Test Server Feedback

Some thought after playing this for a few more days:

- The minigame makes my wrist hurt after a couple sites in nullsec. it's just too much clicking. Feels like playing Diablo. So i would really like to see the minigame develop in a less clicky but more strategic direction

- The threshold for running the sites in null is too low and that's why we see the loot market prices in free fall. I've seen a km for a Buzzard with over billion loot and t1 analyzers fitted. The loot tables are not the problem imo because running sites in nullsec should pay well. But not every low skilled char in a cheap ship should be able to farm them in such a way. The skill requirements to get adequate virus coherence and strenght for the highest tier sites needs to be higher.

Make some new skills for that or use existing ones like encryption methods. I would happily specialize and learn them if it means less competiton and casual exploring out there. Also probably needs something that puts out damage to the ship. Rats are removed but maybe some defensive nodes or smartbomb for punishing failure. And perhaps a necessity to fit expensive mods for the hacking or a new set of hacking implants. Anything really that sets a higher threshold.

Or at least as a compromise tier the sites more distinctively like the ded sites. Have the lower tiers still be able to run in cheap frig but with payouts closer to hi and low sec and higher tier sites that absolutely require better skills, mods and some tank.

I feel like the most recent changes to the despawn mechanics is the most detrimental change. It is creating this situation where it become more often than not that you run into partially ran sites with no good value left to be had. It is not fun at all to going around scanning for hours on end and to find close to zero fresh sites. At least with the old mechanic I could be garunteed two outcomes, a untoched site or a target in said site. Now I am left with unfinished sites that are of no use to me that just waste my time. Please tell me this is still being at least looked into. If this is going to stay in as a means to tone down item injection or fix some other problem I feel like it is the completely wrong way to go about fixing those issues. It is doing more harm than good at the moment. I would make plea for it to go back to the way it was before but perhaps a increase despawn timer.

If half finished sites stick around for long time that's not a good solution for the issues with these sites. More frustrating then anything. Just raise the damn entry barrier!

There's always the option to just run around blowing up the cans to tidy the place up a bit.

Though it doesn't seem right that we should spend our space time doing house cleaning

OK CCP, it in your lap again. The failed cargo spew needs to be adjusted. We all let you know that from the test server, now lets hear how you intend to change it.

You said it won't go away, so here is a suggestion: For failed attempts, create an explosion that destroys parts of the containers but releases them into space (salvage). For successful, leave it in place.

Thanks for the update RedDawn, the timer fix especially will make a lot of difference

Too few data/relic sites in low - 1-2 per system at best (more like one per 2-4 systems).

"Loot bukkake" explosion mechanics still sucks - until removed. I'm losing up to 2/3 loot. Could be interesting to know the name of "genius" who proposed it and got an idea to make exploration collective activity.

Yup, this is a known issue.
We will be fixing up the mission descriptions to incorporate these new mechanics soon.

Alright...I slugged my way through all 30 pages of this drekk, and I am ready to give my well thought through and deliberated opinion.

All is fine with the exceptions of:

Loot Pinata
Samey Game

I'll tackle the latter first as it's shorter: I expect this to clear up as the actual minigame gets deepened and expanded, but right now the hacking minigame, while enjoyable, is going to get very repetitive very quickly, I can tell. Worsened only by the fact that it is identical for both Relic and Data sites. Again, subsequent expansions on the system should remedy this.

Now, for the elephant sized bugbear in the room: Dat pinata.

Do not get me wrong. I think it's novel. I think it has it's place. I also think, and strongly so, that it is not in it's place. I shaln't delve back into what more people than I can count on both hands have spent whole pages clarifying with exceptional eloquence, suffice to say that having a frantic scrabble as the ultimate victory condition is a hectic end for an otherwise laid-back and almost labor-less process (typical vigilance required for low/null/WH presence excepted. In highsec, you can do this with one hand, half asleep and slightly drunk, and I don't see that this is a bad thing. Most everything can (with varying degrees of efficiency)).

Unlike several, I shall attempt to offer alternatives to bring this more in line with the rest of the process. In so doing, I shall quite literally steal others' ideas I approve of, add a few of my own, and I will not reference them because I do not want to have to go back through these 30 pages. Sorry guys, credit's due but I'm not giving it out. Also, quotes take up too many characters as I found out. This post got a bit lengthy. Anyways, to ideas:

1) Loot Pinata is a loss occurrence.
I'm not 100% fan of this, but it might be workable. You hack the site. you fail it. Loot splurts out everywhere and you have to do your best to salvage your rewards before they drift away into obscurity. Somewhat more satisfying than the old system of waiting for another cycle on module x/y/z. Not terribly conducive to the "you fail? 1 more try" notion. That's a matter of balance though.

1.1) Time limit on attempts? Maybe? Work that however you want. Jetcanning the notion out there.

2) Loot Pinata is a partial victory
There are several ways this can be implemented, as these are (straight up copies or adaptations of) idea's I've pulled out of my arse in the hour I've been sitting here or stolen from others:
A) You clear the board (of firewalls or completely), you get a tidy loot can. You only hack the core, enjoy chasing your goodies :3 Rewards the extra effort for the extra clicking, and it also means that a experienced hacker won't have to go scrambling As often. (I haven't been graced with a high tier system to hack yet, but it seems the consensus is some of them would be nigh-impossible to clear completely)
B) Multiple cores to hack. Each one gives a portion of the total rewards in a loot can, and the rest on eventual failure are jettisoned for cluster-clicking/exploded mercilessly/insert-alternative-unpleasant-fate.
C) Multiple levels of encryption to break through. See B), just more drawn out.

3) Loot Pinata is a Partial Failure
Not entirely sure how this would be balanced, but I'm throwing it out there anyways. I guess one way it could work is if you had multiple anti-cores/attempts within the minigame (lives, if you will, instead of straight up 2 tries) and each one you botch removes a portion of your eventual loot (if any) And scatters it for you to sift though. Though this very much relies on how the minigame itself expands, it's something to consider.

4) Topical Pinataing.
I can get by having archeology sites blow their load all over my face like the old geezers they are. I don't particularly enjoy it just as much as the analogy I unintentionally made, but I can live with it - it makes a bit of contextual sense to have an ancient hulk's cargo be blasted off into space when the wrong seal is broken - but aren't data sites supposed to be - well - modernish? Lore aside, it would give a much needed distinction between relic and data sites beyond the loot they drop and the modules they need :/
Hell, take that idea a few yards further and make a handful of (subtly) Different minigames with different results. Variety is the spice of life, and exploration has always needed some spicing. I am fully aware that this would be a bunch of coding, but you've got time.

Don't get me wrong. I like most of the changes, especially to the scanning UI. You've got a good idea going for your guys here and I do not want to see it scrapped - but your implementation is all cockeyed IMO. I've literally spent an hour of my life hemorrhaging ideas into this textbox for you, attempting to refine 30 pages of mostly butthurting into something somewhat palatable (and I give kudos to the handful who already attempted to refine it so *I* could palate it) and hopefully workable. I WANT this to get tidied up and functional, because I very much think it's not a terrible idea, but it's like watching a 5 year old trying to stick a square block in a circular hole, and I think we (read: you) need to stop trying to shave the block and start trying to find the proper hole.

And speaking of hemorrhaging ideas, though I'm running out of characters - I can only reiterate what so many people have said before with varying tones of amicability-hostility: If you REALLY want to make exploration more group orientated, you have to work on the minigame aspect. Get multiple people involved with the puzzle (how, I can't figure. I leave that to you like an unhelpful forumer) and THEN you can justify having them scramble to pick up the pieces (though with 2+ people working, it offeres more ways to screw up, so you can find more and more adventurous ways to punish them)

TL,DR: Tough, go back and read it. Minigame needs more shizz in it though.

Scanning and hacking so easy anyone can do it without skills, market flooded so now the return isn't worth anything except for the new guys, perfect result if you only want the new pilots doing anything to do with exploration.