These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: Ghastly Hotbed Of Spaceship Trauma - Ghost Sites in Rubicon

First post
Author
boernl
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#241 - 2013-11-06 13:01:35 UTC
Tul Breetai wrote:
CCP Abraxas wrote:
That's a perfect description for the first site of the first pirate faction that'd start these experiments. It might work for a few more sites, while everyone is in such a mad arms race they haven't yet gotten their security protocols under control. After that, though, having to put out fires on countless sites all over the cluster would start making the brass in each pirate faction doubt whether these things were even worth the effort in the first place Smile

You'll come up with lore reasons not to employ some random idea you were already not employing but you can't answer the question as to why there are pirates in w-space?



thats because they never answer to a player

we aint worth **** for ccp except the contribution we pay
Seismic Stan
Freebooted Junkworks
#242 - 2013-11-06 13:05:33 UTC
IceGuerilla wrote:
2 months after this comes out, there will be comprehensive guides and doctrines to tackle this by the numbers; no danger, no skill. Fleets instaformed to run ghost sites, they will be resigned to the scrapheap of mundanity.

Refer to the history of scannable complexes, Wormholes, Incursions...

You could always avoid reading them. I've never really understood the insatiable need - it undermines game content and sucks out all the fun if you're just following instructions to complete a challenge.

I always considered it cheating.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#243 - 2013-11-06 14:14:49 UTC
CCP Affinity wrote:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
My thoughts. From the perspective of a highsec pirate (AWOXer, merc, ganker) that does visit other types of space.

...
3) These have real potential to drive player versus player conflict, with players racing to the site then fighting over them. To facilitate this in highsec, I strongly think you should make looting these sites a Crimewatch yellow card offence. This will really drive conflict, and does not break immersion (you stole evidence of secret pirate experiments, so you are interfering with a crime scene).


3. I will consider this - but it may end up in a point release if it comes in at all :) I will weigh out the pros and cons but definitely something to consider

Please don't. This once again makes the assumption that something that can cause conflict will drive conflict. That would only be true if the players involved want conflict. The reason most high sec players are in high sec is because they enjoy a play style that avoids conflict. If doing these sites gets you flagged, then doing them will become content ignored my a huge fraction of the player base.

If you want to see examples of this, check out the statistics of:
a) The fraction of missions that come from a high sec agent, but go to low sec, that are actually accepted.
b) The fraction of excursions that start in high sec but go to low sec that are actually completed.

For players who want conflict the game already supplies them with low sec, null and W. Please don't turn part of high sec into low, the game already has low.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction

Allus Nova
#244 - 2013-11-06 14:30:57 UTC
Kellath Eladrel wrote:
Morphisat wrote:
CCP Bayesian wrote:
Let's try not to derail things into a discussion about Hacking.


Well these new sites are based on a mechanic that is seriously flawed and also not fun at all. So it's not so strange people will bring this up. But I won't derail your thread any further.



That's just like, your opinion, man.



One shared by many...
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#245 - 2013-11-06 15:07:04 UTC
Allus Nova wrote:
Kellath Eladrel wrote:
Morphisat wrote:
CCP Bayesian wrote:
Let's try not to derail things into a discussion about Hacking.


Well these new sites are based on a mechanic that is seriously flawed and also not fun at all. So it's not so strange people will bring this up. But I won't derail your thread any further.



That's just like, your opinion, man.



One shared by many...


Not really, most players like the new hacking, probably because it's much more fun and involving than waiting for module to cycle.

.

Andrea Keuvo
Rusty Pricks
#246 - 2013-11-06 17:43:45 UTC
Contractia wrote:
Why is the most expensive module bpc only dropping in WH ?

Ascendancy Omega Blueprint Copy

Adding yet more income to the WH guys, vs those who provide all the content in 0.0 where isk vs reward is way out of balance as it stands.

I don't see a problem with the different bpc's in different area's, but putting the most valuable one into just WH's is simply bad.



This patch has multiple stealth nerfs to nullsec income so why not have an overt one also.
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#247 - 2013-11-06 20:11:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
Vincent Athena wrote:
CCP Affinity wrote:
3. I will consider this - but it may end up in a point release if it comes in at all :) I will weigh out the pros and cons but definitely something to consider

Please don't. This once again makes the assumption that something that can cause conflict will drive conflict. That would only be true if the players involved want conflict. The reason most high sec players are in high sec is because they enjoy a play style that avoids conflict. If doing these sites gets you flagged, then doing them will become content ignored my a huge fraction of the player base.

If you want to see examples of this, check out the statistics of:
a) The fraction of missions that come from a high sec agent, but go to low sec, that are actually accepted.
b) The fraction of excursions that start in high sec but go to low sec that are actually completed.

For players who want conflict the game already supplies them with low sec, null and W. Please don't turn part of high sec into low, the game already has low.


Well, criminal flagging would be the ultimate "born dead" touch. Reward is a piece of sh*t already, just pumping up the risk would essentially kill the feature.

