These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Missions & Complexes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Hacking Mini Game = Biggest Pile Of Crap Ever

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Thatt Guy
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#81 - 2014-08-30 20:42:01 UTC
CCP Bayesian wrote:
20% time


Use 1% to remove the hacking minigame.
Use 19% to sit back and drink beer/alcohol, cause you earned it by removing the minigame.

Haters gonna hate, Trolls gonna troll.
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#82 - 2014-08-31 06:12:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Sentamon
DeMichael Crimson wrote:

I should be able to start a hack with 1 click which would automatically continue going through Nodes until the hack completes it's programming and finds the Core. If the hack encounters something, a prompt message should appear on screen asking me to select an action depending on what's encountered. After clicking ignore, use or attack and receiving the consequences for that action, the hack would then automatically continue going through Nodes searching for the Core.

Now if that sounds like I want the game to play itself for me, then yeah, that's what I want.



This would be so much better.

My big issue with the hacking game is that it completely takes your focus away from watching D-Scan and Local for enemy ships. If there was some sort of audio or visual indicator to warn you of possible danger while hacking, it would be a lot more tolerable.

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#83 - 2014-08-31 10:05:40 UTC
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
I don't like the game mechanic of being able to view contents of Containers with a Cargo Scanner module. That makes it too easy for players to cherry pick through the loot, allowing them to pass up 'Bad' loot and only get 'Good' loot. I think each Container should be Scan-Proof and players take their chances with the RNG dice roll.

The easiest way to lessen click fest would be to reduce amount of cans at the sites. 3 to 5 cans, removing scannability would have sense then (with balanced loot tables ofc). Current state of data sites is actually encourage to have cargo scanner. I'm hacking 2/6 cans at datas.

DeMichael Crimson wrote:
How about having those multiple Cores in the Mini-Hacking game represent each Container at the site. If there's 3 Containers at the site then the Mini-Hacking game would have 3 Cores hidden in it. If there's 4 Containers, then the Mini-Hacking game would have 4 Cores, etc.

I was thinking about the same solution, there's only few flaws. Hacking would take longer, explorers would be more exposed to hunters. Also failing at hacking would be more severe than on one can. We need some golden mean.

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
Arsine Mayhem
Doomheim
#84 - 2014-08-31 19:24:49 UTC
If it was a game at all you mean?

It's just mindless clicking, what 20-30 times?

I won't scan sites, or even do the minmatar epic arc again because of it.
Lord Echon
Star-Crossed Enterprises
#85 - 2014-08-31 19:38:25 UTC
I like the Hacking mini game. It is a lot more fun than simply waiting for the analyzer to succeed. The loot spew mechanic was awful, though, and I am glad it is gone. Of course, Hacking can be improved and I like some of the suggestions in this thread.
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#86 - 2014-08-31 21:18:06 UTC  |  Edited by: DeMichael Crimson
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
I don't like the game mechanic of being able to view contents of Containers with a Cargo Scanner module. That makes it too easy for players to cherry pick through the loot, allowing them to pass up 'Bad' loot and only get 'Good' loot. I think each Container should be Scan-Proof and players take their chances with the RNG dice roll.

The easiest way to lessen click fest would be to reduce amount of cans at the sites. 3 to 5 cans, removing scannability would have sense then (with balanced loot tables ofc). Current state of data sites is actually encourage to have cargo scanner. I'm hacking 2/6 cans at datas.
If the Containers were scan-proof then you wouldn't be able to cherry pick through the cans and only take the best loot. That seems more of a cheat to me. You're basically cutting out the risk factor as well as the RNG mechanic. Not to mention that leaves empty cans and cans filled with bad loot for the next explorer who finds the site.

I see nothing wrong with getting some bad loot with good loot as long as it's equally distributed within the site. That basically makes it interesting, a pleasant surprise when you get good loot and a mild disappointment when you get bad loot.

In my opinion the whole point of exploration is not knowing what to expect. There's way too much cherry picking blitz action happening now due to exploration mechanics being reduced to cater to the 'Instant Gratification' crowd.


Jeremiah Saken wrote:
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
How about having those multiple Cores in the Mini-Hacking game represent each Container at the site. If there's 3 Containers at the site then the Mini-Hacking game would have 3 Cores hidden in it. If there's 4 Containers, then the Mini-Hacking game would have 4 Cores, etc.

I was thinking about the same solution, there's only few flaws. Hacking would take longer, explorers would be more exposed to hunters. Also failing at hacking would be more severe than on one can. We need some golden mean.
How would it take longer? You're working 1 Mini-Hacking Game per site instead of working multiple Mini-Hacking Games.

