Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Major JSilva]

This post gotten a resurgence on the IGS but havent seen anything on backstage about it. I wanted to get other peoples ideas on it.

Odd thing I noticed if said corp/alliance wants to join the "Coalition" they must embrace total NRDS(goes without saying) both in low-sec and 0.0 and must break ties with people who follow NBSI policy.

Now I dont have problems with the low-sec part, Moira.'s RoE is NRDS in low-sec along with alot pvp corps unless your a pirate.

The problem comes with 0.0.
1. Majority of 0.0 alliances follow a NBSI policy or claim to follow an NRDS policy which will get you killed.
2.GCC and gateguns do not exist. Basicly common knowledge crap.

Where I have a problem is say operating in Syndaciate which is just rife with bubbles camps, a couple ruskies and alliances like Huzzah Federation(an example) who just love to chase down there targets forever.
I've been playing for 4 months but it doesnt take a bitter vet to tell you this doesnt make any sense. You lose a stragetical advantage if you know where you enemy is and what would constiute breach in RoE, you get fired in first? you get drag bubbled, interdicted on a gate, bombed? In my opinion 0.0 has always been a FFA or Free Fire Area and will probalily remain that way.

Is this really a real initiative or just really an RP thing, hopping around IGS ?
Thoughts?

Silva

P.S. These are my thoughts only and do not represent Moira or any other corp/alliances mentioned ideals,policy's etc.

[orange]

If they are your enemy, they are red (or at least should be).

But what you are talking about is giving up the initiative to a NBSI you have never encounter.  It is the pains of following NRDS.

I think the more important thing for a NRDS entity is to relate to its Reds, that they are indeed Reds, otherwise their actions will be mistaken for NBSI.

[Valdezi]

Yeah, we just got asked to join this and thought, why not?

It couldn't hurt to have more friends around the place and we have plenty of reds to shoot at.

Ixiris made a fair point that one can simply set anyone to red to justify shooting them, but from a RP point of view, the IPI is anti-pirate so it made sense to join.

Co-incidently however, the IPI has also made a move into Syndicate to help I-RED and joined the Syndicate Coalition at the same time, some members of which the NCA would clearly define as pirates. And, while the IPI hasn't shot down any neutrals in Syndicate, if I saw a neutral I would probably fire first rather than risk getting ganked.

Also, we haven't broken ties with NBSI groups that we work with.

I think this is mostly a RP thing. There have been practical implications (fleets put up) but the IPI hasn't really contributed. Our main focus is Placid and Syndicate, our main allies are the Syndicate Coalition. I'm unsure, but I think some of the NCA coalition members are operating in Providence. It seems risky to me to be fully NRDS is null sec, but it hasn't come up as yet.

[Major JSilva]

I am refering to null sec more then low-sec.

Yeah, we just got asked to join this and thought, why not?

It couldn't hurt to have more friends around the place and we have plenty of reds to shoot at.

Ixiris made a fair point that one can simply set anyone to red to justify shooting them, but from a RP point of view, the IPI is anti-pirate so it made sense to join.

Co-incidently however, the IPI has also made a move into Syndicate to help I-RED and joined the Syndicate Coalition at the same time, some members of which the NCA would clearly define as pirates. And, while the IPI hasn't shot down any neutrals in Syndicate, if I saw a neutral I would probably fire first rather than risk getting ganked.

Also, we haven't broken ties with NBSI groups that we work with.

I think this is mostly a RP thing. There have been practical implications (fleets put up) but the IPI hasn't really contributed. Our main focus is Placid and Syndicate, our main allies are the Syndicate Coalition. I'm unsure, but I think some of the NCA coalition members are operating in Providence. It seems risky to me to be fully NRDS is null sec, but it hasn't come up as yet.

[Valdezi]

Yeah, I referenced that with the Syndicate thing.

Co-incidently however, the IPI has also made a move into Syndicate to help I-RED and joined the Syndicate Coalition at the same time, some members of which the NCA would clearly define as pirates. And, while the IPI hasn't shot down any neutrals in Syndicate, if I saw a neutral I would probably fire first rather than risk getting ganked.

Also, where I said that some members of the NCA are operating in Providence.

[Kazzzi]

NRDS means nothing when run by d-bags.
NBSI works just fine when you have functional diplomats.

Personally, I believe ROE should be based on your mission, not your mission based on your ROE. When I see these little enclaves of fully NRDS people with no other defining principles, they remind me of brainwashed cultists.

Either way, neither NRDS nor NBSI is better than the other. They are both simply FOF methods based on the limitations of a ships user interface, despite the irrational screams of 'I'm holier than thou you dirty pirate, I'm super NRDS awesome number one!"

[Merdaneth]

NRDS is not a philosophy, it is a policy, and a very poorly formed one at that. An alliance based on that principle seems unviable to Merdaneth

[Matariki Rain]

NRDS is not a philosophy, it is a policy, and a very poorly formed one at that. An alliance based on that principle seems unviable to Merdaneth

Because I'm curious: is that "based solely on"?

[Vlad Cetes]

Been in one NRDS corp EVER.

There is a big difference as I see it between NRDS and piracy, at least how 0.0 peeps define it.

NRDS = no shooting non-reds anywhere
no-piracy = no shooting non-reds in low/high sec but NBSI in 0.0

[Merdaneth]

NRDS is not a philosophy, it is a policy, and a very poorly formed one at that. An alliance based on that principle seems unviable to Merdaneth

Because I'm curious: is that "based solely on"?

I was more thinking along the lines of 'primarily'. At least, it is their prime selling point.

[Casiella]

I never perceived EM to be based on NRDS. Rather, NRDS is a policy that supports their larger goals within the Republic.

[Elsebeth Rhiannon]

NRDS is not a philosophy, it is a policy, and a very poorly formed one at that. An alliance based on that principle seems unviable to Merdaneth

Who you calling UNVIABLE?!  

Personally, I believe ROE should be based on your mission, not your mission based on your ROE.

I agree with this. I support my corp/alliance being NRDS not because I (IC or OOC) somehow believe that my mission is to bring an end to NBSI everywhere, but because our mission is about trying to make Republic space safe for peaceful passers-by yadda-yadda etc. NRDS fits that. That does not mean that individuals or organizations who are NRDS for their reasons necessarily are my natural allies - for example, some NRDS organizations' mission includes invading my precious Republic. We also have entitied blue who are NBSI somewhere else but the space we have made our mission, etc.

I never perceived EM to be based on NRDS. Rather, NRDS is a policy that supports their larger goals within the Republic.

This. We have at least never intended NRDS to be our prime selling point - the Republic is supposed to be that, and we are somewhat known in some small circles for antipiracy in the Minmatar regions.

For me, however, "antipiracy" does not necessarily mean "pro-NRDS-everywhere", for the above reasons.

One has to also note that it is not really NRDS or NBSI that matters. Who you end up shooting is. To give an extreme example: if you are NRDS but set red every random neutral you meet, that is more like piracy than being NBSI and seeking blue with everyone you meet.

[Casiella]

NRDS is not a philosophy, it is a policy, and a very poorly formed one at that. An alliance based on that principle seems unviable to Merdaneth

Who you calling UNVIABLE?! 

I never perceived EM to be based on NRDS. Rather, NRDS is a policy that supports their larger goals within the Republic.

This. We have at least never intended NRDS to be our prime selling point - the Republic is supposed to be that, and we are somewhat known in some small circles for antipiracy in the Minmatar regions.

For me, however, "antipiracy" does not necessarily mean "pro-NRDS-everywhere", for the above reasons.

One has to also note that it is not really NRDS or NBSI that matters. Who you end up shooting is. To give an extreme example: if you are NRDS but set red every random neutral you meet, that is more like piracy than being NBSI and seeking blue with everyone you meet.

Based on your response to me, I'd say calling alliances based purely on a policy "unviable" doesn't reflect on EM at all.

[Elsebeth Rhiannon]

Based on your response to me, I'd say calling alliances based purely on a policy "unviable" doesn't reflect on EM at all.

Yea, I was joking to Merdaneth. In all seriousness, I do not think that if all you got for philosophy is NRDS it is likely to last in the long-term either.

[Borza]

To crosspost :
It can be a means to ensure ones alliance mates focus on real threats and important targets rather than random passers-by. Just because you don't shoot neutrals doesn't mean you want to babysit.

IC and OOC are in agreement here. There's more (or less) to NRDS than happy happy tree hugging.