These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Frying Doom
#161 - 2013-01-05 08:35:07 UTC
TharOkha wrote:
Olleybear wrote:
Diablo Ex wrote:
There would be more folks moving into Nullsec if the Sov Holders would simply set NRDS rules in their space.

Here is something you may not have thought of.

Lets say someone likes your NRDS space and decides they want your space for their own group. Their group can get safely into your space without a single shot fired because of NRDS. Their group will only open fire once they are setup to do the most damage as quickly as possible. Once they are established and shooting everything that moves in your space, your group is going to have a tougher time getting them out of your space.

NRDS policy gets the people following that policy killed. This is the same no matter if its Null or Low.



So thats why you want to nerf Hisec..... Straight

I like that we go through 110 page thread with the majority of people except a few who wanted no changes at all, to come to a good balance of nerfing NPC facilities in favour of Player owned structures.

And the next thread goes straight back to your nerfing Hi-sec.

WTF

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#162 - 2013-01-05 08:46:45 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:

I like that we go through 110 page thread with the majority of people except a few who wanted no changes at all, to come to a good balance of nerfing NPC facilities in favour of Player owned structures.

And the next thread goes straight back to your nerfing Hi-sec.

WTF


It's the current meme and "program". Look at the Gospel blog for anticipations about the next, exciting news!

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Frying Doom
#163 - 2013-01-05 10:17:47 UTC
Just gets up my nose

110 pages and then someone posts something like that the next day.

It is almost as if they are not able to understand anything but the one phrase.

Yes things need to change but hi-sec should work out better for those who mine and manufacture full time, yes the casuals will have a greater loss to refine if they are unskilled.

But this has nothing to do with nerfing Hi-sec

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Doddy
Excidium.
#164 - 2013-01-05 10:26:42 UTC
In theory NRDS is great, in practice it doesn't work. The nrds space holder is just taken advantage over by spongers and ruthlessly exploited by hostiles using alts, spies etc all the while wasting epic man-hours on trying to keep the whole thing flying. Freespace works better in truth.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#165 - 2013-01-05 10:34:52 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:

I like that we go through 110 page thread with the majority of people except a few who wanted no changes at all, to come to a good balance of nerfing NPC facilities in favour of Player owned structures.

And the next thread goes straight back to your nerfing Hi-sec.

WTF


It's the current meme and "program". Look at the Gospel blog for anticipations about the next, exciting news!



Well it took you until around page 85 to stop doing it yourself so...

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#166 - 2013-01-05 11:04:45 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:

I like that we go through 110 page thread with the majority of people except a few who wanted no changes at all, to come to a good balance of nerfing NPC facilities in favour of Player owned structures.

And the next thread goes straight back to your nerfing Hi-sec.

WTF


It's the current meme and "program". Look at the Gospel blog for anticipations about the next, exciting news!



Well it took you until around page 85 to stop doing it yourself so...


Stop doing what?

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Belanar Colt
Divinus Gloria Intra
#167 - 2013-01-05 14:44:36 UTC
Cameron Cahill wrote:
Corpies are green, allies are blue.
If he's orange, red or neutral,
He's here to kill you. :)


>NPC Space
Hold on now and this about this for a second. Every NPC Null sector entails multiple corps multiple alliances each representing multiple nations. Now if there be NPC lowsec. and Null sec. POLICE STATIONS in (combat engineered) orbit within their awesome sector, they wouldn't be fighting even the reds in those areas unless they're really defending themselves from the greater good. Think about it. We on 2 here.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=190300&p=2
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#168 - 2013-01-05 15:28:28 UTC
Olleybear wrote:
Diablo Ex wrote:
There would be more folks moving into Nullsec if the Sov Holders would simply set NRDS rules in their space.

Here is something you may not have thought of.

Lets say someone likes your NRDS space and decides they want your space for their own group. Their group can get safely into your space without a single shot fired because of NRDS. Their group will only open fire once they are setup to do the most damage as quickly as possible. Once they are established and shooting everything that moves in your space, your group is going to have a tougher time getting them out of your space.

NRDS policy gets the people following that policy killed. This is the same no matter if its Null or Low.



Wouldn't that encourage more fights and also more appeal for people to join nullsec space instead of complaining about it?

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
#169 - 2013-01-05 15:46:39 UTC
Merouk Baas wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Actually NRDS (or some variation on it) could work but it would require some basic game mechanic changes/additions.


You're asking for an automated secure transaction to rent space (and become blue), and you're offering tax revenue incentives to the SOV holder to open their gates.

Diplo's have a lot of work on their plate, but giving up control over who is blue, that's not something they'll want to let go of. If any spy can pay a fee and become blue, with no API check and no interview, that's worse than NRDS.

And offering taxes to sov holders, that's the same as offering tax breaks for carebears to go into lowsec. They don't need your piddly taxes, and they don't need more people in their area, they're perfectly fine the way they are. I'd be willing to bet they'll all set the tax to 100% just to drive the point home that they don't need you there.

