Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Discomanco
We pooped on your lawn We pooped on your lawn.
10
|
Posted - 2014.06.17 23:12:00 -
[1] - Quote
So after the removal of the scatter mechanic, scanning in highsec is more than a real pain. I know that highsec Data/Relic sites are not to contain a lot of value, because highsec, but when I find a site with 3 containers, I cargoscan the first. I see a bit of loot in it, worth like 100k ISK or so, and I don't expect anything more from a highsec container, but when I then scan the other 2 and find that they are empty, it's just disappointment, and I have to either go through them or fail them twice to despawn the site. Just now I found a highsec relic site, harder than the usual highsec relic sites to scan. I warp to the area, see 5 containers. I then scan the first container, see around 200-400k ISK of loot, which is nice and all. Then I scan the next 3, all which are empty, and the 5th has 2 Carbon in it.
I soloed a C1 WH around a week ago, hacked a total of 8 Sleeper containers. 2 were empty. Empty containers are not fun at all to come across, and you feel forced to do them to despawn the site so a new one can spawn somewhere else. Either split the loot out better between containers or simply stop empty containers from being able to happen.
Total loot amount down to 70% compared to scatter mechanic? Feels more like down by 70%. |
Ibrahim Vaughn Holtzman
the holtzman experience
50
|
Posted - 2014.06.19 05:32:00 -
[2] - Quote
Discomanco wrote:.. you feel forced to do them to despawn the site so a new one can spawn somewhere else.
The really infuriating thing is; many players don't feel that way.
They open the most valuable can and move on, leaving the site partially plundered hanging around on the scanner until some poor soul scans it down again, only to find out that somebody else was already there earlier. |
Discomanco
We pooped on your lawn We pooped on your lawn.
12
|
Posted - 2014.06.19 10:00:00 -
[3] - Quote
Ibrahim Vaughn Holtzman wrote:Discomanco wrote:.. you feel forced to do them to despawn the site so a new one can spawn somewhere else. The really infuriating thing is; many players don't feel that way. They open the most valuable can and move on, leaving the site partially plundered hanging around on the scanner until some poor soul scans it down again, only to find out that somebody else was already there earlier. An even better reason that all containers should have loot of some kind (More than just 1-3 Carbon) |
|
CCP Bayesian
1135
|
Posted - 2014.06.19 10:13:00 -
[4] - Quote
After the Kronos patch there is no need to fail all the cans to despawn the site. They get reallocated an hour or so after someone has hacked a can be it a success or failure. We're seeing more sites run post-Kronos which is probably a combination of more people exploring (checking out the changes) and an increased frequency of sites due to these new despawning rules. So whilst the loot tables are 70% of what they were pre-Kronos there are more sites being run.
We don't like empty cans either which is why a good pass on the loot across the exploration sites is in our backlog. There are a whole bunch of factors to take into account with that though which is why we didn't try to do it whilst adjusting the mechanics in the site. EVE Software Engineer Team Space Glitter |
|
Discomanco
We pooped on your lawn We pooped on your lawn.
12
|
Posted - 2014.06.19 10:20:00 -
[5] - Quote
CCP Bayesian wrote:After the Kronos patch there is no need to fail all the cans to despawn the site. They get reallocated an hour or so after someone has hacked a can be it a success or failure. We're seeing more sites run post-Kronos which is probably a combination of more people exploring (checking out the changes) and an increased frequency of sites due to these new despawning rules. So whilst the loot tables are 70% of what they were pre-Kronos there are more sites being run.
We don't like empty cans either which is why a good pass on the loot across the exploration sites is in our backlog. There are a whole bunch of factors to take into account with that though which is why we didn't try to do it whilst adjusting the mechanics in the site. But, from what I've heard, when you clear the site it despawns and respawns somewhere else, waiting an hour to spawn a new site is just annoying and a waste of time, unless that changed in Kronos ofc. There's still the issue that #2 explained though, which also can be a huge frustation for new players, to come into a site with 2 already hacked containers and 2 remaining empty ones. I do see this as a serious issue, both for us who like to scan in highsec as a side profession, but also for new players who seems to love exploration as a start. |
|
CCP Bayesian
1135
|
Posted - 2014.06.19 10:38:00 -
[6] - Quote
I'm saying that should happen less because of the changes made and that the statistics we have seem to indicate that is the case.
This is EVE so there is always going to be an element of having to be quicker than the other guy. EVE Software Engineer Team Space Glitter |
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
2791
|
Posted - 2014.06.19 11:51:00 -
[7] - Quote
CCP Bayesian wrote:After the Kronos patch there is no need to fail all the cans to despawn the site. They get reallocated an hour or so after someone has hacked a can be it a success or failure. We're seeing more sites run post-Kronos which is probably a combination of more people exploring (checking out the changes) and an increased frequency of sites due to these new despawning rules. So whilst the loot tables are 70% of what they were pre-Kronos there are more sites being run.
We don't like empty cans either which is why a good pass on the loot across the exploration sites is in our backlog. There are a whole bunch of factors to take into account with that though which is why we didn't try to do it whilst adjusting the mechanics in the site. When you do that pass on the loot tables, consider increasing the breadth of the loot. For example, right now a few skill books show up as loot. Consider adding more, maybe even every skill book in the game. Just make sure the drop rate is less than the current sale rate by the NPCs. That way the price will not tank. You could also add Blue Print Originals, again, every BPO in the game, and again at a low enough drop rate to avoid tanking the price. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Ibrahim Vaughn Holtzman
the holtzman experience
51
|
Posted - 2014.06.19 13:54:00 -
[8] - Quote
CCP Bayesian wrote:(sites) get reallocated an hour or so after someone has hacked a can be it a success or failure
That is awesome news. Thank You very much. |
Conjaq
Cause For Concern Easily Excited
9
|
Posted - 2014.06.19 14:52:00 -
[9] - Quote
Ibrahim Vaughn Holtzman wrote:CCP Bayesian wrote:(sites) get reallocated an hour or so after someone has hacked a can be it a success or failure That is awesome news. Thank You very much.
Indeed someone just confirmed a hidden game mechanic regarding exploration.
|
Drabbin Mishi
EVE University Ivy League
2
|
Posted - 2014.06.19 15:44:00 -
[10] - Quote
CCP Bayesian wrote: So whilst the loot tables are 70% of what they were pre-Kronos there are more sites being run.
We don't like empty cans either which is why a good pass on the loot across the exploration sites is in our backlog. There are a whole bunch of factors to take into account with that though which is why we didn't try to do it whilst adjusting the mechanics in the site.
I'll echo what many others have been saying: that the value of Data sites seems to have gone down by a LOT more than 30%.
It used to be common, in hisec, to find several containers in a Data site that each contained multiple decryptors, and often at least one was one of the less-common/more-valuable ones. And almost-all containers had at least one decryptor in it. Now it's very rare to find a container with more than one decryptor, and many containers have no decryptors at all.
Is it possible that the "70%" less was implemented in a way different-from what Players are expecting? Maybe it's per-type and not per-instance? Or maybe the "goodness-value" in some random-number was scaled by 0.7 before doing the lookup (which would make the rare items *much* less likely to be found). etc.?
Drabbin. |
|
Circumstantial Evidence
130
|
Posted - 2014.06.19 23:08:00 -
[11] - Quote
Drabbin Mishi wrote:Now it's very rare to find a container with more than one decryptor, and many containers have no decryptors at all. I did a bunch of highsec sites in on the same day... finding plenty of randomness out there. One data site was pretty large for highsec with about 5 cans, but was just parts to build data interfaces, more lovely Carbon and a 3 run bpc. Then I came across another with 3 cans, got 3 decryptors and a few more parts. I see random working as intended. |
Discomanco
We pooped on your lawn We pooped on your lawn.
12
|
Posted - 2014.06.19 23:12:00 -
[12] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Drabbin Mishi wrote:Now it's very rare to find a container with more than one decryptor, and many containers have no decryptors at all. I did a bunch of highsec sites in on the same day... finding plenty of randomness out there. One data site was pretty large for highsec with about 5 cans, but was just parts to build data interfaces, more lovely Carbon and a 3 run bpc. Then I came across another with 3 cans, got 3 decryptors and a few more parts. I see random working as intended. Agreed, the randomness seems fine to me, but the loot just needs to be spread more out across all containers. I have very lateley come across too many that was just plain empty (upto 66% of a site) |
|
CCP Bayesian
1136
|
Posted - 2014.06.20 09:05:00 -
[13] - Quote
Drabbin Mishi wrote:CCP Bayesian wrote: So whilst the loot tables are 70% of what they were pre-Kronos there are more sites being run.
