Greedy Goblin

Wednesday, February 5, 2014

CFC: PvP-ers enslaved by fleetbears

I've received the GSF loss database to complement the GSF kill database. The purpose wasn't to prove that Zkillboard messes up loss statistics (though they do), but to identify battles and compare the participation of Goonwaffe and inner pets in different battle types.

My battle definition is simple. If two kills happen within 10 minutes in the same system, they belong to the same battle. This property spreads, so if ships died at 10:00, 10:08 and 10:16, they all belong to the same battle, despite the first and the third has 16 mins distance. This is obviously not exact, as it splits up battles that take place in multiple systems or contain longer periods without kills. It can merge multiple ganks happening in the same system (like two Jita undock ganks, where the two victims weren't connected). Even worse, it contains only kill reports that has a GSF member on it as killer or victim. For example this FA dread is not included into the battle of Asakai, since he wasn't in GSF or killed by GSF, despite he obviously took part. The Asakai battle itself was split into the big battle and after-skirmishes. So the below table is just for an illustration of the biggest battles of GSF. Remember, if a 100M ship has 50% GSF damage and 50% other CFC, only 0.5 kill and 50M damage is booked to GSF:

Due to the problems mentioned above, this battle definition is useless for any other purpose that I used it: to compare Goonwaffe and Inner pets, as all mistakes affected them equally. Below you can see the compared activity and quality of GSF parts in different battle sizes, defined by number of GSF related kill reports:

The inner pets are more active and better in every battle size and every statistics. That's not new. However their ratio to Goons strongly vary with battle sizes. If we look at the largest battles, we see the smallest difference between them. In ship sizes they are practically equal, so in fleet battles Goons fly the same ships and shoot the same targets. The pets still manage to get 60% better K/D in large fleet, because overheating hardeners and focusing the good primary needs serious skill and dedication.

In the small-gang battle ranges the pets have the largest losses compared to Goons. Their kill statistics are obviously better than of Goons, but the least better (relatively the worst).

Among the 1-2 kill battles (ganks), the difference between Goons and pets is the largest: inner pets gank 4.4x more ISK, 2.3x more ships (largest difference among all battles) and kill twice as valuable targets. The difference in K/D and Damage/Loss is also the largest. Practically, in the gank "battles", the Goons having their worst and pets their best results, compared to their performance in other battle sizes.

What does it mean? That Goonwaffe members are fleetbears. They show up for stratops in proper ships and press F1 when told. Outside of stratops they either make ISK or log off. The inner pets are PvP-ers. Outside of stratops they form small gangs and roam or camp to get kills. They are great in catching ratters, not so great in clashing with other small gangs, but they try anyway. I'd like to emphasize this quality difference over the "pets are more active and skilled than Goons" layer. Pets aren't just more active and better, they play the game differently.

Finally we can explain how the Goon empire works, because the "lazy Goons being carried by pets" made little sense. Goons aren't that lazy, their stratop activity isn't that bad, so they are far from being useless in a war. Of course it doesn't explain why the Goon leadership accepts their fleetbearing while the same is punished for their pets. I mean if fleetbearing is good, then it's good, why ban it for pets?

Not because of what they do in fleets. A lazy SMA player rarely fleeting up is just as good as a lazy Goon. Then why purge the former? Because of what they do outside of fleets. The pets, due to their enforced PvP culture are spending their free time getting into fights. The Goons are spending their free time making ISK. Nullsec ISK making activities can be taxed. Goonwaffe goes with 15% tax. This means that if a Goon farms 640M to get a PLEX, he gives 112M to Goonwaffe. By the time he farms 3B for a dreadnought, he gave 530M to Goonwaffe. Remember that even on the peak of the "unbeatable" Tech empire, the moon income was mere 50M/pilot/month. Compare that with the ratting taxes! Of course the pet members have ISK needs too, but they either do it on highsec alts (because nullsec industrial alt would harm the performance/member of the corp) or they convert PLEX-es. Either way, their corp gets nothing.

