These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Feedback for Hacking/Archaeology feature from 27/5/13 onward

First post First post
Author
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#241 - 2013-05-30 04:02:13 UTC
mynnna wrote:
"IThe unique thing about the spray is that multiboxing it and being better off than having a genuine second person would be rather difficult. That's a good thing, because cooperation isn't cooperation when it involves your alts.


qft

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Heinel Coventina
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#242 - 2013-05-30 04:02:43 UTC
Ali Aras wrote:
Flamespar wrote:
I'm enjoying the exploration a lot more. I think the difficulty of the sites could be increased though.

The only thing I would suggest is adding the following.

It would be great if each time you destroyed a system core, you were given the choice to go a level deeper into the system, or to jettison the accessed cargo. Each time you enter a deeper level it becomes more complex and difficult, yet the potential rewards become greater. Of course the risk of failure should also escalate with every additional level.

I'm going to represent the player base a little and +1 the hell out of this Blink

Bonus points if the double-or-nothing mechanic is easier with a friend, maintaining the intent of more multiplayer PvE.


Bring friends to provide a backup hack for hacking escalations is brilliant, definitely +1.
Telrei
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#243 - 2013-05-30 04:04:12 UTC
mynnna wrote:
"It's always been this way, so it always should be that way" makes things pretty boring.

Also, every single one of the ways you suggested to make it "multiplayer" just makes it "multi-account". Any of them could be multiboxed. The unique thing about the spray is that multiboxing it and being better off than having a genuine second person would be rather difficult. That's a good thing, because cooperation isn't cooperation when it involves your alts.



Ok... Then I propose that we make all complexes have this new anti-multibox feature as well.

Why should it be mandatory that all Hacking and Arch sites be shielded from multiboxers when I can run a 10/10 multibox and get 1-2b+

"You can't run a 10/10 that easily multi-boxed"
Then make the high level hacking sites as difficult to run multi-boxed without this new gimmick


Why are you and some of the other CSM so intent on making sure that Hacking and Arch sites MUST require two+ people to run when I can run a 5/10-6/10 complex solo and more than likely make as much isk if not more....

It almost seems as if you want to punish any solo player who isn't fielding a 1b+ ship and EVEN THEN in this situation it wouldn't help you one bit.

Am I stating that I want to breeze through every hacking site no of course not. I am saying that the risk reward should remain constant... The higher level the site the more difficult the more risk I take running it solo or multi-boxed if even possible


mynnna
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#244 - 2013-05-30 04:18:38 UTC  |  Edited by: mynnna
Telrei wrote:
mynnna wrote:
"It's always been this way, so it always should be that way" makes things pretty boring.

Also, every single one of the ways you suggested to make it "multiplayer" just makes it "multi-account". Any of them could be multiboxed. The unique thing about the spray is that multiboxing it and being better off than having a genuine second person would be rather difficult. That's a good thing, because cooperation isn't cooperation when it involves your alts.



Ok... Then I propose that we make all complexes have this new anti-multibox feature as well.

Why should it be mandatory that all Hacking and Arch sites be shielded from multiboxers when I can run a 10/10 multibox and get 1-2b+

"You can't run a 10/10 that easily multi-boxed"
Then make the high level hacking sites as difficult to run multi-boxed without this new gimmick

Maybe they'll get to that someday.


Telrei wrote:
Why are you and some of the other CSM so intent on making sure that Hacking and Arch sites MUST require two+ people to run when I can run a 5/10-6/10 complex solo and more than likely make as much isk if not more....

They don't require 2+ people to run. They require 2+ people to loot all the cans, but since the loot is balanced for two, that's fine. If one person is running it, they still get their fair share.

And, comparing these things to 5/10 or 6/10s is apples and oranges and you know it.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
#245 - 2013-05-30 04:21:49 UTC
Telrei wrote:
Why are you and some of the other CSM so intent on making sure that Hacking and Arch sites MUST require two+ people to run when I can run a 5/10-6/10 complex solo and more than likely make as much isk if not more....
Well actually they already are somewhat similar. In order to completely maximize your ISK haul in a complex, you'd want to have a buddy along with you to do looting and salvaging. And similar to the can spew, he sits there and does pretty much nothing while watching you be actively engaged with game content. And then when it's all over, you can split the reward with him even though you are the one with the skills and the ship that made the entire thing possible. Of course, that is assuming you can talk somebody into spending their time doing that. So yeah, it already is kinda like can spew.... :-/
Telrei
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#246 - 2013-05-30 04:24:05 UTC
I don't usually like to double post but it just came to me....

This is the emergency nerf....

Someone suddenly realized that if you added the new mini-game people would go after EVERY hacking site in the game to try it out....

The entire market would be flooded with the onset of new and old people who never gave a hoot about hacking or just did it from time to time and now suddenly enmass are trying it...

Rather then pulling the plug this late in the iteration you needed a balance....

You knew that most people run hacking/arch sites solo so you added the can spew in to make sure that the VAST amount of people who used to run hacking would still stay away...
As I have said before if I try and get someone to help they will say don't waste your time on that hacking site come mine/plex/mission. et....

You keep the solo players in check because most will stop running and the market will remain unflooded....

Well played... you have succeeded on this until the next iteration where the can spew is magically gone and replaced with one if not multiple of the ideas listed that will take much much longer to code and balance....

Naomi Hale
#247 - 2013-05-30 04:39:07 UTC
Ali Aras wrote:
It is mathematically impossible for me to represent all the players, and the people who have issues with the spew are so effectively representing yourselves in this thread Blink Given that, I must state my honest and genuine perspective for which I was elected, having marked it with my prior relevant history in similar tasks and disclaimed any representation of the majority (and yes, I realize most of my campaign was run on NPE-- I've given *that* feedback on this feature too, and not all of it was nice). I've spent hours testing this, partly on the urging of the players, and I've given feedback other places than this.

mynnna wrote:
Yes, I'm here to represent the players. Of course, I'm allowed to think for myself as well, and I rather liked the notion of things that you actually have to cooperate with others to leverage to their fullest potential. So, if (as in this case) I believe people are being spoiled little whiners, stamping their feet and demanding ALL THE THINGS, I'm going to tell them as much.

I understand that you can't represent everyone and that you are allowed to express your own opinion even if (and sometimes especially because) it contradicts some players. My issue was more with the wording and tone of the post.

Ali Aras wrote:
I understand that people are mad about that, but I feel that that's something for them to get over and start treating like a challenge. If loot values are still too low, they can be tweaked a bit. EVE isn't supposed to be easy.

This seems to acknowledge that some players have issues with the new feature and then literally tells them to 'get over' it. Where as something like...

Ali Aras could have wrote:
I feel that this should be treated like a challenge. If loot values are still too low, they can be tweaked a bit. EVE isn't supposed to be easy.


Seems less confrontational.

It's all about PR and spin, you're a politician now, I'm afraid this is stuff you need to consider. But at least you didn't refer to people as 'spoiled little whiners' Lol

I'm Naomi Hale and this is my favourite thread on the forums.

Heinel Coventina
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#248 - 2013-05-30 04:41:24 UTC
Naomi Hale wrote:

It's all about PR and spin, you're a politician now, I'm afraid this is stuff you need to consider. But at least you didn't refer to people as 'spoiled little whiners' Lol


I'd rather my representatives do not lie, mince words, or otherwise wasting time fine tuning their PR spin.
mynnna
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#249 - 2013-05-30 04:41:45 UTC
Telrei wrote:
I don't usually like to double post but it just came to me....

This is the emergency nerf....

Someone suddenly realized that if you added the new mini-game people would go after EVERY hacking site in the game to try it out....

The entire market would be flooded with the onset of new and old people who never gave a hoot about hacking or just did it from time to time and now suddenly enmass are trying it...

Rather then pulling the plug this late in the iteration you needed a balance....

You knew that most people run hacking/arch sites solo so you added the can spew in to make sure that the VAST amount of people who used to run hacking would still stay away...
As I have said before if I try and get someone to help they will say don't waste your time on that hacking site come mine/plex/mission. et....

You keep the solo players in check because most will stop running and the market will remain unflooded....

Well played... you have succeeded on this until the next iteration where the can spew is magically gone and replaced with one if not multiple of the ideas listed that will take much much longer to code and balance....



You, uh, do realize that CCP went ahead and made the cans so slow that a reasonably capable player can get nearly all of them now, right? I mean, it kinda pokes a hole in your theory there...

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Naomi Hale
#250 - 2013-05-30 04:45:35 UTC
Telrei wrote:
I don't usually like to double post but it just came to me....

This is the emergency nerf....

Someone suddenly realized that if you added the new mini-game people would go after EVERY hacking site in the game to try it out....

The entire market would be flooded with the onset of new and old people who never gave a hoot about hacking or just did it from time to time and now suddenly enmass are trying it...

Rather then pulling the plug this late in the iteration you needed a balance....

