EVE Information Portal

Wrong. I did exploring, and in fact the ability to explore is what got me back to the game after an aborted try way before. However, I soon realized it was basically the same ratting combat as everything else, with the added thrill of waiting for a dice-roll to pop the loot -- which is why I didn’t stick with it. Apparently CCP’s own metrics showed the same -- that few people were doing exploring despite its inherently interesting potential. I will be getting back into exploring after Odyssey.

I actually hope Odyssey goes further, as my main criticism would be that the changes are too incremental. However, I'm taking their word on it that the 'new' CCP will actually iterate on their initial releases versus abandoning them. For now.

Although there are possible better ways to handle it, I think the loot pinata thing is at least one needed solution in that it gives extra “utility" and "activity" to a living, breathing partner who isn’t just a dual-box puppet and is a way to "scale" the reward if more than one person participates, because more people = more cans grabbed. Having a dual person hack probably won't address the goal, since then you now have TWO people with reduced situational awareness instead of a hacker and a lookout. Particularly in lowsec/null.

I always find it odd, the number of people whose main objection is that:

(a) Change will mean the reward is coupled with risk [welcome to EVE?] and/or 


(b) That a change means they have to PLAY the game and can’t just do something else while “doing” the activity and collect ISK. Taken to the logical conclusion, why not just have full automation so it can give you ISK and you never have to log in at all? Being facetious, but it really is puzzling why someone wants the end result currency without playing the game, when the only logical reason anyone would want the currency is because its the means of exchange in a game they enjoy enough to want to play.

This isn't directly based on the above quote, but I've seen that sentiment coupled with the above attitude pretty frequently.

This! A guy and his covop/bomber/recon/T3 causing havoc

I agree. Sounds like an excellent idea.

Dear CCP, looks as if you forgot about hacking/archaeology rigs (Memetic Algorithm Bank and Emission Scope Sharpener). They still have (now obsolete) access dificulty modifier :/
More than that. For the current build

Heron: +10 Virus Coherence
T1-module (50/20), T2-module (75/30)
Skill bonus: +1 per level (!!!)

A few extra comments on this feature. I like it conceptually overall and already posted about the solo vs. group thing. But a few smaller items:

1. Now that its working, the minigame seems too easy -- as if its actually fairly hard to outright fail it. And as stated before, I like the setup, but as is the game is simply lotto-clicking it seems, without a lot of actual strategy needed. Again, building something where discerning patterns is a factor should be incorporated if not for Odyssey launch, then for iteration.

2. The loot tables in Lowsec at least, for Relic sites, don't seem to have scaled up -- and considering the additional risk and mechanics that in null/low would seem to require a friend more than before -- the lucrativeness should be boosted. It seems fine to keep the highsec the same, since the reduced situational awareness doesn't pose the same risk factor as lower security areas.

I was thinking something similar for hacking sov structures or POSes. Having better rewards for increased hacking resources and cooperative play seems like a great content generator. Pirates might scan out hacking sites and camp them because they know they are very valuable and multiple players will show up.

The containers could have a preset number of "levels" available depending on site type and system true-sec. Having a group-pool for virus strength and resolution would work as well. This would allow for more complex and/or varied "computer systems" that you might find in very secure sites.

Also, thx for the clarification of the state of the SiSi sites. I'll be sure to check them again soon.

I WANT

Just did some testing plexes in Gurista null, that's where my alt is on this very old mirror. Some pointes I want to mention:

• loot table is terrible compared to the current status of mag/arch plexes in null, even when all hacks for all containers are successfully, no T2 salvage was found (i could catch about 75% of the cans)
• when you fail to hack a container NPCs spawn, funnily enough frigates with "cruiser crosses"
• hacking containers should not be in the same places, it is really hard to understand which are already done or not, please seperate the hacking containers or add a "marked as viewed" option for them

As an explorer, the proposed system makes me scratch my head. The ‘spew’ mechanism is horribly ill-conceived. What kind of reward system has someone scramble and lose potentially valuable cargo they not only worked to discover and recover, but also invested valuable training time into? To create a PVE/PVP analogy; ships should spew white/blue components on destruction, requiring players to madly attempt to grasp loot before it magically disappears into the vacuum of space.

Wormholes and Incursions weren't mentioned in the original dev blog. Too many pages to read through to look and see if this hasn't been mentioned already so my apologies if it has.

In lower end wormholes, the NPCs defending the hacking sites are often more valuable than the hacking loot itself. I don't know if this is true of all w-space hacking sites. Will the NPCs be getting removed from these sites as well as k-space sites? I don't think they should be. It's a reasonable thing to say that the pirate NPCs of k-space have no reason to be guarding derelict old wreckage, but w-space NPCs do have a reason to be doing that. They are just drones that were built for that exact purpose.

Incursions. How will the new hacking mechanics affect Override Transfer Array sites? They include a hackable "logistics array", but it doesn't seem feasible to sit and play a mini-game in an incursion site.