These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Deeply concerned about scanning changes

First post First post
Author
Raven Solaris
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#101 - 2013-05-28 17:19:13 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:

A few minutes with explorers who actually do exploring might have garnered some better ideas.

Instead we're stuck with, "yeah, so we broke something you use. Here's a workaround which doesn't really replace the functionality you lost," and CCP looking like they're clowns wandering around the china shop in oversized shoes.


You're assuming they actually care about our feedback or opinions outside of ticking a box.
Haulie Berry
#102 - 2013-05-28 17:27:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Haulie Berry
Mara Rinn wrote:
Haulie Berry wrote:
This is not the least bit ambiguous. Stop being obtuse.


Not ambiguous now that the devblog has come out and CCP SoniClover has explained that they had a reason for taking DSPs out. Until then, CCP Greyscale was only admitting that removing DSPs impacts the exploration gameplay and offering a workaround.

Now the concern is that other types of gameplay will be removed from exploration because skilled scanners are too good at finding ships in space compared to the unskilled ones who probe every ship from 4AU constellations one range increment at a time. The criteria offered by CCPs SoniClover and Greyscale is that when skilled players get too good at doing something compared to unskilled players, they have to nerf the game to make things harder for the skilled players and easier for the unskilled players.

So is it a "soft exploit" that a skilled PvPer can narrow someone down to a small region of space using nothing else but D-scan, then plonk a 0.5AU constellation of combat probes on that location?

Is it a "soft exploit" that a skilled trader can roll 500M ISK over and over in a series of 1% profit trades through the course of a day to make 100% gain in one day?

is it a "soft exploit" that a skilled pilot can run level 4 missions in an assault ship?

Is it a "soft exploit" that some L4 missions can be completed in a shuttle?

Where does this madness end? Big smile



Those are all clearly comparable to a situation where you have a bunch of mysterious signals out in space, and can trivially deduce what they most likely are at a glance, despite the fact that under other circumstances, the system won't even give you a hint as to what they are until you've scanned them down to 25%. Roll

Again, stop being obtuse. I used DSPs, too, but it was always EXTREMELY obvious that lookup tables were an unfortunate and unintended consequence of probing math, and not an intended function.
Kult Altol
The Safe Space
#103 - 2013-05-28 17:32:06 UTC
One day everyone in Eve will be happy.




















When Eve is dead.

[u]Can't wait untill when Eve online is Freemium.[/u] WiS only 10$, SP booster for one month 15$, DPS Boost 2$, EHP Boost 2$ Real money trading hub! Cosmeitic ship skins 15$ --> If you don't [u]pay **[/u]for a product, you ARE the [u]**product[/u].

Lexmana
#104 - 2013-05-28 17:34:08 UTC
Domanique Altares wrote:
Haulie Berry wrote:


They're nerfing DSPs ON PURPOSE.


Did it hurt you to type that?

I'm curious, because you laid it out so easily, so simply. There's no room for doubt, questioning, or misinterpretation in what you said. Yet CCP can't seem to put those same few words together in the same concise, unambiguous and unquestionable manner.

Well said. And maybe this nerf is not to bad after all since it also comes with a few buffs to other parts of the system. I am looking forward to not having to reload the scanner with DSP/core probes all the time tbh.
Mia Restolo
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#105 - 2013-05-28 18:22:27 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:

Nope. That's not how it works at all.

Before a K162 can exist, the cosmic signature of the wormhole existed as something else. As an example, you might have a wormhole type M555 which goes from hisec to Class 5 wormholes, and the other end appears in Class 5 wormholes as N110 (I don't know for certain, this is just an example).

If the w-space side is probed down first, what you end up with is a Wormhole (N110) on the w-space side and Wormhole (K162) on the k-space side.

If the k-space side is probed down first, what you end up with is a Wormhole(K162) on the w-space side and a Wormhole (M555) on the w-space side.

Thus nothing will change on the system scanner overview, while only the signal strength will change on the 1 x DSP @ 256AU scan results.


There are some critical errors about WH spawning mechanics in this statement. A K162 doesn't exist at all in any form until someone initiates warp to the other side, in other words they can only be scanned and spawned from the origin side. If a K162 appears someone from the other end created it.
Rebecha Pucontis
Doomheim
#106 - 2013-05-28 18:28:38 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Alec Freeman wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:
My opinion here is simple: CCP (Greyscale) needs to just front up and say that the ability to classify by signal strength has been classified as "broken" and they removed it on purpose. Otherwise we're left with the impression that whole system filtering was left out by accident due to the developers not having researched the gameplay surrounding a feature they were screwing with.


See the paragraph quoted in this post: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3099202#post3099202



Did you even read the post you just linked us too? It contains your quote and the content of the post is a player expertly pulling apart what you said and very correctly proving how wrong your initial post was.

Are you trying to imply that your initial post was wrong and the player post you linked to is correct? Or are you seriously not even attempting to read player feedback?


As per the quote in the linked post, we've been very clear that this is not being left out by accident, it's a conscious decision towards a specific end, made with knowledge about how the system is currently being used on TQ, and based on the assessment that the net impact of Odyssey on probing mechanics is reasonably balanced.

