These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

T3 in DED 3/10 or 4/10
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
XXSketchxx
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#21 - 2013-07-03 16:20:17 UTC
CCP's adjustments were intended to limit particular ships, not players, and by so doing keep out the "easy mode" T3s, thus giving others who don't have the sp/isk a chance to compete. Now the results of this...eh. T2 cruisers are still quite effective farming ships and will easily outpace younger players.

Nevertheless, your suggestion basically creates 5 minute instances in which players are 100% unable to interact with other players. This is terrible.

And the only people crying about low sec are the ones full of fear that want to be able to safely run DED 4/10 in a cloakie, scanning T3. So yeah, their opinions don't really matter to me.
XXSketchxx
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#22 - 2013-07-03 16:22:12 UTC
Tauranon wrote:

A lot of people ought to think themselves very lucky ded 4s aren't gone from highsec.


Agreed. I'm sure CCP considered removing them from high sec.
Cryo Kool
Tax Holiday
#23 - 2013-07-04 09:04:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Cryo Kool
XXSketchxx wrote:
CCP's adjustments were intended to limit particular ships, not players, and by so doing keep out the "easy mode" T3s, thus giving others who don't have the sp/isk a chance to compete. Now the results of this...eh. T2 cruisers are still quite effective farming ships and will easily outpace younger players.

Nevertheless, your suggestion basically creates 5 minute instances in which players are 100% unable to interact with other players. This is terrible.


I agree, T2 ships will still outpace younger players. The cost of T2 ships, rigs and fittings that farmers will be using will still be on par with lessor fitted T3 ships. Higher SP and better financed toons will always outpace poorer, lower SP ones in these activities.

By your logic, CCP should remove stations from the game; they also prevent player interaction, except for indefinite lengths of time.
Jonas Staal
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#24 - 2013-07-04 10:38:06 UTC
Cryo Kool wrote:
XXSketchxx wrote:
CCP's adjustments were intended to limit particular ships, not players, and by so doing keep out the "easy mode" T3s, thus giving others who don't have the sp/isk a chance to compete. Now the results of this...eh. T2 cruisers are still quite effective farming ships and will easily outpace younger players.

Nevertheless, your suggestion basically creates 5 minute instances in which players are 100% unable to interact with other players. This is terrible.


I agree, T2 ships will still outpace younger players. The cost of T2 ships, rigs and fittings that farmers will be using will still be on par with lessor fitted T3 ships. Higher SP and better financed toons will always outpace poorer, lower SP ones in these activities.


Is it not normal that someone with maxxed skills in the combat/scanning deparment does better than a new player?

If DEVs want old players out of ded3's and ded4's, DEVs should've removed the 100-500mil drops rather than remove certain ships from said sites.
Cryo Kool
Tax Holiday
#25 - 2013-07-04 15:05:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Cryo Kool
Jonas Staal wrote:

Is it not normal that someone with maxxed skills in the combat/scanning deparment does better than a new player?

If DEVs want old players out of ded3's and ded4's, DEVs should've removed the 100-500mil drops rather than remove certain ships from said sites.


It is normal that an older richer player should do better. I just don't agree it should always be at the expense of a newer player in the same plex; it should be because of completing more sites and finding more difficult ones. Showing up 3-5 minutes after a newer player shouldn't always mean you can still steal it from them. At the very least they need to randomize the triggers, forcing people to clear the whole room and slowing down the blitz farmers.

As the value of the drops is determined by the supply/demand of/for them, I suggest increasing the number of those sites. Pith/Gist A-C items for cruiser sized hulls and below could benefit from a price reduction. It would bring it more in line with dead space armor mods and liven up the pvp scene with people willing to risk better fitted ships.
XXSketchxx
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#26 - 2013-07-04 21:52:54 UTC
Cryo Kool wrote:


By your logic, CCP should remove stations from the game; they also prevent player interaction, except for indefinite lengths of time.


Please tell me you're serious.
XXSketchxx
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#27 - 2013-07-04 21:54:37 UTC
If you really need me to spell it out for you:

there should never be a point in this game where you can avoid player interaction while actively playing the game. Even when you are station trading (i.e. in the comfort of the station) you are interacting with other players via the market.

What you have proposed is a means for players to completely be free of player interaction and have a 5 minute window where in they can profit without any sort of competition.

That is terrible.
XXSketchxx
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#28 - 2013-07-04 21:56:38 UTC
Jonas Staal wrote:

If DEVs want old players out of ded3's and ded4's, DEVs should've removed the 100-500mil drops rather than remove certain ships from said sites.


