Nope. You had to get positive standings with the Trigs. To get them, you had to help the Trigs. Even if you only did it the once, that’s not neutral. It’s just lazy.
2 Likes
The term you’re looking for is ‘pedantic jackass’. I mean, it’s not like the very first reply in this thread isn’t me bitching at CCP. 
1 Like
You are wrong, you were effectively neutral to the edencom and trig. And that’s the reason people did it.
Except the Trigs don’t have a ‘neutral’ setting. You either have standings greater than 0, ie: ‘friendly, however marginally’ or they shoot you. Just because you’re lazy and don’t keep helping them doesn’t mean you didn’t have to start off by helping them just to get them to put you on the ‘NBSI’ list.
1 Like
No exception. People shot an edencom to be neutral to both faction.
You can argue semantic all you want, when you claim
You are just, plainly, wrong. The goal was to be effectively neutral, not to have negative standing. And it worked.
When you claim that we could not be neutral, you are wrong.
1 Like
I’m not. You’re just in denial about the relationship your actions represented.
You had to help the trigs, or you would not have gotten the positive standings change w/the trigs that resulted in the negative standings change with edencom. That is not neutral. Just because you didn’t want to be considered to have chosen a side, that doesn’t mean you didn’t choose a side. Bitch about it all you like. You did a thing. Doing things in EVE has consequences, even if you don’t know what those consequences will be, ahead of time.
4 Likes
No. You are just lying.
Nobody cares about your fallacious interpretations.
People shot the endencom with an hauler alt in order to be neutral. You claim on that point are just plain lie.
My statements have no bearing and make no claims about people’s intentions. Only the effect of their actions.
Again: You did a thing. There are consequences. Just because you didn’t know there would be consequences, that does not, and has never meant those consequences don’t still come down on your head in EVE.
1 Like
Yes you literally claimed that the goal was to have negative standing.
Which is completely wrong.
Those are the most empty words I’ve ever read.
You have something less interesting to say ?
1 Like
No, I said people had to shoot edencom npcs to get negative standings. IN OTHER WORDS: "Negative standings with EDENCOM is caused by shooting EDENCOM NPCs. If you have negative standings, that means you chose to shoot EDENCOM NPCs, thus causing those negative standings.’
I do not care why you shot them, or what your goal was. Doing X resulted in Y. Period.
1 Like
And you are wrong. They did not want to get negative standing. They wanted to be neutral. and the only way to be neutral was, by shooting an edencom ship.
You can distort the reality as much as you want, you are wrong.
Again: IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT THEY WANTED.
‘I broke the speed limit because I wanted to get someplace faster’ doesn’t mean you don’t get a ticket. It doesn’t matter why they shot the EDENCOM NPCs, shooting EDENCOM NPCs results in negative standings changes. Just because you did not think you would ever get caught or be expected to suffer consequences for your actions doesn’t make a single bit of difference. None of CCP’s public statements about the Invasion have ever said ‘and you can be neutral to both sides!’.
You can’t, and it’s pretty obvious they never intended to allow that result in the long term.
2 Likes
That feature has come and gone years ago. Fail all the way. (It was walk-in-stations back then, because there were no citadels).
The reality, is that people had to shoot an edencom to be NEUTRAL to both faction.
THAT is the reason why they did it.
All your useless blabbering about “consequences” is just that : useless empty blabbering.
THEN DON’T CLAIM WHAT THEIR GOAL IS.
1 Like
There is no way to be neutral as I’ve just tested it.
At 0 trigs shoot you. At anything minus to edencom they shoot you
This makes things slightly more painfull but not hard to overcome with alts or changing standings
I didn’t. You are misinterpreting my statement, which was meant very simply as ‘this action is the only way you got those standings’. However, as I should never have assumed 3 working brain cells in my readers, I apologize for not being clearer for your benefit.
Would you have preferred ‘you had to have shot EDENCOM NPCs, or you would not have those standings’, or ‘if you hadn’t shot EDENCOM NPCs, you wouldn’t have those standings’?
Perhaps a flow-chart in crayon, so I can illustrate it all in simple colors for you?
2 Likes
3 Likes
No, your post literally claims that people did shoot the edencom to get negative standing - which is wrong.
They did it because it was the only way to become NEUTRAL to both faction. It was a stupid mechanism, but it was HOW IT WORKED so people dealt with it the way it seemed it was supposed to be dealt with.
Your “consequence” BS is just plain useless blabbering.
Yes that would be a different thing, but still useless blabbering, because doing so you ignore that when this was done, it was actually effectively giving you NEUTRAL state. Judging a past situation with today’s eye is just plain stupid.
People made the choice because the only consequences were : you become neutral. Judging a choice of a past with its consequence in the present that were not known at the time is just complete nonsense.
1 Like
-0.0 to EDENCOM, change was -0.001. They’re still white on overview. Expect that to be fixed soon.
1 Like