These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Missions & Complexes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Data Site Improvements

First post First post
Author
Omnathious Deninard
Ministry of Silly Walks.
Parasitic Legion.
#61 - 2015-10-04 11:45:39 UTC
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
You would need to either introduce a means of NPC buy order items into the data sites to guarantee there value or cut the number of items you get from the sites dramatically to force the items to become more valuable.

I was thinking about it, but it would like loot from sleepers site, ISK printing. We need to find items that are linked with market. Relics are in good state. Ghost sites are in good state. Data contain items that can be obtained from other sources and are not consumed enough. If we want to stick with "data lore" then maybe skillbooks, or tags?

What is the key here:
-relics drops BPCs and materials to use them;
-ghost drop BPCs and materials to use them;
-data drops....

I'm browsing eve-markets but can't find suitable items. Cosmos modules are not enough, they won't have enough interest to fill the ISK gap between data and relic sites.

Relic sites are in good shape because ships are constantly being destroyed and new ships are being built and the salvage materials are in constant demand for new rigs. Even the times when a ship is not destroyed and the player simply wants to change what rig they are using they have to get a new rig which means new salvage materials need to be consumed.
I don't know if you remember or even played pre-odyssey but T2 rigs used to cost up to 3~4x the cost of the hull you wanted to put them on because of the rarity of them, and they were hardly affordable for most players. Now they are all but disposable.

Data sites took a hit when the loot spew mechanic was introduced because the loot volume was increased to keep solo explorers able to continue to profit, this caused a massive influx in data site loot along with a massive increase in the number of players doing data and relic sites because of the extremely low entry level of them, the final nail in the coffin was the industry overhaul which removed racial decryptors.

Ghost sites are in good shape because they have items that are sold to a NPC buy order to keep there value up.

As far as ISK printing, it is PVE which is there to make ISK for players, it would not be so much about printing new ISK, but making sure the new ISK that comes for the sites is not too harmful to the economy.

Also as I have been suggesting since the change there must be some form of danger in Data and Relic sites, this would also help to make the sites valuable again as not all players would make it out with there loot, it doesn't need to be in the form of rats but some sort of danger and chance of losing the ship needs to be there, the sleeper sites were a good example of how to make a profitable sites with mostly environmental dangers.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
WiNGSPAN Delivery Network
#62 - 2015-10-04 14:22:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Chance Ravinne
Omnathious Deninard wrote:

Also as I have been suggesting since the change there must be some form of danger in Data and Relic sites, this would also help to make the sites valuable again as not all players would make it out with there loot, it doesn't need to be in the form of rats but some sort of danger and chance of losing the ship needs to be there, the sleeper sites were a good example of how to make a profitable sites with mostly environmental dangers.


I agree this would be cool, though I've also heard it as an argument for killing cargo scanning. Keep ships on grid longer, make them do more cans, and they will die more often to other explorers/explorer hunters.

Or you know just make failed can hacks explosions do damage.

You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT

CCP RedDawn
C C P
C C P Alliance
#63 - 2015-10-04 14:39:14 UTC
Making Ghost sites Sigs and not Anoms is something i'll look into tomorrow and I'll let you know the outcome.

Regarding the variance between hacking data sites vs relic sites, hacking game iterations is something i've been pushing for for a while.
Right now they are too similar in my opinion and I would love to see some more separation.
However that will have to be looked into at another time.

Team Genesis

DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#64 - 2015-10-04 14:56:55 UTC
Chance Ravinne wrote:

I'm also curious what the explorers here think about cargo scanners in exploration sites?

Didn't like it back when the ability to cargo scan Overseer / NPC Commanders for better loot was made public (thus creating the consequence of expedition timer reset mechanic being removed) and I definitely don't like it becoming standard module fit up for Hacking sites (thus promoting 'Cherry Picking' and leaving sites active with worthless loot).

In my opinion Exploration is all about finding something from the Unknown. Shouldn't be able to pick and choose what you want from the sites.

Bottom line : NPC Overseer / Commander / Structure and Containers should all be immune to cargo scanning.



DMC
Omnathious Deninard
Ministry of Silly Walks.
Parasitic Legion.
#65 - 2015-10-04 15:50:23 UTC
Chance Ravinne wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:

Also as I have been suggesting since the change there must be some form of danger in Data and Relic sites, this would also help to make the sites valuable again as not all players would make it out with there loot, it doesn't need to be in the form of rats but some sort of danger and chance of losing the ship needs to be there, the sleeper sites were a good example of how to make a profitable sites with mostly environmental dangers.


