These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#421 - 2013-05-31 20:01:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Freighdee Katt
Maximus Andendare wrote:
CCP Bayesian wrote:
Sven Viko VIkolander, absolutely we're keenly aware that this part of the feature has had lots of negative reactions and will be watching the statistics we get back about use very closely.
It really just seems that the success or failure of the hack should determine whether you get inside "cleanly" or whether the contents go flying off in space, and you collect what you can as a consolation prize.

Scenario 1: Hacker is successful at getting the goods. Present him or her with a loot window. Profit.

Scenario 2: Hacker is unsuccessful at getting the goods. Present loot scatter mechanic as the penalty. (Less) profit.

^^ This totally should be the way this plays out. The GAME is the hacking, not the loot scattering. I think you guys are somehow stuck on the idea that the loot scatter is game-like, when in actuality its the hacking that is the main shining point of the new hacking system. The loot scattering (from some lore-based emergency protection mechanic of the container) would provide the explorer with loot, albeit not as much, while the "good" hackers take most of it. This system rewards players who specialize into--and work at being good at--the hacking skills and exploration parts of the game. It certainly makes the most sense.

Used in this way, the loot spew would actually be pretty reasonable and funny, and it would happen rarely enough to most dedicated explorers that it doesn't feel like a constant annoyance in the middle of "the real game."

It's a good idea.

EvE is supposed to suck.  Wait . . . what was the question?
Naomi Hale
#422 - 2013-05-31 20:02:08 UTC
Okay, played some more Sisi and ran some relic sites. I'm still liking (learning to love) this new stuff, I only get about 40-50% loot and i ignore scarps/parts containers but even then I collected 110 million isk of loot in 2 low sec sites.

I am now sure of my earlier assumption (here). We are hacking/overriding airlocks and access ports. This makes the entire system far more enjoyable and realistic to me now. Removing the jettison mechanic would remove the feel of the derelict's contents being blown out into space.

On that note, I've found that if I close or minimize everything on the ui except the overview, hold 2500m from objects, assume hostiles are in system and navigate/interact with the new radial menu the experience is even better. Hats off to both dev teams on that combo.

I'm Naomi Hale and this is my favourite thread on the forums.
Azurielle Silestris
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#423 - 2013-05-31 20:04:01 UTC
Freighdee Katt wrote:
Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:
But no point debating about this, numbers later on won't lie. The numbers vindicated most of Retribution, we'll see if they vindicate exploration in Odyssey, which I certainly hope they do for low sec esp. etc.

It depends on what numbers they look at. It's not like anyone will unsub over loot spew. They likely will get a nontrivial number of returns or new subs by virtue of the fact that it's "an expansion" and it will get some media coverage and account for some new ad buys. People might stay for reasons that have nothing to do with exploration, and that's always good. If they just count new subs, then it will almost certainly come out as a "win" no matter how the actual content is perceived in the end.

I assume they can track how many instances of what types of explo sites people run before and after the patch. It's certain there will be a big uptick in explo activity right after the patch drops. If it settles at a higher level than it was before the expansion, then that's at least something. And no matter what people say about it here, if there is any overall uptick in explo activity, it will certainly be proclaimed a win, even if it's just a very low level of activity getting somewhat less low. If the numbers are small enough now, it's pretty easy to add a small number to a small number and get a "200% improvement!"

Whatever numbers they look at though, none of them will tell you what those same numbers would have been with everything else in Odyssey the same, but minus the loot spew. We're never going to see that number, because that permutation is never going to be tested.


CCP will derail any conversation saying e hate a ''feature''. Take a loof at how they keep changing the subject of POSes when CSM brings it up because ''it'd only benefit a small fraction of players'' despite the fact that most people who ever had to do with a POS, like me, just hate how damned impractical they are as they stand. Sure, we got 1 new module addressing 1 problem, but then they made it so outposts (read: supercorps) get more assembly lines and booster labs if they want to.

CCP is worse than a certain Greatest Ally middle-eastern country when it comes to pushing hidden agendas.
Scuzzy Logic
Space Spuds
#424 - 2013-05-31 20:12:56 UTC
Naomi Hale wrote:
Solkara Starlock wrote:
What I mean that it doesn't make sense is that if someone hacks into a computer or mainframe or whatever, the result of a succesfull hack is access to that computer or mainframe. Not triggering some exploding mechanic. That sounds more like triggering a defensive system to protect the content.

