These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Odyssey Feedback Request] Team Super Friends - Probe Scanning and You

First post First post First post
Author
Sheena Tzash
Doomheim
#801 - 2013-05-13 11:13:12 UTC
As a person who does exploration a little more I felt like I should offer my 2p

1) Running the system scanner ONCE is fine. More than once is a nice graphic but after a while becomes very annoying, especially since it doesn't seem to actually DO anything (sites may come and go but its hard to see / notice them)

2) If the system scanner IS running can we PLEASE have a constant D-Scan. It doesn't make any sence that my ships sensors are looking for sites on the edge of space and yet if I want to see if someone is creeping up behind me I have to manually click a button every 10 seconds or so.

3) Re-sizing and altering a single probe didn't show the others being changed, but then did - I think this is on the list to be fixed.

4) Hacking - I assume that this is mostly unfinished as it seemed broken in more than a few ways:

- I had the option to both open (with the mini game) and (open container) which bypassed the mini game and I got the loot?

- Even when I failed I got the message about loot being dropped?

- The cans themselves rejected the use of data analyser module as it wasn't needed - yet the little 'splash' screen as I warped to the site did say I needed one?

To be honest I'm not a big fan of the mini game - so far I haven't managed to understand HOW it works - but even if I did it seems to act more as a distraction than adding anything to the game. I can see more people getting ganked as they were busy looking at the mini game to think of checking Dscan.

For me the tension is the waiting around for the modules to finish - keeping an eye out and checking for theats while my modules are working adds to the tension and excitement. If I now have to jump through all these annoying mini game 'hoops' 5 or 10 times in a site then its going to make the mini game VERY annoying to deal with.

Can't we have an option where the mini game is potentially a quicker way of hacking the node, but using a module has a minimum time so that someone who is good at the minigame can hack them quickly while someone who doesn't will have to wait for their modules to finish.

5) Exploration Missions

I would imagine that its a little too late to add any new features before the expansion, but why aren't there exploration missions?

Wouldn't it make sense to go to an agent who says "We need you to find and hack an angel installation and recover something".

Same would apply with 'relic sites' where the agent could say "We've heard rumours of a relic in the system 'xyz' and we need you to recover 'something important'"

If you want carebears to come to lowsec they need consistancy - some of the problem with exploration is that its 'feast and famine' and can be very inconsistant. If you take a mission they will tell you the system and the signature name so you can scan just the ONE. Obviously the site spawns when you enter the system and once it has its available to all to see (much like a regular combat mission)

Even with reduced rewards I think exploration missions can act as both an extended tutorial for new pilots and a nice PvE content addition where lower level agents can offer 'high sec only' sites and the higher level agents can offer low sec, null sec and far off systems.
Space Wanderer
#802 - 2013-05-13 11:39:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Space Wanderer
Now, this is odd. I submitted three bug reports related to scanning. For each one of them I got as a response "we were not aware of the problem. a new defect has been created". Somehow I would have expected that, with the amount of people that (judging from the amount of feedback in this thread) are clearly testing the system extensively, at least some of those bugs had already been found. Apparently not... Roll


For devs who are interested in those bug reports you can find the references in these posts:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3010359#post3010359

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3012193#post3012193

The fact that those posts contain also my feedback related to the stuff tested to find the bugs is purely incidental. Blink
CCP Paradox
#803 - 2013-05-13 11:41:49 UTC
Space Wanderer wrote:


Now, this is odd. I submitted three bug reports related to scanning. For each one of them I got as a response "we were not aware of the problem. a new defect has been created". Somehow I would have expected that, with the amount of people that (judging from the amount of feedback in this thread) are clearly testing the system extensively, at least some of them had already been found. Apparently not... Roll


For devs who are interested in those bug reports you can find the references in these posts:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3010359#post3010359

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3012193#post3012193

The fact that those posts contain also my feedback related to the stuff tested to find the bugs is purely incidental. Blink


We are aware of the problem, the system isn't telling you that I was attaching these to existing reports :) There are quite a few submitting reports (hopefully they are getting emailed that I'm actioning their reports Blink)

