These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Try our new hacking/archaeology sites!

First post First post
Author
Minmatar Republic
#481 - 2013-05-28 17:48:59 UTC
Sheena Tzash wrote:
Tried the hacking mini game yesterday and I all I can say at the moment is that when the expansion comes out I simply won't bother with exploration anymore because its just not fun!

I tried with a Probe with hacking rigs, and reasonably high hacking skills (4s) and found the sites to be frustrating and boring.

1) Its a MASSIVE click-fest with no clear goal or objective that I can see other than 'click on all the pretty dots'

2) When a firewall comes up it seems to disable the other 'helpful' modules (like the spanner) so I can't click them.

3) The strength values on a firewall don't seem to relate to anything - I have around 70 points available and if I click a firewall with say a value of 10 I sometimes lose more or less than 10 points? So how can I decide which firewall to click if I don't know what the results will be?

4) If I just click on anything and everything and run out of clickable nodes and all I'm left with are firewall nodes (say 3 for example) but not enough points to do all 3, which node do I click? I can't see an 'end' node I need to reach so I don't know which node is best to click on. So its either take a random chance, run out of points and not be able to do the next one, fail.

I was fairly happy that the rats that spawn after a failure were only small and I could easily run away from them and use some drones to take them out.

The loot spillage affect to me is also very annoying simply because you put the work into getting this far to only get 10% of what your after - and most people won't be glad of the loot they got, they'll concern themselves with the stuff that they MISSED and so it'll seem like whenever you do exploration you'll LOSE something (or not gain 100%)

Even if you bring a friend the chances are that they'll be bored out of their minds waiting for you to scan down a site and then hack it just so that maybe they can click on some boxes that spew out and run away with the good stuff.

Personally I think the whole thing needs to be re-designed; at the end of the day you're taking an activity that before required ZERO skill (ie, click a can and wait for the module to finish) to now require some skill, understanding and a LOT of luck to finish.

You're also making an activity that before was done automatically within a decent time frame (less than 1 min) and 100% chance of success into something that can now take MUCH longer with no guarantee of success.

Basically this means you're EXCLUDING all the players who are bad at mini games.

1) HALVE the size of the mini game so that is short and quick (less than 30 seconds from start to finish)
2) If the hack is successful then the loot is left in ONE container for the hacker to access.
3) If the hack FAILS then you get the 'loot spawn' as before with SOME loot (but not the best).
4) If the user exits the mini game or the module ends then its NOT considered a failure
5) A failure only occurs when the hacker loses all points their in the mini game

At the end of the day the player has put in the time, effort and skills to FIND the site in the first place and therefore deserve SOMETHING for their time; especially if they've risked going into dangerous space to do it.

Giving loot upon failure means that the hacker now has a choice of action to take:

1) Spend more time (and risk of exposure) in completing the mini game for the best loot and 100% chance to full retrieval. Even if this means that they go so far in the mini game, find they can't complete it and cancel and try again. The additional time it takes to re-try is the risk they take.
2) Run the site quick and dirty to get SOME loot thrown out all over the place but not the best.


I could iterate on this but it sums up my general feelings.
Caldari State
#482 - 2013-05-28 18:31:55 UTC
Are the new sites still tied to the Industry index for nullsec?
Any plan on moving them away from it and give us any other means of "generating" them like hidden belts?
Its a pita to keep the Industry index up just to have the exploration sites... a explorer should not be a miner!
#483 - 2013-05-28 18:46:34 UTC
Gladi wrote:
Are the new sites still tied to the Industry index for nullsec?
Any plan on moving them away from it and give us any other means of "generating" them like hidden belts?
Its a pita to keep the Industry index up just to have the exploration sites... a explorer should not be a miner!


As the Data and Relic sites are still the same Hacking and Archaeology sites as before, just with new names and new containers, there's no reason they wouldn't still be tied to the same indices as before.
#484 - 2013-05-28 20:57:07 UTC
CCP Bayesian wrote:
Maddan69 wrote:
Can we get a response from a Dev if they are even considering changing the variable which causes the Loot Explosion?

Instead of having two tries at the hacking mini-game either:
Failing the hack attempt you get the loot explosion.
Succeeding in the hack attempt you loot the container like you would normally.

Twenty-four pages of basically everyone calling this loot explosion mechanic horrible is not a good sign and this is just the people "testing" the mechanic... I don't even want to see the outcry on the forums the following days after the patch hits the live server if this mechanic is introduced as it currently stands.


