These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123
 

Questions for CCP Devs dealing with Exploration Sites

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tzar Sinak
Mythic Heights
#41 - 2013-10-24 16:14:25 UTC
Orakkus wrote:


The fact that while I have perfect exploration skills, I still don't always successfully navigate the mini-game, as well as the loss to two Cov Ops, counters your claims. So instead of a combat ship to deal with the rats, I now need a very expensive cov-ops ship and spend considerable time and risk travelling through enemy territory, even risking multiple wormhole trips. Sometimes I can strike deals with other local explorers for certain sections of space, other times I'm stuck avoiding random gate camps, or discerning if a particular relic or data site is the one where a local might be staging a trap, or perhaps I go through a WH where the WH residents are actively trying to collapse the hole after I go through it.

So no, there still exists a very strong meta-game element to exploration, it is just different than what you are used to.


Interestingly that has always existed. The Odyssey patch did not suddenly make that happen. As for not successfully navigating the mini game, that happens to us all. As was pointed out already, the random placement of obstacles in the mini game often dictates success or failure and has little to do with character skills.

I have seen many T1 frigs in null and I have killed several. I have also killed several covops too with my covops. That has nothing to do with exploring except the poor player choice to run sites unarmed.

I think we can all agree the mini game needs improvement. I also think most can agree the loot spew needs to be removed. Unfortunately that is not CCP Bayesian's decision. The direction of the game and any iteration improvements reside elsewhere (looking at you CCP Seagull).

CCP Bayesian we pointed out to you during the pre Odyssey threads that CCP has a legendary habit of introducing mechanics and rarely improving them. Lets hope the Ghost sites are hard to scan down, difficult to loot and make character skills worthwhile again.

Hydrostatic Podcast First class listening of all things EVE

Check out the Eve-Prosper show for your market updates!
Vol Arm'OOO
Central Co-Prosperity Union
#42 - 2013-10-24 16:22:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Vol Arm'OOO
Orakkus wrote:
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:

What exactly are you smoking? There is no player skill in the mini-game - its simply a click fest with success premised upon the skill lvl of your character and luck. As for what hacking was like pre-minigame - well sure it was simply hit a button and sit back - it was as basic as it could get - but there was a meta game built around it (at least in low/null) - you needed a combat ship to deal with the rats; this gave a decent target for folk to shoot at; which also allowed other folk to use hacking sites for baiting. Now what do we got? Instead of player driven content with ships asspolding - we got a minigame. (I acknowledge that there are t1 frigs being blown up now - but really is that an acceptable replacement for the combat that used to happen at these sites? IMO shooting an unarmed t1 frig is hardly even worth the sec hit).


The fact that while I have perfect exploration skills, I still don't always successfully navigate the mini-game, as well as the loss to two Cov Ops, counters your claims. So instead of a combat ship to deal with the rats, I now need a very expensive cov-ops ship and spend considerable time and risk travelling through enemy territory, even risking multiple wormhole trips. Sometimes I can strike deals with other local explorers for certain sections of space, other times I'm stuck avoiding random gate camps, or discerning if a particular relic or data site is the one where a local might be staging a trap, or perhaps I go through a WH where the WH residents are actively trying to collapse the hole after I go through it.

So no, there still exists a very strong meta-game element to exploration, it is just different than what you are used to.


The fact that you fail at hacking even though you have "perfect" character skills is not as you say a "counter" to my position -- there is a random luck component to the minigame. Your character skills give you a better chance of winning but you can still fail because of bad luck. Of course, none of this has to do with "player" skill - the only skill that you has the player bring to the game is the ability to click your mouse button.

As for the potential to loss cov-ops ships - well if you feel the need to use a cov-ops ship with perfect exploration skills then you are probably doing exploration wrong - stick with the disposable t1 frigs - nothing more is needed - and if you lose one so what -- which is exactly why exploration choked off a decent source of quality pvp in low sec.

Oh and I call shananagens with regard to your claim that you use a cov-ops ship to do exploration in whs. Wh exploration sites still have rats - which means that you need combat ships.... As for everything else you say, avoiding gate camps etc...., all of that existed prior to the mini-game, the mini-game didnt change how you moved around eve - it only removed the hacking/relic sites as a viable source of potential quality pvp in low/null.

