Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 39 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 25 post(s) |
Kyguard
Fire Mandrill Astrophobics
|
Posted - 2006.11.25 17:15:00 -
[751]
Yeah I agree that BoB should be in claim of Fountain, querious and w/e else people are disputing since the tenants aren't contesting the territory but merely living in it. It would be like the Omist renters to replace LV on the map, ain't gonna happen
I do agree with Beringe as well though, would be cool to have renting alliances/corps shown up on the map under the owners.
=== It's great being Amarr, aint it?(tm) [Insert badass sig to match ego here] |
DoctorGonzo
Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.11.25 17:29:00 -
[752]
Originally by: Kyguard I do agree with Beringe as well though, would be cool to have renting alliances/corps shown up on the map under the owners.
Only if both the owners and tenants agree that is what they want.
Originally by: Blacklight I think Madeye and CRYVOK have delusions of adequacy!
|
Adame Matriana
Acheron Vanguard Armada The Shadow Ascension
|
Posted - 2006.11.25 18:31:00 -
[753]
Originally by: Blade Stormbringer Edited by: Blade Stormbringer on 25/11/2006 06:42:57
Originally by: Adame Matriana
Question from the apparently uninformed. What makes the aforementioned regions NPC regions, and Regions like Great Wildlands and Fountain Non-NPC regions? afaik they are only populated by NPC Stations and no conquerables.
Outposts can be built in those regions. No CCP did'nt put stations there but the players can build them ( like bob and xelas have done in fountain ). The three I mentioned have sovereignty in all their regions systems thus no outposts can be built in them.
*EDIT*and this is Chois annoying alt...
I guess that answered it. If I understand correctly though, you cannot put Outposts in the 3 regions you named?
|
Kaeten
Hybrid Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.11.26 11:29:00 -
[754]
Edited by: Kaeten on 26/11/2006 11:29:31 I've never posted here but I feel I should now.
Hybrid Sydnicate is at war with The Imperial Order Alliance and locals around KBP area the entire time (mostly imp order). We also have a war dec with them so a little marker would be cool.
High-Sec/0.0 PvP Recruitment |
Kaeten
Hybrid Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.11.26 11:33:00 -
[755]
Originally by: Christopher Multsanti
Originally by: DB Preacher For a corp to contest an npc region such as Fountain, it would need to be shown that it was living there, building an industry there through the use of alot of pos that remain in place longer than 5 minutes it takes for us to destroy them and a variety of other reasons.
My post is not attempt to flame BOB or anyone else but this is an intersting discussion about the control of an NPC region. I would have to disagree that a corp needs build an industry and put pos's up in an npc region to claim it lives there as not all corps operate the same way. Surely there must be another way for a corp with no industry to speak of to claim an NPC region.
I have to defend BoB here, an alliance that has control over and area can put up POSs without them being taken down, hence BoB. Other alliance, groups trying to do this in fountain are pwned meaning that BoB are the uphold holders of faountain. That goes for any npc region. It's liek high-sec, amarr own amarr area even though I fight in it? Also if you say that npc regions cannot be controlled because other people live there take a look at the whole of eve, people are in everyones terrotory etc. All comes down to, who can live there most comfortably.
High-Sec/0.0 PvP Recruitment |
Choi
Forsaken Empire
|
Posted - 2006.11.26 14:23:00 -
[756]
Originally by: Kaeten That goes for any npc region. It's liek high-sec, amarr own amarr area even though I fight in it?
yep, and serpentis own core fountain even though bob kill everyone in it that undocks.
Originally by: Kaeten Also if you say that npc regions cannot be controlled because other people live there take a look at the whole of eve, people are in everyones terrotory etc. All comes down to, who can live there most comfortably.
You cant judge ownership on comfort. Yes ofc there are hostiles in everyones territory, and thats why if they put up pos's there and are fighting for the territory its contested territory, in the case of npc stations you have unkillable pos'es so to speak, anyone can go there and use the stations to their benefit and theres nothing to do to kick them out of your own will. Camping them all day and whatnot like RKK did to the goons and huns just makes them want to leave which they do wether they choose to or not.
|
olyyy
Gallente V I R I I Center for Disease Creation
|
Posted - 2006.11.26 15:59:00 -
[757]
Originally by: Ender Hawks Smash/Roadkill/KoS/F-E
VS.
E-U/CDC/PURE/Arrow Project/RATEL/every region surrounding Gem/Vale....
E-R would love nothing better then to have F-E ignored and unacknowledged in this conflict as to lessen our effectiveness/achievements versus their coalition.
BWF/8mg went from having 60+ pilot gate camps with 10x bubbles on the Oija gate to having 3-10 pilots (non F-E) with all those entering/leaving doing so in shuttles to avoid being slaughtered in anything expensive by none other than F-E
Josh, you are biased if you promptly change (or dont change) the map based solely on the propaganda of ctrl-q alliance, err I mean E-U alliance.
Current map is fine for me. As for BWF, it sound pretty bothersome to add a warzone marker each time a corp decides to camp a shokepoint. Well that's what I think, I don't really care anyway.
To my belief, current warmarker should be: E-U/CDC/PURE/Ratel & allies vs Smash/Roadkill & allies This would be pretty fair. Now I know that everyobdy wanna be on the map (fame 'n stuff?), but well, final decision is up to josh.
Men never lie more than before elections, during war and after hunting. |
Choi
Forsaken Empire
|
Posted - 2006.11.26 21:50:00 -
[758]
Originally by: olyyy
Current map is fine for me.
fixed and agreed
|
Johnathan Roark
Caldari Quantum Industries Prime Orbital Systems
|
Posted - 2006.11.26 22:31:00 -
[759]
The marker on Esoteria is incorrect. A. refers to Paragon Soul as being contested between BoB and ASCN. I think this should have been placed in Paragon Soul instead of Esoteria.
Corporation Management Improvement |
Bloedkopp
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 11:47:00 -
[760]
With the launch of the 8 new regions, we ( Band of Brothers ) hereby claim all of them. If you have questions about rental fees for living there as our slaves plz convo Molle or DBP !!!
Official BOB Diplomat |
|
Leila Kanz
Mortis Angelus Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 12:26:00 -
[761]
5) Great Wildlands local vs Veritas immortalis and infod (not infoed) infod currently working with -v- alliance not against.
Badaboom,big badabooom!!!
|
General Novartic
Minmatar The Taining corp Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 12:52:00 -
[762]
Originally by: Bloedkopp With the launch of the 8 new regions, we ( Band of Brothers ) hereby claim all of them. If you have questions about rental fees for living there as our slaves plz convo Molle or DBP !!!
Over my dead body you arnt. Think again mate. http://www.n-computers.co.uk/other/eve/evesig.jpg
signature removed (max dimensions 120px * 400px) - please email us if you want to know why - Pirlouit([email protected]) |
Joshua Foiritain
Gallente Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 13:08:00 -
[763]
Edited by: Joshua Foiritain on 29/11/2006 13:14:12
The new regiona havent been added to the alliance map yet, dont expect it within the next week as i need to redo the entire map for it
Also, making claims are fairly pointless as everyone and their mom will be running down there. -----
[Coreli Corporation Mainframe] |
Beringe
Caldari Raptus Regaliter
|
Posted - 2006.11.29 21:07:00 -
[764]
Originally by: DoctorGonzo
Originally by: Kyguard I do agree with Beringe as well though, would be cool to have renting alliances/corps shown up on the map under the owners.
Only if both the owners and tenants agree that is what they want.
Agreed. But since it is a more accurate description, I hardly see anyone being against it. ------------------------------------------- "Sarcasm and irony are not to be used by the uninitiated."
--Daitan Beringe, honorary director in charge of bottles-- |
Faust Revis
Caldari Vengeance of the Fallen Imperium Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 04:04:00 -
[765]
so i take it the map will be completely changed to the new map? If so, is that including the fact that the default map completely changed the north, south, east west, directions. basically its backwards.
|
Joshua Foiritain
Gallente Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 08:47:00 -
[766]
Originally by: Faust Revis so i take it the map will be completely changed to the new map? If so, is that including the fact that the default map completely changed the north, south, east west, directions. basically its backwards.
The map still looks aligned correctly for me. -----
[Coreli Corporation Mainframe] |
Hoshi
DAB RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 12:21:00 -
[767]
Originally by: Faust Revis so i take it the map will be completely changed to the new map? If so, is that including the fact that the default map completely changed the north, south, east west, directions. basically its backwards.
Flatten the map and it will be back to normal. But yes in unflatten mode it's upside down, and so are all system maps. ---------------------------------------- A Guide to Scan Probing in Revelations |
Bogwad
Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 16:27:00 -
[768]
All I see are Eve TV adds.
|
NereSky
Gallente Rage of Angels Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2006.11.30 17:15:00 -
[769]
Originally by: Hoshi
Originally by: Faust Revis so i take it the map will be completely changed to the new map? If so, is that including the fact that the default map completely changed the north, south, east west, directions. basically its backwards.
Flatten the map and it will be back to normal. But yes in unflatten mode it's upside down, and so are all system maps.
while keeping left mouse button depressed and moving the mouse over the map u can actually turn ,ap upside and back to front therefore correcting - go on have a play u know u want to
|
Hudsonn
Minmatar FireTech Imperium Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.12.01 18:41:00 -
[770]
Originally by: Leila Kanz 5) Great Wildlands local vs Veritas immortalis and infod (not infoed) infod currently working with -v- alliance not against.
We got some corps fighting along side us as well, can we have them on the map? -------------
Minmatar is hard mode___ |
|
Tassi
Infinitus Odium
|
Posted - 2006.12.01 20:22:00 -
[771]
Originally by: Hudsonn We got some corps fighting along side us as well, can we have them on the map?
If they are as cool as INFOD, why not? They still fail to show their coolness tho
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2006.12.03 03:27:00 -
[772]
Originally by: Onchas Erivvia
Constructive post
I have grappled with alot of this myself. In the end the situation is only complicated in NPC regions where no one has built an outpost. Good examples of this are Venal and Stain (Curse and GW too? I don't know about outposts there or not, I have not kept track).
I don't think that there is a way to accurately gauge control over an NPC region when there are no structures to fight over. No one can control docking rights and anyone can live out of the NPC stations barring 23/7 camping. 23/7 camping would establish definite control/ownership but nowhere does anyone do this continuously and nowhere should they do it.
Ultimately I think the best way to deal with this is to refuse to give ownership of an NPC region to anyone who does not choose to build outposts there. To this end, Fountain is actually a pretty good counterpoint. If people want to challenge BoB's control of Fountain they should take one of the outposts there. While giving Bob control of Fountain before they had outposts may have made little or no sense (given that they were rarely there, and no DBP we don't need to have this discussion again), given that they own the most stations in the region, it makes alot of sense to say that they control the region.
Stated more generally, claiming a region should only be possible by owning real estate in the region. This criteria will always be met in regions with conquerable stations, but in order to stake your claim to a region without a conquerable station you should be required to build one. Failing that, you actually control little or nothing with respect to that region (you might argue that some regions are unique given the configuration of their stations which make them easy to "actually control" but this is not particularly material to the discussion).
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
DB Preacher
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.12.04 00:16:00 -
[773]
Originally by: Baun Ultimately I think the best way to deal with this is to refuse to give ownership of an NPC region to anyone who does not choose to build outposts there.
Sounds reasonable to me.
It might actually promote a few more outposts and then peeps can properly see who controls the systems.
dbp
Caldari Alliance PVP Championship Winner Current RKK Ranking: (PSCAL6) Proficient Short Tanto
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2006.12.04 00:31:00 -
[774]
Edited by: Baun on 04/12/2006 00:44:41 Edited by: Baun on 04/12/2006 00:43:22
Originally by: DB Preacher
Originally by: Baun Ultimately I think the best way to deal with this is to refuse to give ownership of an NPC region to anyone who does not choose to build outposts there.
Sounds reasonable to me.
It might actually promote a few more outposts and then peeps can properly see who controls the systems.
dbp
And there is no reason people shouldn't be forced to give themselves something to lose if they want official recognition.
If we can agree on this I am curious as to what Josh's reasons might be for not going in this direction (yet?).
A corrolary issue that I did not touch on is whether regions should be shown contested as a whole or in parts. Given that, under the proposed regime, controlling the "NPC" parts of a 0.0 region is granted to the people who own the conquerable stations in the region, it seems like contesting any part of an NPC station region should be akin to contesting the entierty of the region.
If you can't rationally award control over uncontrollable statios barring ownership of outposts/conquerables then you shouldn't award control over uncontrollable stations withtout complete control over all available outposts/conquerables.
In the case of completely non-NPC regions, it seems more rational to award control of regions based on the location of stations owned. Here, there are no uncontrollable assets awarded to either side and the situation is ground more firmly in reality.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Gyro DuAquin1
Tri Optimum Dusk and Dawn
|
Posted - 2006.12.06 09:48:00 -
[775]
Originally by: DB Preacher
Originally by: Baun Ultimately I think the best way to deal with this is to refuse to give ownership of an NPC region to anyone who does not choose to build outposts there.
Sounds reasonable to me.
It might actually promote a few more outposts and then peeps can properly see who controls the systems.
dbp
NPC region stay uncontrolable(?), the simple fact that ppl can dock all over the place just makes in hard to control. So id guess no control of npc region for anyone.
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2006.12.06 10:00:00 -
[776]
Edited by: Baun on 06/12/2006 10:00:32
Originally by: Gyro DuAquin1
Originally by: DB Preacher
Originally by: Baun Ultimately I think the best way to deal with this is to refuse to give ownership of an NPC region to anyone who does not choose to build outposts there.
Sounds reasonable to me.
It might actually promote a few more outposts and then peeps can properly see who controls the systems.
dbp
NPC region stay uncontrolable(?), the simple fact that ppl can dock all over the place just makes in hard to control. So id guess no control of npc region for anyone.
The idea is that if you want to award control over regions that have stations in them like this it must be based on *something*. It probably makes most sense to say that no one controls them (except the specific parts of regions where there are outposts), but my suggestion seems like a happy medium.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Amerame
Section XIII
|
Posted - 2006.12.06 23:20:00 -
[777]
You're not supposed to assign sovereignty for the sake of it. Having an outpost does not mean AT ALL that you control anything beside docking right to said outpost. Saying that no one control NPC region is wrong also, if you live there you know that most of the time, the interesting places are controled by a corporation or an alliance, by controling I mean have pretty much the exclusive use of the ressources of the system, it's very rare to have 2 hostile faction who use the same system for an extended period of time, so de facto it's possible to determine the sovereignty of systems in NPC space the trouble is that you need to have an extensive knowledge of the area for 1 system can be controled by a faction and 1 or 2 jump away it's being controled by a completely different faction.
|
Baun
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2006.12.07 00:49:00 -
[778]
Edited by: Baun on 07/12/2006 00:49:39
Originally by: Amerame it's very rare to have 2 hostile faction who use the same system for an extended period of time, so de facto it's possible to determine the sovereignty of systems in NPC space the trouble is that you need to have an extensive knowledge of the area for 1 system can be controled by a faction and 1 or 2 jump away it's being controled by a completely different faction.
Unless you actually want to assign sovereign control over uncontrollable assets on a system by system basis, this makes no sense. Of course, it may make no sense to assign sovereignty on a system by system basis as you suggest anyway.
Fountain has two factions that use the region and are hostile to each other. Venal has a fair number of hostiles. Curse has two large warring factions moving through all the time. I don't know much about Stain but I cannot imagine it is particularly well settled. GW certainly isn't calm.
Do you want the mapmaker to inspect who "lives" in each system or constellation and put them on the map? Living in NPC stations has nothing to do with control.
The reason it might be sensible to go with an "outpost or not sovereignty" test is that whoever is the most powerful entity in the region, barring an agreement not to take stations, will control the outpost(s). You can "live" in NPC stations forever but if you don't take the outpost from the people who control it then you can't really say you own the region.
All we need is some standard that has a rational connection to reality. It is no more realistic to assign control of an entire NPC region to absentee owners (which is bassically what BoB had pre-outposts in Fountain) than it does to scrutinize system by system living arragnements which have absolutely no connection to who controls what.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Silvitni
Euphoria Released Euphoria Unleashed
|
Posted - 2006.12.08 23:07:00 -
[779]
Edited by: Silvitni on 08/12/2006 23:09:41 Hi josh
Here is some info for the next map.
E-U does not claim the lower geminate/ips anymore. The constellation of IPS has been sold to the alliance Storm Armada, ticker: ESA.
This means, that ESA controls both stations in IPS constellation.
Regarding E-R, we are on the road again and gonna have fun.
|
Turkantho
Asgard Schiffswerften Dusk and Dawn
|
Posted - 2006.12.08 23:27:00 -
[780]
Originally by: DB Preacher
Originally by: Baun Ultimately I think the best way to deal with this is to refuse to give ownership of an NPC region to anyone who does not choose to build outposts there.
Sounds reasonable to me.
It might actually promote a few more outposts and then peeps can properly see who controls the systems.
dbp
actually there are some regions, where all systems in the region are claimed by the NPCs so you can't build an outpost even if you wanted to. ________
been there, done that, got the t-shirt |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 39 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |