These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Workaround for "Unfinished Relic/Data sites" issue
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
OutCast EG
Very Industrial Corp.
#1 - 2016-12-05 13:53:44 UTC
@CCP Karkur https://twitter.com/CCP_karkur/status/804518398600376324

Part of the issue might be that players aren't aware that it's possible to fail the 'bad' cans to blow them up and thus lead the site to completion.
Or they are aware but aren't willing to spend extra 20s per container (2 cycles) in hostile environment to blow it up by failing the minigame.

This could be improved by adding a "Destroy container" button to the minigame interface, or reducing the module cycle time to like 2s adjusting other stats accordingly. First way would be more clean and obvious of course.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2 - 2016-12-05 15:18:15 UTC
OutCast EG wrote:
@CCP Karkur https://twitter.com/CCP_karkur/status/804518398600376324

Part of the issue might be that players aren't aware that it's possible to fail the 'bad' cans to blow them up and thus lead the site to completion.
Or they are aware but aren't willing to spend extra 20s per container (2 cycles) in hostile environment to blow it up by failing the minigame.

This could be improved by adding a "Destroy container" button to the minigame interface, or reducing the module cycle time to like 2s adjusting other stats accordingly. First way would be more clean and obvious of course.


Make the site only include one can. That way, you either complete the site or get nothing.
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#3 - 2016-12-05 16:18:42 UTC
But I _like_ leaving a junk can in my wake to annoy others. It's exploration PvP.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#4 - 2016-12-05 16:19:55 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
But I _like_ leaving a junk can in my wake to annoy others. It's exploration PvP.


It's still bad design when doing something just half way is the optimal way.
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#5 - 2016-12-05 16:27:41 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
But I _like_ leaving a junk can in my wake to annoy others. It's exploration PvP.


It's still bad design when doing something just half way is the optimal way.


You're stating that as if it's some universal truth and not merely your opinion.

I'd say quite the opposite is true. At present, a site could be worth hacking completely, or not at all, or anywhere in between.

A scenario where it always makes clear sense to pop every can, every time, is what would be bad design as it eliminates any decision making.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#6 - 2016-12-05 16:37:11 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
But I _like_ leaving a junk can in my wake to annoy others. It's exploration PvP.


It's still bad design when doing something just half way is the optimal way.


You're stating that as if it's some universal truth and not merely your opinion.

I'd say quite the opposite is true. At present, a site could be worth hacking completely, or not at all, or anywhere in between.

A scenario where it always makes clear sense to pop every can, every time, is what would be bad design as it eliminates any decision making.


There is no point to design content in which the player's optimal move is to leave it hanging for someone else to find it and see that it's also useless to do and leave it hanging for yet another player to find it and leave it there because once again, it's still not worth the time.

Your point would have merit if there was something to be had because of the site still existing but it does not. You check the can with an analyzer, see it's not worth the hassle to open/haul around if you crack the security on it and then move away. If at least all cans were not scannable, at least you would have people try their luck possibly thinking the last guy might have been chased away or something. Now, you might scan but you usually just assume someone "cleaned" the site of valuables and left.
Iain Cariaba
#7 - 2016-12-05 16:45:24 UTC
Data and relic sites are good bait. Sometimes, however, the explorer gets lucky and manages to finish a can before we land on him. I don't want my bait to go away just cause it took me a long warp to get to the site.
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#8 - 2016-12-05 16:46:07 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:


There is no point to design content in which the player's optimal move is to leave it hanging for someone else to find it and see that it's also useless to do and leave it hanging for yet another player to find it and leave it there because once again, it's still not worth the time.

Your point would have merit if there was something to be had because of the site still existing but it does not. You check the can with an analyzer, see it's not worth the hassle to open/haul around if you crack the security on it and then move away. If at least all cans were not scannable, at least you would have people try their luck possibly thinking the last guy might have been chased away or something. Now, you might scan but you usually just assume someone "cleaned" the site of valuables and left.


No, it works regardless. I'm still deriving value from that site by screwing over other people. That absolutely has a point.

You don't automatically deserve loot for scanning something down. They can pop the site so it will respawn, they can move on (knowing they will probably find more carbon along this path), they can change course, etc.

You're proposing the elimination of ALL of those possibilities, leaving a single, crystal-clear, all-cases best option 100% of the time.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2016-12-05 17:44:19 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
OutCast EG wrote:
@CCP Karkur https://twitter.com/CCP_karkur/status/804518398600376324

Part of the issue might be that players aren't aware that it's possible to fail the 'bad' cans to blow them up and thus lead the site to completion.
Or they are aware but aren't willing to spend extra 20s per container (2 cycles) in hostile environment to blow it up by failing the minigame.

