These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Feedback for Hacking/Archaeology feature from 27/5/13 onward

First post First post
Author
Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices
Greater D.U.S.K. Coalition
#181 - 2013-05-29 16:25:46 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Got an easy one ( kinda off topic though), did the mirror every happen?

No so no bug reports from meWhat?

If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide

See you around the universe.

Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices
Greater D.U.S.K. Coalition
#182 - 2013-05-29 16:27:23 UTC
Utremi Fasolasi wrote:
Heinel Coventina wrote:


What is CCP's plan to introduce new players into exploration, a gameplay mechanic that has no parallels from other MMOs, hence unfamiliar, and,

What is CCP doing to mitigate disappointments during this transitional period between phasing out the old passive system and a highly integrated play style?



There is a new Exploration career tutorial, I gave my feedback about it here.

Thanks for looking at that I was planning to do that as soon as I could log in. Did you bug report all those issues?

If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide

See you around the universe.

Panhead4411
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services
The Possum Lodge
#183 - 2013-05-29 16:29:58 UTC
CCP Bayesian wrote:
For the people saying the 'loot pinata sucks' and the like could you vocalise the problems you have with it?

So far I've collated:
-feel good list


You missed the:

-Uberstacked objects causing MASSIVE graphics overheating issues among other things (frame rate drops ect)

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

Kel hound
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#184 - 2013-05-29 16:33:58 UTC
CCP Bayesian wrote:
For the people saying the 'loot pinata sucks' and the like could you vocalise the problems you have with it?

So far I've collated:
- It's not the way EVE has previously worked.
- Collision is a pain, both with the size of the Data Sites and the positioning of some containers.
- Picking can be difficult if you're not using a mouse.
- Picking can be difficult if you're blinded by the site contents.
- Loot haul seems low in comparison with how it was before.
- Losing cans feels bad, particular after the effort of having to hack the container. This makes it feel like a penalty.
- Not knowing what is any particular can so it feels bad not being able to make good choices.
- The 'bad loot' is far too bulky so it is excessively penalising as you have to stop and sort it out.



Few extra things I'd like to add to that list, especially if you're set on keeping this stupid loot ejection system.

- Loot ejection is random. I've had cases where after a successful hack the loot has spewed into the structure I was hacking, causing most of the loot to be lost as my ship bounces helplessly off the structure. The general cluttered nature of anoms doesn't help much either. See quote below for an example.

mynnna wrote:
http://i.imgur.com/FhZOW4A.png Picture to illustrate what I mean.


-When attempting to tractor in the mini-cans its very difficult to know when your ship is ready to tractor in a new can and if your too eager (because why wouldn't you be, your hard earned loot is about to despawn) to click a new can the system seems to "lock up" for want of a better phrase and won't do anything for a few precious seconds.

CCP Prime wrote:

1) No. By design a one player is never meant to be able to catch all cans. Hence the constant take time and the expiring of stuff.
2) They still will not show on the overview. We want players to actually use our space view. It is a challenge in 3D based decision making and for CCP it is a challenge to improve whatever needs improving when you have to deal with things directly in space.


1) Thats fine, look if you want to give us a limited time to access these cans, so be it. But the loot ejection system is punishment. It is a punishment mechanic. A better way would be on a successful hack to instead give the same system only in a loot window. None of this "chase it down!" bullshit. A simple, standard loot window where we can only pull one "mini-can" at a time and have a limited amount of time to do it before it locks permanently; but with the reward of not having to madly rotate the camera (while trying to avoid the visual clutter that lags frame rate) madly trying to pick out cans.

2) That would be fine - if the space view was intuitive to navigate. It's not. There is a reason we still have an 8 year old overview - its the best system for navigating EVE you've yet given us. Suddenly expecting us to be master of clicking on things in 3D space when for years you've taught us to use the overview is pants on head STUPID.
CCP Prime
C C P
C C P Alliance
#185 - 2013-05-29 16:40:27 UTC
Panhead4411 wrote:
CCP Bayesian wrote:
For the people saying the 'loot pinata sucks' and the like could you vocalise the problems you have with it?

So far I've collated:
-feel good list


You missed the:

-Uberstacked objects causing MASSIVE graphics overheating issues among other things (frame rate drops ect)


Yeah, that was an unfortunate consequence of having to redo 200+ dungeons and not being able to finish all that massive work before it hit SiSi. Of course that will not be apparent on SiSi.

