EVE Search - NBSI Nullsec = Fail

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

NBSI Nullsec = Fail

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 20 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Lord Zim 2255	Posted - 2013.01.05 20:32:00 - [211] - Quote 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.
Murk Paradox Dvice Shipyards No Value 205	Posted - 2013.01.05 20:37:00 - [212] - Quote 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/ "I say tomato, you say tomaCCP BAN ALL TOMATOES THEY ARE HARASSING ME I WANT TOMATO FREE HIGHSEC."-á -TheGunslinger42 Proud enforcer of the Code, see [url]http://www.minerbumping.com[/url] for details.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 6852	Posted - 2013.01.05 20:40:00 - [213] - Quote 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? MatrixSkye Mk2: "Remember: You consent to unconsensual PVP the moment you press the "Undock" button."
Lord Zim 2255	Posted - 2013.01.05 20:42:00 - [214] - Quote 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 succinct I can possibly put it. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 6852	Posted - 2013.01.05 20:42:00 - [215] - Quote Murk Paradox wrote: Safe flying o/ Gets thoroughly owned Runs off Wishes us "Safe Flying" Is Murk Paradox Where is your "meant to" now? MatrixSkye Mk2: "Remember: You consent to unconsensual PVP the moment you press the "Undock" button."
Lord Zim 2255	Posted - 2013.01.05 20:43:00 - [216] - Quote 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.
Murk Paradox Dvice Shipyards No Value 205	Posted - 2013.01.05 20:49:00 - [217] - Quote 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 =) "I say tomato, you say tomaCCP BAN ALL TOMATOES THEY ARE HARASSING ME I WANT TOMATO FREE HIGHSEC."-á -TheGunslinger42 Proud enforcer of the Code, see [url]http://www.minerbumping.com[/url] for details.
Murk Paradox Dvice Shipyards No Value 205	Posted - 2013.01.05 20:50:00 - [218] - Quote 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. "I say tomato, you say tomaCCP BAN ALL TOMATOES THEY ARE HARASSING ME I WANT TOMATO FREE HIGHSEC."-á -TheGunslinger42 Proud enforcer of the Code, see [url]http://www.minerbumping.com[/url] for details.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 6854	Posted - 2013.01.05 20:51:00 - [219] - Quote 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! MatrixSkye Mk2: "Remember: You consent to unconsensual PVP the moment you press the "Undock" button."
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 6854	Posted - 2013.01.05 20:53:00 - [220] - Quote 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. MatrixSkye Mk2: "Remember: You consent to unconsensual PVP the moment you press the "Undock" button."

Lord Zim 2256	Posted - 2013.01.05 20:53:00 - [221] - Quote Murk Paradox wrote: 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. http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=946 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.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 6856	Posted - 2013.01.05 20:55:00 - [222] - Quote Lord Zim wrote: "Nullsec isn't supposed to be independent of hisec. Why else has it been dependent on hisec for 10 years?" http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=946 http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/devblog/2011/nullsec-board-for-blog.jpg Yes but those are only facts Zim. You can prove anything you like with those things. MatrixSkye Mk2: "Remember: You consent to unconsensual PVP the moment you press the "Undock" button."
Murk Paradox Dvice Shipyards No Value 205	Posted - 2013.01.05 20:57:00 - [223] - Quote Malcanis wrote: 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. Eh? I need evidence? Fair enough. Log in. Boom there you go. The world of eve seems to spin differently than you think it should, imagine that! How can so many frieghters and corps and professions be so wrong! Maybe those jump friehgters shouldn't exist in game either. Definitely something not needed. "I say tomato, you say tomaCCP BAN ALL TOMATOES THEY ARE HARASSING ME I WANT TOMATO FREE HIGHSEC."-á -TheGunslinger42 Proud enforcer of the Code, see [url]http://www.minerbumping.com[/url] for details.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 6856	Posted - 2013.01.05 21:00:00 - [224] - Quote So what is, is what should be, and we know this because CCP never change anything substantial about the game, right? Paging some titan and supercarrier pilots to this thread to confirm your point! MatrixSkye Mk2: "Remember: You consent to unconsensual PVP the moment you press the "Undock" button."
Murk Paradox Dvice Shipyards No Value 205	Posted - 2013.01.05 21:02:00 - [225] - Quote Malcanis wrote: Lord Zim wrote: "Nullsec isn't supposed to be independent of hisec. Why else has it been dependent on hisec for 10 years?" http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=946 http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/devblog/2011/nullsec-board-for-blog.jpg Yes but those are only facts Zim. You can prove anything you like with those things. Ok so, let's look at the blog you posted. It goes on about a "perfect world" which we know doesn't exist. And as well something they want to work towards, awesome! So you are here doing what... telling me the devs are wrong or right? Again, your facts (didn't know you were a dev but I'll roll with it) to prove what.. that you asked for soemthing they were already wanting to do? I get the whiteboard is a think tank, cool. But still the only fact is what they want to do. So far, they only dodged how they didn't want to talk about HOW they want to do it. For all we know that's something to happen in 2015. But until then, the fact remains, highsec is still supporting nullsec, and at the rate of escalation nullseccers need the minerals, you will not see that changed result devs want anytime soon. There's no patch or downtime that will make that change over night. That's what I'm trying to explain here. It's not a simple flip of a switch. "I say tomato, you say tomaCCP BAN ALL TOMATOES THEY ARE HARASSING ME I WANT TOMATO FREE HIGHSEC."-á -TheGunslinger42 Proud enforcer of the Code, see [url]http://www.minerbumping.com[/url] for details.
Murk Paradox Dvice Shipyards No Value 205	Posted - 2013.01.05 21:03:00 - [226] - Quote Malcanis wrote: So what is, is what should be, and we know this because CCP never change anything substantial about the game, right? Paging some titan and supercarrier pilots to this thread to confirm your point! Of course ccp will change things, don't be an idiot. "I say tomato, you say tomaCCP BAN ALL TOMATOES THEY ARE HARASSING ME I WANT TOMATO FREE HIGHSEC."-á -TheGunslinger42 Proud enforcer of the Code, see [url]http://www.minerbumping.com[/url] for details.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 6856	Posted - 2013.01.05 21:04:00 - [227] - Quote Murk Paradox wrote: Malcanis wrote: So what is, is what should be, and we know this because CCP never change anything substantial about the game, right? Paging some titan and supercarrier pilots to this thread to confirm your point! Of course ccp will change things, don't be an idiot. Then how can you say that the unbalanced advantage that hi-sec has for industry is proof that hi-sec should have an unbalanced advantage for industry? MatrixSkye Mk2: "Remember: You consent to unconsensual PVP the moment you press the "Undock" button."
Lord Zim 2256	Posted - 2013.01.05 21:05:00 - [228] - Quote "nullsec shall be dependent on hisec, because why else has it been dependent on it for 10 years?" is provided with a devblog from one of the lead designers of eve where it says, specifically, that nullsec shouldn't be dependent on hisec "yeah well that's just some ideal world thingy! doesn't prove a thing!" Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 6856	Posted - 2013.01.05 21:05:00 - [229] - Quote Murk Paradox wrote: Malcanis wrote: Lord Zim wrote: "Nullsec isn't supposed to be independent of hisec. Why else has it been dependent on hisec for 10 years?" http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=946 http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/devblog/2011/nullsec-board-for-blog.jpg Yes but those are only facts Zim. You can prove anything you like with those things. Ok so, let's look at the blog you posted. It goes on about a "perfect world" which we know doesn't exist... It is however pretty god damb relevent when we're talking about, to use your own phrase "How things are meant to be" MatrixSkye Mk2: "Remember: You consent to unconsensual PVP the moment you press the "Undock" button."
Murk Paradox Dvice Shipyards No Value 205	Posted - 2013.01.05 21:07:00 - [230] - Quote Malcanis wrote: Lord Zim wrote: "Nullsec isn't supposed to be independent of hisec. Why else has it been dependent on hisec for 10 years?" http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=946 http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/devblog/2011/nullsec-board-for-blog.jpg Yes but those are only facts Zim. You can prove anything you like with those things. You can always find some fact to prove a theory, doesn't make your theory correct though. It only works when it happens. That's the cool thing about facts. They are there to be used but can also disappear! I mean, that whiteboard is a beautiul patch, when does it get applied? Next week? Come on, support it. Tell me when! Show us how much time we wasted on this thread. Oh wait, it hasn't happened yet! So much for that fact. Gues it was just a think tank outlining what they want. Sounds like the fact is, devs wrote up a christmas list. "I say tomato, you say tomaCCP BAN ALL TOMATOES THEY ARE HARASSING ME I WANT TOMATO FREE HIGHSEC."-á -TheGunslinger42 Proud enforcer of the Code, see [url]http://www.minerbumping.com[/url] for details.

