These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Exploration, Farming and a fix

Author
Tauranon
Weeesearch
CAStabouts
#21 - 2012-11-22 08:39:29 UTC
Highsec exploration needs the 4/10s as the hook to make people want to do exploration.

The monetary returns just reflects the massive over proliferation of cruisers in the game, and their general over performance, and thus the over demand for key modules that fit them, and probably somewhat over performance of some c-type key modules.

I dunno - is there 60 cruiser hulls in the game ?
Eight Two
SWIFT Inc.
#22 - 2012-11-22 09:21:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Eight Two
Again, thanks for your comments.

I agree with the over-proliferation of cruisers, the proble is that you need a ship that not only can tank incoming DPS, but also do decent damage while being able to move fast enough through the site.

That is not dictaded by some EFT heroes but by the core game mechanic of everyone and his cousing being able to pick up scanning in no time and coming into your site.

As I stated before, a dedicated group of scanning ships from frigate to battleships and only allowing them at the acceleration gates could fix the issue at hand as well but I can't see how the specifications needed would not make any other cruiser in the game obsolete. That would also take a huge part of the emergent gameplay - fitting a ship to do the job in a particular niche - away imo. So unless CCP comes up with a really creative way of giving us these it's the game mechanic that needs to be looked at.

Of course, certain ships will be more fit for the task at hand but specilization has always been the motto behind eve.
Explorers with frigates would be able to compete for the higher number of 1&2/10s (that will not be camped for a change hehe) more while struggling in higher sites and higher class ships may be able to do the fewer, higher sites while not being able to get into lower ones. Does that principle sound familiar? Missions, mining, PvP anyone?

The issue is jack of all trades being able to run each and every site with no effort.

Quote:
But your solution was to move them into lowsec...

Yah, color me suspicious. Shouldn't you be advocating for some solution that doesn't contradict your stated problem?

I don't even do these sites. I just don't like the constant push by lowsec players to penalize everyone who doesn't want to go to lowsec, instead of simply making lowsec better and more fun. Reach into your head, gather up all the ideas that involve removing content from either highsec or nullsec, wad them up in a ball and throw them away. Start over again, and this time come up with things that make lowsec better WITHOUT making everywhere else worse. Moving content to lowsec is not the answer.

If farming is such a problem, suggest solutions that make farming harder but don't just remove the content for everyone else. Moving them to lowsec isn't the answer.


Again, I never stated that I wanted less content in highsec, selective reading or putting words in my mouth will not chane that. Running more sites with more effort for less isk generally takes away the incentive for farming.
Look at the FW debacle and how it was fixed, this is not intended as a push to remove things from highsec. Any form of balance brings change, that's how things are.

That being said, Mne has a great point in making signatures less predictable, maybe even along the lines of the signature respawn mechanic that to my knowledge has not been uncovered in all these years.

Quote:

Yes, if you know what you're doing, lowsec and nullsec can be (relatively) safe, but you can get slightly less shiny loot in highsec, in exchange for not needing any situational awareness at all, running sites in a fraction of a time that the low/null ones


This.
Tauranon
Weeesearch
CAStabouts
#23 - 2012-11-22 10:11:46 UTC
Eight Two wrote:
Again, thanks for your comments.

I agree with the over-proliferation of cruisers, the proble is that you need a ship that not only can tank incoming DPS, but also do decent damage while being able to move fast enough through the site.


Over proliferation in my sense refers to the market demand for the modules - which makes 4/10s too profitable, but doesn't make them otherwise fundamentally wrong. ie the cruisers are just too popular for too many things. I don't particularly care that exploration is cruiser focused, its just that battlecruisers, hacs, t3s, logis, recons, cruisers, faction cruisers etc, is a lot of ships that can use the 4/10 modules.

Quote:


That is not dictaded by some EFT heroes but by the core game mechanic of everyone and his cousing being able to pick up scanning in no time and coming into your site.

As I stated before, a dedicated group of scanning ships from frigate to battleships and only allowing them at the acceleration gates could fix the issue at hand as well but I can't see how the specifications needed would not make any other cruiser in the game obsolete. That would also take a huge part of the emergent gameplay - fitting a ship to do the job in a particular niche - away imo. So unless CCP comes up with a really creative way of giving us these it's the game mechanic that needs to be looked at.



I cannot remember ever seeing another player enter a Mul Zatah on top of me. I can't even fly a tengu and don't happen to have ever owned or flown the proteus which I can fly. ie should I feel the need to do a 4/10 with a vexor and take longer kiting things to stay alive, I know where I would explore. Corpum modules are plenty valuable enough.

You can rig a myrm with grav rigs (its such a bulletproof lump you don't need the rigs for the tank) and find and do serp phis nearly as fast as a tengu can, with vastly less skills, as big parts of that particular experience are overheads that the tengu only has moderate advantages for. In practice I use the ishtar, but prior to being able to fly one, the myrm did a fine job for 4/10 hunting.


Eight Two
SWIFT Inc.
#24 - 2012-11-22 11:01:11 UTC
I must say that my experience is based on Gursistas, Sansha and Angel Space, haven't tried Blood Raider regions yet and in my experience at least in 7 out of 10 sites I have someone coming in, usually in Tengus but I have seen the odd Legion and Loki. For the record, I can run the 4/10 in these regions under 15 minutes which is not really slow either all things considered, a T3 doesn't get over half that much to complete in comparison without taking damage.

Also, of course you can fit a Myrm or a Drake for that matter with Grav rigs and happyly tank anything these sites throw at you, the point is though that unless you can fly T3 you're forced into an either-or decision as you can't get into 3/10s. In either of the sites you will be much too slow when competing with T3 cruisers.

T2 v T1 is much closer and can be won with piloting skill and experience with the site, against a T3 your option is to just warp out and look elsewhere.

As far as I'm aware T2s at least take a decent amount of effort to complete these sites, so nothing wrong with that, there's always going to be a T2 ship that's better for the job than a T1 but they're far from being T3 fly in-autowin easymode.

Especially with the Ishtar getting a little nerf with random drone aggro come december, which should tip it even closer to properly fit T1 counterparts.
Doddy
Excidium.
#25 - 2012-11-22 15:07:24 UTC
market forces, obviously too many people are not doing the sites or the price would drop.
Doddy
Excidium.
#26 - 2012-11-22 15:08:29 UTC
For the record i have never had anyone enter my site when doing a hi sec plex, ever.
Mnemosyne Gloob
#27 - 2012-11-22 16:31:51 UTC
St Mio wrote:
I'd be okay with that as long as they change it so that you can see type (Combat, Grav, Radar etc) sooner than 25%, and move Wormholes out of the Unknown category.


Hmm yeah i guess we all hate the wormholes - unless we actually look for them. Twisted

But again, i say that the easier scanning and now widely known band filtering has contributed much to the 'problem' you guys describe.

Also someone mentioned the market and the tendency of players to fit medium (shield) modules on their ships. That has already been that way since i started playing. It sometimes irks me that most of the armor modules are not that spectacular price-wise when comparing them to shield counterparts, but that is a reflection of what players want to fit on their ships. Now look at c-type shield booster prices in the last months and compare it to b- and a-type ones. The former are on a steady downward trend, while both the latter ones are sort of stable in price. Coincidence?

Filtering by bands is mostly a highsec thing - you can do it in lowsec, too, but theres actually mostly only 2 bands that you would want to ignore, the rest contains sites you would want to run. (disregarding now that there are people who only hunt for 6/10 - i have actually seen them run by 5/10, because they just trawl for that one band - but they are few).

Also about wormholes - i am not a wspace resident - you do however already have one bonus and that is that you only need to scan to 25 %. Not every hole has 60 sigs, too.
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#28 - 2012-11-22 22:34:35 UTC
Mnemosyne Gloob wrote:
Also about wormholes - i am not a wspace resident - you do however already have one bonus and that is that you only need to scan to 25 %. Not every hole has 60 sigs, too.


You would be surprised how often c5/6 holes have no one living in them, and then build up large amounts of sigs. I wonder how keen you would be to have these randomised if you had to sift through 20 sigs in every system to find the one sig you're looking for?

oh, and most holes DO have 20+ sigs in them, unless there is a major alliance living in the hole.
Ciba Lexlulu
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#29 - 2012-11-22 23:05:26 UTC
To make highsec exploration more exciting, CCP can allow PVP within exploration plexes in highsec space. This will definitely improve players experience in highsec exploration; players in highsec will not be taking their complex for granted as anyone who warp into their plex are potentially pvp opportunity. Twisted

St Mio
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#30 - 2012-11-23 06:06:37 UTC
Other people who warp into complexes I'm busy running should have their ships immediately explode and have the killmail credited 50/50 to CONCORD and myself :D
Agressive Mole
State War Academy
Caldari State
#31 - 2012-11-23 11:27:04 UTC
So I wonder is there anything else you could do with the other mechanics, like perhaps the acceleration gates could only handle a single ship or two before failing and not being able to let any others through, for a particular site instance.

Maybe you could have the passkeys that you need for a gate be once-offs, that are consumed up on activating a gate, preventing people from saving all the keys and being able to fast-forward past the initial pockets.
Or you could have the multi-pocket instances behave more like an escalation, where the loot drop is in the later room, and only available to that person that finished off the first room...

Maybe you need the hacking/archaeology skill at certain levels to hack/analyze the gates for the next rooms, or the salvage skill to work on canisters to get keys to open gates rather than just being able to run and gun. Maybe you can use ECM to lock/scramble gates after you! (10 tengus in the first room, trying to analyze the gate to be able to use it, and ECMing each other to prevent other ships opening it, a non-fatal type of PvP?)

Maybe you could have a deadspace debuff that builds up the more sites you run, like cosmic radiation, that damages modules on your ship (or your clone?!), requiring you to dockup and repair/heal, or an aggression timer for moving though systems? Maybe the debuff only affects the modules on T3s?

I suppose all of those suggestions are to stop better equipped players/T3s being able to farm by making it less likely they can fast-forward through/gatecrash instances that other people have already started, and don't really address the risk/reward factor. But it would slow down the rate at which instances can be run. I'm just throwing out ideas really...

I'm not sure about changing the ship size requirements, there is always going to be a best ship, and a practiced explorer is always going to have that ship ready, and the site researched, to run as quickly as possible.

I thought about allowing PvP in sites as well (after this are hidden locations for filthy pirates!) but I'm not sure how you would instantly turn it into a death camp for every explorer except those better equipped (t3) ones, and turning off new explorers?

As people have suggested you could also make the act of scanning down sites harder, requiring better skills and being more variable. People have said they don't want to have to scan down dozens of sites as it would take ages, but that's the point isn't it?
It would slow the rate instances are found. Or rather, found and ignored! It looks like practiced farmers scan a system and only run Radars/Combat sites. And of those only those combat sites that may return good loot. Again not sure how to address that, returns are already random?

Anyway, enough waffle from me, back to pretending to work
Eight Two
SWIFT Inc.
#32 - 2012-11-23 12:01:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Eight Two
I actually like a few of your ideas there to circumvent the ship restriction. CCP could make access to acceleration gates encodeable (starting with the gate that leads into the very first pocket) with let's say - maybe 3-5 chances to hack the gate to gain access independent of hacking skill.

So if you decide to contest a site you may end up not gaining access to the site at all and waisting valuable time. That is if the explorer already running the sites decides to encrypt the site.

That in addition to random signature strenght could fix the problem without being too restricitve to shipclasses. I am actually against lowering identification signal strength, because it's already really easy to see what type a site is by lowering scan ranges in steps of two 32 - 8 - 2 (usually able to ID what it is then) and .5 for the hit.

There is the downside of multiple people trying to gain access to the same site and probably trying to "spam hack" their way in.

Dropping passkeys to the next room sounds good at first however that actually allows for exploiting the game mechanic by only getting the first pass-key and then move on to come back into the system later and monopolize sites. Happens on the static 1&2/10s every day.