We're talking about the scattering mechanic just now and are making a lot of changes to make it more usable.


My poor wrists greatly appreciate your consideration in this matter. My mouse too, as I think it knows it's close to getting smashed.
The Possum Lodge
#485 - 2013-05-28 21:02:11 UTC
please tell me that you are working on a way to NOT melt my graphics card, it has never gotten as hot as it did while i was in that site looking at the objective.

I have a GTX 670, and it got to 80* C. i've never seen it over 60-65* before. Something is wrong with your site.

Need my logs, why don't you try it yourself CCP. Go into one of these sites and look at how the PC reacts to them, instead of just coding 'pretty' into everything then wondering what in the world could be causing game crashes b/c you never really tested it.

http://blog.beyondreality.se/shift-click-does-nothing    < Unified Inventory is NOT ready...

#486 - 2013-05-28 23:29:55 UTC
When I shoot a rat (or someone shoots me Roll) wreckage is left behind. Dice are rolled and wreckage is generated based on ship construction and cargo manifests. Static, owned wreckage.

Why would cans from these sites spew loot when wrecks do not?

Why are the hellish little cans not owned by the hacker / fleet / corp where wreckage is?

Why do the can last seconds while wreckage lasts an hour?

Why is an exploding ship rewarded potentially twice over (loot and salvage) while these sites have diminishing returns?

There are any number of ways to blow up rats/players and the skills invested into them are extremely broad in scope. Exploration skills are finite and tightly focused. Why punish explorers with these ill conceived mechanisms?
#487 - 2013-05-29 00:31:21 UTC
Tried it in null-sec (where I usually plex). Got a pair of Central Guristas's Sparkling. Couldn't finish any of them. I lucked out on one and got the final node quickly. Opened it. Stuff shot out in every direction. Clicked on a bunch of it. None of it made it into my cargo hold - none whatsoever. Waste of an hour of time. It basically failed and failed and failed over and over again.

Had 90/20 for stats.
#488 - 2013-05-29 03:44:22 UTC
the bug where the exploration structure spawns within collision bounds of an other structure is still there the last time i checked.

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

#489 - 2013-05-29 03:48:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Bienator II
CCP Bayesian wrote:
Maddan69 wrote:
Can we get a response from a Dev if they are even considering changing the variable which causes the Loot Explosion?

Instead of having two tries at the hacking mini-game either:
Failing the hack attempt you get the loot explosion.
Succeeding in the hack attempt you loot the container like you would normally.

Twenty-four pages of basically everyone calling this loot explosion mechanic horrible is not a good sign and this is just the people "testing" the mechanic... I don't even want to see the outcry on the forums the following days after the patch hits the live server if this mechanic is introduced as it currently stands.


We're talking about the scattering mechanic just now and are making a lot of changes to make it more usable.


make scattering a punishment for an unsuccessful hack, not something you have to do after you won the hacking game.

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Minmatar Republic
#490 - 2013-05-29 05:24:01 UTC
Xanadu Redux wrote:
When I shoot a rat (or someone shoots me Roll) wreckage is left behind. Dice are rolled and wreckage is generated based on ship construction and cargo manifests. Static, owned wreckage.

Why would cans from these sites spew loot when wrecks do not?

Why are the hellish little cans not owned by the hacker / fleet / corp where wreckage is?

Why do the can last seconds while wreckage lasts an hour?

Why is an exploding ship rewarded potentially twice over (loot and salvage) while these sites have diminishing returns?

There are any number of ways to blow up rats/players and the skills invested into them are extremely broad in scope. Exploration skills are finite and tightly focused. Why punish explorers with these ill conceived mechanisms?


Tip of the iceberg, man. You have no idea.
Minmatar Republic
#491 - 2013-05-29 05:26:57 UTC
Palal wrote:
Tried it in null-sec (where I usually plex). Got a pair of Central Guristas's Sparkling. Couldn't finish any of them. I lucked out on one and got the final node quickly. Opened it. Stuff shot out in every direction. Clicked on a bunch of it. None of it made it into my cargo hold - none whatsoever. Waste of an hour of time. It basically failed and failed and failed over and over again.

Had 90/20 for stats.


