EVE Search - [ISS] Offer to IAC

All Channels

Corporation, Alliance and Organization Discussions

[ISS] Offer to IAC

» 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 .. 13 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Sgt Napalm Synergy Evolved Serenity Fallen	Posted - 2007.01.02 05:15:00 - [211] ISS will not fail. It's just that simple. You see, ISS is actually an alt corp for tin foil hat... Retired [ISSN] [Video] Skool of Harpy - Da Blarpy
Theladder	Posted - 2007.01.02 05:16:00 - [212] Interesting topic :), better than the butter dog flaming post imo .
Justin Cody Caldari The Priory Shroud Of Darkness	Posted - 2007.01.02 05:31:00 - [213] Originally by: Derran You know, I once had no problem with IAC and felt they were marginally acceptable. It wasn't until this war that I saw what prideful, spiteful, egotisical, self-righteous SOBs they all are. They'd rather make everyone else suffer than accept an offer of peace. I'd understand where Shroud of Darkness is coming from. They are just pirates out for cheap ganks and want to provoke as much fighting as possible. But IAC should have more sense than to turn down a peace offering. It goes to show who is really the bad guy here. Yeahh...sorry about ganking, we just figure its faster than having people fight each of us one v one and still losing. We do fight outnumbered and on even terms, but of course there is nothing wrong with seeking an advantage in numbers. Some of our members pirate...others prefer to have a nice and pretty looking near carebear sec rating...and CONCORD bribes them to stay that way. OTOH It is certainly not a bad idea for IAC to weigh the positives and negatives of having a faction that they had hostilities with having the ability to push-button conquer the system. I for one would not call that a very good deal and there are historical references for that. In a way the best outcome may be (hypothetically) for IAC to take KDF, then offer a straight up trade. And when we talk about nation states fighting...lets leave out who is good and who is bad for the time being and let history be written. This is not a petty fight nor should it be made out to be one. And in defense of my pretty little gate camping hounds of doom... yarrrrr. Remind people that profit is the difference between revenue and expense. This makes you look smart. Scott Adams
patteSatan Celtic Anarchy Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.01.02 05:32:00 - [214] Originally by: Press Officer ISS policy is to smack until their friends maybe bail them out Fixed it for you.
This Alt is circumventing the no alt posting rule	Posted - 2007.01.02 06:25:00 - [215] I think ISS are bad people. They should have been more friendly to IAC, maybe they wouldn't be in this situation now. Post with your main!
Duke Grail Darkblade Technologies Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.01.02 06:45:00 - [216] Originally by: This Alt I think ISS are bad people. They should have been more friendly to IAC, maybe they wouldn't be in this situation now. that's quite possably the best alt post ever I <3 U also, it was mentioned that the ISS people find it safe to go to other ISS systems to make money. they are mistaken, we will kill you whereever we find you. If you don't undock in kdf/zxic/f4r we keep going to your other systems where you aren't expecting us. Now lets go pew pew, my hangover is almost gone. "If there were more people like us... there'ed be more people like us"
Auri Hella The Graduates Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2007.01.02 06:52:00 - [217] I can't figure out why nobody thought of that corp name before. Bravo
Sacul Wreckless Abandon The UnAssociated	Posted - 2007.01.02 06:53:00 - [218] hurray to NEZ ------again.....sometimes he missed the point but now he gets it-----again....keep going NEZ. much appreciated. [spec. the summarize part etc]
Keorythe Caldari Terra Rosa Militia	Posted - 2007.01.02 06:54:00 - [219] Originally by: Nez Perces ISK has never won wars in EVE, never has done, never will.. what wins wars is willpower. The commitment to see an objective through till the end. Actually thats not true. ISK determines how strong of a "commitment" you can throw into a fight. If you deplete a corp or alliances ISK or restrict them from ISK generating areas (ie. pushing them out of 0.0) then their combat effectiveness deteriorates. If a corp or alliance cannot recoup their losses or have an industrial arm strong enough to back them then they have the possibility of becoming destabilized and falling apart. Despite all of the proproganda no corp or alliance is immune against these destabilizing factors for a lengthy period. ISS has shown that it can sustain an expensive war and has an industrial arm strong enough to keep up with demand. IAC has not and even if they win will be financially devestated for a good while. I wouldn't be surprised if AAA or some other entity made a push for IAC territory right after this little spat. So far, pew pew against ISS for past grievences or what was believed to be an easy gank is the only thing holding IAC's allies in place. That is unless there have been financial negotiations made regarding certain terriories already should they win.....*wink wink. Ignoring the role of ISK in a conflict or trying to substitute it with fevor is stupid and shows how low you'll stay in the leadership chain. With great power comes great responsibility...and hawt cyborz!
