These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Try our new hacking/archaeology sites!

First post First post
Author
mynnna
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#461 - 2013-05-27 19:18:31 UTC  |  Edited by: mynnna
http://i.imgur.com/OQqZnSM.png

Two things. Does Access Difficulty mean anything anymore? It's still on Analyzer modules as well.

-and-

Is the "10" at the bottom supposed to be a bonus to coherence?


e: Bug reported it. Oops


Another minor point that may have been mentioned already; apologies if so, I'm way behind on the thread. But, debris/remains/etc gives no indication that it's been successfully completed, as opposed to something like wrecks which show if they've been opened and/or looted.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

CCP Bayesian
#462 - 2013-05-27 19:45:48 UTC
mynnna wrote:
http://i.imgur.com/OQqZnSM.png

Two things. Does Access Difficulty mean anything anymore? It's still on Analyzer modules as well.

-and-

Is the "10" at the bottom supposed to be a bonus to coherence?


e: Bug reported it. Oops


Another minor point that may have been mentioned already; apologies if so, I'm way behind on the thread. But, debris/remains/etc gives no indication that it's been successfully completed, as opposed to something like wrecks which show if they've been opened and/or looted.


The 10 is a bonus to Coherence, looks like the text hasn't been updated for some reason. Access Difficulty means nothing anymore the harder tiers in sites are gated by the module stats. I'll poke Superfriends tomorrow as they are the guys dealing with this.

The state display is important, the Data Sites actually have visible animation that shows the state but we should put that somewhere obvious as well.

EVE Software Engineer Team Space Glitter

Johan Toralen
IIIJIIIITIIII
#463 - 2013-05-27 22:51:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Johan Toralen
Just did 3 low sec serpentis sites. The hacking difficulty was much easier then in the sites that i did yesterday. Only lost one container. The loot was underwhelming still. 2 decryptors from a data site, worth 11m. 7.5m and 10.5m from two relic sites.

As i used a cargo scanner beforehand i can tell you that there was quite a bit of a discrepancy between what is in the sites and what i managed to get eventualy. 2 decryptors of i think 6 or 7. There was a bpc and two skillbooks in the last relic site (Decayed Serpentis Quarry) of which i got none. With 8 containers and the loot spew the chance to get the bpc is what like 30%? That just doesn't cut it. In the old site when there spawned a bpc in one of the cans you got it. End of story.

But as i wrote in one of my earlier posts i don't even know how this can be balanced. If you put 3 bpc's in to give me as solo a reasonable chance to get one then a group of explorers can easily exploit the system and farm goodies en masse since for them it's not based on luck to get one but a certainty to get all. (or almost all, they can still lose a container to the hacking)

edit: thinking about it i actualy know how it can be balanced to be fair: by scaling the loot and the number of cans according to the number of players on grid. Which then defeats the whole purpose of why the loot spew was invented in the first place.
Freyya
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#464 - 2013-05-27 22:59:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Freyya
CCP Bayesian wrote:
mynnna wrote:
http://i.imgur.com/OQqZnSM.png

Two things. Does Access Difficulty mean anything anymore? It's still on Analyzer modules as well.

-and-

Is the "10" at the bottom supposed to be a bonus to coherence?


e: Bug reported it. Oops


Another minor point that may have been mentioned already; apologies if so, I'm way behind on the thread. But, debris/remains/etc gives no indication that it's been successfully completed, as opposed to something like wrecks which show if they've been opened and/or looted.


The 10 is a bonus to Coherence, looks like the text hasn't been updated for some reason. Access Difficulty means nothing anymore the harder tiers in sites are gated by the module stats. I'll poke Superfriends tomorrow as they are the guys dealing with this.

The state display is important, the Data Sites actually have visible animation that shows the state but we should put that somewhere obvious as well.


Please point them towards my bug report for rigs not providing bonus propperly on SiSi, this afternoon: ID 159433
Aparantly it does not happen all the time but i have yet to see differently.
It might also be that i'm just confused and that everything is working as it should...could'nt find out anymore tbh...
Maddan69
Blunt Force Syndicate
#465 - 2013-05-28 01:16:15 UTC
Can we get a response from a Dev if they are even considering changing the variable which causes the Loot Explosion?