Also, your reports were nicely written. Thanks! It makes a nice change Smile

CCP Paradox | EVE QA | Team Phenomenon

Space Magician

Matuk Grymwal
Collapsed Out
Pandemic Legion
#804 - 2013-05-13 11:47:13 UTC
I've been doing some further musing over my testing, specifically over the simultaneous launch of all probes. While it's super convenient, it really sucks for WH space. The time taken for a cloaky ship to drop a set of probes is one of the few chances you get to actually engage them. I've had many a kill where I've been able to tackle a ship dropping probes. With the current mechanism this completely disappears and it becomes virtually impossible to catch cloakers in WH space.

Catching cloakies is already challenging, but extremely rewarding when you pull it off. It would be an enormous shame to completely remove this game play element from WH space.
Space Wanderer
#805 - 2013-05-13 12:01:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Space Wanderer
CCP Paradox wrote:

We are aware of the problem, the system isn't telling you that I was attaching these to existing reports :) There are quite a few submitting reports (hopefully they are getting emailed that I'm actioning their reports Blink)


I have been mislaid by the fact that my only BR that wasn't about scanning (T2 production) was attached to a defect with a "we are already aware of the problem" statement. Cool Anyway, glad to know that there are others testing the system.


CCP Paradox wrote:
Also, your reports were nicely written. Thanks! It makes a nice change Smile


YW. I know how painful is to hunt bugs without sufficient details.
Rammix
TheMurk
#806 - 2013-05-13 12:13:00 UTC
Sheena Tzash wrote:
If the system scanner IS running can we PLEASE have a constant D-Scan. It doesn't make any sence that my ships sensors are looking for sites on the edge of space and yet if I want to see if someone is creeping up behind me I have to manually click a button every 10 seconds or so.

[sarcasm]
Maybe they should also warn you that someone in a pvp-fitted ship is coming towards you, when he is 3 jumps away?
Or maybe you want to know when someone activates narrowed directional scan on you? No?
[/sarcasm]

2devs: When an update is coming? Would be good to see some progress on SiSi. Roll

OpenSUSE Leap 42.1, wine >1.9

Covert cyno in highsec: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=296129&find=unread

Qual
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#807 - 2013-05-13 12:13:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Qual
And while you are at it. Is it possible to change the GUI to actually keep non 100% scan results? I have never quite understood why those where not kept in the overview.

I know they might be off, and yes, if I do a new scan and get the same sig as a result on the next scan it should only keep the newest result. (Yes I know that many times you would then get a point downgraded to a circle or sphere when scanning down two close sites, but I can live with that, just keep my results, ok?)

Thank you.

Edit:
In a more advanced version we could have a checkbox on non 100% scan results to mark them for persistence. Then I could select any result and have it persisted between scans. Even multiple results on the same sig if I really wanted to. Now that woul be really handy. Even for combat scanners I would think. ("I think he has a safe around here." *Check*)
CCP SoniClover
C C P
C C P Alliance
#808 - 2013-05-13 12:18:32 UTC
Hey guys, thanks for all the great feedback.

We’re writing a dev blog that talks a bit more in depth about many of the changes, but in the meantime I wanted to quickly address a few things:

Regarding removing the DSP – the DSP basically allowed people to quickly get a picture of everything in the system (including ships), in a kind of a “cheating” way as it didn’t really use the probe scan system (no triangulation or anything). This and the heavy overlap with the Sensor Overlay system made us decide to remove them. There are other ways to find/track ships in systems; apart from the D-Scan, there are also the combat probes, which really are there to do what the DSP just did better. I should mention that we’re adjusting the sweep formation to not have any gaps.

Regarding removing options – there has been some criticism that we’re removing some edge-case functionality in how some players probe scan. Basically what we’re doing is creating a streamlined method on how to probe scan, but players are not forced to use this method if they’re used to scanning differently. We’ve tried to maintain the old functionality, short-cuts, etc. as much as possible. But we’re not aiming to make every single method a streamlined version – basically, you can continue to use scan probes in different ways, but there is no guarantee that this is going to be easier/quicker than the streamlined version.

