Welcome to Jester's Trek.
I'm your host, Jester. I've been an EVE Online player for about six years. One of my four mains is Ripard Teg, pictured at left. Sadly, I've succumbed to "bittervet" disease, but I'm wandering the New Eden landscape (and from time to time, the MMO landscape) in search of a cure.
You can follow along, if you want...

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Call of the wild

Full disclosure: the following blog post is written by someone who is in an alliance that has Rooks and Kings set red.  I don't think this unduly influences the opinions below, but I have disclosed the relationship.  Judge for yourself.

In a comment regarding my dictors post on Monday, an anonymous commenter said (edited slightly):
It's easy to say "bring more dictors" until you are the guy who needs to bring the dictor. The biggest change isn't the aggression mechanic -- I don't have a big problem with that -- it's the fact that you can no longer jump, then bubble. So basically, if the dictor drops a bubble on a gate and and the fight isn't already won, the dictor is going to die.

And since nobody really like dying, people are going to stop flying dictors.
Yep.  That's a factor, all right.  Which brings to mind the Clarion Call videos.

Let me say straight out: I am a big, big fan of Clarion Call 1 and Clarion Call 2.  Both videos are -- simply put -- masterpieces.  Not only are they gripping, cinematic stuff, highlighting EVE combat in many forms, they are both highly educational videos.  The tactics used are explained, justified, and demonstrated, and it's left to the viewer to come to their own conclusions as to how effective those tactics are.  Even moreso, the viewer is then invited to -- and shown how to! -- implement those tactics themselves.  Both movies are also tightly written and edited, with nary a wasted minute.

Compared to them, Clarion Call 3 is garbage.

Yes.  I said it.  Clarion Call 3 is garbage.  It is arrogant, windy, over-hyped, under-edited, over-narrated, hugely over-long, and other than nine minutes late in the proceedings that actually shows a fight, it is dull dull dull dull dull.  And that's before you get into its obvious rewriting of history, with everything from skipped losses to not accepting responsibility for bad tactics to its obvious, obvious over-dubbing of Teamspeak conversations during its few battles to make that Teamspeak chatter more dynamic and dramatic.

If that wasn't bad enough, though, in my view, CC3 demonstrates nothing, teaches nothing, encourages nothing.  You could come out of CC1 excited about and ready to use triage tactics, and come out of CC2 excited about and ready to use spider-tanking carriers.  Both videos are terrific advertisements for Rooks and Kings because both of them cheerfully throw a hard fast ball right into your strike zone and dare you to try and hit it: "We're so confident in our tactics and our strategies that we're gonna give them away.  Sure, you could try to copy them.  But instead, you might even consider joining the inventors."

Neither of them tried to be Rooks and Kings ads, and as a result -- in very Zen fashion -- I'll bet they were fantastic Rooks and Kings ads.  By trying to be a Rooks and Kings ad, Clarion Call 3 fails at it.

But really, there's an even worse sin than this going on.

Clarion Calls 1 and 2 had a fatal flaw in my view, in that they overly romanticized risk aversion.  When CC3 was advertised on EVE News 24 as being a video produced by one of "the best PVP corps in the game" and involving another, it was pretty late at night, and in an off-hand way, I posted a comment before I'd even watched it:
"... two of the best PVP corps in the game ..."

Uh... OK. All respect to R&K. Their videos are spectacular and well-produced, and they are utterly fantastic at what they do. But what they do is provide risk-averse EVE players with a godhead to worship.

That isn't PvP. That's PvBrickWall.
Dear Heaven, did I catch a lot of flak for that comment.  ;-)  EN24 allows visitors to rate comments, and that comment's rating varied wildly between a high negative number and a low positive one.  One response asked me why I was hating on Rooks and Kings.  And I was stupid enough to actually answer:
It's not hate. I'd have to care more to hate. ;-) But you said it yourself: they pick their fights carefully, and plan how to win them with minimal or no losses. The converse is also true: if they aren't pretty sure they can win a fight, they won't take that fight. Hell, this video itself points out that the events in it span almost a year of planning.

I find it to be a rather stultifying way to play a game, that's all.

If I'm gonna play backgammon with a buddy, I don't take a month to watch how he plays backgammon, watch videos of him playing backgammon with others, learn his strategies and how to counter them, etc. I just get out the board. R&K operates differently, and if that's all it was, that'd be fine.

