Link Augmentor I

Medium Capacitor Control Circuit I
Medium Capacitor Control Circuit I

Salvage Drone I x5

This setup has stronger tank (700+600), better range and tracking (62km falloff, 0.13!!! rad/sec with tracking script on marauder), longer salvage drone radius. Yet I chose the Guardian setup, because this needs very high multi-tasking ability, while the Guardian is extremely tolerant to mistakes. With the Oneiros setup, you always have to keep in mind the range of the logi from you, presence of webbing drones and its tank status as you lose it if it's out of the 9km remote rep range while aggressed. It's slower than the Kronos, you have to play with speed if it needs rep. Also, you can't just perma-MWD or perma-remote rep or you run out of cap boosters. Which can happen too if you leave your cap booster needlessly running. If you are a full-time mission runner, learning the management of this setup might worth it. If you just run some missions to get X ISK every week to support other activities, stick to the Guardian, it keeps you from tearing off your hair. Also, the "T1 Oneiros" is practically useless, needing good skills on the second pilot just to start.

Read More

You didn't see this coming! (me neither)

Well, sometimes life have strange twists. Being one of the richest players in EVE and making 100x more kills than "nullsec PvP-ers" are nice achievements, but I'm surely very-very sad as no one likes me (yes, I have to admit, I cried all the way to the bank).

Now look at that:
This is my scout pilot, on the same account as my main, Gevlon Goblin. What the hell she's been doing in Dreddit, TEST alliance? Well, several players from TEST sent me messages that things have changed a lot in TEST and my haters turned out to be ... haters and left or removed for various jerk moves and I can apply back. I dismissed them as trolls. But one of them was hard to dismiss. Kaito Momaki sent me quotes from the forum where a topic was created about my 0.5T and also informed me about the changing general attitude. I did not believe it for a second. Finally, he got the financial director, Packetninja to EVE-mail me that my re-application would be accepted. So now I'm once again docked in K-6 (I know it's not the deployment base, but that's lowsec, anyone can dock there)

It would be great to say "it was my master plan all along", but the truth is that until I saw Cindy with the Dreddit tag I was just as sure as you, that my days in TEST (and likely in sov-null in general) are over. I mean everyone was sure that TEST would rather cooperate with Pizza than get me back ... oh wait!

What happened? Well, read the new alliance update. It says "Financially we're finally to the point where I need to ask people to contribute. We’ve been welping things pretty much since I took over, and the wallets are finally worn out." Well, it's good that it's written. Goons still try to lie themselves that they are rich while they are fielding stealthless-bombless stealth bombers. First step of solving a problem is admitting that it's a problem. That "fun" doesn't keep you in ships.

What will I do in TEST? My best to help with their pretty bad financial situation. Without testing, my ideas are just ideas without proof. I need to win this war as much as they need it. So I accepted the offer without hesitation.

The best comment about this rather surprising situation? PS: My other pilots will lag a bit because I have an ongoing project in highsec that I'll finish this week and post the results next Monday.

Read More

The fundamental nullsec emptiness problem

Ali Aras had a very interesting take on intel and (AFK-)cloaking, but stopped a step before the really important conclusion. Let me summarize her post: in WHs you can control your entrances, in nullsec you can't, since every ship can light a cyno pouring hundreds of enemies. To make it worse, they can do so next to you, while they are tackling you (hotdrop). Therefore if we remove local, no one will undock as he will rightfully assume that he does it into a massacre. She finished by adding that she still considers AFK cloaking a valid mechanic.

I don't argue with her. I just finish what's missing, because she also mentions how she is unhappy that nullsec is almost empty. However, because of what she wrote, nullsec will always be almost empty, even if the EVE playerbase and even nullsec alliance membership doubles. There would be twice as big Asakais, but in the meantime, nullsec will be just as void as today. Why?

Because local channel is actually an emptiness checker. If a player finds the system not empty, he docks/safes up, therefore removing himself, making it emptier. If we remove the tool, they will just leave nullsec forever. Currently a nullsec system has two states of emptiness outside of a timer battle, either there are a few ratters/miners are in the system, only blues, or one or more hostiles (neutrals) enter the system and everyone docks up, leaving only the hostiles to linger. Some are lingering for long due to being AFK-cloaker.