Instead of having two tries at the hacking mini-game either:
Failing the hack attempt you get the loot explosion.
Succeeding in the hack attempt you loot the container like you would normally.

Twenty-four pages of basically everyone calling this loot explosion mechanic horrible is not a good sign and this is just the people "testing" the mechanic... I don't even want to see the outcry on the forums the following days after the patch hits the live server if this mechanic is introduced as it currently stands.
Toddfish
Multiplex Gaming
The Bastion
#466 - 2013-05-28 01:34:59 UTC
Repost from the other thread...

Spent some time scanning and running data/relic sites in Null sec (typically -0.2 true sec). Scanning is quicker (the new mid-slot scanning mods are a nice addition). I did cargo scans on the cans prior to hacking attempts and the total loot seemed to be on-par with nice rolls on TQ now. Successful hacking (and collection of the right spew containers) lead to similar payouts as I currently get on TQ. The faction POS mod BPC was a nice touch too.

While I’m not a big fan of the loot spew, I’ve started to adapt and get better at the process. The reduced number of cans is nice, but clicking on the hard to see icons is still a problem. That said, I’m still having issues with a few collideable objects (the black monolith in the Ruined Guristas Crystal Quarry stood-out to me). Trying to collect cans is hard enough, but not understanding why your ship is bouncing off an object (knowing the cans are soon to disappear) is rage educing.

Today the biggest change I’ve notices is in the difficulty of the hacking mini-game. Running with lvl5 hacking/archeology skills in a Heron (+10 virus strength), T2 mods, T1 rigs for hacking/archeology… my virus strength is 135/40. Despite this, I was only ~50% successful at hacking attempts on the harder containers (Ruins, Remains, Mainframes, etc.). The other cans (Rubble, Com Towers, etc.) seemed like a decent difficulty, but maybe I was just getting lucky with the number of roadblocks I ran into.

Most of my failed attempts were at the result of running into one (or more) virus suppressor. Trying to progress with the reduced strength didn’t seem to work, but fighting them drained most of my coherence. Without finding a utility to boost coherence there was little chance to get through the various firewalls/anti-virus blocks… let alone the core at the end. I wouldn’t have had as much of a problem, but many of the firewalls/anti-virus had coherence of 60-90 each and took a while to get through them.

I can understand trying to have a progression with difficulty (especially by the time you reach the hardest cans in Null sec), but I think the failure rate is too high… especially for a fully-trained character using a specialized ship. Things should be a challenge, but with only having two attempts at hacking a container, there is a fairly high chance of complete failure. The failure also happens with the more difficult cans (which happen to contain the valuable loot), so greatly reducing the desirability and profitability of this profession.

Note: Every time I had a failed attempt a rat spawned. It was mentioned previously that this mechanism was going to change… is that still the plan?

Suggestions:
+ Implement the described mechanism for pre-loading various utilities to improve the chances during difficult hacking attempts. Until this is implemented, please consider decreasing the strength of the various supresors/firewalls/anti-virus. I feel a pilot with max skills, in a properly fitted ship, should fail one attempt from time-to-time, but rarely have a can explode.
+ Add additional mods to increase virus coherence/strength (similar to the new scanning mods).
+ Add additional ship bonuses to virus abilities… it seems weird having to trade-out of a T2/T3 scanning/combat ship for a T1 frig to successfully hack a can.
+ Increase the number of failure attempts possible (maybe even remove the exploding cans) to encourage people to progress towards more difficult sites. If someone decides they want to spend an hour hacking a can (due to skills/fitting/difficulty, the possible loot, etc.) they should be able to.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#467 - 2013-05-28 04:49:57 UTC
Johan Toralen wrote:
Just did 3 low sec serpentis sites. The hacking difficulty was much easier then in the sites that i did yesterday. Only lost one container. The loot was underwhelming still. 2 decryptors from a data site, worth 11m. 7.5m and 10.5m from two relic sites.

As i used a cargo scanner beforehand i can tell you that there was quite a bit of a discrepancy between what is in the sites and what i managed to get eventualy. 2 decryptors of i think 6 or 7. There was a bpc and two skillbooks in the last relic site (Decayed Serpentis Quarry) of which i got none. With 8 containers and the loot spew the chance to get the bpc is what like 30%? That just doesn't cut it. In the old site when there spawned a bpc in one of the cans you got it. End of story.