But they also have the unintended effect of convincing others that this is how everyone should play the game, with an eye toward planning and planning and planning to minimize loss and maximize victory chances. It's an effect on the game I could do without. EVE players are pretty risk-averse as it is without having that philosophy celebrated and championed.
And if my first comment drew a lot of flak, that second one generated a river of flame in my direction.  ;-)  It started out with a negative rating, and the more people that read it, the more negative the rating got.(1)

And that said, I stand by the comment.

Go to the Rooks and Kings Youtube "channel", and you're going to find the background image (as of this morning) is this:

It's a lovely screen-cap from CC3 of a couple of dozen battleships in the midst of a POS bash.  You'll find the actual POS bash in the CC3 video at about the 14:25 mark(2).  But the predominant feature of the image is yellow lines criss-crossing the screen like mad both in the screen-cap and the video.  The source appears to me to be at least eight Guardians.

Guardians... at a POS bash... representing a significant portion of the fleet.  Granted, a lot of them appear to be capping up Abaddons(3), but you know, there are equally valid ways to bash POSs that don't involve Abaddons.  Given the choice between 18 Abaddons and 6 Guardians, or 24 cap-stable POS-bashing Apocs, give me the Apocs.  The job will get done faster.

But of course, using the Apocs will be riskier.

There's a difference, both in life and in EVE, between managing risk and being completely risk averse.  And in my view, far too many EVE players err on the latter side.  EVE players, as a group, are too risk averse and celebrate risk aversion.  An example will suffice.  In the most recent changes to the new player experience before Incarna, CCP added a PvP-focused "combat tutorial" where the intent of the tutorial would be that you would lose your ship to a superior opponent and would have to get used to the idea of losing a ship.

EVE players quickly devised tactics and means of beating that mission without losing one's ship.

I'd say the intended message of that mission was lost during the strategy sessions.  ;-)

The other night, I was among a Rote Kapelle fleet that took on a much bigger Flatline. fleet.  We had no Logis and only one support ship.  Our opponents had multiple logis (not shown on the BR) and overwhelming support.  The only way this group would fight us was if we jumped into them.(4)  They already had an overwhelming numbers and support ship advantage, and wanted the field advantage, too.  We could have, and should have, walked away.  We had that option.

But what the hell kind of fun is that?

Despite a lack of Logis and support ships, we jumped in, took the fight, and thanks to superior FCing and superior skirmish tactics, we won the fight.  And I have to say, it was one of the most fun fights I've ever had in EVE.  My heart-rate just went up just reliving it.  Did we lose ships that night?  Sure!  But our losses were acceptable and replaceable.  And because we don't typically bring tons of support ships, other fleets will actually... you know... engage us.  So we actually get fights.  So we actually have fun.  Granted, not losing ships is nice, and planning is always a good thing, but I'd rather lose a ship or two and have fun then the alternative... which is not get a fight at all.

And even when it comes down to a fight, Logistics and Falcons are not the only way to win them.  Any PvE'er will tell you that you can beat a mission just as often by bringing lots of DPS and good tactics.  Enough DPS and enough good tactics, and you won't need to cycle that repper you brought along at all.  ;-)

You can manage risk without being risk averse.  The Clarion Call videos send a different message.

Sometimes, you have to answer a different sort of call... the call of the wild.

(1) One commenter told me "they'll stay and fight even if they might lose, you can hear it on their TS in the video!" completely missing or ignoring the rather obvious fact that a lot of the TS chatter in the video was over-dubbed later.

(2) No, POS bashes are not exciting even when they are in a Rooks and Kings video.

(3) Hell, to me, a couple of them appear to be 6x Large Energy Transfer fit, which is interesting.

(4) Which we would do only after we asked them nicely, multiple times, to back off the gate a little to give us at least somewhat of a fighting chance.  ;-)


  1. First, I must say CC3 doesn't attempt to be a teaching video like the other two videos and pretty clearly goes for a more dramatic feel. All fine and good, but I think all three videos intended to do something different and they all succeeded in their venture.

    Second, I found your points about risk aversion very interesting and although I think there is something to be said about planning, I completely agree that more players should be willing to just get in a fight even if they aren't sure they will win. Great post.

  2. This post deserves more, positive, attention. I agree with basically all of the points and sentiments made.

  3. So flying around in drakes and canes is less risk averse, than putting a carrier, a bhaalgorn and a few t3s on the line?

    You might be right, but should try again with an example that makes you look right .. instead of wrong ..

