EVE Search - [Battle Report] CVA Capital Shipyard destroyed.

All Channels

Corporation, Alliance and Organization Discussions

[Battle Report] CVA Capital Shipyard destroyed.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Rylet VanDorn Pastafarians Novus Ordos Seclorum	Posted - 2007.05.14 19:38:00 - [121] Originally by: Butter Dog The point I was making, is that I only see one side moaning about the lag - CVA. Ironic considering they escalated the conflict to Outpost seiges. Butter, just to let you know, your posts are discrediting yourself and your corp. Your comments are basically giving you the image of someone who is contrary, abrasive, and brash. Since these traits are typically associated with the adolescent or immature, I have to assume you're a kid. In which case, hush little one, the adults are talking. If this is an incorrect conclusion, let me respond to your misguided assertation; My post was simply my observation of not just this report, but every battle report from large fleet engagements. Take a look around and you'll see reports of massive lag from almost anyone attempting to engage in this game's form of territorial war. I then expressed my dissatisfaction with this situation, and Aindrias agreed with me, giving his account of the situation. If you read his post you'll see that at no point was he blaming the outcome of the battle on the lag, only that it was a prevalent force, and difficult to deal with given that it would otherwise be a good fight. Nor was I, for that matter. The point of our posts wasn't to engage in the PR battle that people seem to enjoy waging on these forums. I personally feel that these PR battles are pointless and stupid. I had my fill of them playing WoW with people comparing E-peens. The point of the posts were to express dissatisfaction with the current state of the game, where actual, fair fleet battles seem impossible, and the outcome of any fight devolves into who lags less. This is something everyone (yourself included it would appear) just seems to accept. As a paying customer, I have trouble accepting it without question or comment.
Butter Dog The Littlest Hobos Betrayal Under Mayhem	Posted - 2007.05.14 19:52:00 - [122] Funny. None of my posts are personal in nature. Disagreeable? Perhaps, especially if you are on the recieving end. But not personal. You just made a personal attack, and then claim I am the immature one. Hilarious. Do keep it up. You're a credit to your alliance. ---------- signature removed - please do not discuss moderation in your signature graphic - Jacques([email protected])
Lowanaera Amarr Paladin Imperium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.14 19:56:00 - [123] Rylet, this kind of smack is par for the course with Butterdog, neither insulting him nor reasoning with him is productive, he's one of those people it's best to just mentally filter out as if they don't exist.
Butter Dog The Littlest Hobos Betrayal Under Mayhem	Posted - 2007.05.14 20:01:00 - [124] Originally by: Lowanaera Rylet, this kind of smack is par for the course with Butterdog, neither insulting him nor reasoning with him is productive, he's one of those people it's best to just mentally filter out as if they don't exist. Actually I've made a number of very reasonable posts (see my responses to Solusar's propaganda), which CVA have written off as 'smack', when they are nothing of the sort. Someone disagreeing with you, and pointing out a few facts you do not like, is not 'smack, its 'debate'. If you can't engage back on equal terms, and resort to insults, well... that is your prerogative. There has been more personally-tinted smack directed at me in this thread from CVA and friends, than any 'smack' you consider to have come from me. Forums are about debate. I don't agree with much of what CVA said, I have outlined why. Either respond like grown ups, or accept it. Ignoring people who are telling you that you might be wrong, and provide evidence of this, is generally not a convincing stance to take. ---------- signature removed - please do not discuss moderation in your signature graphic - Jacques([email protected])
Aindrias Amarr Fomus-Amarr Industrial Novus Ordos Seclorum	Posted - 2007.05.14 20:11:00 - [125] Originally by: Butter Dog Originally by: Lowanaera Rylet, this kind of smack is par for the course with Butterdog, neither insulting him nor reasoning with him is productive, he's one of those people it's best to just mentally filter out as if they don't exist. Actually I've made a number of very reasonable posts (see my responses to Solusar's propaganda), which CVA have written off as 'smack', when they are nothing of the sort. Someone disagreeing with you, and pointing out a few facts you do not like, is not 'smack, its 'debate'. If you can't engage back on equal terms, and resort to insults, well... that is your prerogative. There has been more personally-tinted smack directed at me in this thread from CVA and friends, than any 'smack' you consider to have come from me. Forums are about debate. I don't agree with much of what CVA said, I have outlined why. Either respond like grown ups, or accept it. Ignoring people who are telling you that you might be wrong, and provide evidence of this, is generally not a convincing stance to take. Hehe.. I guess most of us are telling you that you MIGHT BE WRONG ;-) and you still don't even concede what U'K and CVA have announced. Droit! See what you can do with Paintbrush?