We don't like empty cans either which is why a good pass on the loot across the exploration sites is in our backlog. There are a whole bunch of factors to take into account with that though which is why we didn't try to do it whilst adjusting the mechanics in the site. I'll echo what many others have been saying: that the value of Data sites seems to have gone down by a LOT more than 30%. It used to be common, in hisec, to find several containers in a Data site that each contained multiple decryptors, and often at least one was one of the less-common/more-valuable ones. And almost-all containers had at least one decryptor in it. Now it's very rare to find a container with more than one decryptor, and many containers have no decryptors at all. Is it possible that the "70% less" was implemented in a way different from what Players are expecting? Maybe it's per-type and not per-instance? Or maybe the "goodness-value" in some random-number was scaled by 0.7 before doing the lookup (which would make the rare items *much* less likely to be found). etc.? Drabbin.
To quote myself from another thread:
In Odyssey we doubled the frequency of drops. In Kronos we made the frequency of drops 70% of the value they were in Odyssey. The amount of items of any type that might drop was left unchanged. We actually left blueprint drops doubled.
So in pre-Odyssey terms in Kronos there is on average more items per site but more explorers so more sites being run and more items being sold so the value of each item is less. If you were about exploring post-Odyssey you'll remember values for exploration items dropped off a cliff after the expansion.
EVE Software Engineer Team Space Glitter |
|
Conjaq
Cause For Concern Easily Excited
9
|
Posted - 2014.06.20 10:14:00 -
[14] - Quote
CCP Bayesian wrote:Drabbin Mishi wrote:CCP Bayesian wrote: So whilst the loot tables are 70% of what they were pre-Kronos there are more sites being run.
We don't like empty cans either which is why a good pass on the loot across the exploration sites is in our backlog. There are a whole bunch of factors to take into account with that though which is why we didn't try to do it whilst adjusting the mechanics in the site. I'll echo what many others have been saying: that the value of Data sites seems to have gone down by a LOT more than 30%. It used to be common, in hisec, to find several containers in a Data site that each contained multiple decryptors, and often at least one was one of the less-common/more-valuable ones. And almost-all containers had at least one decryptor in it. Now it's very rare to find a container with more than one decryptor, and many containers have no decryptors at all. Is it possible that the "70% less" was implemented in a way different from what Players are expecting? Maybe it's per-type and not per-instance? Or maybe the "goodness-value" in some random-number was scaled by 0.7 before doing the lookup (which would make the rare items *much* less likely to be found). etc.? Drabbin. To quote myself from another thread: In Odyssey we doubled the frequency of drops. In Kronos we made the frequency of drops 70% of the value they were in Odyssey. The amount of items of any type that might drop was left unchanged. We actually left blueprint drops doubled. So in pre-Odyssey terms in Kronos there is on average more items per site but more explorers so more sites being run and more items being sold so the value of each item is less. If you were about exploring post-Odyssey you'll remember values for exploration items dropped off a cliff after the expansion.
This is meant as no disrespect, however i think you fail to see the point. A few assumptions has to be made before understanding the issue.
1. Explores gennerally know what is valuable and what is not. - Infact you hunt the valuables, and you know exactly what you want to find. if you dont find these valuables, you know it.(the current value on these items does not matter btw)
2. What almost all the complaints are about, is not what is dropping - and what they're worth. . But what is not dropping. for example, before they might have had 20 decryptors per site(in kronos) and now they might only on averaget get 5. this is not a 30% reduction, but a 75%(just an example ofc)
This is why people think there is something fishy. Not because they get less value from the individual valueable, but because they just dont get the valuables.
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
2402
|
Posted - 2014.06.20 10:59:00 -
[15] - Quote
Conjaq wrote:CCP Bayesian wrote:Drabbin Mishi wrote:CCP Bayesian wrote: So whilst the loot tables are 70% of what they were pre-Kronos there are more sites being run.