  4. @Anon1602: You're missing the point. Bringing T1 BCs to that fight is *managing* risk. Because we managed risk, we got a fight. Had we brought a R&K fleet *of equal size*, but featuring T3s, a Bhaalgorn, and Guardians, Flatline would have run.

  5. You`re missing my point. They knew they were getting a fight and they were still outmatched in ships (2carriers 2bhaalgorns and 2dreads iirc).

    They basically did the same thing you did when you took that fight.

    Your examples just aren't very convincing.

    Especially not if you laud your own alliance into the highest of heavens.

  6. Glad someone else couldn't stand CC3. I was bitching about it and was getting burned for doing so. It's fucking boring. The fight at the end is okay, but it takes 20 minutes to get to it. A whole lot of "we're enemies with Aperture, we're looking for their space" stuff, that could have been said in about three minutes.

  7. http://www.rotekapelle.com/killboard/?a=kill_related&kll_id=61738

    risk aversion

  8. I have to agree with Jester: if I saw a t3 fleet I wouldn't even bother, I'd blueball it. Nevermind the Bhaalghorn and logis.

    As for drakes and canes, drakes will beat canes if they can kite the canes, canes will beat drakes if they can get in close enough. why put 500 mil on the line for 50 mil fun?

  9. "You`re missing my point. They knew they were getting a fight and they were still outmatched in ships (2carriers 2bhaalgorns and 2dreads iirc)."

    Check out the battle on their killboard. They had more than the what the video tries to portray.

  10. I think all Eve PvP videos are dumb. vOv

    (But especially those that go for an "epic" feel.)

  11. I fell asleep 10 mins into CC3. Sooo boring, and a monotone narrator doesn't help either.

  12. Having been in an Alliance that often fought with or counted on RnK for assistance I can tell you that you've hit the nail on the head. RnK will not mobilize unless they are more than reasonably assured of victory. There were many times when we'd have a Carrier tackled or some such, only needing a tad more help, and they wouldn't come because they only had a few pilots available. When they do come, heaven help you. They brought 3 SC to a Carrier trap recently, dropped them right on the gate with about twenty (+logi) BS. 'nuff said.

    And CC3 is probably one of the most pretentious, pedantic, over-wrought Eve videos it has been my misfortune to watch.

  13. IMHO, CC3 is best interpreted as an art/adventure film which happens to culminate in a gun fight. Attempting to learn anything from it or assuming it has any lessons to be learned (apart from how to force your way into a given unknown system) is to suggest that the Bible is a historical document.

    As for R&K, their name says it all: Rooks have unlimited movement in two axes, Kings only have 4 squares they can move to.

    The final fight shows how risk averse these guys are: they had to be threatened off the wormhole. My assumption is that the dubbed voice is to cover up the swearing and name calling happening from the narrator (I expect the language was a little more colourful than, "come on you lily-livered cowards! Get your arses off the gate and shoot some missiles into the darkness here!"

    Perhaps CCP need to modify that training mission to scale up the attack relative to the forces on-field.

  14. I disagree about Clarion Call 3. It was entertaining and enjoyable.

    The narration was clear and added a lot of suspense and drama.

  15. man, comments deliver on this post.

    First -


    is a single player triple boxing and dropping his carrier for fun, not a small Rote gang.

    Second -

    "So flying around in drakes and canes is less risk averse, than putting a carrier, a bhaalgorn and a few t3s on the line?"

    You should do a little research before making statements, "a few t3's"??? they had 14+ t3's in that fight, actually they outnumbered their opponents handily.

    CC3 wasn't nearly as good as the press it received, I enjoyed the narrative, but knew it was once again just a spin on the truth, similar to LM's Failheap AARs :)

  16. I'm a fan of R&K (as you know Ripard) and part of it is BECAUSE they are "risk averse" as you call it. Taking risks when you don't have to is stupid. Flat out. You lose a ship in EvE and it's gone. You fly something fancy you fly it carefully because you have to replace it.

    You may get less fights that way but frankly the last time I went into a fight that I didn't manage right I lost over a billion isk of my corpmates and alliance mates ships. Why pillory R&K for A: Wanting to fly fancy ships and B: Wanting to fly them in a way to maximize their chances of winning? and finally C: It's a fun video and looks awesome, who cares if they made the space frogs slave away for over a year in WH space to get revenge and the frogs are so burned out they are gatecamping in Hier.

