These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#201 - 2013-01-05 19:38:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Malcanis wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:


With all the zillions some alliances have pouring off their asses they could afford paying people to act as player "Concord" and enforce neutrality in *one* system, that would quickly become a safe haven island. Coupled with CCP buffing null industry, that system would become an alternate true Jita. There are a lot of people including me who couldn't wait to ferry their goods over there, if they knew they'd not get insta-popped just for *thinking* cynoing in there.


That sounds like a huge effort and expenditure for a very uncertain reward.

That uncertainty would be compounded by allowing people to light cynos whenever they felt like it... and once again, 0.0 would be paying to compete with a service that hi-sec gets for free.


1) I know it's an huge effort. So? Are you there to do the never dared before and create a real empire? That is something never done before (assuming CCP will also buff industry etc. etc. in the meanwhile). Something bold, that is the first completely player driven and wanted totally sandbox civilization, in a pure PvP location with no "safety" rules at all?
Maybe I am too optimistic and enthusiastic about it, but *that* would be worth and would be remembered through the years.


2) "Service that hi sec gets for free" is only true thinking in *today* terms. Since in order to even start believing at doing the whole project, CCP needs first to do what's needed (no need to repeat it), then the deal will be way more "equal".
If they will do the buffs then you won't HAVE to import anything special from hi sec, actually you'll have stuff that hi sec WILL have to import from you.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#202 - 2013-01-05 19:42:07 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:

Quote:
What do you want to avoid it? To get some WoW forced neutral town handed to you?
Allowing manufacturing and retail economies to thrive by buffing null industry, and making incentives not to outsource industry to highsec would have the benefits of running NRDS actually materialize. You have literally fought every step of this, ironically making you the the perfect pro-NBSI lobbyist.


Hey, go ahead and look at the now locked 101 pages thread. Now look at how many times I have said I agree 75% with the null sec improvements.

75% agreeing with you certainly makes me the oh-most-strenuous opponent of that!

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#203 - 2013-01-05 19:42:29 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
So you don't think people trying to travel through null to check out and gets blown up to bits because they "might" be a spy has no reason why people avoid null?

That's correct, I don't. Look at how many chars are in nullsec alliances, look at how many are active on a day to day basis. Why do you think almost none of those chars are actually logged in and active?

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

RIP Vile Rat
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#204 - 2013-01-05 19:46:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
So you don't think people trying to travel through null to check out and gets blown up to bits because they "might" be a spy has no reason why people avoid null?

That's correct, I don't. Look at how many chars are in nullsec alliances, look at how many are active on a day to day basis. Why do you think almost none of those chars are actually logged in and active?



Are you asking in a kneejerk way or seriously asking? Because you're saying that it's correct to assume the reason people don't go into null is because they get blown up.

Why would someone want to risk to manufacture? That's insane. I think you're forgetting the people who want to be in null want it because of the combat. Then that gets pacified, so they get into splinter groups to specialize in something different, or head off into politics and lead a corp, an alliance, sit on a coalition board. List goes on.

If you tell me that in order to get to X trade hub I have to go through your system and risk getting blown up to make a N% more on my haul, I'll take the less risky more stable transport profits at a potential loss. Easily.

Again, getting blown up is 0 profit.

Now, you tell me you will set your system to NRDS and set me neutral and enforce a safe passage, and deliver my goods to your corp at a profit? Be there in X jumps sir!

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.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#205 - 2013-01-05 19:47:34 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:


With all the zillions some alliances have pouring off their asses they could afford paying people to act as player "Concord" and enforce neutrality in *one* system, that would quickly become a safe haven island. Coupled with CCP buffing null industry, that system would become an alternate true Jita. There are a lot of people including me who couldn't wait to ferry their goods over there, if they knew they'd not get insta-popped just for *thinking* cynoing in there.


That sounds like a huge effort and expenditure for a very uncertain reward.

That uncertainty would be compounded by allowing people to light cynos whenever they felt like it... and once again, 0.0 would be paying to compete with a service that hi-sec gets for free.


1) I know it's an huge effort. So? Are you there to do the never dared before and create a real empire? That is something never done before (assuming CCP will also buff industry etc. etc. in the meanwhile). Something bold, that is the first completely player driven and wanted totally sandbox civilization, in a pure PvP location with no "safety" rules at all?
Maybe I am too optimistic and enthusiastic about it, but *that* would be worth and would be remembered through the years.


2) "Service that hi sec gets for free" is only true thinking in *today* terms. Since in order to even start believing at doing the whole project, CCP needs first to do what's needed (no need to repeat it), then the deal will be way more "equal".
If they will do the buffs then you won't HAVE to import anything special from hi sec, actually you'll have stuff that hi sec WILL have to import from you.


What?

I'm not even going try try and parse that one out. I'm just going to quote it so that when you come down from whatever you're on you can have a good laugh with the rest of us.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#206 - 2013-01-05 19:48:10 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
1) I know it's an huge effort. So? Are you there to do the never dared before and create a read empire? That is something never done before (assuming CCP will also buff industry etc. etc. in the meanwhile). Something bold, that is the first completely player driven and wanted totally sandbox civilization, in a pure PvP location with no "safety" rules at all?
Maybe I am too optimistic and enthusiastic about it, but *that* would be worth and would be remembered through the years.

Except CVA has done this. How many people run around there to take advantage of this, and how many of the people who live in CVA space treat it as NBSI anyways, regardless of whether or not it's "NRDS"?


Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
2) "Service that hi sec gets for free" is only true thinking in *today* terms. Since in order to even start believing at doing the whole project, CCP needs first to do what's needed (no need to repeat it), then the deal will be way more "equal".

Except we'll still be looking at maelstroms costing 2k to make, which means we're looking at a manufacturing cost of 0.00095% of the finished product.

If they'd changed that into a fee based on the mineral value of the thing being made and other minor tweaks of this nature, they could also easily create sufficiently large isk sinks to make up for the isk surplus flowing into the economy at this point and they'd open up the door even further for bottom up financing in nullsec.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#207 - 2013-01-05 20:00:35 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Are you asking in a kneejerk way or seriously asking? Because you're saying that it's correct to assume the reason people don't go into null is because they get blown up.

No, I'm not. What I'm inferring is that a vast majority of us aren't active in nullsec outside of fleet fights because nullsec isn't able to compete with effort/risk/reward in comparison to hisec.

Murk Paradox wrote:
Why would someone want to risk to manufacture? That's insane. I think you're forgetting the people who want to be in null want it because of the combat.

I want to be in null because I want to support the group of people I play with. This involves not just PVP, but also industry. Today's nullsec state makes industry in hisec (combined with importing via JFs) better, more efficient, less effort and more profitable. It is also nigh-on uninterdictable.

Murk Paradox wrote:
Then that gets pacified

I've no idea why you're talking about combat being pacified, since that's not even on the table of topics.

Murk Paradox wrote:
If you tell me that in order to get to X trade hub I have to go through your system and risk getting blown up to make a N% more on my haul, I'll take the less risky more stable transport profits at a potential loss. Easily.

Interestingly enough, I'm not telling you to go through "my" system, I'm telling you I want "my guys" to spend their time in "our systems" instead of in hisec.

Murk Paradox wrote:
tell me you will set your system to NRDS and set me neutral and enforce a safe passage, and deliver my goods to your corp at a profit? Be there in X jumps sir!

Pull the other leg. You'd have to be able to outcompete us using JFs to import stuff from hisec by a healthy margin for that proposition to make any sort of sense for us.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#208 - 2013-01-05 20:06:53 UTC
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#209 - 2013-01-05 20:16:59 UTC



This is where it gets weird; you take apart quotes to simply argue something that in other times you generalize.

You play in null to support your friends, great. That's what you're doing. You going to null for manufacturing was probably not the best choice, but you wanted to play with your buds and thats cool. Sounds like a pro vs con thing there.

You also answered my first question with a "no" when I gave a choice of 2 things. Again, confused. No what?

Combat being pacified meaning, when you go and take over a system, and then next thing you know you're blue, because there's no current op, you don't have a fleet/blob target. Peace reigns. IE- pacified resistance, or locals (if you're invading).

So again, it just sounds like you want to eat your cake and have it to. But the things you want fully alienate highsec then. And I think the dependence is supposed to be there intentionally.

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.
Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#210 - 2013-01-05 20:19:16 UTC
NRDS and NBSI are just polar opposites, where the difference between the 2 is how your pilots govern themselves according to policy when encountering an unknown, non-Alliance member in space. It doesn't do anything to secure space in and of itself, except where NBSI basically means that anyone who comes into your space is podded when encountered if at all possible.

It is basically a lazy way of determining who enters your space in a generalized fashion. (i.e: anybody or nobody) Given this is for entertainment value, it's perfectly reasonable for players to adopt policies like this and save themselves the time and effort to organize regular patrols, sweeps, border protection, investigation, and customs and law enforcement.

Honestly, it would be nice to see an Alliance adopt more effective, less broadly encompassing policies, but I doubt any of us truly have that much time to invest in such things. I wouldn't really expect anyone to either.
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#211 - 2013-01-05 20:32:26 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
You also answered my first question with a "no" when I gave a choice of 2 things. Again, confused. No what?

No, I'm not saying it's correct to assume the reason people don't go to null is because they get blown up, because there are a ton of chars in null as it is. What I'm saying is that the people who are in null aren't utilizing the resources that are in null because hisec outcompetes nullsec in a lot of areas, and it shouldn't.

Murk Paradox wrote:
Combat being pacified meaning, when you go and take over a system, and then next thing you know you're blue, because there's no current op, you don't have a fleet/blob target. Peace reigns. IE- pacified resistance, or locals (if you're invading).

And then someone decides your space would be neat to roam through or invade, at which point "combat" is no longer "pacified".

Murk Paradox wrote:
So again, it just sounds like you want to eat your cake and have it to. But the things you want fully alienate highsec then. And I think the dependence is supposed to be there intentionally.

It's not supposed to be dependent.

http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/devblog/2011/nullsec-board-for-blog.jpg

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

RIP Vile Rat
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#212 - 2013-01-05 20:37:03 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
You also answered my first question with a "no" when I gave a choice of 2 things. Again, confused. No what?

No, I'm not saying it's correct to assume the reason people don't go to null is because they get blown up, because there are a ton of chars in null as it is. What I'm saying is that the people who are in null aren't utilizing the resources that are in null because hisec outcompetes nullsec in a lot of areas, and it shouldn't.

Murk Paradox wrote:
Combat being pacified meaning, when you go and take over a system, and then next thing you know you're blue, because there's no current op, you don't have a fleet/blob target. Peace reigns. IE- pacified resistance, or locals (if you're invading).

And then someone decides your space would be neat to roam through or invade, at which point "combat" is no longer "pacified".

Murk Paradox wrote:
So again, it just sounds like you want to eat your cake and have it to. But the things you want fully alienate highsec then. And I think the dependence is supposed to be there intentionally.

It's not supposed to be dependent.

http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/devblog/2011/nullsec-board-for-blog.jpg



You just painted a picture of people leaving highsec to go to null and not login because null isnt highsec. You're going around in circles and therefore not really contributing to the discussion any longer.

Everything you just answered you either did not say, or said something different which brought on my question in the first place.

Safe flying o/

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.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#213 - 2013-01-05 20:40:14 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:

It's not supposed to be dependent.

http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/devblog/2011/nullsec-board-for-blog.jpg


Hey Zim, I'm just a dull mindless null-sec alliance slave so i'm not smart enough to work out what that "99% self sufficient (by volume)" entry at the top of the 'INDUSTRY' column is supposed to mean. Can we get one of these smart independent self-sufficient rich hi-sec guys to help out with this one?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#214 - 2013-01-05 20:42:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Zim
Murk Paradox wrote:
You just painted a picture of people leaving highsec to go to null and not login because null isnt highsec.

Last I checked, I wasn't arguing for nullsec to become hisec. What I've said is that nullsec should outcompete hisec in all aspect except for safety.

I'm not sure how much more succinctly I can possibly put it.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#215 - 2013-01-05 20:42:12 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:

Safe flying o/


*Gets thoroughly owned

*Runs off

*Wishes us "Safe Flying"

*Is Murk Paradox



Where is your "meant to" now?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#216 - 2013-01-05 20:43:20 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:

It's not supposed to be dependent.

http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/devblog/2011/nullsec-board-for-blog.jpg


Hey Zim, I'm just a dull mindless null-sec alliance slave so i'm not smart enough to work out what that "99% self sufficient (by volume)" entry at the top of the 'INDUSTRY' column is supposed to mean. Can we get one of these smart independent self-sufficient rich hi-sec guys to help out with this one?

I think it means we should import 99% of everything we use (by volume) from hisec.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#217 - 2013-01-05 20:49:01 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:

Safe flying o/


*Gets thoroughly owned

*Runs off

*Wishes us "Safe Flying"

*Is Murk Paradox



Where is your "meant to" now?



Pardon? I can't keep regurgitating the nonsense spewed out over and over by someone who only quotes part of an answer to a question previously asked.

I'm still here, and will answer any question that warrants a response.

Whereas I don't see how I'm thoroughly "owned" since I'm not the one asking to reinvent the wheel, and life is still going on "business as usual".

If you really want to make a difference for me, or think I should consider it, pay my bills. Otherwise, you won't really matter once I clock out and go home =)

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
#218 - 2013-01-05 20:50:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
You just painted a picture of people leaving highsec to go to null and not login because null isnt highsec.

Last I checked, I wasn't arguing for nullsec to become hisec. What I've said is that nullsec should outcompete hisec in all aspect except for safety.

I'm not sure how much more succinctly I can possibly put it.


No it shouldn't.

If it should, it would have. It would even be anywhere near marginally competitive. But it isn't. Not by a longshot. And I seriously doubt that's a simple oversight.

And you might need to check again, because even as you are saying you aren't, you are indeed arguing for nullsec to become highsec. Even in that quote you are. In almost any reply beyond splitting my answers or questions up you are referencing highsec to nullsec, if not by name then by design.

They are 2 totally different entities for a reason.

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.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#219 - 2013-01-05 20:51:26 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:

It's not supposed to be dependent.

http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/devblog/2011/nullsec-board-for-blog.jpg


Hey Zim, I'm just a dull mindless null-sec alliance slave so i'm not smart enough to work out what that "99% self sufficient (by volume)" entry at the top of the 'INDUSTRY' column is supposed to mean. Can we get one of these smart independent self-sufficient rich hi-sec guys to help out with this one?

I think it means we should import 99% of everything we use (by volume) from hisec.


Ahhhh that makes a lot of sense. We'll be self-sufficient because we will have a wide range of hi-sec players to buy from, right?

Got it!

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#220 - 2013-01-05 20:53:57 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:

Safe flying o/


*Gets thoroughly owned

*Runs off

*Wishes us "Safe Flying"

*Is Murk Paradox



Where is your "meant to" now?



Pardon? I can't keep regurgitating the nonsense spewed out over and over by someone who only quotes part of an answer to a question previously asked.

I'm still here, and will answer any question that warrants a response.

Whereas I don't see how I'm thoroughly "owned" since I'm not the one asking to reinvent the wheel, and life is still going on "business as usual".

If you really want to make a difference for me, or think I should consider it, pay my bills. Otherwise, you won't really matter once I clock out and go home =)



You were thoroughly owned, or at least you would be if you didn't have a 99.5% resist bonus vs facts.

You said Null-sec isn't meant to be independent of hi-sec industry

Zim produced evidence that it is.

You have yet to produce any evidence of anything except that what is, therefore ought to be.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016