These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Veyer Erastus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#361 - 2013-05-31 12:50:31 UTC
Tsubutai wrote:
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
I suppose you're going to tell me "the fact that cloaky nullified T3s lack the agility to get the same amount of loot as a covops doesn't balance out the fact that they're hard or impossible to kill".

It sounds mostly like you don't actually care about T3s in the sites, but that you just don't like the nullifier.


[Tengu, hardcore pve]
Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Nanofiber Internal Structure II

Analyzer II
Codebreaker II
10MN Afterburner II
Cargo Scanner II
NEW Scan Rangefinding Array II
NEW Scan Rangefinding Array II
NEW Scan Pinpointing Array II

Covert Ops Cloaking Device II
Expanded Probe Launcher II, Sisters Combat Scanner Probe
Small Tractor Beam II
Small Tractor Beam II
Small Tractor Beam II

Medium Memetic Algorithm Bank I
Medium Emission Scope Sharpener I

Tengu Electronics - Emergent Locus Analyzer
Tengu Engineering - Capacitor Regeneration Matrix
Tengu Offensive - Covert Reconfiguration
Tengu Propulsion - Interdiction Nullifier
Tengu Defensive - Supplemental Screening

That aligns in under 4 seconds (which is actually better than a lot of covops fits achieve) and has bonused tractors to grab any juicy cans you can't reach for whatever reason. I am consistently able to get 80%+ of the spewed cans in this setup, exactly as I was in a Heron beforehand.


Not to fight your point, but wanted to mention one thing. Setup you link is HARD hacking setup - it can't do anything except hacking sites. So it's kinda just that it's strong in its purpose. Even more - it can't even do hacking sites as it lacks mean to kill spawned NPC. While you Helios can with it's drones. Not even mentioning that every other t3 except tengu don't have midslots to do this.
Sven Viko VIkolander
In space we are briefly free
#362 - 2013-05-31 12:52:11 UTC
CCP Bayesian wrote:
Solkara Starlock, thanks for the feedback.

I just want to tackle a few of these points. Firstly I don't think a mechanic can be inherently bad if a portion of people like it and the trend we've seen so far on these threads is that as we make changes the feedback is becoming more positive. I think the mechanic in it's original form is annoying, unsatisfying and feels bad because it is inherently random.



I've read these threads, read countless reviews and watched many youtube trials, and I've yet to find anyone that actually likes the loot spew (ofc, maybe you can find just a few somewhere). No one, so far as I've seen, likes twitch games, needless clicking, randomness, etc. Yes, you've made improvements in the right direction, but it seems like the overwhelming consensus here is the best direction is to remove the loot spew, focus on the hacking game to make it more strategy-based, and find another way to make it optionally co-op.

That said, I'm very positive about the new exploration sites. Why? Because when I watch videos of people running them, they have limited time to check dscan, pay attention to local, and they spend a long time in space, etc. Twisted
Sheena Tzash
Doomheim
#363 - 2013-05-31 13:00:20 UTC
CCP Bayesian wrote:


Quote:
It is bad because it feels like losing loot after playing having to play two minigames to access that loot! Giving more info on the cans will, in my opinion, increase the rage when a 'blueprint can' vanishes before your eyes.

It is bad because it does not invite more team play.


I imagine it working in this way for some people:

  • A player approaches a site object and cargo scan it to find out the contents. They continue until they find a site object with contents that they like. They identify what kind of cans they want to go for.
  • They complete the hacking attempt, there is tension here because of the knowledge about what it contains.
  • They identify the correct can types and begin to collect one.
  • They see the can type is correct but the contents of it are not what they really, really want to get so they cancel the tractoring.
  • They find and tractor in another can of the same type.
  • Get Bacon of the kind you are interested in.


This invites play between players in a couple of ways, firstly the sites themselves can be tackled optimally by groups working together. There was a Twitter conversation linked earlier that outlined one way people have tried this on a bigger scale. You can for example wait to destroy the system core and give people a chance to come to you. This lets groups clear out sites by tackling low value site objects individually that they don't mind losing some items from and clustering to deal with a site that contains excellent items. The players then also get to make choices about what kinds of stuff they want to take to maximise weight to value.

Solo players can now still go out and make a decent living (perhaps even better than before given the additional loot) by being selective about what they take. Taking a friend with you is more viable to deal with any other people who might steal your stuff and also to optimise the filtering and collection of cans.

