These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1141 - 2013-04-10 18:26:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Stop with the "of empire" that's the flaw.
Not really, no, since it shows the scale of the problem and since it points to the fact that it's a double-sided problem: the overabundance of highsec slots is just as much of a problem as the lack of nullsec slots.

Quote:
Just say "null needs more slots". That's all you need.
Actually, it's not. Null also needs to be made relatively cheaper compared to high. Unfortunately, since high is free, and you can't make it cheaper than free, it means that high needs to be more expensive.



That implies you do not wish to be autonomous from highsec, but in direct competition.

That would be accomplished by hey, I know, stop transporting **** to sell in empire and create your own market. But that did not work did it?

Because people will do whatever they want, regardless of what you want, or think is best.

If you have people using ALL sectors of space, that's not going to be a very good platform to argue or petition to CCP to say they need to be split up.

CCP LIKES the conflict, they WANT the competition.

You only feed fuel to the fire in continuing down the same path.

Also it only shows that something is not truly in a player's control, or rather, lack the ability to control it when almost virtually everything else can be controlled.

Otherwise there is nothing wrong with someone from nullsec using highsec to make a profit. Trade hubs are not a broken mechanic, unless you are trying to say otherwise.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1142 - 2013-04-10 18:28:52 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:


Ride your pony and forget the whistle.


Too bad you got it back wards. High Sec has a pony, null sec has a whistle the pony swallowed and the we just not got back because the pony had a good BM after eating Mexican food last night. No the whistle (which is, oh, about 3% of a pony) is all crappy.

Also the high sec pony has 6 legs and breathes fire. We just want some epic pony action in null.



Nullsec are the ones who consider themselves lords. Highsec denizens have to "work for the man" in regards to rules and laws and such.

I realize it may have been lost on you, and that's fine. It's not an argumentative point. You don't need to understand.

It's just really hard to convince someone "i'm only using this because not only is it the best thing to use for my gains, it's broken".

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#1143 - 2013-04-10 18:36:24 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:


Ride your pony and forget the whistle.


Too bad you got it back wards. High Sec has a pony, null sec has a whistle the pony swallowed and the we just not got back because the pony had a good BM after eating Mexican food last night. No the whistle (which is, oh, about 3% of a pony) is all crappy.

Also the high sec pony has 6 legs and breathes fire. We just want some epic pony action in null.



Nullsec are the ones who consider themselves lords. Highsec denizens have to "work for the man" in regards to rules and laws and such.

I realize it may have been lost on you, and that's fine. It's not an argumentative point. You don't need to understand.

It's just really hard to convince someone "i'm only using this because not only is it the best thing to use for my gains, it's broken".


Lost on me lol.

The fact is you're wrong, and you're wrong because you fundamentally can't understand an argument that doesn't fit into your black and white nonsense world. This is the reason why you constantly find yourself arguing with a half a dozen people in every single thread you post in. Instead of the eternal circle jerk "discussion" you participate in, has it ever crossed your mind to try to understand why others think what they do (and why so many people oppose what you post time and time again)?

I'm betting the answer is no.

You are not some oracle of wisdom the rest of us "just can't get", you're a flawed thinker defending flawed logic. CCP has already said they are going to take a look at null industry, so you should just prepare yourself for it now.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1144 - 2013-04-10 18:38:47 UTC
Tau Cabalander wrote:
Does anybody really expect change?

The Mittani wrote:
Ignore Industrialists: In an alliance or corporation, industrialists are completely irrelevant and should never be allowed a voice in anything.

Sins of a Solar Spymaster #88: Mittani's Maxims – On Management


The funny part is that we have an industrial team, but their focus is exclusively on supercapital production, which we've nationalized to an extent. He is right, in any case - an industrial advantage has never been decisive in any conflict in 0.0.

baltec1 wrote:
Look at the date.


It isn't an April Fools' joke if that's what you're thinking.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Dave Stark
#1145 - 2013-04-10 18:56:40 UTC
Andski wrote:
It isn't an April Fools' joke if that's what you're thinking.


good to know, because i quite liked that article.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1146 - 2013-04-10 19:30:48 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:


Ride your pony and forget the whistle.


Too bad you got it back wards. High Sec has a pony, null sec has a whistle the pony swallowed and the we just not got back because the pony had a good BM after eating Mexican food last night. No the whistle (which is, oh, about 3% of a pony) is all crappy.

Also the high sec pony has 6 legs and breathes fire. We just want some epic pony action in null.



Nullsec are the ones who consider themselves lords. Highsec denizens have to "work for the man" in regards to rules and laws and such.

I realize it may have been lost on you, and that's fine. It's not an argumentative point. You don't need to understand.

It's just really hard to convince someone "i'm only using this because not only is it the best thing to use for my gains, it's broken".


Lost on me lol.

The fact is you're wrong, and you're wrong because you fundamentally can't understand an argument that doesn't fit into your black and white nonsense world. This is the reason why you constantly find yourself arguing with a half a dozen people in every single thread you post in. Instead of the eternal circle jerk "discussion" you participate in, has it ever crossed your mind to try to understand why others think what they do (and why so many people oppose what you post time and time again)?

I'm betting the answer is no.

You are not some oracle of wisdom the rest of us "just can't get", you're a flawed thinker defending flawed logic. CCP has already said they are going to take a look at null industry, so you should just prepare yourself for it now.




I am ok with null getting more slots. I don't understand why that's so wrong.

Telling someone you use highsec because it's more profitable for you, but you don't want to because its unfair that highsec has a better market than null is, well, ********.

Sorry you feel that way.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1147 - 2013-04-10 20:06:49 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
I am ok with null getting more slots. I don't understand why that's so wrong.

Telling someone you use highsec because it's more profitable for you, but you don't want to because its unfair that highsec has a better market than null is, well, ********.

Sorry you feel that way.


Here's what you're missing:

Even if you give null all of the industrial capability of highsec tomorrow - all of the build and research slots and refining capability, you know what you have? Highsec but with way more risk due to it being null. There would still be no reason at all to build ANYTHING short of supers in null.

That's the problem. Not just that nullsec is miles short of being capable of building for itself, but that highsec is literally perfect. Tons of slots of all kinds that are basically free to use, easy access to trade hubs, and CONCORD protection to boot. That can't be beaten, and nullsec, in theory, should be able to beat it due to the whole risk->reward thing.

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1148 - 2013-04-10 20:24:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Snow Axe wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
I am ok with null getting more slots. I don't understand why that's so wrong.

Telling someone you use highsec because it's more profitable for you, but you don't want to because its unfair that highsec has a better market than null is, well, ********.

Sorry you feel that way.


Here's what you're missing:

Even if you give null all of the industrial capability of highsec tomorrow - all of the build and research slots and refining capability, you know what you have? Highsec but with way more risk due to it being null. There would still be no reason at all to build ANYTHING short of supers in null.

That's the problem. Not just that nullsec is miles short of being capable of building for itself, but that highsec is literally perfect. Tons of slots of all kinds that are basically free to use, easy access to trade hubs, and CONCORD protection to boot. That can't be beaten, and nullsec, in theory, should be able to beat it due to the whole risk->reward thing.



Poor highsec. Poor Empire.

Damn those industrial superstars and market gurus ruining everyone else's fun.

Not only do you want the ability to make anything like highsec, you want to TAKE away their ability.

Stupid whistles and ponies.

Makes you wonder why you left highsec at all.

Wish also that "risk vs reward" wasn't a security blanket kneejerk reaction either though.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Ai Shun
#1149 - 2013-04-10 20:42:09 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
That's the problem. Not just that nullsec is miles short of being capable of building for itself, but that highsec is literally perfect. Tons of slots of all kinds that are basically free to use, easy access to trade hubs, and CONCORD protection to boot. That can't be beaten, and nullsec, in theory, should be able to beat it due to the whole risk->reward thing.


Let's assume the number of slots are the same. (Hypothetical) Would you expect a lawless area that is war-torn, with a low population and no taxes to have better industrial capacity than a tax stable, consumer rich and safe area? I wouldn't. I see the old West. I see claim jumpers, piles of rare resources that can be exploited if it can be defended. But the infrastructure, both planetary and in-space, does not exist there yet.

Now what would be awesome is if Sov is held for a period of time and area is stable and secure it could attract colonists and become more stable and grow (Perhaps even increasing it's security status Shocked) until it has the same capability as a secured, stable sector of space.

And wouldn't it be more awesome if that opened up further frontiers, more resources and more to do?
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1150 - 2013-04-10 20:44:12 UTC
Like encouraged a wormhole area to become "known" and developed into sov null.

Growth growth growth.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Caldari Citizen 1897289768188
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#1151 - 2013-04-10 20:51:37 UTC
Primary Me wrote:
There have been a couple of very good threads recently discussing the balance of industry between hisec and nullsec, with some excellent debate and copious amounts of data and examples supporting either side of the argument.

A factor or question that has come up a number of times, but then lost in the depths of economic arguments, is whether nullsec should be on par or better than hisec for industry, which, thinking about it, is a question that needs to be answered first, before discussing any balancing that might need to be done.

So here we go, should nullsec industry be the equal or better than hisec or is the open, risk free hisec industrial machine necessary to keep the forges of Eve burning? Is it simply risk v reward, or more complex than that?

Null indy should be < than hi-sec. Null needs to keep its symbiotic relation with hi-sec
Dave Stark
#1152 - 2013-04-10 21:02:40 UTC
Caldari Citizen 1897289768188 wrote:
Primary Me wrote:
There have been a couple of very good threads recently discussing the balance of industry between hisec and nullsec, with some excellent debate and copious amounts of data and examples supporting either side of the argument.

A factor or question that has come up a number of times, but then lost in the depths of economic arguments, is whether nullsec should be on par or better than hisec for industry, which, thinking about it, is a question that needs to be answered first, before discussing any balancing that might need to be done.

So here we go, should nullsec industry be the equal or better than hisec or is the open, risk free hisec industrial machine necessary to keep the forges of Eve burning? Is it simply risk v reward, or more complex than that?

Null indy should be < than hi-sec. Null needs to keep its symbiotic relation with hi-sec


it will.

minerals.
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1153 - 2013-04-10 21:03:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Snow Axe
Murk Paradox wrote:
Poor highsec. Poor Empire.

Damn those industrial superstars and market gurus ruining everyone else's fun..


So now you've reached that "troll or ********" stage. Congratulations, that's pretty much endgame for highsec posters in this thread!

Ai Shun wrote:
Let's assume the number of slots are the same. (Hypothetical) Would you expect a lawless area that is war-torn, with a low population and no taxes to have better industrial capacity than a tax stable, consumer rich and safe area? I wouldn't. I see the old West. I see claim jumpers, piles of rare resources that can be exploited if it can be defended. But the infrastructure, both planetary and in-space, does not exist there yet.


And there's the RL comparisons, right on time. If you like RL comparisons, consider the following:

1. Why is the Wild West no longer the Wild West?

2. Is there a single nation or entity in the entire world that would build infrastructure, provide policing of space, military defense of said infrrastructure, and just let any bozo that felt like it use it for free?

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1154 - 2013-04-10 21:12:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Murk Paradox wrote:
Poor highsec. Poor Empire.
So you fully agree with his point, then seeing as how you couldn't address or counter any of them.

Quote:
That implies you do not wish to be autonomous from highsec, but in direct competition.

That would be accomplished by hey, I know, stop transporting **** to sell in empire and create your own market. But that did not work did it?
It did not (and does not) work because the game mechanics don't allow it to be accomplished that way.

Quote:
CCP LIKES the conflict, they WANT the competition.
Exactly. Which is why high needs to be nerfed in order to create a margin for the other parts of space to operate within.

Ai Shun wrote:
Let's assume the number of slots are the same. (Hypothetical) Would you expect a lawless area that is war-torn, with a low population and no taxes to have better industrial capacity than a tax stable, consumer rich and safe area?
I would expect that real-world arguments are irrelevant and that player-controlled space should offer more freedom to the players than NPC controlled space. I also expect that the different areas in the game would be balanced in terms of effort and reward.

Caldari Citizen 1897289768188 wrote:
Null indy should be < than hi-sec. Null needs to keep its symbiotic relation with hi-sec
Good news: that relationship is inherent in the way industry works, and has nothing to do with the production capacity and capability of the two regions. Null industry could be >>>…>>>> high without changing the symbiosis in the slightest.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1155 - 2013-04-10 21:26:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
Poor highsec. Poor Empire.
So you fully agree with his point, then seeing as how you couldn't address or counter any of them.

I agree that it's HIS point. Not with it though. He wants what the other person has for no other reason than he doesn't have it even though he can go get it if he wanted.

Quote:
That implies you do not wish to be autonomous from highsec, but in direct competition.

That would be accomplished by hey, I know, stop transporting **** to sell in empire and create your own market. But that did not work did it?
It did not (and does not) work because the game mechanics don't allow it to be accomplished that way.[/quote]

So it's important to reinvent the wheel instead of doing something you think you already know and have been doing. Got it.

Quote:
CCP LIKES the conflict, they WANT the competition.
Exactly. Which is why high needs to be nerfed in order to create a margin for the other parts of space to operate within.
[/quote]


There already is a margin.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1156 - 2013-04-10 21:32:57 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
I agree that it's HIS point. Not with it though.
…but you can't find any fault with it or argument against it.

Quote:
So it's important to reinvent the wheel instead of doing something you think you already know and have been doing.
Nope. No reinvention necessary. The wheel just have to be balanced, which is actually a fairly simple thing to do.

Quote:
There already is a margin.
Nope. Or well… yes, there is a margin. That margin is 0. It's not big enough to fit the other regions of space in and give them advantages to counter the advantages of highsec.

Therefore, there needs to be a non-zero margin for the other parts of space to operate within.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1157 - 2013-04-10 21:35:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Snow Axe wrote:
[quote=Murk Paradox]Poor highsec. Poor Empire.

Damn those industrial superstars and market gurus ruining everyone else's fun..

So now you've reached that "troll or ********" stage. Congratulations, that's pretty much endgame for highsec posters in this thread!


How cute, a goon respecting his own. Atleast you didn't call me a highsec publord I suppose.

But let's not take things personally shall we? That would be too easy.

If you want what highsec has, go do it. Oh wait, you do.

You think its ok to use highsec for your own gains, attack highsec whenever you feel like, do whatever you want (and deal with the consequences) and troll and have as much fun as you can possibly have....

And you can! That's Eve.

But now the "real talk" is happening you want to react in a pouting sort of way because you want what the other person has, but you want it all to yourself.

Guess it's ok to be a bully on your terms isn't it?

Beyond that you are going to do whatever everyone has been and will be doing; run logistics and import your stuff.

While you can grow your own vegetables, your little fruitstand is not the produce section of a grocery store.

It just isn't.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#1158 - 2013-04-10 21:38:19 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
I agree that it's HIS point. Not with it though.
…but you can't find any fault with it or argument against it.

Quote:
So it's important to reinvent the wheel instead of doing something you think you already know and have been doing.
Nope. No reinvention necessary. The wheel just have to be balanced, which is actually a fairly simple thing to do.

Quote:
There already is a margin.
Nope. Or well… yes, there is a margin. That margin is 0. It's not big enough to fit the other regions of space in and give them advantages to counter the advantages of highsec.

Therefore, there needs to be a non-zero margin for the other parts of space to operate within.



Don't start with 0 risk is still risk again.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1159 - 2013-04-10 22:37:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Snow Axe
Murk Paradox wrote:
[While you can grow your own vegetables, your little fruitstand is not the produce section of a grocery store.

It just isn't.


Exactly the problem. With the current game mechanics, null simply cannot ever progress beyond fruitstand. It's got nothing to do with cunning, guile, ambition or even isk. The mechanics simply do not allow it. This means CCP are telling people they should spend trillions invading, developing and defending null space so they can have little more than a fruit stand when the highsec supermarket is open for business and free to use.

If you don't see a problem with that, then we're right back to the "trolling or ********" part.

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["
Ai Shun
#1160 - 2013-04-10 22:57:24 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Ai Shun wrote:
Let's assume the number of slots are the same. (Hypothetical) Would you expect a lawless area that is war-torn, with a low population and no taxes to have better industrial capacity than a tax stable, consumer rich and safe area?
I would expect that real-world arguments are irrelevant and that player-controlled space should offer more freedom to the players than NPC controlled space. I also expect that the different areas in the game would be balanced in terms of effort and reward.


A shame that neither yourself nor Snowaxe read a bit further. Ah well. Carry on Tippia, carry on.