Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Dark-Rising
   |
Posted - 2009.03.28 09:32:00 -
[1]
 Quote:
i seriously think ppl on EVE need to not be so greedy. it's quite sad.
Welcome to mankind, where unknowns kill you and your family to rob your USD 50 cell phone.
Quote:
The entire basis of this argument is that WH space is not as lucrative as Level 4's. So what? Its new, very different and good fun. As such there will be people willing to try it.
and
Quote:
So the main crux of the issue isnt that T3 is 'broken' or that there is some imbalance between .0 harvesting and w space harvesting - but that neither hold much of candle to the defining mark of ISK generation - i.e high sec.
The entire content of the last weeks posts, on multiple boards has been:
- L4 missioning rewards became >> mining.
- L4 missioning rewards are > exploration
- L4 missioning rewards are >> T3 manufacturing
- L4 missioning is the now established term of comparison of what gives tons of money for little risk.
I foresee a severe L4 missioning nerf, possibly in the form of adopting Sleepers AI and features into the L4 missions.
Quote:
Your posts seem to be contradicting Bellum. On the one hand you suggest T3 ships are not worth the risk to harvest the build materials you require to manufacture them. But then you say actually getting the materials is relatively straight forward and you're having no problems doing so.
He is saying that competing against AFK ISK activities costs and requires effort. Even a moderate effort is > AFK effort and thus it's not worth pouring any effort if the result is inferior to established and safe other ways.
Quote:
My point is that if you make T3 better than T2, you devalue the resources needed for T2 and hence 0.0 space, which is where the prime ingredients are harvested from (moon mining). The critical point of course is that T3 offers a different route towards "better Tech" resource harvesting than claiming .0 space. It's risks are roughly comparable (danger of w space vs difficulty in holding .0 space) only the scale (small corp vs alliance) changes.
I'd like to expand on this.
T3 might be as well a fake name for "another T2" (hence the intentions of keeping similar costs).
T2 sounds like: "big 0.0 alliance territory. They need many and good and streamlined, very single task oriented ships. Big guns are also needed".
T2B aka T3 sounds like: "alternate T2 for those who can't get into 0.0 or for smaller alliances. They need versatile setups due to lower numbers, even at the cost of having it involved. Ships won't be single task oriented nor priority is on the biggest guns".
|