These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Exploration, Risk vs. Reward, T3 ships and DED 4/10s
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
UKBigWolf
#21 - 2013-03-02 00:14:43 UTC
Calisto Thellere wrote:

I would go for it if, and only if, once i'd scanned down a site and gone through the gate, it locks the gate to any other ships after 10 seconds or so. If those lowsec dwellers catch me on a gate or probe me down somewhere else, bravo and fair game to them, but if i knew once id risked being probed down, and got past the camps to scan down a site and entered it i'd be safe(ish) until its ended, then sure i'd start exploring in lowsec as would many others i'd imagine.


Personally I kind of like this idea
But the locked gate should be first to second room and make the first room unblitzable (you have to kill everything)
Also, the gate should still be able to be activated by using one of the rare tags (as in expensive faction tags maybe), so there is still a chance of being caught out on the site, but that chance isn't as high due to only pirates willing to pay good isk (or having got lucky with running sites themselves) can get past that first gate if they aren't quick enough

Would be a bad idea for it to be completely locked off as it gives a hiding hole, so while a lock is a good idea, that lock needs to be bypassable, however, in this instance make it cost them in someway for the chance to tag you
Tauranon
Weeesearch
CAStabouts
#22 - 2013-03-02 01:27:06 UTC
UKBigWolf wrote:
Calisto Thellere wrote:

I would go for it if, and only if, once i'd scanned down a site and gone through the gate, it locks the gate to any other ships after 10 seconds or so. If those lowsec dwellers catch me on a gate or probe me down somewhere else, bravo and fair game to them, but if i knew once id risked being probed down, and got past the camps to scan down a site and entered it i'd be safe(ish) until its ended, then sure i'd start exploring in lowsec as would many others i'd imagine.


Personally I kind of like this idea
But the locked gate should be first to second room and make the first room unblitzable (you have to kill everything)
Also, the gate should still be able to be activated by using one of the rare tags (as in expensive faction tags maybe), so there is still a chance of being caught out on the site, but that chance isn't as high due to only pirates willing to pay good isk (or having got lucky with running sites themselves) can get past that first gate if they aren't quick enough

Would be a bad idea for it to be completely locked off as it gives a hiding hole, so while a lock is a good idea, that lock needs to be bypassable, however, in this instance make it cost them in someway for the chance to tag you


PVE players trying to make a single player game out of EVE since 2003. It exists as a mechanism already for 1 or 2 encounters, and that is ample. It is generally a terrible idea to extend that.

IMO ded4 loot is closer to -wrong- than the possibility of being scanned down in lowsec is.
Mnemosyne Gloob
#23 - 2013-03-02 03:41:08 UTC
Oh finally someone talks about this. And the one is the person that partly made highec what it is now (not really, you are not the one responsible, but you are the one that made the 'easy scanning' available to the wide public).

In my opinion scanning has become too easy. Especially when in highesc all you have to look out for are the omnomnom DED 4/10 sites. I guess i could make players responsible for that, because they made wide available the mechanism for filtering signature bands. It is however the game mechanics that make what people do with deep space probes (and normal ones) work.

And yes, i think this fact alone is most important. People can cover large areas of space very quickly, looking just for the sites they want to run. Before that they would have to scan down all the sites (or at least get the type).

If you ban tech3 ships from highsec or the 4/10s, there is gonna be another shiptype cropping up that sort of does what all the tengus do (i would for instance think of expanded launcher and shield fit ishtar). That is working on the symptoms but not the causes.

Imagine CCP made the signatures dynamic, as in a 4/10 could be anywhere within the possible bands. Many of the tengus in highsec would be out of business - not really, they could still do a site when they found one, but it would simply take them more time to just find that site.

So yeah i would go with
St Mio wrote:
[ ] Nerf Deep Space Probes


(even though its not DSP, but sig bands) Twisted

[edit]And of course as a lowsec dweller i have to add that lowsec exploration is fruitless.[/edit]
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#24 - 2013-03-02 05:21:34 UTC
Kodama Ikari wrote:
Melina Lin wrote:
St Mio wrote:

So, what do you think?
[ ] Exploration is fine, Working as Intendedâ„¢
[ ] Exploration is broken, Risk ≠ Reward
[ ] High-sec exploration should be nerfed
[ ] Low-sec exploration should be buffed
[ ] Ban all T3 ships from high-sec exploration
[ ] Nerf Deep Space Probes


[x] Move all 4/10 to low-sec
[x] Fix 1/10 2/10 spawns as compensation
[x] Rename all Pithum\Gistum Invulns to Pith\Gist and adjust drop tables



I couldn't decide which answer to pick, none of the options seemed appropriate. Then I saw this post. I might suggest increasing the 3/10s as well, because deadspace frigs are fun.