Software Engineer Team Prototyping Rocks 2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 29 31 37 41 43 47 53 59 61 67 71 ...

Nicola Arman
Black-Star Enterprises
#186 - 2013-05-29 16:42:25 UTC
I'm so glad you changed the "can spew" speed. Feels much better and is more sensible to manage now.
Heinel Coventina
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#187 - 2013-05-29 16:44:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Heinel Coventina
Utremi Fasolasi wrote:
Heinel Coventina wrote:


What is CCP's plan to introduce new players into exploration, a gameplay mechanic that has no parallels from other MMOs, hence unfamiliar, and,

What is CCP doing to mitigate disappointments during this transitional period between phasing out the old passive system and a highly integrated play style?



There is a new Exploration career tutorial, I gave my feedback about it here.


Hmm. I personally do not believe in the tutorials at all. Not only were they unhelpful in introducing new players to what makes EVE the game that it is, or what one could expect, but they were also set up like those text-laden quests from other MMOs. It pushes people to the missioning play style, which makes actual exploration completely counter intuitive. I highly doubt that true newbies to the game would go seek out sites by themselves after they complete the tutorials. The more likely scenario would be that most of them will go find more agents instead.
Nicola Arman
Black-Star Enterprises
#188 - 2013-05-29 16:47:53 UTC
Heinel Coventina wrote:
Utremi Fasolasi wrote:
Heinel Coventina wrote:


What is CCP's plan to introduce new players into exploration, a gameplay mechanic that has no parallels from other MMOs, hence unfamiliar, and,

What is CCP doing to mitigate disappointments during this transitional period between phasing out the old passive system and a highly integrated play style?



There is a new Exploration career tutorial, I gave my feedback about it here.


Hmm. I personally do not believe in the tutorials at all. Not only were they unhelpful in introducing new players to what makes EVE the game that it is, or what one could expect, but they were also set up like those text-laden quests from other MMOs. It pushes people to the missioning play style, which makes actual exploration completely counter intuitive. I highly doubt that true newbies to the game would go seek out sites by themselves after they complete the tutorials. The more likely scenario would be that most of them will go find more agents instead.


Agreed. Tutorials send the wrong message..
Azurielle Silestris
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#189 - 2013-05-29 16:49:36 UTC
CCP Prime wrote:
Sheena Tzash wrote:
CCP Prime wrote:
So for the scattering mechanism we've reduced the speed that the cans eject out at.
It'll make chasing them almost unneeded.
Crimewatch will now apply to the cans like as with any other loot.
The mini container names will actually hint at what you can get from them (currently on SiSi it is a completely random association.) This will help deciding on what loot you are actually going for.

Also, a few bugs, like the one when the bracket disappears for a container that had started to blink, has been fixed.

We want to iterate on tying hacking success to the scattering, and hopefully we'll be able to do so in a point release.


1) If the speed is much slower now is it actually possible to get 100% of the ejected loot?
2) If the cans are now named will they show on the overview or will you have to spend time mousing over each can to find out whats in it before you click it?


1) No. By design a one player is never meant to be able to catch all cans. Hence the constant take time and the expiring of stuff.
2) They still will not show on the overview. We want players to actually use our space view. It is a challenge in 3D based decision making and for CCP it is a challenge to improve whatever needs improving when you have to deal with things directly in space.


Scuzzy's in full-blown rage mode right now so I'll take over:

#1 Is fine, even if I don't get all the loot if I can at least get the most valuable item (blueprint) 100% of the time if I'm alert and I'm fine with that.

#2 Would it be a problem to have the brackets color-coded or the cans differently shaped to identify whats in them now that can names are specific? I don't mind chasing cans as long as I can go *Arr! There be me gold nuggit'* and make a beeline for it even if I miss 60-90% of the other cans. Right now I keep zooming my mouse over all of them to spot the BPC's can and had a few close encounters of almost missing them since I accidentally went for a decoder instead.
Overall I feel it could be fixed in a point release, but the new ''fixed'' system with the slower-yet-faster-despawning cans feels pretty good and might warrant bringing the new corp noobs along for some free iskies since the cans they'd loot would go to waste anyways.

My suggestions: Color-coded brackets for pinata spew types, bigger brackets.