I agree this would be cool, though I've also heard it as an argument for killing cargo scanning. Keep ships on grid longer, make them do more cans, and they will die more often to other explorers/explorer hunters.

Or you know just make failed can hacks explosions do damage.

Most explorers I know and most of the ones I help guide always reinforce the understanding that if you are alone in the system you are ok to hack, if you are not alone I recommend finishing up and cloaking until you are alone again.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

Ransu Asanari
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#66 - 2015-10-04 16:06:07 UTC
Quote:
Also as I have been suggesting since the change there must be some form of danger in Data and Relic sites, this would also help to make the sites valuable again as not all players would make it out with there loot, it doesn't need to be in the form of rats but some sort of danger and chance of losing the ship needs to be there


From a PVP Perspective - especially in W-Space, the danger is other players. I've killed MANY explorers running Data/Relic sites in W-Space. I even put a video up on how I do it. So there is risk, and in K-Space, local definitely makes it easier for an explorer to run sites safely. I think this is one of the things that will get addressed with some of the new structures, if delayed local is still on the roadmap - it was discussed last Fanfest.

For PVE danger, some of the problem comes down to the predictability of the sites.

Look at the Sleeper Cache sites - there are environmental dangers you have to avoid, but once you've done it a few times, or watched some guides, you know exactly where the triggers are, what areas to avoid, and the risk of losing your ship lowers significantly.

Don't get me wrong - I love the content of these sites, and I've lost MANY Stratios/Astero trying to run them - especially the Superior Sleeper Cache second and third rooms. Timing those damage waves is harder than you think.

But unless the new dungeon tools being developed will allow for more dynamic sites that we can't do guides for - same as L4 missions and Sleeper Sites - where the triggers are all documented and everyone can read it on EVEU or EVE-Survival, I don't see this changing without a huge amount of effort to recreate what we already have. And I dont think it would be worth it honestly.

I'm hoping instead we see more iteration and new sites created like what is happening with the Burner Missions, and Unknown Wormholes exploration content - that has hacking AND combat mechanics, and almost guaranteed ship loss due to the Drifter Doomsdays, so it seems to check all the boxes you mentioned.
Circumstantial Evidence
#67 - 2015-10-04 16:20:40 UTC
CCP RedDawn wrote:
Regarding the variance between hacking data sites vs relic sites, hacking game iterations is something i've been pushing for for a while.Right now they are too similar in my opinion and I would love to see some more separation.
However that will have to be looked into at another time.
Thank you for this comment, we (hopefully) realize there's only so much you can do to a feature in your "spare" time. Nerfing the loot that was formerly used to make data interfaces, is the most important thing I would like to see from this change. I don't think cutting by half is nearly enough, considering how far these items have dropped in market value. I now have mountains of it from my own explorations and don't even bother to sell it. It's now hardly worth the effort of hauling somewhere or collecting in the first place.

Some of the less-threatening aspects of sleeper caches would add needed variation to data/relic sites, at some future time when development resources can turn in their direction.

I think ghost sites being in the anom category is one if their unique flavors, and creates get-it-now urgency. I've gambled away a number of exploration frigates, due to that. The new sleeper caches fill the opposite need for something hard to find, challenging to scan, and puzzles to solve.

Cargo scanners are an interesting option that I would leave alone. For my first year of play, I didn't know it was possible to scan site loot cans, so its still there as something new players can try and discover, if they don't read the forums.

It's annoying to come across a partially completed site, but I don't usually want to nerf my ship fits by equipping them. Explorers with cargo scanners have one less option available in a pvp situation.
Ransu Asanari
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#68 - 2015-10-04 16:28:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Ransu Asanari
CCP RedDawn wrote:
Making Ghost sites Sigs and not Anoms is something i'll look into tomorrow and I'll let you know the outcome.

I really think this would be a good change.

Since the Besieged Covert Research Facilities are only spawned in Lowsec, you put yourself at an amount of danger that doesn't justify the risk. I personally have passed many of them up when roaming around through Lowsec, in favor of looking for DED Complexes and Expeditions. It's the amount of time/difficulty as running a DED site, but with more chance of being warp scrambled by rats, and being warpable to if anyone comes into system. Because of the high DPS you also need very specific fits, so it's very difficult to defend yourself if someone does try to grab you.