To make nullsec not empty, we must change the mechanics that makes "ratting while neut is on local" equal to "being a suicidal idiot". In WH it's not the same, people run sites, despite rightfully assuming that there can be hostiles on the system. However they have a chance to win. Unless the hostiles sneaked in a large force and logged it off, waiting especially for you, their gang is facing a few roamers that can be easily disposed. In WHs, you can't just jump around looking for someone to kill, because you can only enter in a wormhole which is camped by a local scout if they aren't totally incompetent. Your scout who is already in the system can find the siterunners, but by the time you roll your static to them, they'll be gone, and even if you are very lucky, the scout has to be tanky enough to keep someone tackled long enough for your fleet to jump the hole and warp from it to the site. A 1-day old rifter with a T1 cloak won't make it. In nullsec, you just gather on a titan, send out scouts and as soon as any of them finds anyone outside of shields/stations, your fleet can instantly appear on top of him.

What about lowsec? You can cyno in too, and low isn't that empty. At first, most lowsec PvE is done behind acceleration gates where you can't cyno in. You need at least 2 pilots to "hotdrop" a missioner, one who lights the cyno on the gate and another inside the mission tackling. The missioner is also pre-warned by the incoming scan probes. Also, most lowsec entities don't have titans.

The force projection of the cynos needs to be seriously decreased to decrease the emptiness of null. I'm not sure if titan and blackops bridges add anything to the game instead of taking away. If you could only drop unsupported capitals or a fleet of blackops battleship alone to a cyno, it wouldn't be so undefeatable. There could also be a spool-up period for cyno: after you press the button the cyno starts to form for 2 minutes. The beacon that others can warp to does not appear until the cyno is complete, but it is visible for anyone on grid. So you need to be off-grid to light the cyno, giving a chance to the targets to get away. Obviously you can't tackle and cyno with the same ship, unless it can live 2 minutes under fire and somehow prevent its target to just slowboat out of tackle range in 2 minutes. A commenter made an even better idea: to make the bridge, the titan must jump first, leaving behind a bridgehead. People can use that item to jump after the Titan, as long as it is next to the cyno.

There can be other fixes, but the point is this: as long as force projection is so powerful, everyone will remove himself from the system when he sees a neutral coming, making the system forever almost empty.


PS: tomorrow (if the administrative work won't be even longer) you'll be very surprised, don't miss the post.

Read More

Microtransactions: pay for easy mode

People dub non-cosmetic microtransaction games as "pay to win". But for some reason they keep playing the game they observed unfair. That's weird, good players who are robbed from their victory by paying players should simply quit.

The reason for them not quiting became visible when I was playing a silly flash game: Bloon tower defense 5. Typical pay-to-win game where you can get atrocious power upgrades for money. Yet it's a fun game for free, exactly because the game is challenging without the atrocious power upgrades.

I think "pay-to-win" isn't a correct term. It is "pay for easy mode". The game is challenging and good for free, while bad players can buy easy mode. It's like World of Warcraft would be free to play without access to daily quests, LFR and LFD and you can pay for accessing these features. Good players, while would have trouble maxing out valor points, would enjoy progressing on normal and hard mode raiding and pre-made dungeons where they have to enter in the gate, while rightfully looking down the easy mode kids.

The only ones unhappy about the microtransaction model are those who want to display superiority instead of just be superior. Since it cannot be proved that you earned your progress by playing well and not by paying, there is no "l33tness" in progressing, nothing to show off. But it bothers only a small but noisy minority.

Read More

Evidence that playing good has little to do with play time

Sirlin's "play to win" theory made significant impact in the meta-gaming community, but it's rejected in the wider gaming community. This theory claims that the performance of the player largely depends on his attitude, rather than his playing experience. I expanded this theory by the explanation why there are people who don't play to win: they want to pull stunts that impress real or imaginary peers who want to see sparkles and "ownage" instead of a "boring, cheap" play followed by a "you won" screen.

However the above lacked experimental proof, and without it, the bad players (large majority) can keep claiming that performance is only function of gaming time, dubbed as "no life". The claim is hard to disprove because successful gamers indeed spend lot of time in games. Unsuccessful ones too, but how to catch them? I mean some can be caught by doing extremely time-consuming "achievements", while getting little progress in the main line of the game. However they are a small minority, the large masses cannot be caught playing more than the "no lifers". In absence of accurate time data, anyone can claim that he just "has life" so he doesn't play as much as the other guy. Similarly, if good play is presented, they can simply claim that the performer plays 80 hours a week. Even if someone starts a new game and book his hours, one can easily claim that his previous gaming experience helps, since games are similar. They reached an unbreakable circular argument: anyone who plays good surely plays a lot and playing a lot makes anyone good player.