Sniped out the trash to show the hilarious parts.

DeMichael Crimson wrote:


Cry and whine all you want, majority of players are not going to leave high sec exploration without a measure of safety being implemented into the exploration sites.

I usually partake in and complete all the content within the sites and rarely ever do a blitz. I save that as a last resort for when someone else tries to barge in on my site. Yes, you read that right. I said my site.

Seems the mentality of players now is to try and screw over everyone else, no matter what. He knew I was in the site just like the other guy. No common courtesy what so ever. They don't care about partaking in all the content available or about enjoying the Dev's hard work. They just want to quickly blitz the site and grab Faction loot.



LolLolLol

Been a long time since I've seen someone do a troll with selective quoting while trying to present themselves as an all experienced know it all when in fact they're just shoveling bullsh*t. Obviously this person belongs to the mentality group I had mentioned.

It's clear this person has no clue how exploration used to be before it was dumbed down. Obviously the caliber of character in this game was a lot better back then. It definitely wasn't the asinine attitude currently being displayed by the so-called explorers of today. This person could have posted some constructive criticism and voiced their disagreement instead of trolling. In fact, this player was in such a rush to troll, he/she totally missed the point of my posted reply.

Blitzing exploration sites due to well known documented spawn triggers is the main problem, not high sec, not competition, not DSP's, not T3 Cruisers, not 4/10 spawn locations, not loot drops, etc. Randomize the triggers as well as code the Overseer to only spawn after all NPC's within the site have been destroyed. That will definitely help fix the problem..

DMC

'The Plan' | California Eve Players | Proposal - The Endless Battle
Ciba Lexlulu
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#25 - 2013-03-02 06:44:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Ciba Lexlulu
Reading all the posts, it seems like we can't even agree what the problem is with Exploration (or even if this content is indeed broken). Sounds like 10 blind men trying to figure out what an elephant is like by touching it.

At any case, I reiterate my view that the no Concord zone for all DED sites seems like the most elegant solution. No loot swapping, no messing around with the sigs. Just change the way Concord behave. We can even add an additional feature that once a player uses the acceleration gate, the site will emit beacon that everyone can warp to - sort of like Cyno beacon. This will make the site more challenging, create contents (via tears) and keep everyone engaged.
Ciba Lexlulu
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#26 - 2013-03-02 07:30:56 UTC
Actually after thinking about it, the idea of havinh warp-able beacon is bad idea. This will further encourage free loader, opportunist and ganking. I can imagine Knight of New Order will suddenly switch from miner bumping to ganking explorers (good for miners and bad for us).

So, ignore the warp-able beacon idea. But the No Concord zone is still a good idea, IMHO.
Tauranon
Weeesearch
CAStabouts
#27 - 2013-03-02 07:40:15 UTC
Ciba Lexlulu wrote:
Actually after thinking about it, the idea of havinh warp-able beacon is bad idea. This will further encourage free loader, opportunist and ganking. I can imagine Knight of New Order will suddenly switch from miner bumping to ganking explorers (good for miners and bad for us).

So, ignore the warp-able beacon idea. But the No Concord zone is still a good idea, IMHO.


It will be full of people with no interest in running the sites, and impossible for newbies to even try.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#28 - 2013-03-02 12:51:26 UTC
Hisec should be a safe area for nubs to practice the art, older pilots should be encouraged to move onto more interesting challenges by nerfing hisec rewards, locking all but T1 ships from all hisec sites, limiting hisec 4/10s to cruisers and smaller, and introducing all the lower class plexes in lowsec as well.

Running a 4/10 in a low-skill cruiser is challenging and fun, and even lesser drops are big for a new player. Blitzing them in a T2 or T3 ship is not challenging, it's just harvesting loot from sites that were designed for beginners.

Locking T3s does not solve it, T2 ships are just as powerful, well at least one of them is easily even better than the loltengu for blitzing GSOs. Of course it's true that older players still have the advantage even with everyone in T1 ships, but the gap is much smaller and it takes considerably less time for a nub to fly a T1 cruiser or frig competitively.

Time to start fixing hisec and seeing as what it is- safeish zone for new players.

Lowsec sites should have looser ship restrictions and better drops, and there could even be more sites there.