We don't like empty cans either which is why a good pass on the loot across the exploration sites is in our backlog. There are a whole bunch of factors to take into account with that though which is why we didn't try to do it whilst adjusting the mechanics in the site. I'll echo what many others have been saying: that the value of Data sites seems to have gone down by a LOT more than 30%. It used to be common, in hisec, to find several containers in a Data site that each contained multiple decryptors, and often at least one was one of the less-common/more-valuable ones. And almost-all containers had at least one decryptor in it. Now it's very rare to find a container with more than one decryptor, and many containers have no decryptors at all. Is it possible that the "70% less" was implemented in a way different from what Players are expecting? Maybe it's per-type and not per-instance? Or maybe the "goodness-value" in some random-number was scaled by 0.7 before doing the lookup (which would make the rare items *much* less likely to be found). etc.? Drabbin. To quote myself from another thread: In Odyssey we doubled the frequency of drops. In Kronos we made the frequency of drops 70% of the value they were in Odyssey. The amount of items of any type that might drop was left unchanged. We actually left blueprint drops doubled. So in pre-Odyssey terms in Kronos there is on average more items per site but more explorers so more sites being run and more items being sold so the value of each item is less. If you were about exploring post-Odyssey you'll remember values for exploration items dropped off a cliff after the expansion. This is meant as no disrespect, however i think you fail to see the point. A few assumptions has to be made before understanding the issue. 1. Explores gennerally know what is valuable and what is not. - Infact you hunt the valuables, and you know exactly what you want to find. if you dont find these valuables, you know it.(the current value on these items does not matter btw) 2. What almost all the complaints are about, is not what is dropping - and what they're worth. . But what is not dropping. for example, before they might have had 20 decryptors per site(in kronos) and now they might only on averaget get 5. this is not a 30% reduction, but a 75%(just an example ofc) This is why people think there is something fishy. Not because they get less value from the individual valueable, but because they just dont get the valuables. What you fail to understand though is, unless you see the site pop up mid scan (which does happen every now and then) you have no idea if someone has already scanned down that site and cargo scanned the site. At which point they will either hack the cans with valuables causing the site to despawn in one hour or they will pass it by if it is not worh there time.
With the increased number of players hacking again there are is going to be a higher turnover of sites and more sites that have been cherry picked. This is the same that happen when Odyssey hit, a sharp increase in hacking attempts followed by a harsh decrease in loot value, which caused many to move on to combat sites and caused another crash in combat site value. A Corelum C-Type ENAM was about 300~350mill pre-odyssey which are now about 125~150m. [url]https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=353416&find=unread[/url] |
Discomanco
We pooped on your lawn We pooped on your lawn.
12
|
Posted - 2014.06.20 11:09:00 -
[16] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Conjaq wrote:CCP Bayesian wrote:Drabbin Mishi wrote:CCP Bayesian wrote: So whilst the loot tables are 70% of what they were pre-Kronos there are more sites being run.
We don't like empty cans either which is why a good pass on the loot across the exploration sites is in our backlog. There are a whole bunch of factors to take into account with that though which is why we didn't try to do it whilst adjusting the mechanics in the site. I'll echo what many others have been saying: that the value of Data sites seems to have gone down by a LOT more than 30%. It used to be common, in hisec, to find several containers in a Data site that each contained multiple decryptors, and often at least one was one of the less-common/more-valuable ones. And almost-all containers had at least one decryptor in it. Now it's very rare to find a container with more than one decryptor, and many containers have no decryptors at all. Is it possible that the "70% less" was implemented in a way different from what Players are expecting? Maybe it's per-type and not per-instance? Or maybe the "goodness-value" in some random-number was scaled by 0.7 before doing the lookup (which would make the rare items *much* less likely to be found). etc.? Drabbin. To quote myself from another thread: In Odyssey we doubled the frequency of drops. In Kronos we made the frequency of drops 70% of the value they were in Odyssey. The amount of items of any type that might drop was left unchanged. We actually left blueprint drops doubled. So in pre-Odyssey terms in Kronos there is on average more items per site but more explorers so more sites being run and more items being sold so the value of each item is less. If you were about exploring post-Odyssey you'll remember values for exploration items dropped off a cliff after the expansion. This is meant as no disrespect, however i think you fail to see the point. A few assumptions has to be made before understanding the issue. 1. Explores gennerally know what is valuable and what is not. - Infact you hunt the valuables, and you know exactly what you want to find. if you dont find these valuables, you know it.