| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sheryl Crow
   |
Posted - 2011.01.20 02:15:00 -
[1]
Given that both have gone through their ups and downs. At one time AAA even supported CVA back when they had the sov issue if i recall. I am hoping to see them make a consideration for CVA after their systems are back in order. CVA offered something to Eve's community that no other alliance has offered, a place for people people to witness null sec. AAA could take the time to reestablish CVA is the controlling entity of Providence region. Once again given them their training ground for pvp as well as bringing back Eve's historic NRDS region. |
Atomik Harmonik
|
Posted - 2011.01.20 02:17:00 -
[2]
Agree, return of the NRDS would be great!
|
Richard Omegas
Phoenix Industrial-Technologies
|
Posted - 2011.01.20 02:21:00 -
[3]
Yes, the ability to use nullsec without being ****d was good.
AAA seems to be on the rise again in that region, but why would they give up control to CVA? I seem to remember CVA being the aggressor previously.
|
Kwisat Haderach
Minmatar
ReallyPissedOff
Guinea Pigs
|
Posted - 2011.01.20 02:35:00 -
[4]
Only thing amarr deserves is loads of emp rounds in their hulls.
Life is a joke, but I don't feel like laughing |
Jojo Jackson
|
Posted - 2011.01.20 02:46:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Jojo Jackson on 20/01/2011 02:46:41
 Originally by: Richard Omegas
I seem to remember CVA being the aggressor previously.
Not totaly true.
It all started with the claim of one UNUSED system from one of CVAs allys/pets. The allys/pets just wanted to complet a region sov. But the system was AAA teritorium (CVA and AAA had a deal about this system, it should be somethink like a "neutral border zone").
It was done without knowlage from CVA, but CVA stand loyal with their allys/pets even after AAA called it a hostil action.
The point, that CVA stand loyal is a big one in my eyes ... as we all know, loyality isn't to common in EVE ;).
At this point the Minmatar saw their moment of glory. While AAA might forgive CVA-allys/pet and talk about a new contract (or might sell the system for a nice price), Minmatar convince AAA (Minmatar was renter pet from AAA) to show no mercy.
While AAA blobed CVA (and all allys/pets), Minmatar claimed the glory (effectiv they did nothink but shot some helpless lone-wolfs).
|
Ocih
Amarr
The Program
Controlled Chaos
|
Posted - 2011.01.20 03:06:00 -
[6]
Too late to matter anymore.
CVA is a part of an EvE that doesnt exsist.
I dont blame -A- for Doominion. I dont blame -A- for failed NRDS. To be truthfull, I dont blame anyone. I just dont give a flying **** anymore.
- Former and proud CVA Member. |
Libara
|
Posted - 2011.01.20 13:57:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Jojo Jackson
PS: as it was a well known fact, that CVA could not stand against AAA Titan Fleet CVA desided to retreat without big loses. (All of Providence knew CVA was not powerfull enough and that AAA/BOB(IT) had no interest to get Providence as it is a poor region anyway).
Wouldn't really call this leaving without big losses 
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/D-GTMI_(Battle_of)
|
Weltact
INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2011.01.20 17:31:00 -
[8]
not a fun day that one 
|
Lysianna
Nuxia
|
Posted - 2011.01.20 17:50:00 -
[9]
As a former member of CVA and just living down there for years... I hope to see NRDS making a come back. While NRDS is bold and hard to maintain, it is the best community driven area in EVE.
great people and great concept, destroyed by greed?
________________________________________________
Lysianna Hazumason
Celestial Janissaries
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Skex Relbore
Gallente
Skexcorp
|
Posted - 2011.01.20 19:35:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Lysianna
As a former member of CVA and just living down there for years... I hope to see NRDS making a come back. While NRDS is bold and hard to maintain, it is the best community driven area in EVE.
great people and great concept, destroyed by greed?
My understanding was that it was destroyed by the stupidity of CVA's leadership. The seed of it's failure seemed to be the premise that this supposed free and open place for new pilots to explore also happened to be ruled by a bunch of mad religious zealots that supported slavery. (rather ironic)
I remember when the war was going down thinking about going to help out since the idea of NRDS sounded pretty cool but after thinking about it I wasn't going to burn my isk defending a bunch who were role-playing fanatically religious asshats.
Addendum based on reports from "the rifter drifter" people who were role-playing stupid fanatically religious asshats.
Even as a rather mercenary and apolitical Gallente citizen I said good riddance to bad company.
Now if an NRDS alliance existed that wasn't based on slaver religious asshattery I'd probably be willing to join up and lose some ships for the cause.
|
Joe Skellington
Minmatar
JOKAS Industries
Apocalypse Now.
|
Posted - 2011.01.20 19:53:00 -
[11]
I don't mind serving with CVA, they are some good guys.
|
Talanayaa
|
Posted - 2011.01.20 19:59:00 -
[12]
You are discussing a topic that belongs to caod, but should be discussed on those evil boards ccp doesn't want you to mention, on eve general discussion.
That said, -A- might even support CVA after they finish their campaign in Catch and Immensea because they too miss CVA provi.
|
Lysianna
Nuxia
|
Posted - 2011.01.20 20:43:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Lysianna on 20/01/2011 20:44:36
Originally by: Skex Relbore
Originally by: Lysianna
As a former member of CVA and just living down there for years... I hope to see NRDS making a come back. While NRDS is bold and hard to maintain, it is the best community driven area in EVE.
great people and great concept, destroyed by greed?
My understanding was that it was destroyed by the stupidity of CVA's leadership. The seed of it's failure seemed to be the premise that this supposed free and open place for new pilots to explore also happened to be ruled by a bunch of mad religious zealots that supported slavery. (rather ironic)
I remember when the war was going down thinking about going to help out since the idea of NRDS sounded pretty cool but after thinking about it I wasn't going to burn my isk defending a bunch who were role-playing fanatically religious asshats.
