These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

NBSI Nullsec = Fail

First post
Author
Gritz1
Ice Fire Warriors
#561 - 2013-01-08 20:07:02 UTC
It would be cool to have an outlying system be a market hub of sorts open to the public and patrolled by the alliance, but beyond that little day dream, NBSI is the only way.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#562 - 2013-01-08 20:07:25 UTC
Skydell wrote:
See See Pee, I am in a High Sec pocket 40 jumps, from Jita, surrounded by nasty low sec pirates and there is no market.

So, the hisec pocket in solitude?

Skydell wrote:
Can you guys seed it for me so it is betterer for my game?

You have well over 1000 manufacturing slots at your disposal. vOv

Skydell wrote:
It costs too much to get my fuel in

For what? You have well over 1000 free manufacturing slots at your disposal, what do you need fuel for?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Skydell
Bad Girl Posse
#563 - 2013-01-08 20:23:23 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Skydell wrote:
See See Pee, I am in a High Sec pocket 40 jumps, from Jita, surrounded by nasty low sec pirates and there is no market.

So, the hisec pocket in solitude?

Skydell wrote:
Can you guys seed it for me so it is betterer for my game?

You have well over 1000 manufacturing slots at your disposal. vOv

Skydell wrote:
It costs too much to get my fuel in

For what? You have well over 1000 free manufacturing slots at your disposal, what do you need fuel for?


No, NBSI Nap train Null sec Big smile

Only one station has slots and I have to share them with all these nasty, pubie neutrals Ugh

It's manufacturing. There are no R&D slots.

See my dilemma? It's awful. Make Null more like High Sec. EVE will be betterer then.
I want my own station too.
And all noobs start there from now on
If they don't like me I can kick them out and shoot them

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#564 - 2013-01-08 20:27:32 UTC
Skydell wrote:
I am in a High Sec pocket 40 jumps, from Jita

Skydell wrote:
No, NBSI Nap train Null sec Big smile

I see.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Skydell
Bad Girl Posse
#565 - 2013-01-08 21:00:30 UTC
I just went on the Test Server

Old Man Star in Essence
to
Deklein

In two jumps.

Do that in High sec.

Stop crying Zim, you look bad. This isn't about Null industrial, it's about you being bored because you ran everyone off.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#566 - 2013-01-08 21:09:14 UTC
Skydell wrote:
I just went on the Test Server

Old Man Star in Essence
to
Deklein

In two jumps.

Do that in High sec.

Wormhole?

Skydell wrote:
This isn't about Null industrial,

Yes, it is.

Skydell wrote:
it's about you being bored because you ran everyone off.

No, it isn't.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Skydell
Bad Girl Posse
#567 - 2013-01-08 21:14:30 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Skydell wrote:
I just went on the Test Server

Old Man Star in Essence
to
Deklein

In two jumps.

Do that in High sec.

Wormhole?

Skydell wrote:
This isn't about Null industrial,

Yes, it is.

Skydell wrote:
it's about you being bored because you ran everyone off.

No, it isn't.


No.

Archon, JD cal 5,

The POS method works. You guys refuse to let anyone in on the gig though. That's why you don't like the POS option. You can't run the show all by yourself. It's too much work. You need to hand it over to other members. You need to trust other members. You guys won't do that. You want to keep it all for yourself.

Sorry, you aren't getting anywhere here. It's too clear where the flaw is. It's your paranoid, greedy alliances. That won't take the tin foil hat off. That won't let someone else play with marbles.
Mayhaw Morgan
State War Academy
Caldari State
#568 - 2013-01-08 21:16:07 UTC
El Digin wrote:
Brought tens of thousands of blah blah blah

Wow, CCP should pay you. Did you do this all out of the kindness of your heart? Also, you should tell CCP that you are doing this, so they can stop spending all that money on marketing and game development. It's not necessary! You've got it covered.

Lord Zim wrote:
Nullsec players do more than just PVP?

Which NRDS status? You mean hisec, where it's not NRDS, but NVEDS?

Which advantages do nullsec industrialists have over hisec industrialists?

If they don't do those things in null, then they aren't null sec players.

Okay . . . what is NVEDS?

Null sec industrialists have access to a greater abundance of building materials. I thought we'd gone over this. Are you genuinely not getting that? Are you playing stupid? Or are you stupid? You can have a bajillion slots, but if you don't have the material to build the item, then that becomes the limiting factor. High sec has slots. Null sec has mats. You want null sec to have both and I suspect you'd like high sec to have neither.

Bloodpetal wrote:
The real world operates under NBSI, why shouldn't EVE?

Yes, go shoot a neutral at one of the borders to your country and let us know how that turns out. You realized the "SI" stood for "shoot it", right?

Ruby Porto wrote:
And we're saying that Nullsec industry is broken to the point of being unusable

And, yet, you manage to construct titans. Did it ever occur to you that a)having mostly people in your group who break stuff rather than build stuff means you'll have to get stuff to break from other groups? b)breaking a bunch of stuff (i.e. capitals, battleships, POSes, etc.) almost as fast as it is built makes it hard for the builders of stuff to keep up with the demand, no matter how much "industrial capacity" a region has?
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#569 - 2013-01-08 21:16:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Zim
Skydell wrote:
No.

Archon, JD cal 5,

It's 3 jumps to VFK from old man star, not 2.

Not that I see what this has to do with making nullsec more populous by making it worth spending time there outside of fleet PVP.

Skydell wrote:
The POS method works. You guys refuse to let anyone in on the gig though. That's why you don't like the POS option. You can't run the show all by yourself. It's too much work. You need to hand it over to other members. You need to trust other members. You guys won't do that. You want to keep it all for yourself.

You're not even trying to be realistic, are you?

Skydell wrote:
Sorry, you aren't getting anywhere here. It's too clear where the flaw is. It's your paranoid, greedy alliances. That won't take the tin foil hat off. That won't let someone else play with marbles.

Which game are you playing, hello kitty online?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#570 - 2013-01-08 21:17:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
EI Digin wrote:

Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
a whole bunch of crap
Money is not the ultimate power in 0.0. Time and time again has shown that all great empires with masses of wealth have and will be stricken down.

You would know that if you ever lived in nullsec or have done any research on how nullsec empires operate. And you would know more conflict would break out if there were more income sources because it won't be just the grand coalitions that are viable. And above all, you would know that there is no possible way that nullsec can or would ever take a serious attempt to "control" highsec.


I still have some stuff in nullsec Shocked, you can even go find screenshots on these forums with some google.

But hey, what do I know, that putting potential for income in all the 0.0 systems would surely bring in more conflict. Because having all good in a similar way (because that's what happens if you buff places with similar infrastructures) makes people want to fight for similarly good other nearby sytems... Roll

(Edit: this is not to say industry should not be buffed, just that putting some generic "more income sources" is not a conflict driver, if anything it drives will to fight over the good stuff less intense).
Skydell
Bad Girl Posse
#571 - 2013-01-08 21:21:59 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Skydell wrote:
No.

Archon, JD cal 5,

It's 3 jumps to VFK from old man star, not 2.


I did it in 2.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#572 - 2013-01-08 21:22:33 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
But hey, what do I know, that putting potential for income in all the 0.0 systems would surely bring in more conflict. Because having all good in a similar way (because that's what happens if you buff places with similar infrastructures) makes people want to fight for similarly good other nearby sytems... Roll

Let's compare today's situation (where systems aren't worth much to linemembers) with the situation where CCP have made nullsec systems better for industrialists. On one hand, mostly worthless systems. On the other hand, systems which are worth something to a lot more people, and which in turn is being used to finance the alliance.

Gee, I wonder what would be the better incentive for an alliance to consider taking space from another alliance. Roll

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#573 - 2013-01-08 21:25:47 UTC
Skydell wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Skydell wrote:
No.

Archon, JD cal 5,

It's 3 jumps to VFK from old man star, not 2.


I did it in 2.

Sigh, archon, not anshar. So, uh, that's a 23.5m trip one way for 4 BCs or 2 BSes transported. What does this help me if I want to be an industrialist in my own alliance's space?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#574 - 2013-01-08 21:27:48 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:

Gee, I wonder what would be the better incentive for an alliance to consider taking space from another alliance. Roll


I edited my above post for more precision.
Anyway I don't believe that introducing "more riches" with an equal distribution is a great conflict driver. It's why in PvP games they don't give flags and "hills" to every player but make them the objective.
EI Digin
irc.zulusquad.org
#575 - 2013-01-08 21:28:56 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:

But hey, what do I know, that putting potential for income in all the 0.0 systems would surely bring in more conflict. Because having all good in a similar way (because that's what happens if you buff places with similar infrastructures) makes people want to fight for similarly good other nearby sytems... Roll

(Edit: this is not to say industry should not be buffed, just that putting some generic "more income sources" is not a conflict driver, if anything it drives will to fight over the good stuff less intense).


If only there were some sort of system to make certain places more valuable than others.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#576 - 2013-01-08 21:30:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Zim
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:

Gee, I wonder what would be the better incentive for an alliance to consider taking space from another alliance. Roll


I edited my above post for more precision.
Anyway I don't believe that introducing "more riches" with an equal distribution is a great conflict driver. It's why in PvP games they don't give flags and "hills" to every player but make them the objective.

Except if there's "more riches", there's "more people", where there's "more people" there's "more targets", and where there's "more targets", there's "more PVP".

Sure, it may not be the be all end all of conflict drivers on the sov scale, but it'll sure as hell provide more content for more people who might want to roam around in small gangs or solo, and don't feel like large fleet fights over structures are the eve endgame.

And, if the sov system was fixed so keeping control over large swathes of space was harder, there'd be more chance for smaller alliances to grab a tiny slice of the action as well, because the defending alliances end up having to contract because they just can't defend all the space they have.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#577 - 2013-01-08 21:35:37 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
EI Digin wrote:

Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
a whole bunch of crap
Money is not the ultimate power in 0.0. Time and time again has shown that all great empires with masses of wealth have and will be stricken down.

You would know that if you ever lived in nullsec or have done any research on how nullsec empires operate. And you would know more conflict would break out if there were more income sources because it won't be just the grand coalitions that are viable. And above all, you would know that there is no possible way that nullsec can or would ever take a serious attempt to "control" highsec.


I still have some stuff in nullsec Shocked, you can even go find screenshots on these forums with some google.

But hey, what do I know, that putting potential for income in all the 0.0 systems would surely bring in more conflict. Because having all good in a similar way (because that's what happens if you buff places with similar infrastructures) makes people want to fight for similarly good other nearby sytems... Roll

(Edit: this is not to say industry should not be buffed, just that putting some generic "more income sources" is not a conflict driver, if anything it drives will to fight over the good stuff less intense).



But having those exact same income sources in hi-sec is more a "conflict driver" than having them in 0.0?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#578 - 2013-01-08 21:38:44 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:

Gee, I wonder what would be the better incentive for an alliance to consider taking space from another alliance. Roll


I edited my above post for more precision.
Anyway I don't believe that introducing "more riches" with an equal distribution is a great conflict driver. It's why in PvP games they don't give flags and "hills" to every player but make them the objective.

Except if there's "more riches", there's "more people", where there's "more people" there's "more targets", and where there's "more targets", there's "more PVP".

Sure, it may not be the be all end all of conflict drivers on the sov scale, but it'll sure as hell provide more content for more people who might want to roam around in small gangs or solo, and don't feel like large fleet fights over structures are the eve endgame.

And, if the sov system was fixed so keeping control over large swathes of space was harder, there'd be more chance for smaller alliances to grab a tiny slice of the action as well, because the defending alliances end up having to contract because they just can't defend all the space they have.


Yes, the sov system would do a lot, in fact it's why I see it as a prerequisite or "root" for the subsequent revamps of the other sub-features like industry and even "treaties" etc.

I think the "farms" should be upgradeable, that would make them more appetible even if they start in equal terms.
If they are static, instead, it's easy to enter in a state of "stuffed apathy", where people lose the drive to go out and conquer similar nearby systems. It'd take the leadership to push them, and this is less effective than having people eager to go out by themselves.

The "if there's more riches, there's more people => more targets" does not work so good in hi sec (where we have the living example), exactly because of the "stuffed" factor. Why fight, when space is so big and there's some stuff for everybody.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#579 - 2013-01-08 21:40:09 UTC
Malcanis wrote:

But having those exact same income sources in hi-sec is more a "conflict driver" than having them in 0.0?


Uh? I think I just posted the opposite. In fact imo they should also remove them off hi sec, if not remove hi sec completely. But that's for another thread.
Skydell
Bad Girl Posse
#580 - 2013-01-08 21:42:27 UTC
Factory Slots in the North

I'm willing to bet most of those are green