These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Wormholes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CCP what did you do to Sleepers?

First post First post First post
Author
Aiyshimin
Descendant Command
#61 - 2014-10-01 17:57:55 UTC
Rroff wrote:
Aiyshimin wrote:
I run C4 sites currently for 200mil/hr average, and can probably negate this RR issue by switching to blasters for those anoms/waves. It might affect the completion times, but I don't think the change is dramatic.



Blasters would give you the DPS for those waves but you might find range an issue in some cases, also there are 1-2 waves like the last one on the outpost where you might not be able to apply enough effective dps from a single marauder to break the RR though.


Yep, I need to test it. Rails are more convenient, but MJD+bastion+blasters worked well enough for complete anoms.

If switching to blasters doesn't work, I'm afraid it's time for me personally to forget C4s for money making. At 200mil/hr it's well balanced for the risks and investment, but if I need to split that, I'd be better be running C3s in a Domi duo. Or running DEDs in lowsec.

Jez Amatin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#62 - 2014-10-01 18:31:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Jez Amatin
i'm willing to forget bout the RR derp for the fabulous fallout THAT thread will cause.

:popcorn:
Bhane Celesto
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#63 - 2014-10-01 18:42:35 UTC
Quote:

C4 SpaceHuge nerf to soloability and site time of the 2 most common sites
Barracks
The final wave is an RR nightmare, there is as much as 965-1126dps in reps. All the ships spawn hundreds of K off and will try to stay at range. This is also a pretty common site.

Command Post
Stupid 1000+dps in reps in the final wave, another huge nerf


Is that highsec incursion drama over? I need a new isk faucet. I'm quite looking forward to 0 risk 150m/hour. ISN's fits aren't even that expensive.
Luft Reich
No Vacancies
Wardec Mechanics
#64 - 2014-10-01 21:16:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Luft Reich
Greetings greater wormhole community,

It seems everytime a really poorly thought out CCP idea comes out I decide to write a long reply to some thread, followed by maybe Copy pasting it into my own thread because #relevence. So here it goes...

CCP, What were you thinking? You were probably thinking oh Sleepers aren't actually remote repping, we should probably fix that because it says on EVE-Survival they do. I could harp on how you completly ignore the community for an entire 5000 Characters like I did last threadnought, but I shall spare you the criticism for the most part as your absolute blindness to the issue you keep time and time again putting yourselves into is apparent, and if it is not by now, you should rethink your business model.

Onto the game play that you have so generously added. I am the CEO of a very small C4 Corp, we run sites every so often, more often than we want to because the sites are so abysmal and mind numbingly boring (see Sleepers spawning off the grid in Data Relic Sites). This change once again hurts smaller groups as you have already done with the Hyperion change in the previous update. I will be running C4 Sites tonight to try and provide some numbers behind this, but we shall see if that actually happens. I would be 100% OK with this change if and only if you increased the rewards from lower class sites. For the love of bob, I can now 100% make more whacking off and pressing F1 with some "FC" raging on comms running incursions. This is unacceptable.

I have 2 more points before I'll let you ignore my post competly.
1) Time and time again you make changes without consulting the community and backing your reasoning up with evidence.
2) There has been more responses in a few hours to the nullsec jump range change than there have been on this current issue AND on the Jump Spawn Distance released in Hyperion.

Let that last one sink in members of WH space.

-Luft Reich
Willing to have a forum war with a CCP Member, come at my law degree.

ISD Cyberdyne liked your forum post

Aiyshimin
Descendant Command
#65 - 2014-10-01 21:19:04 UTC
Aiyshimin wrote:
Rroff wrote:
Aiyshimin wrote:
I run C4 sites currently for 200mil/hr average, and can probably negate this RR issue by switching to blasters for those anoms/waves. It might affect the completion times, but I don't think the change is dramatic.



Blasters would give you the DPS for those waves but you might find range an issue in some cases, also there are 1-2 waves like the last one on the outpost where you might not be able to apply enough effective dps from a single marauder to break the RR though.


Yep, I need to test it. Rails are more convenient, but MJD+bastion+blasters worked well enough for complete anoms.