Butter Dog The Littlest Hobos Betrayal Under Mayhem	Posted - 2007.05.14 20:24:00 - [126] Edited by: Butter Dog on 14/05/2007 20:26:38 Originally by: Aindrias Hehe.. I guess most of us are telling you that you MIGHT BE WRONG ;-) and you still don't even concede what U'K and CVA have announced. Droit! There was no station in the system UK attacked, nor did CVA hold sov. Fact. CVA started the outpost seiging. Fact. ---------- signature removed - please do not discuss moderation in your signature graphic - Jacques([email protected])
Aindrias Amarr Fomus-Amarr Industrial Novus Ordos Seclorum	Posted - 2007.05.14 20:53:00 - [127] Originally by: Butter Dog Edited by: Butter Dog on 14/05/2007 20:26:38 Originally by: Aindrias Hehe.. I guess most of us are telling you that you MIGHT BE WRONG ;-) and you still don't even concede what U'K and CVA have announced. Droit! There was no station in the system UK attacked, nor did CVA hold sov. Fact. CVA started the outpost seiging. Fact. CVA thinks in terms of PROVIDENCE, not Sov. Welcome to Providence Wars ;-) Quote: Recon Teams were sent to investigate & they found what looked like the makings of an outpost, or possibly a super capital. Haulers were constantly buzzing around, and there was a large POS with more hanger arrays than guns! (I forget the exact amount, but there are a lot) The difference in what U'K did and what CVA did after is that CVA was successfull and U'K wasn't. THat's alls there's to it. U'K wanted to prevent an Outpost which they thought we were constructing by landing a POS in the system and trying to take down another. From our perspective we thought they wanted to take Sov (outpost or not). The fight happened, they lost CVA retaliated by striking a system with an OUtpost and took it. The Outpost is irrelavant to who started it. U'K recently dropped a POS in NOS space and that was the catalyst to the QR attack. It simply showed a more aggressive campaign that CVA wanted to nip in the bud by taking their foreward staging Outpost away. Just because they are not "equal" tit for tat doesn't mean CVA wasn't using legitimate tactics in dealing with the situation even though "IN THE PAST" it's been a different type of war. Taking an Outpost reduces passive income for things like POS Spamming which U'K was trying on for size. While this isn't 100%, my opinion is the war would have remained similar if U'K hadn't dropped a POS in the QBL Nothing is black and white. FACT ;-) Is it me? Or is anyone else tired of Butter complaining about CVA taking the outpost? (yes.. similar wording you used, a personal attack? Maybe, but it wasn't meant to be, like I'M SURE your post wasn't meant to be) See what you can do with Paintbrush?
ReaperOfSly Gallente Lyrus Associates Betrayal Under Mayhem	Posted - 2007.05.14 20:57:00 - [128] Edited by: ReaperOfSly on 14/05/2007 20:55:43 Originally by: Aindrias Nothing is black and white. FACT ;-) Except zebras and penguins. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Beer is my religion. Guinness is my God.
Aindrias Amarr Fomus-Amarr Industrial Novus Ordos Seclorum	Posted - 2007.05.14 21:00:00 - [129] Originally by: ReaperOfSly Edited by: ReaperOfSly on 14/05/2007 20:55:43 Originally by: Aindrias Nothing is black and white. FACT ;-) Except zebras and penguins. True hehe See what you can do with Paintbrush?
