Posted - 2007.02.23 02:40:00 - [92]

 

To the guy that seems to be accusing me of being a member of LV, I'd suggest looking at my alliance tag first. This isn't a whine, as I lost nothing of any kind. Its a rebuttal of all the various comments that have been made that claim:

1. Its just as much LV's fault
2. What else could the coalition do?

Now, I said before and I'll say it again, I'm not saying that what happened was a preplanned crashing of the node. But as Shin Ra himself pointed out in his post, the leadership of the coalition was well aware that, given the situation, jumping in had a very good chance of crashing the node.

Quote:

---

Eh? This line of reasoning is so devoid of logic it is almost impossible to follow. By this argument, the attacker is required to wait until the defender feels like not showing up to mount an attack?

---

and

Quote:

---

So if you had a very good opportunity to kill a titan you would not because they have 400 people in local and your gang is 600? Let’s call it off boys the node is going to crash.

You would rather take your 600 man fleet and put 5-10 POS into reinforce mode that really does nothing for you? Come on dude you sound ******ed.

Lets see a titan is billion of isk a titan BPO is billions of isk and that kind of a loss hurts ones motivation to keep fighting. It also gave us the chance to setup a friendly POS to base our operations out of giving us a safe place.

---

No. The attacker need to work to stretch the enemy thin, overextend him, and use greater numbers (if he has them) to spread the enemy out, before attacking. By locking up the LV guys in JV and attacking MULTIPLE station systems, coalition would have had their pick of towers and stations to kill the next day, with little LV could do. And if LV ran all over their space trying to cover it up, JV would be uncovered for an attack. Think rope-a-dope.

And, noone would have to crash anything.

Quote:

---

So in other words, you think that all you have to do to win a battle is field enough pilots so that any opposing force would crash the node? So then it's automatically the other side's fault?

---

erm....isnt this exactly what the coalition did? geez, and folks are trying to call ME illogical...

btw, I find it amusing to be called '******ed' when I suggest trying a better, more comprehensive strategy then cramming as many people as possible through the gate and crossing your fingers that the node holds.

Posted - 2007.02.23 05:49:00 - [94]

 

Originally by: Aegis Osiris

---

To the guy that seems to be accusing me of being a member of LV, I'd suggest looking at my alliance tag first. This isn't a whine, as I lost nothing of any kind. Its a rebuttal of all the various comments that have been made that claim:

1. Its just as much LV's fault
2. What else could the coalition do?

Now, I said before and I'll say it again, I'm not saying that what happened was a preplanned crashing of the node. But as Shin Ra himself pointed out in his post, the leadership of the coalition was well aware that, given the situation, jumping in had a very good chance of crashing the node.

Quote:

---

Eh? This line of reasoning is so devoid of logic it is almost impossible to follow. By this argument, the attacker is required to wait until the defender feels like not showing up to mount an attack?

---

and

Quote:

---

So if you had a very good opportunity to kill a titan you would not because they have 400 people in local and your gang is 600? Let’s call it off boys the node is going to crash.

You would rather take your 600 man fleet and put 5-10 POS into reinforce mode that really does nothing for you? Come on dude you sound ******ed.

Lets see a titan is billion of isk a titan BPO is billions of isk and that kind of a loss hurts ones motivation to keep fighting. It also gave us the chance to setup a friendly POS to base our operations out of giving us a safe place.

---

No. The attacker need to work to stretch the enemy thin, overextend him, and use greater numbers (if he has them) to spread the enemy out, before attacking. By locking up the LV guys in JV and attacking MULTIPLE station systems, coalition would have had their pick of towers and stations to kill the next day, with little LV could do. And if LV ran all over their space trying to cover it up, JV would be uncovered for an attack. Think rope-a-dope.

And, noone would have to crash anything.

Quote:

---

So in other words, you think that all you have to do to win a battle is field enough pilots so that any opposing force would crash the node? So then it's automatically the other side's fault?