Which maybe would be good, as EVE desperately needs that the thinking heads start treating their customers as adults and take their actions at face value -if they stay in hisec with 30 million SP, then bloody deliver them more hisec content worth having 30 million SP!

The whole "feed them sh*t until they leave" is not working as intended. We don't leave hisec, we leave their bloody game and the arrogant assholes just try to compensate this slow but fatal hemorrhage re-selling the game to everyone who stays.

Seriously guys, if I had a subscription game with a sub price of 15 bucks per month and my actual income per subscriber was 10 bucks per month, I would wonder what's wrong, and would start by asking my employees why some of my customers are systematically treated like sh*t until they leave.

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you

Seamus Donohue
EVE University
Ivy League
#248 - 2013-11-06 21:36:43 UTC
Seamus Donohue wrote:
I'm a bit confused on the implant math. What are the multipliers to warp speed for the full Low-Grade set and for the full High-Grade set?

I think Affinity mentioned updating the DevBlog with these numbers, but I don't see them, yet.

Survivor of Teskanen.  Fan of John Rourke.

I have video tutorials for EVE Online on my YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/SeamusDonohueEVE

Cryo Kool
Tax Holiday
#249 - 2013-11-07 00:50:22 UTC
If they want to encourage people to venture into lowsec then they should scale the risk more. One method would be to increase the number of sentry guns in gates and stations the higher the system sec is to 0.5. It would make perfect sense that a lack of police presence in a 0.4 system would be mitigated by an increased number of sentry guns.
ASadOldGit
Doomheim
#250 - 2013-11-07 02:59:13 UTC
CCP Affinity wrote:
I fully intend to look in to removing scattering from all sites, but that wasn't going to fit into this release as we also need to take a look at the loot tables for all exploration sites.

I don't understand the issue people are having with loot. I'm a highsec carebear missioner and even I have to click on the overview faster than I can click on loot cans. Imagine what a 'ceptor pilot has to do. If people are struggling with these cans, how do they manage more than one target on the overview?

This signature intentionally left blank for you to fill in at your leisure.

Honourain
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#251 - 2013-11-07 03:08:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Honourain
seth Hendar wrote:
Traiori wrote:
There is some irony that the first new exploration content comes in Rubicon.

Maybe we'll get back some of the people who left in Odyssey.

these are anoms, not sigs, so not exploration...exploration died when odyssey was released


Agreed.. Exploration has died with Odyssey.
Who wants to click away after clicking on the 'MINI' game on the loot your earned, just to maybe get 40% of what? the reward?Ugh
Dont get me wrong, I like the 'MINI' game, but the whole scattering thing is too much!
Perhaps adjust the drop rate, and have a static can with drops instead?

~Rain
ASadOldGit
Doomheim
#252 - 2013-11-07 03:09:53 UTC
CCP Affinity wrote:
Turelus wrote:
...
In regards to those failures do these containers damage you when you fail, or only when the sites timer runs out? (sorry if this was already addressed). As it's going to be more frustrating if you start losing ships over it as well.


They damage you both when you fail and when the timer runs out :)

Sorry for the sidetrack, but are these exploding structures adaptable to ordinary mission sites and other anoms? They'd have to be scaled for the level of the mission, but missions are a bit too safe at the moment, and this sounds like something that could easily be inserted into missions without waiting for the whole dreaded "review & restructure" thing that some players are calling for.

If I shoot a building, I would kind of expect it to explode - there's sometimes a huge explosion, and all you get is a (sometimes) pretty visual effect and an underwhelming audio effect. No damage at all, even though I'm sitting right in the middle of the explosion.

A normal building would give kinetic damage, with a bit of thermal.
A fuel-laden building would give lots of thermal and some explosive damage.
A solar-power satellite or energy generator would give EM damage.

Anyway, I'm glad you're thinking about environmental damage. Maybe add some fuel leaks that ignite. Pulsing anomaly clouds similar to what a couple of missions give out. Add some more danger. Big smile

This signature intentionally left blank for you to fill in at your leisure.

ASadOldGit
Doomheim
#253 - 2013-11-07 03:12:01 UTC
Honourain wrote:
seth Hendar wrote:
Traiori wrote:
There is some irony that the first new exploration content comes in Rubicon.

Maybe we'll get back some of the people who left in Odyssey.

these are anoms, not sigs, so not exploration...exploration died when odyssey was released


Agreed.. Exploration has died with Odyssey.
Who wants to click away after clicking on the 'MINI' game on the loot your earned, just to maybe get 40% of what? the reward?Ugh
Dont get me wrong, I like the 'MINI' game, but the whole scattering thing is too much!

~Rain


I think some players are struggling with it because they think they're supposed to get all the loot, instead of enough loot for the time and effort spent getting it.

This signature intentionally left blank for you to fill in at your leisure.

CCP Fear
C C P
C C P Alliance
#254 - 2013-11-07 09:30:07 UTC
Chiming in for implant bonuses;

The low grades have a total of : 38.41% with a complete set
The high grades have a total of: 66.56% with a complete set.
Cassiel Seraphim
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#255 - 2013-11-07 10:52:37 UTC
ASadOldGit wrote:
I think some players are struggling with it because they think they're supposed to get all the loot, instead of enough loot for the time and effort spent getting it.