But as i wrote in one of my earlier posts i don't even know how this can be balanced. If you put 3 bpc's in to give me as solo a reasonable chance to get one then a group of explorers can easily exploit the system and farm goodies en masse since for them it's not based on luck to get one but a certainty to get all. (or almost all, they can still lose a container to the hacking)

edit: thinking about it i actualy know how it can be balanced to be fair: by scaling the loot and the number of cans according to the number of players on grid. Which then defeats the whole purpose of why the loot spew was invented in the first place.


If it makes you feel any better, I just ran a hacking site on TQ. Of three cans, two were empty and the third contained a low-value BPC and a decryptor. The guardian rats at warp-in were still there and people don't just leave BPCs laying around, so I'm sure it's not a case of "someone else looted the other cans".
Sheena Tzash
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#468 - 2013-05-28 07:52:04 UTC
Tried the hacking mini game yesterday and I all I can say at the moment is that when the expansion comes out I simply won't bother with exploration anymore because its just not fun!

I tried with a Probe with hacking rigs, and reasonably high hacking skills (4s) and found the sites to be frustrating and boring.

1) Its a MASSIVE click-fest with no clear goal or objective that I can see other than 'click on all the pretty dots'

2) When a firewall comes up it seems to disable the other 'helpful' modules (like the spanner) so I can't click them.

3) The strength values on a firewall don't seem to relate to anything - I have around 70 points available and if I click a firewall with say a value of 10 I sometimes lose more or less than 10 points? So how can I decide which firewall to click if I don't know what the results will be?

4) If I just click on anything and everything and run out of clickable nodes and all I'm left with are firewall nodes (say 3 for example) but not enough points to do all 3, which node do I click? I can't see an 'end' node I need to reach so I don't know which node is best to click on. So its either take a random chance, run out of points and not be able to do the next one, fail.

I was fairly happy that the rats that spawn after a failure were only small and I could easily run away from them and use some drones to take them out.

The loot spillage affect to me is also very annoying simply because you put the work into getting this far to only get 10% of what your after - and most people won't be glad of the loot they got, they'll concern themselves with the stuff that they MISSED and so it'll seem like whenever you do exploration you'll LOSE something (or not gain 100%)

Even if you bring a friend the chances are that they'll be bored out of their minds waiting for you to scan down a site and then hack it just so that maybe they can click on some boxes that spew out and run away with the good stuff.

Personally I think the whole thing needs to be re-designed; at the end of the day you're taking an activity that before required ZERO skill (ie, click a can and wait for the module to finish) to now require some skill, understanding and a LOT of luck to finish.

You're also making an activity that before was done automatically within a decent time frame (less than 1 min) and 100% chance of success into something that can now take MUCH longer with no guarantee of success.

Basically this means you're EXCLUDING all the players who are bad at mini games.

1) HALVE the size of the mini game so that is short and quick (less than 30 seconds from start to finish)
2) If the hack is successful then the loot is left in ONE container for the hacker to access.
3) If the hack FAILS then you get the 'loot spawn' as before with SOME loot (but not the best).
4) If the user exits the mini game or the module ends then its NOT considered a failure
5) A failure only occurs when the hacker loses all points their in the mini game

At the end of the day the player has put in the time, effort and skills to FIND the site in the first place and therefore deserve SOMETHING for their time; especially if they've risked going into dangerous space to do it.

Giving loot upon failure means that the hacker now has a choice of action to take:

1) Spend more time (and risk of exposure) in completing the mini game for the best loot and 100% chance to full retrieval. Even if this means that they go so far in the mini game, find they can't complete it and cancel and try again. The additional time it takes to re-try is the risk they take.
2) Run the site quick and dirty to get SOME loot thrown out all over the place but not the best.
Itis Zhellin
#469 - 2013-05-28 08:54:17 UTC
Seeing mynnna posting in this thread is an unexpected but very nice surprise, it gives me hope that CSM 8 will be more vigilant about the changes proposed by CCP in the future.
CCP Bayesian
#470 - 2013-05-28 09:41:31 UTC
Maddan69 wrote:
Can we get a response from a Dev if they are even considering changing the variable which causes the Loot Explosion?