You knew that most people run hacking/arch sites solo so you added the can spew in to make sure that the VAST amount of people who used to run hacking would still stay away...
As I have said before if I try and get someone to help they will say don't waste your time on that hacking site come mine/plex/mission. et....

You keep the solo players in check because most will stop running and the market will remain unflooded....

Well played... you have succeeded on this until the next iteration where the can spew is magically gone and replaced with one if not multiple of the ideas listed that will take much much longer to code and balance....


But aren't the number of sites spawned still limited so the amount of loot that can make it onto the market is consistent, no matter how many players run these sites?

I'm Naomi Hale and this is my favourite thread on the forums.

kyofu
Praetorian Black Guard
#251 - 2013-05-30 05:07:40 UTC  |  Edited by: kyofu
mynnna wrote:

*snip* So, if (as in this case) I believe people are being spoiled little whiners, stamping their feet and demanding ALL THE THINGS, I'm going to tell them as much.*snip*


Some people have valid complaints with the spew. I tried it for a few hours and my wrists were throbbing. I found it a headache inducing, eye straining and extremely frustrating experience.

Also explorers are used to getting nothing for their efforts, so I think you are misreading the intent behind most of the posts. The RNG on loot drops is a fickle and cruel mistress. While some posts have noted the negative psychological aspect of having to watch potential loot float away, it should be obvious that if you were to instead get all the loot that "all" would be significantly less than the current all.

I have seen several much better ideas for loot distribution which integrate the minigame and allow for a dynamic experience. I see you read one and agreed its a good idea. Even if you agree with the intent behind the mechanic (cooperative gameplay) I think there are many far superior and less frustrating ideas out there as to how to achieve those same gameplay goals.
Tsubutai
Perkone
Caldari State
#252 - 2013-05-30 05:31:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Tsubutai
mynnna wrote:
They don't require 2+ people to run. They require 2+ people to loot all the cans, but since the loot is balanced for two, that's fine. If one person is running it, they still get their fair share.

How can the loot be balanced for two when one person can grab 80-90% of the cans by themselves and the spew cans now move so slowly that it's trivial to get them all by dualboxing if you really care about the missing 10-20%?
Naomi Hale
#253 - 2013-05-30 05:36:22 UTC
I want to clear up my position here as it does tend to get lost in posts and responses and moves off topic.

I have no problem with the spew can/pinata mechanic or any of the new hacking and scanning, it's all good, different and promotes some new co-op play, I think it achieves what it set out to do.

My issue is that it is focused too much on isk/hour, loot value and feels like just another way to make money in a game that already has lots of ways to make isk. Like a job where you need to maintain your level of productivity.

I wanted exploration, and archaeology in particular, to focus more on the discovery and story elements of EVE Online and to bridge the large gap between the in-game world and the lore rich website content, like Evelopdia, the chronicles, news reports and yes even the EVE books. I was looking forward to an activity in EVE that used some of the games excellent story and wasn't just a means to make money and fund player corps, wars and conflict.

Outside of the epic missions there isn't any story in EVE the isn't player driven or Corp politics. New Eden's in-game world feels static and unconnected to the events written about NPC actions. I didn't even notice Souro Foiritan had been out of office until I read 'Templar One'. Despite massive changes within the Armarr leadership out of game they still feel the same in-game.

I know EVE is a player driven sandbox, but if the story isn't important why is it there? Minecraft is a sandbox, has no story and is still an excellent game.

And I kind of hoped Odyssey was the beginning of bridging that gap and enriching the story of New Eden for players. That's why to me personally the new exploration is a good well designed activity to do in EVE Online, but it's not exploration.

If I could make but one change to the new content it would be that the relic sites with salvage loot use existing assets in space, but sites that actually have relics use the new Terran ship derelict and just the derelict (clouds and rocks are fine) so that there is a feel of finding something long forgotten and hidden. Nothing shatters that feeling quicker than finding an ancient ship and seeing it in space along side Empire station ruins, Pirate structures or any number of assets you've already seen running missions and complexes..

I'm Naomi Hale and this is my favourite thread on the forums.

Kel hound
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#254 - 2013-05-30 06:04:13 UTC
mynnna wrote:
"It's always been this way, so it always should be that way" makes things pretty boring.

Also, every single one of the ways you suggested to make it "multiplayer" just makes it "multi-account". Any of them could be multiboxed. The unique thing about the spray is that multiboxing it and being better off than having a genuine second person would be rather difficult. That's a good thing, because cooperation isn't cooperation when it involves your alts.