So by allowing Goons to carebear on their main, but forcing pets to get ISK outside of corp, The Mittani and his fellow leaders create a situation where Goonwaffe is swimming in taxed ISK, while pet corps and alliances have only one income source: what The Mittani gives them from the moon and renter income. This way the corp and alliance leaders depend on the The Mittani financially. Remember how many times he told that "Goons have the smallest amount of moons compared to their size among CFC"! Not a coincidence. The obscene hate towards "carebears", the Hulkageddon and Burn Jita isn't by mistake either. It's to spread the doctrine that carebearing is bad. Of course people still have ISK needs, but they hide it in alts, making sure that the coffers of their corp remains empty. So the truth is that Goons aren't dead weight at all on CFC. They are the economic powerhouse, and they monopolize this power source by forcing all the pets to be PvP-ers. The genius part is that it doesn't need too much force, as being "pure PvP-er" is a prestigious position, while in reality it means defeat or slavery.

Why no one defeated the Goons? Because their enemies are like their pets: impoverished PvP-ers who waste their time on roams, fishing fleets and such nonsense. They simply can't keep up with CFC financially, which could be seen by the change of supercapital power. Who will defeat the Goons? An alliance that openly does what the Goons do secretly. That throws away that "we are PvP-ers" attitude, embraces carebearing as a way of contribution and places the fleetbear as the ideal member: the one who goes on stratop fleets, but avoid pointless PvP and spends the rest of the time ISK making, both to get himself into capitals and to support his corp/alliance.

Please note that such alliance is necessarily the enemy of Goons, as Goons would demand them giving up their carebear side before accepting them as pets (allies). If you are financially independent, Goons will go after you. They ignored TEST until Fountain became valuable. They laugh on PvP-ers and smash them, but they are scared of carebears. For a good reason.


Anonymous said...

So let me rephrase what you just said:

1) Goons are super wealthy, because they tax their ratters.
2) Goons discourage carebearing with Burn Jita and Hulkageddon so that their allies remain poor.
3) Goons then dole out their ratter income to allies and thereby keep them subservient.
4) This elaborate scheme is the source of Goon power, and can only be undone by a pve-friendly alliance.

I think you are wrong. The data you show can be explained in a variety of other ways. And your conclusion is ultimately based on a key piece of data that you are missing - Goon income and expenses broken down by source.

Gevlon said...

1) Goons aren't super wealthy but are doing OK
2) Goons mainly discourage carebearing by forcing their allies to maintain high PvP stats, that can only be achieved by kicking carebeares
3-4 yes.

I don't think I could put my hand on reliable Goon income, so approximations are all we have.

Anonymous said...

"2) Goons mainly discourage carebearing by forcing their allies to maintain high PvP stats"

Not entirely true. If I recall Goon SOTAs correctly, they track raw participation as the primary benchmark. Character bloat makes normalized participation rate an unreliable measure. And so as long as the pet puts up good raw numbers (which would be anything above 50-70, judging by killmails), goons couldn't care less whether it's an alliance of 200 pvpers with 50% participation rate in ops, or an alliance of 200 pvpers and 800 carabears with 10% participation. Pets can sneak in as many carebears as they want.

Druur Monakh said...

Are you sure that the data is legit? That you aren't being led by the nose by agents of the GIA?

Druur Monakh said...

Gevlon: "Who will defeat the Goons? An alliance that openly does what the Goons do secretly. That throws away that "we are PvP-ers" attitude, embraces carebearing as a way of contribution and places the fleetbear as the ideal member: the one who goes on stratop fleets, but avoid pointless PvP and spends the rest of the time ISK making, both to get himself into capitals and to support his corp/alliance."

Wasn't that what the original Northern Coalition did?

Gevlon said...

@Grumpymouse: theoretically yes. Practically no:

@Druur: data is from multiple sources and randomly checked manually. Also, the sources had no idea what I'll use it for.

I don't know what old NC did and what they did wrong, but they surely didn't have a donation board.