Welcome to Psychology 101, it feels better to manage to pick up 20 out of 20 items, than to have the potential to pick up 30 but only managing to snatch 20 of them.

Imagine if your boss came to you with a big wad of cash when it was time for you to get paid. He then throws the wad up in the air in a random direction, tells you that you can keep anything you catch before it lands on the floor. It doesn't really matter if there is more money in the wad than you'd normally get paid. No matter what you do you'll see some of that cash hit the floor, opportunity lost, you'll always feel like you could have snatched just one more, or several more.

For a lot of people, that leaves a sour taste in their mouths. I'm glad it doesn't appear to affect you or perhaps even spurs you on as a challenge, but try not to belittle or trivialize the negative effect, because it is very real for a lot of people.

Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#256 - 2013-11-07 12:31:55 UTC
CCP Fear wrote:
Chiming in for implant bonuses;

The low grades have a total of : 38.41% with a complete set
The high grades have a total of: 66.56% with a complete set.


That seems hilariously excessive
ASadOldGit
Doomheim
#257 - 2013-11-07 12:35:59 UTC
Cassiel Seraphim wrote:


For a lot of people, that leaves a sour taste in their mouths. I'm glad it doesn't appear to affect you or perhaps even spurs you on as a challenge, but try not to belittle or trivialize the negative effect, because it is very real for a lot of people.


Oh, it's real for me too, but I can't do anything about it, so I just have to accept it. And, although it may be a bitter pill to swallow, I would think it's healthier for everyone in the long run to accept that, just as you don't always win a fight, or get the best trade deal, or miss out on an industry slot, you don't always get the best loot either.

Perhaps the specific mechanics could be improved, but at least now you get a choice. Before, you clicked a button and got a couple of things at random; I don't think you could even scan the containers. Now, you can scan in advance, and if you see a BPC, for example, I assure you, you're gonna pay attention! You'll do what ever it takes to get that BPC, possibly to the exclusion of all else.

Having said that, I'm ok with the loot spew, but I would prefer they lasted longer. It would be nice to have more time to assess what I wanted, or even get all of it if I'm quick enough. It seems strange that they decay so quickly, considering that, in space, they're actually more likely to last several thousand years.

This signature intentionally left blank for you to fill in at your leisure.

Vol Arm'OOO
Central Co-Prosperity Union
#258 - 2013-11-07 14:02:40 UTC
Seismic Stan wrote:
IceGuerilla wrote:
2 months after this comes out, there will be comprehensive guides and doctrines to tackle this by the numbers; no danger, no skill. Fleets instaformed to run ghost sites, they will be resigned to the scrapheap of mundanity.

Refer to the history of scannable complexes, Wormholes, Incursions...

You could always avoid reading them. I've never really understood the insatiable need - it undermines game content and sucks out all the fun if you're just following instructions to complete a challenge.

I always considered it cheating.


Please, you dont need a guide/doctrine to play whack a mole. To play the mini-game the only skill you need to know is how to click. With the "ghost sites" - ccp has added an element of "twitchyness" to the mini-game. Which simply means "clicking faster." Oh, and tank your ship.

To sum up -- here is the first guide/doctrine to succeed at the ghost sites - 1) click fast; 2) tank ship

I don't play, I just fourm warrior.

Robau
Dark Providence
#259 - 2013-11-07 14:46:50 UTC
Still no news of being able to extract minerals from stars. You tempted us years ago in this chronicle, where a superweapon could be manufactured using minerals sourced from stars!
Rall Mekin
End-of-Line
#260 - 2013-11-07 15:02:20 UTC
CCP Abraxas wrote:
Mabelaba wrote:
CCP Affinity wrote:
SalubriousSky Rinah wrote:
So, ghost sites in w space...will these be seeded with sleepers at the start like current data and relic sites are in w space? And if so, will they be even meaner sonovabitches?


no sleepers, pirate NPCs but A LOT of them in WH sites


Why are there pirates in Wormholes ?
There's two answers to that. Well, three. The purely mechanical answer is just for more variety, but that's a copout. The first answer, which is safe and won't get me into trouble, is that the pirate factions use wormholes just as capsuleers do, and that there's such a glut of Ghost Sites in W-space that you're bound to happen upon some of them.

The second answer, which I'm going to phrase carefully because I know this'll come up again years from now, is this: Part of the long-term view with Ghost Sites is that the pirates are developing technologies that allow them to cross immense expanses - but at the moment, only under extremely limited conditions. (The upcoming Rubicon chronicle touches on this idea.) There is no guarantee that this development will mean pirates - or players - will eventually be able to, I dunno, cyno into w-space at will or something ... but it doesn't take a huge leap of logic to imagine that this kind of instantaneous-transport research might eventually be the cornerstone of new stargate technology.



I hope that there is never cyno'ing into wormhole space. Enough said.