Rylet VanDorn Pastafarians Novus Ordos Seclorum	Posted - 2007.05.14 21:23:00 - [130] My post did not contain a personal attack. Merely a stated observation of your comments, and an insinuation based off those observations. I didn't say you were a kid, I was just letting you know that you sounded like one. Given the responses I've had, other people seem to agree with me. Feel free to reread them to confirm, but the majority of your posts are accusatory, "smart-assed", and in some cases, completely irrelevant. I'll provide some examples: "Maybe he was running L4 world's collide" "Your spin is weak old man" Usage of the word "Fact" after your statements, in an attempt to indicate you are infallible. These are not statements made by someone who is open minded, or at all interested in debate, which you claim to be. They use words intended to end debate, not argue your point. Basically you sound like you're here to prove something; namely that "CVA Lost a battle to U'K". That, however, is obviously open to interpretation. Judging from what has been said here by both parties: U'K's goals were to drop the cap ship yards. CVA's goals were to retain sovereignty, and fend off threats to it. Both goals were obtained. One question I am forced to ask is this: Given their accomplished mission, why did UK attempt to anchor a POS in X-r? Obviously the answer is that there were other, more ambitious goals. The POS, however, was met with swift and decisive force (a expressed in Eddie's post)... So really it looks to me like CVA was gearing up for an actual assault, but drastically over-estimated U'K's ambition.
Gaven Lok'ri Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2007.05.14 21:38:00 - [131] Edited by: Gaven Lok''ri on 14/05/2007 21:37:15 I think the conflict needs to be looked at in much larger terms than most are portraying it. That one day either CVA or U'K would be at the other's gates was effectively set in stone the second both became established in Providence. That day has come, talk of who escalated what will only go back all the way to before the introduction of the PoS. The fact is that by moving to 0.0 the conflict became more than just U'K and CVA, and that is a good thing. It has produced a more interesting conflict as well as changed the nature of both Providence and Catch over the two+ years it has been an active 0.0 conflict. To speak of it as some sortof conflict on a pedastal of any sort is an utterly flawed viewpoint that fails to understand the region or the conflict. It escalates as long as it needs to escalate, and as long as the IC characters are remaining withen their IC characters everything is good. Neither side needs to defend their actions in this conflict OOCly, because both are acting entirely in accordance with the goals of their characters. There will be IC flak whenever there is a percieved hypocracy or false ideal, but that flak needs to stay IC where it belongs and leave these forums to nice and well written war reports. And everyone, take a look at Occasus or Marko's posts and take notes. They have both posted the way this conflict deserves. Deus Vult! PIE Website Public Channel: 'PIE Public'
Bryashliu Druugir Lyrus Associates Betrayal Under Mayhem	Posted - 2007.05.14 21:57:00 - [132] Originally by: ReaperOfSly Edited by: ReaperOfSly on 14/05/2007 20:55:43 Originally by: Aindrias Nothing is black and white. FACT ;-) Except zebras and penguins. You forgot Badgers and Ring-tailed Lemurs.
ReaperOfSly Gallente Lyrus Associates Betrayal Under Mayhem	Posted - 2007.05.14 22:27:00 - [133] Originally by: Bryashliu Druugir Originally by: ReaperOfSly Edited by: ReaperOfSly on 14/05/2007 20:55:43 Originally by: Aindrias Nothing is black and white. FACT ;-) Except zebras and penguins. You forgot Badgers and Ring-tailed Lemurs. Badgers and ring tailed lemurs are grey. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Beer is my religion. Guinness is my God.
Eddie Gordo Minmatar Masuat'aa Matari Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2007.05.14 23:23:00 - [134] Originally by: Gaven Lok'ri Edited by: Gaven Lok''ri on 14/05/2007 21:37:15 I think the conflict needs to be looked at in much larger terms than most are portraying it. That one day either CVA or U'K would be at the other's gates was effectively set in stone the second both became established in Providence. That day has come, talk of who escalated what will only go back all the way to before the introduction of the PoS. The fact is that by moving to 0.0 the conflict became more than just U'K and CVA, and that is a good thing. It has produced a more interesting conflict as well as changed the nature of both Providence and Catch over the two+ years it has been an active 0.0 conflict. To speak of it as some sortof conflict on a pedastal of any sort is an utterly flawed viewpoint that fails to understand the region or the conflict. It escalates as long as it needs to escalate, and as long as the IC characters are remaining withen their IC characters everything is good. Neither side needs to defend their actions in this conflict OOCly, because both are acting entirely in accordance with the goals of their characters. There will be IC flak whenever there is a percieved hypocracy or false ideal, but that flak needs to stay IC where it belongs and leave these forums to nice and well written war reports. And everyone, take a look at Occasus or Marko's posts and take notes. They have both posted the way this conflict deserves. Amen to that. Now Recruiting
Tharrn Amarr Epitoth Fleetyards Vigilia Valeria	Posted - 2007.05.15 00:15:00 - [135] I missed this little gem :P Nicely written start but degenerated quickly. 7 points for smack, 2 for content :P Butter Dog wins the 'Smacker of the Thread' award. Did I miss anything? Ceterum censeo 'Concordia' esse delendam.
