EVE Search - Territorial Alliance Map - Latest Update 2006.04.27

All Channels

Corporation, Alliance and Organization Discussions

Territorial Alliance Map - Latest Update 2006.04.27

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 39 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 25 post(s)
Baun 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.12.08 23:41:00 - [781] Originally by: Turkantho Originally by: DB Preacher Originally by: Baun Ultimately I think the best way to deal with this is to refuse to give ownership of an NPC region to anyone who does not choose to build outposts there. Sounds reasonable to me. It might actually promote a few more outposts and then peeps can properly see who controls the systems. dbp actually there are some regions, where all systems in the region are claimed by the NPCs so you can't build an outpost even if you wanted to. Then don't assign claims to those. The Enemy's Gate is Down
SolApathy Guardians of Hell's Gate	Posted - 2006.12.09 04:07:00 - [782] if u dont assign claims how can u have territorial disputes, and outposts dont mean they own the region, take pureblind as an example ISS have 2 outposts yet the region is mostly run by Ekliptika and few other alliances its been a while since ive been up there. Sol. Want to join GARDS - Click Me -
Baun 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.12.09 06:31:00 - [783] Originally by: SolApathy if u dont assign claims how can u have territorial disputes, and outposts dont mean they own the region, take pureblind as an example ISS have 2 outposts yet the region is mostly run by Ekliptika and few other alliances its been a while since ive been up there. Sol. If you assign claims without control what do claims mean? The whole point of this is to make the map more meaningful in NPC regions. To require no substantive control of a region before assigning a claim devalues the importance of all claims. Outposts wouldn't indicate control if the alliance controlling the outpost disclaimed control. This, for example, would be true of all ISS outposts. The Enemy's Gate is Down
Turkantho Asgard Schiffswerften Dusk and Dawn	Posted - 2006.12.09 09:00:00 - [784] Originally by: Baun Then don't assign claims to those. would be a bit unfair imho ________ been there, done that, got the t-shirt
Hoshi DAB RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2006.12.09 12:34:00 - [785] Control is not about how can dock but who can use the space for their day to day activities like npcing, mining etc. When I lived curse there where 3-4 factions all hostile to each other and all claiming different parts of curse. While we where all shooting each other we also very much respected each others claims. If I npced in our part of curse I knew I would be mostly safe, sure there where the occasional gank squads but all space have those, doesn't matter if there are outposts there or not. But I never went to npc in any part outside of ours because I knew doing so would be mostly suicide. What if people can dock in your space? What does that give them? Nothing, they would just be camped inside. Sure they can log off and return after the owners have moved on to do other things. But they could just easily go to a safe and log there and it would make no practical difference. It might be harder to stake claim for npc space but to categorically deny claims of npc space just because it's not possible to make that claim visible on the ingame map is ridiculous. Josh needs to talk to the people involved in any conflict to get a clear picture who claims what, nothing special about npc space here. ---------------------------------------- A Guide to Scan Probing in Revelations
fisho Arcane Technologies The Five	Posted - 2006.12.09 17:20:00 - [786] Any chance of a key to the names of the alliances, I don't recognise alot (mostly in the north).
Joshua Foiritain Gallente Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2006.12.09 18:12:00 - [787] Originally by: fisho Any chance of a key to the names of the alliances, I don't recognise alot (mostly in the north). Sounds reasonable, i've got quite a but of space left on the side on the kali map. ----- [Coreli Corporation Mainframe]
Baun 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.12.09 19:31:00 - [788] Edited by: Baun on 09/12/2006 19:35:09 Edited by: Baun on 09/12/2006 19:31:36 Originally by: Hoshi Control is not about how can dock but who can use the space for their day to day activities like npcing, mining etc. I disagree. You cannot permanently stop those activties without controlling docking rights so in the end you are trying to gauge something that is nebulous. If the map is to be consistent and objective and consistently meaningful it needs to rely on a consistent and objective standard NOT something vague. It might be fun to assign claims in those regions, but no one really knows what they mean and they do not represent useful information. If there is another standard we can use that would allow more claims but is consistent I am all ears. The Enemy's Gate is Down
Wraithstorm Elite Storm Enterprises Storm Armada	Posted - 2006.12.09 20:08:00 - [789] Storm Armada [ESA] would like to lay claim to the IPS Constellation. We have the 2 Outposts firmly under our control as well as the sorrounding systems within the Constellation. Thanks Joshua
