These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kel hound
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#501 - 2013-05-29 12:06:50 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
CCP Bayesian wrote:
We made a considered decision to not do that in order to release in a timely manner.

There seems to be a lot of that sentiment in Reykjavik right now.



Seriously. At this point I'd rather the old sites with the old mechanics than this "new and improved" crap.
Brooks Puuntai
Solar Nexus.
#502 - 2013-05-29 12:08:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Brooks Puuntai
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
CCP Bayesian wrote:
We made a considered decision to not do that in order to release in a timely manner.

There seems to be a lot of that sentiment in Reykjavik right now.


I'm more curious on why they thought rushing a prototype(pinata) onto sisi 3 weeks prior to release was a good idea.

E: Also since I'm sure CCP is tired of me bashing the pinata, this will probably be my last post in regards to it. I and other players have said their peace towards the system, and will wait to see the release and see how it does once it hits live.

In all honesty, I do feel a bit bad for the Devs, mainly because their development cycle is terrible and causes devs to be backed into a corner due to limited time they have to work on each expansion. I really hope that someday CCP considers scaling back their development cycle to 1 major expansion per year and maybe a balance patch mid year. Mainly to allow more development time and more time for QA, to ensure things aren't rushed out the door and need 2-3 updates later on to fix them.

CCP's Motto: If it isn't broken, break it. If it is broken, ignore it. Improving NPE / Dynamic New Eden
Scuzzy Logic
Space Spuds
#503 - 2013-05-29 12:19:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Scuzzy Logic
Brooks Puuntai wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
CCP Bayesian wrote:
We made a considered decision to not do that in order to release in a timely manner.

There seems to be a lot of that sentiment in Reykjavik right now.


I'm more curious on why they thought rushing a prototype(pinata) onto sisi 3 weeks prior to release was a good idea.


Protip: Strip the feature and scrap it from the patch! You'll be ready to release even faster!

Seriously Bayesian, decisions like these is the reason I might drop this game for good.

EDIT: I gave it some serious thought, and I still can't figure why you didn't prescreen the mechanic upstream before it got to SiSi. Not to mention this close to release date.
Scuzzy Logic
Space Spuds
#504 - 2013-05-29 12:26:10 UTC
CCP Bayesian wrote:
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:
CCP Bayesian wrote:
The problem at the moment is that hackers start each attempt from scratch, you can't bring Utilities in with you and there are no utility elements that give you a peak at what might be where on the board. This limits the strategies that can be developed quite severely.
I don't understand how you can acknowledge this is a problem and yet NOT fix it before implementing the system. It's just mind-boggling.


We made a considered decision to not do that in order to release in a timely manner. We don't think the hacking mechanics are broken or ruined by not including it but we are making it a priority for the work we are doing right after release because it is the cornerstone to adding more depth to the mechanic. Ideas like the one Dax Buchanan mentioned of going deeper to get a chance at better loot are the sorts of additional mechanics we actively thinking about.


Way to go improving the acceptable aspect of the minigame while completely ingoring the reason why most of us think the feature might deserve dropping.

For what its worth, Dax's idea seems great.

On the other hand, just nerfing supressors (especially in negsec sites) would alleviate much of the impossible scenarios that show up. Making the hacking itself too easy when you're going to shove the pinata in our faces despite our complaints might be your best bet at avoiding a 50-page forum rage on release week.
Random Woman
Very Professional Corporation
#505 - 2013-05-29 12:28:16 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
CCP Bayesian wrote:
We made a considered decision to not do that in order to release in a timely manner.

There seems to be a lot of that sentiment in Reykjavik right now.



Part of the quality offensive they are running...
Raven Solaris
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#506 - 2013-05-29 12:30:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Raven Solaris
Scuzzy Logic wrote:
Brooks Puuntai wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
CCP Bayesian wrote:
We made a considered decision to not do that in order to release in a timely manner.

There seems to be a lot of that sentiment in Reykjavik right now.


I'm more curious on why they thought rushing a prototype(pinata) onto sisi 3 weeks prior to release was a good idea.


Protip: Strip the feature and scrap it from the patch! You'll be ready to release even faster!

Seriously Bayesian, decisions like these is the reason I might drop this game for good.


Sadly, I'll +1 this.

Last real thing I'm going to raise about this is why does Odyssey seem like it's adding magic into the game?

We have magic probes that teleport into your hold if you leave system, but if they have to move around system or are recalled manually, we wait for them to warp.

We have a magic tractor beam on all of our ships now that can only be used to tractor in a very specific type of can, and nothing else, and auto-loots them after a few seconds. Meanwhile our non-magic tractor beams can tractor anything, don't auto-loot the special cans and the things that they're tractoring in can suddenly disappear despite being right next to you.

My suspension of disbelief is wearing thin. It's like when you put lockpicking into a fantasy game and let you break into vaults and chests but you can't break into random joe's house.
blink alt
Doomheim
#507 - 2013-05-29 12:31:58 UTC  |  Edited by: blink alt
CCP Bayesian wrote:
Nubchucker wrote:
I was pretty excited when I first read about the changes.

Finally I can do hacking/arch/exploration in an all in one ship \o/.

Imagine my disappointment to find T1 ships have a bonus to virus strength and T2 doesn't.

Basically due to the new hacking rigs etc I STILL need 2 ships.. A covert ops to scan the sites down and a T1 to run the site.

Seems stupid to me



It seemed silly to us as well so we're rebalancing that aspect of it.


Are we going to see that rebalancing in time for the launch of odyssey? Also, I think im not crazy and the most recent build had another down tweak on the strength of the scanning modules. I think it is at a pretty good point now, seems to leave room for virtue set and makes them useful. Are you happy with the current ballance of the added probe strength through modules and how that relates to the virtue set? Sorry to be off topic T T
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#508 - 2013-05-29 12:36:51 UTC
Raven Solaris wrote:
Scuzzy Logic wrote:
Brooks Puuntai wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
CCP Bayesian wrote:
We made a considered decision to not do that in order to release in a timely manner.

There seems to be a lot of that sentiment in Reykjavik right now.


I'm more curious on why they thought rushing a prototype(pinata) onto sisi 3 weeks prior to release was a good idea.


Protip: Strip the feature and scrap it from the patch! You'll be ready to release even faster!

Seriously Bayesian, decisions like these is the reason I might drop this game for good.


Sadly, I'll +1 this.

Last real thing I'm going to raise about this is why does Odyssey seem like it's adding magic into the game?

We have magic probes that teleport into your hold if you leave system, but if they have to move around system or are recalled manually, we wait for them to warp.

We have a magic tractor beam on all of our ships now that can only be used to tractor in a very specific type of can, and nothing else, and auto-loots them after a few seconds. Meanwhile our non-magic tractor beams can tractor anything, don't auto-loot the special cans and the things that they're tractoring in can suddenly disappear despite being right next to you.

My suspension of disbelief is wearing thin. It's like when you put lockpicking into a fantasy game and let you break into vaults and chests but you can't break into random joe's house.


In the interest of dispelling magic, I would suggest that perhaps the "magic tractor beam" is in one way or another integrated into the analyzer modules.
Scuzzy Logic
Space Spuds
#509 - 2013-05-29 12:36:59 UTC
Raven Solaris wrote:
Scuzzy Logic wrote:
Brooks Puuntai wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
CCP Bayesian wrote:
We made a considered decision to not do that in order to release in a timely manner.

There seems to be a lot of that sentiment in Reykjavik right now.


I'm more curious on why they thought rushing a prototype(pinata) onto sisi 3 weeks prior to release was a good idea.


Protip: Strip the feature and scrap it from the patch! You'll be ready to release even faster!

Seriously Bayesian, decisions like these is the reason I might drop this game for good.


Sadly, I'll +1 this.

Last real thing I'm going to raise about this is why does Odyssey seem like it's adding magic into the game?

