These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
tgl3
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#141 - 2013-05-23 11:21:16 UTC
CCP Tallest wrote:
I want to correct a slight misunderstanding. This was a miscommunication between me and Soundwave about the NPC removal and I apologize for not spotting this earlier.

NPCs are not being removed from wormhole sites.

We are only removing NPCs from "normal" k-space hacking and archaeology signatures (NPCs will only spawn in those sites when you fail at the challenge).
No changes are being made to NPCs in wormholes or COSMOS or other hacking/archaeology sites.

The reason for the removal is to allow explorers to play the game without having a combat ship on standby.

Appreciate the clarification, Tallest. Good to hear.
CCP Soundwave
C C P
C C P Alliance
#142 - 2013-05-23 11:24:20 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Soundwave
Morning update post!

Changes that will hit Sisi later today:


  1. The 0.0 sites are now complete and ready to be run. That means we’re done rejigging the sites and anything not working in terms of “interior design” should be submitted as a bug report.

  2. The performance issues with clouds should be taken care of as well. If it’s not, poke us in this thread, but the site changes deployed later should fix them.

  3. We are cutting the number of scatter containers in half, while retaining the total loot of a hacking/arch object. This should effectively double your income.


Stuff that’s in development and relevant to feedback posted in this thread:


  1. One of the things we’ve been trying to do is make exploration an actual profession with its own ships, modules etc. Removing the NPCs were a part of that, but re-adding them as a failure mechanic doesn’t really fit. We’re going to take the “hacking failed” penalty NPC waves out and instead put a dynamic counter for cans in. So for example, a successful hack scatters 12 loot containers, but if you fail the first attempt and you’re successful on the 2nd, it scatters 14 containers. We feel
    2. this make the profession more coherent.

  2. We’re looking into the scatter container brackets. Anything from increasing size, changing their icons depending on loot category etc is on the board, to make them easier to interact with.

  3. Sleeper sites will not have their NPCs removed.


We’ll be in the thread monitoring all day. Thanks for the feedback.
Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#143 - 2013-05-23 11:25:50 UTC
Abrazzar wrote:
CCP Bayesian wrote:
Thanks for the feedback guys.

I'll outline some of my thoughts for the next iteration of the hacking as people have noted it's quite 'light' at the moment on strategy. In part this is due to a scoping down of the initial design which had Utilities as items in EVE that could be collected and traded on the market. This would let you fit your module prior to hacking which adds a whole bunch of decision making depth to the hacking itself. This is the first thing I want to put in post-release as not only does it make things much more interesting, it adds in a new way for hacking to generate income and the current design goes against our no closed systems design principle. We also have a whole bunch of more interesting Defense Subsystems and Utilities to add in to increase the variety of things you encounter. On top of which we are considering some ideas for Utilities that let you deploy Virus Subsystems into the systems you are hacking and passive Utilities that take up space but provide a bonus. This should all lead to more interesting choices to make on how you hack.

This is a start, not the end. :)

Please move the focus on the hacking mechanics as a method for encouraging group efforts and scrap the loot piñata.

Multiple levels and/or multiple cores for increased loot with optional space fights from defence systems/guards to make it easier or improving loot, remote boosting of the hacker or multiple entry adding utilities with script modified hacking modules.

Play some Shadowrun (P&P). I think that game has some nice ideas concerning infiltration and data retrieval.


I haven't tried the new system, but I can confirm, that the current system doesn't sound like a fun group activity. It sounds like one guy actually does things and the rest can play pocket mining/watch youtube videos while waiting for the climax and loot release. Yes it means your income isn't cut to a fraction if you bring friends anymore, but it's still not much of a group activity.
Rob Crowley
State War Academy
#144 - 2013-05-23 11:29:42 UTC
Heinel Coventina wrote:
Wenthrial Solamar wrote:
New Sisi C5 Radar Site:
1. Scan down ( solo )
2. Hack ( 1 person using the interface )
2.5 Spam D-scan ( lern2 friend )
3. Loot (group)
4. go home.

