These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Should nullsec industry > hisec industry?

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#661 - 2013-03-09 00:52:44 UTC
LazyWren wrote:
Arcosian wrote:
[quote=Abrazzar]

As for highsec beating nullsec indy this is mainly due to the ease with which people can JF supplies into deep nullsec space. I can't tell how many threads I've read with nullsec players claiming that getting supplies into null is dangerous when they can jump right on a station and dock immediately all the way through a cyno chain to anywhere in null very quickly. To me, this undermines the development of nullsec indy to begin with as it's easier/cheaper to just import everything in.


I agree with this point, there should be a module that jams cynos and a way to stop people docking at a station without the permission of the system owners. If such systems were implemented it would be fairer for all involved.

Yeah, and using this module is in most cases rather dumb since it prevents you from moving capitals freely in your own space and doing logistics, etc.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#662 - 2013-03-09 00:55:33 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Hey guys the 'tyrannis is a pvp expansion' guy thinks if we fix nullsec industry, it'll hurt the extremely lucrative world of high-end min mining so we shouldn't do it. Good stuff.

Anyways, back to real discussion, the solution is to rebalance industrial capacity of all regions (except for perhaps lowsec since they don't seem particularly interested in empire building) around their respective ship and good consumption levels.




The POCOs that exist because of Tyrannis create PvP encounters, confirm or deny?
The buckets of recurring whining about how it's unprofitable to mine high ends already, when scordite pays more, come from null sec residents, confirm or deny?

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
LazyWren
Legion's Knights Of The Round
#663 - 2013-03-09 00:55:34 UTC
Arcosian wrote:
[quote=Abrazzar] Null would have to develop indy or convoy supplies in and how many fights would be generated by opposing alliances trying to kill supply convoys?


I'm assuming due to your post you weren't here when this actually existed in game, now that was a conflict driver. Stop crying for things you do not really want, because you are bored of sitting in your ivory tower.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#664 - 2013-03-09 01:06:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Correct, and that involves accepting that CCP's carebear catering, PvE expansions are considered failures while PvP iteration and emergent content encouraging expansions have put EVE's sub count back in the upswing. CCP's official statements lean towards heavily encouraging 2013 as a year for helping 'emergent content'. Putting a proportional amount of industry where majority of emergent content happens (nullsec) seems entirely within that framework.


Balls.

You consider expansions a failure or not depending on what kind of stuff you like or not.

The reality is that some expansions sucked very hard (Dominion, it was ALL about PvE, yeah right? Roll, also voted as one of the worst all time expansions), WiS (not PvE, not PvP, not... period. It's a non expansion). Tyrannis = the definition of lackluster, not because of PvE or PvP but because it just sucked. Even then, the one time EvE tanked is because WE, beginning with me, mass quit after ....



....


.... drumrolls.....


.... the GREED IS GOOD scandal, the Pay 2 Win scandal and the "3rd party websites and developers will pay $99 for the honor of advertising our product" scandal.

You conveniently pretend to ret-con the past attributing to expansions nobody liked a "PvE" label on it when the real revolt and hundreds so pages thread *organized by some including me and not you for what I recall* and the Jita monument protest were made on the points I listed above and not yours.

WiS, the one and only expansion tied to that big flop is a *result* of Greed is good and the other garbage and is not even a expansion, in the sense that you can't call expansion a closed door. It's PvDoor.


Now return spamming your false statements in another thread, I will be forever there to correct your misstatements.

P.S. The most PVE recent expansion I recall is Incursions and I don't recall it causing players drop, but a bad economy misbalance. It was quite popular instead.
And of course the FW revamp and it's "Forex" exploitable system caused another bad economy misbalance and was popular too, but I guess you'll exclusively mention the first but not the second.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Kane Alvo
Doomheim
#665 - 2013-03-09 01:11:02 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Kane Alvo wrote:
Yeah, odd that I understand the very fundamentals and these experienced players don't. Odd indeed.

Except you don't. "Balance" is something I'd consider fundamental, and that's something you clearly don't understand.


Oh, no. I understand balance perfectly. Give null bears everything they want, including a high sec nerf, because they clearly have a better direction for the game than those who designed it. See? It's not so difficult to understand after all.

Roll

Caldari Militia  ☜★☞ Psychotic Monk for CSM8

Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#666 - 2013-03-09 01:14:46 UTC
Kane Alvo wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Kane Alvo wrote:
Yeah, odd that I understand the very fundamentals and these experienced players don't. Odd indeed.

Except you don't. "Balance" is something I'd consider fundamental, and that's something you clearly don't understand.


Oh, no. I understand balance perfectly. Give null bears everything they want, including a high sec nerf, because they clearly have a better direction for the game than those who designed it. See? It's not so difficult to understand after all.

Roll

Ignore all the good evidence given - this is perfect balance in General Discussion.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
LazyWren
Legion's Knights Of The Round
#667 - 2013-03-09 01:15:19 UTC
Tippia wrote:
March rabbit wrote:
question is: who forces them players to risk/hard work/all this great stuff in 0.0? No one except themself and their slave-lords.
Their chose this way so why whine now?
Close but not quite. The correct answer is simply no-one.
What the game does, however, is force them to do it in highsec. This is bad from pretty much every perspective. It means that you get stuff for free; it means you don't get anything extra for making an effort; it means large swaths of game content is useless and redundant; it means there is no way to attack the industrial backbone of larger alliances; it means there is no dynamics in the industrial part of the game; it means there is no incentive to hunt for better industrial foundations.

So yes, they chose this way (doing it in highsec) and they rightfully whine about it because it doesn't make sense that the game should force them to do their work in a part of space they are not interested in living in.

Quote:
so yes. totally flawed
Not in the slightest. The premise that harder work shold yield better reward is at the very core in of the game.

What is flawed, however, is every single premise borne out of whatever brain-damage that causes people to believe that high should provide anything that even barely reaches above the level of being much much much worse industry than every other part of space in the game.



Apologies master, take my scythe and do with it what you will my field is yours and yours alone.
Tesal
#668 - 2013-03-09 01:16:57 UTC
old sig
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Those who do not adapt become victims of evolugafesdlkjjkhlkl


new sig
Alavaria Fera wrote:
I'm a nullsec zealot


I see from your sig you have replaced you hatred for BoB with a hatred for hi-sec. I wonder if this is true of Goons in general?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#669 - 2013-03-09 01:30:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Kane Alvo wrote:

Oh, no. I understand balance perfectly. Give null bears everything they want, including a high sec nerf, because they clearly have a better pretty much the same direction in mind for the game than as those who designed it. See? It's not so difficult to understand after all.

Fixed, and indeed, so your protestations are quite silly in light of this fact, don't you think?
Those who actually engage in the activity, those who have analysed the issue, and the devs — they are all in agreement. Only those who haven't looked at the problem and those without any experience or insight keep protesting for no coherently articulated reason.

The only question is: if you actually understand balance perfectly, why are you so adamantly opposed to it?
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#670 - 2013-03-09 01:31:56 UTC
Kane Alvo wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Kane Alvo wrote:
Yeah, odd that I understand the very fundamentals and these experienced players don't. Odd indeed.

Except you don't. "Balance" is something I'd consider fundamental, and that's something you clearly don't understand.


Oh, no. I understand balance perfectly. Give null bears everything they want, including a high sec nerf, because they clearly have a better direction for the game than those who designed it. See? It's not so difficult to understand after all.

Roll

It doesn't seem you even understand what we want, so it's a little difficult to take anything you say seriously.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#671 - 2013-03-09 01:33:34 UTC
Tesal wrote:
old sig
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Those who do not adapt become victims of evolugafesdlkjjkhlkl


new sig
Alavaria Fera wrote:
I'm a nullsec zealot


I see from your sig you have replaced you hatred for BoB with a hatred for hi-sec. I wonder if this is true of Goons in general?


They don't have hatred.

They have Kryptonite augmented F5 keys and a high alliance brass decided mantra to repeat every day on the forums. They don't even see they are being manipulated like puppets or how their thoughts always perfectly align with what's written on certain 3rd party websites.

The above is supposed to implement the famous so called "Gutta cavat lapidem" effect.

Drop after drop of always repeating the same concepts tend to make them slowly accepted and thus propagate the "correct reality" to the ignorant masses.

It's almost a pity that some are completely impervious to these tricks, 22 years experience on social media are a superb vaccine.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#672 - 2013-03-09 01:34:47 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Kane Alvo wrote:

Oh, no. I understand balance perfectly. Give null bears everything they want, including a high sec nerf, because they clearly have a better pretty much the same direction in mind for the game than as those who designed it. See? It's not so difficult to understand after all.

Fixed, and indeed, so your protestations are quite silly in light of this fact, don't you think?
Those who actually engage in the activity, hose who have analysed the issue, and the devs — they are all in agreement. Only those who haven't looked at the problem and those without any experience or insight keep protesting for no coherently articulated reason.

The only question is: if you actually understand balance perfectly, why are you so adamantly opposed to it?

So, Tippia, you seem to know an awful lot about CCP's inner workings, when can we expect to see that POS announcement?

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#673 - 2013-03-09 01:35:32 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Kane Alvo wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Kane Alvo wrote:
Yeah, odd that I understand the very fundamentals and these experienced players don't. Odd indeed.

Except you don't. "Balance" is something I'd consider fundamental, and that's something you clearly don't understand.


Oh, no. I understand balance perfectly. Give null bears everything they want, including a high sec nerf, because they clearly have a better direction for the game than those who designed it. See? It's not so difficult to understand after all.

Roll

It doesn't seem you even understand what we want, so it's a little difficult to take anything you say seriously.

Titans are balanced by cost. All reports to the contrary are by people who don't know as well as those who coded titans.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#674 - 2013-03-09 01:36:22 UTC
Buzzy Warstl wrote:

So, Tippia, you seem to know an awful lot about CCP's inner workings, when can we expect to see that POS announcement?

Do what everyone else does: read the dev blogs.
Kane Alvo
Doomheim
#675 - 2013-03-09 01:41:44 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
It doesn't seem you even understand what we want, so it's a little difficult to take anything you say seriously.


I'm just curious, do you have any of your own thoughts on this topic, or are you just content to be the fat kid trying to fit in at the back of the crowd chanting "YEAH! WHAT SHE SAID!" about everything? Seems to be a common theme with you.

Caldari Militia  ☜★☞ Psychotic Monk for CSM8

Brooks Puuntai
Solar Nexus.
#676 - 2013-03-09 01:50:20 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:


Titans are balanced by cost. All reports to the contrary are by people who don't know as well as those who coded titans.


I doubt those who originally coded titans ever even had a purpose for them. I still believe Titans where a giant troll, an excuse for CCP to make a flying **** and a space turd.

CCP's Motto: If it isn't broken, break it. If it is broken, ignore it. Improving NPE / Dynamic New Eden
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#677 - 2013-03-09 01:53:34 UTC
Kane Alvo wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
It doesn't seem you even understand what we want, so it's a little difficult to take anything you say seriously.


I'm just curious, do you have any of your own thoughts on this topic, or are you just content to be the fat kid trying to fit in at the back of the crowd chanting "YEAH! WHAT SHE SAID!" about everything? Seems to be a common theme with you.

I've posted them several times in various threads. I don't remember if I've posted them specifically in this thread, but I've gotten tired of repeating myself.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#678 - 2013-03-09 03:53:29 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:

So, Tippia, you seem to know an awful lot about CCP's inner workings, when can we expect to see that POS announcement?

Do what everyone else does: read the dev blogs.

Well, you seem to have seen some stuff in those dev blogs that I didn't, so I thought I'd see if you had an inside track.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
Tesal
#679 - 2013-03-09 05:28:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Tesal
Tippia wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:

So, Tippia, you seem to know an awful lot about CCP's inner workings, when can we expect to see that POS announcement?

Do what everyone else does: read the dev blogs.


uhhh....There aren't any teams at CCP doing a POS revamp right now. They are doing ship re-balancing and have a lot of ships to go before they are done. They have SOV mechanics being talked about and they say they aren't happy with *that*, but that isn't what they are working on yet. There are a few things I'm forgetting too that they are working on. Most of the industry stuff wanted as a part of the "null agenda" isn't on the table right now, no teams have been assigned to do that that I know of.

But I'm just a clueless hi-sec resident and don't know the "REAL" agenda of CCP.

CCP Greyscale wrote:

THIS WILL ALL TAKE A LONG-ASS TIME TO HAPPEN. Some of it will be changed or dropped before it ever gets implemented. Some of it will never happen. This is a roadmap, not a production schedule.


They did say that in 2011.

I'm sure they will get around to it SOON®.
Frying Doom
#680 - 2013-03-09 07:22:38 UTC
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:

So, Tippia, you seem to know an awful lot about CCP's inner workings, when can we expect to see that POS announcement?

Do what everyone else does: read the dev blogs.

Well, you seem to have seen some stuff in those dev blogs that I didn't, so I thought I'd see if you had an inside track.

Actually what they were doing in relation to POSs was mentioned as in a thread on Jita Park.

As the thread was started by Two Step as CCP were trying to just leave them unfixed again.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!