Tyrrax Thorrk Amarr Umbra Congregatio Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.01.02 07:09:00 - [220] Bribe meeeeeeeee! Oh and IAC's official response to ISS's offer is lollerskates. http://eve.klaki.net/
Ramblin Man Empyreum	Posted - 2007.01.02 07:18:00 - [221] Originally by: Tyrrax Thorrk Bribe meeeeeeeee! Oh and IAC's official response to ISS's offer is lollerskates. Someone's sore about missing out on the original Marginis IPO. ... you do take shares, right?
This Alt is circumventing the no alt posting rule	Posted - 2007.01.02 07:19:00 - [222] IAC do not need to take shares, they will take the stations. Post with your main!
Ramblin Man Empyreum	Posted - 2007.01.02 07:22:00 - [223] Originally by: This Alt IAC do not need to take shares, they will take the stations. Wow, no sense of humor makes for sad RamblinPanda.
This Alt is circumventing the no alt posting rule	Posted - 2007.01.02 07:29:00 - [224] Originally by: Ramblin Man Originally by: This Alt IAC do not need to take shares, they will take the stations. Wow, no sense of humor makes for sad RamblinPanda. This is very serious business. IAC have laughed at the ISS PR stunt/peace offer. I wonder if ISS is as serious about peace as they appear? Their best bet would be to bribe IAC into allowing them to keep their stations and IAC can have their 'pew pew' war they wanted. A few billion a month would probably gain ISS some measure of tolerance from their IAC keepers. Afterall, they seem to be pretty annoying neighbours, but if their money is good... Would keep some people happy I suspect. Post with your main!
Ramblin Man Empyreum	Posted - 2007.01.02 07:41:00 - [225] Originally by: This Alt Originally by: Ramblin Man Originally by: This Alt IAC do not need to take shares, they will take the stations. Wow, no sense of humor makes for sad RamblinPanda. This is very serious business. Oh wait, there was more text?
Nez Perces Amarr Black Spot.	Posted - 2007.01.02 07:41:00 - [226] Edited by: Nez Perces on 02/01/2007 07:47:32 Originally by: Keorythe Ignoring the role of ISK in a conflict or trying to substitute it with fevor is stupid and shows how low you'll stay in the leadership chain. bah... isk grows on trees in EVE.... if you wanna fight you can always find the isk, but if you don't wanna fight isk is the first excuse you come up with. edit: I can't think of any entity that lost a war cause they run out of money.. its morale and willpower that runs out and then the isk you have, doesn't seem worthwhile spending on a war you don't wanna fight.