As for being exposed to hunters, you're already exposed due to being at the site. To help minimize that exposure the Mini-Hacking Game could be re-worked to operate similar to what I suggested earlier in this thread :
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
The Mini-Hacking Game takes up way too much real estate on the screen. It should be resizable and the hack itself be automatic. The hacking screen itself should be something to monitor the progress of the hack.

I should be able to start a hack with 1 click which would automatically continue going through Nodes until the hack completes it's programming and finds the Core. If the hack encounters something, a prompt message should appear on screen asking me to select an action depending on what's encountered. After clicking ignore, use or attack and receiving the consequences for that action, the hack would then automatically continue going through Nodes searching for the Core.
I'd like to add that Player Intelligence would come into play when deciding which course of action to take within the Mini-Hacking Game.

Now about failing the Hack.

The Hack fails if you run out of Virus Coherence hit points before finding any Cores at all. If that happens you get a second chance to Hack the site. If you fail the second chance then you're locked out of that site til after downtime. Skill up and get better equipment so that next time you can hopefully complete the Mini-Hacking Game.

The site itself would remain active.

If you find and successfully hack some of the Cores and run out of Virus Coherence hit points before completing the Mini-Hacking Game, you only get to access the amount of cans equal to the amount of hacked Cores.. If you successfully find and hack all the Cores contained within the Mini-Hacking Game, then you get to access all the cans.

Basically if you only find and successfully hack 1 Core within a 4 Core Mini-Hacking Game, then you can only access 1 of the 4 cans at the site.

Which container do you access is up to you. Since the cans are scan-proof the contents remain a mystery until the can is opened. Hopefully the RNG Gods are kind and bless you with good loot. If not then skill up and get better equipment so that next time you can successfully hack more than 1 Core allowing access to more cans at the site, thus increasing your chances of getting good loot.

If 1 or more Cores within the Mini-Hacking Game are successfully hacked, the site despawns when the player leaves the site.

Anyway, that's my thoughts on the subject.


DMC

'The Plan' | California Eve Players | Proposal - The Endless Battle
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#87 - 2014-09-01 07:39:30 UTC
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
If the Containers were scan-proof then you wouldn't be able to cherry pick through the cans and only take the best loot. That seems more of a cheat to me. You're basically cutting out the risk factor as well as the RNG mechanic. Not to mention that leaves empty cans and cans filled with bad loot for the next explorer who finds the site.

I see nothing wrong with getting some bad loot with good loot as long as it's equally distributed within the site. That basically makes it interesting, a pleasant surprise when you get good loot and a mild disappointment when you get bad loot.

In my opinion the whole point of exploration is not knowing what to expect. There's way too much cherry picking blitz action happening now due to exploration mechanics being reduced to cater to the 'Instant Gratification' crowd.

Something like:
-no "labels" on scanner, only relic or data site without names, we have scanner ID's,
-no premade sites, random cans localisation, some of sites placed on planets and moon orbits (landscapes are there),
-no cargo scanner opportuninty,
-why only datas and relics? why not some pirates "poses", hubs, space hulks, battlefields, warp gates, raided colonies etc. Even with only one can to hack it would be something, cosmos is full of crap to discover, EvE gate collapsing caused cataslysm, right?
something like this for a startSmile

DeMichael Crimson wrote:
How would it take longer? You're working 1 Mini-Hacking Game per site instead of working multiple Mini-Hacking Games.

Let's say you have 7 cans, one can is hacked in about 20 sec/average. Time when we use hacking module is opportunity window to catch by hunters, decloaked. Now with only one hackable device you would have to increase hacking time in order to counterbalance it. Let's say 2 min? It would be too long. There are two types of hunters: campers and jumpers. Campers are obvious, jumpers prescan sites, jumping beetwen systems and warping to sites when smells blood. 2 min for SB is eternity. More time spend on hacking single can, more possibility to catch by hunters, especially in lowsec.

I like the idea with one hackacble device on site, i was thinking about it when i hacked my first 7 can site, but it must be polished from explorers and PvPers perspective.

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
CCP Bayesian
#88 - 2014-09-01 21:42:00 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Bayesian
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Lastly, how do you distribute tasks beetwen ppl in teams? You are working on hacking, someone else on loot tables etc. Wouldn't be good to assign ppl to specific works and keep them there when in need? Like, you've done hacking, project closed, now someone else want to do some tweaks, for example Fozzie, without knowledge about hacking, and messes with your vision and aproach to part of exploration by puting space invaders in it. Or it's just whole Space Glitter working and brainstorming on task? Sometimes it feels like some devs being punished and being assigned to ungrateful works.