Then we have all the opportunities for PVP and stealing of cans that create conflict and pull in everything from Crimewatch to the Bounty System.


I think this is a best case situation.

What is more likely to happen is:

1) You have one person scanning. Even with multiple people chances are you'd end up stepping on each others toes and scanning down sites that others have either already scanned or in the process of scanning resulting in a waste of time.

Since you've only got a single person scanning the rest are either sitting around getting bored or belt ratting for more immediate fun.

2) Once you've found a site you'll again only really have one person hacking as the others won't want to waste mid slots on a utlitiy item. Since there are no longer any rats they will sit around getting bored (when they should be checking Dscan :P)

3) No one has a cargo scanner as they want to loot all the cans regardless and it takes up a valuable mid slot.

4) Once the loot is thrown out they'll all scramble for the good stuff and leave the hacker / scanner person short

5) If anyone shows up all your mates run away leaving the hacker mid - hack and an easy target :P

Although I do agree with what your saying Baesian; overall it would allow for some form of co-operation to be able to hack sites quickly and clean up the majority of the loot and good effective teams will do well.

CCP Bayesian wrote:


Quote:
It is bad because it does not make sense!


Could you expand as to why it does not make sense please?


To me I feel that if your being some master hacker who is trying to get the goodies from inside an encrypted vault you wouldn't want the results to be splashed all over space.

You wouldn't see someone hack into a bank and set it up so that all the money inside the bank vault would be blasted into the sky - yeah its done the job of getting the loot but its in such an ineffective method and most likely means that you lose a good amount of the loot you've worked hard to get.
Ruskarn Andedare
Lion Investments
#364 - 2013-05-31 13:13:27 UTC
Sheena Tzash wrote:
CCP Bayesian wrote:


Quote:
It is bad because it feels like losing loot after playing having to play two minigames to access that loot! Giving more info on the cans will, in my opinion, increase the rage when a 'blueprint can' vanishes before your eyes.

It is bad because it does not invite more team play.


I imagine it working in this way for some people:

  • A player approaches a site object and cargo scan it to find out the contents. They continue until they find a site object with contents that they like. They identify what kind of cans they want to go for.
  • They complete the hacking attempt, there is tension here because of the knowledge about what it contains.
  • They identify the correct can types and begin to collect one.
  • They see the can type is correct but the contents of it are not what they really, really want to get so they cancel the tractoring.
  • They find and tractor in another can of the same type.
  • Get Bacon of the kind you are interested in.


This invites play between players in a couple of ways, firstly the sites themselves can be tackled optimally by groups working together. There was a Twitter conversation linked earlier that outlined one way people have tried this on a bigger scale. You can for example wait to destroy the system core and give people a chance to come to you. This lets groups clear out sites by tackling low value site objects individually that they don't mind losing some items from and clustering to deal with a site that contains excellent items. The players then also get to make choices about what kinds of stuff they want to take to maximise weight to value.

Solo players can now still go out and make a decent living (perhaps even better than before given the additional loot) by being selective about what they take. Taking a friend with you is more viable to deal with any other people who might steal your stuff and also to optimise the filtering and collection of cans.

Then we have all the opportunities for PVP and stealing of cans that create conflict and pull in everything from Crimewatch to the Bounty System.


I think this is a best case situation.

What is more likely to happen is:

1) You have one person scanning. Even with multiple people chances are you'd end up stepping on each others toes and scanning down sites that others have either already scanned or in the process of scanning resulting in a waste of time.

Since you've only got a single person scanning the rest are either sitting around getting bored or belt ratting for more immediate fun.

2) Once you've found a site you'll again only really have one person hacking as the others won't want to waste mid slots on a utlitiy item. Since there are no longer any rats they will sit around getting bored (when they should be checking Dscan :P)

3) No one has a cargo scanner as they want to loot all the cans regardless and it takes up a valuable mid slot.

4) Once the loot is thrown out they'll all scramble for the good stuff and leave the hacker / scanner person short

5) If anyone shows up all your mates run away leaving the hacker mid - hack and an easy target :P

Although I do agree with what your saying Baesian; overall it would allow for some form of co-operation to be able to hack sites quickly and clean up the majority of the loot and good effective teams will do well.

CCP Bayesian wrote:


Quote:
It is bad because it does not make sense!


Could you expand as to why it does not make sense please?


To me I feel that if your being some master hacker who is trying to get the goodies from inside an encrypted vault you wouldn't want the results to be splashed all over space.

You wouldn't see someone hack into a bank and set it up so that all the money inside the bank vault would be blasted into the sky - yeah its done the job of getting the loot but its in such an ineffective method and most likely means that you lose a good amount of the loot you've worked hard to get.


Can we have a butterfly net module please?

(preferably with loony tunes music running as it operates)
CCP Bayesian
#365 - 2013-05-31 13:14:41 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Bayesian
Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:

I've read these threads, read countless reviews and watched many youtube trials, and I've yet to find anyone that actually likes the loot spew (ofc, maybe you can find just a few somewhere). No one, so far as I've seen, likes twitch games, needless clicking, randomness, etc. Yes, you've made improvements in the right direction, but it seems like the overwhelming consensus here is the best direction is to remove the loot spew, focus on the hacking game to make it more strategy-based, and find another way to make it optionally co-op.

That said, I'm very positive about the new exploration sites. Why? Because when I watch videos of people running them, they have limited time to check dscan, pay attention to local, and they spend a long time in space, etc. Twisted


Thanks, I just went through and tallied up the responses in the past five pages to see what the spread was of people recounting their feelings towards this feature. I counted posts that talked about the scattering specifically as it exists today and ignored replies or speculation (and dev posts). I got:

Negative: 6
Positive: 6
Neutral: 5

At least from my sense of the feedback we've come along way from the original very negative impressions.

EVE Software Engineer Team Space Glitter
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#366 - 2013-05-31 13:17:02 UTC
CCP Bayesian wrote:
Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:

I've read these threads, read countless reviews and watched many youtube trials, and I've yet to find anyone that actually likes the loot spew (ofc, maybe you can find just a few somewhere). No one, so far as I've seen, likes twitch games, needless clicking, randomness, etc. Yes, you've made improvements in the right direction, but it seems like the overwhelming consensus here is the best direction is to remove the loot spew, focus on the hacking game to make it more strategy-based, and find another way to make it optionally co-op.

That said, I'm very positive about the new exploration sites. Why? Because when I watch videos of people running them, they have limited time to check dscan, pay attention to local, and they spend a long time in space, etc. Twisted


Thanks, I just went through and tallied up the responses in the past five pages to see what the spread was of people recounting their feelings towards this feature. I counted posts that talked about the scattering specifically as it exists today and ignored replies or speculation (and dev posts). I got:

Negative: 6
Positive: 6
Neutral: 5

At least from my sense of the feedback we've come along way from the original very negative impressions.

Confirmation bias FTW.

EvE is supposed to suck.  Wait . . . what was the question?
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus
#367 - 2013-05-31 13:20:11 UTC
CCP Bayesian:
Did you count concessions that it is not as unbearable as it was in its first iteration as positive?

I may have overlooked someone, but I did not see anyone that outright stated he preferred the spew containers over a regular container. (Minigame to open it aside)
Brooks Puuntai
Solar Nexus.
#368 - 2013-05-31 13:21:52 UTC
This is why the Eve forum needs polls.

CCP's Motto: If it isn't broken, break it. If it is broken, ignore it. Improving NPE / Dynamic New Eden
Johan Toralen
IIIJIIIITIIII
#369 - 2013-05-31 13:22:28 UTC
Thinking a bit more about the Tengu virus bonus. If it was removed or nerfed i would defo use a t2 frig instead. Wouldn't want to risk losing a faction pos bpc because i didn't max out my hacking.

Would that really change a thing tho? I would then run the sites in a disposable frig that with some luck pays off from a single site and haul the loot back in a nullified Tengu that i've parked in a safe place somewhere meanwhile. That to me actualy sounds the most economicaly reasonable thing to do either way.
CCP Bayesian
#370 - 2013-05-31 13:24:24 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Bayesian
Freighdee Katt wrote:
CCP Bayesian wrote:
Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:

I've read these threads, read countless reviews and watched many youtube trials, and I've yet to find anyone that actually likes the loot spew (ofc, maybe you can find just a few somewhere). No one, so far as I've seen, likes twitch games, needless clicking, randomness, etc. Yes, you've made improvements in the right direction, but it seems like the overwhelming consensus here is the best direction is to remove the loot spew, focus on the hacking game to make it more strategy-based, and find another way to make it optionally co-op.

That said, I'm very positive about the new exploration sites. Why? Because when I watch videos of people running them, they have limited time to check dscan, pay attention to local, and they spend a long time in space, etc. Twisted


Thanks, I just went through and tallied up the responses in the past five pages to see what the spread was of people recounting their feelings towards this feature. I counted posts that talked about the scattering specifically as it exists today and ignored replies or speculation (and dev posts). I got:

Negative: 6
Positive: 6
Neutral: 5

At least from my sense of the feedback we've come along way from the original very negative impressions.

Confirmation bias FTW.


Indeedy, very possibly but I'm not claiming this view to be scientific or absolute fact, just recounting what I did and the results. Obviously Sven's opinion is also going to be affected by confirmation bias as well. As will anyone who has an opinion on this feature and does the same thing.

EVE Software Engineer Team Space Glitter
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#371 - 2013-05-31 13:30:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Freighdee Katt
Sheena Tzash wrote:
CCP Bayesian wrote:

Quote:
It is bad because it does not make sense!

Could you expand as to why it does not make sense please?

To me I feel that if your being some master hacker who is trying to get the goodies from inside an encrypted vault you wouldn't want the results to be splashed all over space.

You wouldn't see someone hack into a bank and set it up so that all the money inside the bank vault would be blasted into the sky - yeah its done the job of getting the loot but its in such an ineffective method and most likely means that you lose a good amount of the loot you've worked hard to get.

This. Bayes, you keep asking for people to 'splain it to you like you're five years old, as if it's some big mystery while people find the loot spew mechaninc annoying and stupid. Andreus said all that needs to be said about it in his earlier post. Others have repeated his same points in different words. It's all been said, and people have been saying it all since this mechanic was first proposed, over and over and over.

You obviously put a lot of work into implementing this, and it sucks when people don't say nice things about something you worked hard on. But you can't say you weren't warned that people would hate it. Obviously we're now at the point where you're personally attached to the mechanic, so there is not really any point in complaining about it anymore, or trying to explain to you why it sucks. You'll just keep figuring out ways to not get why people dislike it, because you think it's cool, and you don't want to think about scrapping or majorly reworking something you worked hard on and thought people would love.

EvE is supposed to suck.  Wait . . . what was the question?
Sheena Tzash
Doomheim
#372 - 2013-05-31 13:38:25 UTC
Freighdee Katt wrote:
Sheena Tzash wrote:
CCP Bayesian wrote:

Quote:
It is bad because it does not make sense!

Could you expand as to why it does not make sense please?

To me I feel that if your being some master hacker who is trying to get the goodies from inside an encrypted vault you wouldn't want the results to be splashed all over space.

You wouldn't see someone hack into a bank and set it up so that all the money inside the bank vault would be blasted into the sky - yeah its done the job of getting the loot but its in such an ineffective method and most likely means that you lose a good amount of the loot you've worked hard to get.

This. Bayes, you keep asking for people to 'splain it to you like you're five years old, as if it's some big mystery while people find the loot spew mechaninc annoying and stupid. Andreus said all that needs to be said about it in his earlier post. Others have repeated his same points in different words. It's all been said, and people have been saying it all since this mechanic was first proposed, over and over and over.


That being said I think it would be fairly reasonable to allocate this kind of mechanic on Relic sites over data sites.

The difference being is that a data site your hacking into a network node for valuable information in the form of datacores and blueprints etc. Any half decent hacker would make every attempt to ensure that the information was obtained in the most efficient fashion.

A relic site on the other hand are old broken and rusty wrecks that are already falling apart.

You coming along to the site and getting all 'Lara Croft' on those wrecks are likely to cause many of them to fall apart and the loot spilling out into space because they are fragile enough to break in this fashion and would make perfect sense that items are strewn about space.
CCP Bayesian
#373 - 2013-05-31 13:40:34 UTC
Freighdee Katt wrote:
Sheena Tzash wrote:

To me I feel that if your being some master hacker who is trying to get the goodies from inside an encrypted vault you wouldn't want the results to be splashed all over space.

You wouldn't see someone hack into a bank and set it up so that all the money inside the bank vault would be blasted into the sky - yeah its done the job of getting the loot but its in such an ineffective method and most likely means that you lose a good amount of the loot you've worked hard to get.


This. Bayes, you keep asking for people to 'splain it to you like you're five years old, as if it's some big mystery while people find the loot spew mechaninc annoying and stupid. Andreus said all that needs to be said about it in his earlier post. Others have repeated his same points in different words. It's all been said, and people have been saying it all since this mechanic was first proposed, over and over and over.

You obviously put a lot of work into implementing this, and it sucks when people don't say nice things about something you worked hard on. But you can't say you weren't warned that people would hate it. Obviously we're now the point where you're personally attached to the mechanic, so there is not really any point in complaining about it anymore, or trying to explain to you why it sucks. You'll just keep figuring out ways to not get why people dislike it, because you think it's cool, and you don't want to think about scrapping or majorly reworking something you worked hard on and thought people would love.


Actually this feature has primarily been developed by CCP Prime. I came up with, helped design and made the hacking mechanics for the vast majority of this release. Obviously we act collaboratively in lots of aspects but I'm not here to defend my baby if that's what you're implying. I just happen to be the person on the team who is on the forums the most so end up being a spokesman for the team.

I'm prompting people to explain in their own words why they think something isn't fun in case they have new insights. Making the assumption that I know why they don't like something when they haven't said would be arrogant. It also prompts people to add more constructive detail. Nothing about acting like a five year old or being to stupid to know that people are saying similar things.

EVE Software Engineer Team Space Glitter
Brooks Puuntai
Solar Nexus.
#374 - 2013-05-31 13:43:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Brooks Puuntai
Aw you got my hopes up.

http://eve-files.com/dl/262763

Using the cargo container icon, made me think you scrapped the pinata and just did a mix of the old system and the hacking.

Also on Sansha Mass Grave, the cans are still inside the station.

E: Did you reduce the duration of the spew cans?

CCP's Motto: If it isn't broken, break it. If it is broken, ignore it. Improving NPE / Dynamic New Eden
Raven Solaris
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#375 - 2013-05-31 13:44:45 UTC
Ran into this just a minute ago.

As far as I know, that's a Terran ship, while I'm in a Sansha's Nation archaelogical site.

Would it be possible to add a bit of factional flavour to the archaelogy sites? The Guristas sites having broken Rattlesnakes or the Sansha sites having derelict Phantasms, etc. Perhaps then the Terran assets could be placed into more rare sites, named, say "Ancient Ruined Monument Site" instead of "Ruined *Faction* Monument Site."

Would make finding Terran stuff feel like more of an interesting and cool discovery, people might even get a little giddy over it even if the loot's the same.

Of course I have no idea how much of a hassle this would be for the art department so slap me if it's not feasable.
Karsa Egivand
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#376 - 2013-05-31 13:45:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Karsa Egivand
Freighdee Katt wrote:
Sheena Tzash wrote:
CCP Bayesian wrote:
Could you expand as to why it does not make sense please?

To me I feel that if your being some master hacker who is trying to get the goodies from inside an encrypted vault you wouldn't want the results to be splashed all over space.

You wouldn't see someone hack into a bank and set it up so that all the money inside the bank vault would be blasted into the sky - yeah its done the job of getting the loot but its in such an ineffective method and most likely means that you lose a good amount of the loot you've worked hard to get.

This. Bayes, you keep asking for people to 'splain it to you like you're five years old, as if it's some big mystery while people find the loot spew mechaninc annoying and stupid. Andreus said all that needs to be said about it in his earlier post. Others have repeated his same points in different words. It's all been said, and people have been saying it all since this mechanic was first proposed, over and over and over.

You obviously put a lot of work into implementing this, and it sucks when people don't say nice things about something you worked hard on. But you can't say you weren't warned that people would hate it. Obviously we're now at the point where you're personally attached to the mechanic, so there is not really any point in complaining about it anymore, or trying to explain to you why it sucks. You'll just keep figuring out ways to not get why people dislike it, because you think it's cool, and you don't want to think about scrapping or majorly reworking something you worked hard on and thought people would love.


I am on the fence on loot pinata, tbh, I don't see it as a big problem, but I get why people feel as if they lose sth and I suspect that as a game feature it'll cause more negative reactions than satisfaction.

BUT, by now it is too late to change it for release. Simple fact. So I suggest waiting for the reactions of the wider playerbase once it hits TQ, and then go back to argue the point with CCP Bayesian (et al). The coming few days, we are not going to get any further on this.

Tbh, I'd rather have them make a few more last-minute adjustments to the hacking game itself, which needs more depth yet and which is - imho - the bigger issue (your milage may vary). --> I think the mini-game itself has potential, if all your promises are upheld (tools to take away and sell, more ways to influence/scout the map, more game-options, etc.)
Karsa Egivand
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#377 - 2013-05-31 13:51:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Karsa Egivand
CCP Bayesian wrote:
I'm prompting people to explain in their own words why they think something isn't fun in case they have new insights. Making the assumption that I know why they don't like something when they haven't said would be arrogant. It also prompts people to add more constructive detail. Nothing about acting like a five year old or being to stupid to know that people are saying similar things.


As a neutral observer on that particular issue, I think the main "problem" is this:

People get an emotional attachment to stuff they have unlocked and can almost reach, before it is getting snatched away again. Objectively, doing it this way is no different than simply having less loot in the can (which then will be priced appropriately by the market), but the player feels as if he deserves to get that stuff now. Because IT WAS THERE. Yet he doesn't get it. Hence: Sad

Dangle the candy in front of the baby, then snatch it away. Tears. Simple emotional response.
Solkara Starlock
Circle of Mystery
#378 - 2013-05-31 13:55:39 UTC
Thanks for the reply Blink Really appreciated.

What I mean that it doesn't make sense is that if someone hacks into a computer or mainframe or whatever, the result of a succesfull hack is access to that computer or mainframe. Not triggering some exploding mechanic. That sounds more like triggering a defensive system to protect the content.

I'm not so thrilled having to tag along a cargoscanner in my scanning ship to guarantee my exploration income. The allocation of mid slots on the scanning ships is already quite taxing with the new scanning mods, the data and relic analyser and perhaps a propulsion mod. Basicly, Anathema and Cheetah are at a distinct disadvantage because of that.

People adapt! They have always done so and will do so again. But that does not mean they like the new mechanic. I'm afraid a lot will adapt by abandoning exploration, which is not what an exploration expansion should achieve.

There will become a whole new dynamic around the new sites. That's a good thing. Pirates will love those undefended scanning ships in their territory. Brave explorers could steal valuables from null sec alliances like Indiana Jones beating the nazis to an artifact. But the inpact on group play will be limited, I fear, and that was the whole point of this loot mechanic.
There are more engaging, rewarding or thrilling ways to play with a group.

I find it not fun because it feels unrewarding. It also becomes too much of a hassle to (sometimes) get the loot I want. I'm not enjoying myself chasing cans. The more I do it, the more I dislike it. I'm thrilled at succesfully hacking a difficult container but I immediately sigh at the sight of those containers flying of. I think that is a pity. It replaces my sense of enjoyment at finally getting to the loot by a sense of dreariness as I have to do another chore.
CCP Bayesian
#379 - 2013-05-31 14:02:14 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Bayesian
Solkara Starlock wrote:
Thanks for the reply Blink Really appreciated.

What I mean that it doesn't make sense is that if someone hacks into a computer or mainframe or whatever, the result of a succesfull hack is access to that computer or mainframe. Not triggering some exploding mechanic. That sounds more like triggering a defensive system to protect the content.


I think that's a fair criticism from a narrative point of view.

Solkara Starlock wrote:
I'm not so thrilled having to tag along a cargoscanner in my scanning ship to guarantee my exploration income. The allocation of mid slots on the scanning ships is already quite taxing with the new scanning mods, the data and relic analyser and perhaps a propulsion mod. Basicly, Anathema and Cheetah are at a distinct disadvantage because of that.


This isn't a new feature though, it was already possible to do this beforehand. I guess many people didn't because the effort to get into the containers wasn't worth finding out in advance what was in them.

Solkara Starlock wrote:
People adapt! They have always done so and will do so again. But that does not mean they like the new mechanic. I'm afraid a lot will adapt by abandoning exploration, which is not what an exploration expansion should achieve.

There will become a whole new dynamic around the new sites. That's a good thing. Pirates will love those undefended scanning ships in their territory. Brave explorers could steal valuables from null sec alliances like Indiana Jones beating the ***** to an artifact. But the inpact on group play will be limited, I fear, and that was the whole point of this loot mechanic.
There are more engaging, rewarding or thrilling ways to play with a group.

I find it not fun because it feels unrewarding. It also becomes too much of a hassle to (sometimes) get the loot I want. I'm not enjoying myself chasing cans. The more I do it, the more I dislike it. I'm thrilled at succesfully hacking a difficult container but I immediately sigh at the sight of those containers flying of. I think that is a pity. It replaces my sense of enjoyment at finally getting to the loot by a sense of dreariness as I have to do another chore.


Thanks for that.

EVE Software Engineer Team Space Glitter
Raven Solaris
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#380 - 2013-05-31 14:06:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Raven Solaris
And I just realised something, will the Gnosis get a +5 to Virus Strength?

Edit - What about the Echelon?