Admiral Grr said...

So Mittens is a genius?

Lucas Kell said...

This is probably the biggest mount of drivel yet. I mean not only is the interpretation of the data wrong, but you make massive assumptions about CFC alliances that are simply unfounded. Like suggesting nobody else makes income in null... lol

Look, I'm not going to sit here and waste time picking it apart, since it's pretty much all wrong, but I am going to suggest you save time. Since you have a particular thing to say, and regardless of what the data says, you'll mash your way to it, why don't you just skip the "data analysis" and just jump straight to your flawed conclusion.

Raziel Walker said...

The old NC was filled with renter class players. They pve for isk and when enemies showed up they didn't defend their space or that of their allies, they just docked up and ran missions on their high sec alts.

There is nothing wrong with pve for isk, it's just that you still need to defend space when needed.

Anonymous said...

Btw a goon needs to farm less for a Plex. Goons encourage cfc members to not sell Plex to the market by reasoning that would support hostiles. Instead they buy the Plex for under market value..

Gevlon said...

@Lucas: the conclusion is about a trend. I've never said that ALL Goons are fleetbears and NO pets ever ratted.

I'm saying that fleetbearing is much more common among Goons and small-gang PvP-ing is much more common among pets and the data obviously supports this.

I don't mean that pets have zero ratting tax. I mean they have much less than Goons (/pilot).

@Raziel: carebear =/= fleetbear. The fleetbear shows up on stratops, carebear doesn't. A fleetbear is a "bear" because he doesn't look for roams, camps, small-gang PvP and other strategically irrelevant stuff.

Lucas Kell said...

"the conclusion is about a trend. I've never said that ALL Goons are fleetbears and NO pets ever ratted."
No, but you suggested that any "pet" who rats gets purged (by the way, there are plenty of fleetbears in other alliances - purges are usually of people who do absolutely nothing, not even F1 pushing), and made massive assumptions about the volume of people on each side ratting. Remember the data you have here show kill stats and nothing more. How can you then go off and make conclusions about PVE?

"I'm saying that fleetbearing is much more common among Goons and small-gang PvP-ing is much more common among pets and the data obviously supports this."
The data doesn't "obviously supports this". You have geared your interpretation of the data towards the point you are trying to make, and filled in the blanks with assumptions.

"I don't mean that pets have zero ratting tax. I mean they have much less than Goons (/pilot)."
Where did you get that idea from? 15% sounds about average for a null corp. Did you actually look at this or was this a guess?

As with all of your statistics analysis, you tend to make a lot of assumptions, take huge leaps to conclusions, and you have a result in mind before you do the actual analysis. If you replaced all the graphs and tables showing the average ratio of fruit to sugar in a range of jams, and left the text the same, this post would be no different. The data and the conclusions are in now ay related.

Gevlon said...

The data clearly show that the pets kill 4x more gank targets than Goons. That's a fact.

First assumption: they spend proportionally more time hunting gank targets as Goons. This can be wrong. Maybe Goons hunt day and night just never catch anything, while pets are always bumping into ratting carriers.

Second assumption: time spent ratting is inversely proportional with time spent PvP. Assuming people have limited time playing EVE, it's true. Of course there are no-lifers who roam hours a day and still spend more time on PvE than me, but they are a minority.

Lucas Kell said...

"The data clearly show that the pets kill 4x more gank targets than Goons. That's a fact."
Your data show a ratio, that you've reached though your calculations. I mean it says damage/member/year, so is it safe to assume that you have divided by member count of the alliance? If so, then another reasonable conclusion would be that goons have more alts thus their kill values are being divided down across non-combat players. since they are the coalition leaders and thus run the majority of the infrastructure in the alliance, this would not be surprising.
They are also more newbie friendly than the rest of the coalition, so there are likely to be a lot more underskilled players out on training ops.

The data is simply not detailed enough to draw any serious conclusions. All you have is kill data, and only that submitted to the killboards. Taking all of that then drawing the conclusions you have is flawed analysis.