(the current value on these items does not matter btw) 2. What almost all the complaints are about, is not what is dropping - and what they're worth. . But what is not dropping. for example, before they might have had 20 decryptors per site(in kronos) and now they might only on averaget get 5. this is not a 30% reduction, but a 75%(just an example ofc) This is why people think there is something fishy. Not because they get less value from the individual valueable, but because they just dont get the valuables. What you fail to understand though is, unless you see the site pop up mid scan (which does happen every now and then) you have no idea if someone has already scanned down that site and cargo scanned the site. At which point they will either hack the cans with valuables causing the site to despawn in one hour or they will pass it by if it is not worh there time. With the increased number of players hacking again there are is going to be a higher turnover of sites and more sites that have been cherry picked. This is the same that happen when Odyssey hit, a sharp increase in hacking attempts followed by a harsh decrease in loot value, which caused many to move on to combat sites and caused another crash in combat site value. A Corelum C-Type ENAM was about 300~350mill pre-odyssey which are now about 125~150m. The issue is not so much the value of loot, but more the amount. A lot of containers contains nothing to a few carbon and nothing more. I have yet to find anything of real value in a data/relic site, but then again, I only scan in highsec atm, and rarely lowsec, but finding empty containers is not fun. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
2402
|
Posted - 2014.06.20 11:43:00 -
[17] - Quote
If you find a existing site in a system that has more than 0 other players the chances it has been scanned down already it pretty much 100%. If you find an existing site in a system with 0 other players the chances of it has already been scanned down are less but still quite high more so with the increased number of players hacking again.
Basically I am saying if you find a site that has nothing or nothing and a few carbons or a site that has a few carbons and junk, someone beat you to it. [url]https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=353416&find=unread[/url] |
Drabbin Mishi
EVE University Ivy League
2
|
Posted - 2014.06.20 13:48:00 -
[18] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:If you find a existing site in a system that has more than 0 other players the chances it has been scanned down already it pretty much 100%. If you find an existing site in a system with 0 other players the chances of it has already been scanned down are less but still quite high more so with the increased number of players hacking again.
Basically I am saying if you find a site that has nothing or nothing and a few carbons or a site that has a few carbons and junk, someone beat you to it.
Here's an example of what I'm talking about - which I don't believe really fits into what you're suggesting:
- Find a Data site in hisec, that has 3 containers. - None have been hacked yet. (So it's NOT that someone else has already picked through and grabbed the good stuff.) - Not a single Decryptor in any of the three containers (one empty, one has some carbon, one has a skillbook and a datacore)
Yes - that's not no loot. But it's really no good loot.
And that is something I do not recall ever coming across before Kronos. (Before Kronos, if a similar site had only two lower-end decryptors, it would be a "bad" site. Now two lower-end decryptors is "Jackpot!".)
I tend to do my scanning in Solitude, where the average number of players is much smaller than in general hisec. And I tend to do a lot of scanning. So I really don't buy the argument which seems to be "these bad sites have always been there - but because more people are scanning now, you're more likely to find a bad one". |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
2402
|
Posted - 2014.06.20 14:43:00 -
[19] - Quote
Drabbin Mishi wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:If you find a existing site in a system that has more than 0 other players the chances it has been scanned down already it pretty much 100%. If you find an existing site in a system with 0 other players the chances of it has already been scanned down are less but still quite high more so with the increased number of players hacking again.
Basically I am saying if you find a site that has nothing or nothing and a few carbons or a site that has a few carbons and junk, someone beat you to it. Here's an example of what I'm talking about - which I don't believe really fits into what you're suggesting: - Find a Data site in hisec, that has 3 containers. - None have been hacked yet. (So it's NOT that someone else has already picked through and grabbed the good stuff.) - Not a single Decryptor in any of the three containers (one empty, one has some carbon, one has a skillbook and a datacore) Yes - that's not no loot. But it's really no good loot. Why do you believe that no one has already been to the site? Because all the cans have not been hacked? It is possible to tell if a site is worth hacking before you hack any containers, an in such a case as the above described there is a good chance that anyone before you decided it was not worth the time to hack. [url]https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=353416&find=unread[/url] |
Drabbin Mishi
EVE University Ivy League
2
|
Posted - 2014.06.20 15:04:00 -
[20] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Drabbin Mishi wrote: Here's an example of what I'm talking about - which I don't believe really fits into what you're suggesting:
- Find a Data site in hisec, that has 3 containers. - None have been hacked yet. (So it's NOT that someone else has already picked through and grabbed the good stuff.) - Not a single Decryptor in any of the three containers (one empty, one has some carbon, one has a skillbook and a datacore)
Yes - that's not no loot. But it's really no good loot.