Murk Paradox Dvice Shipyards No Value 205	Posted - 2013.01.05 21:08:00 - [231] - Quote Malcanis wrote: Murk Paradox wrote: Malcanis wrote: Lord Zim wrote: "Nullsec isn't supposed to be independent of hisec. Why else has it been dependent on hisec for 10 years?" http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=946 http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/devblog/2011/nullsec-board-for-blog.jpg Yes but those are only facts Zim. You can prove anything you like with those things. Ok so, let's look at the blog you posted. It goes on about a "perfect world" which we know doesn't exist... It is however pretty god damb relevent when we're talking about, to use your own phrase "How things are meant to be" No, they don't say how it was meant to be, they say it's what they want. There is a big difference. Otherwise, like the blog said, you should be mining because it's fun. Wouldn't that just support your whole theory about how highsec is "better"? Like mining would be more fun somewhere else? All the same rocks. "I say tomato, you say tomaCCP BAN ALL TOMATOES THEY ARE HARASSING ME I WANT TOMATO FREE HIGHSEC."-á -TheGunslinger42 Proud enforcer of the Code, see [url]http://www.minerbumping.com[/url] for details.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 6856	Posted - 2013.01.05 21:09:00 - [232] - Quote You know, Murk, there comes a stage in a discussion where it really is less embarrassing to concede that you were in error about a point you were making than it is to try and defend it against overwhelming evidence. You have gone past that stage. Just FYI. MatrixSkye Mk2: "Remember: You consent to unconsensual PVP the moment you press the "Undock" button."
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 6856	Posted - 2013.01.05 21:09:00 - [233] - Quote Murk Paradox wrote: No, they don't say how it was meant to be, they say it's what they want. There is a big difference. See now this is what I'm talking about... MatrixSkye Mk2: "Remember: You consent to unconsensual PVP the moment you press the "Undock" button."
Murk Paradox Dvice Shipyards No Value 205	Posted - 2013.01.05 21:11:00 - [234] - Quote Malcanis wrote: Murk Paradox wrote: Malcanis wrote: So what is, is what should be, and we know this because CCP never change anything substantial about the game, right? Paging some titan and supercarrier pilots to this thread to confirm your point! Of course ccp will change things, don't be an idiot. Then how can you say that the unbalanced advantage that hi-sec has for industry is proof that hi-sec should have an unbalanced advantage for industry? Because right now in the market that's the best arrangement players can make with what they have. It's the closest thing you can have to the win win since even after a year the devs haven't implemented what you say is a "fact" that apparently I'm too stupid to see. "I say tomato, you say tomaCCP BAN ALL TOMATOES THEY ARE HARASSING ME I WANT TOMATO FREE HIGHSEC."-á -TheGunslinger42 Proud enforcer of the Code, see [url]http://www.minerbumping.com[/url] for details.
Lord Zim 2256	Posted - 2013.01.05 21:11:00 - [235] - Quote Murk Paradox wrote: No, they don't say how it was meant to be, they say it's what they want. So why do they want to make the changes they outline in that blog, unless it's what they mean it's supposed to be? For funsies? Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.
Murk Paradox Dvice Shipyards No Value 205	Posted - 2013.01.05 21:12:00 - [236] - Quote Lord Zim wrote: "nullsec shall be dependent on hisec, because why else has it been dependent on it for 10 years?" is provided with a devblog from one of the lead designers of eve where it says, specifically, that nullsec shouldn't be dependent on hisec "yeah well that's just some ideal world thingy! doesn't prove a thing!" You mean the same one you posted that's dated back in 2011? How's that working for you? "I say tomato, you say tomaCCP BAN ALL TOMATOES THEY ARE HARASSING ME I WANT TOMATO FREE HIGHSEC."-á -TheGunslinger42 Proud enforcer of the Code, see [url]http://www.minerbumping.com[/url] for details.
Murk Paradox Dvice Shipyards No Value 205	Posted - 2013.01.05 21:13:00 - [237] - Quote Lord Zim wrote: Murk Paradox wrote: No, they don't say how it was meant to be, they say it's what they want. So why do they want to make the changes they outline in that blog, unless it's what they mean it's supposed to be? For funsies? I can only read what they type. You're the one who apparently is omniscient about it and think it's "fact". You tell me. Why HASN'T it been done if it was "supposed" to? "I say tomato, you say tomaCCP BAN ALL TOMATOES THEY ARE HARASSING ME I WANT TOMATO FREE HIGHSEC."-á -TheGunslinger42 Proud enforcer of the Code, see [url]http://www.minerbumping.com[/url] for details.
Lord Zim 2256	Posted - 2013.01.05 21:14:00 - [238] - Quote You must be new around CCP's game development pace. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.
Nicolo da'Vicenza Air The Unthinkables 2484	Posted - 2013.01.05 21:16:00 - [239] - Quote Murk Paradox wrote: Lord Zim wrote: "nullsec shall be dependent on hisec, because why else has it been dependent on it for 10 years?" is provided with a devblog from one of the lead designers of eve where it says, specifically, that nullsec shouldn't be dependent on hisec "yeah well that's just some ideal world thingy! doesn't prove a thing!" You mean the same one you posted that's dated back in 2011? How's that working for you? p. well considering it obliterated your argument that nullsec industry is flawed by design Lord Zim wrote: You must be new to CCP's game development pace.
Destination SkillQueue Are We There Yet 3807	Posted - 2013.01.05 21:18:00 - [240] - Quote Malcanis wrote: Murk Paradox wrote: No, they don't say how it was meant to be, they say it's what they want. There is a big difference. See now this is what I'm talking about... This is beginning to remind me of the Bill Clinton response to the Lewinsky allegations. Some people just can't stop digging.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 20 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.