Lienzo ISS Navy Task Force Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2007.01.02 07:55:00 - [227] Not a lot of higher ISS chatter passes by me. I shoot what the project needs me to shoot, and I try to keep a diverse portfolio to support myself instead of grinding npcs or even being good at pvp. I like a good many corps in IAC, especially those who's pilots I knew before they joined up with IAC. There are also a few corps in IAC that I never liked, even before they backstabbed their friends long before IAC was ever even considering colonizing G-7. Being a businessman means that I don't have to care about my personal feelings. From the perspective of a grunt in ISS, my views on the situation and my obligations are simple. Firstly, though I am not some hardcore complex grinder/HAC pilot, I give what time I have to supporting the most deliberately enterprizing set of corporations in the game. Secondly, my perspective on the IAC alliance is cast on two parties. One are the pvp core which are happy to work with other pvp groups in the area like priory and AAA. I have no problems with any of these groups. The quaint notion of being "teh gewd guys" on the part of some ISS employees generally humors me although I also see it as a considerable obstacle to many of the corporation's endeavours. I don't think they realize how much logistical and personnel work goes into orchestrating any series of pvp actions in the long run. Not everyone in ISS is a maverick wheeler and dealer, and many are very traditional npcers and miners, and go to great lengths to fill the gaps between hopes and realities. Groups such as Priory and other piratical interests are a critical source of support for the escort industry as a whole. The other part of IAC are their respective traditional npcers and miners. G-7 and the surrounding constellation and complex is a decent place, but realistically it has extremely finite resources. IAC clearly had to expand to G-7, and with their continued growth, they need to expand again. Some see this as a threat, but I see it as a business opportunity. It would be in the best interests of both parties to cooperate and evaluate options to a new investiture. As a territorial alliance with a temeritous pvp base, they could easily exercise a good posture for satisfying both desires. Of course, that won't happen by napping every other territorial alliance in the area. In addition, succeeding in wresting control of any ISS assets will not provide for either avenue in the long run. The systems chosen for the ISS assets in question were selected against preference for resources. They are positioned at what many consider cross roads, and are meant to be spring boards for development. There's no reason for IAC to choose to be cooped up East of Heaven. I've even heard comment (and observed for myself) that producers in F4R were feeling the sting of competition. Believe me, that competition hardly comes from ISS. It only takes two belligerently mute individuals to strip a commodity market down to zero profit. Most likely, an overwhelming quantity of competition comes from within IAC itself. There is no real reason in my mind why the IAC empire should not consider developing a colony in greener pastures to satisfy their industrialists and their pvpers. These are purely my own ideas. However, if you present anything like the above to ISS parties, interest may likely ferment nicely. ---- "I have not been podded and run out of isk. I am merely camping my hangar."
zoolkhan Minmatar Freelance Unincorporated Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2007.01.02 08:12:00 - [228] Edited by: zoolkhan on 02/01/2007 08:15:09 Edited by: zoolkhan on 02/01/2007 08:14:08 Originally by: Angry Dan After UK attacked HF without provocation, you can can that lot. Dan. As an enemy you always had my respect also back in huzzah. Please allow me to remind you: - huzzah back then was allied with CVA , a roleplay slaver alliance - ushra'khan, in war with CVA since 2+ yrs, attacked their traditional roleplay enemy only at first, - then you rushed to their aid, and started shooting our ships. from that moment on, u'k fired on huzzah federation as well. Ushra'khan diplomats contacted you repeating times and gave you the chance to distance from CVA (roleplay wise) which you actively refused to do, i always believed you liked the excercise. However, we did never aim to break you, we did not even have a base in providence back then - and so we didnt. complaining about that would not be entirely fair so to speak. Please discuss this in a another thread, or ingame. I see no relation to the ISS/IAC peace talks. Originally by: Angry Dan Expedience makes for some strange bedfellows. this is true. plse note: derran speaks only for himself. he is most definetely not expressing the alliance opinion here. U'K recruit! contact me ingame for free eve webshosting
Dracolich North Star Networks Cruel Intentions	Posted - 2007.01.02 08:57:00 - [229] Can isk(rubles)sway AAA/RAGoons loyalty? I foresee ISS being a more profitable and logical partner than IAC will ever be - but maybe thats just me. Nonetheless - have fun in a war that will have no winners - no matter the outcome.
Royaldo Old Farts Storm Armada	Posted - 2007.01.02 09:19:00 - [230] Originally by: zoolkhan Edited by: zoolkhan on 02/01/2007 08:19:16 Originally by: Angry Dan After UK attacked HF without provocation, you can can that lot. Dan. As an enemy you always had my respect also back in huzzah. Please allow me to remind you: - huzzah back then was allied with CVA , a roleplay slaver alliance - ushra'khan, in war with CVA since 2+ yrs, attacked their traditional roleplay enemy only at first, - then you rushed to their aid, and started shooting our ships. from that moment on, u'k fired on huzzah federation as well. Ushra'khan diplomats contacted you repeating times and gave you the chance to distance from CVA (roleplay wise) which you actively refused to do, i always believed you liked the excercise. complaining about that would not be entirely fair so to speak. Please discuss this in a another thread, or ingame. I see no relation to the ISS/IAC peace talks. Originally by: Angry Dan Expedience makes for some strange bedfellows. this is true. plse note: derran speaks only for himself. he is most definetely not expressing the alliance opinion here. cough.. UK fired on huzzah first. You did this in misaba after calling us cva lapdogs. there was alot talk about this internally in huzzah. but the decision was made AFTER uk first fired.
Hardin Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2007.01.02 09:42:00 - [231] Originally by: zoolkhan Edited by: zoolkhan on 02/01/2007 08:19:16 Originally by: Angry Dan After UK attacked HF without provocation, you can can that lot. Dan. As an enemy you always had my respect also back in huzzah. Please allow me to remind you: - huzzah back then was allied with CVA , a roleplay slaver alliance - ushra'khan, in war with CVA since 2+ yrs, attacked their traditional roleplay enemy only at first, - then you rushed to their aid, and started shooting our ships. from that moment on, u'k fired on huzzah federation as well. Ushra'khan diplomats contacted you repeating times and gave you the chance to distance from CVA (roleplay wise) which you actively refused to do, i always believed you liked the excercise. complaining about that would not be entirely fair so to speak. Please discuss this in a another thread, or ingame. I see no relation to the ISS/IAC peace talks. Originally by: Angry Dan Expedience makes for some strange bedfellows. this is true. plse note: derran speaks only for himself. he is most definetely not expressing the alliance opinion here. Sorry Zoolkhan but am afraid you are wrong on this. Before Huzzah had any military links with CVA a bunch of 'rogue' Ushra'khan came down for a few days and basically shot at anything that moved in CVA space - on the justification that if it was in CVA space it had to be bad. You may recall there was quite a fuss about Ushra'khan 'piracy' at that time. It was these actions which pushed Huzzah into the CVA camp. Until that time Huzzah had not shot at UK. It is one of the reasons why when we go to Ushra'khan space we don't shoot anything unless it actively engages (or has a history of engaging us) on UK's side... ------------------------------ AMARR VICTOR
Calisto Cody Minmatar The Black Swan Society	Posted - 2007.01.02 10:03:00 - [232] Originally by: Duke Grail Originally by: This Alt I think ISS are bad people. They should have been more friendly to IAC, maybe they wouldn't be in this situation now. that's quite possably the best alt post ever I <3 U utter truth Originally by: Sergio Ling Originally by: Butter Dog but I'm professional enough to keep my mouth shut about what I know. i can't imagine that's true
ReaperOfSly Gallente Lyrus Associates Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2007.01.02 10:08:00 - [233] Quote: [ 2007.01.01 21:14:48 ] James Lyrus > I have to ask. How did you think ISS would react to an alliance basing out of a station one jump away declaring hostilities? [ 2007.01.01 21:15:15 ] Tyrrax Thorrk > I was burned out at the time from alliance tournament, didn't think about it at all Says it all really doesn't it --------------------------------------------------------------------
zoolkhan Minmatar Freelance Unincorporated Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2007.01.02 10:11:00 - [234] Originally by: Hardin Until that time Huzzah had not shot at UK. ok, let us assume i was wrong. (its also normal that each party has different views, i am not after a propaganda war - hardin. i dont care. nobody cares who did the first shot here... that is what i honestly believe) a) huzzah did not want to end the war-status; they stressed out their loyalty to CVA, which i do not blame them for as it deserves my respect. Loyalty and consistency belong to the things i admire and aim for as well as also honour on and beyond the battlefield. it was loyalty and honour (paying back a debt) that brought us to f4 too. Not greed, not trigger happiness or general hate back then the huzzah federation was bigger than CVA that time, wasnt it? While CVA was already bigger than U'K... by say 50-100 pilots i just say this to wipe away the possible impression U'K beeing a BoB like force of evil and destruction:-) b) i can only ask to not further hijack this thread. i will continue the discussion in a different thread if you like. U'K recruit! contact me ingame for free eve webshosting