Addendum based on reports from "the rifter drifter" people who were role-playing stupid fanatically religious asshats.
Even as a rather mercenary and apolitical Gallente citizen I said good riddance to bad company.
Now if an NRDS alliance existed that wasn't based on slaver religious asshattery I'd probably be willing to join up and lose some ships for the cause.
Roleplay wise, I can perfectly understand your position but gameplay wise without any RP involved, I am forced to disagree. The people of CVA are among some of the nicest folks I've gamed with. People seem to have a hard time either choosing an RP view of things or a non RP one.
But as a Gallente Pilot, I was able to see the greater good behind their culture. I am no pro Amarr and I am against slavery but what is slavery really... every nation seems to have their own slaves. The only difference is the term we used...
Still, being able to live in Null Sec under the care of an alliance was a blessing for many pilots.
________________________________________________
Lysianna Hazumason
Celestial Janissaries
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Ocih
Amarr
The Program
Controlled Chaos
|
Posted - 2011.01.23 23:56:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Talanayaa
You are discussing a topic that belongs to caod, but should be discussed on those evil boards ccp doesn't want you to mention, on eve general discussion.
That said, -A- might even support CVA after they finish their campaign in Catch and Immensea because they too miss CVA provi.
Everyone does. They were easy to hate and fun to play onside with. I dont see it happening though. The new mechanics aren't designed to allow for a mid level Alliance and NAP system that Provi was able to support. They will just get rolled again. |
sartorii
Genco
|
Posted - 2011.01.24 02:02:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Libara
Originally by: Jojo Jackson
PS: as it was a well known fact, that CVA could not stand against AAA Titan Fleet CVA desided to retreat without big loses. (All of Providence knew CVA was not powerfull enough and that AAA/BOB(IT) had no interest to get Providence as it is a poor region anyway).
Wouldn't really call this leaving without big losses
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/D-GTMI_(Battle_of)
That would be a prime example of CCP's complete **** up.
CCP even admitted to a developer 'assisting' the system node during the fight. (The quote from CCP at the time, since removed was "doing things that are scaring the server admins") Resulting in ships being killed HOURS after logging out with no aggro timer at all.
AAA didnt win that fight, CCP handed it to them, and while CVA might have lost it ultimately it would have been a battle at least if CCP hadnt turned it into a turkeyshoot. The general feeling after that CCP induced fiasco was "its not worth attempting to fight" for if CCP isnt going to admit they ****ed up and reimburse the losses HOURS AFTER LOG OFF, that the meddling with the node DURING AN ACTIVE CONFLICT induced.
"disconnect and self destruct one mullet at at time" [sic] |
Al Choholic
|
Posted - 2011.01.25 12:03:00 -
[16]
Former PXF here. I too miss the old provi days, well stocked stations and good fun pew pew with -A- hats off to those guys, always a good time saying hello to our neighbors in catch
|
Louis deGuerre
Gallente
Malevolence.
Imperial 0rder
|
Posted - 2011.01.25 13:03:00 -
[17]
I fought CVA a lot and they give good fights and no crying if they lose, even when they lose big.
Considering Ev0ke rules provi now this is idle speculation thread.
-----
Malevolence. is recruiting. Dive into the world of 0.0 !
|
Joe Skellington
Minmatar
JOKAS Industries
Apocalypse Now.
|
Posted - 2011.01.25 14:09:00 -
[18]
Yeah, I've seen my fair share of GM corruption in other MMOs. *******s.
Originally by: sartorii
Originally by: Libara
Originally by: Jojo Jackson
PS: as it was a well known fact, that CVA could not stand against AAA Titan Fleet CVA desided to retreat without big loses. (All of Providence knew CVA was not powerfull enough and that AAA/BOB(IT) had no interest to get Providence as it is a poor region anyway).
Wouldn't really call this leaving without big losses
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/D-GTMI_(Battle_of)
That would be a prime example of CCP's complete **** up.
CCP even admitted to a developer 'assisting' the system node during the fight. (The quote from CCP at the time, since removed was "doing things that are scaring the server admins") Resulting in ships being killed HOURS after logging out with no aggro timer at all.
AAA didnt win that fight, CCP handed it to them, and while CVA might have lost it ultimately it would have been a battle at least if CCP hadnt turned it into a turkeyshoot. The general feeling after that CCP induced fiasco was "its not worth attempting to fight" for if CCP isnt going to admit they ****ed up and reimburse the losses HOURS AFTER LOG OFF, that the meddling with the node DURING AN ACTIVE CONFLICT induced.
|
sartorii
Genco
Fidelas Constans
|
Posted - 2011.01.28 01:08:00 -
[19]
corruption would imply intent to influence the outcome of the battle. I dont believe that was the case at all. The developer had the best intentions saw an opportunity to try to 'help' the node, but his actions GREATLY INFLUENCED the outcome and made the entire battle a onesided turkeyshoot.
Unfortunately it wasnt the only time during that regional conflict it happened either. Less than a week later a Dev ORDERED A COMPLETE HALT to conflict at a POS for half an hour to try to troubleshoot and resolve a standings issue they had discovered. In that half an hour the opposition was able to rally a force that flooded the system.
I'm all for trying to improve the game, but when CCPs actions DIRECTLY INFLUENCE the results of the 'sandbox' a professional response would be to mitigate the materiel damage to ALL PARTIES. Not pretend it didnt happen and blanket all petitions with the "our policy on reimbursement are blah blah blah blah..."
"disconnect and self destruct one mullet at at time" [sic] |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |