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)
Rainhailer Gallente Einherjar Rising	Posted - 2007.09.12 20:09:00 - [31] I think this is a great topic and a great idea. I really think the whole..we own one constellation, you own another, and then we fight over another in the middle.
Privious Caldari Thundercats RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.09.12 20:51:00 - [32] this is teh nber Idea!!:P --------- When the pin is pulled Mr. Grenade is not our friend.
Orree Gallente Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.09.12 22:21:00 - [33] Originally by: ArchenTheGreat 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. Good point on the first part, but your last statement isn't always so. I'm not sure how many of you have or do play the Avalon Hill game Diplomacy. In that game, Italy is widely considered to be in a weak position and probably the hardest one with which to win. Yet is does win (and I have won playing it on several occasions). I merely trying to point out that diplomacy is a bit easier when strength is on your side, but those in weak positions should not be counted out as a matter of course. Skill in dipolomacy counts for something. "How much easier it is to be critical than to be correct." ---Benjamin Disraeli
Orree Gallente Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.09.12 22:25:00 - [34] Originally by: Fray 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. In my view it is. I think our three entities are the one clear example of this model at work. I've also heard of it being called a "Red NAP." "How much easier it is to be critical than to be correct." ---Benjamin Disraeli
Johnfromshipping Butcherbirds	Posted - 2007.09.12 22:33:00 - [35] Sounds like you want counterstrike in space with spaceships. Why not log into the test server instead?
Astarte Nosferatu We Know Derek Derek Knows Us	Posted - 2007.09.12 22:46:00 - [36] Originally by: Johnfromshipping Sounds like you want counterstrike in space with spaceships. Why not log into the test server instead? It worked before POS's and Conquerable stations were ingame. Heck, it even worked when Conquerable stations were introduced, although the trend was set for PvP to become more like 'shooting static structures all day to get a 5 minute lagfight with 3 fps to end up with the node crashing'. signature removed - please email us to find out why - Jacques([email protected]) snip Do not discuss moderation in your sig - hutch
Evenfall Phoenix The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.09.12 22:50:00 - [37] 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 lol, isn't that how your relationship to us (MM) and Razor already works? I personally love it.
The Comatorium The Ghazi	Posted - 2007.09.12 22:59:00 - [38] why a thread... if an alliance wanna do a NIP with another one... go for it and live with the consequences. "The only rule in war is to win" -Sun Tzu as for POS war... I take example on Myriad Alliance. We Surrendered and evacuated out of Immensea as we could not stand RaGoon once LV withdrew the region. RA and Goon never respected the NAP and shot all of our easy targets. Moved in Outer rings... Started to deploy POSes counting on friends capital support (BGG could've but turned out to be a betrayal again) wich woke up "The Ronin" capital fleet. Ended up having a bunch of dead POSes Defended by Guerilla Pilots lead by newly named FCs. my point is: 1... read my Signature 2... Dont deploy POS and start exploiting the region if you cant defend it. 3... o/ heikki, one day ill pop your damned Vindicator ------------------------- Keep your friends close and your enemies closer, For you never know wich one will strike you in the back.
Kalissa D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.09.12 23:16:00 - [39] This is pretty much the arrangement that Razor/MM & Tri have at the moment, it's beneficial for all sides, keeps the PVP'ers on both sides sharp but if and when big operations happen where there is a common enemy/target then we work together toward that aim.
Avernus Gallente Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.09.12 23:20:00 - [40] OP, I like it. There are old soliders, and there are bold soliders. But there are very few old, bold soliders.
Testosterone Bomb Red Ballz	Posted - 2007.09.13 02:11:00 - [41] Sokratesz & Hans Question , until recently though was this not in a way what IAC & FIX had ? I mean both Alliances raided and camped each other but neither was doing full out invasions of the others regions to actually take systems or stations. True in the North Tri & MM / Razor actually do group fleet operations but is not what made the IAC vs FIX situation before actually fun for both the mutual raiding? In any case , Fly Safe
Scav Silver Amarr Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.09.13 03:53:00 - [42] Edited by: Scav Silver on 13/09/2007 03:54:46 It has it pros and cons.. Where the perfect middle is, that's the question.. On one side, ya stay in shape; on the other, ya waste resources for the bigger good; ya can't do the bigger good, unless ya in shape.. ------------------------------------------------------------- "Scav est procul Porta!!" -=Pimary=- "Tonight you dine in....BKG?" -=Ashemi Darkhold=-
Snake Jankins Minmatar German Cyberdome Corp Cult of War	Posted - 2007.09.13 04:57:00 - [43] Edited by: Snake Jankins on 13/09/2007 05:05:45 My opinion: If many alliances do it, they can remove territorial warfare from the game, because if someone tried to change the status quo, thousands of pseudo-opponents would suddenly unite and blob. ( And then probably still state that the only reason they control their space is because they are so pro. ) It makes EVE 0.0 warfare kind of useless and living in 0.0 relatively easy, risk-free and unchallenging. Besides that it's anti-rp, makes eve politics boring and increases the blob size, when systems are contested. It makes it also difficult for new alliances to grab space. Can't see, how such a development is good for eve. edit Ok, forgot the pro's: You can have some relaxed spaceship pvp for fun. ( If it's worth the isk grind for ships and the monthly fee is probably a matter of taste. I'd probably prefer factional warfare then. ) P.S: Before someone asks: No, you can't have my stuff and yes, CAOD cleaner installed, so ready for 1-man-corp troll replies and the usual contentless flame blabla. ___________ I've never been so serious as I am now. No, really.
Peanut Swsh Interstellar eXodus R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.09.13 05:11:00 - [44] I love the idea. And I tend to think that this is how our relationship with FREGE is. We roadtrip up to NGM multiple times daily, for the purpose of shooting some stuff up. And we all have a good time doing it. They bring guys down our way and shoot up our dudes as well. It was good fun. I think MJ- was a nice NIP example. Unfortunate for the TIO owners who were in the middle, but a great experience for the SMASHKILL and MADPACT pilots involved.
HydroSan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.09.13 05:31:00 - [45] Cold wars suck and we're still in the largest conflict this game has ever seen. Wait until after the dust settles on the Great EVE War before you start considering this kind of stuff.
Orree Gallente Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.09.13 05:45:00 - [46] Originally by: Snake Jankins Edited by: Snake Jankins on 13/09/2007 05:05:45 My opinion: If many alliances do it, they can remove territorial warfare from the game, because if someone tried to change the status quo, thousands of pseudo-opponents would suddenly unite and blob. ( And then probably still state that the only reason they control their space is because they are so pro. ) It makes EVE 0.0 warfare kind of useless and living in 0.0 relatively easy, risk-free and unchallenging. Besides that it's anti-rp, makes eve politics boring and increases the blob size, when systems are contested. It makes it also difficult for new alliances to grab space. Can't see, how such a development is good for eve. edit Ok, forgot the pro's: You can have some relaxed spaceship pvp for fun. ( If it's worth the isk grind for ships and the monthly fee is probably a matter of taste. I'd probably prefer factional warfare then. ) P.S: Before someone asks: No, you can't have my stuff and yes, CAOD cleaner installed, so ready for 1-man-corp troll replies and the usual contentless flame blabla. Absolutely..if everyone does it all the time. Since that is unlikely, I don't see a great deal of danger on the horizon. "How much easier it is to be critical than to be correct." ---Benjamin Disraeli
Snake Jankins Minmatar German Cyberdome Corp Cult of War	Posted - 2007.09.13 05:52:00 - [47] Edited by: Snake Jankins on 13/09/2007 05:53:20 Originally by: Orree Absolutely..if everyone does it all the time. Since that is unlikely, I don't see a great deal of danger on the horizon. Yes, ok, I admit, maybe I was a bit early. I'm also a bit biased ofc in this case. ___________ I've never been so serious as I am now. No, really.
Ozen Skryf Renovatio Industries Combined Planetary Union	Posted - 2007.09.13 06:18:00 - [48] Eh, seems like an interesting idea. An agreement such as this sounds like it would work in theory, but so too do entire regions full of blues work in theory. In reality, it kills the very things that set EVE apart from other games, and someone's gonna come barging in to eff it all up anyway. In all honestly, I don't really believe EVE is the kind of game you should be playing if you just want some mindless pewpew. The very thing that makes it exciting is that PvP here actually -means- something in the context of the game other than a chatbox full of "lol pwned", although you may get or give that as well. And let's be real. This "sharp" business is ridiculous. EVE PvP is about smart, not sharp. It's tactical, not twitch. Fit your ship according to your goal or gang role; fight on your terms. There's nothing sharp about a carebear warping to a safe when there's a red in local. There's nothing sharp about pressing F1-F8, interspersed the occasional Ctrl or Alt button presses mixed in when your target is locked. There's nothing sharp about scanning down a target, or waiting for probe results. There's nothing sharp about cloaking. There's nothing sharp about watching Local chat. You wanna stay sharp? Play a shooter. Last thing I'd ever want to see is 0.0 become like a massive Alterac Valley or Counterstrike map, where everyone constantly kills each other for no good reason and nothing ever changes. This NIP idea completely invalidates both the PvP and the diplomatic aspects of the game, and the carebears getting ganked certainly won't help the economic. Not a viable diplomatic solution, or at least, not one I'd ever like to see. As for MM and Tri, neither seem particularly interested in the other's territory. If you want to say, "Okay, neither of them want to conquer the other," and call this an NIP, you can, but that's not really what it is. It's just two alliances not particularly interested in conquering each other, but also not interested in an NAP. No formal declaration either way. Correct me if I'm wrong. --- Patience.
Dashhammer II Amarr O RLY corp YTMND.	Posted - 2007.09.13 06:42:00 - [49] Indeed, we want a NIP pact with you guys! We want to theroughly trounce your 30 man ice mining op every week and then when you run out of POS fuel, we can talk about other pacts we want with you. Like the 'You leaving' pact. - Dashhammer II
Dashhammer II Amarr O RLY corp YTMND.	Posted - 2007.09.13 06:43:00 - [50] Did we mention the 'Buy back your frieghter' pact? - Dashhammer II
Qolde Minmatar art of eve	Posted - 2007.09.13 07:12:00 - [51] This idea is good, though it doesn't seem like it works as neither the proponents nor the opponents think. It's not a peace treaty, nor is it a wardec. It's an interesting diplomatic tool to keep PvPers happy while at the same time, keeping the industrialists at a lower stress level. Of course the NIP will end, just as every NAP does; but it is a reasonable way to keep the game fun for PVPers who tend to start more wars when they can't play how they want than industrialists. It removes the need to blob, while still weakening your enemies PVP force (if your dudes aren't weak). It's basically a protracted version of the first stages of war, before the invasions get serious. Personally, I think ANYTHING that makes the game more fun for my dudes is a good idea. A side effect being that your enemies have fun as well. Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
Hans Roaming Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.09.13 09:13:00 - [52] Originally by: Ozen Skryf And let's be real. This "sharp" business is ridiculous. EVE PvP is about smart, not sharp. It's tactical, not twitch. Fit your ship according to your goal or gang role; fight on your terms. There's nothing sharp about a carebear warping to a safe when there's a red in local. There's nothing sharp about pressing F1-F8, interspersed the occasional Ctrl or Alt button presses mixed in when your target is locked. There's nothing sharp about scanning down a target, or waiting for probe results. There's nothing sharp about cloaking. There's nothing sharp about watching Local chat. By sharp I take it to mean keeping the skills necessary to survive and attack in 0.0 current, even if one plays smart as you say then you need experience to do so. The worst thing that can happen to an alliance in 0.0 is peace with everyone around as that makes your military people leave through boredom and industry focused people get lazy and stupid with their security. Everyone looses their situational awareness skills and the alliance just gets to the situation where they are a target ripe for kicking out of their space. The number one priority that I had in Huzzah was making sure we had enough enemies that wouldn't steamroller us but that would help us grow. Those in the alliance that could learn the skills necessary to survive did so and thrived in 0.0, those that couldn't ended up leaving. In 0.0 everyone needs to be able to pvp and to be honest some of the strongest industry people happen to be pvpers, after all it is a truism that pvpers can mine but miners can't pvp and in 0.0 as opposed to empire pvp is the number one skill required in order to remain there. The OP has a nice alternative to full out invasion wars and in my opinion it is a good idea.
Heikki Gallente Wreckless Abandon Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.09.13 14:23:00 - [53] Lot of interesting comments and good replies; will try to write down some random replies and thoughts of mine. Trust issues won't depend on the name of the pact; whether you agree on NAP or NIP, it will last only as long till one party breaks it. Assumedly the breaking party would get hit on their reputation, and less chances to agree on pacts with other alliances. Having such NIP wouldn't mean you also have to have a Mutual Defense pact either; so it doesn't automatically lead to blobbing, rather actually reduces it. That is, people you shoot daily might be less eager to help you against attacker, even if they have also agreement not to help the attacker either. For an example, lets assume we have alliance T, with neighbours of from A to C. T might have old fashioned NAP with their friends of A, and formally agree on 3 months long NIP with B and C. Such setting would allow T to attack remote D more freely; trusting that even if D manages to launch major counter offensive with their friends, none of the other neighbours will help D. If there was no NIP, B might thing 'they shot our mom yesterday; let's go kick their asses with D'. Naturally standard NAP would allow exatcly similar setting; only difference would be that T would have far fewer PVPers remaining. One of reasons for giving a name for such (already historical) concept is to allow easier formal declaration of such pact. Hopefully semi-public, so we would slowly learn which alliance are worth of their words and agreements. -Lasse
Humjob GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.09.13 14:33:00 - [54] This already exists in the game. It's called NPC 0.0 space. Syndicate is an example.
Cippalippus Primus GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.09.13 14:34:00 - [55] Originally by: Heikki Lot of interesting comments and good replies; will try to write down some random replies and thoughts of mine. Trust issues won't depend on the name of the pact; whether you agree on NAP or NIP, it will last only as long till one party breaks it. Assumedly the breaking party would get hit on their reputation, and less chances to agree on pacts with other alliances. Having such NIP wouldn't mean you also have to have a Mutual Defense pact either; so it doesn't automatically lead to blobbing, rather actually reduces it. That is, people you shoot daily might be less eager to help you against attacker, even if they have also agreement not to help the attacker either. For an example, lets assume we have alliance T, with neighbours of from A to C. T might have old fashioned NAP with their friends of A, and formally agree on 3 months long NIP with B and C. Such setting would allow T to attack remote D more freely; trusting that even if D manages to launch major counter offensive with their friends, none of the other neighbours will help D. If there was no NIP, B might thing 'they shot our mom yesterday; let's go kick their asses with D'. Naturally standard NAP would allow exatcly similar setting; only difference would be that T would have far fewer PVPers remaining. One of reasons for giving a name for such (already historical) concept is to allow easier formal declaration of such pact. Hopefully semi-public, so we would slowly learn which alliance are worth of their words and agreements. -Lasse You make it out far too complicated. It would be just better to pick systems or constellations which are bad for carebearing (low truesec, few belts etc- there are plenty) and declare them open battlegrounds with NPSI, or not purple shoot it.
sakana North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.09.13 14:37:00 - [56] T'is a nice idea.
XxAngelxX Amarr The Illuminati. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.09.13 14:48:00 - [57] I call plagerism!!! --------------------------------------
Pepperami Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.09.13 14:57:00 - [58] Originally by: Humjob This already exists in the game. It's called NPC 0.0 space. Syndicate is an example. This is quite right, it's people wanting all the rewards of "real" 0.0, but less of the risk. The size of blobs at the moment is excessive and this will encourage them further (as shown by your good selves in the OP). Nice warm fuzzy thought but a bad idea. A-WAR might be Recruiting!
Ozen Skryf Renovatio Industries Combined Planetary Union	Posted - 2007.09.14 05:11:00 - [59] Originally by: Hans Roaming By sharp I take it to mean keeping the skills necessary to survive and attack in 0.0 current, even if one plays smart as you say then you need experience to do so. The worst thing that can happen to an alliance in 0.0 is peace with everyone around as that makes your military people leave through boredom and industry focused people get lazy and stupid with their security. Everyone looses their situational awareness skills and the alliance just gets to the situation where they are a target ripe for kicking out of their space. The number one priority that I had in Huzzah was making sure we had enough enemies that wouldn't steamroller us but that would help us grow. Those in the alliance that could learn the skills necessary to survive did so and thrived in 0.0, those that couldn't ended up leaving. In 0.0 everyone needs to be able to pvp and to be honest some of the strongest industry people happen to be pvpers, after all it is a truism that pvpers can mine but miners can't pvp and in 0.0 as opposed to empire pvp is the number one skill required in order to remain there. The OP has a nice alternative to full out invasion wars and in my opinion it is a good idea. Good points. Yeah, carebears really can't afford to get lazy in 0.0, you're absolutely right. Wouldn't call it a matter of skill or experience as much as mindset, but regardless, they can't get complacent in 0.0. But I think the same effect is achieved by ensuring mutual neutral, or even red, standings. Nothing so formal required, and for either side to even bring this up to the table implies a weakness to exploit. It's a good idea in theory, as I've said, but I think there are just too many downsides to such a formal arrangement. --- Patience.
Ms DaisyMae Burning Bush Enterprises	Posted - 2007.09.14 20:19:00 - [60] Originally by: Hans Roaming Originally by: Ozen Skryf And let's be real. This "sharp" business is ridiculous. EVE PvP is about smart, not sharp. It's tactical, not twitch. Fit your ship according to your goal or gang role; fight on your terms. There's nothing sharp about a carebear warping to a safe when there's a red in local. There's nothing sharp about pressing F1-F8, interspersed the occasional Ctrl or Alt button presses mixed in when your target is locked. There's nothing sharp about scanning down a target, or waiting for probe results. There's nothing sharp about cloaking. There's nothing sharp about watching Local chat. By sharp I take it to mean keeping the skills necessary to survive and attack in 0.0 current, even if one plays smart as you say then you need experience to do so. The worst thing that can happen to an alliance in 0.0 is peace with everyone around as that makes your military people leave through boredom and industry focused people get lazy and stupid with their security. Everyone looses their situational awareness skills and the alliance just gets to the situation where they are a target ripe for kicking out of their space. The number one priority that I had in Huzzah was making sure we had enough enemies that wouldn't steamroller us but that would help us grow. Those in the alliance that could learn the skills necessary to survive did so and thrived in 0.0, those that couldn't ended up leaving. In 0.0 everyone needs to be able to pvp and to be honest some of the strongest industry people happen to be pvpers, after all it is a truism that pvpers can mine but miners can't pvp and in 0.0 as opposed to empire pvp is the number one skill required in order to remain there. The OP has a nice alternative to full out invasion wars and in my opinion it is a good idea. Go to lowsec for this. 0.0 is for nation building.

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.