Test Server Feedback

Johan Toralen, these sorts of updates would be great but the main problem is that it takes one player doing it one time to post the results and its no longer exploration. Either that or there needs to be a massive amount of content generated. Now we could procedurally generate that but again there are limits particularly if we want to incorporate EVE lore. Either way other players tend to break systems down very quickly and tell you how they work which is why the current 'Exploration' is a reasonably mundane activity lots of people engage in and doesn't actually feel like exploration. A system as you describe would be broken down that way very, very quickly. Which is not to say we shouldn't seed lore content into space, it's just not a very sustainable gameplay system for exploration.

Exploration essentially has to involve going into the unknown and making it known whilst having adventures. This can only really happen if the universe is reasonably dynamic and more unpredictable. Probably the best way of doing that is giving players the tools to shape the universe and making the universe itself more dynamic. That way exploration isn't some content you chew through but a continuous use of tools in the Universe to understand it in order to do something meaningful.

Essentially if any player from a completely new character through to a ten year vet can have perfect information about the Universe and it's contents true exploration is never going to exist. That way exploration to a vet is understanding the dynamics of the universe. Whereas almost everything feels like exploration to the new player, which is the case at the moment really if they don't look at all the guides etc.

That's my take on it anyway.

Brainless Bimbo, you seem to have not noticed I said this in the very same post:

"'Exploration' is a reasonably mundane activity lots of people engage in and doesn't actually feel like exploration."

We have a system of limited content that is called Exploration. That does not mean it in anyway supports actual exploration which to me means actually exploring the Universe not visiting sites to do a known action in them. We've made that system much more dynamic than it was by adding in the ability to actually hack the sites, a game feature that could easily be rolled out elsewhere so it's less limited to just this static content.

Anyway as said previously please take this discussion to the Feature & Ideas forum so we don't mess up the feedback thread with future speculation on what actual exploration could be.

Based on past performance I can see why people are skeptical that we will continue to improve features immediately post-release. Planetary Interaction is a good example of a feature that could really do with some more depth added to it. However if people say "why aren't you revamping system X instead" then we always be releasing and abandoning things. Once something is out the best time to improve it is immediately afterwards.

To answer the "unfinished feature" point. We aren't releasing anything unfinished. We're releasing what we consider the minimum amount to consider the feature complete. That doesn't mean we've not got ideas that ended up on the cutting room floor because that's the nature of the developing any project that needs to fit within a set timeline. It also doesn't mean we are satisfied with the current state of things. It means as you note that the feature is functional and goes towards what we would ultimately like to achieve. It also lets us see how things fit in and interact with the live universe which is inherently different to any test server. Particularly when considering features that rely much more on player interaction. Improving iteratively is just sensible from this point of view in terms of validating what we are doing.

I don't really mind punishing failure, it's more about what tools you have to do what. When you run missions, you have a combat ship. When you mine, you have a miner. When you do exploration, you should have a fitting ship. Exploration ships shouldn't have the tools combat ships have, but instead have benefits to that profession (like the bonuses to the ships). That doesn't mean there can't be failure mechanic, it just can't be based on something we actively discourage you to carry tools for (combat for example).

Generally I like your approach, but this here is a horrible idea, that's 100% alt gameplay, not friend gameplay. There needs to be some realtime active gameplay by the other player in the group or it's just gonna be alts. Still I agree that loot spewing is not a good way to do it, there should be a way to make the friend join in the hacking minigame.

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. :)