Even though getting jumped in a lowsec plex is almost impossible if you have the slightest clue, I wouldn't mind some sites to have for example hackable stargates or similar "multi-type" mechanics. Put a spawn container next to a locked gate, hacking the can unlocks the gate, and it gets locked again after using it.

This serves both the scaredbears, and hunters, as you wouldn't have to kill the gate warden to get cloaking in the next room :)

.
Ayame Tao
#29 - 2013-03-02 12:57:01 UTC
DeMichael Crimson wrote:


Blitzing exploration sites due to well known documented spawn triggers is the main problem, not high sec, not competition, not DSP's, not T3 Cruisers, not 4/10 spawn locations, not loot drops, etc. Randomize the triggers as well as code the Overseer to only spawn after all NPC's within the site have been destroyed. That will definitely help fix the problem..

DMC


You know what... This would be an excellent way to improve fun, cut down farming and blitzing and implement some of the stuff the Devs are keen on right now.

As CCP Ytterbium posted: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2462718#post2462718

CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Ideally, battling NPCs should teach players how PvP works, how to defend and be better prepared about it should they choose to move into dangerous areas.


Make Faction rats into elite aces. Scrambling to the site after a threat began wiping out their comrades (you) makes spawning on grid occur at a scripted point, e.g. killing all other ships. This cuts down on the blitzability of DED sites as you'll have to take the time to clear the room.

Elite Aces can showcase better AI (Sleepers on Frentix) and PVP focused fits. This presents an experience more akin to actual player combat with a challenging opponent and makes exploration less of a cakewalk.

I doubt too many people will be hurling billion ISK Tengus at DED 4/10 when they know that a hard mofo in a Faction assault ship with the skills and fit to back it up could give them a really bad day.


Sure, it's not perfect, but it does mitigate some of the biggest issues.
BigWeirdo
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#30 - 2013-03-02 13:05:11 UTC
Everything you say is true but I don't know how to fix the problem. One idea not mentioned would be to increase the number of 4/10s this would both depress the price of the mods and increase the chance of finding a site. Do you think this would have any side effects?
Nriz Barol
1IL
#31 - 2013-03-02 14:42:14 UTC
I think a fundamental problem is the ship types, ie there is no combat capable scan boat thats relatively cheap (under 100-150mil) and doesn't have the side effect of looseing skill points when you loose it. I was hoping they would release the Gnosis for general consumption in the recent retribution escalation. Its a pretty unpalatable amount of risk for a lot of people, that results in tech 3s farming 4/10s and not taking them to lowsec or elsewhere.
Estella Osoka
Cranky Bitches Who PMS
#32 - 2013-03-02 15:13:18 UTC
Would ya'll like some cheese with your wine?

The exploration sites are working as intended. Highsec has too much competition for sites, and that equals out the risk vs reward for highsec. Lowsec has less competition and better rewards, but you have to worry about pvpers killing you. Nullsec has even less competition, harder rats, and great rewards; but you have the same worries as you have in lowsec with pvpers plus bubbles.

All I'm hearing here is people whining/complaining because others can run the sites better and faster than you in highsec. You don't like that? Then fleet up with like-minded individuals and have a couple people scan down sites while others run them, then split the loot at the end of the op. It's a MMO, play it like it is intended.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#33 - 2013-03-02 16:33:44 UTC
Maybe you need to learn to read better then.


.
Somnorific
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#34 - 2013-03-02 21:26:39 UTC
make the signatures NOT static in there result radius. .1%, 1.40% etc
NO cherry picking
ie. more time for t3's to scan sites down
ie. everyone will have to spend time and SP in the astrometrics and similar to perfect and quicken the time it takes to scan sites down.
As intended.
Sarmatiko
#35 - 2013-03-03 02:48:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Sarmatiko
Estella Osoka wrote:
All I'm hearing here is people whining/complaining because others can run the sites better and faster than you in highsec. You don't like that? Then fleet up with like-minded individuals and have a couple people scan down sites while others run them, then split the loot at the end of the op. It's a MMO, play it like it is intended.


People complaining because whole high-sec exploration mechanic currently exploitable and no fun, not because "others can run the sites better and faster".
I can easily chew through any 3/10 and 4/10 in no time and without any imaginable risk with my 775dps/650 tank HAML Tengu with locust, or with my 850dps/650 tank Sleipnir, or with my Zealot and random dude in cruiser/battlecruiser wont have a chance to compete with me. And with such ship characteristics, why is there any restrictions anyway? Why 1000dps Tengu allowed in 3/10 and T1 battlecruiser with less tank/dps is not?


