These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#261 - 2013-01-05 22:19:43 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
'll break it down for you.

1) "NBSI is still a deterrent for industry regardless (trying to stay back on topic =P)". - not really, because industry cannot exist in nullsec regardless of RoE policy. That's like saying running a blow torch in the desert will deter ice from forming.

2) "NBSI is a shoot first ask questions later... which in a land of hostility, that's not very inviting to people to want to bring their goods, or themselves, out to you." - not really because people who have arranged blue standings outperform NRDS alliances.


Outperform? Sounds like justification for NOT wanting more people around you. Look, if you want a closed off empire, then yea, NBSI is definitely a more ideal doctrine to have. It's way easier to be lazy and less vigilant when you shoot anything not a friendly.
You say lazy, I say efficient. What I say is objective and proven over countless nullsec conflicts, what you say is a meaningless value judgement that decries the nullsec reality as a 'moral failure' of the organizations who successfully live there. I put forward logical and sensible solutions to create a 0.0 where NRDS would have a chance, you pull a 180 and refuse to acknowledge that a problem exists anymore. It is all the fault of the evil players.


Quote:
NBSI is a failed doctrine unless you don't want people around you.

NBSI is a successful doctrine unless you don't want to hold space.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#262 - 2013-01-05 22:22:19 UTC
This is like listening to a dinosaur in the ice age saying warm blooded creatures are a failure because the mammals are failing to huddle next to the dinosaurs to keep them from freezing to death; depleting them of valuable 'dino-trade'.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#263 - 2013-01-05 22:23:33 UTC
Mirima Thurander wrote:
Really with the amount of systems goons/test have they could set a few key locations NBSI and everything elected free ports and NRDS.
But that makes the game to fun for everyone. It will never happen.

Take a trip through CVA space and see how long you last even in a noob ship. I mean, NRDS should mean that you're never fired upon, and CVA should be protecting you just as well as concord does, right? Since you're not red to anyone and all.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Tesal
#264 - 2013-01-05 22:27:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Tesal
http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/devblog/2011/nullsec-board-for-blog.jpg

I looked at the white board link, which I've seen before. If null needs to be 99% independent by volume of goods then that means hi-sec is 99% independent too. There is trade of 1%, including moon goo, ice and high ends. Null would be encapsulated in virtual self sufficiency. Maybe its a good thing that stuff written in brainstorming sessions on white boards doesn't always become official CCP policy.

Also, way to keep this thread on topic.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#265 - 2013-01-05 22:28:37 UTC
ITT: We learn that we can only have 1 station per system because of NBSI

"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.
#266 - 2013-01-05 22:33:56 UTC
POS refines top out at 75% because we kill neutral noobships Cry

"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
#267 - 2013-01-05 22:36:40 UTC
Same happens in WHs, too. They don't have any color for people in local, I wonder what they did wrong. Cry

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

RIP Vile Rat
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#268 - 2013-01-05 22:46:26 UTC
Tesal wrote:
Also, way to keep this thread on topic.

The problem with "keeping this thread on topic" is that NBSI isn't causing any of the major issues which are plaguing nullsec. Not a single one of them.

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

RIP Vile Rat
gargars
Willco Inc.
#269 - 2013-01-05 22:53:38 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
yeah come on down
NRDS'll float down here
everything floats down here...



PENNYWISE noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#270 - 2013-01-05 22:58:32 UTC
My point in this debate is that if an emphasis were placed on developing tools and mechanics that were friendly and useful for political administration styles other than NBSI, that would allow policies like NRDS or other variations to operate as efficiently as NBSI does, then power groups could make some interesting decisions on how they want to run their Sov.

They could very well choose to keep things as NBSI (and it will likely always be a popular option), but the ability to easily choose another path would make things a lot more interesting all around, and (somewhat ironically) might encourage more conflict due to differing political beliefs.

And that's always a good thing.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#271 - 2013-01-05 23:09:58 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Tesal wrote:
Also, way to keep this thread on topic.

The problem with "keeping this thread on topic" is that NBSI isn't causing any of the major issues which are plaguing nullsec. Not a single one of them.


Sure it does. It causes the "I can't rat in upgraded space for free without contributing anything towards keeping space and without being chased out by those who do contribute" problem.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#272 - 2013-01-05 23:12:45 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
My point in this debate is that if an emphasis were placed on developing tools and mechanics that were friendly and useful for political administration styles other than NBSI, that would allow policies like NRDS or other variations to operate as efficiently as NBSI does, then power groups could make some interesting decisions on how they want to run their Sov.

They could very well choose to keep things as NBSI (and it will likely always be a popular option), but the ability to easily choose another path would make things a lot more interesting all around, and (somewhat ironically) might encourage more conflict due to differing political beliefs.

And that's always a good thing.

Pray tell, how would treaties make NRDS or a variant thereof actually scale as well as NBSI does on a daily basis?

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

RIP Vile Rat
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#273 - 2013-01-05 23:19:11 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
You seem to have completely ignored this thread is not the other thread, the topic here is about alliance politics vs outsiders so, no, you talking about insiders is not on topic.

NBSI isn't what's depopulated nullsec, or has "caused nullsec to fail", no matter how much you or Murk tries to fob it off as the cause.


Care to link where I talked about "caused nullsec to fail"? So far I have written some quite constructive suggestions and not blamed anyone. Your defensive stance seems to guide you.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#274 - 2013-01-05 23:20:10 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Tesal wrote:
Also, way to keep this thread on topic.

The problem with "keeping this thread on topic" is that NBSI isn't causing any of the major issues which are plaguing nullsec. Not a single one of them.


Sure it does. It causes the "I can't rat in upgraded space for free without contributing anything towards keeping space and without being chased out by those who do contribute" problem.


Ranger1 got what I wanted to say WAY WAY more and better than you and Zim.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#275 - 2013-01-05 23:22:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
RubyPorto wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Tesal wrote:
Also, way to keep this thread on topic.

The problem with "keeping this thread on topic" is that NBSI isn't causing any of the major issues which are plaguing nullsec. Not a single one of them.


Sure it does. It causes the "I can't rat in upgraded space for free without contributing anything towards keeping space and without being chased out by those who do contribute" problem.


Another with ideology and preconcepts in the head.

People suggest introducing new things like treaties and "light blue" allies and all you can produce is a trite loltastic one liner that was the same in 2009 and 2010.

I mean, some people are REALLY REALLY trying to support you or sympathise but hey, it's like trying to help the nice guy who keeps kicking you in the jewels as "feedback".

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#276 - 2013-01-05 23:26:14 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
My point in this debate is that if an emphasis were placed on developing tools and mechanics that were friendly and useful for political administration styles other than NBSI, that would allow policies like NRDS or other variations to operate as efficiently as NBSI does, then power groups could make some interesting decisions on how they want to run their Sov.

They could very well choose to keep things as NBSI (and it will likely always be a popular option), but the ability to easily choose another path would make things a lot more interesting all around, and (somewhat ironically) might encourage more conflict due to differing political beliefs.

And that's always a good thing.


There's no difficulty in administering an NRDS alliance (except for the tedium of setting everyone in EVE red).

There's no game mechanical limitation on being NRDS or any other non-NBSI... thing.

The reason nobody important is NRDS is that it doesn't work. It is strictly dominated by the NBSI strategy, as evidenced by everyone outside of Provi being NRDS (even though, historically there were a number of areas of NRDS space like ISS space around KDF in Catch), because every NRDS group has been stomped by NBSI groups (and randoms killing everyone). Even ProviBlock is NRDS in name only. Not only will they shoot Neuts, but they have just about everyone in EvE who has ever been near Provi set Red. ProviBlock holds Provi because nobody else wants it, so there's no reason for anyone to put the effort that Dominion Sov requires into kicking them out.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#277 - 2013-01-05 23:28:42 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
People suggest introducing new things like treaties and "light blue" allies and all you can produce is a trite loltastic one liner that was the same in 2009 and 2010.

You mean the dominion treaties where you could set it up so a corp or alliance were blue to you in one system and neut/red in others? If so, how would that help?

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

RIP Vile Rat
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#278 - 2013-01-05 23:30:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
hm, so now the reason NRDS doesn't work is because of a UI issue and not the underlying absurdity of a system where contributors have to compete with potentially hostile non-contributors to earn income? You don't say...
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#279 - 2013-01-05 23:36:33 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Another with ideology and preconcepts in the head.

People suggest introducing new things like treaties and "light blue" allies and all you can produce is a trite loltastic one liner that was the same in 2009 and 2010.

I mean, some people are REALLY REALLY trying to support you or sympathise but hey, it's like trying to help the nice guy who keeps kicking you in the jewels as "feedback".



Would you go mining in HS without CONCORD? Missioning? Run a Freighter around? Put up a POS?

NRDS is equivalent to HS without CONCORD.



Treaties and Light blues are fine, and Treaties should have been implemented when they were promised (with Dominion). But they have nothing at all to do with the reason Nullsec is barely habitable, or any of the major problems currently facing Null (especially since you can do the equivalent of most aspects of the planned treaty system without any new mechanics). By the way, any treaty system will still represent an NBSI policy for everyone of consequence... because no matter what mechanical changes you make to Nullsec*, NRDS will remain a stupid policy.

*Aside from introducing CONCORD or some **** like that.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Flurk Hellbron
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#280 - 2013-01-05 23:42:43 UTC

NBSI Nullsec = Fail

NBSI is what?