I don't play, I just fourm warrior.
Ruskarn Andedare
Lion Investments
#43 - 2013-10-24 16:39:57 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Solstice Project wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
The loot scattering mechanic maybe wasn't that bad as a concept, but its replayable value is zill and I don't think that nobody is going to miss seeing it elsewhere.

Is it really that bad?
I have yet to play it once...


For a better experience, dim your monitor and wear sunglasses, so you notice how it feels like to pick those tiny tick boxes and read the diminutive, dim signs on them in case that you're slightly visually impaired. It's funny as hell because also there is no sound backup about wether you clicked the damned tick box or don't. Ugh


For maximum impact do it on an 11" laptop screen with a very slow wireless connection while wearing those gloves used to simulate arthritis Evil. This will give you a much better idea how the loot spew is for some of us than any of your tests on large dev screens with wonderful net connections.

The hacking mini-game is an awesome beta concept. I'm hoping at some point it will be finished with an element of player skill required rather than the current random click and hope so that it will be suitable to put onto the live server.
Orakkus
ImperiaI Federation
Goonswarm Federation
#44 - 2013-10-24 16:51:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Orakkus
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:

The fact that you fail at hacking even though you have "perfect" character skills is not as you say a "counter" to my position -- there is a random luck component to the minigame. Your character skills give you a better chance of winning but you can still fail because of bad luck. Of course, none of this has to do with "player" skill - the only skill that you has the player bring to the game is the ability to click your mouse button.


Oh disagree wholeheartedly. Here is why it IS a counter to your position. Perfect skills don't give me the understanding of how and when I should deal with an anti-virus or firewall, or how I should use a particular utility. It is much like a card game. I've played the minigame enough to know that there are certain probabilities I can rely on improve my coverage and speed, so finding the system core isn't as random as one might think. Still, there is a bit of randomness in there, which I think is necessary so that it doesn't become bot-farmable.

Quote:

As for the potential to loss cov-ops ships - well if you feel the need to use a cov-ops ship with perfect exploration skills then you are probably doing exploration wrong - stick with the disposable t1 frigs - nothing more is needed - and if you lose one so what -- which is exactly why exploration choked off a decent source of quality pvp in low sec.


Need? I would say "need", yes. True, you can use a Tech 1 frigate for the task, but that is like saying you can use a handsaw to cut wood. Yes, you CAN use it, but there are much more efficient tools out there and eventually you rely on those better tools to do a better job at the task. So, yes.. I legitimately say "need" with the added fact that Cov Op cloaks becomes your only tank and a Tech 1 frigate isn't the best choice for hauling around the amount of loot one can get from a diligent exploration trip.

Quote:

Oh and I call shananagens with regard to your claim that you use a cov-ops ship to do exploration in whs. Wh exploration sites still have rats - which means that you need combat ships....

I do exploration through WHs, not in them. I wasn't wrong in how I said it, but I could have made it clearer.

He's not just famous, he's "IN" famous. - Ned Nederlander
Orakkus
ImperiaI Federation
Goonswarm Federation
#45 - 2013-10-24 16:58:42 UTC
Tzar Sinak wrote:

Interestingly that has always existed. The Odyssey patch did not suddenly make that happen. As for not successfully navigating the mini game, that happens to us all. As was pointed out already, the random placement of obstacles in the mini game often dictates success or failure and has little to do with character skills.


They aren't so random as I explained to Vol. May not always be consistant, but I don't play games to not be challenged.

Tzar Sinak wrote:

I have seen many T1 frigs in null and I have killed several. I have also killed several covops too with my covops. That has nothing to do with exploring except the poor player choice to run sites unarmed.


True, but the argument was that using a combat ship somehow gave exploration more player content needed to be addressed. I would even counter to say that there is MORE player content on that vein since PVP'ers are now presented with more targets and more opportunities to trap as well.

Tzar Sinak wrote:

I think we can all agree the mini game needs improvement. I also think most can agree the loot spew needs to be removed. Unfortunately that is not CCP Bayesian's decision. The direction of the game and any iteration improvements reside elsewhere (looking at you CCP Seagull).