Instead of having two tries at the hacking mini-game either:
Failing the hack attempt you get the loot explosion.
Succeeding in the hack attempt you loot the container like you would normally.

Twenty-four pages of basically everyone calling this loot explosion mechanic horrible is not a good sign and this is just the people "testing" the mechanic... I don't even want to see the outcry on the forums the following days after the patch hits the live server if this mechanic is introduced as it currently stands.


We're talking about the scattering mechanic just now and are making a lot of changes to make it more usable.

EVE Software Engineer Team Space Glitter

Lady Manus
Lumen et Umbra
#471 - 2013-05-28 10:04:33 UTC


We're talking about the scattering mechanic just now and are making a lot of changes to make it more usable.[/quote]


And pls don't forget that most explorers like to be solo players.... do you know a guy called Indiana Jones?

LM
Solkara Starlock
Circle of Mystery
#472 - 2013-05-28 11:27:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Solkara Starlock
Listen to the feedback!

The loot scattering as a reward does not work on multiple levels: not rewarding, not enjoyable, too twitchy,...

If it feels like a punishment, make it a punishment.

It has been mentioned before by a number of posters: scatter the loot when you fail the minigame. It makes a lot more sense.
I understand that you guys heve worked hard on this and you don't want to throw all that work out of the window.
Please don't implement it as it is now. You will create a lot of unnecessary rage and frustration when it goes live.
Saheed Cha'chris'ra
Krautz WH Exploration and Production
#473 - 2013-05-28 13:09:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Saheed Cha'chris'ra
Solkara Starlock wrote:
Listen to the feedback!

The loot scattering as a reward does not work on multiple levels: not rewarding, not enjoyable, too twitchy,...

If it feels like a punishment, make it a punishment.

It has been mentioned before by a number of posters: scatter the loot when you fail the minigame. It makes a lot more sense.
I understand that you guys heve worked hard on this and you don't want to throw all that work out of the window.
Please don't implement it as it is now. You will create a lot of unnecessary rage and frustration when it goes live.


I agree. Listen, CCP. Pleeaaaasee. Don't screw this up!
Jommis
The Grand Tour
The Grand Tour Alliance
#474 - 2013-05-28 13:14:37 UTC
Listen to Solkara..
And get ready for a **** storm on the forums when it goes live..
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
#475 - 2013-05-28 13:19:15 UTC
CCP Bayesian wrote:
The problem at the moment is that hackers start each attempt from scratch, you can't bring Utilities in with you and there are no utility elements that give you a peak at what might be where on the board. This limits the strategies that can be developed quite severely.
I don't understand how you can acknowledge this is a problem and yet NOT fix it before implementing the system. It's just mind-boggling. You guys are setting yourselves up for a massive rage shiitestorm when you release it as is. I understand that you wanted a simple first iteration. But this is far too simple, it provides no entertainment and only causes frustration - which is generally a pretty bad idea for a game. Add into it the whole loot spew mechanic that you have unwisely committed yourselves too, and you are gonna have alot of angry players on your hands when it hits TQ. Probably shoulda considered testing this a bit more before release. Cuz let's face it, if it took you months to get to this point, you're not gonna be able to do much more in the week or so you have remaining. We're kinda stuck with this as is - and it's not good.


Solkara Starlock wrote:
Listen to the feedback!

The loot scattering as a reward does not work on multiple levels: not rewarding, not enjoyable, too twitchy,...

If it feels like a punishment, make it a punishment.

It has been mentioned before by a number of posters: scatter the loot when you fail the minigame. It makes a lot more sense.
I understand that you guys heve worked hard on this and you don't want to throw all that work out of the window.
Please don't implement it as it is now. You will create a lot of unnecessary rage and frustration when it goes live.
Pretty much this.
DooDoo Gum
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#476 - 2013-05-28 13:36:45 UTC
Solkara Starlock wrote:
Listen to the feedback!

The loot scattering as a reward does not work on multiple levels: not rewarding, not enjoyable, too twitchy,...

If it feels like a punishment, make it a punishment.

It has been mentioned before by a number of posters: scatter the loot when you fail the minigame. It makes a lot more sense.
I understand that you guys heve worked hard on this and you don't want to throw all that work out of the window.
Please don't implement it as it is now. You will create a lot of unnecessary rage and frustration when it goes live.