---

erm....isnt this exactly what the coalition did? geez, and folks are trying to call ME illogical...

btw, I find it amusing to be called '******ed' when I suggest trying a better, more comprehensive strategy then cramming as many people as possible through the gate and crossing your fingers that the node holds.

---

I love these modern day Sun Tzus.

Your logic would have worked great.....if LV were NPC's.

Unfortunately, they are actually human and therefore would probably not fall for something as stupid as that embarrassing strategy you just mentioned.

Your simplistic analysis of the situation is amusing and stupid at the same time.

You can stop it now.

Posted - 2007.02.23 06:01:00 - [96]

 

Edited by: Aphotic Raven on 23/02/2007 06:02:46

Originally by: Akinai

---

Lag works both ways. For every player on your side that couldn't fire, there's one on the other that can't either. Only complete morons don't understand that. There's no magic "lag the other side" button (No, not even on BoB's side)
*some more stupidity*

---

Only complete morons or those in corps with ferocious names like trade organization dont realise that 1 side lags a HELL of a lot more, the side that warps in (assuming like most that they dont use an on grid warp in point to load the grid, nice trick bob taught me...) will lag like crazy as they try and load the grid. This also happens if you jump into something.

The defender might get crazy lag but will generally only get a little as they load all the incoming ships. It might hurt their tacklers but their fleet can normally still target and fire just fine. The attackers however, get screwed over.

The defender was partially at fault in this case, but if a few thousand enemys were coming for my home system i'd want as many people there as i could too. LV cant ***** at goon for crashing the node and goon cant ***** at LV for setting it up...

Posted - 2007.02.23 07:12:00 - [98]

 

Edited by: Cadiz on 23/02/2007 07:12:10

Originally by: Aphotic Raven

---

Edited by: Aphotic Raven on 23/02/2007 06:02:46

Originally by: Akinai

---

Lag works both ways. For every player on your side that couldn't fire, there's one on the other that can't either. Only complete morons don't understand that. There's no magic "lag the other side" button (No, not even on BoB's side)
*some more stupidity*

---

Only complete morons or those in corps with ferocious names like trade organization dont realise that 1 side lags a HELL of a lot more, the side that warps in (assuming like most that they dont use an on grid warp in point to load the grid, nice trick bob taught me...) will lag like crazy as they try and load the grid. This also happens if you jump into something.

The defender might get crazy lag but will generally only get a little as they load all the incoming ships. It might hurt their tacklers but their fleet can normally still target and fire just fine. The attackers however, get screwed over.

The defender was partially at fault in this case, but if a few thousand enemys were coming for my home system i'd want as many people there as i could too. LV cant ***** at goon for crashing the node and goon cant ***** at LV for setting it up...

---

Actually, due to the way loading priority works these days, those who are jumping into a camped system have a considerable advantage if there is a risk that the node may crash in the process. Why do you think BoB make such a mantra of always being the ones to jump in? It's not just because they're ballsy, I assure you.

Posted - 2007.02.23 08:02:00 - [100]

 

Originally by: Aegis Osiris

---

Quote:

---

So in other words, you think that all you have to do to win a battle is field enough pilots so that any opposing force would crash the node? So then it's automatically the other side's fault?

---

erm....isnt this exactly what the coalition did? geez, and folks are trying to call ME illogical...

---

erm.. no. Lacking a bit in the way of logic skills, are we?

You are saying that the coalition should've ignored JV1V simply because they had enough pilots that LV + Coalition would = node crash.

By that faulty logic, if one alliance fields enough ships to the battle, the other should just give it up and go somewhere else, thereby giving the victory to the defenders by default.

That's just asinine logic, and completely unworkable.

Originally by: Aphotic Raven

---

Edited by: Aphotic Raven on 23/02/2007 06:02:46
1 side lags a HELL of a lot more, the side that warps in (assuming like most that they dont use an on grid warp in point to load the grid, nice trick bob taught me...) will lag like crazy as they try and load the grid. This also happens if you jump into something.

