Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Jotan Veer
HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 19:17:00 -
[31]
I had a nap this afternoon but it was hardly a fest...
|
larietta
production management team
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 19:21:00 -
[32]
wait...wait lolololololololol......wait lololollolololol cry me a river
nice topic tho
|
Shirei
Minmatar Cutting Edge Incorporated
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 19:28:00 -
[33]
Edited by: Shirei on 09/06/2007 19:28:21
Originally by: Waagaa Ktlehr The Northern NAP was a pact that described that entities wouldn't attack each other. It was hardly a defensive alliance. They all let each other die seperately.
The current "NAP" is more of an offensive alliance, we work together to conquer. We help each other out where there is a need to.
I'd call the current northern offensive an alliance, not a NAP fest. :)
The previous northern NAP was created to take over Branch, Venal, Tenal, Tribute and Vale from its previous inhabitants (ERA, 5, F-E, OSS and a few others) and largely stayed in place after that had been accomplished.
The new northern NAP is being created to take over Fade, Deklein, Branch and Tenal from its previous inhabitants and from how it appears will largely stay in place after that has been accomplished.
I fail to see where the big difference lies - except in the style of leadership used.
|
Rick M
Caldari Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 19:35:00 -
[34]
I too am interested to see how this all pans out.
I think the leadership issue is dead-on. It will be interesting to see how the North will evolve after the shooting dies down, who will step up to lead it, et cetera.
Originally by: Shirei Edited by: Shirei on 09/06/2007 19:28:21
Originally by: Waagaa Ktlehr The Northern NAP was a pact that described that entities wouldn't attack each other. It was hardly a defensive alliance. They all let each other die seperately.
The current "NAP" is more of an offensive alliance, we work together to conquer. We help each other out where there is a need to.
I'd call the current northern offensive an alliance, not a NAP fest. :)
The previous northern NAP was created to take over Branch, Venal, Tenal, Tribute and Vale from its previous inhabitants (ERA, 5, F-E, OSS and a few others) and largely stayed in place after that had been accomplished.
The new northern NAP is being created to take over Fade, Deklein, Branch and Tenal from its previous inhabitants and from how it appears will largely stay in place after that has been accomplished.
I fail to see where the big difference lies - except in the style of leadership used.
- I like ze missiles! |
Camilo Cienfuegos
Caldari EP0CH
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 19:38:00 -
[35]
Quote: you have NEVER shotten at me or anybody i flew with in catch or providence, YOU are the one who died to us 3 times and your setup is teh funny.
A shuttle, a pod, and a travel fitted AF in Litom? OMG you're teh uber! What are you, six? Again I'll have to dock you points for comprehension. You misread my post, and I'd like you to read it again and see if anything sticks. I'm doubtful, but we'll see. Unlike yourself, I was careful in my choice of words.
Quote: and you still dont understand how irrelevant your post is to this thread?
Your comprehension is almost as bad as your grammar and spelling. Allow me to elucidate:
Paraphrased OP: It's ironic that the north gets called a NAPfest by the south. Me: Not really, it's just double standards - and incorrect at that.
To the OP: Apologies for the derailing, I'll desist...
-- Tractor Beams Caldari Buff |
BuIIseye
Amarr Pax Amarria Corp
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 19:40:00 -
[36]
Originally by: MKeeper
Originally by: TheArchJudge
*sigh* Corp: Midnight Cartel Member Count: 1
Must not feed the trolls
:rolleyes: Corp: Finfleet Member Count: 360
and my post above still contained more points relevant to the OP than yours.
Lol, nice comeback, you are definitly my idol when it comes to 1-man alt corp trolling ------------------------------ Yes i am hax0r
Because of the name I have a higher chance of a wrecking shot, please don't tell the GM's or they'll nerf me =/ |
Patch86
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Sparta Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 19:47:00 -
[37]
I felt the irony, too. I have zero problems with allies NAPing up, I just got a giggle out of the fact that BoB went on (and on, and on, AND ON) about The North being a "Napland", and have proceeded to follow in exactly the same foot steps.
Just because you're BoB, it doesn't make it any more or any less lame --------
|
Salastils Alt
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 19:48:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Salastils Alt on 09/06/2007 19:47:39 Non-Aggression Pact: A non-aggression pact is an international treaty between two or more states, agreeing to avoid war or armed conflict between them and resolve their disputes through peaceful negotiations. Sometimes such a pact may include a pledge of avoiding armed conflict even if participants find themselves fighting third countries, including allies of one the participants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_aggression_pact
Now what you idiots are talking about Collective defense is an arrangement, usually formalized by a treaty and an organization, among participant states that commit support in defense of a member state if it is attacked by another state outside the organization. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_defense
If you're going to try to imitate intelligent people you should learn the proper words they use.
|
Shirei
Minmatar Cutting Edge Incorporated
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 19:50:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Salastils Alt Edited by: Salastils Alt on 09/06/2007 19:47:39 Non-Aggression Pact: A non-aggression pact is an international treaty between two or more states, agreeing to avoid war or armed conflict between them and resolve their disputes through peaceful negotiations. Sometimes such a pact may include a pledge of avoiding armed conflict even if participants find themselves fighting third countries, including allies of one the participants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_aggression_pact
Now what you idiots are talking about Collective defense is an arrangement, usually formalized by a treaty and an organization, among participant states that commit support in defense of a member state if it is attacked by another state outside the organization. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_defense
If you're going to try to imitate intelligent people you should learn the proper words they use.
Both of these are regularly referred to as NAPs in an EVE context since CCP in their infinite wisdom decided to name the highest alliance standing category 'NAP'. So stop splitting words.
|
Check Availbilty
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 19:57:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Joshua Foiritain Edited by: Joshua Foiritain on 09/06/2007 18:15:00 Edited by: Joshua Foiritain on 09/06/2007 18:10:22
Originally by: Gyro DuAquin1 o rly, why are you so sure that the north didnt do it the same way, and except for the fix and mc nap the relations ship between iron, rzr and others in the north where longer then the new friends bob made.
Iam quiet amused how ppl like you josh try to pretend that you are any different then the nap fest up north.
They didn't lift much of a finger when their friends where dieing, that right there is the diffrence.
what finger do you want to lift, against such massiv odds? put in more caps, lose more battles? Better a tactical retreat then losing massiv fleets.
Anyhow you can pretend as long as you want how different you are, but in the end you are just as much a nap fest as the north was.
|
|
welsh wizard
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 19:57:00 -
[41]
You have some superiority complex right there metal dude. Careful that chip on your shoulder doesn't cause you to lose your balance now.
|
iudex
Caldari Halliburton Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 19:57:00 -
[42]
Thats only the beginning. Soon BoB will have more and more 0.0 space and let more pets live there who will be blue to BoB and the other pets. Their goal is to conquer all of 0.0 and after this even Empire, according to the article mentioned in the news ?
Imagine what we have then: no more larger fighting at all. If 2 alliances have a problem they both go to BoB and BoB will make a judgement and decide the dispute. Everyone will mine, rat, run complexes and pay tax to bob. Minerals will be worth nothing because noone buys ships as hardly any ships are lost, GTCs will cost 2 billion / 30 days and everyone will feel strong/ueber because he is in a such powerful alliance conglomerate.
|
Gyro DuAquin1
Tri Optimum Ev0ke
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 19:58:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Check Availbilty
Originally by: Joshua Foiritain Edited by: Joshua Foiritain on 09/06/2007 18:15:00 Edited by: Joshua Foiritain on 09/06/2007 18:10:22
Originally by: Gyro DuAquin1 o rly, why are you so sure that the north didnt do it the same way, and except for the fix and mc nap the relations ship between iron, rzr and others in the north where longer then the new friends bob made.