^^ this
Saheed Cha'chris'ra
Krautz WH Exploration and Production
#477 - 2013-05-28 14:12:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Saheed Cha'chris'ra
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:

let's face it, if it took you months to get to this point, you're not gonna be able to do much more in the week or so you have remaining. We're kinda stuck with this as is - and it's not good.


They should delay this feature (or the entire expansion), i dont care. I'd rather wait one or two more month for a good expansion then getting the crappy one next week. And if you release this bad-designed feature of exploration mechanics on TQ, fixing it would be not easy.

Don't release it. Fix it. We can wait! We will be patient! Big smile

Also:
I visited two relic sites yesterday, and this new glittery dust clouds around the shipwreck with the spew containers are decreasing my FPS significantly. And i bought an highend-gaming-rig 1,5 years ago (i7, nvidia GTX570, 8Gb Ram). Hope you can fix this, too.
Kel hound
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#478 - 2013-05-28 14:20:22 UTC
I've been messing around with anom's on sisi and I have 2 comments.

1) Please don't spam these sites with a ton of glowy, particle effects. I found one site in nulsec that was just a massive, unnavigable mess of bunkers with what I can only assume was half a dozen glowing orbs just stacked on top of one another in the center. My PC isn't a beast but it handles most anything, when looking at this unholy ball of level-designer rage (I can only assume that the person who designed it hates all life and wishes for me to suffer) my fps dropped to 2. Not 20, not 12, 2 (two).
The low and high sec sites were better, but not by much. The dust clouds cause massive fps drops and while the clutter was not as bad as the nulsec anom I found (I wish I had taken a screenshot, it was just so bad.) it was still poor as far as level design in EVE goes.
Could the loot containers be spaced out a bit more? doesn't have to be by much, 50m or so would do it, so long as their not stacked on top of one another.



2) more an observation rather than a complaint but why do we need two separate modules for what are essentially the exact same thing? Both archeology and hacking have the same interface, the same mechanics and the same challenges, so why do we need to have 2 separate skills and 2 separate modules for the same task? wouldn't it make more sense to roll the functionality of both into the one skill and/or module?
Johan Toralen
IIIJIIIITIIII
#479 - 2013-05-28 15:12:55 UTC
Kel hound wrote:
2) more an observation rather than a complaint but why do we need two separate modules for what are essentially the exact same thing? Both archeology and hacking have the same interface, the same mechanics and the same challenges, so why do we need to have 2 separate skills and 2 separate modules for the same task? wouldn't it make more sense to roll the functionality of both into the one skill and/or module?


Good point. I think they should merge the analyzer into one. Nobody would complain. Frees up a slot also that could be useful for a new category of mods that boost virus strenght and coherence. For the two different rigs it could be made so that one boosts coherence and the other one strenght.
Scuzzy Logic
Space Spuds
#480 - 2013-05-28 17:46:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Scuzzy Logic
Solkara Starlock wrote:
Listen to the feedback!

The loot scattering as a reward does not work on multiple levels: not rewarding, not enjoyable, too twitchy,...

If it feels like a punishment, make it a punishment.

It has been mentioned before by a number of posters: scatter the loot when you fail the minigame. It makes a lot more sense.
I understand that you guys heve worked hard on this and you don't want to throw all that work out of the window.
Please don't implement it as it is now. You will create a lot of unnecessary rage and frustration when it goes live.


Pretty much this. Also, I tried to do hacking with a friend in C1-2 Wormholes (Him in a BC and me in an Echelon due to having only lvl 4 ahcking/Arch skills). Supressors are instalose. Theres nothing else to say. Also, with a slow BC and me not having any kind of AB/MWD we could only get 3 out of something like 7 cans and we were trying HARD. Not to mention we werent hitting DScan every 3 secodns like we would normally do in WHs.

Also, it has been mentionned, but I had to turn off almost all particle effects because my FPS dropped to abyssmal levels due to the bling.

Final complaint: Considering how hard it was to find non-supressor-laden sites AND getting to the cans, the loot was just awful.

If you release this feature as it is, you're going to wind up with so many exploration ship wrecks in protest that the Probes and Magnates will go extinct.