You wanna up the ante on your frustration? Cargo Scan it before you hack it successfully and have 2 300mil BPCs fly off in different directions along with a bunch of other 20-40mil stuff. Best part being you can't tell those from the other 1-3 junk cans until it's too late.
#492 - 2013-05-29 07:42:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco
Scuzzy Logic wrote:
Palal wrote:
Tried it in null-sec (where I usually plex). Got a pair of Central Guristas's Sparkling. Couldn't finish any of them. I lucked out on one and got the final node quickly. Opened it. Stuff shot out in every direction. Clicked on a bunch of it. None of it made it into my cargo hold - none whatsoever. Waste of an hour of time. It basically failed and failed and failed over and over again.

Had 90/20 for stats.


You wanna up the ante on your frustration? Cargo Scan it before you hack it successfully and have 2 300mil BPCs fly off in different directions along with a bunch of other 20-40mil stuff. Best part being you can't tell those from the other 1-3 junk cans until it's too late.


Personally I like the part where, when scanning the cargo of a Relic container in a site that I scanned down after having to open the system (hooray for offline traffic control!) ....

...I find that the unhacked container is, in fact... empty.

CCP, I know it's a highsec site and it's not supposed to be overwhelmingly profitable, but really? Cans that are empty? At least put a Pax Amarria in there or something.
#493 - 2013-05-29 08:17:36 UTC
Played another site yesterday. CCP, have you updated the scattering mechanic?

Guys. If you now click on a can floating in space, it will activate the tractor beam until the can is near enough at your vessel. After that it plays some kind of sound, and then after a second it will transfer the loot from the can into your cargo.
But IF you click on any other can during this process the first can will turn RED and will disappear. If you click on the next can too early, your previous can is LOST.

In fact, this is a good idea so you can click any can first and change the tractorbeam if you see a better one.

But please CCP, play the loot-successful-sound after the loot is save in your cargo. So I can have audio-feedback and can know when to click the next one.


o7
Hino Dallocort
#494 - 2013-05-29 09:57:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Hino Dallocort
I didn’t tried the new exploration system myself, but I read the whole tread and I would like to leave my impressions here. I apologize about the entire wall of text that’s probably coming next, and my English.

First of all, let’s think about exploration for what is it at the moment, a grind activity, just like mining. The difference maybe is (or I think should be) that mining gives you more stable profit, and exploration should be more about luck, and peaks of profit, and this creates expectation when you find a site.

I will not enter to analyse the minigame because I didn’t played it, but I recommend to developers check the game “Hacker Evolution Duality”, not to rip of all the mechanics obviously, but maybe you will found good ideas or inspiration to make the minigame more strategic.
I’m going to put directly the changes or features that I would like to see on this exploration system (some already asked by many people) keeping this statement in mind: “Exploring alone, you are gonna have your chances… Exploring with 1-2 friends, you ensure the profit.” Note that the difficult of the minigame and the loot of the sites should have good balance with these features.

- Succesfull on minigame get the cargo as usual, failing it, spread the cargo.
Result:
  • Solo: In success you get all the proft. On failing, if you have luck maybe you get part of the profit.
  • With friends: In success you get all the profit. On failing, you and your friends can compensate the failing by getting almost every cargo, more friends, more chances to get all the profit. (maybe with 3 ships is enough)

  • - Archeology site never spawn rats on failing. (Not dangerous sites)
    I think there is no sense that some pirates are monitoring some ancient or destroyed sites waiting for explorers. You can call this sites, the not dangerous sites.
    Archeology container spread the cargo on the FIRST fail.
    Result:
  • Safe site (from PvE aspect) for solo exploration but with the risk of spread cargos.

  • - Hacking site spawn rats on failing, but ONLY on the second try of certain container. (Dangerous sites)
    Let me explain on that. I read someone complaining about the rat spawn because with a Cover Ops ship, he failed the minigame, and because of that, he must leave the site, and lose the rest of containers without a chance to hack, because the lack of offensive capability of a CO ship.
    The response to that feedback was removing completely the spawn of rats, and I think that was a big mistake. If you remove all rat presence you make the process of hacking sites tedious and without sense of danger (from PvE aspect of course). To solve this problem and still keep hacking kind of exciting, spawn rats on all the sectors, but only on the second fail of a certain cargo, and the spread of the cargo only happens on second fail too. This allow the player manage the risk of set ON the alarm trying all the cargos almost one time (to that point the player maybe get some profit), and then he got left the containers that already have one fail on them, now it’s RISKY TIME! Now he can generate a rat spawn, but he has had almost one try on each container (if he plays clever). If he fail at this point, the cargo spread + rats have spawned = get all you can and get out of here!. The rats obviously escalates.
    Result:
  • Solo: In success you get all the profit. On failing, if you manage the risk correctly, you have a chance to try on every container, get partial profit, and then take your chances to hack without set the alarm ON. On alarm set ON, get all you can of the spreaded cargos and fight back, or get out quickly.
  • With friends: In success you get all the profit. On failing you manage the risk the same way, but when rats spawn, you always can fight back.

