EVE Search - North Providence-views from a neutral resident

All Channels

Intergalactic Summit

North Providence-views from a neutral resident

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Butter Dog Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2010.03.10 11:52:00 - [1] Edited by: Butter Dog on 10/03/2010 11:52:00 Originally by: edeity How UK would ever enforce anything once AAA diverts attention elsewhere is one of the great mysteries of life that gives rise to religion and expressions of faith. Yes yes, however will we defend our stations from CVA's lowsec ~wolfpax~ Here is a hint: the only people who will be rebasing to lowsec and fighting for honour will be the hardcore zealots within CVA. Most of the alliance, and all of the holders, won't be doing such things - they will either switch sides, move to greener pastures, or just failurecascade like AM and LFA. ---------- ~bitter dog~ etc
Butter Dog Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2010.03.10 13:35:00 - [2] Originally by: Kommander Keen I don't think you at UK understand how NRDS is understood by most space pilots nowadays, sir. This is the reason why your version of "NRDS" will fail. Your idea of NRDS died years ago and nobody wants it back, no matter how much you try to advertise it. :p No, it's only clueless CVA pets who think NRDS does not mean 'Not Red Don't Shoot' and applies as an ROE to alliances who elect to adopt it. Time for your re-education. ---------- ~bitter dog~ etc
Butter Dog Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2010.03.10 14:45:00 - [3] We're not going to adapt our ROE to suit useless pilots who want a 'Sansha hunt in Providence for free' card. Don't like it? Keep out of Providence then. Our ROE is for us to decide. We're fine with it. If you're not - too bad. ---------- ~bitter dog~ etc
Butter Dog Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2010.03.10 17:13:00 - [4] Edited by: Butter Dog on 10/03/2010 17:13:57 Garreck, I'm sorry you feel that you were being farmed like vegetables. Perhaps this has more to do with the quality of your holders, than anything else. Rest assured we would expect 'New Providence' residents to not collapse with fright at the prospect of a roaming gang within a 15 jump radius, and be able to adapt intelligently to threats - something by your own admission that the CVA led order never achieved. If you provided a vegetable garden, who's fault it that but your own? ---------- ~bitter dog~ etc
Butter Dog Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2010.03.10 19:33:00 - [5] Originally by: Chav Queen You ride on the coat tails of what could be the single most powerful alliance in EVE and then try and ridicule people for not fighting? You over estamate yourselves and your importance in the campaign by a huge margin. I publically challenge you to provide a shred of evidence that we claimed we did this alone, or that without AAA it would have been possible. The opposite is true, and if you read our official Galnet trasmission about the recapture of Unity Station, you will see clearly how we express our gratitude to AAA for leading this conflict. Without them, none of this would have been possible. Of course, you probably think that UK alone being unable to remove an 8000 man powerbloc is evidence of our ineptitude. Sane minds might beg to differ. ---------- ~bitter dog~ etc
Butter Dog Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2010.03.10 20:00:00 - [6] Originally by: Garreck That said, it is quite clear that since the Providence Holders stood up and said "we will not be -A-'s vegetable garden," Why, in that case, did you claim that if you made a territorial non-aggression pact with AAA, that you would be like a vegetable garden farmed for kills? Surely it is up to you to prevent those kills. ---------- ~bitter dog~ etc
Butter Dog Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2010.03.11 15:15:00 - [7] Originally by: Halarach As a neutral that would sound extremely appealing to me! "Cool have the ~right~ to fly in that space, but well no garantee I won't be shot by its residents, also if I want to rat it means I'm stupid. This must truely be NRDS, and I'm very welcome to it, how free and lucky I'm now under the new U'K regime ~dance~ " Clearly Mr Dog you completely admit that Provi under your regime, if that ever happens, would just be another empty catch, as neutrals have NO reason whatsoever to come to 0.0 just to see if they'll be shot, can't rat, mine, you know, earn some money. Also I, by definition, have the right to fly in any space. Doesn't mean I have any interrest in going to deep low-sec minmatar space to see if I'll be shot at. What makes you think it will be different. We won't shoot random neutrals if we operate NRDS, but I can't say we particularly want hordes of useless sansha hunters in our space either. Providence could be a great place for young alliances to own a few stations (kindly built by CVA) and truly develop as smaller independent entities. It is prime Dominion-age real estate next to empire. It will be a lot more interesting and colourful than your homogenous forced standings enclosure of vassal states and puppet leaders. ---------- ~bitter dog~ etc
Butter Dog Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2010.03.11 20:09:00 - [8] Originally by: Xina Tutor they have enough enemies as it is :) actually we've pretty much got the entire south blue, for better or worse ---------- ~bitter dog~ etc
Butter Dog Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2010.03.12 07:34:00 - [9] Originally by: Chav Queen Allowing people to think for themselves is called Freedom of speech and that already applies to Providence. hahaha Providence is forced standings enclave of vassal states. There is nothing 'free' about it. ---------- ~bitter dog~ etc
