Greedy Goblin

Monday, February 22, 2016

The 2016 peace terms to the Imperium

Last year the Goons were in the peak of their power. They were the only empire left, they had B-R behind them and every "major" player signed some non-aggression pact or another with them. Sure, they sometimes had "fun fights" with Imperium, but no one attempted to defeat them. Practically some "NPC trash" and me left fighting them. On top of that, their moneymaking website was growing and had CCP devs creating lot of content for them to monetize. Of course they laughed off my first peace offer.

We can only hear cries from Deklein now (Sion being the loudest). They had to abandon vast holdings, their Providence offensive was inconclusive at best, the rest of campaigns ("Clever Girls", lowsec, Viceroys) were utter failures. The "NPC nobody" MoA killed 2.5T of them, OOS and Project Mayhem another 2.8T. TMC is losing visits and CCP devs turned their back on it since the book failed. Actually their relations with CCP deteriorated to the point when Sion was banned from CSM and Mittani abused publicly. Renters survived Aegis sov and continue to offer superior life for PvE players than the Imperium.

The Imperium is at peril, so I hope they rather accept these rather lenient terms than continue their road to destruction:
  1. Ban suicide ganking for Imperium pilots! The reason is simple: socials believe that they are hopeless against the might of the Imperium, despite they only got ganked for their dumb mistakes. If they were ganked by nameless alts or CODE, they likely start using their head instead of raging.
  2. Currently there are 11 Imperium alliances (.EXE, BASTN, CO2, CONDI, FCON, INIT., J4LP, LAWN, -RZR-, SMA, TNT). Goons make all the decisions, the rest are slaves which are completely unable to survive on their own and their members are abused by incompetent leaders like Winet for personal gains. I demand this number to be decreased to 5. The rest must be merged into the remaining 5 or abandoned. "They are not Imperium but blues" and "They are not blues but all Imperium comes down to protect their timers" are not acceptable. If an alliance is abandoned, then it must not get any help from Imperium.
  3. An official apology should be made to the "irrelevant NPC trash". These alliances are the best PvP-ers in EVE, proven by the stupid amount of dead Imperium members. Their main motivation of fighting the Imperium instead of farming B0T or RUCA is that the Imperium constantly belittle their performance and must be proven wrong.
By these, the slavery will be seriously decreased and meritocracy is advanced, so I'll reach my goals and abandon fighting the Imperium and go to my next project which will not include dead Imperium.


Anonymous said...

The most confusing members are co2, razor and init. These three all make a song and dance about being pvp alliances but stay in the most anti pvp entity in nullsec. Before they had excuse of "dominion makes us blue up", but with the new system there is no excuse. They are either the most hypocritical self deluded pets or their leaders are receiving payment in some way to stay in imperium.

Anonymous said...

J4LP is not an Imperium Alliance, and last I heard they were in Faction Warfare somewhere, they refused to accept the Imperium's bend the knee proposal.

Anonymous said...

As an imperium member (and according to you, slave), why would we want peace?
MOA are the main ones giving us fun the last year.
In fact, if it weren't for their constant attacks and our responses I might even have quit EVE as I mainly like the big fleet fights and control over regions, and fozziesov pretty much killed that.
I of course cannot speak for the imperium as a whole, but on a personal basis, thanks for keeping the imperium under attack, and thus making sure I keep logging in under their flag.

Provi Miner said...

the rubber chickens might not be officially CFC but they might as well be. Every goon fleet I have fought the last 6 mo has the rubber chicken with them. As we say in provi doesn't matter who you are if you fly with them you are them.

Gevlon said...

@Imperium anon: if you are a PvP-er, you are right. However, you are a minority. Most of your mates just want to rat, and they pretty much dislike "MoA content".

Anonymous said...

J4LP has rejoined the Amarr militia and they are losing their sov in Cloud Ring to some alts of The-Culture.

Anonymous said...

I like to rat, i like it even more when moa tries to jump my carriers and gets their whole fleet smartbombed by a titan. Keep doing whatever it is you think your doing its been pretty fun

alfius said...

Good one Gevlon, keep funnelling the ISK to MOA.

MASSADEATH brings top banter in local and it'd be a real shame if he were not able to afford a new Cormorant. Top PvPers like these guys deserve the best and I'm just super glad you're here to give it to them.

Khanhrhh said...

Just gonna go ahead and laugh off this one too, I guess.

Gevlon said...

@Khanhrhh: you are officially considered filth, so you can't speak for the Imperium

Imperium Memer said...

"Most of your mates just want to rat, and they pretty much dislike "MoA content"."

Could you prove this? Most people I know like both ratting and PvP. Or is this another one of those "well everyone obviously knows this" type of "facts".

Anonymous said...

" However, you are a minority. Most of your mates just want to rat, and they pretty much dislike "MoA content"."

I am surprised moa are satisfied ganking ratters, it must get as boring as ganking miners in highsec.

Anonymous said...

J4LP never was part of Imperium. They were close friends though.

They are in Amarr FW and left their Cloud Ring weeks ago because they didnt want to bend the knee to the viceroys thing.

Gevlon said...

If J4LP is gone, than only 5 left to be closed.

Khanhrhh said...

@Gevlon: I don't need to speak for the Imperium, though having said that you'll never get an official word on this, much like the last time.

Zax said...

"Ban suicide ganking for Imperium pilots! The reason is simple: socials believe that they are hopeless against the might of the Imperium, despite they only got ganked for their dumb mistakes. If they were ganked by nameless alts or CODE, they likely start using their head instead of raging."

So, you think that highsec miners and haulers think Goons are the ones blowing them up, instead of CODE, and that they don't rage against CODE?

Hivemind said...

> Actually their relations with CCP deteriorated to the point when Sion was banned from CSM

At the risk of sounding pedantic, that seems like a fairly disingenuous spin on actual events.

First off, Sion hasn't been banned from the current CSM - he's chosen to boycott the most recent summit and presumably any further CSM activities for what's left of his term, but that's his choice, not CCP's decision. He is technically still a CSM member, even if he chooses not to participate.

Second, while he has been barred from running for future CSM terms, that has nothing to do with either his in-game actions, anything he did while on the CSM, the in-game actions of the Imperium or the relationship between the in-game Imperium coalition and CCP; using the barring to imply that the in-game Imperium is having issues in general, or issues with CCP in particular is simply disingenuous.

The only explanation that's been offered for Sion's barring from future CSM elections has been his real-life relationship with the real-life organisation "The Mittani Media" (TMM), which is a professional gaming journalism organisation (insert obvious jokes about TMC's professionalism by all means, but they are technically incorporated, for-profit and work with gaming companies as equals rather than a fan site). Obviously only CCP know the full reasoning that drove the decision to exclude professional gaming media from the CSM as well as professional gaming developers, but it seems reasonable to assume that a big part of the decision would have been TMM's partnership with Daybreak Games to promote H1Z1 - regardless of the success of that campaign, TMM were working hand in hand with a rival gaming company (one specifically creating a player action/consequence driven, harsh, competitive MMO, in point of fact), not to mention that it seems quite clear that part of the intention of the partnership was for TMM to encourage EVE players in particular to play H1Z1.

Apparently the specifics of Sion's relationship with TMM is unclear - he's been named as a paid employee and/or "shareholder" by some sources, others say he isn't or those sources aren't credible - however he is definitely their "Director of Content" and it seems reasonable to assume that for a professional organisation, this would be a paid position. Even if Sion's work for TMM is actually entirely voluntary, he's still sufficiently invested in TMM (based on his position within the organisation) that it seems reasonable to expect him to place significant value on TMM's interests, which is the reason for his being barred from future CSMs - CCP are concerned about giving out sensitive internal development information to anyone with a potential real-life conflict of interest, where that information might be used to harm their business. Sion has such a conflict due to his relationship with TMM. But, once again, that's entirely separate from anything involving the in-game Imperium coalition.

Gevlon said...

@Zax: sure they do. But then they can be told how they failed. If they are ganked by Goons, you can tell them anything, they'll reply "there is nothing I can do against the strongest alliance", which is exactly what Goons tell him.

@Hivemind: by Sion's own words the rule was tailored at him for being critical.

Arrendis said...

Yes, Gevlon, the rule was specifically tailored at him, and it was because he was both critical and refused to put the popularity game before advocating positions he sincerely believes will be better for the game as a whole. That doesn't mean that was the language used in the rule, though. The rule blocks him because of his involvement with TMM.

So basically, because they couldn't publicly say 'we don't want people here who don't suck up to us', they found another - perfectly reasonable, in fact - pretext that would block him.

As far as sponsoring suicide gankers goes.. we don't. MiniLuv is an entirely self-funded organization, with all of their funding and supplies coming from the haul from their kills - including the thousands of fitted hulls given out during the Burn events. Could we say ganking is verboten? Sure. FCON does, for example. But why would we? To get peace with you?

You're on guy. If we agreed to all of your terms, it would have exactly no effect on the activities of MOA and other organizations that attack us because they like to attack us. This is the basic piece of your strategy you seem to have been missing for years now: You are paying MOA to do what they were already doing, and if you stop paying them, they'll keep doing it. You have no peace to offer us.

Gevlon said...

@Arrendis: @Arrendis: MoA is attacking specially you, because you insulted them by kicking them for "not PvP-ing". I'm sure they'll consider moving elsewhere if they get their apology and funding there.

Even if they don't, they fall back to the pre-funding level which is 50-80B/month instead of 200-250. You above all people should know that SRP makes miracles.

Anonymous said...

"Most of your mates just want to rat, and they pretty much dislike "MoA content"."