Sapphrine Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2007.05.15 01:38:00 - [136] Edited by: Sapphrine on 15/05/2007 01:36:51 I have a quick question for CVA raised by a couple comments made here by NOS. Is it actually right that you guys took QR- in retaliation for us hitting NOS or was it actually because you guys were interested in attacking QR- and saw an opportunity. I only ask because i object somewhat to the way NOS seem to be portraying QR- as retaliation for QBL. Also, I hardly feel errecting a Large tower to deploy cap ships from is POS spamming. Correct me if i'm wrong but two at any given time hardly counts as a spam :) As for sticking a tower up in X-R3.... well we were amazed you hadn't defended the pos so sticking a tower up seemed only appropriate. It was hardly important as demonstrated by the utter lack of hanging around to defend it. It is true it wasn't the exact tower that CVA had lost to us taking from their space earlier this week but it was certainly replaced by it. (edited so it actually made some sense!) Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Sahwoolo Etoophie ([email protected])
Manfred Doomhammer Caldari ShadowTec Inc. Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.15 02:08:00 - [137] Originally by: Sapphrine Edited by: Sapphrine on 15/05/2007 01:36:51 I have a quick question for CVA raised by a couple comments made here by NOS. Is it actually right that you guys took QR- in retaliation for us hitting NOS or was it actually because you guys were interested in attacking QR- and saw an opportunity. I only ask because i object somewhat to the way NOS seem to be portraying QR- as retaliation for QBL. Also, I hardly feel errecting a Large tower to deploy cap ships from is POS spamming. Correct me if i'm wrong but two at any given time hardly counts as a spam :) As for sticking a tower up in X-R3.... well we were amazed you hadn't defended the pos so sticking a tower up seemed only appropriate. It was hardly important as demonstrated by the utter lack of hanging around to defend it. It is true it wasn't the exact tower that CVA had lost to us taking from their space earlier this week but it was certainly replaced by it. (edited so it actually made some sense!) To answer in truth, the preparations for an attack on UK were going for some time before you hit QBL... it just might have been a catalysator that accelerated things... Initially the plan was to hit 9uy directly, as at the time the planning started, QR wasnt an UK outpost. The plans got changed when UK aquired that outpost and used it as Tomb for that defiant captain's body... That was an IC hook we just couldnt ignore As Gaven pointed out above... From the moment UK put up Unity in providence it was clear for us that we had to go for it... as it was the Goal of Operation Deliverance to secure the providence region for the Amarr Empire... ---- Manfred Doomhammer CEO ShadowTec Inc. Curatores Veritatis Alliance
EveJoker Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2007.05.15 03:08:00 - [138] Edited by: EveJoker on 15/05/2007 03:07:02 Re: lag, everyone gets it, its a limitation of the game. I was sitting in system prior to the battle in the middle of nowhere, and it took about 3 mins for my ship simply to decloak. When preparing our defense operation in QR a petition was raised Prior to the battle informing CCP of the expected extra than normal build up. I can only assume this was over looked for x-r? Irrespective of extra servers resources in pos warfare this game is played differently to the far more fun hit and run tactics that have been employed to date. Tactics to combat the dreaded lag can be employed by both sides, and as was seen in this battle can often make the difference between success and defeat. The irony is that if CVA had left NOS alone for a while in QBL to play the game NOS might of been forced to learn some important anti lag tips. I have seen prior battles on this scale kill nodes, So I do consider the game at the moment to be much improved, however there is still a long way to go.
