These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sheena Tzash
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#261 - 2013-05-30 09:01:59 UTC
I'm actually waiting for the hack troll to arrive.

Existing System:

Only the hacker really knows if its open or not and most likely will open the can and loot it straight away.

New System:

Everyone nearby knows when a hack was successful as loot is sprayed all over the place.

The troll:

Sit near a hacking site cloaked and wait for someone to hack the site for you. At the loot is released, uncloak and click away.
Since you don't need to lock the container to loot it you don't need to worry about the lock delay.

Yeah they can shoot at you but I would guess that most exploration ships will be the tinfoil T1 frigs with very limited offensive abilities; you can turn up in pretty much anything and do better.

To be honest I can see what they are trying to do with the loot mechanic but I just don't think its just not fun interesting gameplay that would be interesting enough for groups to participate in. You don't even have rats in sites to deal with to require someone in a combat ship to help clear them out - so anyone you bring will be left sitting around doing nothing right until the loot spray occurs at which point you've pretty much done all the work and they will take some of the credit.
Andreus Ixiris
Duty.
SE7EN-SINS
#262 - 2013-05-30 09:54:06 UTC
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:
[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.

Well then we just have to try harder to get their attention, because this is bad for the game, and anything bad for the game is bad for CCP.

We've been right before. We were right about how terrible an idea racelocking character creation content was. We were right about how terrible an idea the NeX prices were. We were right about how terribe an idea releasing CQ/WiS in a completely unfinished state was. We were right about the Sanctum nerfs. We were right about Incarna. We were right about a whole lot of things.

If CCP wants a test server, they should listen to the goddamn testers.

Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.

Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.

Andreus Ixiris > ...

Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.

Lady Manus
Lumen et Umbra
#263 - 2013-05-30 10:06:19 UTC
mynnna wrote:
[quote=Telrei][quote=mynnna]"It's always been this way, so it always should be that way" makes things pretty boring.


"You can't run a 10/10 that easily multi-boxed"
Then make the high level hacking sites as difficult to run multi-boxed without this new gimmick

Maybe they'll get to that someday.


Imprving the game overall mean to means to me, improving it to all the playstyles.

Improving group play while discouraging solo players is bad.
Improving group play and solo play is good.

In this particular case i also think that:
- most explorers do it alone so you'll end up discouragin more ppl than the ones you'll encourage
- this new mechanic is quit complex for newbies so you'll end up making exploration more for veteran/organized corps than for new players... and it's bad imho

LM
Andreus Ixiris
Duty.
SE7EN-SINS
#264 - 2013-05-30 10:43:57 UTC
CCP Bayesian wrote:
For the people saying the 'loot pinata sucks' and the like could you vocalise the problems you have with it?

So far I've collated:
- It's not the way EVE has previously worked.
- Collision is a pain, both with the size of the Data Sites and the positioning of some containers.
- Picking can be difficult if you're not using a mouse.
- Picking can be difficult if you're blinded by the site contents.
- Loot haul seems low in comparison with how it was before.
- Losing cans feels bad, particular after the effort of having to hack the container. This makes it feel like a penalty.
- Not knowing what is any particular can so it feels bad not being able to make good choices.
- The 'bad loot' is far too bulky so it is excessively penalising as you have to stop and sort it out.

I find this post disappointing given that players have been vocalising their problems with this system in depth for over 40 pages across two threads for nearly a month at this point.

In summary:

1. The loot pinata system is not fun. This is the most important and most essential issue with the mechanic. It's not fun. It's not enjoyable. After having expended the effort to play the minigame (which is fun but somewhat limited), having the loot that we worked for scatter everywhere and vanish after far too short a time feels... disappointing. It doesn't feel rewarding, it doesn't feel like you've accomplished something. It is irritating to chase after the cans, it's irritating to have to click on all of them individually, it's irritating to have them disappear, it's irritating to have little to no idea what you're picking up until you have it. The entire system is irritating, and irritating isn't fun. You've made a mechanic in your game that does not serve the player's enjoyment of it, and this is a bad thing that game developers should not do, because one of the core principles of good video game design is that each and every element of a game should further the player's engagement with and enjoyment of it.