Otherwise, the new iteration doesn't feel nearly as frustrating. I'll have to strap down scuzzy so he'll actually go back to hacking the cans again on SiSi before the expansion, though.
Nicola Arman
Black-Star Enterprises
#190 - 2013-05-29 17:04:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicola Arman
wrote:
When attempting to tractor in the mini-cans its very difficult to know when your ship is ready to tractor in a new can and if your too eager (because why wouldn't you be, your hard earned loot is about to despawn) to click a new can the system seems to "lock up" for want of a better phrase and won't do anything for a few precious seconds.


The cans turn green when they are clickable and in range. They turn yellow when the item is "busy". No color when out of range. When your hack is successful and the cans spew, take a moment to hover over them and decide which ones you want first over others (eg. avoiding scrap). They move much slower now and there is also an audio queue after you loot a can.

Correct me if I'm wrong.
CCP Prime
C C P
C C P Alliance
#191 - 2013-05-29 17:12:00 UTC
Nicola Arman wrote:
wrote:
When attempting to tractor in the mini-cans its very difficult to know when your ship is ready to tractor in a new can and if your too eager (because why wouldn't you be, your hard earned loot is about to despawn) to click a new can the system seems to "lock up" for want of a better phrase and won't do anything for a few precious seconds.


The cans turn green when they are clickable and in range. They turn yellow when the item is "busy". No color when out of range. When your hack is successful and the cans spew, take a moment to hover over them and decide which ones you want first over others (eg. avoiding scrap). They move much slower now and there is also an audio queue after you loot a can.

Correct me if I'm wrong.


Green = In range and you can take one
Yellow = In range but you are currently busy taking a can so you'll have to wait until they turn green
White = If the bracket is BIG and your tractor beam effect is connected, it is the can you are currently taking. Otherwise, it is a can that is out of range and you can gauge the distance by the opacity of the bracket.

The small cans are already differently shaped, but I'll admit, they are small! It's an ongoing challenge to decide how far we can go with brackets while staying within the UI design rules for brackets. (And if we have to expand upon those).

Software Engineer Team Prototyping Rocks 2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 29 31 37 41 43 47 53 59 61 67 71 ...

Yinmatook
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#192 - 2013-05-29 17:12:08 UTC
Is it intentional that resizing the scan range by clicking the blue sphere and dragging it also rearranges the probes in space (to maintain coverage). However, selecting all the probes in the list and resizing the scan range via the right-click menu does not rearrange the probes in space?
CCP RedDawn
C C P
C C P Alliance
#193 - 2013-05-29 17:18:18 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP RedDawn
In related news we've made the following changes:

Introduced the Polymorphic Shield Utility Subsystem to difficulty tier 3.
Removed the Secondary Vector Utility Subsystem from difficulty tier 3.
Lowered the Coherence of the Anti-Virus Suppressors in difficulty tier 3.
Lowered the Virus Strength stat bonus on all the Tech I exploration frigates from +10 to + 5.
Given all the Tech II exploration frigates a +10 Virus Strength stat bonus.
Fixed an issue where some containers in exploration dungeons where still overlapping.

We are still in the process of balancing the hacking and scattering mechanics but please keep your eyes on Singularity as it get's updated and keep the feedback coming.

Cheers!
CCP RedDawn

Team Genesis

Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
#194 - 2013-05-29 17:24:21 UTC
CCP RedDawn wrote:
In related news we've made the following changes:

Introduced the Polymorphic Shield Utility Subsystem to difficulty tier 3.
Removed the Secondary Vector Utility Subsystem from difficulty tier 3.
Lowered the Coherence of the Anti-Virus Suppressors in difficulty tier 3.
Lowered the Virus Strength stat bonus on all the Tech I exploration frigates from +10 to + 5.
Given all the the Tech II exploration frigates a +10 Virus Strength stat bonus.
Fixed an issue where some containers in exploration dungeons where still overlapping.

We are still in the process of balancing the hacking and scattering mechanics but please keep your eyes on Singularity as it get's updated and keep the feedback coming.

Cheers!
CCP RedDawn

What about T3 ships will they get a bonus to the coherence at all?

