These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Feedback for Hacking/Archaeology feature from 27/5/13 onward

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nicola Arman
Deep Maw Salvage
#221 - 2013-05-30 00:08:51 UTC
Though....

Seriously....

What's the difference between Relic and Data Sites?? It's the same thing! Shocked Whyyy??

They're exactly the same process. Different module... Cry
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#222 - 2013-05-30 00:14:53 UTC
Did a Null Sec Relic site, collected 9 cans with a Tengu.
I did a cargo scan of it first to have something to compare my results with.
http://i.imgur.com/DopUWcs.jpg?1

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Naomi Hale
#223 - 2013-05-30 00:53:44 UTC
Ali Aras wrote:
I understand that people are mad about that, but I feel that that's something for them to get over and start treating like a challenge. If loot values are still too low, they can be tweaked a bit. EVE isn't supposed to be easy.

Not trolling, Genuinely curious. Aren't you, as a CSM, supposed to represent the people? That statement seems counterintuitive.

I'm Naomi Hale and this is my favourite thread on the forums.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#224 - 2013-05-30 00:56:16 UTC
The Virus Suppressors are still to strong, hitting one is pretty much end hacking in null sec. Either there coherence needs lowered or there suppression needs to be adjusted so it doesn't reduce you to 10.
As it stands they have a strength of 20 and a coherence of 80 whilst crippling you to 10 strength.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Nicola Arman
Deep Maw Salvage
#225 - 2013-05-30 01:17:09 UTC
I don't think you're guaranteed to win.
Johan Toralen
IIIJIIIITIIII
#226 - 2013-05-30 01:17:29 UTC
Here is a common issue that i have with the loot spew. It's one of the things that makes it so clunky and rage inducing for me:

http://i.imgur.com/SMe1Iu1.jpg

I want to see what the can at the red arrow is. But the mouse doesn't register it. I actualy have to move the mouse into the yellow area to see the name or to select the can. This happens a lot when cans are close together. It wastes precious time and is frustrating. Hence i wrote earlier that the slower cans, while making one issue better make another one worse.

Another problem that now starts to go on my nerves more and more is cans flying behind ui elements which makes for some hectic camera adjustments to grab them. I already freed up as much space as possible in the center of the screen. It's still an issue and i have a big screen. This is gonna infuriate people with small screens. Therefore among other reasons please reconsider to put the cans in the overview.

Naomi Hale wrote:
Ali Aras wrote:
I understand that people are mad about that, but I feel that that's something for them to get over and start treating like a challenge. If loot values are still too low, they can be tweaked a bit. EVE isn't supposed to be easy.

Not trolling, Genuinely curious. Aren't you, as a CSM, supposed to represent the people? That statement seems counterintuitive.


Yea i don't get it. Among the very few positive voices two CSM members. Looks like brown nosing to me. If anything CSM should be even mnore mad then regular players since they wern't consulted on the exploration changes. The conduct is noted and taken into consideration for the next election.
Suicidal Blonde
Alchemical Aquisitions
#227 - 2013-05-30 01:39:11 UTC
Ive been watching this for a while. The concern with loot spew being too slow as I see it is that it defeats the whole purpose of its introduction. Whilst I'm not a fan I'd rather it existed for a reason. Specifically the stated intention to promote multi player.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#228 - 2013-05-30 01:50:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Omnathious Deninard
My final test for tonight.
http://i.imgur.com/FykOGd3.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/rdR2TzH.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/UusZKJr.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/4x2427E.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/8fJzic3.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/HvDdkfn.jpg

The system now is something that is manageable for a single person, but will work best still with a team mate.
Edit: I wod like to note that on these sites I was consistently getting 8 cans.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Ali Aras
Nobody in Local
Deepwater Hooligans
#229 - 2013-05-30 02:48:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Ali Aras
Naomi Hale wrote:
Ali Aras wrote:
I understand that people are mad about that, but I feel that that's something for them to get over and start treating like a challenge. If loot values are still too low, they can be tweaked a bit. EVE isn't supposed to be easy.

Not trolling, Genuinely curious. Aren't you, as a CSM, supposed to represent the people? That statement seems counterintuitive.

It is mathematically impossible for me to represent all the players, and the people who have issues with the spew are so effectively representing yourselves in this thread Blink Given that, I must state my honest and genuine perspective for which I was elected, having marked it with my prior relevant history in similar tasks and disclaimed any representation of the majority (and yes, I realize most of my campaign was run on NPE-- I've given *that* feedback on this feature too, and not all of it was nice). I've spent hours testing this, partly on the urging of the players, and I've given feedback other places than this.

Johan Toralen wrote:

Yea i don't get it. Among the very few positive voices two CSM members. Looks like brown nosing to me. If anything CSM should be even mnore mad then regular players since they wern't consulted on the exploration changes. The conduct is noted and taken into consideration for the next election.

Not all feedback I've given has been in this and the previous thread. Notably, the following:
CCP RedDawn wrote:
In related news we've made the following changes:
...
Lowered the Coherence of the Anti-Virus Suppressors in difficulty tier 3.
Lowered the Virus Strength stat bonus on all the Tech I exploration frigates from +10 to + 5.
Given all the Tech II exploration frigates a +10 Virus Strength stat bonus.
...
CCP RedDawn

was brought to you at least in part by the feedback from myself and mynnna (with testing assist from CCP Affinity, thanks!). The words I used w.r.t playing without the +10 bonus were "frustrating", "feels random and senseless" and "Based on solely the covops test, I would not use this feature on TQ". Please explain how this constitutes brown-nosing.

http://warp-to-sun.tumblr.com -- my blog
Panhead4411
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services
The Possum Lodge
#230 - 2013-05-30 02:55:02 UTC
Manssell wrote:

Just need to ask, since I've seen it asked dozens of times and have yet to see it answered (if it has been I'm sorry), but what the bloody ell are you guys referring to when you say "tier"? I assume it's the hierarchy of difficulty to the games but what are they, how many? Everyone seems to be assuming it's a reference to Hi-sec, Low-sec, and 0.0 but as I far as I know this is just an assumption.


CCP RedDawn wrote:
In response to the above questions since my post.

When "tier" is used it means the difficulty level of the loot containers and it ranges from 1 to 4. (Easy to Hard)
Also, we're going to be looking at the Tech III bonuses soon. (but not soon™)
I'll post more when things change.


So, how does that actually answer the question? Yes we all figured the higher "tier" level is harder...but what is that rating tied to? System Sec status? Random Number Generator? CCP Tuxfords whim?

We asked a simple 'what is this rating tied to?" question, and you responded with something along the lines of, "yes, it is a rating."

http://blog.beyondreality.se/shift-click-does-nothing    < Unified Inventory is NOT ready...
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#231 - 2013-05-30 02:55:54 UTC  |  Edited by: mynnna
Naomi Hale wrote:
Ali Aras wrote:
I understand that people are mad about that, but I feel that that's something for them to get over and start treating like a challenge. If loot values are still too low, they can be tweaked a bit. EVE isn't supposed to be easy.

Not trolling, Genuinely curious. Aren't you, as a CSM, supposed to represent the people? That statement seems counterintuitive.

Yes, I'm here to represent the players. Of course, I'm allowed to think for myself as well, and I rather liked the notion of things that you actually have to cooperate with others to leverage to their fullest potential. So, if (as in this case) I believe people are being spoiled little whiners, stamping their feet and demanding ALL THE THINGS, I'm going to tell them as much.

I sincerely hope that CCP doesn't abandon the original intent of the can spray and that future iterations on this feature bring back sites that really do require cooperation. Multiplayer hacking to release multiple can sprays and the like, perhaps.

And in the meantime, since the loot is currently (in theory?) tuned to be rewarding for two players working to get all the cans, I hope they dial it back, since after all, one player getting loot meant for two would be a bit too good, right? Blink

Johan Toralen wrote:
Yea i don't get it. Among the very few positive voices two CSM members. Looks like brown nosing to me. If anything CSM should be even mnore mad then regular players since they wern't consulted on the exploration changes. The conduct is noted and taken into consideration for the next election.


There is no Roll big enough for this post. Practically every part of it is wrong.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Flamespar
WarRavens
#232 - 2013-05-30 02:58:11 UTC
I'm enjoying the exploration a lot more. I think the difficulty of the sites could be increased though.

The only thing I would suggest is adding the following.

It would be great if each time you destroyed a system core, you were given the choice to go a level deeper into the system, or to jettison the accessed cargo. Each time you enter a deeper level it becomes more complex and difficult, yet the potential rewards become greater. Of course the risk of failure should also escalate with every additional level.
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#233 - 2013-05-30 03:03:44 UTC
Flamespar wrote:
It would be great if each time you destroyed a system core, you were given the choice to go a level deeper into the system, or to jettison the accessed cargo. Each time you enter a deeper level it becomes more complex and difficult, yet the potential rewards become greater. Of course the risk of failure should also escalate with every additional level.