2. The loot pinata system feels arbitrary. The fact that we have a magical tractor beam that can only move these specific types of cans and nothing else feels incongrous. The fact that you can't add the cans to overview and that they don't "stack" when you mouse over multiple items at a time feels incongrous. The fact that I'm apparently a masterful enough hacker to get past super-powerful Guristas mainframe security but not skilled enough to simply stop it from spewing everything everywhere feels incongrous. The fact that there's very little way to tell what's in the cans you're trying to pick up makes the system feel random and deeply unpredictable, like I'm playing Magic: The Gathering with someone else's deck. Please don't think that removing the arbitrary nature will actually make the spew itself fun, but it most certainly does make a bad idea worse.

3. The loot pinata system does not encourage teamwork, but will encourage theft. There is literally nothing else a fleet member can do while someone's hacking other than keep watch on D-scan and shoot any rats that appear (which, if the hacker is good, will not happen). The only useful thing a fleet member can do is pick up the cans after the hack is finished, which means that in terms of exploration you're only able to bring fleet members along for help with the least interesting parts of the experience. However, a random thief can sit cloaked off the object someone's hacking and then immediately start scooping spew cans with no penalty - no aggression timer, nothing. I'm not in any way against thievery, but when you make it easier (or at the very least no more difficult) for the thieves than the other members of a team, it doesn't send the right message.

4. The loot pinata system disrupts the flow of the exploration profession. You have to spend a fair amount of time sitting relatively immobile in space doing the minigame. This isn't a problem. The hacking minigame is fun. But then you have to spend another minute or two randomly flailing around trying to get the cans before moving onto the next minigame. This seriously breaks the flow of the experience. This might seem a weak point in comparison to the other three but it's yet another irritation.

Bayesian, most of the things you're addressing in your post are symptoms of the loot pinata mechanic. The problem is the mechanic itself.

Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.

Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.

Andreus Ixiris > ...

Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.

Sheena Tzash
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#265 - 2013-05-30 11:03:10 UTC
Andreus Ixiris wrote:
However, a random thief can sit cloaked off the object someone's hacking and then immediately start scooping spew cans with no penalty - no aggression timer, nothing


I believe that they added Crimewatch to the cans themselves so that if someone took them they'd be marked as a suspect - but I doubt that's hardly a deterrent.

I agree with all of your points but I suspect that since we're so close to release the general opinion from the devs is that its too far gone to revise now, and everyone else will simply disregard it as being negative because we're all sore about potentially losing a bit of loot.

Personally I think this whole mechanic is going to go down like a fart in a space suit simply because this expansion is supposed to be all about exploration and while the scanning mechanic has been much improved the REASON for scanning (ie, running exploration sites) has been made more tedious and annoying with the addition of an uninteresting mini game and a forced in loot spewing mechanism because "it seemed like a good idea at the time"
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#266 - 2013-05-30 11:09:24 UTC
I would like to take this particular moment to say that I, for one, find the hacking minigame to be fun and interesting.

The loot spew is .. less fun .. but it's not altogether impossible to adapt to.

Now if only we had those new mini-containers that "hint at what might be inside".
Kai Pirinha
#267 - 2013-05-30 11:12:56 UTC
The hacking is doable, but frankly what I really do not appreciate is that "grab what you can"-experience.
This is maybe fun once or twice, but if you are looking for a stable(!) income, than this makes those sites completely unattractive.

Sorry but even though it looked nice, I find this new system of loot utterly disgusting and have no fun in it.

My five cents. Of course others may have different opinions and try to convince me why it's better (or not). I just wanted to give you my personal input.

Hello World

Raven Solaris
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#268 - 2013-05-30 11:25:49 UTC
Kai Pirinha wrote:
The hacking is doable, but frankly what I really do not appreciate is that "grab what you can"-experience.
This is maybe fun once or twice, but if you are looking for a stable(!) income, than this makes those sites completely unattractive.

