These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Deeply concerned about scanning changes

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Minmatar Citizen160812
The LGBT Last Supper
#81 - 2013-05-28 16:07:39 UTC
Alec Freeman wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:
My opinion here is simple: CCP (Greyscale) needs to just front up and say that the ability to classify by signal strength has been classified as "broken" and they removed it on purpose. Otherwise we're left with the impression that whole system filtering was left out by accident due to the developers not having researched the gameplay surrounding a feature they were screwing with.


See the paragraph quoted in this post: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3099202#post3099202



Did you even read the post you just linked us too? It contains your quote and the content of the post is a player expertly pulling apart what you said and very correctly proving how wrong your initial post was.

Are you trying to imply that your initial post was wrong and the player post you linked to is correct? Or are you seriously not even attempting to read player feedback?



You asked for direct answer and he gave one. Yes, they are nerfing cherrypicking sites with a DSP and they know it. They are removing some of the safety from wormholes, they know it and consider it an improvement. I'm not a big fan of the scanning changes except this one.
Messoroz
AQUILA INC
#82 - 2013-05-28 16:08:58 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Tyrozan
So Greyscale, are you going to cap systems at a maximum of 30 signatures or continue to force us to scan systems with 100+ sigs full of

EDIT: No ethnic attacks - ISD Tyrozan

sites we don't want? WE ARE PVPERS, screw your silly carebear sites. We don't win an AT by carebearing wormhole sites, WE DO IT ROAMING THROUGH WORMHOLES INTO NULL AND RAINING TERROR OR WELPING.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#83 - 2013-05-28 16:10:33 UTC
Alec Freeman wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:
My opinion here is simple: CCP (Greyscale) needs to just front up and say that the ability to classify by signal strength has been classified as "broken" and they removed it on purpose. Otherwise we're left with the impression that whole system filtering was left out by accident due to the developers not having researched the gameplay surrounding a feature they were screwing with.


See the paragraph quoted in this post: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3099202#post3099202



Did you even read the post you just linked us too? It contains your quote and the content of the post is a player expertly pulling apart what you said and very correctly proving how wrong your initial post was.

Are you trying to imply that your initial post was wrong and the player post you linked to is correct? Or are you seriously not even attempting to read player feedback?


As per the quote in the linked post, we've been very clear that this is not being left out by accident, it's a conscious decision towards a specific end, made with knowledge about how the system is currently being used on TQ, and based on the assessment that the net impact of Odyssey on probing mechanics is reasonably balanced.

If players want to discuss that assessment, the specific consequences of the changes we're making (backed, ideally, by actually testing the system rather than just speculating about how it might work), and the impact that is likely to have on overall gameplay balance, we're all ears.
Skeln Thargensen
Doomheim
#84 - 2013-05-28 16:15:35 UTC
Minmatar Citizen160812 wrote:
You asked for direct answer and he gave one. Yes, they are nerfing cherrypicking sites with a DSP and they know it. They are removing some of the safety from wormholes, they know it and consider it an improvement. I'm not a big fan of the scanning changes except this one.


that's not exactly the case. the new system, at least what's on sisi right now, gives you the list of anomalies and sigs without launching any probes, but all of the sig percentage strengths are 0. afaik if someone jumps through a wormhole pushing a k162 sig into being then it'll instantly pop up on the list. you won't be able to tell what it is but you'll know something just spawned and you should check it out before commencing. a very powerful intel tool.

forums.  serious business.
Messoroz
AQUILA INC
#85 - 2013-05-28 16:17:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Messoroz
Skeln Thargensen wrote:
a very powerful intel tool.



What you mean to say, wormhole space is now null sec with local.


It makes me sad that after 2 years of running siggy with 10k+ users, I've never recorded any basic data about amounts of sigs, types,etc. Because I would basically be countering every single statement CCP has about their new system with it.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#86 - 2013-05-28 16:21:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Roime
CCP Greyscale wrote:

As per the quote in the linked post, we've been very clear that this is not being left out by accident, it's a conscious decision towards a specific end, made with knowledge about how the system is currently being used on TQ, and based on the assessment that the net impact of Odyssey on probing mechanics is reasonably balanced.

If players want to discuss that assessment, the specific consequences of the changes we're making (backed, ideally, by actually testing the system rather than just speculating about how it might work), and the impact that is likely to have on overall gameplay balance, we're all ears.


The DSP deal has been explained in countless posts all over these forums, but once again:

1. Situation: Vets exploit static signature bands, DSPs and player-made lookup table to filter out sigs and cherry-pick hisec sites that have massively imbalanced rewards for the effort and risk.

2. Problem: They rob all new players of their sitesand overall scanning is too fast in combination with the dumbing down coming in Odyssey

3. Wrong solution: Remove DSPs, ignoring all the other uses DSPs have.

Are you just not aware of the uses for DSPs?

Why not just introduce random variation to signal bands? Why not reduce the loot drops from hisec 3&4/10s? Why not alter the site designs?

.
Skeln Thargensen
Doomheim
#87 - 2013-05-28 16:24:39 UTC
Messoroz wrote:
Skeln Thargensen wrote:
a very powerful intel tool.



What you mean to say, wormhole space is now null sec with local.


nah you still don't know what's in system, just that something came in. maybe it left, maybe it logged out at a safe. wh will still be good hunting grounds for the patient.

and some people don't pay attention with the basic tools they have now.

forums.  serious business.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#88 - 2013-05-28 16:26:11 UTC
Haulie Berry wrote:
Well, no, it doesn't pull anything apart. Mostly it consisted of the player completely missing the point that DSP lookup tables are effectively a soft exploit.


CCP doesn't acknowledge that either.

Haulie Berry wrote:
It was pretty obviously a design oversight, and since it lasted for a few years, now people think they're entitled to have it be that way forever. Roll


You know, another way of solving the problem and making exploration a little bit more exciting is to randomise the signal strength of cosmic signatures as they are placed in space. For example you can vary the signal strength by as little as 15% to confuse the hard and fast groupings that exist on our look up tables.

Haulie Berry wrote:
They're nerfing DSPs ON PURPOSE.


That is an assumption. I'm asking for a statement from CCP that this is their intent. If their intent was to prevent explorers filtering based on signal strength, they could tell us that and we can come up with other ideas that don't involve taking away the 256AU range probes.

CCP SoniClover suggests that one reason for taking away DSPs is that they make it too easy/fast to probe down ships hiding in space. The obvious solutions to this problem would be increasing analysis duration (before Apocrypha, analysis took minutes at a time, not 5 seconds), change the signal strength of ship signatures, or find some other way of obscuring ships in space such as restoring the signal muffling previously provided by deadspace and mission pockets.

A few minutes with explorers who actually do exploring might have garnered some better ideas.

Instead we're stuck with, "yeah, so we broke something you use. Here's a workaround which doesn't really replace the functionality you lost," and CCP looking like they're clowns wandering around the china shop in oversized shoes.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Minmatar Citizen160812
The LGBT Last Supper
#89 - 2013-05-28 16:27:40 UTC
Skeln Thargensen wrote:
Minmatar Citizen160812 wrote:
You asked for direct answer and he gave one. Yes, they are nerfing cherrypicking sites with a DSP and they know it. They are removing some of the safety from wormholes, they know it and consider it an improvement. I'm not a big fan of the scanning changes except this one.


that's not exactly the case. the new system, at least what's on sisi right now, gives you the list of anomalies and sigs without launching any probes, but all of the sig percentage strengths are 0. afaik if someone jumps through a wormhole pushing a k162 sig into being then it'll instantly pop up on the list. you won't be able to tell what it is but you'll know something just spawned and you should check it out before commencing. a very powerful intel tool.


You would have to do something to make the new one pop up or have the scanner running constantly. That's right...right? If so then it's no different than having a DSP probe out but now you can't tell for sure what the new sig is with one scan.
Haulie Berry
#90 - 2013-05-28 16:29:04 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
Haulie Berry wrote:
Well, no, it doesn't pull anything apart. Mostly it consisted of the player completely missing the point that DSP lookup tables are effectively a soft exploit.


CCP doesn't acknowledge that either.

Haulie Berry wrote:
It was pretty obviously a design oversight, and since it lasted for a few years, now people think they're entitled to have it be that way forever. Roll


You know, another way of solving the problem and making exploration a little bit more exciting is to randomise the signal strength of cosmic signatures as they are placed in space. For example you can vary the signal strength by as little as 15% to confuse the hard and fast groupings that exist on our look up tables.

Haulie Berry wrote:
They're nerfing DSPs ON PURPOSE.


That is an assumption. I'm asking for a statement from CCP that this is their intent. If their intent was to prevent explorers filtering based on signal strength, they could tell us that and we can come up with other ideas that don't involve taking away the 256AU range probes.

CCP SoniClover suggests that one reason for taking away DSPs is that they make it too easy/fast to probe down ships hiding in space. The obvious solutions to this problem would be increasing analysis duration (before Apocrypha, analysis took minutes at a time, not 5 seconds), change the signal strength of ship signatures, or find some other way of obscuring ships in space such as restoring the signal muffling previously provided by deadspace and mission pockets.

A few minutes with explorers who actually do exploring might have garnered some better ideas.

Instead we're stuck with, "yeah, so we broke something you use. Here's a workaround which doesn't really replace the functionality you lost," and CCP looking like they're clowns wandering around the china shop in oversized shoes.




CCP Greyscale wrote:
As per the quote in the linked post, we've been very clear that this is not being left out by accident, it's a conscious decision towards a specific end, made with knowledge about how the system is currently being used on TQ, and based on the assessment that the net impact of Odyssey on probing mechanics is reasonably balanced.


This is not the least bit ambiguous. Stop being obtuse.
Skeln Thargensen
Doomheim
#91 - 2013-05-28 16:34:25 UTC
Minmatar Citizen160812 wrote:
You would have to do something to make the new one pop up or have the scanner running constantly. That's right...right? If so then it's no different than having a DSP probe out but now you can't tell for sure what the new sig is with one scan.


I'm not 100% (as it took me enough time to find one k162) but you can't run the ship scanner without probes out and the sigs are there as soon as you change session, it doesn't even seem like the system scanner needs to pass, but maybe that's just to put them on the overlay. mu assumption, therefore, is that if a sig spawns then yup, it's gonna pop straight up in the list.

forums.  serious business.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#92 - 2013-05-28 16:37:20 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:


That is an assumption. I'm asking for a statement from CCP that this is their intent. If their intent was to prevent explorers filtering based on signal strength, they could tell us that and we can come up with other ideas that don't involve taking away the 256AU range probes.




Again, I am no expert but maybe they also don't want player to have access to a 256AU range probe. Maybe they think large system should be large so you can't single scan them.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#93 - 2013-05-28 16:37:36 UTC
Skeln Thargensen wrote:
you won't be able to tell what it is but you'll know something just spawned and you should check it out before commencing. a very powerful intel tool.


Nope. That's not how it works at all.

Before a K162 can exist, the cosmic signature of the wormhole existed as something else. As an example, you might have a wormhole type M555 which goes from hisec to Class 5 wormholes, and the other end appears in Class 5 wormholes as N110 (I don't know for certain, this is just an example).

If the w-space side is probed down first, what you end up with is a Wormhole (N110) on the w-space side and Wormhole (K162) on the k-space side.

If the k-space side is probed down first, what you end up with is a Wormhole(K162) on the w-space side and a Wormhole (M555) on the w-space side.

Thus nothing will change on the system scanner overview, while only the signal strength will change on the 1 x DSP @ 256AU scan results.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#94 - 2013-05-28 16:39:14 UTC
Moneta Curran wrote:
+1

There is an overzealousnouss at work here to make things more accessible, ruining the finer art of probing in the process.
....


As a huge fan of the Elder Scrolls and namely Morrowind (with its foundational homage to AD&D), I was like many upset with Bethesda's making TES 'more accessible' to the mainstream by adding newb candy like fast-travel and a mini-map that basically told you exactly where quest objectives were. In short, Bethesda made a deal with the devil in creating 'McOblivion' for the masses, a more McDonalds style approach of fast food to the RPG genre, which sold more copies of Obilvion and Skyrim, but without the concept of 'figuring stuff out' something special in the genre was lost IMHO.

This is a long winded way of saying that CCP needs to be careful they aren't turning steak into McDonalds hamburgers on the quest for more subs through (over) simplification.

Before, it took some learning and skill to be able to probe down targets effectively. Now it seems its just 'launch probes' and win? Allowing the client to remember a probe pattern for re-launch is cool, defaulting said pattern for newbs is not. (See previous steak-to-McDonalds hamburger comment)

p.s.
What's next, mutual-only wardecs? :)

Would you like to know more?
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#95 - 2013-05-28 16:40:43 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Again, I am no expert but maybe they also don't want player to have access to a 256AU range probe. Maybe they think large system should be large so you can't single scan them.


The given reason for removing DSPs is simply that they allow finding ships in space too quickly, not because they represent a "soft exploit". So obviously the next cabs off the rank will be embedded tetrahedrons, constellations with probes of differing signal strength, and launching a 0.5AU constellation into an area that you haven't probed in the last five minutes.

The embedded-tetrahedron constellation of probes is two tetrahedrons inside each other. One is set to 4 AU range, the other is set to 1AU range. Using this setup it is possible to get 100% hits on just about any ship with two or three scans using 8 probes.

Then there's the D-scan trick where you locate a ship in space using D-scan, deploy your probe constellation at least 15AU away from the target, set that constellation to 0.5AU, dump it in the area where you think the target is flying, scan, then recall the probes. This gives you a 100% hit on the target with a 5 second window of discovery. If the target isn't mashing their D-scan every five seconds, the chances that they know you're coming are between zero and none.

So how many of these are "soft exploits"? How many more exploration tricks will explorers lose over the coming months as CCP determines that they allow us to find ships too quickly?

If CCP thinks that 256AU probes are too good, they should say so.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Skeln Thargensen
Doomheim
#96 - 2013-05-28 16:51:10 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
Skeln Thargensen wrote:
you won't be able to tell what it is but you'll know something just spawned and you should check it out before commencing. a very powerful intel tool.


Nope. That's not how it works at all.

Before a K162 can exist, the cosmic signature of the wormhole existed as something else. As an example, you might have a wormhole type M555 which goes from hisec to Class 5 wormholes, and the other end appears in Class 5 wormholes as N110 (I don't know for certain, this is just an example).

If the w-space side is probed down first, what you end up with is a Wormhole (N110) on the w-space side and Wormhole (K162) on the k-space side.

If the k-space side is probed down first, what you end up with is a Wormhole(K162) on the w-space side and a Wormhole (M555) on the w-space side.

Thus nothing will change on the system scanner overview, while only the signal strength will change on the 1 x DSP @ 256AU scan results.


http://i.imgur.com/UmpOi.gif

i thought i had this totally down too... many thanks

forums.  serious business.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#97 - 2013-05-28 16:56:27 UTC
Haulie Berry wrote:
This is not the least bit ambiguous. Stop being obtuse.


Not ambiguous now that the devblog has come out and CCP SoniClover has explained that they had a reason for taking DSPs out. Until then, CCP Greyscale was only admitting that removing DSPs impacts the exploration gameplay and offering a workaround.

Now the concern is that other types of gameplay will be removed from exploration because skilled scanners are too good at finding ships in space compared to the unskilled ones who probe every ship from 4AU constellations one range increment at a time. The criteria offered by CCPs SoniClover and Greyscale is that when skilled players get too good at doing something compared to unskilled players, they have to nerf the game to make things harder for the skilled players and easier for the unskilled players.

So is it a "soft exploit" that a skilled PvPer can narrow someone down to a small region of space using nothing else but D-scan, then plonk a 0.5AU constellation of combat probes on that location?

Is it a "soft exploit" that a skilled trader can roll 500M ISK over and over in a series of 1% profit trades through the course of a day to make 100% gain in one day?

is it a "soft exploit" that a skilled pilot can run level 4 missions in an assault ship?

Is it a "soft exploit" that some L4 missions can be completed in a shuttle?

Where does this madness end? Big smile

Day 0 Advice for New Players
iskflakes
#98 - 2013-05-28 17:05:36 UTC
I've been following the probing developments, and have played with them on SISI. I also live in wormholes on a few alts.

I don't like the "nobody is better than anybody else, you're all equally good" attitude that the new probing system has. I believe that people who are well prepared and know what they're doing should gain an advantage over players who haven't bothered to prepare. The DSP lookup tables are a perfect example. How long did it take players to make them? How long did it take to train the skills that make them useful? Are the lookup tables themselves something amazing that a new player can discover?

Even if DSP lookup tables were "too good", which I don't think they are, removal of DSP is the WRONG solution. If you want to nerf the lookup tables then increase randomness at low signal strength, or add a minimum cutoff (<10% strength) or increase DSP scan time to 30 seconds, or bring the sig sizes closer together. There are plenty of options that don't destroy gameplay choices.

On another topic, probing is getting substantially easier due to the scanning modules. We will probably be able to just 100% everything at 8AU anyway. That makes for fascinating gameplay.

-
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#99 - 2013-05-28 17:12:31 UTC
Haulie Berry wrote:


They're nerfing DSPs ON PURPOSE.


Did it hurt you to type that?

I'm curious, because you laid it out so easily, so simply. There's no room for doubt, questioning, or misinterpretation in what you said. Yet CCP can't seem to put those same few words together in the same concise, unambiguous and unquestionable manner.
iskflakes
#100 - 2013-05-28 17:15:27 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
Where does this madness end? Big smile


The message I'm hearing is that no player should be better than any other player (ESPECIALLY a new player). Experience, hard work and preparation should provide no advantage. If you invest 6 months hard work to build a titan why should that give you any advantage over a one day old rifter pilot who has no idea what he's doing? Why should your in depth knowledge of probing mechanics and skill investment make you any faster than a new player? Surely all players should be equally good, with the side with the most numbers winning?

-