Regarding new names for sites, decryptors, modules – The main reason for us to change the names of the sites is that the terms (radar, gravimetric, etc.) are already being used elsewhere in the game, and having the same terms over two quite different systems is really confusing. So we’re not changing them because we didn’t like them, but because they’re already in use. As for other name changes, we decided to go for names that offer a bit better clarity to their functionality – we always try to keep things thematic and cool, but it can’t be too much at the expense of playability. In these cases we felt it was better to tone down a bit on the thematic names.

Keep the good comments coming, the dev blog should be out late this week or early next week.
Omnathious Deninard
Ministry of Silly Walks.
#809 - 2013-05-13 12:36:21 UTC
Was it intentional to make scanning so easy that there is no need to train anything beyond Astrometrics 3?
Wi you consider adjusting signature strengths to compensate for the new system and modules?

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

Derath Ellecon
Lotek Academy
#810 - 2013-05-13 12:37:32 UTC
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Hey guys, thanks for all the great feedback.

We’re writing a dev blog that talks a bit more in depth about many of the changes, but in the meantime I wanted to quickly address a few things:

Regarding removing the DSP – the DSP basically allowed people to quickly get a picture of everything in the system (including ships), in a kind of a “cheating” way as it didn’t really use the probe scan system (no triangulation or anything). This and the heavy overlap with the Sensor Overlay system made us decide to remove them. There are other ways to find/track ships in systems; apart from the D-Scan, there are also the combat probes, which really are there to do what the DSP just did better. I should mention that we’re adjusting the sweep formation to not have any gaps.

Regarding removing options – there has been some criticism that we’re removing some edge-case functionality in how some players probe scan. Basically what we’re doing is creating a streamlined method on how to probe scan, but players are not forced to use this method if they’re used to scanning differently. We’ve tried to maintain the old functionality, short-cuts, etc. as much as possible. But we’re not aiming to make every single method a streamlined version – basically, you can continue to use scan probes in different ways, but there is no guarantee that this is going to be easier/quicker than the streamlined version.

Regarding new names for sites, decryptors, modules – The main reason for us to change the names of the sites is that the terms (radar, gravimetric, etc.) are already being used elsewhere in the game, and having the same terms over two quite different systems is really confusing. So we’re not changing them because we didn’t like them, but because they’re already in use. As for other name changes, we decided to go for names that offer a bit better clarity to their functionality – we always try to keep things thematic and cool, but it can’t be too much at the expense of playability. In these cases we felt it was better to tone down a bit on the thematic names.

Keep the good comments coming, the dev blog should be out late this week or early next week.



While I understand your reasonings for the DSP removal (I'll adapt) I have to say in its current state the Sensor Overlay system is largely useless eye candy. While it might be ok for a typical High or low sec system, which on average may have a handful of signatures, for 0.0 and Wormholes it can be utterly stupid. Having to spin in space and mouse over icons when you have >50 sigs (not uncommon for a WH system) is just insanely useless.

I can understand your hesitance to have some sort of table output for the system overlay (would give use DSP functionality without launching a probe) but are there plans to at least link the systems somewhat. In my opinion the two systems should at least have the capabilities to:

1. If I scan with probes, and ignore certain signatures, they should be ignored on the overlay as well.
2. The scan strength should update on the overlay, ie when I get a 100% lock on a signature it should go green on the overlay as well.

Can you address if this kind of functionality is at least in the works?
Egg McMuff
#811 - 2013-05-13 13:01:46 UTC
Great Work CCP welldone I like the changes so far!!!
CCP SoniClover
C C P
C C P Alliance
#812 - 2013-05-13 13:05:48 UTC
Derath Ellecon wrote:


I can understand your hesitance to have some sort of table output for the system overlay (would give use DSP functionality without launching a probe) but are there plans to at least link the systems somewhat. In my opinion the two systems should at least have the capabilities to:

1. If I scan with probes, and ignore certain signatures, they should be ignored on the overlay as well.
2. The scan strength should update on the overlay, ie when I get a 100% lock on a signature it should go green on the overlay as well.

Can you address if this kind of functionality is at least in the works?


I would absolutely want to see this happen. We want to tie these two systems work together as much as possible and will strife to do so in the long run. The issue is that these two systems are being worked on by two different teams, and it is very hard to link them heavily while they are still under development. So we probably will only see a limited connection when Odyseey lands, but hopefully can then address these issues in a point release.
CCP SoniClover
C C P
C C P Alliance
#813 - 2013-05-13 13:07:33 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Was it intentional to make scanning so easy that there is no need to train anything beyond Astrometrics 3?
Wi you consider adjusting signature strengths to compensate for the new system and modules?


We probably will not touch existing signatures all that much, but with these changes we're opening up the possibility for new signatures in the future. We have some plans in this regard, maybe for winter (can't promise anything tough).
CCP SoniClover
C C P
C C P Alliance
#814 - 2013-05-13 13:09:21 UTC
Rammix wrote:


2devs: When an update is coming? Would be good to see some progress on SiSi. Roll


Tomorrow is likely
Space Wanderer
#815 - 2013-05-13 13:09:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Space Wanderer
CCP SoniClover wrote:

Regarding removing the DSP – the DSP basically allowed people to quickly get a picture of everything in the system (including ships), in a kind of a “cheating” way as it didn’t really use the probe scan system (no triangulation or anything). This and the heavy overlap with the Sensor Overlay system made us decide to remove them. There are other ways to find/track ships in systems; apart from the D-Scan, there are also the combat probes, which really are there to do what the DSP just did better. I should mention that we’re adjusting the sweep formation to not have any gaps.



Really a matter of opinion on this, but I am pretty sure people will adapt fast with combats, so nothing much to say about this. Personally I believe that the scanning overlay has much potential to be integrated with the directional scanner, and thus become an intel toold that could take the place of local. Hope you want to work along those lines, at least, becasue it really does not make sense to have an overlay that shows every site, but then doe not show the content of the directional scanner, which works exactly in the same way....

CCP SoniClover wrote:

Regarding removing options – there has been some criticism that we’re removing some edge-case functionality in how some players probe scan. Basically what we’re doing is creating a streamlined method on how to probe scan, but players are not forced to use this method if they’re used to scanning differently. We’ve tried to maintain the old functionality, short-cuts, etc. as much as possible. But we’re not aiming to make every single method a streamlined version – basically, you can continue to use scan probes in different ways, but there is no guarantee that this is going to be easier/quicker than the streamlined version.


This is where I believe you are dropping the ball, hard.

What you are doing here is to give a working UI to people who use the method YOU like, and a clunky interface to people who do not. From my standpoint it really looks like a child that bring away the ball if the other children don't want to play with the rules he wants.

I hope you realize what you just said: we give you formations if you scan like we tell you. If you don't, even if your method is potentially better than ours, you will have to waste additional time fighting the interface, so our method is better.

Seriously, I DO hope I am not understanding things correctly, because, if I do, this is the most unsandboxy thing that I read since the Incarna debacle, and the most themeparkish addition that I have seen in a LONG time in this game. I really really do hope you'll think long and hard before injecting a theme park approach to scanning. And the way to avoid it is straightforward, just add one or two customizable layouts...
Rammix
TheMurk
#816 - 2013-05-13 13:15:43 UTC
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Basically what we’re doing is creating a streamlined method on how to probe scan, but players are not forced to use this method if they’re used to scanning differently. We’ve tried to maintain the old functionality, short-cuts, etc. as much as possible. But we’re not aiming to make every single method a streamlined version – basically, you can continue to use scan probes in different ways, but there is no guarantee that this is going to be easier/quicker than the streamlined version.

Just let us save at least 2 custom formations, please. Cool

System scanner needs more "memory": after switching the system map off for a moment then returning to it camera should center on the probes. Newly launched probes should be centered on the ship. When you (re)open the map camera should zoom out to show you the whole system - NOT from horizontal point of view but from above.

OpenSUSE Leap 42.1, wine >1.9

Covert cyno in highsec: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=296129&find=unread

CCP SoniClover
C C P
C C P Alliance
#817 - 2013-05-13 13:27:17 UTC
Space Wanderer wrote:


This is where I believe you are dropping the ball, hard.

What you are doing here is to give a working UI to people who use the method YOU like, and a clunky interface to people who do not. From my standpoint it really looks like a child that bring away the ball if the other children don't want to play with the rules he wants.


Well, if that was the case, we would only create a single method and prohibit all others, which we are not doing.

Space Wanderer wrote:

I hope you realize what you just said: we give you formations if you scan like we tell you. If you don't, even if your method is potentially better than ours, you will have to waste additional time fighting the interface, so our method is better.


All I'm saying is that we only have so much bandwidth and we chose to focus our attention on one method, while still aiming to keep as many of the others possible as we can. The key difference here is that while we can strife to keep the options possible, we can't promise to keep them viable. For the most part they should be - the fact you can launch many probes at once for instance should speed up any method you use. Moving your probes into a formation of your own making should also in most cases be no harder or more time consuming than with the current system. You should not be fighting the interface any more than you do currently, etc.

Space Wanderer wrote:

Seriously, I DO hope I am not understanding things correctly, because, if I do, this is the most unsandboxy thing that I read since the Incarna debacle, and the most themeparkish addition that I have seen in a LONG time in this game. I really really do hope you'll think long and hard before injecting a theme park approach to scanning. And the way to avoid it is straightforward, just add one or two customizable layouts...


We're not telling people they HAVE to scan in only one way. There is still plenty of wiggle room to improvise and do things your way. On the other hand, the lack of focus of the system is one of the major pain points people have in learning the system and providing them with easier way to learn it is very beneficial IMO. Also, we do plan to allow people to save their own formations at some point, we just don't have time to implement it for Odyssey, but its been in the design from the start. We aim to add it in a point release if time permits.
Rammix
TheMurk
#818 - 2013-05-13 13:28:11 UTC
Space Wanderer wrote:
becasue it really does not make sense to have an overlay that shows every site, but then doe not show the content of the directional scanner, which works exactly in the same way....

If you mean cycled automatic usage of D-scan, it's an awful idea, even if the cycle lasts >10 seconds. At least without complete removal of Local everywhere in EVE. Because it would dumb down cat&mouse gameplay. If a mouse can easily, without effort know that a cat's already on the scene, it screwes up all the fun. For both.

OpenSUSE Leap 42.1, wine >1.9

Covert cyno in highsec: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=296129&find=unread

Tiger Armani
End-Game
#819 - 2013-05-13 13:30:07 UTC
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Derath Ellecon wrote:


I can understand your hesitance to have some sort of table output for the system overlay (would give use DSP functionality without launching a probe) but are there plans to at least link the systems somewhat. In my opinion the two systems should at least have the capabilities to:

1. If I scan with probes, and ignore certain signatures, they should be ignored on the overlay as well.
2. The scan strength should update on the overlay, ie when I get a 100% lock on a signature it should go green on the overlay as well.

Can you address if this kind of functionality is at least in the works?


I would absolutely want to see this happen. We want to tie these two systems work together as much as possible and will strife to do so in the long run. The issue is that these two systems are being worked on by two different teams, and it is very hard to link them heavily while they are still under development. So we probably will only see a limited connection when Odyseey lands, but hopefully can then address these issues in a point release.


This is a major flaw in your software development process. This relationship with two separate features should have been addressed from the beginning.
Sugar Kyle
Middle Ground
#820 - 2013-05-13 13:32:44 UTC
What about the magically reappearing probes when one jumps system? Forgetting probes caused all sorts of cascades from not being able to find targets due to derp to getting locked into wormholes and having to figure out ways to get out or be rescued.

Member of CSM9 and CSM10.