We have magic probes that teleport into your hold if you leave system, but if they have to move around system or are recalled manually, we wait for them to warp.

We have a magic tractor beam on all of our ships now that can only be used to tractor in a very specific type of can, and nothing else, and auto-loots them after a few seconds. Meanwhile our non-magic tractor beams can tractor anything, don't auto-loot the special cans and the things that they're tractoring in can suddenly disappear despite being right next to you.

My suspension of disbelief is wearing thin. It's like when you put lockpicking into a fantasy game and let you break into vaults and chests but you can't break into random joe's house.


You know, when you put it like THAT it makes even less sense. I just considered the TB module to focus the pinata beam into a more focused form, but magic is a much better explanation for why the other unexplainable garbage happens.

The probe thing I raised serious concerns about in the other thread, due to having max-researched BPOs of all the probe types. People gating out represent more than 90% of our sales.

It's funny how the expansion that promised my favourite occupation a load of improvements is giving me a visual upgrade and a mechanic sh*tfest in perspective.
CCP Bayesian
#510 - 2013-05-29 12:45:28 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Bayesian
blink alt wrote:
Are we going to see that rebalancing in time for the launch of odyssey? Also, I think im not crazy and the most recent build had another down tweak on the strength of the scanning modules. I think it is at a pretty good point now, seems to leave room for virtue set and makes them useful. Are you happy with the current ballance of the added probe strength through modules and how that relates to the virtue set? Sorry to be off topic T T


Yes this rebalance will be in for release. I'm not the guy to talk to about tweaks to scanning modules.

FWIW we think the "mini tractor beam" goes part of the way to removing some of the magic from EVE. Namely how do you transfer loot from whatever contains it to your hold at a distance. To go the full way we would need to add the visualisation to the other actions where this happens.

EVE Software Engineer Team Space Glitter
spaceking7591
Collapsed Out
Pandemic Legion
#511 - 2013-05-29 12:46:28 UTC
Bienator II wrote:
CCP Bayesian wrote:
Maddan69 wrote:
Can we get a response from a Dev if they are even considering changing the variable which causes the Loot Explosion?

Instead of having two tries at the hacking mini-game either:
Failing the hack attempt you get the loot explosion.
Succeeding in the hack attempt you loot the container like you would normally.

Twenty-four pages of basically everyone calling this loot explosion mechanic horrible is not a good sign and this is just the people "testing" the mechanic... I don't even want to see the outcry on the forums the following days after the patch hits the live server if this mechanic is introduced as it currently stands.


We're talking about the scattering mechanic just now and are making a lot of changes to make it more usable.


make scattering a punishment for an unsuccessful hack, not something you have to do after you won the hacking game.


this, 100x this... the minigame as it stands is still way to difficult. even with lvl 5 skills. also didn't ccp want to remove rats from these sites? even if you fail? spawning rats when you fail a hack isn't a lot of fun. especially if you are in an exploration frigate. please CCP change it. because I won't be exploring anymore if these changes get on TQ.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#512 - 2013-05-29 12:50:50 UTC
spaceking7591 wrote:
Bienator II wrote:
CCP Bayesian wrote:
Maddan69 wrote:
Can we get a response from a Dev if they are even considering changing the variable which causes the Loot Explosion?

Instead of having two tries at the hacking mini-game either:
Failing the hack attempt you get the loot explosion.
Succeeding in the hack attempt you loot the container like you would normally.

Twenty-four pages of basically everyone calling this loot explosion mechanic horrible is not a good sign and this is just the people "testing" the mechanic... I don't even want to see the outcry on the forums the following days after the patch hits the live server if this mechanic is introduced as it currently stands.


We're talking about the scattering mechanic just now and are making a lot of changes to make it more usable.


make scattering a punishment for an unsuccessful hack, not something you have to do after you won the hacking game.


this, 100x this... the minigame as it stands is still way to difficult. even with lvl 5 skills. also didn't ccp want to remove rats from these sites? even if you fail? spawning rats when you fail a hack isn't a lot of fun. especially if you are in an exploration frigate. please CCP change it. because I won't be exploring anymore if these changes get on TQ.