This could be improved by adding a "Destroy container" button to the minigame interface, or reducing the module cycle time to like 2s adjusting other stats accordingly. First way would be more clean and obvious of course.


Make the site only include one can. That way, you either complete the site or get nothing.

And promptly watch the value of loot plummet because data and relic sites have gotten even easier again.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#10 - 2016-12-05 18:42:09 UTC
OutCast EG wrote:
@CCP Karkur https://twitter.com/CCP_karkur/status/804518398600376324

Part of the issue might be that players aren't aware that it's possible to fail the 'bad' cans to blow them up and thus lead the site to completion.
Or they are aware but aren't willing to spend extra 20s per container (2 cycles) in hostile environment to blow it up by failing the minigame.

This could be improved by adding a "Destroy container" button to the minigame interface, or reducing the module cycle time to like 2s adjusting other stats accordingly. First way would be more clean and obvious of course.


I don't see an issue that needs to be addressed in this post.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#11 - 2016-12-05 18:50:08 UTC
We used to have times when sites despawned when there was only cans left that had no loot in their cans. This should be reinstated.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
PopeUrban
El Expedicion
Flames of Exile
#12 - 2016-12-05 23:28:05 UTC  |  Edited by: PopeUrban
Solution:

Put all the loot on one can.

Have the hackable objects be "access nodes" that unlock "encryption layers" of that can, basically adding their loot to the can.

Have the site despawn when the actual loot can is looted.

Thus, the guy that only hacks the good node, loots the can and leaves, and the guy that hacks the whole site, loots, and leaves both do an action that despawns the site, since any time you actually loot the site triggers the despawn?

This also gives a larger window of opportunity for stealing sites from each other, as to get full payout you'd have to leave all the loot in the can rather than your cargo while hacking all the nodes, giving the site thief more time to get in to the site and kill the hacker and actually take the whole site rather than the portions of the loot that happen to drop off the guy's wreck, and provides a single "ambush can" for using such sites as a trap.

Now that said sites are a bit more dangerous in practice, maybe we can then un-**** data sites.
Deckel
Island Paradise
#13 - 2016-12-06 00:21:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Deckel
PopeUrban wrote:
Solution:

Put all the loot on one can.

Have the hackable objects be "access nodes" that unlock "encryption layers" of that can, basically adding their loot to the can.

Have the site despawn when the actual loot can is looted.

Thus, the guy that only hacks the good node, loots the can and leaves, and the guy that hacks the whole site, loots, and leaves both do an action that despawns the site, since any time you actually loot the site triggers the despawn?

This also gives a larger window of opportunity for stealing sites from each other, as to get full payout you'd have to leave all the loot in the can rather than your cargo while hacking all the nodes, giving the site thief more time to get in to the site and kill the hacker and actually take the whole site rather than the portions of the loot that happen to drop off the guy's wreck, and provides a single "ambush can" for using such sites as a trap.

Now that said sites are a bit more dangerous in practice, maybe we can then un-**** data sites.



It's a decent idea, I would change it up a bit though.

Keep some loot in all nodes, but have a primary node with the best loot. Looting the primary node will trigger a despawn timer.
The primary node will either only be accessible after a successful hack on a random secondary node, or completion of each secondary node decreases the difficulty of the primary node (needless to say that the primary node would be insanely difficult without decreasing it's difficulty).
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#14 - 2016-12-06 00:38:11 UTC
Better solution, remove junk loot from the spawn tables, so all cans have a respectable value, then the odd can has a really good value.
Then as long as there is a can you know you are getting some level of value worth your time, but the good stuff might have gone, so if you are blitzing you are hoping it hasn't, but you can take a consolation prize.

Then combine that with a despawn timer which triggers if someone is in site also by appropriate faction ships warping in, moving to the can, then warping out and the whole site self destructing (If they either warp or are killed it self destructs either way) to reflect the owners responding to the alarm and grabbing whatever is left.
Geronimo McVain
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2016-12-06 07:11:30 UTC
One can would result in very fast completion of relic sides and minimize the risks.
Simple solution: make can unscannable so you don't know if there is something valuable inside. Most people will check all cans and the sides will respawn faster: Everyone has an advantage.
Tabyll Altol
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#16 - 2016-12-06 10:10:16 UTC
OutCast EG wrote:
@CCP Karkur https://twitter.com/CCP_karkur/status/804518398600376324

Part of the issue might be that players aren't aware that it's possible to fail the 'bad' cans to blow them up and thus lead the site to completion.
Or they are aware but aren't willing to spend extra 20s per container (2 cycles) in hostile environment to blow it up by failing the minigame.

This could be improved by adding a "Destroy container" button to the minigame interface, or reducing the module cycle time to like 2s adjusting other stats accordingly. First way would be more clean and obvious of course.



Or just finish the site. Seems easier than ask ccp for help.

-1