To be fair, there are reasons why "it has always been this way" and there are reasons why "it should always be this way". For one thing, the overview is the single most efficient way to navigate EVE's 3D space than CCP has ever given us. Any frigate/interceptor pilot can tell you that precision navigation in EVE is hard. While this is not necessarily a bad thing when it comes to ship-to-ship combat, it makes for an atrocious "reward" mechanic.

Yes, having a system that discourages multiboxing is a good thing, but this loot bukaki is a cure worse than the disease. Why can't we have the same fast loot mechanic in a floating can, using the inventory window? A limited time to pick up vague mini-cans containing our loot, but without the frustration of having to click on tiny little cans flying off into space?
Telrei
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#255 - 2013-05-30 06:10:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Telrei
mynnna wrote:

You, uh, do realize that CCP went ahead and made the cans so slow that a reasonably capable player can get nearly all of them now, right? I mean, it kinda pokes a hole in your theory there...


Not really just means that they went too far....
Your keyword is nearly.. still means a solo player will still be put off enough after time just because of the mechanics and missing a couple of cans.

I have been playing for a very very long time and I know you have been around since the start.
Eve is always and should always be the giant sandbox...

If you want to play solo you can play solo
If you come to a harder challenge you just need more skills and a better ship or a group of lesser skilled players
If you come to great challenges you can't beat no matter the skill or ship you need a group
If you want to play with a group made up of yourself to overcome those same great challenges you can

The current system does away with that as a blanket ban....

I guess my question to you is simple.
Why do you feel that all hacking and Arch sites should require multiple players no matter what the difficulty of the challenge is.
Doesn't matter if I have 100+SP char with a +1b properly fit ship.
Doesn't matter if I have 4 accounts that I am multi-boxing at once that can easily run almost any other site/mission/plex in the game.

Just that currently every hacking/Arch site no matter the level or difficulty must have two people running it to get the full reward....
Ali Aras
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#256 - 2013-05-30 07:40:08 UTC
Tsubutai wrote:
mynnna wrote:
They don't require 2+ people to run. They require 2+ people to loot all the cans, but since the loot is balanced for two, that's fine. If one person is running it, they still get their fair share.

How can the loot be balanced for two when one person can grab 80-90% of the cans by themselves and the spew cans now move so slowly that it's trivial to get them all by dualboxing if you really care about the missing 10-20%?

You...you realize that me pointing this out is the feedbacklet that started this whole kerfuffle, right? I'm aware, and I posted here (and will perhaps follow up later) to make sure CCP is aware.

Telrei wrote:

I have been playing for a very very long time and I know you have been around since the start.
Eve is always and should always be the giant sandbox...

If you want to play solo you can play solo
If you come to a harder challenge you just need more skills and a better ship or a group of lesser skilled players
If you come to great challenges you can't beat no matter the skill or ship you need a group
If you want to play with a group made up of yourself to overcome those same great challenges you can

The current system does away with that as a blanket ban....

I guess my question to you is simple.
Why do you feel that all hacking and Arch sites should require multiple players no matter what the difficulty of the challenge is.

Hacking and archaeology sites do not require multiple players to complete. I can and have gone into a hacking and archaeology site 100% solo and completed it, defined as completing the minigame successfully and scooping loot to my hold. The containers, especially under their previous scatter, are a challenge of ship piloting and judging trajectories, just as taking on a hard mission or DED site is a challenge of overheating hardeners and timing your attacks well. Even under the previous speeds, one could always get *some* containers, making a complete failure impossible. Progress in container-scooping is possible and optimizing it is a fun little learned skill, although I'm sure there are folks who'll disagree with that. Fine! It's a sandbox, content for everyone.

If I complete the site solo or if I complete the site with a friend, I end up with the same reward-- intended to be balanced, as blueposts up thread have said, so that the usual containers-scooped by a single person are equivalent in value to pre-Odyssey push button sites. In short, nothing about the rewards earned should be changing. If it changes in the real world, and this is something CCP has the powers to evaluate, their stated design goals indicate that it should be tweaked and I can assure you that this is something I will follow up on after release.

In short, the sandbox is intact. You can play how you want. You can bring a friend if you want to, and they can hack the container next to you (you can race, even!) and minimize when you open the container, giving you a faster completion of the site overall. If you do this, you will receive the same reward as if you ran solo except you'll be able to actually play with your friends for once. It's increasing options, not decreasing them.