Everyone who uses NBSI is fine with it, and they don't need more people crowding their areas.



Sounds like null is just fine as it is then. No need to advertise needing more people!

=)

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
#170 - 2013-01-05 15:56:09 UTC
Skex Relbore wrote:
Katran Luftschreck wrote:
Nullbears always whine how they want more players to come there, but at the end of the day all they really want is more serfs to make their e-peens feel bigger and more baby seals to club. So trying to get them to make any kind of positive change to nullsec is never going to happen. They are incapable of thinking in that way. They only understand negative change, hence it's all just a "nerf hisec" mantra for them.



You know the only time I've ever seen this sentiment expressed is by whiny losers who couldn't actually hack it in null . Why on earth (or space) would we want more people in null? More people means more risk, more potential awoxers, more spies, more competition for rats and resources, it means more disruptions to our isk making activities.

Unless we're deployed I'm not comfortable in any system where the population won't fit my local window without scrolling. The whole point of taking and holding SOV the reward for sitting in all those blobs people like to whine about, grinding all those structures and suffering through Boat stories is we get a bit of space that is our own (as long as we can defend it) to exploit to improve our game experience by letting us accumulate assets that we can then use to turn around and kick someone's teeth in away from our space.

We don't want more people out here and we most certainly aren't interested in the sort of anti-social mouth breathers who can't manage the minimal social graces required to join a corporation.

You and the OP are trying to address a problem that doesn't exist. NBSI isn't the default state because the mean ole null dictators forced it on everyone. It's the default state because it's the best policy. In EVE combat, hell in combat period, the advantage generally goes to the aggressor.

NRDS gives the advantage to the outsider in that the local resident is forced to wait until the outsider takes an aggressive action before being able to react. In most cases in this game that's pretty much the end of the fight as the outsider is unlikely to take the initial aggressive action unless they are reasonably assured of success.

NBSI levels the playing field in that both parties have equal opportunity to take aggressive action first. The outsider can't just get into optimal scan your ship and then decide whether or not to fight you based on how certain they are of victory.

NBSI makes it much easier to know friend from foe, if they aren't a friend they are automatically a foe.

Personally I think there are two types of people who avoid null sec, the anti-social unlikable and those who are misinformed (or perhaps victimized by a poor alliance in the past) about what life in SOV null is all about.









The sentiment also comes from people who can read and see how many people in null complain about null. Strangely, not very many CVA people do that however.

You also have people who WANT their neg status and don't like the idea they have to work on that as well, or as a few people have mentioned here, it's easier to be NBSI.

If you are indeed correct, and we are even seeing an argument here, it's going to come down to very few things. One of them being that talking about moon harvesting and all that is pointless; we aren't all CEOs here discussing this, we are just pilots. Another is that the potential of being an enemy outweighs the chance that the person is just in fact a neutral and wants to rat or check out other places. Which in turn can lead to an alliance or addition to a coalition to have more fun and more fights.

So we are stuck with figuring out whether we want null for the fights, or the politics. Because as someone who has been in both sov and npc space, I personally didn't see a difference between my daily activities save 1; CVA had more outer gate camps/roams to find reds, and in sov it was more having to leave my system to find a fight unless I was called to join a sov bashing/defending blob (not said in a derogatory way).

So the pluses and minuses of the 2 are going to be how you see it, not as how you think it should be, because in the end, it's the CEOs/Managers that dictate the policy, and you're either going to like the paranoia of spies/politics, or you just want to have fun and do what you do.

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
#171 - 2013-01-05 16:17:17 UTC
Skex Relbore wrote:
[quote=Ocih][quote=Herzog Wolfhammer]
I seriously have no idea what you are on. But it must be some potent herb because your posts make zero sense.

My argument is simple. NRDS gives all the initiative and combat advantage to outsiders rather than those who live in the space, While NBSI gives the locals a even shot at shooting first. That's why NRDS is fail and will never see widespread adoption outside of a group of people who were stupid enough to think that it would be a great basis for an alliance premised on racial supremacy (CVA) in fact back in my naive newbie days when I still had some thoughts about E-Honor I had actually looked at and dismissed CVA as an option because of the cognitive dissonance of a bunch of "racists" (yeah I know role-playing) and anti-piracy.

As far as it being a baseless snipe, I disagree. The OP has the exact same mindset as those who foolishly think that nerfing highsec will somehow drive people to low/null. If you were actually familiar with my posting history you'd know that I was never one to support such foolishness. It's that mindset that thinks that you can force someone to do something they find unpleasant for enjoyment.

The attitude that if one can't "hack it" at something in the game, that if others somehow manage to do something they can't then the game should be changed to accommodate their inadequacies. Be it the low sec gate camper crying because his fail crew couldn't kill a freighter in less than the minute it took it to despawn after the pilot discoed on a gate jump or the pirate crying about how level-4s should be moved to low sec so they could get access to those shinny mission ships (as if people would be taking their blinged out mission boats into low sec to get ganked) or the "small fleet" elite PVPer crying about blobs and NAPs/NIPs because he can only find fleets bigger than his own. The common thread is someone who is asking for a solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist. and who wants a special accommodation to make their own lives easier in by making someone else's more difficult.

