These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CSM7 Summit Topic: Null Sec

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#201 - 2012-05-27 05:19:52 UTC
if you can't beat 'em, try to get ccp to arbitrarily fine 'em
it worked so well with Dominion

there's these things called 'coalitions' now hth
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#202 - 2012-05-27 08:29:09 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Are you saying the allies ect.. get to see each other and chat and the neuts and reds gain no info from local but neither do the sov holders gain info on the neuts and reds.

Nope, I am not.

Frying Doom wrote:
Or that the sov holders should get free info on the reds and neuts and the enemy forces get nothing. Which just makes life harder for the attackers and life easier for sov holders.

Yes, I am.

It'd be called "an incentive for owning SOV".

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

RIP Vile Rat
Frying Doom
#203 - 2012-05-27 09:06:48 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Are you saying the allies ect.. get to see each other and chat and the neuts and reds gain no info from local but neither do the sov holders gain info on the neuts and reds.

Nope, I am not.

Frying Doom wrote:
Or that the sov holders should get free info on the reds and neuts and the enemy forces get nothing. Which just makes life harder for the attackers and life easier for sov holders.

Yes, I am.

It'd be called "an incentive for owning SOV".

So you are proposing an even greater snooze feast giving people even less reason to move too Null.

So same old same old you just want an even cozier life in Null sec, sounds like a great way to get more people into Null.

Yawn

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#204 - 2012-05-27 09:13:57 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
So you are proposing an even greater snooze feast giving people even less reason to move too Null.

Nope, quite the opposite. War is what makes null great, which is what I'd like to see buffed. If I wanted to slam my nuts in the door I'd move to WHs, at least there I'd get a reward for taking the extra risk.

But since I've said that, you're going to keep taking the opposing side, aren't you?

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

RIP Vile Rat
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#205 - 2012-05-27 09:31:53 UTC
Whatever issues has got nullsec, they must be fixed without fukking hisec. Taking from John to give to Jack is the WRONG way to fix Jack's issues even if Jack wasn't griefing John as he actually does.

Not a popular thought out there in Reykjavik, though. Roll
Frying Doom
#206 - 2012-05-27 09:54:57 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
So you are proposing an even greater snooze feast giving people even less reason to move too Null.

Nope, quite the opposite. War is what makes null great, which is what I'd like to see buffed. If I wanted to slam my nuts in the door I'd move to WHs, at least there I'd get a reward for taking the extra risk.

But since I've said that, you're going to keep taking the opposing side, aren't you?

I would enquire how making things harder for an attacking force would increase the possibility of you being attacked?

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#207 - 2012-05-27 09:58:11 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
I would enquire how making things harder for an attacking force would increase the possibility of you being attacked?

I guess you haven't actually been in a serious fight over sovereignty.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Frying Doom
#208 - 2012-05-27 10:12:18 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
I would enquire how making things harder for an attacking force would increase the possibility of you being attacked?

I guess you haven't actually been in a serious fight over sovereignty.

So your talking about the same old people fighting the same old people.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#209 - 2012-05-27 10:27:22 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
I would enquire how making things harder for an attacking force would increase the possibility of you being attacked?

I guess you haven't actually been in a serious fight over sovereignty.

So your talking about the same old people fighting the same old people.

Nice non sequitur. I guess that translates into "no, I haven't been in a serious fight over sovereignty".

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

RIP Vile Rat
Frying Doom
#210 - 2012-05-27 10:33:28 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
I would enquire how making things harder for an attacking force would increase the possibility of you being attacked?

I guess you haven't actually been in a serious fight over sovereignty.

So your talking about the same old people fighting the same old people.

Nice non sequitur. I guess that translates into "no, I haven't been in a serious fight over sovereignty".

No I haven't and frankly why would I bother. Like so many people in EvE believe now the whole system stinks, you are proposing to make it even harder on attackers, even though a small alliance trying to strike out into Sov space is currently a rarity (Im not talking about pets or renters). If you make it harder like you propose you might as well just give the large alliances a big pile of isk and shut Null down as It will really have no point at all. Not that it has much of one now.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#211 - 2012-05-27 10:37:52 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
No I haven't and frankly why would I bother. Like so many people in EvE believe now the whole system stinks, you are proposing to make it even harder on attackers, even though a small alliance trying to strike out into Sov space is currently a rarity (Im not talking about pets or renters). If you make it harder like you propose you might as well just give the large alliances a big pile of isk and shut Null down as It will really have no point at all. Not that it has much of one now.

Let me help you, since you're talking about something you don't know anything about: this change doesn't make it any harder to contest sovereignty.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Frying Doom
#212 - 2012-05-27 10:40:00 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
No I haven't and frankly why would I bother. Like so many people in EvE believe now the whole system stinks, you are proposing to make it even harder on attackers, even though a small alliance trying to strike out into Sov space is currently a rarity (Im not talking about pets or renters). If you make it harder like you propose you might as well just give the large alliances a big pile of isk and shut Null down as It will really have no point at all. Not that it has much of one now.

Let me help you, since you're talking about something you don't know anything about: this change doesn't make it any harder to contest sovereignty.

No it wouldn't, but it would make Null more lively and less carebear.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#213 - 2012-05-27 10:41:53 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
No it wouldn't, but it would make Null more lively and less carebear.

Let me help you, since you're talking about something you don't know anything about: this change won't make null more lively.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Frying Doom
#214 - 2012-05-27 10:52:23 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
No it wouldn't, but it would make Null more lively and less carebear.

Let me help you, since you're talking about something you don't know anything about: this change won't make null more lively.

All I have seen here and in general chat is your ability to argue to make your life easier and more profitable. Your only care seems to be keeping your Null sec carebear ways and to hell with everything else.

So you dont want anything to change except the ability for sov to change hands easier.

So maybe there needs to More null sec, some for carebears like yourself and some for people who want an exciting area but dont want to go all the way into the WH logistics bit.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#215 - 2012-05-27 11:16:09 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
All I have seen here and in general chat is your ability to argue to make your life easier and more profitable.

This is false.

Frying Doom wrote:
Your only care seems to be keeping your Null sec carebear ways and to hell with everything else.

As is this.

Frying Doom wrote:
So you dont want anything to change except the ability for sov to change hands easier.

That's not the only change, no, but it's the main change. Any other changes I would want made to nullsec would mostly revolve around actual warfare, the only exception to this would be a better POS system (in the works) and generally better manufacturing/etc capabilities to make nullsec less dependent on hisec.

Frying Doom wrote:
So maybe there needs to More null sec, some for carebears like yourself and some for people who want an exciting area but dont want to go all the way into the WH logistics bit.

Listen, sonny, I've lost more ships in my eve lifetime in nullsec than you've bought during yours. I've probably even built more ships than you've bought.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Frying Doom
#216 - 2012-05-27 11:29:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
So you dont want anything to change except the ability for sov to change hands easier.

That's not the only change, no, but it's the main change. Any other changes I would want made to nullsec would mostly revolve around actual warfare, the only exception to this would be a better POS system (in the works) and generally better manufacturing/etc capabilities to make nullsec less dependent on hisec.

So things to make life easier for you in Null. Im not arguing against a better POS system or manufacturing abilities, but as I said you are just arguing for an easier ride.

Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
So maybe there needs to More null sec, some for carebears like yourself and some for people who want an exciting area but dont want to go all the way into the WH logistics bit.

Listen, sonny, I've lost more ships in my eve lifetime in nullsec than you've bought during yours. I've probably even built more ships than you've bought.

Ok I will admit I only have 3,166 at this point after selling alot and may own every BPO from BC down but presumably your going to argue that you are the reason the majority of ships are on the EvE market. Even though you say you spend so much time in null and PvP alot and fight in Sov battles and everything else you have claimed.

As to the Sonny I apologize, I was not aware I was arguing with someone past mandatory retirement age.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#217 - 2012-05-27 11:42:33 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
So things to make life easier for you in Null. Im not arguing against a better POS system or manufacturing abilities, but as I said you are just arguing for an easier ride.

I'm sure that in your head, "manufacturing locally" instead of "go to jita, buy stuff, haul to deklein" and "a deeper wealth of tactical options in PVP" both constitutes "an easier ride". vOv

Frying Doom wrote:
Ok I will admit I only have 3,166 at this point after selling alot and may own every BPO from BC down but presumably your going to argue that you are the reason the majority of ships are on the EvE market.

Again, nice non sequitur.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Frying Doom
#218 - 2012-05-27 12:14:44 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
So things to make life easier for you in Null. Im not arguing against a better POS system or manufacturing abilities, but as I said you are just arguing for an easier ride.

I'm sure that in your head, "manufacturing locally" instead of "go to jita, buy stuff, haul to deklein" and "a deeper wealth of tactical options in PVP" both constitutes "an easier ride". vOv

What?

Lord Zim wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Ok I will admit I only have 3,166 at this point after selling alot and may own every BPO from BC down but presumably your going to argue that you are the reason the majority of ships are on the EvE market.

Again, nice non sequitur.

You said "Listen, sonny, I've lost more ships in my eve lifetime in nullsec than you've bought during yours. I've probably even built more ships than you've bought." I was merely pointing out relevant stats, hardly a non sequitur but always good to see you have no valid points to argue.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#219 - 2012-05-27 12:16:34 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
You said "Listen, sonny, I've lost more ships in my eve lifetime in nullsec than you've bought during yours. I've probably even built more ships than you've bought." I was merely pointing out relevant stats, hardly a non sequitur but always good to see you have no valid points to argue.

This is the non sequitur:
Frying Doom wrote:
but presumably your going to argue that you are the reason the majority of ships are on the EvE market.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Frying Doom
#220 - 2012-05-27 13:59:00 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:

This is the non sequitur:
Frying Doom wrote:
but presumably your going to argue that you are the reason the majority of ships are on the EvE market.

I would have used the phrase "Thinly veiled contempt"

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