If switching to blasters doesn't work, I'm afraid it's time for me personally to forget C4s for money making. At 200mil/hr it's well balanced for the risks and investment, but if I need to split that, I'd be better be running C3s in a Domi duo. Or running DEDs in lowsec.



Well I ran a Frontier Command Post and it took almost twice as long as before, even if I derped a bit with gun swapping it's still not really worth it. (3 magstab Kronos, max gunnery, Marauders V)

Unfortunately this does indeed look like C4 marauding is no longer that well balanced risk/ISK wise.


David Laurentson
Laurentson INC
#66 - 2014-10-01 21:27:44 UTC
Around two years ago I was living in a C4 and flying a Scorpion, because otherwise we took forever to beat the remote reps (it also was a useful break on incoming DPS, which was good because I got so much aggro and armour-tanked scorpions have near-cruiser EHP). I remember getting sworn at if I permajammed things, because they'd try to burn out of jam-range...


So yeah, this has been broken quite a while, but we already knew how to deal with it back then, we'll be fine from here. C4s are probably going to go back to being naff again, with their ridiculously spread out spawns already being time consuming to deal with.
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#67 - 2014-10-02 01:46:37 UTC
Hey, CCP, can you go and finish making everything about wormholes work as it was intended, right now? Its only been 5 years.

We do C4's one of two ways:
1) Archon + blah blah who cares. But usually Cruise Typhoons x 2+ can smack down the sleepers fast enough to make it worthwhile.
2) 2 Cruise Typhoon (minimum) plus 2 Guardians, pref 4 Phoons

Pre this apparent bug fix which only took 5 years, we would clear sites quite fine with this setup. Even accounting for the fact we had scrubs who couldn't fly Minmatar, the race of kings, or couldn't do T2 Cruise. I PYFA'd the bejeesus out of our options, taking into account the spawn distance of C4 sites, the application of DPS IRL versus paper (sorry, Rail Prots, Command Ships), the tankability of the gang as a whole, and the ISk sunk into the gang (ie; risk premium).

in all cases, MJD cruise phoons were the duck's nuts of C4 site running. But you need at least 4 toons, preferably 6, to make it doable.

We did some sites and radars last night (didn't hump the cans, because of the stupid minigame) and hardly noticed the RR slowing us down. The biggest issue remains the spawn distance, the overall lack of rewards, and the fact that we were so bored to actually want to run sites for the first time since Hyperion, due to lack of anyone being around.

So, yes, thanks CCP and my favorite oesophagal pugilism dreamboat, Fozzie, for fixing this critical bug issue right now. Coupled with your wonderful PR treatment of people on the forums, resulting in people like jester moving to NPC Nullsec and not clogging up C5 space with his stupidity, plus basically everyone else, now we can look forward to even more than 40% of wormhole space being uninhabited. I'm hoping it gets as high as 80%.

Truly, a work of genius.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#68 - 2014-10-02 02:15:58 UTC
Senn Denroth wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
For some reason the patch note for this change incorrectly limits itself to mentioning the Mara Paleos.

Quote:
The Mara Paleo Incursion NPC now remote repairs correctly.


The issue that had been breaking the remote reps in incursions was also breaking the remote reps from sleeper NPCs. For the past while sleepers have not been applying any of their remote reps (you were only seeing their local reps). They are now once again working at original spec.

I'm sorry but you've used that card way too many times now, I'm sure by now everyone has begun to question CCP as game devs seeing most of wormhole space was "set up wrong".


Maybe because it was set up wrong and now they're fixing it? You guys are no different from the industry pubbies that howled over the Crius changes.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133

Senn Denroth
Lazerhawks
L A Z E R H A W K S
#69 - 2014-10-02 04:26:07 UTC
Trinkets friend wrote:
Hey, CCP, can you go and finish making everything about wormholes work as it was intended, right now? Its only been 5 years.

We do C4's one of two ways:
1) Archon + blah blah who cares. But usually Cruise Typhoons x 2+ can smack down the sleepers fast enough to make it worthwhile.
2) 2 Cruise Typhoon (minimum) plus 2 Guardians, pref 4 Phoons

Pre this apparent bug fix which only took 5 years, we would clear sites quite fine with this setup. Even accounting for the fact we had scrubs who couldn't fly Minmatar, the race of kings, or couldn't do T2 Cruise. I PYFA'd the bejeesus out of our options, taking into account the spawn distance of C4 sites, the application of DPS IRL versus paper (sorry, Rail Prots, Command Ships), the tankability of the gang as a whole, and the ISk sunk into the gang (ie; risk premium).

in all cases, MJD cruise phoons were the duck's nuts of C4 site running. But you need at least 4 toons, preferably 6, to make it doable.

We did some sites and radars last night (didn't hump the cans, because of the stupid minigame) and hardly noticed the RR slowing us down. The biggest issue remains the spawn distance, the overall lack of rewards, and the fact that we were so bored to actually want to run sites for the first time since Hyperion, due to lack of anyone being around.

So, yes, thanks CCP and my favorite oesophagal pugilism dreamboat, Fozzie, for fixing this critical bug issue right now. Coupled with your wonderful PR treatment of people on the forums, resulting in people like jester moving to NPC Nullsec and not clogging up C5 space with his stupidity, plus basically everyone else, now we can look forward to even more than 40% of wormhole space being uninhabited. I'm hoping it gets as high as 80%.

Truly, a work of genius.

HAHA YES! If you're going to EDU I'll buy you a drink. This just sums up my thoughts exactly!

All the recent changes marked as "oh we originally planned it to be like this, but it wasn't working properly". I mean, do you guys (CCP) even test the game you "design"?

After the recent announcement of jump distant and fatigue changes to nullsec I truly believe now that EVE could be in it's last year. It's at least a year overdue because nullsec could just be too set in it's way to commit to the new changes coming up.

Although these changes don't effect me in my ISK making way of warping my 4 dreads to a site 4-5 days per month it does raise my above concern; that CCP are somewhat out of touch with the player base.

With the up coming change to null, it will force a lot of null players to do what they've been thinking for a while now and unsub and take up their guilty pleasure games full time now. Because lets face it for CCP to think that this game is the sole game that their player base plays is just naive at the very least.

As an experienced wormhole player I look forward to being able to commit more ISK in to nullsec roams without then suffering the unfortunate withdrawal from engagements due to large hotdrops and blob o'clocks. I hope it works out, but I can see a lot of players leaving the game initially, but maybe some coming back that were sick of the stagnation.
Winthorp
#70 - 2014-10-02 04:49:26 UTC
Derath Ellecon wrote:
Winthorp wrote:
For C5/6 i see this as an irritation that will be overcome but for the people running sites in C1-4 some sites are just going to become extra painful to run to the point they will have to field more ships or upsize ship choices for NO EXTRA reward in an area of WH space that is already sub par in ISK reward/effort/risk.

I really hope CCP would start looking at implications for changes before "fixing" things.



Like I just said above, while I can understand everyone's frustration at this change, it helps to be accurate in the complaints

C1-C2 sites have no RR
C3 sites have very minimal RR. Even before it was broken it was manageable, as you either have 1 RR BS in a final wave (just kill it first) or a couple RR frigates/cruisers which can be knocked down
C4 sites, yea they are gonna be even more annoying given not only their significant increase in RR over C3 and long ranges.
C5-C6- Never ran them, but considering threads like "site running like a baws" it seemed like maybe they were a little too easy without RR?



Yeah tbh you are right about the C1/2, it has been a long time since i ran them.

As for C3 yes it is an issue, not everyone running C3's is a max skill pilot and flying bling ships. For a C3 site the Fortification, solar Cell and the Oruze just got slower for a pilot that is already making less then he could in HS safely.

C4's that just got extra risk added with Mass/distance and dual statics have now been nerfed some more with RR. It is a bit rich when we got these changes that we all asked for extra reward to then get things nerfed further for them.

Overall it is just a change that Wh space didn't need after Hyperion. The change we needed and we had asked for was more ISK for low end WH's to bring people in and to make them want to risk ships in the now more dangerous WH space for the extra reward.

But this well i am not sure how it could ever help WH space.
dhunpael
#71 - 2014-10-02 05:26:38 UTC
Nash MacAllister wrote:
CivilWars wrote:
The only people truly affected by this are C4 residents/farmers,


The end result really will depend on the fleet comp you run. I don't expect much difference post "fix" TBH. I do expect the days of solo Marauders, which are a rare find as it is (usually 2x per site), will be coming to an end though. I hope to do some testing tonight and see what the real result is...



keep me posted :)
Keith Planck
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#72 - 2014-10-02 06:22:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Keith Planck
Winthorp wrote:
Derath Ellecon wrote:
Winthorp wrote:
For C5/6 i see this as an irritation that will be overcome but for the people running sites in C1-4 some sites are just going to become extra painful to run to the point they will have to field more ships or upsize ship choices for NO EXTRA reward in an area of WH space that is already sub par in ISK reward/effort/risk.

I really hope CCP would start looking at implications for changes before "fixing" things.



Like I just said above, while I can understand everyone's frustration at this change, it helps to be accurate in the complaints

C1-C2 sites have no RR
C3 sites have very minimal RR. Even before it was broken it was manageable, as you either have 1 RR BS in a final wave (just kill it first) or a couple RR frigates/cruisers which can be knocked down
C4 sites, yea they are gonna be even more annoying given not only their significant increase in RR over C3 and long ranges.
C5-C6- Never ran them, but considering threads like "site running like a baws" it seemed like maybe they were a little too easy without RR?



Yeah tbh you are right about the C1/2, it has been a long time since i ran them.

As for C3 yes it is an issue, not everyone running C3's is a max skill pilot and flying bling ships. For a C3 site the Fortification, solar Cell and the Oruze just got slower for a pilot that is already making less then he could in HS safely.

C4's that just got extra risk added with Mass/distance and dual statics have now been nerfed some more with RR. It is a bit rich when we got these changes that we all asked for extra reward to then get things nerfed further for them.

Overall it is just a change that Wh space didn't need after Hyperion. The change we needed and we had asked for was more ISK for low end WH's to bring people in and to make them want to risk ships in the now more dangerous WH space for the extra reward.

But this well i am not sure how it could ever help WH space.


extra risk? c4s are totally broken right now...
ISD Cyberdyne
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#73 - 2014-10-02 06:35:08 UTC
Alright guys, lots of trolling, name calling, and off-topic posting going on in this thread. I've thoroughly cleaned the source trolling and the off-topic posting related to the areas that were rotting the thread. Please adhere to the forum rules and keep the discussions respectful, on-topic, and on track. Thanks!

Quote:
2. Be respectful toward others at all times.

The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others.

4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not conductive to the community spirit that CCP promotes. As such, this kind of behavior will not be tolerated.

5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive, and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.

8. Use of profanity is prohibited.

The use of profanity is prohibited on the EVE Online forums. This includes the partial masking of letters using numbers or alternate symbols, and any attempts at bypassing the profanity filter.

27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.

ISD Cyberdyne

Lieutenant Commander

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

Keith Planck
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#74 - 2014-10-02 07:43:58 UTC
ISD Cyberdyne wrote:
Alright guys, lots of trolling, name calling, and off-topic posting going on in this thread. I've thoroughly cleaned the source trolling and the off-topic posting related to the areas that were rotting the thread. Please adhere to the forum rules and keep the discussions respectful, on-topic, and on track. Thanks!

Quote:
2. Be respectful toward others at all times.

The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others.

4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not conductive to the community spirit that CCP promotes. As such, this kind of behavior will not be tolerated.

5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive, and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.

8. Use of profanity is prohibited.

The use of profanity is prohibited on the EVE Online forums. This includes the partial masking of letters using numbers or alternate symbols, and any attempts at bypassing the profanity filter.

27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.


Thank you!

While sleeper RR was always intended to exist, the current brokenness of C4s begs for a slight re-balance. All this blatant misdirection by bored nullbears is getting in the way of fixing any problems.
dhunpael
#75 - 2014-10-02 07:44:48 UTC
Luft Reich wrote:
Greetings greater wormhole community,

...

I have 2 more points before I'll let you ignore my post competly.
1) Time and time again you make changes without consulting the community and backing your reasoning up with evidence.
2) There has been more responses in a few hours to the nullsec jump range change than there have been on this current issue AND on the Jump Spawn Distance released in Hyperion.
.



This, very much and very bad.

especially point 2
Caleb Seremshur
Naked Oiled Bodybuilders
Parasitic Legion.
#76 - 2014-10-02 10:14:55 UTC
Nancy Wayke wrote:
Altrue wrote:
A shorter time running sites means more income, thus less prices.
In all logic, this nerf should slowly increase the prices for nanoribbons...
Maybe.
A bit... ?
Big smile)

The vast majority of melted nanos are from C5/C6 space, as I understand it, the volumes produced by C1-4 pale into insignificance. So there might be an impact, but it will be slight.


I think the point was that currently sites don't provide enough incentive to be run. I'm talking about solo or small group. It's not just paranoia - there's the issue of that income was too low full stop to make small gangs work either. The break point for wormhole effort=income seems to sit at c3. There in c3 running in pairs or in groups of 3 is practical but not optimal. This is outside of the possibility of getting slam dunked of course.

People look for ganks in wormholesm it's their right to do so I suppose but then they create this barren wasteland of inactivity because operating in wormholes is disproportionately more risky for venture startups than it is profitable. More than just the risks presented by other players (where the outright occlusion of alts would benefit the game immensely) but also a game balanced around incomes that were relevant 5 years ago. Blue loot doesn't pay enough to warrent the cost for most groups.
Winthorp
#77 - 2014-10-02 11:16:00 UTC
Keith Planck wrote:


extra risk? c4s are totally broken right now...


m8.....
Nash MacAllister
Anomalous Existence
Spatial Instability
#78 - 2014-10-02 13:46:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Nash MacAllister
Keith Planck wrote:

extra risk? c4s are totally broken right now...


Yeah no. IMHO, C4's are not now, nor ever were "solo" content. Doesn't mean it can't be done, but it also doesn't mean people need to shout the sky is falling when CCP appears to make a legitimate fix and in the end makes solo running harder. C4's as small-group PVE are quite viable, and when one considers the ISK risk versus reward, they are still competative with C5/C6 escalations, all things considered (setup time, ISK on grid, risk of losing a ship, risk of non-consensual PVP, etc.). Also, with the right fleet comp, Sleeper spawn range is not nor has ever been an issue. In fact, C4 sites have become warp to zero, apply dps, rinse and repeat. Even at times splitting the fleet across 2 sites to minimize the wasting of dps. As a single fleet, the dps and tank on grid are a non-trivial force to reckon with and that alone provides defense from the casual gank, but certainly not the 80 man Gank-O-Rama fleet seen recently. Big smile

Proper scanning and scouting minimizes the risk, but by definition this hurts the solo runners due to lack of toons to cover the statics and anything else opening up. And unlike a cap escalation, any competent fleet can make the fight/flight decision in a matter of seconds before the whole plex fleet is committed. Again, bastion makes that impossible in many cases, hurting the solo guys.

What has hurt C4 income potential more than anything else are the nanoribbon prices versus years past. I do remember when 7-8 mil was the going rate, ah the days. Big smile Changes in supply and demand have moved the majority of the income potential to the blue loot. As much as I hate the PVP aspect of more empty w-space, it should help the nanoribbon prices by dropping supply and in turn increasing sell prices.

Now, having said all that, if there needs to be a rebalance, it should take place in an obvious manner C1 < C2 < C3 < C4 income. Unfortunately, due to "our", meaning w-space folks, willingness to spend ISK on bling fits, the progression in difficulty is broken. Likely, even C3 were not intended for solo running, but that is easily done now. It will be a difficult rebalance in income versus risk between C3 and C4 for this very reason. So I believe by default, if you want to bring this in line, you must increase C4 site income because lowering C3 income seems foolish.

And let's spice things up a bit more. Give C4's sites with random triggers. Then, after a certain mass of ships is on-grid, escalate with extra Safeguards or Preserver BS. Let's absolutely force group content. This would make C4 running much more fun.

Just my 2 cents, but I and the vast majority of my corp members have dealt with a C4 static for years now, and been very successful making a living from them to fund our PVP habits. Lol

EDIT: And to be clear, I am no fan of all this new connectivity, but it doesn't "break" C4 either...

Yes, if you have to ask yourself the question, just assume we are watching you...

Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#79 - 2014-10-02 14:33:26 UTC
Nash MacAllister wrote:
Keith Planck wrote:

extra risk? c4s are totally broken right now...


Yeah no. IMHO, C4's are not now, nor ever were "solo" content. Doesn't mean it can't be done, but it also doesn't mean people need to shout the sky is falling when CCP appears to make a legitimate fix and in the end makes solo running harder. C4's as small-group PVE are quite viable, and when one considers the ISK risk versus reward, they are still competative with C5/C6 escalations, all things considered (setup time, ISK on grid, risk of losing a ship, risk of non-consensual PVP, etc.).


mate, you're dreaming. In the past 18 months I have lived in a C5, a C2/C3+HS, and now a C4. i can tell you that the ISK/reward scale for c5's is far better than C4's. That is even accounting for the fact the cruise phoon doctrine trumps all others precisely because the DPS gets applied to the spawn ranges of the Sleepers. Without this, it's a complete joke.

Precisely, yes you do see 25+ billion ISK in an escalation quad put on grid. needlessly, I would argue, for a T2 fit is quite sifficient, if a bit hairy now and then. So the reasonable minimum buy-in for a C5 quad is about 12B ISK (2 x 3B Moros, 2 x 2 B Archon, 1 x 1B Loki being generous). The rewards are escalating every site for 3 days for 650M or so per site. So every site you have on day 1 is worth 1.8B ISK, and it takes you less time to control your hole than a C4, due to one vs two statics.

Plus your escalation waves all spawn and come to 44-46km and get webbed and TPéd for the dreads, and duly blapped. Quad cruise phoons you still need to MJD around, which required Guardian pilots to be on the ball. Total reward per site is about 80M ISk split 6 ways, and you get to run them once each, and then you are in your static scrabbling around like a poor.


Quote:

And let's spice things up a bit more. Give C4's sites with random triggers. Then, after a certain mass of ships is on-grid, escalate with extra Safeguards or Preserver BS. Let's absolutely force group content. This would make C4 running much more fun.


I agree C4's need a change. Closer spawns to make efficient site running possible outside of cruise phoons. Hell even 80km spawns would assist with Eos/Oni gangs or Abso/Guard gangs becoming competitive with MJD's. Random spawns will never be random; they cannot be. So people will work it out, but OK; lets roll with escalatable content and give people in C4's and C3's an ability to trigger more waves of sleepers.

Nothing wrong with that, solo or small gan content. The more ISK there is to be made, the more time people are induced to stay on grid and active in system, the more game time people need to spend doing valuable things in game beyond one hour a week: all this will contribute to a more enriching wormhole environment.

Or, you know, the ISD can lock this thread and everything on the first two pages. They love that!
Ilaister
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#80 - 2014-10-02 14:43:02 UTC
Trinkets friend wrote:

I agree C4's need a change. Closer spawns to make efficient site running possible outside of cruise phoons. Hell even 80km spawns would assist with Eos/Oni gangs or Abso/Guard gangs becoming competitive with MJD's. Random spawns will never be random; they cannot be. So people will work it out, but OK; lets roll with escalatable content and give people in C4's and C3's an ability to trigger more waves of sleepers.


Good points all.

I think the last WH town hall had someone suggest Marauder escalations in C4s, which I think is a great idea. Hopefully Corbexx's work on lowclass income will yield other fruit (more blue loot or w/e).

We had a C4 stat for over a year and developed into shield RR domis - no MJD/bookmarking required, just a signal amp and a flight of bouncers (and roll if you get a magnetar static).