Sorry but even though it looked nice, I find this new system of loot utterly disgusting and have no fun in it.

My five cents. Of course others may have different opinions and try to convince me why it's better (or not). I just wanted to give you my personal input.


Doubtful, what you just said is the general consensus.

Hacking = good, room for growth.
Loot pinata = can jump out of a tenth-story window.
Raven Solaris
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#269 - 2013-05-30 12:26:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Raven Solaris
Raven Solaris wrote:
I mean really does anyone want to come onto the test server now and be the guy who just sits around waiting while I hack?

If you want co-op in the hacking sites, and I really think it'd be cool, it should be in the hacking itself, not in a ridiculous pinata with a magic tractor beam.


No really, if anyone needs a demonstration in why it's bad co-op, I'm more than willing to go site hunting/running with you on Sisi.

http://puu.sh/34ocU.jpg
Naomi Hale
#270 - 2013-05-30 12:33:50 UTC
Rytell Tybat wrote:
Great ideas! Depth and a bit of mystery all tied into the lore? This really puts CCP's version of archeology to shame. Would love to see something like this in-game.

Seth Asthereun wrote:
This for archeology. Really you should hire him/her

Ruskarn Andedare wrote:
I absolutely love your proposal there - it's close to what I was hoping for when I took up exploring. Cool

Thanks! Fingers crossed we get something like it in the future Big smile

Scuzzy Logic wrote:
YOu'd be surprised. Many people came back to WoW just to play the Archaeology minigame profession even if it is long, tedious and less rewarding then doing dungeons just because they like it.

It shames me greatly that I started playing WoW when they added the archaeology mini-game and after reaching max level with a paladin and completeing all the Archeology sets I left the game as it got really dull. Not gone back since, but I always come back to EVE.

I'm Naomi Hale and this is my favourite thread on the forums.

Ruskarn Andedare
Lion Investments
#271 - 2013-05-30 12:41:31 UTC
Raven Solaris wrote:
Raven Solaris wrote:
I mean really does anyone want to come onto the test server now and be the guy who just sits around waiting while I hack?

If you want co-op in the hacking sites, and I really think it'd be cool, it should be in the hacking itself, not in a ridiculous pinata with a magic tractor beam.


No really, if anyone needs a demonstration in why it's bad co-op, I'm more than willing to go site hunting/running with you on Sisi.

http://puu.sh/34ocU.jpg


Thanks but no thanks, I'd rather do drone sites right now.
Johan Toralen
IIIJIIIITIIII
#272 - 2013-05-30 12:56:48 UTC
If multiboxing is the enemy there's a simple solution: ban multiboxing.
Of course that's not gonna happen because it's massively important to CCP's income stream. So let's not get all hypocritical and implement game mechanics against multiboxing to the detrimental of those who like a profession that never was a multiboxing heaven to begin with.

Seeing as this thread has become a little chaotic and it's hard to follow what everybody stands for here is a sum up of my opinion:

- hacking has potential, can be enjoyable with some tweaks and should be the center of the new sites
- spew = bad. I don't see it ever to become fun and feeling rewarding since the design is flawed on a fundamental level and not a matter of fine tuning
- average income should be higher then on old sites because profession sites are now a more specialized activity and require to decide between focussing on them or combat sites.

As it stands i'm gonna stop doing profession sites on TQ and focus solely on combat sites. It remains to be seen what the overall effect is. Whether it stops a lot of veterans to run the sites or excites a new generation of explorers. My money is on veterans being put off. When someone like Jonny Pew, who many new explorers look up to has not much positives to say about the new sites that should give you a hint.
Ruskarn Andedare
Lion Investments
#273 - 2013-05-30 13:29:48 UTC
Johan Toralen wrote:

- average income should be higher then on old sites because profession sites are now a more specialized activity and require to decide between focussing on them or combat sites.