You are trying to make this into a Null vs Highsec thread, but it's not. It's a smart people who understand the game and how it works vs whiny dimwits who can't figure out how to work within the existing system.



The part I see wrong here is how you say NRDS is fail because it gives the outsider the chance to initiate the combat. Whereas I don't see it as making it fail, I can def see why you wouldn't like it. But then, I'm an opportunist =P.

I do see how NBSI and NRDS have very many different pros and cons, some take more control than others. But then, some like to go find fights, others like the fight to come to them.

The rest of what I quoted I wholeheartedly agree with.

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
#172 - 2013-01-05 16:44:43 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Still waiting on some figures on how much null wants to see high sec 'balanced'. If the usual suspects are so fast to point and scream that something is not balanced, why don't you specify how it can be. Give us some figures.

We haven't said so because that's obviously for CCP to determine. But if you're suggesting that highsec IS balanced after all you've got a bit of explaining to do.



Wouldn't that also be a job for CCP to do? Ultimately, we're both playing the same game after all, just some people have a stronger opinion about it is all =)

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.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#173 - 2013-01-05 17:55:50 UTC
Diablo Ex wrote:
There is nothing at all wrong with the game mechanics, the problem in Nullsec is the way that Sov Holders govern. There would be more folks moving into Nullsec if the Sov Holders would simply set NRDS rules in their space. It worked before with great success, and there are many old veterans that remember that time. Just let neutrals come and go as long as they mind their own business. Not everybody wants to be enslaved to the narcissistic petty dictators who are currently in charge.

Newsflash: Not everybody is peaceful in a video game about spaceship violence. Shocked

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#174 - 2013-01-05 18:04:36 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Still waiting on some figures on how much null wants to see high sec 'balanced'. If the usual suspects are so fast to point and scream that something is not balanced, why don't you specify how it can be. Give us some figures.

We haven't said so because that's obviously for CCP to determine. But if you're suggesting that highsec IS balanced after all you've got a bit of explaining to do.

Wouldn't that also be a job for CCP to do? Ultimately, we're both playing the same game after all, just some people have a stronger opinion about it is all =)

So, what, because it's "CCP's job", we should just stop pointing it out to them?

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

RIP Vile Rat
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#175 - 2013-01-05 18:07:21 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Murk Paradox wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Still waiting on some figures on how much null wants to see high sec 'balanced'. If the usual suspects are so fast to point and scream that something is not balanced, why don't you specify how it can be. Give us some figures.

We haven't said so because that's obviously for CCP to determine. But if you're suggesting that highsec IS balanced after all you've got a bit of explaining to do.

Wouldn't that also be a job for CCP to do? Ultimately, we're both playing the same game after all, just some people have a stronger opinion about it is all =)

So, what, because it's "CCP's job", we should just stop pointing it out to them?



I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of the statement. Do whatever you want with it.

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.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#176 - 2013-01-05 18:09:05 UTC
where is the double standard exactly? are we also game designers of an imbalanced game?
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#177 - 2013-01-05 18:09:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Zim
Okay. It's CCP's job, and we as players shouldn't point out where we think the squeaky wheel is.

I'm sure that'll go well, because CCP are psychic and/or good at designing their own game, because they play it so much. Roll

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

RIP Vile Rat
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#178 - 2013-01-05 18:19:05 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Okay. It's CCP's job, and we as players shouldn't point out where we think the squeaky wheel is.

I'm sure that'll go well, because CCP are psychic and/or good at designing their own game, because they play it so much. Roll



That's a tad too passive aggressive for me to actually answer since I don't see any question and the closest thing to one is you what, fishing? Being butthurt? Angry? I don't get it.

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
#179 - 2013-01-05 18:21:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Murk Paradox
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
where is the double standard exactly? are we also game designers of an imbalanced game?



The double standard is someone stating that it's "obviously ccp's job" to point out figures to prove an argument between one person and another then go on to say that "if you think this, you have explaining to do"(paraphrased).

Basically, it just shows to me someone is trying to have an opinion without taking responsbility for having it.

So I called it out. And then you asked. Then I had to explain myself.

Gee, isn't this exciting?

And yes, if we use feedback and post opinions about a game, and want changes, then we are indeed game designers. We just aren't a part of the decision making process. Please try to keep the sarcasm to a minimum or else you might belabor an interesting point you could have used to answer your own question =)

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.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#180 - 2013-01-05 18:23:25 UTC
We're saying the balance between hisec and nullsec is off, and that it's hurting the game. You're saying that's not for us to say.

What does CCP's track record tell you when they don't bother with listening to the playerbase?

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

RIP Vile Rat