This is ridiculous and there is only one solution - allow only T1 Frigates/Cruisers/Battlecruisers on entry gates.
Tools allow CCP to exclude any ship group they want, including Pirate Cruisers (so there will be no overpowered Gila, dudes).
Orlacc
#36 - 2013-03-03 03:37:50 UTC
We are slowly heading down a path where "everyone is a winner." Like the Special Olympics.

Best idea was having the Overseer only spawn when all other NPCs are dead.

"Measure Twice, Cut Once."
Tauranon
Weeesearch
CAStabouts
#37 - 2013-03-03 03:54:31 UTC
Sarmatiko wrote:
Estella Osoka wrote:
All I'm hearing here is people whining/complaining because others can run the sites better and faster than you in highsec. You don't like that? Then fleet up with like-minded individuals and have a couple people scan down sites while others run them, then split the loot at the end of the op. It's a MMO, play it like it is intended.


People complaining because whole high-sec exploration mechanic currently exploitable and no fun, not because "others can run the sites better and faster".
I can easily chew through any 3/10 and 4/10 in no time and without any imaginable risk with my 775dps/650 tank HAML Tengu with locust, or with my 850dps/650 tank Sleipnir, or with my Zealot and random dude in cruiser/battlecruiser wont have a chance to compete with me. And with such ship characteristics, why is there any restrictions anyway? Why 1000dps Tengu allowed in 3/10 and T1 battlecruiser with less tank/dps is not?


This is ridiculous and there is only one solution - allow only T1 Frigates/Cruisers/Battlecruisers on entry gates.
Tools allow CCP to exclude any ship group they want, including Pirate Cruisers (so there will be no overpowered Gila, dudes).


Oh look you can't use the exploration spaceships for exploration. What a good idea.Roll

If GSO hunting became the preserve of battlecruisers there would still be players in 250 dps AB drakes being overrun by skilled players in 1000 dps MWD brutixes. Nothing changes, the dps comes from skills and aggressive fitting and recognition of when your ehp and dps is sufficient to allow a tank to be overloaded for a shoot loot n scoot.
Lucas Irvam
The Anodyne Consortium
#38 - 2013-03-03 04:04:49 UTC
Maybe I'm just not seeing the 'something needs to change!' urgency on this. Won't this eventually correct itself due to the market reaction?

More folks in hs exploration lowers the average explorer's chances of finding a site, while simultaneously driving down the price of deadspace modules due to oversupply. The minute that average hs explorer finds he can make ISK doing something else, that's one less explorer everyone competes against.
Inkarr Hashur
Skyline Federation
#39 - 2013-03-03 05:57:19 UTC
Lucas Irvam wrote:
Maybe I'm just not seeing the 'something needs to change!' urgency on this. Won't this eventually correct itself due to the market reaction?

More folks in hs exploration lowers the average explorer's chances of finding a site, while simultaneously driving down the price of deadspace modules due to oversupply. The minute that average hs explorer finds he can make ISK doing something else, that's one less explorer everyone competes against.


I'm not sure what the market reaction to this would be. The silly isk-faucet of the incursion community seems to be driving demand of these modules way up (note disparity between shield and armor module prices, I don't think "oversupply" is a thing for some modules) and players in this thread seem to want to be driving supply of the modules further down by creating an obstacle to locating and quickly clearing the 4/10 sites. Finally, there are still plenty of vigil sites and 3/10 to be had.

Meanwhile incursions are still, you know, the very thing people are complaining about with risk vs reward.

And averaged out, exploration income isn't even that different from mission income. I wouldn't have ever bothered with it if it wasn't for the lottery format of it. I just don't see an issue to cause people to stamp their feet.
Avatar Pellion
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#40 - 2013-03-03 06:52:24 UTC
In case people do not realize, CCP does not control the payoff, ie, price of the mods. We players are mainly responsible for the high price and hence indirectly the farming. Notice that the complain about 'farming' is only in Gurista (and to some extent Angel) space. Hardly anyone bother to farm DED 4/10 in other space.

If tomorrow demand for deadspace invuls were to disappear, all the problems related to exploration will disappear. No one will farm it, no T3 cruisers in the site and noobs are free to pick on these sites at their leisure.

Over the longrun, players will be able to game the system as long as the payoff is astronomical. The only way to prevent this is to have players to 'control' other players. That is why you dont see farming of DED sites in lows.

Fix the root cause, ie, shield tanking vs armor tanking and fix highsec vs lowsec risk imbalance.