So I took a different approach. What if I could win while playing bad? I mean if you have "low skillz", you must be a casual. The perfect test-game was League of Legends. It's a pretty grindy (or costy) game, where you battle against other players using units called "champions". There are hundreds of them. They are purposefully unbalanced, every champion has a "counters", champions who can easily defeat it. So the only way to win is to have a large stable of champions so you can always pick one for the job. A champion costs 3-6000 game money and you get about 100-300 for a game if you play for free. Alternatively you can buy one for $15-30. So to have an "OK" collection of champions, you need to play thousands of hours or spend several thousands of USD. Add that the game is fast-paced, so you need to develop muscle-memory for each champions and memorize how to move against each enemy champion. It's easy to say that one must be a no-lifer to win here.

Here I come with nothing like that:Oops, I played practically one champion. It is a "recommended" one, meant for newbies: weak but easy to handle. To add, I did not even learn the other champions. What does Katarina do? She jumps around and does damage. That's all I know of her. Even less of those who aren't often played by enemies. Add that I have zero experience in RTS games and left WoW raiding for being too fast-paced.

Knows nothing about the game, did not grind gear, moves sloppy: everything is ready for a disaster. And indeed I got insane amount of flame from teammates for being unskilled, noob and a troll just for playing. Yet, it's not them, but me who got this:
Now being in silver league isn't a great thing. I wish to elevate at least to gold, but something very unexpected happened in EVE that will take up my gaming time. You will soon hear about that. Anyway, according to the game wiki, 68% of the players are in bronze. Despite I'm being utterly horrible in the game, I got into the top 1/3. How?

Simply by playing to win, as opposed to trying to kill enemies. The unsuccessful players want to "pwn" enemies to show off their "l33t stats" to peers. I preferred farming NPCs for gold and XP, defending and attacking towers, which are the objectives of the game. Players respawn you know. Most hate I got for completing an objective at the cost of letting a teammate die. That, and helping them which is dubbed as "kill-steal".

The above can be easily repeated, and having some meta-gaming knowledge, I know now that I picked a pretty bad champion as jungling needs teammates to somewhat cooperate, like be defensive when facing a stronger opponent instead of just rushing into the enemy, feeding and spamming "come gank jungler ffs". Some day I might repeat with an easier champion.

The result is that someone with a play-to-win mindset outperforms other players, even if he is utterly incompetent in the game, because most players don't even try to win. A snail easily wins a running race against a rabbit which runs in circles. The bronze players don't need more champions or better reflexes as they already 10x better than me on those fields. They just need to play to win.

PS: please note that there is a "normal game" mode in League of Legends, which is more fun, due to the lack of lengthy pre-battle selection (ban, pick turns, someone quit queue). So the people who picked competitive ranked games are surely attempting to win. They are just failing to.

Read More

ur a kid!

The title is a troll comment I get often. It doesn't make much sense. It's clearly not an argument. While we know that socials don't bother with arguments, just with insults, butt-kissing and attention seeking, "ur a kid" isn't really an insult.

They seem to genuinely believe that my statements have a special quality that fits to kids. What is this? To the answer, we just have to look another troll comment the "u dun get EVE" (you don't understand EVE). This is pointless on its own, as the commenter never tries to teach me the meaning of EVE.

For a social the point of everything outside of body functions is having positive social emotions. Being loved and/or respected. The "meaning of EVE" what they can't define but are sure that I don't get is "hanging out with friends". In this respect gaining billions, topping the killboard or conquering regions are "meaningless pixels" while running around in frigates and spamming porn and meme links is "awesome fun".

Now back to the kids. Children in the modern world are taught in schools to science, art and professions. They are expected to perform in a rational manner and are measured by numerical scales. So a kid internalizes a moral system where performing well is good and failing is bad. Education is the greatest advancement of mankind and the sole reason of our progression. However, around puberty the kids start to get into "bad company", to peer groups that defy the school norms and claim that having good grades is "no life" and the "fun" is in being intoxicated, engaging in unsafe sex and perpetrating petty crimes.

Since I measure my progress with charts and not by "having fun", I must be a kid who has not been lured by "friends" away from the boring schoolwork into "the fun". In that sense "ur a kid" means "you aren't a dropout", which is actually a compliment.


PS: tomorrow comes the results of a little research, disproving that performing well has nothing to do with "being no-lifer", and performing bad has nothing to do with "being casual".