  • - WH sites, follow the same rules, but still have initial rats on the site.


    I think with this changes exploration would be an interesting activity to do solo or in company, without the actual frustration and makes a difference between hacking and archaeology sites.
    #495 - 2013-05-29 10:45:51 UTC
    I never felt so frustrated than now with these new explorations mechanics. Also cheated. I wasted months of training for a cov op that now turn to be the worst ship to do exploration, a T1 version is better. Buzzard or Helios are the worst choice to do exploration now on sisi, is not just that I dont have any defense, but they provide only scan strength bonus. They are still good ships for scouting, but for exploration the Imicus or Heron is better. Actually I don't even know if there is a T2 ship that have virus strength bonus on them... I found nothing.

    And not sure if this a bug or a new feature: after a successful hacking, one of the loot can gave me an error on salvaging saying that my Buzzard cargo hold has not enough free space (115) to loot the can. Really?!? Do I need to bring a freighter now to loot those pinatas?

    Npc cruisers are still spawning on fail, so the only way I can test these sites is to bring a combat ship, meaning that the failure chance is much more higher. Next week the expansion is set to go live and I really don't see how all these problems will get fixed. better delay the whole exploration part until late summer or even winter. As it is now it's a nightmare.
    AII ShaII Perish
    #496 - 2013-05-29 11:32:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicola Arman
    Dax Buchanan wrote:


    All in all i think these sites could be much more enjoyable if they were centered around the hacking game not the loot spewing.
    My idea would be to have in each hacking game not just a system core but also a node that leads one level deeper in the security system. So player can choose between hacking the core or consider to to take a risk and go deeper with remaining virus strenght to find even better loot. And then should this fail the loot spews as punishment and rats spawn.


    This does sound better than the current mindless iteration. I wish they implemented something like this. Makes deeper, more immersive gameplay...
    Amarr Empire
    #497 - 2013-05-29 11:38:20 UTC
    I was pretty excited when I first read about the changes.

    Finally I can do hacking/arch/exploration in an all in one ship \o/.

    Imagine my disappointment to find T1 ships have a bonus to virus strength and T2 doesn't.

    Basically due to the new hacking rigs etc I STILL need 2 ships.. A covert ops to scan the sites down and a T1 to run the site.

    Seems stupid to me

    #498 - 2013-05-29 11:50:29 UTC
    Nubchucker wrote:
    I was pretty excited when I first read about the changes.

    Finally I can do hacking/arch/exploration in an all in one ship \o/.

    Imagine my disappointment to find T1 ships have a bonus to virus strength and T2 doesn't.

    Basically due to the new hacking rigs etc I STILL need 2 ships.. A covert ops to scan the sites down and a T1 to run the site.

    Seems stupid to me



    It seemed silly to us as well so we're rebalancing that aspect of it.

    EVE Software Engineer Team Space Glitter

    #499 - 2013-05-29 11:57:04 UTC
    Vladimir Norkoff wrote:
    CCP Bayesian wrote:
    The problem at the moment is that hackers start each attempt from scratch, you can't bring Utilities in with you and there are no utility elements that give you a peak at what might be where on the board. This limits the strategies that can be developed quite severely.
    I don't understand how you can acknowledge this is a problem and yet NOT fix it before implementing the system. It's just mind-boggling.


    We made a considered decision to not do that in order to release in a timely manner. We don't think the hacking mechanics are broken or ruined by not including it but we are making it a priority for the work we are doing right after release because it is the cornerstone to adding more depth to the mechanic. Ideas like the one Dax Buchanan mentioned of going deeper to get a chance at better loot are the sorts of additional mechanics we actively thinking about.

    EVE Software Engineer Team Space Glitter

    Amarr Empire
    #500 - 2013-05-29 12:00:01 UTC
    CCP Bayesian wrote:
    We made a considered decision to not do that in order to release in a timely manner.

    There seems to be a lot of that sentiment in Reykjavik right now.

    Enjoying the rain today? ;)

    Forum Jump