As a MOA member, I think that statement is incorrect.
We are the number one killer of CFC and we barely have 1k members.
On the contrary, I think the vast majority love killing CFC in MoA otherwise the numbers would not hold up scrutiny vs Out of Sight. We all know numbers of members in alliance never really translate exactly as some alliances will have more logistics/pos or other jobs besides pvp.
I personally think we in MOA are doing well.
Can we do better?
I personally think we can do much better. There are certain areas we can improve on and its not just one. But I also understand we are only 1k and everyone has also a RL/family and a job that comes with that.
I always said this, I would love if we in MOA could form up a 100+ man fleet at any time of the day to pvp. If we can do this, the rest are tweaks, and tweaks are easier to do. This would be very helpful not just for ourselves for for our allies too. I say 100+man fleet cos it has been my experience that many of the battles we lose is cos we just don't have the alpha.

Anonymous said...

@Gevlon as far as I remember, the old proposal included offensive war dec ban, what happened to this point?

@Arrendis oh yes you sponsor them, just not with ISK. You give them a massive war dec shield named gewnswarm fffuuuderation, which wards off any but most costly retribution from them. If they are oh-so-self-funded, they should function perfectly outside of gewnswarm.

If you agree to Gevlon's terms, it'll equal to your enemies taking 2B/day of damage in form of missing Gevlon's donations, a point he has failed to convey properly, so I'll help out. Well, I guess you didn't want all that damage anyway.

Hivemind said...

@Gevlon: And if you believe that that article is unbiased and completely factual with no attempt to spin or distort events to serve a specific narrative then I invite you to take advantage of my entirely legitimate ISK doubling service.

On the most basic level it makes no sense. For one, Sion was on CSM 9 as well as the current CSM 10, and in that same article you mention he talks about CCP being against him (due to being a Goon) from the start of CSM 9. There's no indication that his attitude with regards to providing feedback changed significantly between CSMs 9 and 10, yet he didn't have any issues running for CSM 10 despite that he was presumably just as "critical" on CSM 9.

For two, the whole purpose of the CSM is to provide feedback to CCP from players' perspectives; feedback that is critical is still feedback. Effectively Sion is saying "I've been barred from future CSMs for being too good at the job", which doesn't really sound plausible.

For three, according to Sion this ban targeted him specifically out of all the CSMs; does it really seem that likely that Sion was so incredibly, massively critical compared to every other CSM member that he and he alone would be singled out for this barring? Especially without him actually being removed from the current CSM along with said barring?

For four, if CCP had a problem with Sion being overly critical then why go through the cloak-and-dagger route of getting him excluded via a whitepaper update that indirectly singles him out as a member of the gaming media? If their issue is his attitude or behaviour on the CSM, rather than conflicts of interest that would also apply to other professional games journalists too, why not just remove him directly?

For five, this isn't occurring in a vacuum - the Imperium appears to have an axe to grind with the CSM as a concept for whatever reason. Possibly that's because this whitepaper change has barred The Mittani's inner circle from future CSMs, possibly it's for some metagame reason - they think they can better manipulate individual focus groups, maybe; I don't pretend to know. But between publicly backing Xenuria (widely viewed as a "nuisance candidate" with little to contribute) either outright faking or at least helping draw attention to accusations of leaks/NDA violations from other CSM members (not to delve too far into tinfoil territory, but it's more than a little suspicious when DBRB is one of the first to claim the leaks have been confirmed, especially since it's literally impossible for his claims to be true, not to mention The Mittani immediately jumping to retweet said "leaks") and now this piece accusing CCP of ignoring useful feedback and refusing to use CSM members' experience based on ingame associations, there is very definitely a narrative being pushed, which by itself should make this article deeply suspect, ignoring all the other problems with Sion's claims.

Anonymous said...

"If you agree to Gevlon's terms, it'll equal to your enemies taking 2B/day of damage in form of missing Gevlon's donations, a point he has failed to convey properly, so I'll help out. Well, I guess you didn't want all that damage anyway."

You miss the point that it would cost more both in terms of lost income from blue alliances and from all the people that would leap in at a chance of attacking goons if they showed weakness. Simply put, they would lose much more than they gain and certainly more than they need to lose by simply doing nothing. Gevlon just doesn't hold enough power to make demands and expect an outcome.

Besides, goons only need to hold out until Citadels replace NPC stations and MoA are done anyway. They simply won't survive once they have to defend their assets.

Anonymous said...

First, you assume alliances are going anywhere for some reason, while they can be simply assimilated. At very little cost.
Second, you assume for some reason that assimilating some alliances is more of a weakness show than dropping regions, more than Fade and Pure Blind being #2 and #3 on ship kills top list among regions, more than having to redeploy home from provi because being rekt there, more than being rekt in lowsec by voltron... really?
Thirdly, citadels are not intended as a replacement of NPC stations, and MoA can just move to lowsec 5 jumps away from current home system and keep doing whatever they are doing, should anything happen. Both your points are nothing more than your wishful thinking. I may even add that despite your pathetic coalition's ongoing effort, there are assets in Venal that are successfully surviving for years, gee, I wonder why.