Butter Dog The Littlest Hobos Betrayal Under Mayhem	Posted - 2007.05.15 07:08:00 - [139] Originally by: Rylet VanDorn My post did not contain a personal attack. Merely a stated observation of your comments, and an insinuation based off those observations. If the observations end with claims about someones real life age/maturity etc, then yes its very much personal - not exactly dealing with the issues at hand, is it. You don't know anything about me in RL, it is simply not an appropriate line of comment. Originally by: Rylet VanDorn "Maybe he was running L4 world's collide" "Your spin is weak old man" Usage of the word "Fact" after your statements, in an attempt to indicate you are infallible. These are not statements made by someone who is open minded, or at all interested in debate, which you claim to be. They use words intended to end debate, not argue your point. Basically you sound like you're here to prove something; namely that "CVA Lost a battle to U'K". That, however, is obviously open to interpretation. One of those comments was clearly a 'joke'. The other was a paraphrase of a famous Star Wars quote. Hardly smack. Your claim that they didnt lose the battle is just funny. They lost more ships, they lost their capital shipyard. Dunno how you're defining victory but no matter how it is spun, they lost the battle. Did they lose the war? Of course not. In truth I believe they will ultimately take 9UY. Numbers are simply too much in their favour and eventually force of weight will likely win. However, that doesnt mean they won't pay a high price for it Anyway, the fact remains that starting an outpost siege then complaining about lag, is like walking into a Japanese restaurant and screaming 'I HATE SUSHI!'. ---------- signature removed - please do not discuss moderation in your signature graphic - Jacques([email protected])
Shaikar Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2007.05.15 12:54:00 - [140] Edited by: Shaikar on 15/05/2007 12:54:52 Thats the thing - we were fighting to defend the system, by which was meant system sovereignty and Inflatable House. Given the forces involved and the fact all the defending pos's had been popped into reinforced mode, it looked as if taking IH was what U'K & Friends goal was. However, U'K & Friends actual goal appears to have been just to blow up the pos with the capital yards. So both sides managed to do exactly what they set out to do as far as objectives were concerned. Although that said, if U'K had taken Inflatable House, maybe they could have given it a decent name before we tried to take it back. Ahem. Maybe I shouldn't have said that out loud... /edit to be clear, yes U'K & Friends killed the pos and the capital yards, congratulations, it sounds like you managed to do what you set out to do. All I am attempting to do is to explain (as there seems to be difficulty) where the other side was coming from - we were fighting a different battle from you. Perhaps next time both sides should evemail victory conditions to the other side.
Lilan Kahn Amarr The Littlest Hobos Betrayal Under Mayhem	Posted - 2007.05.15 12:58:00 - [141] Originally by: Shaikar Thats the thing - we were fighting to defend the system, by which was meant system sovereignty and Inflatable House. Given the forces involved and the fact all the defending pos's had been popped into reinforced mode, it looked as if taking IH was what U'K & Friends goal was. However, U'K & Friends actual goal appears to have been just to blow up the pos with the capital yards. So both sides managed to do exactly what they set out to do as far as objectives were concerned. Although that said, if U'K had taken Inflatable House, maybe they could have given it a decent name before we tried to take it back. Ahem. Maybe I shouldn't have said that out loud... We where thinking of renaming it to Hardin's strip and dance club Originally by: Eris Discordia We break after X amount of threads, then we go wild and then we get our medication.
Hardin Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.15 13:20:00 - [142] Originally by: Lilan Kahn We where thinking of renaming it to Hardin's strip and dance club ------------------------------ CVA - Kicking Arse For The Empire - http://eve-files.com/dl/83607 AMARR VICTOR
Parallax Error Amarr Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2007.05.15 14:17:00 - [143] The thought of Hardin stripping and dancing, fills the combined CVA fleet with dread. I wonder if we could claim this as a holy terror weapon, second only to god's wrath? Maybe Hardin pole dancing is god's wrath. Don't hurt me Hardin.
steamy The Littlest Hobos Betrayal Under Mayhem	Posted - 2007.05.15 14:23:00 - [144] /me brings a pole to Gankaton for Hardin to dance on tickets: 1mil Isk or ? Steamy If you only look at the road ahead, Life isn't worth the trip -- Dante
Lilan Kahn Amarr The Littlest Hobos Betrayal Under Mayhem	Posted - 2007.05.15 14:45:00 - [145] Originally by: steamy /me brings a pole to Gankaton for Hardin to dance on tickets: 1mil Isk or ? Hardins a gimp and havnt shown his face at gankatons for a while Originally by: Eris Discordia We break after X amount of threads, then we go wild and then we get our medication.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] :: 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.