As it stands i'm gonna stop doing profession sites on TQ and focus solely on combat sites. It remains to be seen what the overall effect is. Whether it stops a lot of veterans to run the sites or excites a new generation of explorers. My money is on veterans being put off. When someone like Jonny Pew, who many new explorers look up to has not much positives to say about the new sites that should give you a hint.


This bit can't be emphasised enough.

ATM a lot of explorer types put a single codebreaker or analyzer on their primarily PVE combat ships just in case a decent site pops up or there aren't any combat sigs around.

The new professional sites pretty much require the ship to be optimised for them so these changes will likely lead to a splitting of exploration where some stick to the (waaay more fun and profitable atm) combat sites while others only run the hacking sites. Given that the new professional sites will likely be of more interest to those that are newer to scanning would it not make sense that they also become a little easier to scan down?
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#274 - 2013-05-30 13:32:15 UTC
Ruskarn Andedare wrote:
Johan Toralen wrote:

- average income should be higher then on old sites because profession sites are now a more specialized activity and require to decide between focussing on them or combat sites.

As it stands i'm gonna stop doing profession sites on TQ and focus solely on combat sites. It remains to be seen what the overall effect is. Whether it stops a lot of veterans to run the sites or excites a new generation of explorers. My money is on veterans being put off. When someone like Jonny Pew, who many new explorers look up to has not much positives to say about the new sites that should give you a hint.


This bit can't be emphasised enough.

ATM a lot of explorer types put a single codebreaker or analyzer on their primarily PVE combat ships just in case a decent site pops up or there aren't any combat sigs around.

The new professional sites pretty much require the ship to be optimised for them so these changes will likely lead to a splitting of exploration where some stick to the (waaay more fun and profitable atm) combat sites while others only run the hacking sites. Given that the new professional sites will likely be of more interest to those that are newer to scanning would it not make sense that they also become a little easier to scan down?

good, it is well that there is variation in exploration
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#275 - 2013-05-30 13:48:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Freighdee Katt
Andreus Ixiris wrote:
Bayesian, most of the things you're addressing in your post are symptoms of the loot pinata mechanic. The problem is the mechanic itself.

This, more than anything. Andreus said everything there is to say about this. It's clear to see by now that you all have no intention of listening to this feedback, which has been repeated often and loudly since this mechanic was first proposed. And that's sad. It is ironic, but unsurprising, that the "Exploration Expansion" basically means killing exploration as a fun, interesting, or in any way desirable profession.

You have ruined non-combat exploration as a solo profession, and what is worse, you also ruined it as a noob friendly profession. The old exploration was one of the greatest things in the game for a day zero player, because you could hop in a cheap ship, with little SP, go wander around the universe, and make yourself a few million. It had its issues, and it took some patience, but you felt like with a little bit of time invested and some luck you really could get something out of the game right away, and get a start on making some real money. Now it is just annoying and frustrating even with maxed skills and the best gear, and with sub optimal kit, it's just a huge waste of time.

People who are dedicated explorers with all Vs will try it out, get annoyed, and either sell or shelve their explo rigs until someone at CCP who was not involved in creating the loot pinata takes a look at it, sees how bad it is, and decides to just take it out. New players will just ignore it and move on to something more rewarding and less frustrating, which basically means missioning. And that's sad, because you've somehow managed to make what was one of the cleverest and most unique professions even less appealing than the most boring and grindy form of PvE in the game.

EvE is supposed to suck.  Wait . . . what was the question?

mynnna
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#276 - 2013-05-30 14:04:49 UTC
Palal wrote:
blink alt wrote:
CCP Bayesian wrote:
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.


Will the t3 scanning sub system get +10 too?



^^^ +1

Please make the T3's viable.. Played several null sec sites just now before singularity went offline. I was able to finish 2 and several I couldn't finish. Using the T1 module and hacking:4 & arch:4. So I'm not terrible.

PRO TIP: You're goning to want cargo hold extenders on your ships! Nothing worse than grabbing cans and not having enough room!


Cross-quoting from the other thread.

However, I feel that T3 subs should have a different bonus (if they get a bonus), perhaps to coherence, so that it's a choice rather than clearly better... especially as T3 is not intended to be "clearly better" than T2 anyway!

However, since a strength bonus is effectively a coherence bonus (by letting you kill defensive modules faster), a coherence bonus would have to be rather large to be competitive...

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Raven Solaris
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#277 - 2013-05-30 14:13:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Raven Solaris
mynnna wrote:
Palal wrote:
blink alt wrote:
CCP Bayesian wrote:
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.


Will the t3 scanning sub system get +10 too?



^^^ +1

Please make the T3's viable.. Played several null sec sites just now before singularity went offline. I was able to finish 2 and several I couldn't finish. Using the T1 module and hacking:4 & arch:4. So I'm not terrible.

PRO TIP: You're goning to want cargo hold extenders on your ships! Nothing worse than grabbing cans and not having enough room!


Cross-quoting from the other thread.

However, I feel that T3 subs should have a different bonus (if they get a bonus), perhaps to coherence, so that it's a choice rather than clearly better... especially as T3 is not intended to be "clearly better" than T2 anyway!

However, since a strength bonus is effectively a coherence bonus (by letting you kill defensive modules faster), a coherence bonus would have to be rather large to be competitive...


What if T3s had a utility system at the start of a hack?

Edit - Maybe the one that negates 2 attacks? Certainly justifies the expense of a T3 and gives the T3 a more defensive bonus while the CovOps has the more offensive bonus with the virus strength. Like you said, if it was a coherance boost the T3s got, it would have to be pretty damn big to make it competetive with the CovOps' strength boost.
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
#278 - 2013-05-30 14:25:17 UTC
mynnna wrote:
"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.


First off, so this doesn't come off wrong I want to say I'm a big supporter of you guys on the CSM, you've volunteered for a thankless terrible job. Now here's why I think your view of this is completely wrong Big smile

I don't multi-box, but since when does Eve discourage multi-boxers? Where else in game does the game design try to eliminate the use of two accounts? Why is it perfectly fine for some poor guy to loose his shiny ship in a 1v1 that turns into a 3v1 when a multi-boxer jumps his two alts through a gate, but that same poor guy can't run two accounts to make back the isk for that ship if he happens to do exploration?! Are you going to support a new fleet window that is designed to discourage multi-acounts from coming to fleet fights now?

As someone wonderfully pointed out to you on the original thread, how big a supporter of this would you be if the loot spew mechanic was added to moon mining, something a person can pick up solo right now. You know to encourage group play. Have the POS spew out the moon goo in cans that drift away and disappear so you need to bring a friend to grab it all before it's gone? Are you pushing for that to go into the game once exploration is done? Should market orders now require one to be present in two stations to place a region order to encourage people to trade with a friend? Should research now require two people to start a job or then get less of a chance to invent? Why are we singling out exploration for special encouragement mechanics?

The simple fact is CCP is playing social engineering with the exploration profession, something that is extremely unsandboxy. I honestly feel the only reason this is getting CSM support is because we are not a political block ourselves. And what's really annoying here, All this is just a few weeks after CCP Seagull stood up in front of everyone at Fanfest and said that solo play was a play stye they support when designing the game. Yet the very first expansion since then the major feature is a mechanic design specifically to make a solo play style a pain in the ass! I guess the nod to solo at Fanfest was just a way for Seagull to buy some cover?

But here's the big problem "bringing a friend" has always been a more efficient more rewarding way to do exploration! The way the system works on TQ now, it is much faster for one person to scan in a scanning ship, and another person to run the site with a combat ship while the scanner grabs the loot. The incentive has always been there to do this as a team. Two people scanning is faster and makes more isk than one, and that's the way every other activity in Eve scales with group play. You are more efficient, have more firepower or both. This loot spew was never needed, encouragement was already there just like it is everywhere else.