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

Nicola Arman
Black-Star Enterprises
#195 - 2013-05-29 17:24:48 UTC
CCP RedDawn wrote:
In related news we've made the following changes:

Introduced the Polymorphic Shield Utility Subsystem to difficulty tier 3.
Removed the Secondary Vector Utility Subsystem from difficulty tier 3.
Lowered the Coherence of the Anti-Virus Suppressors in difficulty tier 3.
Lowered the Virus Strength stat bonus on all the Tech I exploration frigates from +10 to + 5.
Given all the the Tech II exploration frigates a +10 Virus Strength stat bonus.
Fixed an issue where some containers in exploration dungeons where still overlapping.

We are still in the process of balancing the hacking and scattering mechanics but please keep your eyes on Singularity as it get's updated and keep the feedback coming.

Cheers!
CCP RedDawn


You mean I don't have to leave my wonderful Cheetah ever again???

I LOVE YOU SO MUCH!
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
Together We Solo
#196 - 2013-05-29 17:25:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Manssell
CCP RedDawn wrote:
In related news we've made the following changes:

Introduced the Polymorphic Shield Utility Subsystem to difficulty tier 3.
Removed the Secondary Vector Utility Subsystem from difficulty tier 3.
Lowered the Coherence of the Anti-Virus Suppressors in difficulty tier 3.
Lowered the Virus Strength stat bonus on all the Tech I exploration frigates from +10 to + 5.
Given all the the Tech II exploration frigates a +10 Virus Strength stat bonus.
Fixed an issue where some containers in exploration dungeons where still overlapping.

We are still in the process of balancing the hacking and scattering mechanics but please keep your eyes on Singularity as it get's updated and keep the feedback coming.

Cheers!
CCP RedDawn



Just need to ask, since I've seen it asked dozens of times and have yet to see it answered (if it has been I'm sorry), but what the bloody ell are you guys referring to when you say "tier"? I assume it's the hierarchy of difficulty to the games but what are they, how many? Everyone seems to be assuming it's a reference to Hi-sec, Low-sec, and 0.0 but as I far as I know this is just an assumption.
Rob Crowley
State War Academy
#197 - 2013-05-29 17:38:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Rob Crowley
CCP RedDawn wrote:
Lowered the Virus Strength stat bonus on all the Tech I exploration frigates from +10 to + 5.
Given all the the Tech II exploration frigates a +10 Virus Strength stat bonus.
That's excellent, I still think a certain cruiser class linked closely to exploration should get some strength bonus too, but the above is already a good start towards a working ship progression and risk/reward balancing.

Manssell wrote:
Just need to ask, since I've seen it asked dozens of times and have yet to see it answered (if it has been I'm sorry), but what the bloody ell are you guys referring to when you say "tier"? I assume it's the hierarchy of difficulty to the games but what are they, how many? Everyone seems to be assuming it's a reference to Hi-sec, Low-sec, and 0.0 but as I far as I know this is just an assumption.
This describes the difficulty of the cans and their minigame. It is not linked exclusively to system sec as for example in some lowsec sites you could have cans from tier 1, 2 and 3. At least where I have tested tier 1 cans are called debris, tier 2 rubble and tier 3 remains. The higher the tier the bigger the minigame grid and the more coherence the defences have and at tier 3 you get those nasty Suppressors too. I'm not sure if there are more than 3 tiers, I haven't tested in nullsec yet.
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
#198 - 2013-05-29 17:45:44 UTC
Rob Crowley wrote:
CCP RedDawn wrote:
Lowered the Virus Strength stat bonus on all the Tech I exploration frigates from +10 to + 5.
Given all the the Tech II exploration frigates a +10 Virus Strength stat bonus.
That's excellent, I still think a certain cruiser class linked closely to exploration should get some strength bonus too, but the above is already a good start towards a working ship progression and risk/reward balancing.

I don't think +6/level on the Emergent Locus Analyzer would be too much and then maybe move the tractor beam bonus to a static bonus on the sub system.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

CCP RedDawn
C C P
C C P Alliance
#199 - 2013-05-29 17:53:02 UTC
In response to the above questions since my post.

When "tier" is used it means the difficulty level of the loot containers and it ranges from 1 to 4. (Easy to Hard)
Also, we're going to be looking at the Tech III bonuses soon. (but not soon™)
I'll post more when things change.

Team Genesis

Nar Tha
Doomheim
#200 - 2013-05-29 17:56:54 UTC
I think the coherence bonuses from rigs are not working.