Frools The Priory Shroud Of Darkness	Posted - 2007.01.02 10:27:00 - [235] Originally by: ReaperOfSly Quote: [ 2007.01.01 21:14:48 ] James Lyrus > I have to ask. How did you think ISS would react to an alliance basing out of a station one jump away declaring hostilities? [ 2007.01.01 21:15:15 ] Tyrrax Thorrk > I was burned out at the time from alliance tournament, didn't think about it at all Says it all really doesn't it lol gogo selective quoting! you didnt even quote the ENTIRE LINE YOU CHEEKY BASTARD "just went along with what the others wanted ;p"
jernej Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.01.02 10:28:00 - [236] [ 2007.01.01 20:54:47 ] Tyrrax Thorrk > well peace might be possible, but IAC would have to be compensated [ 2007.01.01 20:56:14 ] Tyrrax Thorrk > compensated is a subtle word for bribed Haha, I'm sure you will be kind enough to 'compensate' your allies when they come to fight for a station that you were to proud to take for free
ScreamingLord Sutch Hand in Mouth	Posted - 2007.01.02 11:07:00 - [237] Originally by: Dracolich Nonetheless - have fun in a war that will have no winners - no matter the outcome. No winners? It's a game for Christ's sake. If people have fun participating in this player made soap opera then they are "winning" - no matter the outcome.
Azzaa Caldari Umbra Congregatio Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.01.02 11:27:00 - [238] Edited by: Azzaa on 02/01/2007 11:36:37 Being a f4 office holder i would like to just like to say one thing We are comming for you and your children!! My little message to butter dog
ReaperOfSly Gallente Lyrus Associates Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2007.01.02 11:42:00 - [239] Originally by: Azzaa Edited by: Azzaa on 02/01/2007 11:36:37 Being a f4 office holder i would like to just like to say one thing We are comming for you and your children!! good luck with that --------------------------------------------------------------------
Eskona Runningstar Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2007.01.02 11:47:00 - [240] It seems as if IAC are determined to take as much risk as they can. 1) IAC open hostilities with ISS 2) ISS responds and allies respond and take an IAC station 3) IAC is offered the station back for free, as long as they sign a NAP with ISS. Since IAC were the aggressors, ISS reserves the right to keep the majority of POS around that station without claiming sovereignty as long as IAC respects the NAP, optionally also negotiating a period of time after which those POS will be removed, also. From an outsider's point of view, you wont get a better offer from ISS. They cant grant IAC the same status quo as it was before IAC set ISS to -10 in which it would be as easy for IAC to attack as it was the first time - nothing would keep IAC from doing it again. IAC offering peace negotiations in exchange for all territory ISS have gained since IAC started the war in addition to "land use fees" from ISS when ISS has shown that they can call on mercs and allies to force IAC into hiding is not a realistic offer. Right now IAC is worse off than when the war started, why would ISS accept peace terms in which ISS are worse off than before the war? IAC can either get back the station risk-free now by signing a NAP, or they can take the risk and try to take it back by force. It seems IAC want to take as much risk as they can - but as far as I can tell ISS pockets are far deeper than IAC pockets, and just because ISS does not employ mercenaries currently does not mean they will not do so in the future. MC wanted to renegotiate terms for attacking hostile POS with hostile AAA in system, I am pretty sure it would be far cheaper to contract MC to defend friendly POS against an assault, as MC cap ship losses would be less likely. Furthermore, IACs current chest-beating seems not to be based on their own strength, but on that of their current allies. I remember a few days ago ISS had overwhelming numbers with their allies against IAC, who is to tell current IAC allies wont leave at some point for various reasons just like ISS allies are on leave currently for various reasons (none of which have been stated as "we will not help ISS in the future at all, no matter how much they are willing to pay")? ---------- These are my views and mine alone. They do not represent the official stance of my corporation or alliance in any way. Eskona Runningstar Eve University IVY League

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: 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.