Missions & Complexes

are you trolling or just clueless?

Heh, exploration was doing fine before Odyssey was implemented. Odyssey expansion was actually a retraction. Exploration sites just needed to be upgraded, such as increasing the amount of sites spawning due to everyone and their mothers doing exploration.

The triggers in combat sites should have been randomized and all site defenders be destroyed before spawning Overseer / Commander NPC's. That would have fixed the problem of blitzing sites. Also Loot drops should have been buffed as well as the amount of wrecks holding loot.

Not to mention how long does it take to implement a Rogue Drone loot table? And WTF exactly was the reason again for removing Deep Space Probe's? Ahhh, to be replaced by the 'Show it all' no skill scan sweep.

Ice fields should have been added to Grav sites in Cosmic Signatures, not have Grav sites and Ice fields added to Anomalies. Regular Asteroid Belts should have been added to Anomalies.

Don't even get me started on the abomination known as the mini hacking game and it's loot spew monstrosity.

Seriously, let's do a roll back and get rid of all the new exploration changes and get back to brass tacks again.



DMC

Increasing the number of current sites but not altering the number of drops would have been okay. Increasing drop rates would just saturate the market and devalue exploration. Alternatively they could just add new sites and new loot.



I agree with this.



Yep needs to happen. Pitiful that drone exploration is still garbage.



As a long time user and proponent of DSP, their removal was a good thing for exploration.



Agreed. It would increase the value of ice quite a bit, making things that require topes more and more expensive, something that is desperately needed in Eve (fuel for capitals in particular - to put a dent in power projection).

Lol wut?

I agree the drops in the nullsec sites need a buff but in the form of increased overseer personal effects values not module drops (which would just devalue them), but nowhere near these amounts. Maybe +40M for 7/10, +50M for 8/10, and +60M for 10/10.

This is actually a huge one I agree with. The value of overseer effects are grossly outdated and out of touch with inflation. I don't believe they should have their isk value increased though, as this would just dump more money into the game. On the contrary, I'd like to see Concord LP payouts.

A DED 4 is a cruiser encounter, I have done all races DED4s with a vexor. The angel one is tedious due to the damage being on the vexors damage hole, and their missile reach, that is all.

The root perceived problem with DED4s is nothing to do with the encounter design - the encounter is entirely appropriate for highsec its simply the fact that shield has historically been in more demand than armor for soloboats, and therefore the c-type shield components are valuable.

That has been partially addressed by buffing armor more than shield in the last patch, by reducing the gap between faction and deadspace shield, and addressing medium longrange turrets missiles in the last patch. The net result is that I live in null, with an armor drone proteus as a plexboat. That sort of thing being seen as viable is the best thing for balancing out shield vs armor DED4 loot values.

Why you all want to do bizzare things about encounter positioning, when the problem is simply loot value, is beyond me. The DED4s being valuable, and being in highsec is excellent sugar that is able to be found by new combat explorers and does a great deal to encourage them to make exploration their profession, which is good, not bad. The DED4s themselves are public sigs, which means contention can and does occur over the loot, which is also, good, not bad.

The DED5s for each race have the ded 4 loot tables, but with everything at least twice as valuable, so if you keep doing DED4s, then inevitably the siren call of finding and completing DED5s drags you into lowsec. Note, I may not have earned more isk/hr doing DED5s, but I earned ample, and I enjoyed the extra skill exercise of not losing my boat to pirates or the encounter.. If you get rid of highsec DED4s, then all you do is increase mission runner breeding, which is bad, and missions dead end players and don't cause them to go get more survival skills.

Rated and unrated combat sites are the least broken thing in exploration, you can make good profit from them in any area of the game, if you know what you are doing.

I am not talking about removing 6-10 from low-sec they should defently be in there I would like to see 4-10 be banned from low-sec. And Introduce 7-10 to low-sec.

Maybe you are wright about the amouint of isk i placed but still there should be a standard drop for the risk you take when doing these site. a 5-10 is very hard for a normal t1 ship. So for the risk you are taking you should get a reward.

the last 4 6-10 i did only dropped 50m and thats what i mean with low.

And you assuming i haven't done DED-sites alot you are wrong about that been doing them for a year just want a change.

You also talk about farming if i wanted to farm i would do FW all do in a venture or incursions.

And i totally agree about New sites for DED and new drops.

I dunno about that. The highsec-exclusive explorers don't seem very eager to get survival skills to me - they won't do the expeditions that send them into lowsec, hell there's even people figuring out where to do anoms that, when they escalate to a DED site, send them into highsec.