Usually we work quite collaboratively, with each discipline area taking the lead for their own work. I'm a bit odd as although I'm a Software Engineer by title I've also throughout my career at CCP and other game studios done a lot of design work. For example a lot of the 'exploring ships as an avatar' prototype came from myself (and the rest of the team working on it). It's interesting because we made it before survival sims became popular and it shared a lot in common with them. I've also talked extensively about our prototyping at Fanfest and you can find the talk on the CCP channel.

The 'bad' old way with six month releases often meant we got reassigned to something new at the end of a release with no time to work on it further. With the current new awesome model there is a lot more freedom for the people making changes to the game to control their own work. We still don't get to work on *anything* but are much less micro-managed as long as we have a good case for what we're doing.

Space Glitter primarily exists to beef up our content creating capabilities. For example right now we're making it considerably easier for Game Designers to create new NPCs without needing a lot of specialist knowledge. As part of that we're also visiting old content and systems that could do more than they are. Currently we're looking at Escalating Path missions and adding in some more dynamic content to the game using the underlying systems that are the basis of Incursions. Although those latter projects are both in very early stages.

We have 20% time which is an idea that Google created to drive innovation. It means we can elect to spend 1/5th of our time working on projects we want to. In my case that's making Hacking better. We still need to follow all the same process that gets a feature out of the door in a release but we get to explicitly pick exactly what we work on.

I hope that clears up whats going on a bit behind-the-scenes.

EVE Software Engineer Team Space Glitter
CCP Bayesian
#89 - 2014-09-01 21:43:43 UTC
Also to add that I really appreciate the feedback both positive and negative and the generally constructive or humorous manner it's been given in.

EVE Software Engineer Team Space Glitter
Desert Ice78
Gryphons of the Western Wind
#90 - 2014-09-01 22:23:06 UTC
The hacking game is OK (personal opinion of course.) Maybe just a little 2 dimensional is all; I wounder what a third axis would look like?

I am a pod pilot: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg

CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused.
Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#91 - 2014-09-02 04:17:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Phoenix Jones
I would address the hacking game in three stages.

1) remove the ability to cargo scan the container (see why in #2)
2) add bonuses to loot in the actual hacking game. Add nodes that are "extra loot or treasures.

To explain. You start decrypting, you run into a bonus loot node, decrypt it, and extra loot goes into the container (which you are still in the middle of hacking). You then find the main node and decrypt it, opening the container and giving you the original container loot and any extra loot from decrypted treasure nodes.

Or you spend your time scanning all the nodes in the decryption game trying to find more treasures. You spend more time getting more loot, run the risk of being attacked or failing the game. You remove the speed of it by adding bonuses to decrypting more of the board trying to find hidden loot.

You add a bonus to spending more time decrypting more of the board. Determining what is in the can at that point is pointless, as you will want to try all cans to get bonus loot.

Yaay!!!!
Fonac
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#92 - 2014-09-02 06:29:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Fonac
CCP Bayesian wrote:
[quote=Jeremiah Saken]

Space Glitter primarily exists to beef up our content creating capabilities. For example right now we're making it considerably easier for Game Designers to create new NPCs without needing a lot of specialist knowledge. As part of that we're also visiting old content and systems that could do more than they are. Currently we're looking at Escalating Path missions and adding in some more dynamic content to the game using the underlying systems that are the basis of Incursions. Although those latter projects are both in very early stages.

We have 20% time which is an idea that Google created to drive innovation. It means we can elect to spend 1/5th of our time working on projects we want to. In my case that's making Hacking better. We still need to follow all the same process that gets a feature out of the door in a release but we get to explicitly pick exactly what we work on.

I hope that clears up whats going on a bit behind-the-scenes.



Am i reading this correctly, that you'r looking at escalation mechanics, for exploration?


On OP - I must disagree with mechanics being crap. I actually like them very much.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#93 - 2014-09-02 07:06:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Omnathious Deninard
Never had a problem with the hacking mini-game, though it has room for improvement.

What I do think would be a nice change, is "themed" loot from the sites; example a shattered life support unit could have a slight chance for a single run implant BPC. A ship yard could have a miniscule chance for a faction ship BPC or ship skin BPC. Abbandoned mining installation could have some compounds or alloys like rogue drones used to dorp.

Maybe even a new type of hybrid style site (basically old style data/relic) that has both rats and hacking containers.
Edit: would be neat to start seeing faction navy hacking sites also.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Sara Tosa
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#94 - 2014-09-02 08:03:20 UTC
please, remove the distinction between data and relic tools, as it is now they do exactly the same thing but you differentiate between mods and rigs, there's no reason for that.
if you want people to fill more slots so their explo ships wont be as good at fighting, just add some kind of bonus mod - for eg mods that give either virus "hp" or "dps" so one can choose which would help more.
CCP Bayesian
#95 - 2014-09-02 08:18:20 UTC
Fonac wrote:

Am i reading this correctly, that your're looking at escalation mechanics, for exploration?


On OP - I must disagree with mechanics being crap. I actually like them very much.


No, we're looking at them in their own right.

EVE Software Engineer Team Space Glitter
Flamespar
WarRavens
#96 - 2014-09-02 08:25:19 UTC
CCP Bayesian wrote:
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Lastly, how do you distribute tasks beetwen ppl in teams? You are working on hacking, someone else on loot tables etc. Wouldn't be good to assign ppl to specific works and keep them there when in need? Like, you've done hacking, project closed, now someone else want to do some tweaks, for example Fozzie, without knowledge about hacking, and messes with your vision and aproach to part of exploration by puting space invaders in it. Or it's just whole Space Glitter working and brainstorming on task? Sometimes it feels like some devs being punished and being assigned to ungrateful works.


Usually we work quite collaboratively, with each discipline area taking the lead for their own work. I'm a bit odd as although I'm a Software Engineer by title I've also throughout my career at CCP and other game studios done a lot of design work. For example a lot of the 'exploring ships as an avatar' prototype came from myself (and the rest of the team working on it). It's interesting because we made it before survival sims became popular and it shared a lot in common with them. I've also talked extensively about our prototyping at Fanfest and you can find the talk on the CCP channel.

The 'bad' old way with six month releases often meant we got reassigned to something new at the end of a release with no time to work on it further. With the current new awesome model there is a lot more freedom for the people making changes to the game to control their own work. We still don't get to work on *anything* but are much less micro-managed as long as we have a good case for what we're doing.

Space Glitter primarily exists to beef up our content creating capabilities. For example right now we're making it considerably easier for Game Designers to create new NPCs without needing a lot of specialist knowledge. As part of that we're also visiting old content and systems that could do more than they are. Currently we're looking at Escalating Path missions and adding in some more dynamic content to the game using the underlying systems that are the basis of Incursions. Although those latter projects are both in very early stages.

We have 20% time which is an idea that Google created to drive innovation. It means we can elect to spend 1/5th of our time working on projects we want to. In my case that's making Hacking better. We still need to follow all the same process that gets a feature out of the door in a release but we get to explicitly pick exactly what we work on.

I hope that clears up whats going on a bit behind-the-scenes.


I'm curious (without wanting to raise hopes) if some of your 20% time has been used to look at more stuff to do with avatars?
CCP Bayesian
#97 - 2014-09-02 09:36:26 UTC
Flamespar wrote:
I'm curious (without wanting to raise hopes) if some of your 20% time has been used to look at more stuff to do with avatars?


Sadly no, it's beyond the scope of a 20% project really.

EVE Software Engineer Team Space Glitter
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#98 - 2014-09-02 09:44:21 UTC
Flamespar wrote:
I'm curious (without wanting to raise hopes) if some of your 20% time has been used to look at more stuff to do with avatars?

If so, avatars would be primarly used in exploration or other stuff as well, like stations?
Do you have any testers for above? I wouldn't mind to test it. I'm not scared with harsh graphic, concept is what matter the most.

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#99 - 2014-09-02 10:26:57 UTC
There is a bad quality video from a Russian eve meeting where they showed the prototype.

It's not something that is coming anytime soon. It's something ccp has experimented with. It's exploration into the unknown territory of avatar gameplay. Right now, the focus is on spaceship gameplay and there is a mountain of work to do before ccp as a company can afford reducing eve-spaceship development to increase eve-avatar development
Cherry Sulphate
ojingo
#100 - 2014-09-02 10:34:36 UTC
i enjoy the mini-game but wouldn't argue against increasing the skill involved - but please, no automation.
of course, you can still blindly luck into it, same as you could by randomly selecting answers in a multiple choice questionnaire, but there's definitely a degree of skill here.

also, the donkeys moaning about it preventing you from monitoring local/d-scan.
that's kind of the point, get better at multi-tasking.

i support anything to make it harder for the OMGIWANTMYLEWTS4FREEANDNOEFFORT crowd.
looking forward to an iterative improvement on what we already have.