Now this, I like. This seems like a Good Idea™.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Ali Aras
Nobody in Local
Deepwater Hooligans
#234 - 2013-05-30 03:04:34 UTC
Flamespar wrote:
I'm enjoying the exploration a lot more. I think the difficulty of the sites could be increased though.

The only thing I would suggest is adding the following.

It would be great if each time you destroyed a system core, you were given the choice to go a level deeper into the system, or to jettison the accessed cargo. Each time you enter a deeper level it becomes more complex and difficult, yet the potential rewards become greater. Of course the risk of failure should also escalate with every additional level.

I'm going to represent the player base a little and +1 the hell out of this Blink

Bonus points if the double-or-nothing mechanic is easier with a friend, maintaining the intent of more multiplayer PvE.

http://warp-to-sun.tumblr.com -- my blog
Flamespar
WarRavens
#235 - 2013-05-30 03:07:01 UTC
OMG. CSM agreeing with my post.

Body shutting down .. can't cope with positivity on EVE forums
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#236 - 2013-05-30 03:08:32 UTC
Flamespar wrote:
OMG. CSM agreeing with my post.

Body shutting down .. can't cope with positivity on EVE forums


Obviously, we're brownnosing.


I mean I don't know how that actually works here, but it's obvious.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#237 - 2013-05-30 03:13:13 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
http://i.imgur.com/pQ94uKh.jpg
Holy **** CCP, are you serious? What's all this ridiculous particulate crap? It's killing my graphics and it's here for no reason. I also have GPU particles turned off, but it seems you're just ignoring that setting with every new little cloud and smoke, etc.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Telrei
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#238 - 2013-05-30 03:15:05 UTC
mynnna wrote:


I sincerely hope that CCP doesn't abandon the original intent of the can spray and that future iterations on this feature bring back sites that really do require cooperation. Multiplayer hacking to release multiple can sprays and the like, perhaps.

And in the meantime, since the loot is currently (in theory?) tuned to be rewarding for two players working to get all the cans, I hope they dial it back, since after all, one player getting loot meant for two would be a bit too good, right? [;)


They should abandon the can spew because it solves a problem in the complete opposite way of EvE...

As many have stated before NOWHERE ELSE from mining, running plexes, missioning, PvE, PvP, High Sec, Low Sec, Null Sec, does the end goal involve a time sensitive reward factor.

The punishment is never AFTER you trigger the reward it is always before.

If I bring a Battleship into a 10/10 complex I get obliterated....
I am not able to kill all mobs and then suddenly as soon as I kill the overseer I need to grab six cargo containers before they despawn. Soo I might get the tag or I might get that shield booster but not both....

No it is I bring at least a group of people to provide logistical support as well as added DPS and we see what goodies we have uncovered when the overseer is destroyed ..

That is what hacking and the arch sides need to be as I and many others have stated...

Have multi-tiered levels that require multiple people to hack at once..
Have the better sites constantly spew out NPCs so that a fleet is constantly needed to shield the hacker at every turn while hes trying to hack the system.
Have it so that to even begin the hack you need a fleet to kill off the mobs.
There are a lot of different ways to do it that don't focus on making Hacking and Arch into a group tablet game clickfest.....
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#239 - 2013-05-30 03:36:07 UTC
"It's always been this way, so it always should be that way" makes things pretty boring.

Also, every single one of the ways you suggested to make it "multiplayer" just makes it "multi-account". Any of them could be multiboxed. The unique thing about the spray is that multiboxing it and being better off than having a genuine second person would be rather difficult. That's a good thing, because cooperation isn't cooperation when it involves your alts.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
#240 - 2013-05-30 03:51:43 UTC
Telrei wrote:
They should abandon the can spew because it solves a problem in the complete opposite way of EvE...
Well yes, pretty much anybody with a lick of sense can look at the can spew and agree that is a particularly terrible way to encourage group play. One person is actively doing something, the other sits and twiddles his thumbs until the time comes where he gets to play janitor. Not very engaging. BUT.... it's here to stay. They've been pretty clear on that fact. No matter how much we hate it, somebody in CCP got very attached to the can spew gimmick. Adapt to it, or just quit exploration. Not trying to be a ****, just trying to be practical. CCP is fixated, and no matter how much we whine, complain, or even on rare occasions use well crafted logical arguments, they ain't gonna change their mind.

Sure, the obvious and simple alternative to encourage group play would have been a multiplayer hacking mini-game, or even just have two separate games on a time limit so it'd be unfeasible to mutlibox. But we didn't get that. Instead we got loot bukkake. And we'll just have to live with it. Cuz they are committed to it.