  17. @Truen1ght: Fleets in w-space are very shiny. In w-space, if you lose your pod you're out for hour, maybe for days. Unlike NS, you can't just reship and jump back to the fight. Using cheap BC is not very efficient.

    @Mara: it wasn't especially a bad assomption from the pilot at the wormhole to think the fleet would want the connect to be kept opened. If the FC didn't care about that connection he would have jumped 2 dreads (which would have closed the wh).

    @Jester: All you say about R&K might be true but you are unfair about those battles. For the last one, AHARM should have won. They had 2 Bhaalgorn and 2 Dreads they should have primaried the Archon and might have won. I am sure after watching that video, most WH explorers wanted to leroy a carrier, some bhaalgorns and a t3 fleet at who ever they were connected to. I did.

  18. Flatline. Logi pilot checking in. Our fleet was not built with intention of "Fucking up Rote Kopelle fleet" but scheduled op with requested "nano shit" which included MWD Scimis.

    The gate shit was due to Incursion next door, try to get decent fight with yall and not get fleet trashed by Sansha. As far as I'm aware, we have upcoming ops that includes throw down with yall.

    Flatline is little "serious business PvP". I wouldn't call it good/bad/wrong just different. Rote Kopelle likes to treat Syndicate as World of Tanks but not everyone thinks that way including some of our enemies.

    On lighter note, as avid reader of your blog, I saw that you showed up and was hoping your Drake got BBQed. Nothing personal you understand ;)

  19. Mara is correct. CC3 is more akin to a Boys Own Adventure story than a EVE instructional video. Actually I don't actually recall seeing anyone from R&K promoting it as a instructional video but hey bash that straw man if you want.

    People (mostly non EVE players) I have shown CC3 to found it a pretty compelling story. For myself, living in null but very rarely venturing into wormhole space, it was entertaining to hear a interesting story from a part of EVE I have(yet) to experience.

    It's a shame that Jester, of late, seems to be falling into the play the game the way I think it should be played or you, and everything you do, is "garbage" mentality that so blights this great game. R&K may be risk adverse but it sure looks from the outside that they are having fun.

  20. To all those that say I shouldn't expect to learn something from a video called "Clarion Call": you don't call something a sequel to something else if you're not going to follow the same pattern as the previous iterations. You just don't. The previous two CCs were chock full of good fights, educational information, and specific tactics. If CC3 wasn't going to deliver on that structure, THEN RNK SHOULD HAVE CALLED IT SOMETHING ELSE. Simple as that. When you go to watch Scream 4, you expect it to bear more than a passing resemblance to Screams 1, 2, and 3.

    Let's use a very basic, easy to understand example: CC1 and CC2 gave specific tactics surrounding triage carriers and spider-tank carriers, respectively. CC3 could have easily explained the tactics regarding all-neut Bhaalgorns. It would have both fit the previous CCs and would have fit within CC3 just fine. Why wasn't this info included? What would have been more useful? All the filler crap that was there? Or specific tactics that you could put to work in your own corps?

    That's why this objection is not a "straw man". The very definition of sequel is "a work that is complete in and of itself, but continues the narrative of a preceeding work." Clarion Call Three does not qualify.

    @mad: yep, I'm aware that some people will disagree with me on principle. We're all entitled to our opinions. ;-)

    @Dino: Other than what's above, I have little or no complaint with the nine minutes of actual EVE overview CC3 gives us. It's the other 28+ minutes that I object to.

    @Ribbit: no offense taken. I don't take EVE fights personally. ;-) I know for a fact that I've been primaried a time or two because I am THAT Ripard Teg. ;-)

  21. Jester I've been reading your blog for some time with fondness, normally agreeing on the direction most of your posts go but this post and your response to CC3....whoa! Tthe flames you must have received..... See I quite enjoyed CC3 but merely as a player made piece created in a game I love to play. I'm a sucker for a well-made montage (have been since watching http://tinyurl.com/zru5n) and so CC3 naturally appealed to me with no real care on 'truth' or 'facts'. Anyway good on you for stating your point of view no matter how contrary to the ‘flow’ it is, I get what you're saying and let’s see more of this. I like reading a blog that shakes up the 'norm' :).

  22. I might be in the minority, but I agree with you about risk aversion. A lot of roams I've been on ended up with no fight until absolutely superior forces could be brought to bear against the group I was roaming with. We've lost several fights trying out opponents that we knew had the advantage and we've won a few fights as well. Overall I'd much rather be in a fight that's close instead of something that's completely lopsided. I want fun, and if the pilots in eve are so worried about K/D rates and guaranteed wins there's always WoT where I get a fair fight much more often and with much less time wasted.

