EVE Search - Keeping the swords sharp : NIP as alternative for NAP?

All Channels

Corporation, Alliance and Organization Discussions

Keeping the swords sharp : NIP as alternative for NAP?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Heikki Gallente Wreckless Abandon Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.09.12 08:30:00 - [1] Reckon the modern stance is that the blues are bad for PVP alliances, and only PVP alliances can succesfully hold on precious 0.0 lands. Although lot of blues might give economic boon, resulting targetless operation area will bore the PVPers. So, has any parties formally implemented Non-Invasive-Pact, or NIP? Meaning, that the parties can freely shoot, loot and *****each others (with respect). Yet would agree that they won't invade or harass strategic targets, for a limited period. Such agreement would allow PVPers have their fun and won't let your own carebears fall on careless easy-mode. Yet you don't have to fear that much for invasion, face bubble camps on your home system during out-of-prime timezone, or go on useless harassing of station services. In other words, paradise for small-gang PVPers, at slight cost to your logistics and resource sources. -Lasse who proudly bears the banners, but is not involved in any policy making of his alliance
Sokratesz Paradox v2.0 Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.09.12 08:34:00 - [2] Too much limitations to be practical.
Jonny JoJo	Posted - 2007.09.12 08:38:00 - [3] Edited by: Jonny JoJo on 12/09/2007 08:39:14 I think the issue would be incentive. What would the incentive be for having a agreement which alows one side to drop its pants as long as the other side does not ...."enter from behind"? If you are going to do it then do it right! EDIT : Ack wrong char, sorry.
Ramireza Caldari Asgard Schiffswerften Ev0ke	Posted - 2007.09.12 08:40:00 - [4] I personaly love the idea! But i think this can only work if both entities are 100% pvp driven. Most non pvp ppl i know cant understand the "i shoot you AND i respect/like you" thing.
Kcel Chim Caldari Arcane Technologies The Five	Posted - 2007.09.12 08:43:00 - [5] Originally by: Sokratesz Too much limitations to be practical. you are wrong, it would be quiet practical. Pos and capital warfare usually bores ppl. Like in 1984 a constant war also gives a better grip on the alliance through the leadership since the pvpers arent bored and with a common enemy you will focus the pressure outside instead of going at each others throats like ppl tend to during peacetimes. In addition the alliance will not collect too much "dead wood" and peacetimemembers. All in all this could be quiet interesting if the hatred level in a conflict was low enough to actually allow agreements which lead to a longtime war without a decisive outcome.
Graegar Triton Industries Inc.	Posted - 2007.09.12 08:43:00 - [6] works with me... politics are too complicated these days to simply have NAPs or no NAPs.
KOTH Fluf Caldari Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.09.12 08:45:00 - [7] Originally by: Heikki Reckon the modern stance is that the blues are bad for PVP alliances, and only PVP alliances can succesfully hold on precious 0.0 lands. Although lot of blues might give economic boon, resulting targetless operation area will bore the PVPers. So, has any parties formally implemented Non-Invasive-Pact, or NIP? Meaning, that the parties can freely shoot, loot and *****each others (with respect). Yet would agree that they won't invade or harass strategic targets, for a limited period. Such agreement would allow PVPers have their fun and won't let your own carebears fall on careless easy-mode. Yet you don't have to fear that much for invasion, face bubble camps on your home system during out-of-prime timezone, or go on useless harassing of station services. In other words, paradise for small-gang PVPers, at slight cost to your logistics and resource sources. -Lasse who proudly bears the banners, but is not involved in any policy making of his alliance Thought Tri, MM, and Razor were already doing this! Fluf CEO Shiva Morsus Mihi
Cassius Hawkeye Minmatar Tyrell Corp INTERDICTION	Posted - 2007.09.12 08:57:00 - [8] I think its a fantastic idea if both alliances are happy with what they have... Greed is a nasty trait however. -----------------------------------------
kill0rbunny Alpha-Hirogen Phoenix Allianz	Posted - 2007.09.12 08:57:00 - [9] Edited by: kill0rbunny on 12/09/2007 09:00:17 Originally by: KOTH Fluf Thought Tri, MM, and Razor were already doing this! This. Seems to work rather well in the north right now, as people tend to shoot each other but turn blue when any foreign entities harass the small gang pvp experience. I pew therefore I am.
Melnoir X - Beyond the Frontier	Posted - 2007.09.12 09:21:00 - [10] LV and RA had NIP once and RA broke it. Idea is good anyways
Hans Roaming Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.09.12 09:43:00 - [11] The worst thing any PVP alliance can do is to defeat those around it as over time the fights get further and further away from the homeland and more effort is spent finding fun than playing the game. A long time ago when I used to be president of Huzzah and after the attempted invasion of FIX space where BoB took control my alliance and FIX ended up as neighbours that were unable to invade each others space but would constantly raid each other all the time. It was then that I realised that the worst outcome for our (Huzzah + numerous alliances) invasion of FIX space would have been to actually win. With LV nearby and red to us as well it meant we would get visited by all sorts and our pvpers enjoyed being able to undock and find fights within a few jumps or in system. None of this didn't mean we wouldn't chat with either FIX or LV and I along with other Huzzah people had friendships in both alliances that built up over time. At the end of my time in Huzzah we might have a battle with FIX and if they'd lost a lot of ships I'd clear the way back to their space for their pods and remaining ships so they could come back later to fight again. This was much better for both sides than endlessly camping gates and them bouncing around safes trying to trickle out. This I and others consider to be the best time that Huzzah had as we had a nice area of space (compared to Providence where we'd come from) and PVP on tap. Just after the time I'd stepped down and a new president took office and before I left SA disbanded and went off to the drone regions and _A_ started the successful invasion of Catch followed by the successful invasion AXE space. Coupled with LV loosing their space and Catch being given to IAC I wonder if thing might have been more fun for everyone if there was a better mix of reds for the people now in that space. Huge power blocks are seeming to be formed due to fear of loosing investment and access to space in 0.0 and this increasing leads to greater power blocs being formed and so on. Something like NIPs in an area would probably lead to lots of fun for all involved, especially if the stronger power blocks nurture the pvp capabilities of the weaker neighbours and resist the temptation to gank them. From experience there is nothing better than having a neighbour who is red and near parity with you as then things become fun for everyone. Of course I speak for myself, any viewpoints of history and opinions are going to be subjective, what else do you expect? :)
Raem Civrie Sons of Enelaise Enelaise	Posted - 2007.09.12 10:28:00 - [12] Edited by: Raem Civrie on 12/09/2007 10:31:12 Originally by: Hans Roaming Valid Stuff All the current "Power Blocs" will splinter, in time. Whether it's the great Southern Coalition, the BoB Alliance (GBC), or the Old North as it was, massive alliances like this rarely last as they are, something always comes up. It's the dichotomy of mixed alliance that drives this, I think. PVP'ers need constant fights to content themselves, while industrials need peace to flourish, so you end up with a confused duality in approach to everything. Let's say you want to set up a trade-focused alliance. You need to keep the lanes open and safe, and immediate area around your hubs clear, but at the same time you have to have a constant threat or an enemy to keep your PvP'ers sharp without wars spilling into your core. It's a tough cookie, that. ---- All roads lead to Catch
ArchenTheGreat Caldari D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.09.12 10:35:00 - [13] Such an idea will last only so long. Next week one of NIPping alliances will discover they can leverage this situation and conquer unsuspecting opponent. Diplomacy only works when done by stronger side of table.
Cippalippus Primus GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.09.12 10:36:00 - [14] Edited by: Cippalippus Primus on 12/09/2007 10:36:08 Originally by: Heikki Reckon the modern stance is that the blues are bad for PVP alliances, and only PVP alliances can succesfully hold on precious 0.0 lands. Although lot of blues might give economic boon, resulting targetless operation area will bore the PVPers. So, has any parties formally implemented Non-Invasive-Pact, or NIP? Meaning, that the parties can freely shoot, loot and *****each others (with respect). Yet would agree that they won't invade or harass strategic targets, for a limited period. Such agreement would allow PVPers have their fun and won't let your own carebears fall on careless easy-mode. Yet you don't have to fear that much for invasion, face bubble camps on your home system during out-of-prime timezone, or go on useless harassing of station services. In other words, paradise for small-gang PVPers, at slight cost to your logistics and resource sources. -Lasse who proudly bears the banners, but is not involved in any policy making of his alliance We discussed this in my squad and we came up with the idea of making dead end systems (not in pipes, not with stations) PVP areas where basically instead of NBSI you have a NPSI (not purple shoot it). Aka a free for all PVP arena.
ardik TunkbwahCorp	Posted - 2007.09.12 10:57:00 - [15] ra/gs did it with lv but then we realized what a bunch of fags lv were and we had to kill them all v('_')v so we basically found the alternative to going nip was to find people to be at war with absolutely all the time. never stop for carebearing, people that run out of isk clone jump to some random systems 30 jumps behind the frontlines and rat/mission/mine, then come back to fighting. there are limits to how rewarding killing hostiles while achieving no strategic goals at all can be anyway.
Privious Caldari Thundercats RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.09.12 11:25:00 - [16] wicked --------- When the pin is pulled Mr. Grenade is not our friend.
Fray Octavian Vanguard RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.09.12 11:52:00 - [17] I thought this was the basic premise of the whole TRI / Rzr MM thing. We have no interest in each others space but want secure borders, hence the hook ups to take on common goals, but once they're done (hell, evening before/during/after if you look at the killboards) everything goes red and we end up totally taking pleasure in each others death. - <@Cf'DigitalCommunist> D2, if you go to za'ha'delve, you will die. -
Callthetruth Caldari Drunken Ratbags Inc	Posted - 2007.09.12 12:04:00 - [18] set all enttieis to red if u must or go into the merc - pirate business leaves aside all messes then
Darcuese Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.09.12 12:18:00 - [19] It sound nice on paper, and im assured PvPers would have fun. On the other hand, i have no doubt that wrong word or different opinions about particular situation would take things closer to HOT conflict (and soon bubbles, poses, etc,etc). For example, simple betting over forum made Terra guys to come and visit BIG (not sure the name atm). me, myself and I ------>
FowlPlayChiken Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.09.12 13:33:00 - [20] I believe cva and uk had a deal like this one http://nhimebaugh.wetpaint.com/ Just podded this sig, now where is my toy? - Wrangler
Koronos Interstellar eXodus R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.09.12 14:40:00 - [21] Originally by: Hans Roaming The worst thing any PVP alliance can do is to defeat those around it as over time the fights get further and further away from the homeland and more effort is spent finding fun than playing the game. A long time ago when I used to be president of Huzzah and after the attempted invasion of FIX space where BoB took control my alliance and FIX ended up as neighbours that were unable to invade each others space but would constantly raid each other all the time. It was then that I realised that the worst outcome for our (Huzzah + numerous alliances) invasion of FIX space would have been to actually win. With LV nearby and red to us as well it meant we would get visited by all sorts and our pvpers enjoyed being able to undock and find fights within a few jumps or in system. None of this didn't mean we wouldn't chat with either FIX or LV and I along with other Huzzah people had friendships in both alliances that built up over time. At the end of my time in Huzzah we might have a battle with FIX and if they'd lost a lot of ships I'd clear the way back to their space for their pods and remaining ships so they could come back later to fight again. This was much better for both sides than endlessly camping gates and them bouncing around safes trying to trickle out. This I and others consider to be the best time that Huzzah had as we had a nice area of space (compared to Providence where we'd come from) and PVP on tap. Just after the time I'd stepped down and a new president took office and before I left SA disbanded and went off to the drone regions and _A_ started the successful invasion of Catch followed by the successful invasion AXE space. Coupled with LV loosing their space and Catch being given to IAC I wonder if thing might have been more fun for everyone if there was a better mix of reds for the people now in that space. Huge power blocks are seeming to be formed due to fear of loosing investment and access to space in 0.0 and this increasing leads to greater power blocs being formed and so on. Something like NIPs in an area would probably lead to lots of fun for all involved, especially if the stronger power blocks nurture the pvp capabilities of the weaker neighbours and resist the temptation to gank them. From experience there is nothing better than having a neighbour who is red and near parity with you as then things become fun for everyone. Of course I speak for myself, any viewpoints of history and opinions are going to be subjective, what else do you expect? :) > At the end of my time in Huzzah we might have a battle with FIX and if they'd lost a lot of ships I'd clear the way back to their space for their pods and remaining ships so they could come back later to fight again. Ya but then, you're cool like that. Koronos
Tinuk Thrill	Posted - 2007.09.12 15:15:00 - [22]
Sebo Darrens FATAL REVELATIONS FATAL Alliance	Posted - 2007.09.12 15:33:00 - [23] Originally by: FowlPlayChiken I believe cva and uk had a deal like this one It sounds good in practice, but every case that I know of where a non-invasion treaty existed, eventually one side decided it had built up enough strength and invaded the other I think perhaps the threat of invasion keeps both sides stronger and ultimately less likely to invade each other. So instead of "we won't invade you if you don't invade us" it should be "if you invade us we'll invade you with twice as many so don't try it!"
Lea Redux moon7empler Ev0ke	Posted - 2007.09.12 15:38:00 - [24] I think the matter of fact is, at least to me, that even the more boring aspects of sov conflicts can be quite fun, but only provided neither side feels the need to bring the blob. From my current experience i can tell that fighting without any objective can get quite boring over time, plus if you limit yourself to gang vs gang combat the strategic potential of eve gets left out. So basically your NIP or whatever is a great idea, but wouldnt it be cool to take it a little further? Envision yourself and your best friend the enemy living in two adjacent constellations (imo no pvp entity has need for more than that), with a third constellation between/next to both of you. You now call that third constellation "battleground" or whatever and do exactly as much/few as you want to control it. First one to have const. sov gets a free hug or something.
Cippalippus Primus GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.09.12 15:40:00 - [25] Originally by: Lea Redux I think the matter of fact is, at least to me, that even the more boring aspects of sov conflicts can be quite fun, but only provided neither side feels the need to bring the blob. From my current experience i can tell that fighting without any objective can get quite boring over time, plus if you limit yourself to gang vs gang combat the strategic potential of eve gets left out. So basically your NIP or whatever is a great idea, but wouldnt it be cool to take it a little further? Envision yourself and your best friend the enemy living in two adjacent constellations (imo no pvp entity has need for more than that), with a third constellation between/next to both of you. You now call that third constellation "battleground" or whatever and do exactly as much/few as you want to control it. First one to have const. sov gets a free hug or something. The point of the idea is to get rid of the BORING POS warfare so, I don't think this is a good idea.
Lea Redux moon7empler Ev0ke	Posted - 2007.09.12 15:52:00 - [26] Edited by: Lea Redux on 12/09/2007 15:53:40 Originally by: Cippalippus Primus Originally by: Lea Redux crap i wrote The point of the idea is to get rid of the BORING POS warfare so, I don't think this is a good idea. All im saying is that "who can field the fastest vaga" gets dull, too. Im open to alternatives.
Solusar Amarr Auctoritan Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2007.09.12 16:42:00 - [27] Originally by: FowlPlayChiken I believe cva and uk had a deal like this one Nope.
Deschenus Maximus Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2007.09.12 18:14:00 - [28] Interesting idea. While it could be hard for enemies to implement (i.e. LV vs RA), this is something that could be done with allies. The GBC would be a fine example: in times of peace, we could all set each other to orange (red being reserved for the true enemies) and pew pew to our heart's content, but when an external threat arises, all standings revert to blue for mutual defense, as we do now.
Astarte Nosferatu We Know Derek Derek Knows Us	Posted - 2007.09.12 18:26:00 - [29] Edited by: Astarte Nosferatu on 12/09/2007 18:26:57 I think I recall the idea of a Non-Invasion-Pact was brought up as early as 2004. If I recall correctly it was The End, Forsaken Empire at the time, that wanted to orginase a northern defence pact to ensure somewhat of a status quo up north. Most alliances would shoot eachother and wage war, but when an outside entity tried to remove a member of the northern defence pact, all alliances up north would band together to halt the invasion. Once the threath was cleared, everyone would go back to shooting eachother. This sense of security up north has since then evolved, first we had the Northern Alliance Security Treaty (NAST), then the Northern Coalition of Allies, later on the coalition between G and IRON, which was then expanded with the newly founded RZR alliance and Morsus Mihi. Nowadays it appears that RZR/MM/TRI continue on the same path, they still carry the spirit of the Old North, they will not move for eachothers territory, instead they'll work together from time to time to drive out the southern invaders. The north has evolved differently than the south, and that's still noticeable today if you look at the politics and mindset of people, corporations and alliances in both area's. signature removed - please email us to find out why - Jacques([email protected]) snip Do not discuss moderation in your sig - hutch
King Dave Itto-Ryu Cruel Intentions	Posted - 2007.09.12 18:49:00 - [30] Fighting with no purpose is boring now for most. May aswell just log onto test server for that.

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: 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.