Why do you believe that no one has already been to the site? Because all the cans have not been hacked? It is possible to tell if a site is worth hacking before you hack any containers, an in such a case as the above described there is a good chance that anyone before you decided it was not worth the time to hack.
I agree - it is indeed possible that someone else already found, cargo-scanned, and deserted this site. Which is what I would probably do myself too.
However, why would people not have done the same pre-Kronos?
I don't believe that there are that many more people scanning now, than before, that I would never have similarly come across similar "junk" sites before Kronos - but that I do regularly now.
In fact, from the people I speak to, fewer people are scanning, because the loot yields seem to have been nerfed so badly. But I'll believe CCP Bayesian that maybe more people are scanning, because they're no longer scared off by loot-spew. But still....
|
|
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
2402
|
Posted - 2014.06.20 15:22:00 -
[21] - Quote
CCP Bayesian said hacking attempts per day went up from around 65k to just over 100k. Assuming that most players cargo scan and only hack containers that are generally worth hacking, that is a large increase in the number of players, even on the conservative side of things where one will assume that every container per site is being hacked that is a 35k hacking attempts with the average number of cans per site being 4~5 that would result in about 7000~9000 more sites being done per day. That is still a lot more hackers out there. [url]https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=353416&find=unread[/url] |
Drabbin Mishi
EVE University Ivy League
2
|
Posted - 2014.06.20 16:15:00 -
[22] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:CCP Bayesian said hacking attempts per day went up from around 65k to just over 100k. Assuming that most players cargo scan and only hack containers that are generally worth hacking, that is a large increase in the number of players, even on the conservative side of things where one will assume that every container per site is being hacked that is a 35k hacking attempts with the average number of cans per site being 4~5 that would result in about 7000~9000 more sites being done per day. That is still a lot more hackers out there.
Wow - that it a lot more.
So that then would explain one side of the story... but not the other. The other being, that pre-Kronos, if there were so many fewer hacking attempts, I should have run into at least as many of these "junk" sites. And I honestly don't recall ever finding as many with basically nothing useful in them. (Then again, it's possible that there were so many good ones around, that I have simply forgotten all the junk ones, as they were No Big Deal back then? But I'm really not convinced that this is the cause here.)
So I'm still somewhat skeptical that the "70%" was implemented the way I (and most players) expected it to have been.
I guess the real answer would be for CCP Bayesian to report stats on things like how many of each general class of loot was claimed before and after Kronos. If each bucket of loot really is about 70% of what it was before, then that would be probative. Or at least report that those stats indeed do look that way - if that is not something CCP is willing to share. |
HeXxploiT
Little Red X
38
|
Posted - 2014.06.20 20:53:00 -
[23] - Quote
I think too that if there really is less valuable loot being dropped, which I don't personally notice, the market will respond accordingly and the value of those items will slowly go up and compensate. This will take probably a few months to get better ideas on the numbers however. Also since there are so many more players running the sites I think it's logical to wait and see here so that the market isn't flooded with the valuable items which could in turn diminish the value of said items and exacerbate the very issue. |
Gideon Enderas
Dirty Butt Pirates
0
|
Posted - 2014.06.23 21:33:00 -
[24] - Quote
Yes, loot has been nerved to oblivion. Relic and data sites are no longer profitable at all. /sarcasm
On another note, it would be nice for null sec data sites to be worth something. As it stands they are not worth doing at all. |
Discomanco
We pooped on your lawn We pooped on your lawn.
13
|
Posted - 2014.06.23 21:36:00 -
[25] - Quote
Gideon Enderas wrote:Yes, loot has been nerved to oblivion. Relic and data sites are no longer profitable at all. /sarcasm
On another note, it would be nice for null sec data sites to be worth something. As it stands they are not worth doing at all. I've been in nullsec scanning the past days, Except for people trying to kill me, I actually made a decent profit. 150 runs of 'Integrated' Infiltrator and around 60-70mil in salvage loot in a few hours (that includes scanning for wormholes from high to null, finding sites in null and avoiding roams) |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |