Test Server Feedback

The general consensus around here seems to be that nothing contributes positively to EVE except spaceships. Everything that doesn't involve shooting another player and killing his ship is generally agreed upon by the player base to be a frivolous waste of developer time, even if some of us disagree. By your argument, everything except direct ship-to-ship PVP should be removed. That wouldn't make for a very interesting game, now would it?

Lose the overdramatic hyperbole and then try posting again.

Nope. If it happens, it should be +10 strength just like the CovOps. A Recon has other bonuses to make it more attractive.

Holy Words. I couldn't have said this any better. CCP, indeed. You are making things better and the feedback indeed gets more positive... but it is relative to the improvements you make, not the core mechanic itself. The changes you make are getting positive feedback, but the core mechanic itself is still not very welcome by many - and I dare say, most. Please, don't delude yourself that you can make it 'good' just by tweaking certain issues, only slightly better.

I do understand that you are fond of this mechanic. You spent a lot of time working on it, and I appreciate your enthusiasm and understand why you are reluctant to remove it. But in it's current form, all that time will go to waste, as players won't be able to enjoy it. That's not very nice, is it? To spend lot of time on something that people hate, and even worse, won't use? Because that's what's going to happen. Many will simply not use this. Some will still do, of course, but not as many as they would if you listened to the feedback and targeted the core problem itself, not just tweaking up variables.

Why don't you go for compromise? Just for the sake of the testing, move the can scattering to the "failure" mechanic, and simple "loot window" for success - as many players suggest that. And then see the feedback. It's the test server, after all - you should be testing that option as well. Surely it won't hurt you, and this way you'll gather even more of your precious metrics. There really isn't much time left before Odyssey ships.

You really don't have to remove it from the game, just change the purpose of it. As "success" mechanic, this is very frustrating and dealbraking. But as a "failure" mechanic, it would actually be fun for many - because even if they fail the hacking, they can still get some of the loot (which is punishment enough), and they have to put more effort into that then. Having that from time to time would be even refreshing... but not every single time you succeed at hacking.

And, yes. I am repeating myself here for, I don't know which time already. And don't get me wrong - I actively test the Hacking feature/profession on SiSi each time you iterate it, so it's not like I'm just commenting on the idea.

I agree with several of the posters in the last few pages.

The hacking game is fine, sure it would not hurt to make it a bit less formulaic but still as it is currently, i kinda like it.
You certainly have improved the Loot Pinata mechanic and rightfully deserve praise for that, but the fundamentals of the mechanic is still dis-empowering and incongruous. It is just plain annoying, it manages to make you feel like you failed even when you succeeded, which is kind of an accomplishment.

Whenever a player is unlucky with the payout once this is fully implemented, he or she will be wondering if they were just plain unlucky or if they could have had the jackpot if only they had clicked the right can. Unless of course they scanned the can first and Know that all that separates the junk they got this time from a blueprint of some sort is that the can blasted the loot the wrong way.

As others have mentioned the loot partner is also mostly passive, just hanging around waiting for the hacker to finish his job.

If active participation for more than one player is desired, why not allow for cooperative hacking?
If one player hacks a can, there is a normal payout. If two hack it, double the loot or increase the payout with 1.5 or whatever is considered appropriate.

Honestly, as it is, the only reason i can see for having the loot pinata is to obfuscate just how much loot one can get from hacking per site.

is it just me or did the cans get faster after the patch today?

People have been saying things about not needing to maneuver much and getting 80% of the cans. Maybe I'm terrible at this, but I can't get more than 50% of the cans if even that much. It's always been like that for me.




Because anything that punishes soloing is a good thing, right? /sarcasm

Failures spawns will make T3s the best exploration ship again >.<

That said I'm not against more punishment, just something that can be done in a peaceful vessel is good for me.

If they were to somehow decide that they were going to remove the loot pinata, I promise you they'd reduce the number of attempts from two to one.

Your very first failure to hack would be met with the dazzling blue-white blaze of a can self-destructing.

A better mechanic would be to keep the self destruct on double fail but use the loot spew if the hacker managed to actually find, but was for whatever reason unable to defeat, the system core. That has happened to me often enough that I can realistically see it getting used often enough to warrant the edge case. Remove the ability to cargo scan the cans (I don't really get why this is even a thing) and allow players to simply loot the can like a normal can on a successful hack.

This would allow for the focus to be placed on the hacking rather than the looting. The system core could be buffed in higher end data and relic sites to make it feel more like an end boss, and the hack to find it more intense as a result.




I don't think anyone in either of the threads giving feedback to this feature has had a strong dislike for the hacking minigame. The complaints stem almost exclusively from the loot distribution mechanic.

Perhaps the loot spew would have worked with hacking or archo just another type of salvage module that you sat and watched cycle. In that instance it actually makes sense since the effort to acquire the loot be in clicking on those bloody cans and not on the actual hack. But having to not only navigate through the hacking mini-game, but then also have to bob for loot like a goldfish is a 1-2 punch.

Sincerely though, I'm glad someone is having fun with this feature because I sure as hell am not.




This. So much this.
Its easy to forget that on live you will be competing with other players in highsec and hunted by others in low. Punishment for failure - if anything - should simply result in that pilot being locked out of that container for a set period of time; say 30 seconds.

Are you really complaining that the hacking game and loot mechanic are too much effort? Even if you don't spam the mouse button like Micheal J. Fox (which statistically will give you comparable payouts relative to today... assuming CCP got their math right) it takes almost no effort to cherry pick the can types you want given the contents you are searching for. Is the mini-game that mentally exhausting?