If players want to discuss that assessment, the specific consequences of the changes we're making (backed, ideally, by actually testing the system rather than just speculating about how it might work), and the impact that is likely to have on overall gameplay balance, we're all ears.

It seems you are taking out a massive chunk of gameplay which many players have enjoyed using since it was discovered. Being able to narrow down your search results is perhaps something which should have been built further upon as this is emergent gameplay at its best, and it seems you've just clamped down on very good system. I'll try the scan changes again, before it was displaying the sig strength on the tooltips when I last tried it. But i'll try it again and test this other method you speak about. But from initial glance I think its a shame you are throwing out the emergent gameplay that has arisen.
Rebecha Pucontis
Doomheim
#107 - 2013-05-28 18:52:35 UTC
Haulie Berry wrote:
Again, stop being obtuse. I used DSPs, too, but it was always EXTREMELY obvious that lookup tables were an unfortunate and unintended consequence of probing math, and not an intended function.


Heh, quite amusing because you could say exactly the same thing about jet can mining. They could have easily tweaked the signature strength method to make it less powerful if needed, but at the same time keeping the actual system intact. To be honest working out which sigs were which by logical deduction was probably the most challenging part of the last system once you learnt how to wrestle the UI. Not that it was very challenging, but just that the rest is relatively mindless in comparison.
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#108 - 2013-05-28 19:05:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Dersen Lowery
Mara Rinn wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Again, I am no expert but maybe they also don't want player to have access to a 256AU range probe. Maybe they think large system should be large so you can't single scan them.


The given reason for removing DSPs is simply that they allow finding ships in space too quickly, not because they represent a "soft exploit". So obviously the next cabs off the rank will be embedded tetrahedrons, constellations with probes of differing signal strength, and launching a 0.5AU constellation into an area that you haven't probed in the last five minutes.


Alternately, they could keep the site strength table constant, but introduce error bars (which are already there, implicitly) and have the interface return a number which is the actual strength plus or minus some random number within the margin of error. A single scan with a single probe over a huge range will tell you that there's something interesting somewhere over in that big smear. If you want more precise results, use more probes and/or smaller ranges and/or more precise probes and/or implants, drugs, modules, etc.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#109 - 2013-05-28 19:05:41 UTC
as a person who does 0.0 exploration in stain will this have a negative affect on my scanning? i never really used dsp anyways so can someone explain why this is a bad thing?

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

CCP Bayesian
#110 - 2013-05-28 19:08:01 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Bayesian
Raven Solaris wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:

A few minutes with explorers who actually do exploring might have garnered some better ideas.

Instead we're stuck with, "yeah, so we broke something you use. Here's a workaround which doesn't really replace the functionality you lost," and CCP looking like they're clowns wandering around the china shop in oversized shoes.


You're assuming they actually care about our feedback or opinions outside of ticking a box.


For balance that's not actually what I meant:
My response to the above misunderstanding that was entirely my fault for not making myself crystal clear.

EVE Software Engineer Team Space Glitter

Some Rando
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#111 - 2013-05-28 19:08:40 UTC
We've got, what, seven days left before launch? Might as well just get used to the new way things are done. Best case scenario is that your deep concerns will be addressed within a point release or two, but I wouldn't bet on it.

CCP has no sense of humour.

blink alt
Doomheim
#112 - 2013-05-28 19:22:56 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
As per the quote in the linked post, we've been very clear that this is not being left out by accident, it's a conscious decision towards a specific end, made with knowledge about how the system is currently being used on TQ, and based on the assessment that the net impact of Odyssey on probing mechanics is reasonably balanced.

If players want to discuss that assessment, the specific consequences of the changes we're making (backed, ideally, by actually testing the system rather than just speculating about how it might work), and the impact that is likely to have on overall gameplay balance, we're all ears.


Answering the question of balance is quite difficult. If I had to go with my gut I would agree with you that it is balanced and that we are getting a net positive overall and people should stop complaining about the removal of the DSP mechanic and apprecaite all that they are gaining with Odyssey. What I am having trouble understanding is why there needs to be an additonal barrier between me and say DED 5/10 sites in the form of other signatures outside that signal strength. Is it really a significant part of the is it balanced equation?

Does it really come down to you want those people that are after specific content to have to comitt a certain amount of time scanning for that content?

If the idea is to remove the efficency of not having to scan down all signatures in a system I am confused as to why there is still a element of this on sisi. When it comes to the system map you can eye ball the approximate AU size of the red spheres and that gives you an idea of what band the signature is in. Granted this only works slightly becasue it seems that quite a few bands have been lummped into a 8 AU sphere while the top and bottom band have their own AU sphere. I would much prefer that the red spheres be a constant size, ideally 4 au, to make it easier to see which planet the signature spawned at instead of having the convience of ignoring the upper and lower extremes.
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#113 - 2013-05-28 19:29:53 UTC
ITT people rag on the OP because they don't explore or live in Wspace.

Next month there will be buckets of (their) tears when their economy changes and they realize they really do live in a sandbox.