Why do you feel you should still get loot for an unsuccessful hack?
The loot piñata is bad, but that would be worse. It would encourage blobing at data and relic sites with absolutely no hacking done at all.
The new failure method is the correct one, container destruction.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
#513 - 2013-05-29 13:01:38 UTC
CCP Bayesian wrote:
Ideas like the one Dax Buchanan mentioned of going deeper to get a chance at better loot are the sorts of additional mechanics we actively thinking about.

Well, at least my input gets considered.

Sovereignty and Population

New Mining Mechanics
Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices
Masters of Flying Objects
#514 - 2013-05-29 13:19:52 UTC
So what where all the changes made since yesterdays build.

If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide

See you around the universe.
Sven Viko VIkolander
In space we are briefly free
#515 - 2013-05-29 13:34:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Sven Viko VIkolander
After reading a lot of reviews on blogs and video reviews on youtube, I don't think there is anyone that actually enjoys the new sites. Most find some/most/all of it frustrating, from the amount of clicks, the randomness, and the spew mechanic esp. I don't see how they are an improvement over the current system, which yes isn't great (wait for a module to successfully open a can) but at least isn't frustrating like the new system. Given a choice between boring (but at least a bit relaxing) versus frustrating, the former is much preferable.
Honestly, this should be kept out of live until it is something the majority of players enjoy when testing. The co-op element should be co-op in the hacking game itself, and the spew mechanic should be removed or at least only used when, say, the player fails to beat the system core. The hacking game needs to actually be a puzzle game, rather than a random clickfest, where player foresight and thoughtfulness determine the outcome. EVE players are patient and most, I think, would prefer things stay in development until they are quality (e.g., the way many ship rebalances have been done).
MainDrain
Applied Anarchy
The Initiative.
#516 - 2013-05-29 13:48:15 UTC
CCP Bayesian wrote:
Nubchucker wrote:
I was pretty excited when I first read about the changes.

Finally I can do hacking/arch/exploration in an all in one ship \o/.

Imagine my disappointment to find T1 ships have a bonus to virus strength and T2 doesn't.

Basically due to the new hacking rigs etc I STILL need 2 ships.. A covert ops to scan the sites down and a T1 to run the site.

Seems stupid to me



It seemed silly to us as well so we're rebalancing that aspect of it.


Is this some sort of confirmation that the bonuses will be present on the T2 Cov ops hulls??
Kel hound
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#517 - 2013-05-29 13:55:13 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Forgive me if I am mistaken, but were all Data and Relic sites supposed to have no rats?
Worm Hole Data and Relic Sites still seem to have sleepers.


This should not be the case. Filed a quick bug report and added to the known problems in the OP.



Is this still the case? I just warped out of a C3 relic site with 5 - 6 cruisers and 6 - 8 frigates. Is this working as intended?
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#518 - 2013-05-29 14:02:08 UTC
Kel hound wrote:
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Forgive me if I am mistaken, but were all Data and Relic sites supposed to have no rats?
Worm Hole Data and Relic Sites still seem to have sleepers.


This should not be the case. Filed a quick bug report and added to the known problems in the OP.



Is this still the case? I just warped out of a C3 relic site with 5 - 6 cruisers and 6 - 8 frigates. Is this working as intended?

No it is not still the case, it was decided to leave the sleepers in wormholes alone.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Itis Zhellin
#519 - 2013-05-29 14:05:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Itis Zhellin
Agree 120% that the exploration part should be left out from the next week expansion and work on it untill you get a positive feedback from the players. Why we need to shoot the Jita monument just to get us heard? As it is now, the exploration part is a total disaster.
CCP Bayesian
#520 - 2013-05-29 14:06:16 UTC
MainDrain wrote:
Is this some sort of confirmation that the bonuses will be present on the T2 Cov ops hulls??


Yup. T1 will have a +5 Strength bonus and T2 +10.

EVE Software Engineer Team Space Glitter