Iam quiet amused how ppl like you josh try to pretend that you are any different then the nap fest up north.
They didn't lift much of a finger when their friends where dieing, that right there is the diffrence.
what finger do you want to lift, against such massiv odds? put in more caps, lose more battles? Better a tactical retreat then losing massiv fleets.
Anyhow you can pretend as long as you want how different you are, but in the end you are just as much a nap fest as the north was.
me
|
Jotan Veer
HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 19:59:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Shirei
Both of these are regularly referred to as NAPs in an EVE context since CCP in their infinite wisdom decided to name the highest alliance standing category 'NAP'. So stop splitting words.
Actually NAP is +2.5 (aka light blue), Friend is +5.0 (dark blue) in alliance standings.
|
Camilo Cienfuegos
Caldari EP0CH
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 20:00:00 -
[45]
Quote: Now what you idiots are talking about Collective defense is an arrangement, usually formalized by a treaty and an organization, among participant states that commit support in defense of a member state if it is attacked by another state outside the organization. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_defense
This could also be referred to as "Entente", but you're right in principle. Put simply, it describes a 'diplomatic understanding' to defend one's neighbour. The term isn't used nearly enough as it should be, nor it's counterpart "DTtente", meaning a 'warming up' of previously hostile parties, which could lead to a NAP.
Not that this is really relevant though, as was pointed out most "NAPfest" accusations are simply a way of attempting to rile up the opposition. An angry enemy makes mistakes...
-- Tractor Beams Caldari Buff |
Shirei
Minmatar Cutting Edge Incorporated
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 20:02:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Jotan Veer
Originally by: Shirei
Both of these are regularly referred to as NAPs in an EVE context since CCP in their infinite wisdom decided to name the highest alliance standing category 'NAP'. So stop splitting words.
Actually NAP is +2.5 (aka light blue), Friend is +5.0 (dark blue) in alliance standings.
Check again.
|
Tito Taneki
German Cyberdome Corp Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 20:03:00 -
[47]
Edited by: Tito Taneki on 09/06/2007 20:03:42
Originally by: Gutsani *sigh*
south: people are napped because they fear BoB -> BoB = leader
north: people want to carebear in peace without fighting eachother, so they nap -> no leader
the north was a "peacefull region" while the south was more like the soviet union.
Carebearing in peace for the sake of it is a goal for renters and such. You can't build something that lasts and is independent with that goal, because you have to compete with entities, who understand peace as a time to prepare for war.
And a goal like carebearing in peace doesn't hold a group together in war times for long. If the war goes on, those people realize that the ieasiest way to get their peace again is switching sides or leaving the area. It's just an inferior concept in EVE. ;)
|
Jotan Veer
HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 20:04:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Shirei
Originally by: Jotan Veer
Originally by: Shirei
Both of these are regularly referred to as NAPs in an EVE context since CCP in their infinite wisdom decided to name the highest alliance standing category 'NAP'. So stop splitting words.
Actually NAP is +2.5 (aka light blue), Friend is +5.0 (dark blue) in alliance standings.
Check again.
I set alliance standings almost every day, trust me.
|
Blacklight
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 20:07:00 -
[49]
March 2007:-
Coalition 23000 BoB & Alliance 12500
Coalition failed. You can discuss NAPs all day now.
Blog
|
NAFnist
Domination.
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 20:15:00 -
[50]
can i also be napzored with?
-
|
|
MKeeper
Midnight Cartel
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 20:16:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Blacklight March 2007:-
Coalition 23000 BoB & Alliance 12500
Coalition failed. You can discuss NAPs all day now.
I'd imagine even you aren't dimwitted enough to simply count alliance numbers and assume that's the total number of players active in the war.
|
Shamis Orzoz
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 20:26:00 -
[52]
Edited by: Shamis Orzoz on 09/06/2007 20:26:48 Eve is on infinite repeat: 1. bob naps a ton of people 2. bob kills their enemies 3. bob un-naps, and kills their most powerful former friends. 4. bob carebears for a long time 5. repeat
|
WARPIG3
Gallente Iron Dragon Corp Praesidium Libertatis
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 20:30:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Blacklight March 2007:-
Coalition 23000 BoB & Alliance 12500
Coalition failed. You can discuss NAPs all day now.
Is that before or after the CCP NAP?
|
Manfred Sideous
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 20:35:00 -
[54]
OMG people just admit defeat and go on. Why is it every time some gets ganked losses a fight or fails to succeed they have to shelter under excuses. The side that isnt BOB got wooped plain and simple.
You can spin things however you wish but the truth remains the same. Upset about it ? Mad about it ? Well take the lessons you learned the energy you have and do it better.
Bonus Advice = If you wanna RUN with the BIG DOGS dont sit on the PORCH and **** like a PUPPY.
|
VinceNoir
Amarr Pyrrhus Sicarii Aftermath Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 20:36:00 -
[55]
Edited by: VinceNoir on 09/06/2007 20:36:17
Originally by: WARPIG3
Originally by: Blacklight March 2007:-
Coalition 23000 BoB & Alliance 12500
Coalition failed. You can discuss NAPs all day now.
Is that before or after the CCP NAP?
Dude that was hilarious. Oh, no. The other thing, tedious. Whole CCP/BoB thing got old months ago.
This thread needs some Hammertown tbh.
Originally by: "Shanda Captison" Vince, you can't even spell ECM m8
|
Kramer Verone
Amarr TeamMX
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 20:37:00 -
[56]
i see that aftermath lost their station in deklein?
setting eyes on some other space nearby? wise decision
|
Joshua Foiritain
Gallente Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 20:38:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Check Availbilty what finger do you want to lift, against such massiv odds? put in more caps, lose more battles? Better a tactical retreat then losing massiv fleets.
Anyhow you can pretend as long as you want how different you are, but in the end you are just as much a nap fest as the north was.
If they had bothered to try and unite their efforts they could have halted the invasion in Fade or Deklein, having a big capital fleet is just jollies but if you trash the support fleet you wont see the cap fleet anywhere near the battlefield. -----
[Coreli Corporation Mainframe] |
VinceNoir
Amarr Pyrrhus Sicarii Aftermath Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 20:38:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Kramer Verone i see that aftermath lost their station in deklein?
Um, no.
Originally by: "Shanda Captison" Vince, you can't even spell ECM m8
|
pershphanie
Generals Of Destruction Syndicate Terror In The System
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 21:01:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Gaia Thorn it is just me that finds it ironic that Bob/pets/etc.. called north for a NAP fest whilst every corp they foguht either napped up or got steam rolled ?
Not meant as a flamebait nor a talk down on bob but they irony just struck whilst reading theese forums and watching the map.
Well the harsh reality we learned when we attacked tenal is that you have to work as a multi-alliance coalition if you want to fight the northerners. We went up there trying to be independent of the alliance. We timed our attack so D2 was busy hoping we could get a strait up alliance vs alliance fight with RZR. What we got in return from Rzr was a fight vs 7 alliances with 150-250 man blobs every day. We had no reasonable alternative at that point. The north allows no other method of fighting them.
The difference is a matter of tactics. The alliance napped so they could get a reasonable fight out of the north. The northern coalition (with the exception of TRI and pandemic) napped for the stability and growth of their alliances. For the north's strategy of napping to be really effective it relies on blobbing instead of fighting against anything they consider a threat. Some people might consider that a very boring way to play the game. It wasn't a dumb strategy. Just boring. Also it didn't hold up very well once the alliance got enough numbers to counter it.
Your signature was inappropriate, email [email protected] to find out why - Targoviste |
Fitz Chivalry
eXceed Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.06.09 21:06:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Major Stormer Now a days EVE is a napfest. Everyone is so scared of everyone else, they NAP everyone else.
Or they just join a roaming gank corp and so avoid any real risks at all?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |