Missions & Complexes

Was not my intention to force players to low/null, but ballance the rewards vs risk.
There is no risk in Highsec, there is slightly some competition and rng, i give you that, a lot of rng.

And because someone got ganked in highsec, thats really 1 out of 1000 cases.

I think this about sums up how clueless you are.


"I've been playing longer than you because my character is older."

Which brings me back to my original point:

Many players wonder "Why should I bother going to low, where I have to pay attention to dodge gatecamps, be aware of players trying to blow up my ship, while being kept in one location in space like a sitting duck, in sites that are harder and take longer to run, when I can sit in high-sec and farm DED 4/10s instead?"

Yes i agree. More T3 ranting ;p.

I'm all for ships that cost more to fly having an edge (T3 may cost more in isk.. the SP.. is a joke). The balance factor is that you have more to lose when things go wrong. Those ships don't need to leave high sec so IMO the balance is gone. They are OP.

They have plusses on all fronts, making mor eisk than a low sec player.. and risking nothing. Who in hell thinks this is good game balancing??

Worse still, if those players do ever get forced into low sec.. cov ops is complete CAKEMODE. They just win at everything.

Most people doing high sec exploration are solo. If they are not solo they have bad skills and need to team up. A single half decent T3 will wipe the floor with T1 of equal/more SP and will easily kill a few low SP cruisers or even 2 low sp BC's. That's assuming the T3 piolit can pvp, the others.. don't matter if they can or can't.


The way i see it.

If you gave 20mil sp to 2 differant charictors, one went into T3 training.. and the other went into BC training who would win in a fight?. Well, IMO the T3. Why?, base omni resistance. That's pretty much the top and bottom of it, although hull size ofc plays some part. The only justification of that automatic win is a price tag. And, as i pointed out, that price tag is not an issue when anybody not flying a T3 can't kill you (in an exploration setting). T3 is an outright IWIN 3.10/4.10 button in the current high sec settings and i have no respect for any T3 piolit who remains in high sec. It's realy nothing but a pay to win, as i keep saying.

Balieve it or not it should be ''accepteble'' for a T1 hull to engage a T3 hull, and.. PLAYER SKILL permitting, win. Not just auto lose thnx to fking base res and spoon fead dps buff.

So how can a T1 hull steal or defend loot vs a T3?. Fit a scram and web. Well, That's gune cripple any shield tank. Go armor tank?, that will cripple dps. T3 can hold onto all it's dps, a large portion of its tank, and still fit a scram/web to smash a t1 (even a t1 with no scram/web) to pieces.


It's not all rant, i do actualy have a suggestion in fixing OP T3 (and even a change to T2). Instead of giving such hulls massive resitence bonus, CCP can simply change how these ships handle shield/armor resistence mods. In a nut shell, the ships gain more % resistence from the modules than a T1 hull (who takes standard).

This does 1 simple thing, gives T1 hulls the ''chance'' to neut out the T3 ships resistence and actualy do some dmg. In return, theirs passive mod options and medium slot anti neut mods availeble.. should the T3 wish to counter the counter. Any player like me who does not wish to waste their time contesting OP ships just to likely lose.. goes low sec instead. That's not a fix to the problem though, it's just players like me choosing to avoid it. If T3 are ever forced into low sec I'll lose there too.. and likely be forced back to high sec again. I'm not personaly keen on blobbing.. but i realy see no other way to take down a T3 in low or high.. than that, unless you fly anohter T3. But, well.. if your T3 is fitted with tackle (for high sec), his has stronger tank or cap etc etc if his is not. He will make you warp.

It's all about options you see?. T3 remove 99% of them.

All of the risks and weaknesses of t3's compared to other ships vanish in hisec, leaving only their strengths, which was the point of the person you quoted. You can be 100% effective in hisec explo and 99.99% safe with a buffer fit t3, without using any fancy mods that would get you ganked anyway. 1 good 4/10 payout and you've paid for your ship.




No because missions suck, and they aren't competitive anyway.

I think limiting incursions to t1 BS is a great idea too. Make a F&I post and I will support it.

meh - whenever I actually race a tengu with a brutix - it turns out to be 10mn ab, and the telescope pops under our combined fire with him 15kms away and me on top of it (mwd). Even if we travelled to the same system in the same warp bubble and he scanned down the site first, I will be aligned at the second gate before the last cruiser pops (if I was inclined to take others plexes, which I don't - I just defend the ones I found first).

I also go suspect and take the loot because the tengu will tag the container by firing from beyond blaster range, and the tengus still don't engage.

At the moment, a brutix hull costs 41 + 10mil for insurance and pays out 35mil insurance - so I maybe have 35mil skin on the table counting the t2 fit, picking up 0-500mil loot to fight over, and the tengu has 500mil-2bil skin on the table and ->doesn't know how much loot was in the box.<-

Which is why they don't engage much. Most all-in-one tengus in practice cannot risk being tested by a 1000 dps +overheat brutix that does have a scram, even if there are in theory tengus that can win that fight.



meh whatever - see risks and rewards for exactly why eve's original bully ship is perfectly fine for bullying tengus with. The very first time I went suspect, I was rewarded with 11 brutix losses worth of loot (after insurance) - its not like it would be remotely possible to get rid of me if I wanted to contest every GSO I could find.

It was more a rhetorical questions :P

Currently we have DED 1 to 4 in high, 4 - 6* in low, and 6 to 10 in null.
(* And occasionally 3/10 if that's Working as Intended, but I digress)

They progress in required ship, loosely like this: DED 1/10 can be done in a frigate. By the time you get to 3/10, a cruiser makes it easier. 5/10 you'll probably want a BC or T3 or HAC. And so upwards.

However, this doesn't take into account that:
a) There are limited T3/BS "level" sites in high-sec, if you could call it that. This means older players who want to fly big/expensive/effectient/pimped ships end up running "lower" sites, so to say.
b) Low-sec requires you to fly bigger, slower, more expensive to lose ships.
c) Low-sec sites keep you in a probe-able site for longer periods of time, leaving you a sitting duck.

IMHO jumping from high- to low- is a big enough risk on it's own, there's no need to compound that by making the sites harder. Now I know I know, HTFU, adapt and run the harder sites. I'm not saying high-sec should have sites dropping 5/10 and 6/10 loot, or that those sites in low should be doable in a T1 frig.

My point is, why should the exploration sites' ship requirements scale with the sec status?
Why shouldn't low-sec have combat sites that you can run in an Assualt Frigate without being webbed to death and dying?
Why shouldn't high-sec have exploration sites that require battleships?

I'm not saying all *-sec space should be homogenized, but rather that whatever space in you're in, you would have the option of running exploration sites regardless of whether you prefer frig, cruiser, BC or BS hulls. I'm not lobbying for this to happen or saying it should happen, or begging CCP to change it, it's just something I was wondering and curious about: what was the design decision to have it this way?

Why would he help you take down the objective when he's not even in scram range. You just can't give hilariously bs examples like that and expect me to accept everything is balanced.