---

Once the initial load is past though, the lag will be nearly identical. And in situations like JV1V where it isn't a massive warpin to one point, that part isn't even a major issue.

Posted - 2007.02.23 10:47:00 - [102]

 

two things:
1) You're assuming this coalition WANTS to stay blue to one another once you and bob are dead.
2) You sound like a man defeated my friend :(

Posted - 2007.02.23 11:54:00 - [104]

 

Originally by: KIATolon

---

two things:
1) You're assuming this coalition WANTS to stay blue to one another once you and bob are dead.

---

I'm pretty sure your forum "coalition" will start infighting long before they reach nol. In fact, it has already begun. Let's see how long you keep it together with a foundation in quicksand.

Posted - 2007.02.23 13:09:00 - [106]

 

Originally by: prsr

---

Originally by: KIATolon

---

two things:
1) You're assuming this coalition WANTS to stay blue to one another once you and bob are dead.

---

I'm pretty sure your forum "coalition" will start infighting long before they reach nol. In fact, it has already begun. Let's see how long you keep it together with a foundation in quicksand.

---

Quit spewing garbage.

Posted - 2007.02.23 14:30:00 - [108]

 

Originally by: Tom Gunn

---

Good going guys,

Not sure what the reason is in eve that players will do everything to blame the game/others for their failings, LV command must of known this would happen - are these just posts of denial?

We all know CCP have a game that can't support fleet combat on the scale we're talking, moaning about it won't help, so learn to deal with it.

Its just another example of how offense works better than defense in Eve.

---

Neither offense or defense works, bugs and node crashes broke morale rather than the enemies, so blame it on who you like.

Posted - 2007.02.23 15:23:00 - [110]

 

1.Bookmark 97
2.Bookmark 80

are LV trying to make lag themselves or are they hauling their bookmarks to AZN??

Posted - 2007.02.23 16:02:00 - [112]

 

Originally by: Cadiz

---

Why do you think BoB make such a mantra of always being the ones to jump in? It's not just because they're ballsy, I assure you.

---

BoB jumping in... Have yet to see it.

Posted - 2007.02.23 16:13:00 - [114]

 

Originally by: Aegis Osiris

---

To the guy that seems to be accusing me of being a member of LV, I'd suggest looking at my alliance tag first. This isn't a whine, as I lost nothing of any kind. Its a rebuttal of all the various comments that have been made that claim:

1. Its just as much LV's fault
2. What else could the coalition do?

Now, I said before and I'll say it again, I'm not saying that what happened was a preplanned crashing of the node. But as Shin Ra himself pointed out in his post, the leadership of the coalition was well aware that, given the situation, jumping in had a very good chance of crashing the node.

Quote:

---

Eh? This line of reasoning is so devoid of logic it is almost impossible to follow. By this argument, the attacker is required to wait until the defender feels like not showing up to mount an attack?

---

and

Quote:

---

So if you had a very good opportunity to kill a titan you would not because they have 400 people in local and your gang is 600? Let’s call it off boys the node is going to crash.

You would rather take your 600 man fleet and put 5-10 POS into reinforce mode that really does nothing for you? Come on dude you sound ******ed.

Lets see a titan is billion of isk a titan BPO is billions of isk and that kind of a loss hurts ones motivation to keep fighting. It also gave us the chance to setup a friendly POS to base our operations out of giving us a safe place.

---

No. The attacker need to work to stretch the enemy thin, overextend him, and use greater numbers (if he has them) to spread the enemy out, before attacking. By locking up the LV guys in JV and attacking MULTIPLE station systems, coalition would have had their pick of towers and stations to kill the next day, with little LV could do. And if LV ran all over their space trying to cover it up, JV would be uncovered for an attack. Think rope-a-dope.

And, noone would have to crash anything.

Quote:

---

So in other words, you think that all you have to do to win a battle is field enough pilots so that any opposing force would crash the node? So then it's automatically the other side's fault?

---

erm....isnt this exactly what the coalition did? geez, and folks are trying to call ME illogical...

btw, I find it amusing to be called '******ed' when I suggest trying a better, more comprehensive strategy then cramming as many people as possible through the gate and crossing your fingers that the node holds.

---

The same total lack of logic pervades this argument as the prior one.

A) These are people, not ******ed AI. They know what you are trying to do. They didn't care about their other stations that night, they cared about bringing their capital POS back up. They weren't going anywhere. Their response to an attack somewhere else would have been "Thank god we can get the Titan brewing again while those goobers attack somewhere else".

B) As previously pointed out, POS warfare is appointment warfare. Worst that could happen to them by defending Titan was that a few poses would be tossed into reinforced elsewhere while they waited. Which they would then get to defend after the capital pos was safe and they came out of reinforced. The appointment that night was at JV. LV kept it, and so did the Goons. The game design forces these battles. Everyone but you seems to understand that.

C) CCP is to blame both for the game mechanics and the lack of solid programming and server power that turn huge fleet battles into clusterf***s.

D) Repeat three times after me: "I am not Sun Tzu, and I should be quiet now and sit in the timeout corner"

Posted - 2007.02.23 18:11:00 - [116]

 

Edited by: Stede Bonnet on 23/02/2007 18:08:20

Originally by: Tom Gunn

---

More denial.

Excuses aside, offense clearly works, you lost the station.

---

uh, trouncing over a system because the defenders cant log in is not offense.. No matter what you want to call it, its not Offense...

Unless your offense was to crash the node, then get in (i mean why else were you dreads waiting in a system on a different node?) your offense didnt work, CCP made the offensive move, not you guys.

Originally by: Sexorella hotz

---

Edited by: Sexorella hotz on 23/02/2007 17:27:44

Originally by: Destrukter

---

1. LV had an intensive gate camp with 20 large bubbles and a complete fleet of 400 on the gate waiting to roast anyone who jumped in.

2. The Coalition knowing what they faced in JV1V amassed a Fleet of 1000+ Pilots to break that camp.

---

Sure its not the other way around?

And man I find it funny LV is at fault for using their rather large investment in carriers in fleet combat. SHAME ON YOU, your time investment and money has no place here, t1 frigs ftw!

---

That gate camp only had to hold for what, 10 minutes after the tower came out of reinforced mode? At which points the shields would have been fully recharged and the Bandwagoneers would have had to put the tower in reinforced mode. Thats why such a camp was setup, even if they managed to get in and get passed the camp the tower would have been fully recharged by the time the camp was broken.

Really the camp should have worked (with the bubbles and all) even if the node crashed but the tower kept reseting its reinforced timer or something (as far as I was told) stretching out the time they needed to repair the pos beyond the time taken at the gate.

LV knew the node would die, yes and they trued to prepare for it, but there is a difference between preparing for the worst (lv prepping for a node crash) and encouraging a crash on comms (coalition), IMO of course...

Posted - 2007.02.23 18:21:00 - [118]

 

Originally by: Boliknar

---

Edited by: Boliknar on 23/02/2007 18:15:35

Originally by: Stede Bonnet

---

Edited by: Stede Bonnet on 23/02/2007 18:08:06
... delete pls

---

So your saying that because the coalition knew that the node might not hold up they should have politely asked LV exactly how many ships they had. Then they should have only brought that number of ships through the gate. Its like crying because the other football team has bigger stronger guys. Waa Waa you have too many pilots Waa Waa. Its typical of todays society really. Oh they are too big or too stong! Goodness knows we cant look at ourselves and lay any responsibility there... so something simpily must be done to make it "fair" for us.

---

No what I said is it was not offense. The Coalition DID NOT WIN the system because they are good at fighting as the person I quoted implied. They only won it because of node crashes, NOT BECAUSE IT WAS AN OFFENSIVE ATTACK.

Posted - 2007.02.23 19:28:00 - [120]

 

yay we win