A fix could be to have sites despawn based on a timer that tracks:

a.) If the player holding the passkey is still in the site

b.) Short activation timer for the passkey starting with destruction of overseer, so if you move in to kill the overseer/structure that holds the passkey that activates the gate and end up not clearing the room, the passkey could be destroyed/made unusable

The problem I see with this though is still some room to exploit the mechanic and additional strain on the servers.
Aiyshimin
Descendant Command
#33 - 2012-11-23 14:13:28 UTC
Eight Two wrote:

T2 v T1 is much closer and can be won with piloting skill and experience with the site, against a T3 your option is to just warp out and look elsewhere.

As far as I'm aware T2s at least take a decent amount of effort to complete these sites, so nothing wrong with that, there's always going to be a T2 ship that's better for the job than a T1 but they're far from being T3 fly in-autowin easymode.

Especially with the Ishtar getting a little nerf with random drone aggro come december, which should tip it even closer to properly fit T1 counterparts.


Repeating myself a bit, but the Ishtar is miles above the other HACs in exploration due to sentry drones, which also place it above T3s. This is just to support my argument that T2 should also be denied from hisec sites, if T3s are, not a "my ship is better than yours" -wormcan opener.

(Drone aggro is a total non-issue in hisec)

Eight Two
SWIFT Inc.
#34 - 2012-11-23 15:11:01 UTC
Ah I see what you mean now, I'll take your word for it as in my experience T3s have been harder to beat in sites than the Ishtar, then again it's highsec anyways, so T1s in sites should be fine, at least for cruisers and above.
Robertina Bering
Doomheim
#35 - 2012-11-24 12:34:04 UTC
Ciba Lexlulu wrote:
To make highsec exploration more exciting, CCP can allow PVP within exploration plexes in highsec space. This will definitely improve players experience in highsec exploration; players in highsec will not be taking their complex for granted as anyone who warp into their plex are potentially pvp opportunity. Twisted



Evil but great idea.
Ciba Lexlulu
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#36 - 2012-11-24 18:07:02 UTC
On a more serious note, imho, any change of mechanics players will eventually figure it out. Unless CCP completely randomize everything; the exploration itself become very boring (scanning every single signature and popping all rats one by one anyone?). The nly way to make things more exciting is to add other players involvement in exploration. Hence my suggestion of having plexes as pvp area in high sec. In low or null, once you find the plex, it is only half of the job. You need to make sure to complete it asap before pirates scan you down and pop you in your expensive pve ship.

Anyway, with the new AI, now plex runners have better chance vs pirates.
St Mio
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#37 - 2012-11-26 06:54:21 UTC
I was going to write a whole long story about this, but I'll keep it short:

If you want more people to run low/null exploration sites, then add new sites that can be done in smaller ships, that don't require players to expose themselves in one location for long periods of time.

Low/null don't really hundreds of super tough NPCs and tons of 90% web towers to be more dangerous: they're already more dangerous because other players are trying to kill you. The "harder sites should need bigger ships" scaling doesn't really scale that smoothly once you add in all the variables of high vs low/null.

Keep the current sites there, but include ones for week-old newbies in T1 frigates or cruisers to run, and lure them in with better loot than they'll get trying to out-camp people in static 1/10s.

If people want to mow down NPCs in highsec in billion ISK T3s then that's fine, everyone should be able to play the game however they want. But they shouldn't be rewarded more than some newbie deciding to be brave and run sites in lowsec with their first cruiser, dodging player pirates and struggling to finish a site by the skin of their teeth.

P.S.: Get rid of the static DED plexes being static, seriously.
Tauranon
Weeesearch
CAStabouts
#38 - 2012-11-26 12:37:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Tauranon
Yes they could tighten that up,

I also felt like writing a long post - but essentially upgrade the loot tables to the cruiser c-type in some of the escalations (watch/vigil end in low), so that the 4/10 isn't necessary in high. That might require upgrading to the cruiser b-type loot table to keep the easier of the lowsec escalation loot tables better than the highsec originated stuff, but I can't see that being a big drama either.

Could probably also streamline the watch/vigil escalations (the highsec parts are probably fine as is).

Going to your own escalation in low is generally a reasonable chance that you won't be immediately scanned down, I find them preferable to plexes that may have already been scanned down as a somewhat risk averse player.
Previous page12