Amerame Section XIII	Posted - 2006.12.09 21:05:00 - [790] Originally by: Baun If the map is to be consistent and objective and consistently meaningful it needs to rely on a consistent and objective standard NOT something vague. The map is supposed to be first and foremost informative, not an e-peen competition of who's going to splash the most color on it, again the situation in NPC region is much more complicated than in conquerable space : either you decide to do it correctly and go into the details of who's controling what or we decide to leave all the NPC region neutral, but relating the sovereignty of NPC regions to who's controling an outpost somewhere are is a meaningless.
Baun 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2006.12.09 21:25:00 - [791] Originally by: Amerame Originally by: Baun If the map is to be consistent and objective and consistently meaningful it needs to rely on a consistent and objective standard NOT something vague. The map is supposed to be first and foremost informative, not an e-peen competition of who's going to splash the most color on it, again the situation in NPC region is much more complicated than in conquerable space : either you decide to do it correctly and go into the details of who's controling what or we decide to leave all the NPC region neutral, but relating the sovereignty of NPC regions to who's controling an outpost somewhere are is a meaningless. You are way offbase if you think I am trying to promote a "e-peen competition". I am indeed trying to do the exact opposite. Where you can be awarded "control" over an NPC region based on nothing more than how good your forum PR is and how succesful you are at making other people believe you have control without any actual control within game mechanics an "e-peen" contest emerges. Creating an objective standard is the best way to avoid this. I think that previous heated contests over NPC regions clearly demonstrate just how right I am. Although there were no outposts then, there was alot of consternation at the apparent randomness with which NPC region control changed sides (I am sure DBP remembers this even if he doesn't agree with my characterization). Everyside would be better off if there was a predictable measure AND the people viewing the map would be better off because they would have some notion of what the map actually represents. Requiring the building of outposts where possible makes perfect sense. If you want to be recognized as in control you should be required to give yourself something you can control. It is certainly not perfect, but I don't see too many people debating BoB's control over Delve based solely on Outposts/conquerables when there are NPC stations in the region. If you can present any other objective standard that would simultaneously allow one to measure some aspect of real control and give the viewers of the map a clear idea of what control in those regions actually represents I am absolutely all ears. As far as I can tell, however, no one has suggested anything better than I have. Everyone appeals to the notion that control over the outpost is "meaningless." But as per the Delve example that is clearly not the case. Furthermore, actual control over something is more meaningful than no control over anything and the map being decided mostly by who *****es the loudest. I am really eager to see some other constructive suggestions here instead of more senseless appeals to the virtues of vagueness. The Enemy's Gate is Down
Gazmus Caldari Euphoria Released Euphoria Unleashed	Posted - 2006.12.10 11:17:00 - [792] E-U no longer lay claim to ips. Cheers Gaz
DB Preacher Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.12.10 12:33:00 - [793] BoB are now officially contesting Feythabolis. We are currently living inside AZN and it has been a warzone for a week and half. We have pos down in AZN, C9N and 0OYZ. At this time we have control of the 0OYZ station and system although sovereignty does not kick in for 5 days. Thanks, dbp Caldari Alliance PVP Championship Winner Current RKK Ranking: (PSCAL6) Proficient Short Tanto
Joshua Foiritain Gallente Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2006.12.10 23:08:00 - [794] Updated version is online, modified for Kali and at a higher resolution to accommodate the changes in territorial claims, namely the rise of less regional claims and more constellation claims. Feel free to shout of if missed anything, which I'm sure i did. I blame Bob, IAC and EveTV for distracting me. ----- [Coreli Corporation Mainframe]
Porter Hadlend Gallente Righteous-Indignation Imperium Alliance	Posted - 2006.12.10 23:14:00 - [795] I'm getting a 404 on the map atm.. will probably be fixed soon I assume. --------------
Joshua Foiritain Gallente Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2006.12.10 23:20:00 - [796] Gah broken for me as well now, it worked for a few minutes. Ill contact Chribba in the morning, really need to get to bed now. ----- [Coreli Corporation Mainframe]
arkarsk Provenance.	Posted - 2006.12.11 08:07:00 - [797] Originally by: Abdalion + 2006 April Fools Day Map This link seems to work for the latest map. also send me isk ----------------- http://www.eve-provenance.com

Chribba Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire	Posted - 2006.12.11 08:36:00 - [798] Edited by: Chribba on 11/12/2006 08:42:15 Am troubleshooting the problem, will let you know once I've fixed it. /Sorted. The file was there but was flagged as removed in the database, hence why you would receive 404 on one link but not the other. The reason for the flag was that Joshua's account on EVE-Files is a bit special, it does not make database entries like other files do. Since you would lose all comments and hits count every time he updated the map. But it seems Joshua deleted(?) the map before the last update hence flagging it as removed, and when he then updated the file it would never mark the new file as active. Sorry for the trouble, I will look into modifying the code so that won't happen again hopefully. /c EVE-Files \| EVE-Search \| Monitor this Thread

Joshua Foiritain Gallente Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2006.12.11 08:52:00 - [799] Edited by: Joshua Foiritain on 11/12/2006 08:52:16 It wouldnt upload at all (Just displayed a much older version of map) so i figured deleting the map might work. It did, for <5 minutes Then it went 404 on me. It works now though so thanks Chrubby ----- [Coreli Corporation Mainframe]
DB Preacher Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.12.11 10:39:00 - [800] Edited by: DB Preacher on 11/12/2006 10:41:37 Some incorrect information in the map. We are contesting Feth, not esoteria. We haven't touched any station in esoteria nor have we laid down pos there. Our reasons for contesting Feth are as above here. Furthermore, BoB believes the following information is innacurate: Fountain Core appears to be contested but ASCN nor Insurgency have laid down any industrial pos or outposts. They haven't been able to touch any of our pos or outposts in the area. As such, BoB believes this should be a warzone until they actually try and put up their own or at least manage to kill some of ours. Having a roaming Dread squad that sticks a couple of BoB pos into reinforced then is unable to finish the job doesn't achieve anything. Thanks, dbp Caldari Alliance PVP Championship Winner Current RKK Ranking: (PSCAL6) Proficient Short Tanto
Joshua Foiritain Gallente Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2006.12.11 11:28:00 - [801] Edited by: Joshua Foiritain on 11/12/2006 11:28:58 Originally by: DB Preacher We are contesting Feth, not esoteria. We haven't touched any station in esoteria nor have we laid down pos there. Estoria was marked constested due to the layout of bobs current assaults which effectivly cut off travel routes between Feyth and Estoria. But since i doubt ASCN has any objections itll be modified in the next update. Originally by: DB Preacher Fountain Core appears to be contested but ASCN nor Insurgency have laid down any industrial pos or outposts. They haven't been able to touch any of our pos or outposts in the area. Which is why their control is limited to systems with NPC stations. I didnt see any resistance against Celes, ASCN and other neutrals running around in the core. ----- [Coreli Corporation Mainframe]
DB Preacher Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.12.11 11:44:00 - [802] Originally by: Joshua Foiritain Estoria was marked constested due to the layout of bobs current assaults which effectivly cut off travel routes between Feyth and Estoria. But since i doubt ASCN has any objections itll be modified in the next update. I was actually slightly incorrect in my own information. We have 1 pos in C9N. However, at this moment in time, we are not really contesting that region. There was a brief skirmish last night but I'd even be pushed to say it was a warzone there. If we take any stations in Esoteria, I'll repost here again. Fair point on the travel routes, I'll leave it up to you with what you want to do about it. Only thing I would add there is that with us being based inside AZN, we are not really cutting off travel per se through esoteria and it is pretty much impossible to stop ships nipping in and out from there without 23/7 bubble camps (which we aren't using). Originally by: Joshua Foiritain Which is why their control is limited to systems with NPC stations. I didnt see any resistance against Celes, ASCN and other neutrals running around in the core. Fair point, leave the core as contested then. dbp Caldari Alliance PVP Championship Winner Current RKK Ranking: (PSCAL6) Proficient Short Tanto
Beyond Horizon UA Industry Red Alliance	Posted - 2006.12.11 14:07:00 - [803] Edited by: Beyond Horizon on 11/12/2006 14:20:32 - BH
Joshua Foiritain Gallente Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2006.12.11 14:15:00 - [804] Originally by: Beyond Horizon I'm sorry, but RA has nothing to do with claiming JLO... Joshua, please check the claim map and correct the mistake. Go talk to the goonies, they wanted it marked as RA space. ----- [Coreli Corporation Mainframe]
Great Guardian Minmatar Resurrection	Posted - 2006.12.11 15:05:00 - [805] Edited by: Great Guardian on 11/12/2006 15:05:19 Originally by: DB Preacher Originally by: Joshua Foiritain Which is why their control is limited to systems with NPC stations. I didnt see any resistance against Celes, ASCN and other neutrals running around in the core. Fair point, leave the core as contested then. dbp So no resistance against group A in area B? How can area B be contested when there is no resistance? " I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Hah! Attack ships on fire, off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams, glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments.... will
Joshua Foiritain Gallente Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2006.12.11 16:30:00 - [806] Originally by: Great Guardian Edited by: Great Guardian on 11/12/2006 15:05:19 Originally by: DB Preacher Originally by: Joshua Foiritain Which is why their control is limited to systems with NPC stations. I didnt see any resistance against Celes, ASCN and other neutrals running around in the core. Fair point, leave the core as contested then. dbp So no resistance against group A in area B? How can area B be contested when there is no resistance? Because Group A isn't in control, theyre simply showing Group B has no control either. ----- [Coreli Corporation Mainframe]
Great Guardian Minmatar Resurrection	Posted - 2006.12.11 17:45:00 - [807] Edited by: Great Guardian on 11/12/2006 17:45:32 Joshua thanks for fast answer, however based on my previous experience with your great work (that I never commented before) I have gotten impression that: If group A faces no resistance in area B, then that automatically implies that group A has control of area B. /cheers GG " I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Hah! Attack ships on fire, off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams, glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments.... will
spiralJunkie Minmatar EveTV	Posted - 2006.12.11 19:05:00 - [808] I would like to suggest a small titan shaped icon where the first one went down, as a reminder of what happened _ Eeeeeeeeeeh, I don't think Titans are particularly Cost Effective - Goonswarm
Joshua Foiritain Gallente Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2006.12.11 21:52:00 - [809] Originally by: spiralJunkie I would like to suggest a small titan shaped icon where the first one went down, as a reminder of what happened Hmmm I like that idea. ----- [Coreli Corporation Mainframe]
Jesona Rove	Posted - 2006.12.11 21:58:00 - [810] The new alliance map, now with 50% MORE LINES!!

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 39 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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.