The simple fact is exploration has always been kinda a solo activity with the types of players it attracts. Why are we now suddenly making their play style more frustrating for the sake of the mythical gang of explores? If CCP looked at exploration and wondered why so many do it solo, then perhaps they should have oh I don't know, asked the exploration community first why that is and then worked out a better way to encourage more groups from that (hint: dungeon design!) rather than throw together this awful mechanic that is not fun, is an awful clickfest, makes you feel as though you loose even if you win and is generally just a bad game design.


Look I get that this is happening, it is far too late in the process for this amount of work to be scraped, but the people against this are not "whining", they are trying to limit the impact of this terrible gameplay that is being thrust on them for social engineering reasons in a supposed sandbox game.
Johan Toralen
IIIJIIIITIIII
#279 - 2013-05-30 14:29:54 UTC
No give T3 the same if not better bonus. They gonna be used for nullsec mostly due to interdiction nullifier where the hardest sites are. No point using an expensive T3 for low sec profession sites after Odyssey. Takes a lot of low sec sites to break even on the investment and you gonna lose ships with the fast probing down of sites, the distraction of the new mechanics and being a sitting duck right near warp in point. Ban them from hisec sites if you want. At least that would be consistent with the changes to 3/10 and 4/10.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#280 - 2013-05-30 14:31:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco
mynnna wrote:

Cross-quoting from the other thread.

However, I feel that T3 subs should have a different bonus (if they get a bonus), perhaps to coherence, so that it's a choice rather than clearly better... especially as T3 is not intended to be "clearly better" than T2 anyway!

However, since a strength bonus is effectively a coherence bonus (by letting you kill defensive modules faster), a coherence bonus would have to be rather large to be competitive...


Perhaps a +5 bonus to Strength on par with a T1 frigate, but with the ability to have four (or perhaps five) utility slots instead of three. Possibly a 30% reduction in Coherence lost during attacks if extra utility slots isn't a viable/good idea.

According to the chart I can absolutely never find when I need it (the one shown at Fanfest this year detailing the relationship of T1, Faction,Pirate,T2 and T3 in terms of "Improvement", "Specialization" and "Generalization"), T3s are supposed to be generally better than T1s and overwhelmingly more versatile than anything else in the game. Kind of a of a Swiss Army Space-knife.

Just slapping some kind of Strength/Coherence bonus onto the subsystem doesn't seem suitable, IMO. A T2 scanning ship gets a bigger version of the same bonus as a T1 because the T2 ships are direct improvements over T1 ships. T3s are unique, however, and so their bonuses should reflect it by being equally unique and equally focused on superior versatility.

Ultimately, I would say T3 bonuses should wait until the appropriate team has had an opportunity to iterate a little more on the minigame. It will give some time to see what sort of bonuses might be useful as well.

EDIT: I saw this and couldn't just leave it alone. How typical of me.
Johan Toralen wrote:
No give T3 the same if not better bonus. They gonna be used for nullsec mostly due to interdiction nullifier where the hardest sites are. No point using an expensive T3 for low sec profession sites after Odyssey. Takes a lot of low sec sites to break even on the investment and you gonna lose ships with the fast probing down of sites, the distraction of the new mechanics and being a sitting duck right near warp in point. Ban them from hisec sites if you want. At least that would be consistent with the changes to 3/10 and 4/10.


This is probably the worst thing I've ever seen you post.

T3s should not have a superior-to-T2 bonus. Ignoring that it's boring and absolutely will make T3s even more of a go-to "optimal" ship, it's completely against the spirit of what a T3 is.

I love my T3s and I will do horrible, horrible things to the person who tries to take them away from me, but I do not agree with "T3 should be flat-out better than T2 at hacking" and the general idea that everyone should be forced to fly T3 for everything because they're the super-best.

T1 should be good at hacking because you chose a ship that has a limited capacity to defend itself. T2 should be amazing at hacking because you trained for the hull and sacrificed more defenses. T3 should be just as amazing as T2, but for entirely different reasons and in an entirely different way.

By the way, people will still fly cloaky T3s for lowsec hacking. They're still perfectly viable as all-in-one ships; even more so now that you don't need that blasted Salvager II taking up a weapon slot.