These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Missions & Complexes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Also about exploration...
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Bezerk'ah Vulkan
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1 - 2012-03-30 18:32:45 UTC
...I do not agree with the fact that lower rated DEDs only spawn on higher security space

I believe that 1 to 4/10s should spawn in high sec BUT ALSO in low sec and null, 4 to 6/10 should spawn in low AND in null sec also and we should have a chance to find ALL rated DEDs in null sec

This will make that high sec explorers will have the same that they have now, but low sec will have a bigger chance of getting those plus the usual low sec sites, making ( once and for all ) low sec a more atractive space for explorers. Null will have a chance of finding all DEDs so those who live there can have also a chance of pimping their frigs without having to bring those mods from high sec markets

Most explorers will search for the higher rated DEDs no doubt...but if after scanning 5 systems, and your time of play for the night is running out, one could just run that crappy 2/10 before we logoff.

cheers
mxzf
Shovel Bros
#2 - 2012-03-30 18:44:17 UTC
First off, wrong forum. Second, this is a bad idea. People who explore in lower security space are looking for the stuff that you find there. This would cause even more "Crap, it's just a lousy x" when they're looking for the bigger sites.

As it is works fine. You decide what you're looking for and then you go out and look for it in the right sec band.
Bezerk'ah Vulkan
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#3 - 2012-03-30 18:53:30 UTC
Right...this should be in the discussion thread...my bad!

But i disagree with your point...deep scanner probes exist for a reason...it just makes no logic that for example a 4/10 plex for angel cartel can´t appear in their fckng home land in null...also i would happily run a 2/10 if i am about to log off after 2h of scanning for richer sites with no luck...it's crap, but it's something by the end of the day.
Mnemosyne Gloob
#4 - 2012-03-31 02:06:18 UTC
Bezerk'ah Vulkan wrote:
deep scanner probes exist for a reason.



I doubt they were 'invented' for what people do with them now.
Space Wanderer
#5 - 2012-03-31 07:59:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Space Wanderer
Mnemosyne Gloob wrote:
Bezerk'ah Vulkan wrote:
deep scanner probes exist for a reason.



I doubt they were 'invented' for what people do with them now.


While they were not invented for that reason (finding deepsafes was the reason given by devs), what explorers do with them now is the only reason why they actually bothered with them, and has been this way since apochrypha launch (much time has gone by, but if memory serves they were used in this way even BEFORE apochrypha launch, on SISI, during apocrypha testing with devs).

So, while stated incorrectly, the point above is still valid. DSPs are used by explorers for a reason.
Space Wanderer
#6 - 2012-03-31 07:59:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Space Wanderer
stupid double posting...
OfBalance
Caldari State
#7 - 2012-03-31 08:10:55 UTC
Someone got beat to the overseer tonight, heh.
Eladanus
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
#8 - 2012-03-31 08:35:10 UTC
I actually agree.

Youre right that it doesnt make sense that the rats themselves would limit their activities to high-sec (why wouldnt they run a 4/10 in null?)

Mostly though I think it would be a good idea to help less sp-rich explorers. I've only dabbled in exploration myself and even I've noticed, as have many people ive spoken to, that to really compete you have to have a t3. That puts people dual-shipping in scanning frigs and whatever else at a real disadvantage, one which for noobs it can take months to overcome.

If people in flashy tengus and the like were encouraged to at least explore in low-sec (through there being more opportunities) it would free up some exploration site in high for noobs and the less well sp endowed.
Iria Ahrens
Space Perverts and Forum Pirates
#9 - 2012-03-31 08:53:28 UTC
I'm in favor of more sites for me, and not for anyone else, since it will cause inflation and encourage more people to explore. And I'm already having trouble finding sites for all the usual reasons, competition.

So overall I vote no. I wan't more people to stop exploring and go back to ratting or missioning.

My choice of pronouns is based on your avatar. Even if I know what is behind the avatar.
Bezerk'ah Vulkan
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#10 - 2012-03-31 16:51:38 UTC
I was only saying that there shouldn't be ( in terms of NPC pirates ) anything restricted to high sec...Whatever happens in stupid high sec SHOULD/MUST also happen in the lower level space, cause...you know...that's where they live and operate.
Bezerk'ah Vulkan
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#11 - 2012-03-31 16:53:14 UTC
Iria Ahrens wrote:
I'm in favor of more sites for me, and not for anyone else,


now that was a constructive reply...keep up the good work using...humor i guess...
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#12 - 2012-03-31 17:10:42 UTC
the only valid argument for this change would be to drop the prices for the modules that drop in the hi and lowsec plexes and raise the prices for the nullsec modules. not sure if that is a good or bad idea though.

I should buy an Ishtar.
OfBalance
Caldari State
#13 - 2012-03-31 18:23:38 UTC
pithi a-type ssb's for everyone! YAAAY!
De Guantanamo
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2012-03-31 21:25:27 UTC
This is a terrible idea.

Either you would implement this in such a way that the amount of sites would stay the same and thus high sec would eventually get dry as you wait for the sites to get finished in low/null and hopefully respawn in high sec.