If they were Cosmic Signatures, you could at least have the warning of Core/Combat Probes on you to give you a chance to get out. With DED sites you have even more safety because the further into the site you are, the more acceleration gates have to be traversed to get to you. You can set your DSCAN to 100,000km and know when someone is actually trying to get to you. Since the Besieged Covert Facility Sites don't have acceleration gates, making them Cosmic Signatures would only provide a little more safety, as you can still be combat scanned directly onto.

If the Faction Ghost Sites (Lesser/Standard/Improved/Superior Covert Research Facility) are going to be changed to use the Data Analyzer only, if they were to become Cosmic Signatures as well, they could be reclassified as Data Sites and it would make sense. I actually went back and read through the original Ghost Site thread, and a lot of others were asking for this as well.
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
WiNGSPAN Delivery Network
#69 - 2015-10-04 16:40:32 UTC
I've had people tell me they've never seen a ghost site. 90% of the time the reason is because they have anomalies hidden to declutter their probe scan window!

You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT

Kynric
Sky Fighters
Rote Kapelle
#70 - 2015-10-04 16:55:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Kynric
I think it would be better if the right ship fit for PVE is also a good ship fit for PVP. It would make the occasional victim turned fighter more interesting. To that end I suggest that taking 3 mids on an exploration ship for cargo scanner, data and relic scanners is not optimum. Please consider combining the devices into one module. Use scripts or context to change functionality. Losing one mid is a handicap, losing three is a too much of a handicap.
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#71 - 2015-10-04 18:00:44 UTC
Chance Ravinne wrote:
I agree this would be cool, though I've also heard it as an argument for killing cargo scanning. Keep ships on grid longer, make them do more cans, and they will die more often to other explorers/explorer hunters.

If we killing cargo scanning there should be less cans to hack, maybe -2 per site. Sleepers sites are obvious problem there are to many of them.
Chance Ravinne wrote:
I've had people tell me they've never seen a ghost site. 90% of the time the reason is because they have anomalies hidden to declutter their probe scan window!

It's because there are no difference between anoms in scanner window. We can filter anoms/signatures, not inside the anoms category. I've posted this in new scanner window thread.
Kynric wrote:
I think it would be better if the right ship fit for PVE is also a good ship fit for PVP. It would make the occasional victim turned fighter more interesting.

It's will decrease the treshold for the sites, unless using dat/relic script will require data/relic skill.

CCP RedDawn do you have time for data loot only or maybe for something more? Maybe we will bake some explo little things or some sticky "The state of exploration" thread with thoughts about it. We have analyzers, cargo scanners and sites ideas, maybe it's time to gather post odyssey feedback in one thread.

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville

Kel hound
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#72 - 2015-10-04 18:22:20 UTC
CCP RedDawn wrote:
Making Ghost sites Sigs and not Anoms is something i'll look into tomorrow and I'll let you know the outcome.

Regarding the variance between hacking data sites vs relic sites, hacking game iterations is something i've been pushing for for a while.
Right now they are too similar in my opinion and I would love to see some more separation.
However that will have to be looked into at another time.




Well glad to know its on your radar as well. If there was some decent variation between both site types I wouldnt mind in the slightest, it's just right now it feels like busy work; something done to make me spend more time doing a task.
...are ghost sites still anoms and not sigs? You know, I was curious, how do you tell the difference (for the timer) between some lost nublet warping into site, and an actual explorer looking for loot? I guess you don't, huh... Probably for the best then to make them a sig then and not just an anom.


Chance Ravinne wrote:


I submitted a proposal to merge these skills/modules but right now it doesn't seem feasible... plus perhaps CCP has some cool ideas for further differentiating them in the future.

I'm also curious what the explorers here think about cargo scanners in exploration sites?



I'm fairly ambivalent to cargo scanners. It's necessary for ghost sites, granted, but other than that it feels optional enough that I cant really bring myself to object to them in general exploration gameplay.
Circumstantial Evidence
#73 - 2015-10-04 19:43:20 UTC
Chance Ravinne wrote:
I've had people tell me they've never seen a ghost site. 90% of the time the reason is because they have anomalies hidden to declutter their probe scan window!
A good reason to do something, lol. But I'd fix that problem, by making it not filter-able. Let this type be the one anom you can always see.
Ransu Asanari
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#74 - 2015-10-04 22:26:53 UTC
Chance Ravinne wrote:
I've had people tell me they've never seen a ghost site. 90% of the time the reason is because they have anomalies hidden to declutter their probe scan window!


When Ghost Sites were added, I got into the habit of doing a quick "Show Anomalies" toggle to check for them. But if there are a LOT of anomalies, it is definitely hard to go through, since we can't set very granular filters - for example to only show anomalies with specific text keywords. We can sort by group or name, but we still have to go through it all.

Color coding anomalies would be a good way to help distinguish these. Since they're always going to be 100% and warpable, they don't all have to be solid green. We could have something like this:

Combat Site - Dark Red
Ore Site - Orange/Brown
Ice Belt - Blue/White
Ghost Site - Purple
Tikktokk Tokkzikk
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#75 - 2015-10-04 23:14:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Tikktokk Tokkzikk
Suggestion: add the hacking mini-game to the thukker container in besiged sites. They're currently fairly uninteresting as an extra loot container you just have to burn 10km for.

Edit: would it also be possible to make probe scanner filters for anomalies, too? I'd quite like to filter out faction warfare sites but keep signature, besiged sites, etc.
SpaceSaft
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#76 - 2015-10-05 07:57:07 UTC
Chance Ravinne wrote:
I'm also curious what the explorers here think about cargo scanners in exploration sites?


I thought you're so big on pvp?

Relic + data analyzer, web + scram , mwd is 5 mid slots. That already removes the cheetah and the anathema from the pool of useable ships. The single drone or rocket launcher you can fit on helios and buzzard respectively aren't much, but they're more than other cov ops have usually equipped.

So there really is no space for cargo scanners.
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#77 - 2015-10-05 08:37:30 UTC
I did some digging about cosmos modules. They are basically easier to fit (lower PG and CPU requirements) and have lower activation costs. They perform as good as T2 mods. Not bad, definatelly something worth so look at in terms of fittings.
Maufacturing is a problem, they using sleepers materials.
Where do you want them in term of cost CCP? Between T2 and deadspace mods?

SpaceSaft wrote:
I thought you're so big on pvp?

Relic + data analyzer, web + scram , mwd is 5 mid slots. That already removes the cheetah and the anathema from the pool of useable ships. The single drone or rocket launcher you can fit on helios and buzzard respectively aren't much, but they're more than other cov ops have usually equipped.

So there really is no space for cargo scanners.

PvP? In covop frig? They are for scanning not fighting.

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville

Aivlis Eldelbar
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#78 - 2015-10-05 10:16:34 UTC
Jeremiah Saken wrote:

PvP? In covop frig? They are for scanning not fighting.


The Astero begs to differ. And any of the cruisers (T3s and Stratios) are more than capable of fending off frigates even while fit for exploration.
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
#79 - 2015-10-05 10:45:16 UTC
Ransu Asanari wrote:
Helo Dhals wrote:
As the owner of many storyline module BPCs, making the materials cheaper and more plentiful doesn't make me want to build the modules. Their price will drop as soon as the materials become more affordable. Making the modules have some sort of advantage (aside from just fitting) over meta 4/t2/faction is what would make me want to run the BPCs. Currently the storyline modules are inferior to T2 in every stat aside from fitting.


These are gradually being rebalanced as part of Module Tiercide. I'd make sure to give feedback as these passes continue.


Personally I would say, in addition to any fitting advantages, some or all of the 'Storyline' & certainly 'COSMOS' modules need to have better performance statistics than their T2 equivalents. This has been done with a couple of 'Storyline' modules that are extremely rare drops but as yet nothing else has happened on this issue.

Most of the 'COSMOS' modules are difficult at best to construct whereas T2 technology is 'cheap as chips' and easily acquired so it makes sense for COSMOS & Storyline modules to perform better than T2 tech. I am not calling for the rarity element of COSMOS & Storyline to be lessened particularly as some stuff in-game should harder to acquire. Even officer modules seem to more readily available though so maybe the very rare materials required need to be easier to source. The market/contract price for some of these items is usually exorbitant.

I have pushed for this to happen before and hope at some point it can happen. Smile

" They're gonna feel pretty stupid when they find out. " Rick. " Find out what ? " Abraham. " They're screwing with the wrong people. " Rick. Season four.   ' The Walking Dead. ' .

Ransu Asanari
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#80 - 2015-10-05 10:47:14 UTC
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
PvP? In covop frig? They are for scanning not fighting.


The Battle Heron and Blaster/Rail Imicus would also like a word with you.

The T2 Covops ships make great covert cyno tacklers due to their price, fast warp speed, and agility.