The thing is you are not helping yourself. Your aim is to split the coalition, that's clear. You think by presenting data showing GSF as the underdog that we're going to suddenly start infighting and split. Now you have several problems:
1. You are not skilled in this area of meta gaming. As you are unable to see the reasoning and views behind others actions, you are unable to relate to your targets.
2. You have no idea how we work, so you don't know how to steer us specifically.
3. You analysis is clearly flawed, and the conclusions are stretched too far to be reasonably accepted.
4. We have inside, first hand information which conflicts with your conclusions, so we know your conclusions are incorrect.
5. Even if everything was spot on, our coalition is tightly bound. No part of the coalition could break away without severely damaging themselves in the process.
6. You'd do better trying to turn goonswarm against coalition members than the other way around. The issue being nobody will take you seriously since: See number 1.

Gevlon said...

@Lucas: inactivity would give equally low ratios, like "Goons kill half as much large fleet and half as much gank targets as pets". But we have "Goons kill half as much large fleet and 1/4 as much gank targets as pets"

Who said these posts are for CFC use? I'm sure that if the Mittani would be found guilty of child rape, you'd still follow him. The messages are for your enemies. I want them to come to the conclusion: we are losing because we are PvP-ers and our enemies are fleetbears.

Babar said...

So if I understand your last comment to Lucas, you're saying that CFCs enemies would do better if they did more PvE, because the tax generated would fund their alliances. So from this, I understand that you're saying GSF/CFC is winning because of superior economy.

For this to be a valid conclusion, you must show us an instance where an otherwise competent, well-lead coalition/alliance was defeated because they ran out of money. If this is a trend, which you need to demonstrate, then that adds a lot of validity to your conclusions.

Have you explored other reasons why GSF/CFC might be as successful as they are? Is the content of this blog post the only plausible reason, or are there other reasons that are equally plausible that should be looked into? And if you have looked other reasons, why did you end up concluding with this post?

Gevlon said...

@Babar: N3 coalition right now? They didn't have enough titans to win B-R, they didn't have enough money to replace what's lost, PL didn't have enough money to replace what's locked in the captured station, therefore had to surrender.

Raziel Walker said...

Corporations can tax players but alliances have no bottom-up income directly through game mechanics.

Alliance income is usually not transparant so Goonswarm only has to bribe alliance leadership, not the players.
But the CFC provides more as just financial support of course. Blue space and a JB network to facilitate easy logistics for example.

In regard to the old NC, they were carebears, not fleetbears.

Babar said...

So does that mean you're saying CFC would have been able to replace a similar (10 trillion + all the assets trapped in a staging system) loss outright? And have the logistics to be able to replace 60 titans immediately, even with infinite amount of isk? Do you have any information to back this up?

This is not the first war CFC has won, so even if your assumption that empty coffers is what made PL withdraw from the south is true, you still need to demonstrate that the economic advantage CFC supposedly has is what has made them win again and again. Or put another way, that running out of money is the reason their opponents lose.

And did you look into other areas for CFCs success, or have you made your conclusion and then found data to back up your claim?

Anonymous said...

Excellent work, Gevlon. About time somebody pierced the ridiculous Goon propaganda veil. The little bees are starting to bumble.

Lucas Kell said...

"inactivity would give equally low ratios, like "Goons kill half as much large fleet and half as much gank targets as pets". But we have "Goons kill half as much large fleet and 1/4 as much gank targets as pets""
Which still says nothing conclusive. There are still several reasons to see those stats, especially if those starts are being created by dividing down on member count.

"Who said these posts are for CFC use?"
Well you kinda did in the 2nd to last paragraph of the last stats post when you called upon the "pets" to rise up.

"I want them to come to the conclusion: we are losing because we are PvP-ers and our enemies are fleetbears."
They aren't though. They are losing because their leadership know nothing about strategy.

Gevlon said...

@Babar: I don't know what CFC could do, but N3 clearly couldn't, so they lost because of ISK.

Babar said...

But then your entire premise fails. You say "They simply can't keep up with CFC financially", but you haven't demonstrated this. In fact, if you want to use N3 as an example, for all we know they have twice the financial muscle, but due to a perfect storm of misfortunes, they lost the biggest battle in Eve history and are getting punished for it.

And you keep ignoring my second point as well, I really hope you'll dedicate a blog post to answering it.

fap_angel said...

The perfect example is your excellent post on skill versus doctrine. This post is truth, as demonstrated by real-world fighter pilots. Fighter pilots tend to come in two varieties; strategists and seat-of-the-pants brawlers (who relied on their raw skill at handling their machines.) The strategists were the likes of Ritchofen; they achieved kills by planning their attack well, striking from a position of decisive advantage, destroying their target, and escaping before the enemy could retaliate. Fighter pilots call this a "bounce," MMO players would recognize it as a "gank." These pilots are the ones who achieved the highest kill scores. They were fighting a war; their goal wasn't a "good fight" or an aerial duel, but to win. (This is why dogfighting is romanticized much like "gudfites" in EVE - such a duel mostly occurred when two pilots of considerable skill tangled with each other.)

This makes possible an interesting comparison: combat flight simulators were among the first multi-player PvP games in existence. Its interesting because a combat flight simulator undeniably has both "skill" and "strategy" involved - just flying an aircraft requires a base level of skill, let alone pushing it to the edge of its flight envelope in combat. Then there's combat skill; aerial gunnery is very, very difficult and pilot psychology comes into play; trying to guess when a foe will attempt to disengage, or if they're brave enough to attempt a head-on shootout. Yet the strategy is just as vital - knowing when not to engage, guessing where the enemy will be transiting, luring a foe out of his optimal performance altitude, etc. Goal-oriented simulator MMOs (Aces High and WWII Online) have been around longer then EVE Online. The games have combined-arms (realistically modeled aircraft and ground vehicles) and strategic objectives to allow a large team to "win the map." And obviously, the best way to "win the war" is to play for keeps, not for duels. In Aces High and WWII Online you can see the clear dichotomy between playstyles players prefer - some will go solo hunting, aiming to destroy as many enemy machines as possible (much like a roaming ganker,) others will form bomber fleets with escorts to destroy strategic targets(sov structure grind) and still others want to find exciting, fast-paced duels that will push them to their limits (small gang/solo PvP.) I personally like all three playstyles; a heart-pounding dogfight is just as satisfying as a skillfully planned and executed "bounce" and just as difficult. You, Gevlon, are not one of those people. Heart-pounding, close-fought battles are not what you find fun. This doesn't mean you can't do it, however, and people who misunderstand that are likely to end up on your killboard; just as many dirty-rotten airfield vulchers - (station campers) prove perfectly capable of winning a dogfight "fair and square" when they're caught without a positional advantage. (As you yourself spend so much time saying; "carebears" can and will kick people's asses.) All you need realize is that this works both ways: players who prefer to dive right into close-fought white-knuckle dogfights are often just as proficient in strategy and "bounces" as anyone else; and sometimes only forgo the "bounce" in favor of a straight-up dogfight because the former would be too easy to be fun.

fap_angel said...

Apply this to Goons in EVE. Goons are, generally speaking, a highly social group (having immigrated from the Something Awful forums, the social aspect preceded the game aspect,) who prefer the fast-paced action/skill/strategy intensive requirements of small-gang combat in small subcaps. But that's far from all they do. Goons rat. Goons go ratting a lot. But they hate ratting as dull and boring as fuck, so they go to great lengths to rat without actually being there, via AFK drone-boats (as the Mittani himself said here. (That entire article is a great look at the Goon mindset.) Goons prioritize "fun," and once you realize how they define "fun," then things become clear. Goons loathe the "elite-PvP" types precisely because they're morons who only pad their killboards for the purpose of self-congratulatory circle-jerks. And they loathe "carebears" because they emotionally invest in things Goons consider unworthy of caring about- namely no-risk, highly repetitive delayed-gratification PvE gameplay. They most certainly don't loathe actual ISK generation; because gathering ISK is an undeniably useful goal. Such denial is the hallmark of the "elite-PvPer" who is, as you say, perpetually broke and rationalizes his ignoring a major chunk of game mechanics as social superiority (I am the fierce hunter, cower before me thou unskilled carebears!) Its such people who've warped the meaning of "carebear" into a blanket insult against any activity (useful or otherwise) that isn't killboard padding in order to heighten the e-peen value of their killboard padding. Goons want "gudfites," and they loathe the extra effort required to make ISK - but they don't deny the necessity. I believe nobody in EVE understands your points about the value of "carebears" better than Goons.

Differing value judgements are even more important when you consider Goonswarm's binding social communality: it allows for many varied player interests to co-exist. Some goons AFK rat and do PI. Others make their money with high-sec manufacturing. There's a smaller group of Goons who love the dynamic economic puzzles just as there's smaller groups who love hot-dropping and yet another that loves highsec suicide ganking. Goonswarm (and to a wider extent, the CFC) are good at accomplishing goals not only because their competencies are wider then their preferences, but also because they're good at working together - i.e. loosely. They almost always get to do what they personally consider Fun, but with enough social commonality to leverage their disparate talents towards a common goal (such as winning a war.)

fap_angel said...

Hotdroppers attack renters, the small-gang fellows interdict reinforcement fleets or clear campers off the undock and the highsec gankers prevent entire jump-freighter loads of Sabres from ever seeing the front lines. Without that social bind, Goonswarm would be nothing. The average goon is a lazy fucker who is bad at EVE (as any Goon will admit,) but what matters is they'll show up to a four-hour structure bash because they know they'll have friends to chat with on comms. And for big fleet-fights, they want to be part of a large fight with their friends - be a part of something significant with people they like.

You summed it up beautifully: "a strange form of carebears who like large fleets, winning objectives, placing flags on the big map." You identify the phenomena accurately even if you don't fully fathom the cause. And the bitch of it is, your conclusion ("However the fleet-bears can't get in because of the PvP requirements") is entirely accurate for most entities in the game ("elite-PvPers" as discussed above) but not for Goons!

So you 1. observe the game's meta-dynamics for years, 2. form a model based on those observations, 3. produce a behavioral hypothesis based on the model based on years of observations, 4. gather statistics to support your hypothesis for 5. the purpose of persuading your friends and fellow players to a particular conclusion.

And then people marvel when you don't find the brief snipes in the comments terribly persuading. Hilarious. (Lucas is obviously smart enough to have explained all the above but simply lacked the necessary time and/or fucks to give.)

Anonymous said...

To be honest it would be just like The Mittani and GSF to openly condemn carebearing and "pubby" activities while secretly fostering a culture that supports the same. The Mittani is an extremely intelligent and clever man, and he has shown this numerous times in the past. He's in it for victory, and by playing your allies (which could easily be enemies) he's ensuring that GSF remains in power and that the allies want to be friendly toward them. I would hazard a guess that anybody who doesn't believe that this is likely, or at the last possible, hasn't dabbled in alliance level politicking and espionage. I can tell you that these types of schemes and back alley deals are enacted all the time by the more clever of the powerful leaders. It isn't really a mistake that those who have power are those that do these kinds of things.

Anonymous said...

Gevlon, thanks for the hard work and all involved.
Once again it's proven the main concept of Goons: To ruin others play.

I really don't understand the carebear concept and hate.
If they hate ISK making that much. how about making it the most efficient task of you playtime. You can hide behind selling PLEX. still technically as a pilot in EVE you are a carebear.
EVE was and never will be "pvp only" ..

and if goons would care about good fights they wouldn't chose EVE as their platform. what ever you get in eve. In all cases guaranteed (except maybe tournament) you will NOT have good fights. ever.