P.S: you know where no amount of multiboxing can overcome a well-oiled fleet? It's PvP. it's already in the game, it's just something you don't encounter.

http://warp-to-sun.tumblr.com -- my blog

Westar Egdald
Doomheim
#257 - 2013-05-30 07:57:37 UTC
New system is bad. It's not about skills of your character. It's about your clicking skill.
Raven Solaris
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#258 - 2013-05-30 08:13:11 UTC
mynnna wrote:

Yes, I'm here to represent the players. Of course, I'm allowed to think for myself as well, and I rather liked the notion of things that you actually have to cooperate with others to leverage to their fullest potential. So, if (as in this case) I believe people are being spoiled little whiners, stamping their feet and demanding ALL THE THINGS, I'm going to tell them as much.

I sincerely hope that CCP doesn't abandon the original intent of the can spray and that future iterations on this feature bring back sites that really do require cooperation. Multiplayer hacking to release multiple can sprays and the like, perhaps.

And in the meantime, since the loot is currently (in theory?) tuned to be rewarding for two players working to get all the cans, I hope they dial it back, since after all, one player getting loot meant for two would be a bit too good, right? Blink


The problem is that it's bad co-op.

Raven Solaris wrote:
I'm gonna add onto that last post of mine.

When I go scanning on TQ right now, and I find Hacking, Archaelogy, and Salvaging sites, I'll run them myself. I don't really need help, and it's a nice little boost to my wallet.

If I find a Combat site, which since I'm talking about 0.0 is usually an 8/10 or 10/10 and such, I have 2 friends I ask along, no alts, no super solo ship (don't even think there's a ship in EVE that can solo 10/10s.) Usually I'll go in in something heavy, my first friend brings a Logistics cruiser, and my second brings an Ishtar or something to cover the Logi and help with DPS.

Everyone has a role, and we work together to (maybe) get something awesome like a Nightmare Blueprint (never happens.) It's fun.

So I have no qualms with calling friends up to come do hacking sites with me if they're available, but I don't want to ask them to come twiddle their thumbs 90% of the time and click frantically for the other 10%, it wouldn't be fun for them.


Ali Aras wrote:

In short, the sandbox is intact. You can play how you want. You can bring a friend if you want to, and they can hack the container next to you (you can race, even!)


As much as I love racing (I occasionally do"scan offs" with another Spoon,) that's a terrible idea. Especially if you want to make the cans spread faster again, since whoever "loses" is likely to end up having to move more than 6km away from their container causing them to fail.
Rob Crowley
State War Academy
#259 - 2013-05-30 08:14:32 UTC
In my opinion the discussion is moving in a rather unconstructive direction here. Could we please get back to the part where can spewing is bad not because you don't get enough loot (which already has been fixed mostly) but because Eve's space view is rather terrible for twitchy gameplay and nobody in their right mind would actually enjoy sitting around waiting for someone else to do the actual hacking gameplay just to take part in that rather annoying catch-the-can game (and possibly spamming dscan before which is even less enjoyable)?

mynnna wrote:
"It's always been this way, so it always should be that way" makes things pretty boring.
Well, let me answer in the roughly translated and shortened words of a comedian: 'You all know this sentence: "Everything was better in the past." That's bollocks! Nothing was better in the past! But some things were good in the past and they would still be good today if people had kept their damn fingers off them.'
And just so I don't get misunderstood here, I'm not saying exploration didn't need some work, I'm simply trying to counter your notion that change as such is positive.

Quote:
Also, every single one of the ways you suggested to make it "multiplayer" just makes it "multi-account". Any of them could be multiboxed. The unique thing about the spray is that multiboxing it and being better off than having a genuine second person would be rather difficult. That's a good thing, because cooperation isn't cooperation when it involves your alts.
I'm about as anti-alt as it gets, but you can't tell me that it's not possible to design a hacking minigame in a way that it prohibits alt play. I already mentioned in the other thread that some part of the gameplay needs to be twitchy and real-time to some degree to achieve the anti-alt goal, but in case of the hacking game it would at least be in a seperate window and hopefully without moving parts that are floating on top of each other.

Telrei wrote:
Why do you feel that all hacking and Arch sites should require multiple players no matter what the difficulty of the challenge is.
Nobody said that and they don't require multiple players. There is no god-given right to get all loot solo, even though I agree that loot collecting is the worst possible part of an activity to encourage group play from a game design perspective.
Raven Solaris
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#260 - 2013-05-30 08:15:25 UTC
I mean really does anyone want to come onto the test server now and be the guy who just sits around waiting while I hack?

If you want co-op in the hacking sites, and I really think it'd be cool, it should be in the hacking itself, not in a ridiculous pinata with a magic tractor beam.