I was working under the assumption that we were hacking an airlock release, delivery bay or access panel, and success exposed the contents to vacuum, blowing it out into space, failure locked the hatch and the system kicking you out.

I think we'd have little luck hacking a computer bigger than our ships, also blueprints and datacores are physical objects (disks, usb sticks, hard-drive etc), they need cargo space, we aren't copying the data to our ship's computer, are we?

But like I said, that was my assumption of what was occurring, it could be wrong.


And it seems logical to you that a skilled hacker could not depressurize an unmanned (seriously they're data access terminals, why need an atmosphere) hangar and hook up his cargo bay to it? Or just point the magic beam directly in front of it as it opens? Hell, why can't I have my salvage drones bore a hole in the thing and go inside?

Now if you FAIL your hacking attempt and just force the door to open like a script kiddie without depresurizing, then loot spew happening makes sense.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#425 - 2013-05-31 20:15:44 UTC
CCP Bayesian is it possible to make the 2 modules into one but still affected by the 2 different skills?
For instance a T1 Analyzer would have virus strength of 20 and a Relic Coherence of 40 and a Data Coherence of 40.
If you had hacking trained to level 4 and archeology trained to 1 you would have a Virus strength of 20, a Relic Coherence of 50 and a Data Coherence of 80.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Scuzzy Logic
Space Spuds
#426 - 2013-05-31 20:16:32 UTC
Maximus Andendare wrote:
CCP Bayesian wrote:
Sven Viko VIkolander, absolutely we're keenly aware that this part of the feature has had lots of negative reactions and will be watching the statistics we get back about use very closely.
It really just seems that the success or failure of the hack should determine whether you get inside "cleanly" or whether the contents go flying off in space, and you collect what you can as a consolation prize.

Scenario 1: Hacker is successful at getting the goods. Present him or her with a loot window. Profit.

Scenario 2: Hacker is unsuccessful at getting the goods. Present loot scatter mechanic as the penalty. (Less) profit.

^^ This totally should be the way this plays out. The GAME is the hacking, not the loot scattering. I think you guys are somehow stuck on the idea that the loot scatter is game-like, when in actuality its the hacking that is the main shining point of the new hacking system. The loot scattering (from some lore-based emergency protection mechanic of the container) would provide the explorer with loot, albeit not as much, while the "good" hackers take most of it. This system rewards players who specialize into--and work at being good at--the hacking skills and exploration parts of the game. It certainly makes the most sense.


You know, having friends around and just boring your way through the system blindly and having them pick up the spew instead of doing a quality hack would then become a thing, allowing two play styles for 1 mechanic. I like it.
Naomi Hale
#427 - 2013-05-31 20:38:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Naomi Hale
Scuzzy Logic wrote:
Naomi Hale wrote:
Solkara Starlock wrote:
What I mean that it doesn't make sense is that if someone hacks into a computer or mainframe or whatever, the result of a succesfull hack is access to that computer or mainframe. Not triggering some exploding mechanic. That sounds more like triggering a defensive system to protect the content.

I was working under the assumption that we were hacking an airlock release, delivery bay or access panel, and success exposed the contents to vacuum, blowing it out into space, failure locked the hatch and the system kicking you out.

I think we'd have little luck hacking a computer bigger than our ships, also blueprints and datacores are physical objects (disks, usb sticks, hard-drive etc), they need cargo space, we aren't copying the data to our ship's computer, are we?

But like I said, that was my assumption of what was occurring, it could be wrong.


And it seems logical to you that a skilled hacker could not depressurize an unmanned (seriously they're data access terminals, why need an atmosphere) hangar and hook up his cargo bay to it? Or just point the magic beam directly in front of it as it opens? Hell, why can't I have my salvage drones bore a hole in the thing and go inside?

Now if you FAIL your hacking attempt and just force the door to open like a script kiddie without depresurizing, then loot spew happening makes sense.


But now you're surpassing what is present in the game.

We don't know what system we are hacking (though it seems optimistic that we use a module and get access to the central computer), we don't know if data sites are unmanned (they are pirate facilities), we don't know where the loot jettison will come from or what direction it will go so can't 'hook up' our cargo bays.

We do know that the on-board micro-tractor beam can only handle one can at a time, so aiming it directly at the jettison point (if we knew it) wouldn't help. We do know that there is an effect of venting atmosphere accompanying the jettison. And we definitely know salvage drones can't breach hulls and we can't enter the structures (unless you mean enter with your ship, that would take your drones awhile to cut that hole).