This change is terrible. They did all that work to make scanning easier (take less of my precious time), and then add a stealth nerf to make it take more time.

internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it

Rebecha Pucontis
Doomheim
#114 - 2013-05-28 19:36:42 UTC
Cipher Jones wrote:
ITT people rag on the OP because they don't explore or live in Wspace.

Next month there will be buckets of (their) tears when their economy changes and they realize they really do live in a sandbox.

This change is terrible. They did all that work to make scanning easier (take less of my precious time), and then add a stealth nerf to make it take more time.

The ironic thing is that scanning will become even more mind numbing and repetitive than before as people will be forced to scan every signature in the system at random unless we can figure out some other method to narrow our results.
ISD Tyrozan
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#115 - 2013-05-28 19:43:06 UTC
Two personal attack posts have been deleted.

ISD Tyrozan

Captain

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

@ISDTyrozan | @ISD_CCL

Nyancat Audeles
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#116 - 2013-05-28 19:53:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Nyancat Audeles
James Amril-Kesh wrote:

Giving players no options to find this information represents a pretty significant nerf to scanning. I'm at a loss for words just how terrible this change is.

Scanning nerf? What? OP I would like your drugs.

Odessey brings with it the biggest scanning buff in the history of EVE. Stop being greedy.

EDIT: Evidence: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/team-super-friends-do-odyssey/
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#117 - 2013-05-28 19:54:57 UTC
Mia Restolo wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:

Nope. That's not how it works at all.

Before a K162 can exist, the cosmic signature of the wormhole existed as something else. As an example, you might have a wormhole type M555 which goes from hisec to Class 5 wormholes, and the other end appears in Class 5 wormholes as N110 (I don't know for certain, this is just an example).

If the w-space side is probed down first, what you end up with is a Wormhole (N110) on the w-space side and Wormhole (K162) on the k-space side.

If the k-space side is probed down first, what you end up with is a Wormhole(K162) on the w-space side and a Wormhole (M555) on the w-space side.

Thus nothing will change on the system scanner overview, while only the signal strength will change on the 1 x DSP @ 256AU scan results.


There are some critical errors about WH spawning mechanics in this statement. A K162 doesn't exist at all in any form until someone initiates warp to the other side, in other words they can only be scanned and spawned from the origin side. If a K162 appears someone from the other end created it.


Well yes. I missed the "probed down and warped to first". K162 are spawned on the destination side, replacing whatever signature was there before. When the source side is warped to, that explorer will see the original WH classification, eg N110 or M555 in my previous example.

The critical thing being that you can tell when someone is about to enter your system by monitoring the list of signal strengths.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#118 - 2013-05-28 19:56:43 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
As per the quote in the linked post, we've been very clear that this is not being left out by accident, it's a conscious decision towards a specific end, made with knowledge about how the system is currently being used on TQ, and based on the assessment that the net impact of Odyssey on probing mechanics is reasonably balanced.


Here you go, a post you could have referenced to make the statement I was looking for CCP to make: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3019117#post3019117

I haven't been following the test server feedback threads, mea culpa.
blink alt
Doomheim
#119 - 2013-05-28 19:58:46 UTC  |  Edited by: blink alt
Rebecha Pucontis wrote:
The ironic thing is that scanning will become even more mind numbing and repetitive than before as people will be forced to scan every signature in the system at random unless we can figure out some other method to narrow our results.


Honestly I am having a hard time coming to that same conclusion. Yes I will have to scan more sigs past 25%, yes there will be a few more that I will have to scan past 75% than I currently do. However, I get 1 click launch all probes. I get all probes resizing with click and drag and keeping formation on re-size. I get to launch no probes in an empty system. I do not have to constantly change out from DSP to core probes. I also get much much much higher probe strength and lower deviation which is saving me a scan on every sig I am genuinely interested in. So will scanning become more mind numbing, no. Will I spend more time scanning than I do now, maybe.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#120 - 2013-05-28 20:01:35 UTC
Rebecha Pucontis wrote:
Cipher Jones wrote:
ITT people rag on the OP because they don't explore or live in Wspace.

Next month there will be buckets of (their) tears when their economy changes and they realize they really do live in a sandbox.

This change is terrible. They did all that work to make scanning easier (take less of my precious time), and then add a stealth nerf to make it take more time.

The ironic thing is that scanning will become even more mind numbing and repetitive than before as people will be forced to scan every signature in the system at random unless we can figure out some other method to narrow our results.


Not so random. Remember that we're getting the new modules which will boost our probing skills, so we'll be able to lock down signatures ultra fast now. Before Odyssey you might have been able to skip a level of range (e.g. from 4 to 1 instead of 4 to 2 to 1), now you'll be able to skip two!

Remember folks, while Astrometrics Pinpointing and Astrometrics Rangefinding have been nerfed, Astrometrics itself is being buffed with the missing 5% for both those skills. CCP is really serious about making exploration something easy for the new players to get into. This is why they're doing the auto-recall of probes thing: they're catering to new players, not the players who engage in exploration as a major part of their existing playstyle.