  23. Interesting viewpoint. In fact, the fleet we ended up fighting them with was a very un-risk-averse fleet. We had a new Triage pilot (without energy trans), a dread that kept dropping connection, and no real FC. We should have won that fight, and very nearly did.

  24. Hmmm. Well that was quite the rant. A little over the top, I think. No, a lot over the top.

    Just yesterday, Jester wrote in http://jestertrek.blogspot.com/2011/11/affable-indentured-servitude.html: "I have this unfortunate and incurable condition in which I can usually understand and empathize with a lot of different types of EVE players. In particular, at heart, I am an evil evil PvPer... but yet I can still understand and explain why total EVE care-bears play the game the way they do."

    Unless you're a Rooks and Kings type of player, apparently.

    Being an Eve care bear is about as risk averse as you can get, but that's OK. We can empathize with that. But choosing a PvP style like Rooks and Kings, is not OK - too risk averse. We can't empathize with that.

    In this post Jester wrote "So we actually get fights. So we actually have fun" (with emphasis on "have fun"). The implication here is that what Rooks and Kings do can't be fun. Well, I'll bet R&K have fun too. As do high sec miners, industrialists, and mission runners.

    Jester's "incurable" condition isn't so incurable after all.

  25. @Luccul: don't put words in my mouth, please. I think I made it fairly obvious that I understand the RnK perspective. I just disagree with it. There's a significant difference.

  26. "There's a difference, both in life and in EVE, between managing risk and being completely risk averse. And in my view, far too many EVE players err on the latter side. EVE players, as a group, are too risk averse and celebrate risk aversion."

    Eh, also applies to Corporate America, the military, law enforcement, and fire. We don't engage unless we're SURE we're going to win... and when, surprise surprise! we don't, we shed tears, run away, and lick our wounds for a while whilst finding a scapegoat for our fuck-uppery. The doctrine of overwhelming force, and "shock and awe" is deeply ingrained in our mindset since, oh, WWII at least.
    Problem with that is when overwhelming force is countered, whether via tactics, counter-force, or sheer shit luck, we're the ones who're shocked and awed.

  27. So now I want a post talking about Why people are risk averse.

    Also, for someone like RnK there is more than isk being risked, there is also reputation.

  28. A roaming BC gang is of course exacly the same as a womhole invasion with mass limits. A well fit Bhaalgorn and HG Talisman set costs as much as 50 Drakes and those 50 will beat the Bhaalgorn 100 of the time. In weight a Bhaal is as heavy as 7 drakes, again the Drakes will kill the Bhaal easily.

    But in that fight that was shown an extra 100 Drakes were not an option and the two Bhaals won the fight where 14 Drakes would not have.

  29. It seems to me this third video was intended for a different, wider audience than the first two - with the necessary (but boring to vets) explanation and background so that non-Fleet-battle familiar, non WH/Null-sec tactic familiar folks like me can catch up and understand and enjoy. Which I did!

    I won't lie - I enjoyed the video. I found the narative intriguing, the fight fun, the story interesting - I can see a group of ships shooting a pos and think 'ooh that's pretty' rather than some mind numbing flashback to 400(+) hours spent doing that. Conversely I watched CC1 as a result and found the narration harder to follow, the tactics mildly interesting but the specifics lost to me. It was meant for an entirely differnt group in EvE and was enough for me to not bother downloading CC2.

    I have to agree it is pushing it to call it a sequel; but had they not done so then the hype probably wouldn't have been loud enough for me to hear about it over here in my secluded little corner, and I wouldn't have learnt about the infinity gun, the power of all-neut Bhaalgorns in the right situation, the tedium that would be involved in 'chain-collapsing' etc.

    So whilst they shouldn't have; completely selfishly, I'm glad they did.

  30. Hrm.. as far as risk aversion goes, how do you think the new logoffski changes and supercap changes will affect their deployment since blobbing and logging off en masse when things turn south is no longer an option?

  31. If you play chess or go or any sort of strategy game you learn, evolve and get better.

    Part of getting better is knowing how you play yourself and what your style of play is. When you figure that out you can win games.

    Rooks and Kings have found their nice and source of fun/play, Rote Kappelle has found theirs. Despite what you may thing neither is superior, they are just two different forms of play. You play a quick game of backgammon, they play GO.