Read More

Fuel station Auguror

In its infinite wisdom, CCP games gave the T1 cruisers Auguror and Osprey a role bonus of +1000% energy transfer array and +200% energy transfer amount. You have it without any skills. What can we cook from this ship? For example a petrol station:It takes about 2 weeks to learn this ship (energy grid upgrades 5 needed for the reactor controls). What is it good for? Well, it has a cyno, so you can cyno in your capital ship. The capital aligns out to a safe and warps if anyone lands. The Auguror remote sensor boost the capital to make it lock the Auguror faster. A non-triaged carrier can lock a cruiser in 20 seconds, but it can be decreased to 4 by the sensor links. As soon as the Auguror is locked, the capital starts a capital energy transfer array on it. In turn, the Auguror starts the 4 large energy transfers on the capital.

The capital will gain 820 cap/second from the Auguror and spends only 135 running the capital transfer array, so its net gain is around 700/sec. Even if the capital has no energy generation on its own (it surely has some, even on full combat fit), the fuel station Auguror can fill a carrier to 75% from zero in 70 seconds. If the capital has a T1 MWD to decrease cap size, the time needed goes down to 50 seconds. This ship is designed for the solo pilot moving his capital around and wants to do so fast.

Without the cyno, the fuel station Auguror can support POS repping carriers too. The carrier exits triage with no cap left, and can re-enter triage with full cap in a minute. There can be other uses like orbiting a nontriaged ratting carrier that reps/caps ratting battleships and keeping it on full cap. Of course it will need to downgrade on the transfers a bit to be able to fit some tank against random rat damage. Since it can throw cap to 107km, it can even have PvP uses, supporting a cap-intensive forward ship from behind (like smartbombing Rokhs from the other side of the bubble).

Anyway, if you are in need of cap, the T1 logistics cruisers are the ships for you.

Read More

Heroes and villains are overrated

Young people often dream of becoming a hero, one who is capable of doing huge differences all by himself. Of course none of them actually becomes one. However it's not because they didn't try hard enough or failed. It's because the heroes themselves are overrated. Nothing shows this better than the recent S2N Citizens sovereignty drop. A hero/villain (depending on which side you are) completely exterminated the renter system of the Nulli coalition.

Yet, Nulli and allies already reclaimed most of the systems. I'd guess in a week or two no one could tell that anything happened at all. Some difference he made!

The reason for the failure of him becoming hero/villain is not his personal shortcomings. What he did was one of the largest moves in EVE history. But he tried to move something stable. If Superman would lift a huge rock, the rock would return to its original place as soon as Superman gets bored of holding it. The stable equilibrium is that the rock stands on the ground and it needs perpetual effort to keep that changed. Nulli owned those systems based on its force. The same way they gained them they could regain it. Actually they could do it much faster as everyone else were aware of their force and choose not to mess with them.

When a Goon spy did the same to Band of Brothers, they collapsed. However they weren't stable earlier either. They were on the sure path of defeat and the sov drop was just the final nail in the coffin.

So it comes down to this: becoming a hero/villain is purely the result of luck. Thousands of people could do the same things before and after him without becoming famous. The hero was at the right place and the right time to give a final push to something that was about to fall anyway. He merely takes credit of the efforts of the thousands before him.

Don't try to become heroes, don't dream to make a "big thing", simply work on your goal and if the goal is reachable, it will be reached. You won't be remembered, but you will remember accomplishing your goal. Those who set out with the plan "become hero or a bum" has about 99.99% chance to end up being a bum.

Read More

Trust issues once again

I wrote about it several times, but yet again, misplaced trust have cost some 200 systems to Nulli and 500B to TLC.

EVE is not real. In real life you have one life and it's precious to you. Going out to "awox" is pretty trivial, you just grab a kitchen knife and stab random people on the street. But sooner or later the cops come and either shoot you on site or you'll be arrested and spend the rest of your life in jail. This makes random awox fun a bit less lucrative. Spies in real life also made huge impact, like delivering the US nuke secrets to the Soviets. They got in the electric chair though.

