These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sariah Kion
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#941 - 2013-03-12 00:18:22 UTC
Tesal wrote:
Antir wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
Antir wrote:
the people who this buff will help are currently making isk just fine

/thread

Yeah, they're doing industry in highsec. No problem at all, end of story.

Might as well give highsec some more of those delicious cheap slots, it only helps the game after all.


Yep there is no need for more conflict drivers in null sec or more people putting assests at risk.


Who will have their assets at high risk under the new industry scheme in null?
Who will have their assets at low risk under the new industry scheme in null?


They do not like to answer the tough questions. Dont expect an answer or reply outside of their usual juvenile asshatery.

[b]Librarian and Exotic Dancer Extraordinaire Champion of the Working Men and Women of Empire Space Anti-Null Sec Opium Den Movement President[/b] Not the woman high sec wants but the Woman high sec needs. [u]A modern girl for a modern world.[/u]
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#942 - 2013-03-12 00:20:41 UTC
Tesal wrote:
Antir wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:
Antir wrote:
the people who this buff will help are currently making isk just fine

/thread

Yeah, they're doing industry in highsec. No problem at all, end of story.

Might as well give highsec some more of those delicious cheap slots, it only helps the game after all.


Yep there is no need for more conflict drivers in null sec or more people putting assests at risk.


Who will have their assets at high risk under the new industry scheme in null?
Who will have their assets at low risk under the new industry scheme in null?

high risk: pos users

medium risk: outpost/conq station users

lowest risk: npc station users
Kane Alvo
Doomheim
#943 - 2013-03-12 00:24:34 UTC
Antir wrote:
Yep there is no need for more conflict drivers in null sec or more people putting assests at risk.


1) Open contacts.
2) Scroll through large list of blue.
3) Remove blue.
4) Congratulations, you just added conflict drivers in null sec.
5) Undock. Assets are now at risk.

Caldari Militia  ☜★☞ Psychotic Monk for CSM8

Antir
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#944 - 2013-03-12 00:26:43 UTC
Kane Alvo wrote:
Antir wrote:
Yep there is no need for more conflict drivers in null sec or more people putting assests at risk.


1) Open contacts.
2) Scroll through large list of blue.
3) Remove blue.
4) Congratulations, you just added conflict drivers in null sec.
5) Undock. Assets are now at risk.


I don't think you understand what a conflict driver is.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#945 - 2013-03-12 00:33:38 UTC
Antir wrote:
Kane Alvo wrote:
Antir wrote:
Yep there is no need for more conflict drivers in null sec or more people putting assests at risk.

1) Open contacts.
2) Scroll through large list of blue.
3) Remove blue.
4) Congratulations, you just added conflict drivers in null sec.
5) Undock. Assets are now at risk.

I don't think you understand what a conflict driver is.

Sorry, but the Commissariat tells me who is blue, it isn't something on my end.

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 ?
Frying Doom
#946 - 2013-03-12 01:17:37 UTC
Kane Alvo wrote:
Antir wrote:
Yep there is no need for more conflict drivers in null sec or more people putting assests at risk.


1) Open contacts.
2) Scroll through large list of blue.
3) Remove blue.
4) Congratulations, you just added conflict drivers in null sec.
5) Undock. Assets are now at risk.

But why would any one do that when the likely losses are greater than the likely profits?

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#947 - 2013-03-12 02:01:12 UTC
EvilweaselSA wrote:

high risk: pos users

medium risk: outpost/conq station users

lowest risk: npc station users


NPC nullsec users face a lot of risk.

As -10 to you, I have been to 2 of your own stations (one of which, with a man-sex related name Shocked) and found nobody.

I have been a lot of times to NPC null stations and often found all sorts of nasties, double bubbles, carriers doing station games and much more.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Tesal
#948 - 2013-03-12 02:12:11 UTC
EvilweaselSA wrote:
Tesal wrote:


Who will have their assets at high risk under the new industry scheme in null?
Who will have their assets at low risk under the new industry scheme in null?

high risk: pos users

medium risk: outpost/conq station users

lowest risk: npc station users


Nice dodge.
Frying Doom
#949 - 2013-03-12 02:19:26 UTC
Tesal wrote:
EvilweaselSA wrote:
Tesal wrote:


Who will have their assets at high risk under the new industry scheme in null?
Who will have their assets at low risk under the new industry scheme in null?

high risk: pos users

medium risk: outpost/conq station users

lowest risk: npc station users


Nice dodge.

Ok I am lost, how is that a dodge. Maybe I just need more coffeeLol

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Coal Porter
Wandering Interstellar Minstrals and Poets
#950 - 2013-03-12 02:28:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Coal Porter
"Should Null industry > High sec industry?"

No of course not. What kind of re..cursive thinker believes that industry in a war zone should be more profitable than industry in a Non-war zone?

Lockhead Martin doesn't, and they have been building stuff for the war machine for quite some time now. They must be morons who don't recognize how Risk vs Reward should work.
Hummer didn't build Hummers in Bosnia, never did, never will till it becomes a peaceful place where employees can commute to work safely because it would be cost prohibitive to provide an armored hummer to each employee just so they could arrive at work alive...and no guarantee even then with land mines and all.

Boeing (bunch of pussy carebears) thinks it would be insane to build an aircraft factory in Afghanistan (null sec). Suppose a regime (SOV) change occurred in the middle of a run of Bombers ( Ok, no one is building dreads or carriers in HS :P ...insert relevant Eve product)...that would be a HUGE loss to a RL (EVE) corporation, even one that size.

There are no tank manufacturers building tanks in war zones...yet think of the shipping costs they would save with all that heavy product...the Retards!!! Oh wait...they sell their products to Military Reps in Safe Land, and the Military hauls their new shineys to the war zone themselves in C5 Galaxies (Jump Freighters) designed especially for that purpose... Just like in EVE.


Someone way way back in this thread mentioned that the Null sec industry whine is based on a false premise.
"Risk should equal Reward" is insane, or everyone would be doing it, and it would not be risky.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#951 - 2013-03-12 02:32:29 UTC
Coal Porter wrote:
"Should Null industry > High sec industry?"

No of course not. What kind of re..cursive thinker believes that industry in a war zone should be more profitable than industry in a Non-war zone?

Lockhead Martin doesn't, and they have been building stuff for the war machine for quite some time now. They must be morons who don't recognize how Risk vs Reward should work.
Hummer didn't build Hummers in Bosnia, never did, never will till it becomes a peaceful place where employees can commute to work safely because it would be cost prohibitive to provide an armored hummer to each employee just so they could arrive at work alive...and no guarantee even then with land mines and all.

Boeing (bunch of ***** carebears) thinks it would be insane to build an aircraft factory in Afghanistan (null sec). Suppose a regime (SOV) change occurred in the middle of a run of Bombers (Dreadnaughts)...that would be a HUGE loss to a RL (EVE) corporation, even one that size.

There are no tank manufacturers building tanks in war zones...yet think of the shipping costs they would save with all that heavy product...the Retards!!! Oh wait...they sell their products to Military Reps in Safe Land, and the Military hauls their new shineys to the war zone themselves in C5 Galaxies (Jump Freighters) designed especially for that purpose... Just like in EVE.


Someone way way back in this thread mentioned that the Null sec industry whine is based on a false premise.
"Risk should equal Reward" is insane, or everyone would be doing it, and it would not be risky.


for the sake of realism, perhaps you should be paying a 35% tax in hisec, without the ability to evade it with a 0% personal corp

since you know it's an infrastructure-heavy protected area

since you love realism i'm sure you'll be behind this idea 100%

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#952 - 2013-03-12 02:35:12 UTC
also realistically if I ran a factory and allowed people to use it i wouldn't let them use it for free or for the equivalent of a few cents to use my equipment for a full month

want me to keep going down the "realism" rabbit hole or are you only going to preach "realism" when it suits you

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Frying Doom
#953 - 2013-03-12 02:36:45 UTC
Coal Porter wrote:
"Should Null industry > High sec industry?"

No of course not. What kind of re..cursive thinker believes that industry in a war zone should be more profitable than industry in a Non-war zone?

Lockhead Martin doesn't, and they have been building stuff for the war machine for quite some time now. They must be morons who don't recognize how Risk vs Reward should work.
Hummer didn't build Hummers in Bosnia, never did, never will till it becomes a peaceful place where employees can commute to work safely because it would be cost prohibitive to provide an armored hummer to each employee just so they could arrive at work alive...and no guarantee even then with land mines and all.

Boeing (bunch of ***** carebears) thinks it would be insane to build an aircraft factory in Afghanistan (null sec). Suppose a regime (SOV) change occurred in the middle of a run of Bombers ( Ok, no one is building dreads or carriers in HS :P ...insert relevant Eve product)...that would be a HUGE loss to a RL (EVE) corporation, even one that size.

There are no tank manufacturers building tanks in war zones...yet think of the shipping costs they would save with all that heavy product...the Retards!!! Oh wait...they sell their products to Military Reps in Safe Land, and the Military hauls their new shineys to the war zone themselves in C5 Galaxies (Jump Freighters) designed especially for that purpose... Just like in EVE.


Someone way way back in this thread mentioned that the Null sec industry whine is based on a false premise.
"Risk should equal Reward" is insane, or everyone would be doing it, and it would not be risky.

Just out of curiosity have you heard the term "War profiteering"?

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Coal Porter
Wandering Interstellar Minstrals and Poets
#954 - 2013-03-12 02:40:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Coal Porter
Andski wrote:
Coal Porter wrote:
"Should Null industry > High sec industry?"

No of course not. What kind of re..cursive thinker believes that industry in a war zone should be more profitable than industry in a Non-war zone?

Lockhead Martin doesn't, and they have been building stuff for the war machine for quite some time now. They must be morons who don't recognize how Risk vs Reward should work.
Hummer didn't build Hummers in Bosnia, never did, never will till it becomes a peaceful place where employees can commute to work safely because it would be cost prohibitive to provide an armored hummer to each employee just so they could arrive at work alive...and no guarantee even then with land mines and all.

Boeing (bunch of ***** carebears) thinks it would be insane to build an aircraft factory in Afghanistan (null sec). Suppose a regime (SOV) change occurred in the middle of a run of Bombers (Dreadnaughts)...that would be a HUGE loss to a RL (EVE) corporation, even one that size.

There are no tank manufacturers building tanks in war zones...yet think of the shipping costs they would save with all that heavy product...the Retards!!! Oh wait...they sell their products to Military Reps in Safe Land, and the Military hauls their new shineys to the war zone themselves in C5 Galaxies (Jump Freighters) designed especially for that purpose... Just like in EVE.


Someone way way back in this thread mentioned that the Null sec industry whine is based on a false premise.
"Risk should equal Reward" is insane, or everyone would be doing it, and it would not be risky.


for the sake of realism, perhaps you should be paying a 35% tax in hisec, without the ability to evade it with a 0% personal corp

since you know it's an infrastructure-heavy protected area

since you love realism i'm sure you'll be behind this idea 100%



That is actually a great point...conceeded. Perhaps HS industry in NPC stations should have a tax. Or use a POS in HS and risk wardecs to build tax free. Agreed that tax free industry with police protection is pretty ridiculous. One could make the argument that RL corps dodge much of their tax by building/registering in low tax "systems"...but they still outsource to Peaceful areas...not war zones.

re: rabbit hole...happy to go down it with you. I'd also like to see bullets and missles NOT go through rocks and structures to their targets. I'd be happy to have to scan down belts every day because they Orbit suns and don't stay in fixed positions...bring it.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#955 - 2013-03-12 02:50:04 UTC
Andski wrote:
also realistically if I ran a factory and allowed people to use it i wouldn't let them use it for free or for the equivalent of a few cents to use my equipment for a full month

want me to keep going down the "realism" rabbit hole or are you only going to preach "realism" when it suits you

This is not part of the approved highsec reality. Please wait while CONCORD collects you for re-education about the joys of being a highsec dweller under their protection.

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 ?
Tesal
#956 - 2013-03-12 03:35:24 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Tesal wrote:
EvilweaselSA wrote:
Tesal wrote:


Who will have their assets at high risk under the new industry scheme in null?
Who will have their assets at low risk under the new industry scheme in null?

high risk: pos users

medium risk: outpost/conq station users

lowest risk: npc station users


Nice dodge.

Ok I am lost, how is that a dodge. Maybe I just need more coffeeLol


The answer is small alliances will have high risk for their assets.
The big guys will have low risk.
Frying Doom
#957 - 2013-03-12 03:42:22 UTC
Tesal wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Tesal wrote:
EvilweaselSA wrote:
Tesal wrote:


Who will have their assets at high risk under the new industry scheme in null?
Who will have their assets at low risk under the new industry scheme in null?

high risk: pos users

medium risk: outpost/conq station users

lowest risk: npc station users


Nice dodge.

Ok I am lost, how is that a dodge. Maybe I just need more coffeeLol


The answer is small alliances will have high risk for their assets.
The big guys will have low risk.

oh you mean sov holding alliances

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#958 - 2013-03-12 04:08:14 UTC
Tesal wrote:
The answer is small alliances will have high risk for their assets.
The big guys will have low risk.


how so

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#959 - 2013-03-12 04:49:19 UTC
Andski wrote:
Tesal wrote:
The answer is small alliances will have high risk for their assets.
The big guys will have low risk.

how so

Because we work together. We shouldn't do this.

Ban intel channels, nerf local. Ban Jabber too while you're at it.

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 ?
Lapine Davion
Outer Ring Applied Logistics
#960 - 2013-03-12 06:10:44 UTC
Tesal wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Tesal wrote:
EvilweaselSA wrote:
Tesal wrote:


Who will have their assets at high risk under the new industry scheme in null?
Who will have their assets at low risk under the new industry scheme in null?

high risk: pos users

medium risk: outpost/conq station users

lowest risk: npc station users


Nice dodge.

Ok I am lost, how is that a dodge. Maybe I just need more coffeeLol


The answer is small alliances will have high risk for their assets.
The big guys will have low risk.


So basically it is a dodge if he doesn't give you the answer you're looking for?

[b]Don't worry about posting with your main!  Post with your brain! "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."[/b]