Butter Dog Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2010.03.12 15:54:00 - [10] As I have said, it was a forced standings enclave - if you tried to manage your own diplomatic relations (ie set parties who happened to be neutral to CVA as red, even with very good reason) then you would very soon be on CVA's red list yourself. The ability to manage ones own diplomatic relations is the basic right of any alliance, or entity who considers themselves to be free. ---------- ~bitter dog~ etc
Butter Dog Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2010.03.12 16:43:00 - [11] Originally by: Snakester Err, i think you'll find -7- has numerous entities that were red to CVA blue to us Well done. Now try setting an entity who is neutral or blue to CVA red. Oh dear. Can't be done. You were, and are, operating in a forced standings enclave. CVA didn't force you to shoot their reds, but they did force you not to shoot entities who were neutral or blue to them You followed the red list, as did all the other submissive vassal states - if Providence were to switch to UK stewardship we would not wish for ineffective puppet regimes, but truly ambitious and independent entities free to decide their own destiny in New Eden ---------- ~bitter dog~ etc
Butter Dog Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2010.03.12 17:19:00 - [12] Honestly. I really could not give a toss about what people think about our ROE. You're entitled to your opinion though. Will Providence be different when CVA are gone? It certainly will be. Will everyone like the 'New Providence'? Certainly not. But people can either adapt or move on. Providence won't be empty, it will be different, it will be more colourful, it will contain many small independent entities who choose to claim space on their own terms and relish the challenge of managing their own affairs. Snakester, pointing out the odd exceptions to the rule doens't prove anything - we both know how CVA's red list works, and you cannot set your permanent standings freely. The very fact you had extensive arguements about one-off engagements just goes to prove how tightly controlled you were. ---------- ~bitter dog~ etc
Butter Dog Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2010.03.14 12:43:00 - [13] Originally by: Inquisitor Drema Providence under CVA was NRDS. That particular brand of NRDS in practice meant that non-consensual aggression was not permitted - it didn't happen between blues and if neutrals agressed they were treated as hostiles. I'm not saying that that is what NRDS should or shouldn't be, but that is how it played out in providence. Yes people died to reds, but by and large it was safe. At least in my experience. This notion that neutrals are forced to adopt the standings of CVA is pretty correct; because players who are red to CVA will shoot anything and everything in providence, and so it is easiest to set them to red to differentiate from the blues (who are safe) and neutrals (who while not safe, do not mean you dock up when they come into system). To be honest, an alliance blue to CVA's reds would probably be told to take a hike if they wanted to settle in Providence. But then, I'd don't see why that would be shocking. What U'K propose is NRDS: The alliance of Ushra'Khan will not shoot at neutrals, ergo they and their systems are NRDS. However, as they have made quite clear they will not enforce anything like the system that was in place before. What this means to neutrals is that Ushra'Khan will not shoot you, but everyone else will and you are unlikely to get help (especially if the people doing the shooting are allies of Ushra'Khan) if you are attacked. CVA providence was old style, pre-Concord-buff (and perhaps a concord nerf? ) high-sec. Ushra'Khan providence will be NRDS to the letter and that's it. For that reason I don't think that Ushra'Khan will attract the same level of 'participation' that CVA did - whether that's actually the intention, or if they even care, is another matter. That is just my personal take on the matter. It doesn't suprise me that the most intelligent transmission from the Providence side comes from FCON. An alliance with your competence will do very well in the 'New Providence'. And yes that is an invitation. ---------- ~bitter dog~ etc
Butter Dog Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2010.03.16 12:58:00 - [14] Originally by: Baneken That's total BS and you know it. No way in hell is -A- going to allow anyone but -A- to hold sovereignty at Providence region. Really? I guess our own sovereignty in 4 stations is a mirage. Do you honestly think -A- are conquering Providence so they can own the 50 stations themselves? hahahaha ---------- ~bitter dog~ etc
Butter Dog Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2010.03.19 10:42:00 - [15] Originally by: Xina Tutor I would much rather have seen UK play a far higher percentage role in goals that were so important to their long struggle. Please, enlighten me - what are our goals which are not being met by removing CVA and her allies from Providence? I'm all ears.
Butter Dog Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2010.03.19 12:00:00 - [16] By your logic, Xina, we should abandon our fight against slavery because you don't care about it, and we might win. I'm sorry but I cannot agree with such twisted logic. We are here to win the battle against slavery. You supported CVA. You supported slavery. Whether you cared or not, you helped CVA run their slave-based Empire in Providence. For that, you are paying the price.
Butter Dog Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2010.03.20 23:05:00 - [17] Originally by: Archbishop Does anyone who has lived in Providence all these years as a neutral have any comment on whether or not things are "better" now then before? Providence is currently a warzone. Neutrals are advised to steer well clear. ---------- ~bitter dog~ etc
Butter Dog Gallente The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2010.03.24 10:44:00 - [18] Originally by: Velonei Vinnitsa we guess its a new providence now. Your guess is correct. We have no wish for pilots who cannot look after themselves to clog up the space getting fat from Sansha bounties. ---------- ~bitter dog~ etc

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.