On the other hand in EVE you have alts. If you steal huge amount of money, you can come out clean by simply biomassing the thief character. The victims of the awox, suicide gank or corp theft are completely unable to retaliate to the "real you". For this reason you must never ever trust anybody. How can you operate then? By clear trades and placing people of position into the position of personal risk. Let me explain it via a rental system that could prevent the S2N disaster. Currently the PvP alliance "owned" the system and several people managed it. Let's turn it upside down: the manager "owns" N systems. He rents it out, the rental income is his. As he clearly can't protect it, he pays a security payment to the PvP alliance. In step by step:

1. Alliance owns systems.
2. Guy pays upfront cost to get the systems. Scams can be prevented by using either third party escrow or giving systems one by one. He gets one system, pays for it, gets next.
3. Now the guy owns the systems. If the alliance betrays him, they have to grind it back and lose credibility. Alliances can't easily be remade like alts as members can choose to not move with the leaders.
4. Guy either rents them out or uses the systems himself, either way getting income.
5. From time to time he pays security payment for the alliance to protect him. If the alliance doesn't protect him, he lost one payment only.

What about the own assets of the alliance? They can be owned by several members. If one or two goes rogue, he can only cause small problems and not drop the sov in regions. Every alliance asset can (and should) be in private hands of people who paid for them. This way thefts are impossible as you can't steal your own assets. An "alliance asset" that is managed by someone is a loot waiting to be taken.

Read More

How would TEST finances look like if I manage them?

When Riverini of EN24 re-posted my article over reaching half trillion, he also added a comment: "TBH, I wonder if a guy like Gevlon or DannyCentauri would have been in charge of TEST finances how would they look like today...". I'm glad I was bored and had some time swimming in poor man tears that the other forum comments are, because it's an important question.

So how would TEST finances look like if I was in charge? Worse than now.

Let me explain. When a system doesn't work as it should work (and an alliance shouldn't be permanently at the edge of bankruptcy) people look at the leaders and shake their fists. TEST is poor? Fire the damn incompetent and put someone in his place who has skills! Sometimes their rage works and the leader is removed or leaves in disgust (for example Montolio). The people get what they wanted, a new leader who does as they pleases and ... things go from bad to horrible. I mean while Montolio was at the helm, the timers were offensive.

When a system doesn't work, it's the system that doesn't work and replacing "clerks" won't help. While those who work in the administration of a democratic system consider themselves powerful, they are just clerks. They can't make the system work any better. Leader change works in only two cases: if the old leader was indeed some horribly incompetent or corrupted one, or when the new leader can somehow convince the people to change the system itself. But for that you don't need to be the leader. Actually it makes the change harder because everyone assumes that the changes are for your own good.

TEST is poor not because their income is mismanaged. Goons aren't fighting over pitiful moons because Mittani and Rydis RMT-ed the tech money away and need replacement. They both work on an income scheme that makes them naturally poor. Their income is a joke. I mean we are talking about 5000 man organizations that live on 0.5-1T/month. That's 50-100M/person income. A few weeks old highsec miner would laugh on that.

People believe that some genius will come who makes things right. Riverini here cast me into the role of a financial genius who could turn this 50-100M into a meaningful sum. I can't. No one can. TEST and Goons are doomed to either stay docked when the chances are against them or field comedy fleets like Thalwars, Caracals and bombless bombers. I loved how The Mittani claimed "while shooting a structure with 30 bombers is a miserable, time-consuming process, 150 bombers can nuke an Ihub down into reinforced within 20 minute". It is plain stupid as it's the same man-hours, just distributed over more people. Maybe these doctrines are my punishment from fate for calling Drakes the ships of poverty. Now I can think of them as the lost golden age when unnerfed Tech made the alliance "rich" enough to field battlecruisers. (I can hear highsec mission runners laughing).

To have decent finances, these alliances need at least 1B/month/member. Moons and other passive income sources won't provide these. I mean if you are a CFC or TEST member and flied 2 hours/day on average as part of the war effort, you put 45 hours into this conflict. If your side wins today and keeps Fountain with no further combat in the next 4 years, then you gained the same ISK as you'd have if you spent the same time ratting.

Oh, I'm sure you'll say that ratting is bad and fighting is so much fun. Well, according to The Mittani himself "the foe is either being blueballed or massacred entirely, and not having much fun." But let's act like sov war was fun. Even if you have fun, the alliance coffer is still empty and reimbursement requests are coming in.

Decent money can only come from one source: the members. They must contribute. It can be either a mandatory tax, it can work in alliances which have mandatory CTAs. For those without CTAs, only volunteer donation is imaginable, probably motivated by some toplist. Either way the alliances must have industrialists, miners and ratters who pay for the bills both for themselves and for the combat pilots who can't make money since they spend their time in fleets. Luckily there are such people, many already inside the alliances.

To utilize this income source the alliances need to change their culture, making PvE a valued activity instead of "lol carebear". Changing the clerk who desperately trying to make ends meet won't make difference.

Read More