Or this would be implemented in a such a way that more sites are added, in which case you not only get the above as a potential result but you also saturate the market with modules. This could be accounted for by setting a max amount of items to drop or some other maintenance of drops, but this will just serve to result in more "I GOT NOTHING FROM THIS SITE" comments.

So yeah, horrible idea.
De Guantanamo
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2012-03-31 21:26:26 UTC
Daniel Plain wrote:
the only valid argument for this change would be to drop the prices for the modules that drop in the hi and lowsec plexes and raise the prices for the nullsec modules. not sure if that is a good or bad idea though.


Holy crap please tell me you are not so stupid as to think that the prices of modules dropped from plexes are set by CCP.

Please assure me that there is hope for humanity as an intelligent species.
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
#16 - 2012-03-31 21:39:54 UTC
De Guantanamo wrote:
Daniel Plain wrote:
the only valid argument for this change would be to drop the prices for the modules that drop in the hi and lowsec plexes and raise the prices for the nullsec modules. not sure if that is a good or bad idea though.


Holy crap please tell me you are not so stupid as to think that the prices of modules dropped from plexes are set by CCP.

Please assure me that there is hope for humanity as an intelligent species.


Umm. He's describing a market dynamic. Did you notice? More -i drops due to more 1-3/10s drive prices down. Somewhat more -um drops due to somewhat more 4-5/10s drive prices down, though a bit less than -i modules. Same number of -us modules available, but only in areas where all other deadspace mods can also be farmed which reduces modules going to market, same demand, slightly higher -us prices. Follow?
De Guantanamo
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2012-03-31 21:44:02 UTC
Zhilia Mann wrote:
De Guantanamo wrote:
Daniel Plain wrote:
the only valid argument for this change would be to drop the prices for the modules that drop in the hi and lowsec plexes and raise the prices for the nullsec modules. not sure if that is a good or bad idea though.


Holy crap please tell me you are not so stupid as to think that the prices of modules dropped from plexes are set by CCP.

Please assure me that there is hope for humanity as an intelligent species.


Umm. He's describing a market dynamic. Did you notice? More -i drops due to more 1-3/10s drive prices down. Somewhat more -um drops due to somewhat more 4-5/10s drive prices down, though a bit less than -i modules. Same number of -us modules available, but only in areas where all other deadspace mods can also be farmed which reduces modules going to market, same demand, slightly higher -us prices. Follow?


Except for the part where he made no mention or indication that he understands market dynamics, and instead blatantly stated "prices would have to change for this to work."
Ikonia
Royal Amarr Expeditions
#18 - 2012-04-08 09:13:46 UTC
Disagree. Market is stable, is oversatisfied and prices are already as low that it is hard to keep up 500 Mio per 10 days in HiSec.

A change to this would merely just give low and nullsec players the opportunity to choose what to go for like on a buffet, causing prices to drop for the stuff since the oversatisfied market would decrease prices again and all explorers would have to adapt to remain competitive.

At the opposite highsecs could demand that all of the low and nullsec spawns should also be in hisec now, to keep up competition, which would afford to allow to bring capitals in hisec which would demand a change to th whole game.

It is good as it is. If you think you waste too much time finding sites, for which u might not have the time to finish them, then you are maybe playing out of bounds: having the opportunity to have small plexes means to go back to hisec. Of partially solve a plex and come back next time - if it is there still. Or do what all others need to do aslo - fleet up and share.

It is the wrong idea to have a personal play style problem solved on the costs of all others.

And agree: i am also only interested on sites for me personally, not for anyone else, since this game is competitive and the goal is profit.

Cheers
Azemar
Voidhounds
Pretenders
#19 - 2012-04-09 17:24:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Azemar
mxzf wrote:
First off, wrong forum. Second, this is a bad idea. People who explore in lower security space are looking for the stuff that you find there. This would cause even more "Crap, it's just a lousy x" when they're looking for the bigger sites.

As it is works fine. You decide what you're looking for and then you go out and look for it in the right sec band.



I disagree with this and completely agree with the OP. Most explorers, at least me, are doing exploring for one thing: Non-grinding isk income with some adventure. If it makes me isk, i don't care what it is.

I can't tell you how many times i've scanned 7+ systems only to find grav sites. Indices should not matter as much as they do right now. When you're in a relatively small alliance and corp, you get screwed because you can't hold up the indices levels, thus lowering your chances for finding anything.

And no, contrary to popular belief, the ratio of how many explorers there are to how many members go through that system in a day/month/year is NOT 1:1. I was in fountain space with TEST, where there are a lot of players. There were very little explorers. I was probably one of the few. Now i'm in Providence, but the indices levels are so low due to the lack of players, making exploring a waste of time (the scanning part). It's gotten to the point where doing belts is a more efficient isk maker.

Adding the rest of the unrated/DED sites would prove invaluable to explorers in null, without hurting low and high sec capsuleers.
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
#20 - 2012-04-09 17:47:25 UTC
Azemar wrote:
Adding the rest of the unrated/DED sites would prove invaluable to explorers in null, without hurting low and high sec capsuleers.


Except it would. Read the rest of the thread.
12Next page