Its a player run economy you fool. The devs don't set the price, the players do. The simple fact is that those modules support certain metas within the game and thus have greater value than other modules.

Thats not to say its perfect. Armor modules across the 3 armor races having identical stats ultimately results in greater supply than the shield loot (especially since gurista and angel shield loot is different). You essentially have a 3:1 ratio of armor loot supply to shield loot supply.
XXSketchxx
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#29 - 2013-07-04 21:58:14 UTC
Cryo Kool wrote:

As the value of the drops is determined by the supply/demand of/for them, I suggest increasing the number of those sites. Pith/Gist A-C items for cruiser sized hulls and below could benefit from a price reduction. It would bring it more in line with dead space armor mods and liven up the pvp scene with people willing to risk better fitted ships.


Adjusting the number of sites is the wrong way to go. You simply have to accept there will be particularly metas in a game of balance and this will result in some things being of higher value than others. It also means space isn't equal, which is a good thing.
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#30 - 2013-07-05 21:22:17 UTC
XXSketchxx wrote:
If you really need me to spell it out for you:

there should never be a point in this game where you can avoid player interaction while actively playing the game. Even when you are station trading (i.e. in the comfort of the station) you are interacting with other players via the market.

What you have proposed is a means for players to completely be free of player interaction and have a 5 minute window where in they can profit without any sort of competition.

That is terrible.

Players who run expeditions can do that. The expedition sites can't be scanned and if the player fits a cloak, sets up safe spots and watches D-scan, no other player can interact with him.

Oh, wait, you're gonna say that setting up safe spots, cloaking, watching D-scan, etc. is due to player interaction.

lol, never mind.



DMC

'The Plan' | California Eve Players | Proposal - The Endless Battle
XXSketchxx
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#31 - 2013-07-06 05:46:29 UTC  |  Edited by: XXSketchxx
DeMichael Crimson wrote:

Players who run expeditions can do that. The expedition sites can't be scanned and if the player fits a cloak, sets up safe spots and watches D-scan, no other player can interact with him.

Oh, wait, you're gonna say that setting up safe spots, cloaking, watching D-scan, etc. is due to player interaction.

lol, never mind.



DMC


I'm sorry darling, are you actually advocating for instancing?
XXSketchxx
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#32 - 2013-07-06 05:47:51 UTC
Seriously, you and I both know that what he is asking for and someone fitting a cloak/using safe spots is entirely different. With the latter, you are participating in a game of cat and mouse. With the former, THERE IS LITERALLY NO WAY FOR ANYONE TO INTERACT WITH YOU.

savvy?
XXSketchxx
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#33 - 2013-07-06 05:48:28 UTC
-Emperor Salazar
XXSketchxx
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#34 - 2013-07-06 05:48:42 UTC
Haha, I signed my post.

Man thats gay.
XXSketchxx
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#35 - 2013-07-06 05:49:05 UTC
If you post after this post you are gay ---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonas Staal
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#36 - 2013-07-08 10:35:31 UTC
XXSketchxx wrote:
Jonas Staal wrote:

If DEVs want old players out of ded3's and ded4's, DEVs should've removed the 100-500mil drops rather than remove certain ships from said sites.


Its a player run economy you fool. The devs don't set the price, the players do. The simple fact is that those modules support certain metas within the game and thus have greater value than other modules.


I'd almost feel offended, but then I remembered there are kids playing this game aswel.

The fact that EVE has a player run economy is pretty meaningless when quoting my post, as I speak about changing to different drops, not somehow, magically, changing the price of the same drops.
XXSketchxx
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#37 - 2013-07-08 11:25:05 UTC
Jonas Staal wrote:


I'd almost feel offended, but then I remembered there are kids playing this game aswel.


Did you really just pull the "hurrrrrrrrrrr damn kids and their silliness" card?
XXSketchxx
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#38 - 2013-07-08 11:25:14 UTC
lol
XXSketchxx
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#39 - 2013-07-08 11:28:30 UTC
1. instancing is never going to happen (just wanted to reiterate that)

2. you asked for an increase in the number of sites, thus an increase in supply, not a change to the drops or even to their stats (which is what you should be asking for - if the armor modules were actually unique and differentiated among one another, they might have more value)

get hazed nerd, your ideas are bad and you should feel bad
XXSketchxx
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#40 - 2013-07-08 11:28:41 UTC
I'm 12 btw
Previous page12