FTFY


So the gameplay of your friend consists of spamming dscan followed by a short game of click-the-floating-cans. I wouldn't impose this type of "gameplay" upon an enemy, much less a friend.
Seth Asthereun
Blank-Space
Northern Coalition.
#145 - 2013-05-23 11:35:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Seth Asthereun
why do not add some variety to different sites? Not al sites must have that ugly pinata.
You can leave high sec site without npc, but i don't think removing combat ships for low and 0.0 is a good idea.

You can add sites were turrets activates when you encounter a firewall: you can choose to go on and ignore them, to destroy them or to suppress the firewall deactivating them. First firewall spawn only damage turrets, second firewall damage + web, third damage + neut.

Or sites where hacking allows you to shot a structure for a while (similar to the incursion vg) and the loot is in the structure. So you can hack less and bring more dps, or hack more and bring less dps (they remain soloable) but having only a set of hackable sites forces you to destroy the structure before you run out of them.

You can have an hacking site where succesful hacking send a fake signal that lure and enemy overseer that drops the loot.

A data site where there are 4 cans to analize, each can except the last one when hacked release a cloud that does for example 300 dps of a type of damage (sansha space em) so after the first can you take 300 dps, the second 600 dps, that is still easy tankable, but after the third it become 900 dps and you have to choose if hack the last can fast, or bring a more tanked ship.

Those are only the first things that have come to my mind, but you can add a lot more variety.

In the current state those site are very boring more than

sorry for my english, i really hope ccp reads this
Sylvia Nardieu
Super Serious Fight Club
#146 - 2013-05-23 11:43:08 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:


  1. One of the things we’ve been trying to do is make exploration an actual profession with its own ships, modules etc. Removing the NPCs were a part of that, but re-adding them as a failure mechanic doesn’t really fit. We’re going to take the “hacking failed” penalty NPC waves out and instead put a dynamic counter for cans in. So for example, a successful hack scatters 12 loot containers, but if you fail the first attempt and you’re successful on the 2nd, it scatters 14 containers. We feel
    2. this make the profession more coherent.



So basically, the penalty for failure will be same loot in more containers making it harder to catch em all before they despawn?
Or was it a typo and you meant that less loot will be scattered?
Rob Crowley
State War Academy
#147 - 2013-05-23 11:45:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Rob Crowley
CCP Bayesian wrote:
I'll outline some of my thoughts for the next iteration of the hacking as people have noted it's quite 'light' at the moment on strategy. In part this is due to a scoping down of the initial design which had Utilities as items in EVE that could be collected and traded on the market. This would let you fit your module prior to hacking which adds a whole bunch of decision making depth to the hacking itself. This is the first thing I want to put in post-release as not only does it make things much more interesting, it adds in a new way for hacking to generate income and the current design goes against our no closed systems design principle. We also have a whole bunch of more interesting Defense Subsystems and Utilities to add in to increase the variety of things you encounter. On top of which we are considering some ideas for Utilities that let you deploy Virus Subsystems into the systems you are hacking and passive Utilities that take up space but provide a bonus. This should all lead to more interesting choices to make on how you hack.

That sounds very good, I'm not really concerned about the minigame, I'm sure it'll be fine.

CCP Soundwave wrote:
One of the things we’ve been trying to do is make exploration an actual profession with its own ships, modules etc. Removing the NPCs were a part of that, but re-adding them as a failure mechanic doesn’t really fit. We’re going to take the “hacking failed” penalty NPC waves out and instead put a dynamic counter for cans in. So for example, a successful hack scatters 12 loot containers, but if you fail the first attempt and you’re successful on the 2nd, it scatters 14 containers. We feel this make the profession more coherent.

Sounds like a plan, I agree that reducing loot is a more fitting penalty than spawning rats. One problem is we're currently a bit short on ships. The current ship progression for those profession sites is T1 scanning frig --> The End. Maybe put some hacking bonuses on CovOps and T3s, at least temporary till new ships arrive?
This is not just a problem regarding player progression and sense of achievement, but also you're currently encouraging people to run those sites in low/nullsec with a cheap T1 frig instead of a shiny expensive toy because the T1 frig is actually better at it. But surely you must want PvEers to bring their T3s and similar stuff (and risk/lose them in the process).

Quote:
We’re looking into the scatter container brackets. Anything from increasing size, changing their icons depending on loot category etc is on the board, to make them easier to interact with.

I'm still not convinced I'll ever like this mechanic and consider it fun, but if you're determined to keep it then yes, these things would help.
Tsubutai
Perkone
Caldari State
#148 - 2013-05-23 11:51:21 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Stuff that’s in development and relevant to feedback posted in this thread:

[list=1]
  • One of the things we’ve been trying to do is make exploration an actual profession with its own ships, modules etc. Removing the NPCs were a part of that, but re-adding them as a failure mechanic doesn’t really fit. We’re going to take the “hacking failed” penalty NPC waves out and instead put a dynamic counter for cans in. So for example, a successful hack scatters 12 loot containers, but if you fail the first attempt and you’re successful on the 2nd, it scatters 14 containers. We feel
    • this make the profession more coherent.

    I think this is going to present a significant balance issue. As it stands on SiSi, the T1 exploration frigates are the only ships that provide a bonus to virus strength and are thus arguably the best ships for doing these sites in, especially since the NPCs are being removed entirely. If the rewards per site are also being doubled, that means you'll be able to farm quite valuable loot in throwaway ships.
    mynnna
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #149 - 2013-05-23 12:17:00 UTC
    Sylvia Nardieu wrote:
    CCP Soundwave wrote:


    1. One of the things we’ve been trying to do is make exploration an actual profession with its own ships, modules etc. Removing the NPCs were a part of that, but re-adding them as a failure mechanic doesn’t really fit. We’re going to take the “hacking failed” penalty NPC waves out and instead put a dynamic counter for cans in. So for example, a successful hack scatters 12 loot containers, but if you fail the first attempt and you’re successful on the 2nd, it scatters 14 containers. We feel
      2. this make the profession more coherent.



    So basically, the penalty for failure will be same loot in more containers making it harder to catch em all before they despawn?
    Or was it a typo and you meant that less loot will be scattered?


    Pretty sure he means the same amount of loot, but more containers, which means more junk containers.

    Rob Crowley wrote:

    This is not just a problem regarding player progression and sense of achievement, but also you're currently encouraging people to run those sites in low/nullsec with a cheap T1 frig instead of a shiny expensive toy because the T1 frig is actually better at it. But surely you must want PvEers to bring their T3s and similar stuff (and risk/lose them in the process).


    This is a good point.

    Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
    Terrorfrodo
    Interbus Universal
    #150 - 2013-05-23 12:21:23 UTC
    Indeed. Risk vs. reward has in fact three factors. One is the reward, but the risk it split between two factors: The probability that you lose something and the value of what you can lose.

    If you stand a 5% chance to lose your ship but the ship is worth 2 billion, that is quite a big risk. If you have a chance of 50% to lose your ship but the ship's worth is only 1 million, that is a very small risk.

    .
    Jommis
    Brothers of Tyr
    Goonswarm Federation
    #151 - 2013-05-23 12:25:00 UTC
    Hello CCP peeps.

    I just did a mag site in 0.0
    Lots of cans got shot into space when i opened the cans.

    My question is as follows.

    Are they supposed to despawn after 20-30 seconds?
    I'm in my shiny tengu and have no chance to check them before they despawn.

    And is it possible to get the cans on the overview?
    Saheed Cha'chris'ra
    Krautz WH Exploration and Production
    #152 - 2013-05-23 12:29:59 UTC
    Jommis wrote:

    Are they supposed to despawn after 20-30 seconds?
    I'm in my shiny tengu and have no chance to check them before they despawn.

    And is it possible to get the cans on the overview?


    They are supposed to do so. The containers are "drifting away" until they disappear. Thats because CCP endorses you to bring along some of your friends, so everyone can click the cans to tractorbeam them.

    Also: Seeing the cans in the overview would be nice, but then it would be easy to see the names of the cans and get the high-value-ones first...
    CCP Soundwave
    C C P
    C C P Alliance
    #153 - 2013-05-23 12:51:17 UTC
    Sylvia Nardieu wrote:
    CCP Soundwave wrote:


    1. One of the things we’ve been trying to do is make exploration an actual profession with its own ships, modules etc. Removing the NPCs were a part of that, but re-adding them as a failure mechanic doesn’t really fit. We’re going to take the “hacking failed” penalty NPC waves out and instead put a dynamic counter for cans in. So for example, a successful hack scatters 12 loot containers, but if you fail the first attempt and you’re successful on the 2nd, it scatters 14 containers. We feel
      2. this make the profession more coherent.



    So basically, the penalty for failure will be same loot in more containers making it harder to catch em all before they despawn?
    Or was it a typo and you meant that less loot will be scattered?


    Same loot, more containers
    Seth Asthereun
    Blank-Space
    Northern Coalition.
    #154 - 2013-05-23 13:03:12 UTC
    CCP Soundwave wrote:
    Morning update post!

    Changes that will hit Sisi later today:


    1. The 0.0 sites are now complete and ready to be run. That means we’re done rejigging the sites and anything not working in terms of “interior design” should be submitted as a bug report.

    2. The performance issues with clouds should be taken care of as well. If it’s not, poke us in this thread, but the site changes deployed later should fix them.

    3. We are cutting the number of scatter containers in half, while retaining the total loot of a hacking/arch object. This should effectively double your income.


    Stuff that’s in development and relevant to feedback posted in this thread:


    1. One of the things we’ve been trying to do is make exploration an actual profession with its own ships, modules etc. Removing the NPCs were a part of that, but re-adding them as a failure mechanic doesn’t really fit. We’re going to take the “hacking failed” penalty NPC waves out and instead put a dynamic counter for cans in. So for example, a successful hack scatters 12 loot containers, but if you fail the first attempt and you’re successful on the 2nd, it scatters 14 containers. We feel
      2. this make the profession more coherent.

    2. We’re looking into the scatter container brackets. Anything from increasing size, changing their icons depending on loot category etc is on the board, to make them easier to interact with.

    3. Sleeper sites will not have their NPCs removed.


    We’ll be in the thread monitoring all day. Thanks for the feedback.


    so basically the actual formula is definitive?
    Johan Toralen
    IIIJIIIITIIII
    #155 - 2013-05-23 13:03:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Johan Toralen
    CCP Soundwave wrote:

    [list=1]
  • One of the things we’ve been trying to do is make exploration an actual profession with its own ships, modules etc. Removing the NPCs were a part of that, but re-adding them as a failure mechanic doesn’t really fit.


    • This sounds like a good idea on paper. What's problematic about the way it's implemented is that you have hurt all-in-one exploration, thereby limited the possibilities for explorers.
    Explorers now have to chose between doing profession sites or combat sites to run either efficiently (doing both was already tricky fitting before the Odyssey changes), especialy below hisec. That's due to ban of T3 from 4/10 and the new mods taking up slots. For profession ships its gonna be necessary to fit the right rigs, some probe mods to run them efficiently, so no room for tank and dps. Combat exploration Ishtar has no room for probe mods, hacking rigs, has no bonusses anyway and can't fit cov cloak. Pilgrim is too weak and has no bonuses and extra slots aswell.

    So if you insist on the T3 ban you should consider a new ship class for all in one exploration. Could be a buffed Pilgrim with bonus to virus strenght and probing, two extra med slots for probe mods, one more low slot for better tank and a bit more cpu.
    Sounds pretty hardcore, eh? I guess it could be balanced by hardcoding that 4 of the midslots must be used for analyzers and probe mods and nothing else. (or how about these modules already being built in like a true exploration ship?)

    Or you make a new ship based on the Gnosis model in that fashion with the bpc's spawning in exploration sites.
    These ships would be quite expensive i suppose so risk/reward isnt hurt as much as running sites in frigs.
    Seth Asthereun
    Blank-Space
    Northern Coalition.
    #156 - 2013-05-23 13:09:13 UTC
    Johan Toralen wrote:
    CCP Soundwave wrote:

    [list=1]
  • One of the things we’ve been trying to do is make exploration an actual profession with its own ships, modules etc. Removing the NPCs were a part of that, but re-adding them as a failure mechanic doesn’t really fit.


    • This sounds like a good idea on paper. What's problematic about the way it's implemented is that you have hurt all-in-one exploration, thereby limited the possibilities for explorers.
    Explorers now have to chose between doing profession sites or combat sites to run either efficiently, especialy below hisec. That's due to ban of T3 from 4/10 and the new mods taking up slots. For profession ships its gonna be necessary to fit the right rigs, some probe mods to run them efficiently, so no room for tank and dps. Combat exploration Ishtar has no room for probe mods, hacking rigs, has no bonusses anyway and can't fit cov cloak. Pilgrim is too weak and has no bonuses and extra slots aswell.

    So if you insist on the T3 ban you should consider a new ship class for all in one exploration. Could be a buffed Pilgrim with bonus to virus strenght and probing, two extra med slots for probe mods, one more low slot for better tank and a bit more cpu.
    Sounds pretty hardcore, eh? I guess it could be balanced by hardcoding that 4 of the midslots must be used for analyzers and probe mods and nothing else. (or how about these modules already being built in like a true exploration ship?)

    Or you make a new ship based on the Gnosis model in that fashion with the bpc's spawning in exploration sites.
    These ships would be quite expensive i suppose so risk/reward isnt hurt as much as running sites in frigs.


    why would you need a new ship when the actual covert ops can run those site just fine? They are cheap, cloaked and fast. If they remove the npc from those site there will be no reason to stick with another ship.
    Johan Toralen
    IIIJIIIITIIII
    #157 - 2013-05-23 13:12:30 UTC
    Seth Asthereun wrote:
    why would you need a new ship when the actual covert ops can run those site just fine? They are cheap, cloaked and fast. If they remove the npc from those site there will be no reason to stick with another ship.


    You completely missed the point which is all-in-one exploration (profession sites+combat sites in the same ship).
    Noonxo
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #158 - 2013-05-23 13:15:44 UTC
    Seth Asthereun wrote:
    why would you need a new ship when the actual covert ops can run those site just fine? They are cheap, cloaked and fast. If they remove the npc from those site there will be no reason to stick with another ship.


    In a CovOps any kind of fail that spawns even a NPC frigate prevents you from staying there and continue hacking.

    Edit: I actually tried and you can fit a Small shield booster if you add at least 1 Co-proc, though you can't fit the 3 Scanning Upgrades + both Analyzers doing that. (tested on a Buzzard)
    Saheed Cha'chris'ra
    Krautz WH Exploration and Production
    #159 - 2013-05-23 13:19:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Saheed Cha'chris'ra
    Noonxo wrote:

    In a CovOps any kind of fail that spawns even a NPC frigate prevents you from staying there and continue hacking.


    There won't spawn any NPCs if you fail hacking. Soundwave made it clear one page back ;)
    No NPCs in data/relic-sites in K-Space.

    But yeah, if you want to do all-in-one-exploration, maybe you have to think about new fittings and ships in the future. I am excited to see what kind of new ships CCP plans for the progression tree of exploration.
    Rek Seven
    University of Caille
    Gallente Federation
    #160 - 2013-05-23 13:20:03 UTC
    CCP Tallest wrote:
    I want to correct a slight misunderstanding. This was a miscommunication between me and Soundwave about the NPC removal and I apologize for not spotting this earlier.

    NPCs are not being removed from wormhole sites.

    We are only removing NPCs from "normal" k-space hacking and archaeology signatures (NPCs will only spawn in those sites when you fail at the challenge).
    No changes are being made to NPCs in wormholes or COSMOS or other hacking/archaeology sites.

    The reason for the removal is to allow explorers to play the game without having a combat ship on standby.


    That's kind of disappointing. It could have been a good change if you did it right...

    The wishlist is pretty much complete...