As for 'skilled hackers' that is a wait an see. We can hack something at data sites and relics, but we don't gain control of the system, we stick a virus in the system core and destroy it (not an elegant hack). We are far from taking down Concord's computers, crashing the market or even opening doors on stations.

So yes, it seems very logical to me.

I'm Naomi Hale and this is my favourite thread on the forums.
Heinel Coventina
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#428 - 2013-05-31 20:38:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Heinel Coventina
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
CCP Bayesian is it possible to make the 2 modules into one but still affected by the 2 different skills?
For instance a T1 Analyzer would have virus strength of 20 and a Relic Coherence of 40 and a Data Coherence of 40.
If you had hacking trained to level 4 and archeology trained to 1 you would have a Virus strength of 20, a Relic Coherence of 50 and a Data Coherence of 80.


This is a balance issue, I think it's too early to make changes of that sort right now. They have already stated the intent of making hacking focused ship non-combat capable. If you're trying to do otherwise, you probably are doing it wrong.

You may be trying to fit scanning arrays on top of the analyzers. I don't think this is supposed to be done on cov ops frigs either, as I'm under the impression that the arrays were introduced to allow other non-scanning-focused hulls to be temporarily converted into a scanning ship. You aren't supposed to stack them, and it's doubtful that stacking them would yield perceivable differences, to begin with.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#429 - 2013-05-31 21:34:25 UTC
Heinel Coventina wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
CCP Bayesian is it possible to make the 2 modules into one but still affected by the 2 different skills?
For instance a T1 Analyzer would have virus strength of 20 and a Relic Coherence of 40 and a Data Coherence of 40.
If you had hacking trained to level 4 and archeology trained to 1 you would have a Virus strength of 20, a Relic Coherence of 50 and a Data Coherence of 80.


This is a balance issue, I think it's too early to make changes of that sort right now. They have already stated the intent of making hacking focused ship non-combat capable. If you're trying to do otherwise, you probably are doing it wrong.

You may be trying to fit scanning arrays on top of the analyzers. I don't think this is supposed to be done on cov ops frigs either, as I'm under the impression that the arrays were introduced to allow other non-scanning-focused hulls to be temporarily converted into a scanning ship. You aren't supposed to stack them, and it's doubtful that stacking them would yield perceivable differences, to begin with.

In order to be even remotely efficient you must have a cargo scanner fitted also. I have ran across sites that have had 6 containers to hack and only 4 had anything in them.
With the length of time it takes to hack a site you need to know if the site is even worth hacking.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Kahns
Ixion Defence Systems
#430 - 2013-05-31 21:37:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Kahns
CCP Bayesian wrote:
Thanks, I just went through and tallied up the responses in the past five pages to see what the spread was of people recounting their feelings towards this feature. I counted posts that talked about the scattering specifically as it exists today and ignored replies or speculation (and dev posts). I got:

Negative: 6
Positive: 6
Neutral: 5

At least from my sense of the feedback we've come along way from the original very negative impressions.


I personally feel far better about the system now than I did, so you can put me in the positive camp, by a nose. Making it so that I don't have to chase cans did a LOT. I wish it was more consistent with the rest of the game (you have multiple tractoring mechnics that work differently and all that) but it seems to work well enough now.

I am still concerned that you won't get enough loot to make it worthwhile. My attempts on singularity in null have been somewhat underwhelming. but even in old exploration I'd often hit a bum run and I understand that's part of the game.

I actually love the hacking mini-game at this point. I think it's a blast. I'm excited for there to be more depth, but I'm positive about that part as-is.
Tsubutai
Perkone
Caldari State
#431 - 2013-05-31 21:52:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Tsubutai
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
How does that nullified stop you from being insta locked and pointed while you are hacking the site?

Instalocked by what, exactly? Anything without a covops cloak warping to your site will be visible on your overview for several seconds before it can do anything as it drops out of warp, giving you ample time to warp off since you align in less than 4 seconds. Because of the decloak targeting delay, the same is true for any covert cloaker (with the exception of a bomber) that warps to your site or is waiting for you there. So the only way you're at risk of being tackled (other than being AFK or having a reaction time that would embarrass a sloth) is if someone has probed out the site before you get there and is waiting for you with a bomber. That's... unlikely to happen, to say the least.

However, if even that miniscule risk is too much for you, fear not - with strength-bonused T3s, you can eliminate all bar the very faintest possibility of losing your ship without compromising your hacking capabilities in any way:

[Proteus, hacker]
Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Nanofiber Internal Structure II
Synthetic Hull Conversion Inertia Stabilizers I
'Halcyon' Core Equalizer I
'Halcyon' Core Equalizer I
'Halcyon' Core Equalizer I

10MN Afterburner II
Cargo Scanner II
Analyzer II
Analyzer II

Covert Ops Cloaking Device II
Expanded Probe Launcher II, Sisters Combat Scanner Probe
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]

Medium Memetic Algorithm Bank I
Medium Emission Scope Sharpener I

Proteus Electronics - Emergent Locus Analyzer
Proteus Engineering - Capacitor Regeneration Matrix
Proteus Propulsion - Interdiction Nullifier
Proteus Offensive - Covert Reconfiguration
Proteus Defensive - Augmented Plating

Now, that hero tackle bomber has to not only probe out the site before you get there and rely on you being willing to keep running sites with a hostile in local, it also has to fit at least two scrams to prevent you from just blithely warping to freedom. Moreover, since the new sites aren't sensitive to things like tank, dps, or targeting, this awful comedy fit is actually not gimped in any way when it comes to hacking. It's beyond ridiculous that something fit like this should be capable of running some of the highest tier pve content in the game, but under the current system, it's one of the best available options.


That aside, I ran a few nullsec sites this evening in a Tengu (120/40 coherence/strength). Somewhat perversely, the newly reduced speed of the spew cans actually limits the amount of loot you can collect as a single player in a reasonably fast and agile ship - although the cans move much more slowly, they also expire a lot more quickly than they did previously. The rate at which you tractor cans hasn't changed, which means that whereas someone who was reasonably fast on their mouse and capable of maneuvering their ship sensibly could collect a clear majority of the spewed cans under the old system, you can now only get 50-60% at most. That's probably a good change overall in that it provides more of an incentive to bring a buddy to help with the looting, although it's a little disappointing as someone who prefers to pve alone. There's still a problem with the spew mechanic in that when two cans are very close to one-another in space, it becomes very hard to select the one you want. This is particularly awkward during the first few seconds after the cans have been ejected when they haven't had much time to separate.

The nullsec sites seem to have become quite a lot easier to hack after the most recent patch: I ran a Ruined Blood Raider Monument Site, Central Blood Raider Data Mining Site, 2x Central Blood Raider Sparking Transmitter, and a Ruined Blood Raider Crystal Quarry and accessed all of the cans bar one on the first attempt (and I opened the one I flubbed at the second time of asking). On average, the sites took 12 minutes to run. The combined loot haul came to just over 300m plus a number of things the game doesn't value properly (2 ship interface blueprints, a Capital Trimark II BPC, a bunch of AAR/ASB/RAH prints, and some of the new decryptors): http://i.imgur.com/iUDqG0o.png

:words:
Heinel Coventina
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#432 - 2013-05-31 21:58:43 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Heinel Coventina wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
CCP Bayesian is it possible to make the 2 modules into one but still affected by the 2 different skills?
For instance a T1 Analyzer would have virus strength of 20 and a Relic Coherence of 40 and a Data Coherence of 40.
If you had hacking trained to level 4 and archeology trained to 1 you would have a Virus strength of 20, a Relic Coherence of 50 and a Data Coherence of 80.


This is a balance issue, I think it's too early to make changes of that sort right now. They have already stated the intent of making hacking focused ship non-combat capable. If you're trying to do otherwise, you probably are doing it wrong.

You may be trying to fit scanning arrays on top of the analyzers. I don't think this is supposed to be done on cov ops frigs either, as I'm under the impression that the arrays were introduced to allow other non-scanning-focused hulls to be temporarily converted into a scanning ship. You aren't supposed to stack them, and it's doubtful that stacking them would yield perceivable differences, to begin with.

In order to be even remotely efficient you must have a cargo scanner fitted also. I have ran across sites that have had 6 containers to hack and only 4 had anything in them.
With the length of time it takes to hack a site you need to know if the site is even worth hacking.


What kind of ship are you using that doesn't have 3 mids for 2 analyzer and 1 scanner?
kyofu
Praetorian Black Guard
#433 - 2013-05-31 22:06:54 UTC  |  Edited by: kyofu
CCP Bayesian wrote:
Solkara Starlock wrote:
Thanks for the reply Blink Really appreciated.

What I mean that it doesn't make sense is that if someone hacks into a computer or mainframe or whatever, the result of a succesfull hack is access to that computer or mainframe. Not triggering some exploding mechanic. That sounds more like triggering a defensive system to protect the content.


I think that's a fair criticism from a narrative point of view.


Muchly agree with Solkara's post here.

I'd also like to point out that there is an issue with consistency with the above point. Why if I shoot missiles at a ship, or a station or any other object in the universe and blow it into pieces is the loot not subject to the same mechanic?

It is simply odd to have different loot mechanics and physics being applied in what are essentially the same situation.

My main beef is the usability issues I have (frantically clicking tiny things while navigating my ship and orienting the camera makes my wrists and eyeballs hurt) but consistency issues like the above detract from the environment as a whole IMO.

-Kyo
Veyer Erastus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#434 - 2013-05-31 22:09:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Veyer Erastus
Were WH space hacking sites balanced lately? Did a full site just now with 8 cans, not loosing even one to the game and got altogether about 2-3m in loot. Most of it were from a single lucky can. And i wasn't going for scraps. You could say i was unlucky, but i see a tendency here. More high level hacking containers have all their "parts" containers contain valuable loot on regular basis giving steady income with occasional rare drop from other containers. I think such system of "steady&chance" should be applied to all tiers of content as it's not really cool to get more isk from initial npc's wrecks than from hacking itself.

Heinel Coventina wrote:

What kind of ship are you using that doesn't have 3 mids for 2 analyzer and 1 scanner?


Any t3 except tengu.
Raven Solaris
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#435 - 2013-05-31 22:32:00 UTC
Heinel Coventina wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Heinel Coventina wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
CCP Bayesian is it possible to make the 2 modules into one but still affected by the 2 different skills?
For instance a T1 Analyzer would have virus strength of 20 and a Relic Coherence of 40 and a Data Coherence of 40.
If you had hacking trained to level 4 and archeology trained to 1 you would have a Virus strength of 20, a Relic Coherence of 50 and a Data Coherence of 80.


This is a balance issue, I think it's too early to make changes of that sort right now. They have already stated the intent of making hacking focused ship non-combat capable. If you're trying to do otherwise, you probably are doing it wrong.

You may be trying to fit scanning arrays on top of the analyzers. I don't think this is supposed to be done on cov ops frigs either, as I'm under the impression that the arrays were introduced to allow other non-scanning-focused hulls to be temporarily converted into a scanning ship. You aren't supposed to stack them, and it's doubtful that stacking them would yield perceivable differences, to begin with.

In order to be even remotely efficient you must have a cargo scanner fitted also. I have ran across sites that have had 6 containers to hack and only 4 had anything in them.
With the length of time it takes to hack a site you need to know if the site is even worth hacking.


What kind of ship are you using that doesn't have 3 mids for 2 analyzer and 1 scanner?


Might be a Legion, only way to get 4 mids on that thing is to either use a subsystem other than the locus analyzer (so no probing bonus,) or make it a Drone Legion... which is less than stellar.
Raven Solaris
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#436 - 2013-05-31 22:33:28 UTC
Veyer Erastus wrote:
Were WH space hacking sites balanced lately? Did a full site just now with 8 cans, not loosing even one to the game and got altogether about 2-3m in loot. Most of it were from a single lucky can. And i wasn't going for scraps. You could say i was unlucky, but i see a tendency here. More high level hacking containers have all their "parts" containers contain valuable loot on regular basis giving steady income with occasional rare drop from other containers. I think such system of "steady&chance" should be applied to all tiers of content as it's not really cool to get more isk from initial npc's wrecks than from hacking itself.

Heinel Coventina wrote:

What kind of ship are you using that doesn't have 3 mids for 2 analyzer and 1 scanner?


Any t3 except tengu.


Nah, Loki's fine and a Drone Proteus has the mids for it too, it's just the Legion that's kind of ******... unless it's a Drone Le-yeah nevermind ******.
Scuzzy Logic
Space Spuds
#437 - 2013-05-31 22:35:16 UTC
Veyer Erastus wrote:
Were WH space hacking sites balanced lately? Did a full site just now with 8 cans, not loosing even one to the game and got altogether about 2-3m in loot. Most of it were from a single lucky can. And i wasn't going for scraps. You could say i was unlucky, but i see a tendency here. More high level hacking containers have all their "parts" containers contain valuable loot on regular basis giving steady income with occasional rare drop from other containers. I think such system of "steady&chance" should be applied to all tiers of content as it's not really cool to get more isk from initial npc's wrecks than from hacking itself.

Heinel Coventina wrote:

What kind of ship are you using that doesn't have 3 mids for 2 analyzer and 1 scanner?


Any t3 except tengu.


Not to mention now Tengus outdo the other T3s who do this better than T2s by a wide margin due to being able to fit some of the passive utility mids.
Scuzzy Logic
Space Spuds
#438 - 2013-05-31 22:42:36 UTC
Naomi Hale wrote:
Scuzzy Logic wrote:
Naomi Hale wrote:
Solkara Starlock wrote:
What I mean that it doesn't make sense is that if someone hacks into a computer or mainframe or whatever, the result of a succesfull hack is access to that computer or mainframe. Not triggering some exploding mechanic. That sounds more like triggering a defensive system to protect the content.

I was working under the assumption that we were hacking an airlock release, delivery bay or access panel, and success exposed the contents to vacuum, blowing it out into space, failure locked the hatch and the system kicking you out.

I think we'd have little luck hacking a computer bigger than our ships, also blueprints and datacores are physical objects (disks, usb sticks, hard-drive etc), they need cargo space, we aren't copying the data to our ship's computer, are we?

But like I said, that was my assumption of what was occurring, it could be wrong.


And it seems logical to you that a skilled hacker could not depressurize an unmanned (seriously they're data access terminals, why need an atmosphere) hangar and hook up his cargo bay to it? Or just point the magic beam directly in front of it as it opens? Hell, why can't I have my salvage drones bore a hole in the thing and go inside?

Now if you FAIL your hacking attempt and just force the door to open like a script kiddie without depresurizing, then loot spew happening makes sense.


But now you're surpassing what is present in the game.

We don't know what system we are hacking (though it seems optimistic that we use a module and get access to the central computer), we don't know if data sites are unmanned (they are pirate facilities), we don't know where the loot jettison will come from or what direction it will go so can't 'hook up' our cargo bays.

We do know that the on-board micro-tractor beam can only handle one can at a time, so aiming it directly at the jettison point (if we knew it) wouldn't help. We do know that there is an effect of venting atmosphere accompanying the jettison. And we definitely know salvage drones can't breach hulls and we can't enter the structures (unless you mean enter with your ship, that would take your drones awhile to cut that hole).

As for 'skilled hackers' that is a wait an see. We can hack something at data sites and relics, but we don't gain control of the system, we stick a virus in the system core and destroy it (not an elegant hack). We are far from taking down Concord's computers, crashing the market or even opening doors on stations.

So yes, it seems very logical to me.


Okay, then figure this one: How come if I take this here beauty *points at Tahyon Laser bank* and fire it at this here frigate *blows up Venture* this here freighter *blow up an Iteron 5* or this here random npc faclity *blows up mission decor* the goods spew out all nice and cozy in their own itty bitty container. Not to mention my friend here who tried using a Capital Missile warhead to do the same. Hell, Frigates that survive stealthbomber bombs still drop neat containers.

And then you're going to tell me this freaking thing can't spew out a freaking can that can survive space? B**** please.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#439 - 2013-05-31 22:48:56 UTC
Heinel Coventina wrote:
They have already stated the intent of making hacking focused ship non-combat capable.

Anyone got a link for this information, I must have missed it as I have never heard about this till now.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Proteus Thompsen
EVE University
Ivy League
#440 - 2013-06-01 00:23:14 UTC
Scuzzy Logic wrote:


Okay, then figure this one: How come if I take this here beauty *points at Tahyon Laser bank* and fire it at this here frigate *blows up Venture* this here freighter *blow up an Iteron 5* or this here random npc faclity *blows up mission decor* the goods spew out all nice and cozy in their own itty bitty container. Not to mention my friend here who tried using a Capital Missile warhead to do the same. Hell, Frigates that survive stealthbomber bombs still drop neat containers.

And then you're going to tell me this freaking thing can't spew out a freaking can that can survive space? B**** please.



Exactly!!

How about to satisfy CCp's desire for feedback and the exploration folks desire to get rid of the loot spew mechanic, we do this. All PVP and PVE wrecks now do the loot spew, since they were blown up in a nice pretty explosion and the loot disappears after a few seconds, and exploration sites go back to the old loot mechanic, since we are highly skilled professionals. I'm quite sure they will recieve more than enough feedback from the PVP/PVE community to help them understand what others here have been telling them for the last 20+ pages.Twisted