    That the beauty of EVE

  32. You would take 24 Apocs over 16 Abaddons and 8 Guardians?

    The difference in Damage isn't that big. At least not if you want to have a chance for survival in the case someone shows up.

    I get ~14500 dps for Hellcats with sentrys and ~17900 for Apocs + sentrys. If ~20% more dps is worth having no logis go ahead. I think its stupid.

    Then 16 Abaddons also have a lot less mass then 24 Apocs have. Sure use 24 Apocs if you feel like it, but you would have to self destruct 19 of them afterwards (Or need to use another exit).

    On the other hand you could jump through 8 logis instead of one BS.

    It might be a good idea to bring pos-pash apocs in 0.0/low where you are not limited by mass and get an early warning through local.
    But it certainly is a bad idea to try the same approach in WH-Space.

  33. Some people play for 'fun'. Others play to 'win'.
    The latter group generally has very little 'fun' when they loose.
    Basically it's two diametrically opposed views on what a game is supposed to be or how it's supposed to be played.

    But I really can't find a reason for criticizing people because they always bring their A-game and don't fight when it looks like they can't win.
    From the end of CC3 I didn't get the impression however that RnK is afraid to loose ships. I got the impression they just don't like to do it stupidly, for which I really can not fault them.

  34. This is an unusual post for you, Mr Teg.

    At the end of the day, it falls into the category of "my PvP style is fun, your PvP style is boring". At the end of the day, that's a very pointless and tiresome argument.

    If R&K take pleasure in analyzing other peoples' tactics and finding a way to beat them, is it your place or mine to announce to the blogosphere that they're not having fun, or that what they do for fun shouldn't be fun?

    Like I said, normally you don't waste time on empty arguments. It's a puzzle.

  35. @Jester: I put words in your mouth? Hardly!

    You made it abundantly clear that you disagree with R&K's play style. In fact, you come across as intolerant of it. Quote: "But really, there's an even worse sin than this going on". A sin? That's a pretty strong word. Your word, though.

    A sin is a term used to describe an action or deed that is considered reprehensible, unacceptable, or intolerable. People throw the sin word out there to repress behaviours they don't like. When you use words like that, the remainder of your post comes across as "your play is not OK".

    As you point out from time to time, it's a game. If R&K have fun playing the game that way, good for them. You don't have to agree with it, or like it, or play that way yourself. But referring to it as a sin? Come on.

  36. @Luccul (and to a lesser extent, @Mord): One more time. I can UNDERSTAND and empathize with something without having to AGREE with it. Examples:
    I UNDERSTAND why terrorists blow things up. But I DISAGREE with their methods. In fact, I find them reprehensible.
    I UNDERSTAND why people drink alcohol or take drugs to excess. But I DISAGREE with them doing so. In fact, I find people that do weak and pitiable.
    I UNDERSTAND why a sub-set of people in the U.S. long for a return to 1950s Americana. But I DISAGREE with the sentiment. In fact, I find people that think this way a bit laughable.
    Trying to get me to feel bad for thinking this way will NOT work. I'm allowed to have opinions and I'm allowed to express them. I UNDERSTAND and empathize with why RnK plays EVE the way they do. But I DISAGREE with this style of play. In fact, I think it's bad for the game.

    @Anon0127: I think the logoffski changes will have a big impact on low-end hot-drops. In a PL video I'll post today, PL refuses to escalate and bring in super-caps when they're about to lose a super-cap kill because they're concerned about being counter-hot-dropped. In local chat in the video, you can see them smugly reminding their victim of the new logoffski mechanics while simultaneously avoiding those mechanics themselves. I'll have more to say about this later today.

    @Ciar: There's a difference between studying chess strategy to get better, and studying an opponent's moves and strategies and devising counter-strategies for a month before you will even consent to get out the board.

    @Horlan: Again, yes I would. And if you'd done any number of POS bashes, so would you. Now, that said, I'd probably fit a cyno to one or two of my Apocs and bring a carrier or three in if the bash really became a problem. I can also understand bringing Guardians if you're dealing with a well-defended POS. But in CC3, you can clearly see that the POS guns and mods are all incapped, and probably had been for many hours.

  37. Nope, CC3 is an epic television quality documentary on WH space- you're totally player hatin bro.

    As a WH space pilot, "Clarion Call 3" is now libel to me- and it's the best piece of machinama crafted for any video game ever.

  38. Just want to chime in from a noob EVE players perspective: CC3 was very entertaining to watch. For me, it showed what kind of pre-fight work can go into EVE, and what possible depth strategy might go to. The non-EVE players that read my blog also, generally, found it entertaining and a good example of what EVE, on the high-end, might be like.

    Having read all of the above, I can see how bittervets might take issue with the video, but perhaps bittervets were not the target audience for this release?

  39. You disagree with how they PvP; how they derive pleasure from playing the game that is Eve. You find it laughable, weak, pitiable and deplorable.

    OK. I get that. In the same wise I disagree with 'Hulkageddon'. Let's face it, the idea of the PvP elite running around in highsec, griefing players who can't fight back seems kind of lame. (I mean, c'mon, is anyone's penis really *that* small?)

    But, like I said, it's just another round of the tiresome, 'my Eve play is better Eve play, your Eve play sucks' argument. All sound and fury, signifying nothing.

  40. One more important thing that R&K left out of CC3: They have basically moved out of w-space. They left their C5 and have a few guys in a C2.

  41. Lets all get up and agro at the man who puts his thoughts on a blog. My goodness some of you lot take this far far far to seriously, remember this is just a game....

  42. Hey Jester

    This is Kil2, if that means anything. This subject is really important to me and we've been talking about it a lot within my little community lately. I actually liked the video, but I also generally agree with you about risk aversion being bad for the state of pvp in eve.

    Keep the discussion going o/

  43. I get the feeling you either didn't read my post while paying full attention or i failed to bring my point across.

    Yes i have done a few POS-Shoots. No that doesn't mean i would bring 24 Gimped Apocs over 16 Hellcats with support IF i expect resistance. If i don't i would yes, but i also said so.
    If you can drop caps at will to save your ass just in case that changes. But the areas i've been lately don't lack partys willing to batphone and hotdrop whenever they can.

    Then the whole Videos is about WH-Space Engagements, therefore its just natural to assume the POS-Bash was too.

    Which leads me as stated before - but less clear in my last comment - to:


    Maybe that made my point more clear.
    Even if you could bring 24 Apocs they still would be only about 10 Minutes faster on a Pos with 50% shield resist. If thats worth it can be argued.

    But in Practice its more likely that you can either Bring 17 Battleships, or 16 Battleships and a few logis. Well at least if you want to be able to get out the way you got in.

    I can understand your stance on POS-Bashes in 0.0 (i guess Low is the same).
    But your Arguments go against the Reality of WH Space which comes with a lot of altered Parameters in comparison to Nullsec.

  44. I think you are missing the point - they go for bigger targets, where guardians and logistics is important. anyone dropping a faction battleship gang against 0.0 blob is clearly not 'risk adverse'. it just seems intimidating to a gate camp as they fly home.

    The video was very kind to Aperture Harmonics. There was a big thread on failheap where apeture even tried unsuccessfuly to attack rnk with like 9 wormhole alliances after the end battle.

    But Ironclad is still my favourite rnk vid. Pure pvp and metal <3

  45. I find it ironic that you object to the 28 minutes depicting a year's worth of setup time only to show 9 minutes of combat when that is just typical of Eve, hours of grinding/waiting/spinning/whatever for minutes of sheer terror/excitement.

    Don't get me wrong, I love me some Eve, but they're just giving the reality of the game.

    As others have said, they were probably aiming for a wider audience, including people who don't play. In this case, you're just being a bitter vet without the patience or ability to look at it apart from your hobby.

    Liking your blog though.

  46. @sovereign: Yes, I really prefer my WW2 movies to be 6 years long.

  47. suspense is lost on you.

    Saving Private Ryan was a LOT of buildup to that final battle. There were some engagements on the way, as in cc3, but the majority of the movie was not combat.

    Not only that, you're not dealing with professional film makers here. LM isn't spielberg, he's a fan of Eve making a video because he likes the game, likes his alliance and wants to show it off--what's wrong with that?

  48. @sovereign: I suggest you go out and watch this video:


    It explains this area of CC3's problems quite succinctly. However, I'll ask the question in a more flat-out way: if you ever watch CC3 again, are you going to watch it from start to finish?

  49. I did watch it twice and it was from start to finish both times, with the exception of cutting out the two bits that made no sense to me, the intro and outro.

    The eve stuff was good.

    I understand your criticisms, I just wonder at the intensity of them considering these are just amateurs. Constructive criticism is one thing, could help the next video be even better.

  50. As for your opinion on the video, I don't agree. But at the same time each to their own.
    (But under edited? seriously? Im yet to see an evefan vid with better editing, if you have one in mind I would very much like you to link it I would like to see it)

    It sounds like you wanted much more of a pew pew video than what it was. That's fine, but those are also a dime a dozen, also there were still lessons to be learned. I'm glad someone attempted something different and did it well.

    As for the rewriting of history, well I think you should have said was omitting of events. And frankly, a war that spans a year, of which most of it was probably ganks from one side or the other, would not have been worth putting in.
    But if your argument is more that the story from RnK's perspective was not accurate, perhaps it is because they cant tell the story from the other point of view. Further more, if they had included everything, Appature would have looked pretty darn bad. Because frankly, they lost, and if the whole story was to be included then wouldnt Appature and friends wormhole alliance failure have to be included in that? and that it resulted in self-destructing
    caps and even selling their caps to RnK.

    I think it was a pretty fair and balanced video. It paints Appature as formidable opponents.

    Finally as for risk aversion. Going by the videos at least I would have to side with risk management. From how you have described 'risk aversion', taking a fleet out and blobbing someone is risk aversion.

    Its stupid to go in without thinking in eve, fine if you want to play that way, a great feeling if you win, and stupid everytime you die, which would be most of the time. You seem to be angry that someone took the time to plan the best way to do something, or actually, looked at stats and then used commonsense for most en-devours.

    But for arguments sake lets say that its a terrible way to play rather than a different way. And lets also say they are 'risk averse'. Well that doesn't really fly, especially in this video.

    The final fight Appature should have won on paper. They had to kill either the one bahlgorn or the one T-carrier, and they didn't. Further more, (according to the vid) they knew the fight would probably be stacked against them before they went in. Which I am inclined to believe as it was an Appature owned system that they were attacking with WH mass restrictions limiting what they could bring.

    Doesn't really sound risk averse to me. And quite honestly it was bad risk management because they really should have lost.

    And one last thing that kind of irked me a little.

    "Enough DPS and enough good tactics, and you won't need to cycle that repper you brought along at all."

    What if you don't have that many pilots, your restricted by WH mass, What if you want to fight against the odds and try and win convincingly. (as seen in previous CC vids). Your statement assumes a certain amount of logistical capacity that may not be true for everyone.

    Also you can only plan so much, what if your enemy drop more stuff? Your careful planning suddenly has alot more to cope with. Planning for a fight and having the fight are 2 different things.

    I thought this blog would be a good criticism of the video, but its pretty much a rant with no substance beyond, - I dont like the video coz it doesnt tell me new ways to win, I dont like how they play because it helps them win and I find it boring when i play that way-

    That really does seem to be the essentially what your saying. And that is fine, but that entire blog could have been condensed into something more pointed and i find it ironic (at least as far as this blog goes) that you complain the video is arrogant.

    I dont have anything against you, or that you didn't like the video. Some will like it and some wont, and thats just life.
    But I had to comment on some of your generalized and simple reasoning.

  51. Actually I think the pacing was good on the narrative part. The editing was not as good, which is not that important as the whole clarion call 3 is focused on the narratives. It IS a great video, but it does not deserve its name because it is completely different that clarion call 1 & 2

    For your problems with risk averse players: It is the basic design of eve. It is the core of eve. Eve gives your action purpose, and if you follow this basic of eve, you become automatically risk averse as long as eve keeps punishing you if you are not risk averse. Risk gives imho simply by design not enough gain right now.

    Still your example of attacking a fleet with your rote kapelle corp mates is a bad example, because your chances should have been decent even when on paper they were not. Your pilots and your fc are highly trained, and you did not risk much. Ships are cheap, your reputation will not suffer if you lose a fight against highly superior forces AND you can even increase reputation if you win. There was simply not much risk involved for you.

  52. Though I respect and appreciate your view on the video Jester, I have to agree with many others that your stance that playing Eve this way is bad for the game and a sin is one I just can't agree with.

    It seems to me that RnK are playing Eve as if real stuff is at stake, real lives, real money...you know "Eve is real" and all.

    While I also personally find that way of play can be stultifying if done to excess, I can see the attraction to it and why some might chose to play that way. But I also don't think it's bad for the game, anymore than playing your way is bad for the game (though if EVERYONE played that way, or your way for that matter, the game would be boring indeed).

    Full disclosure: I watched maybe 4 minutes of that video and just couldn't get into it.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.