CCP Bayesian we pointed out to you during the pre Odyssey threads that CCP has a legendary habit of introducing mechanics and rarely improving them. Lets hope the Ghost sites are hard to scan down, difficult to loot and make character skills worthwhile again.


Personally, I enjoyed the loot spew mechanic.. as frustrating as it can be. Though I wouldn't argue with it being improved or if something better replaced it.

He's not just famous, he's "IN" famous. - Ned Nederlander
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#46 - 2013-10-24 18:35:57 UTC
Jennifer Maxwell wrote:
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:
The mini game is ****, I hope it dies in a fire. I certainly don't want it expanded to other parts of the game as it spoiled exploration for me.

The way ccp are going they wont be happy until they've simplified every aspect of the game and replaced character skills with player skills and dumbed down the game to the point we can play it on a console with a game pad with our 'spaceship piloting' skill.

"CCP is dumbing down Eve!"

Complains about a minigame that takes actual active player skill and strategy where it used to be just passive chance based and was completely fire-and-forget.


It might require player skill, but it's your character that is supposed to have all of the skills remember, otherwise what's the point of training them up.

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#47 - 2013-10-24 18:43:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Little Dragon Khamez
CCP Bayesian wrote:
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:
CCP Bayesian thanks very much for replying in this thread, I hope you are still monitoring it. As you know in my previous post I was highly critical of the hacking mini game and I remain so, but I hope to respectfully explain why I feel so strongly about what is ultimately just a game mechanic.

For me the mini-game feels artificial, it feels like it's layered on top of eve and not actually a part of it, that may be because it's different in terms of styling to other UI elements, also I find it irritating because when I play eve I actually want to play eve, not a browser based game within eve. It's like logging in to the captains quarters to watch Net Flicks on the big screen. It's immersion breaking and as such it's like hitting a brick wall within the game when you are travelling at 100 miles an hour of immersion and here's why.

In eve we all have character skills whilst we the players direct our characters to perform actions for us in the eve universe, so we don't plot courses our characters do, we direct PI operations and deploy extractors, our characters do the drilling and manage the supply chain with the immense power of their post human cybernetically enhanced minds. I the player do not work out firing solutions for my character's guns, neither do I the player decide when my missiles detonate, my character does all of that for me in the world of eve.

With the mini game suddenly I the player am presented with something that my character could easily do and should be doing which is why the mini game is very un-eve... Capsuleers can manage spaceship command with the power of their minds, the mind gives orders and the capsule interface streams those orders into commands for the crew to follow whilst ship subroutines take care of the more mundane stuff allowing us capsuleers to concentrate on the big picture. With a mind as hierarchically organised as this, the eve thing to do would be to hack the cans with the power of thought, simply expressing a desire to hack a can whilst sitting back as our capsuler/ship interface streams those thoughts into hacking algorithms that combined with some slave AI would be more than enough to crack the hacking interface of most things encountered in the depths of space. This means that we should either be able to hack the can or not dependent on our level of skill vs some random chance. That's how other mechanics work in eve and it works well.

In summary it breeches the player/character divide and that's why I don't like it and would lose interest in a game that has more of this. What's the point of training character skills if I the player have to do all of the work.

That's not to say that in some situations it could be entertaining to have a mini game such as walking in stations and visiting a casino and trying to win some isk by playing games of chance and skill but the context of a character in a sci fi universe having some downtime well away from the capsule/ship interface would support immersion, not break it.

Anyhow I do appreciate the hard work that you guys put into a game like eve which is why I felt it was fair to give you this wall of text with some honest feedback.


Thanks for the feedback and giving us such a detailed rationale.

To me your complaint is a very subjective one about where the line between "good" management and "bad" micro-management lies. You'd rather feel like you are directing than doing. Frankly I think this is an argument you can make about a lot of EVE systems (and extends into the metagame) and the line is different for individuals. Someone might only want to set a general plan and budget for their PI infrastructure rather than getting into the nitty-gritty. Tactical decision making should probably be passed out to an AI who can best position and utilise the ship or fleets weapons in the age of self-driving cars it's not a leap to see this as possible in a technologically magic universe. The problem with more abstraction is that it makes for less decision making, less ability for people to specialise and a less rich universe.

With the hacking specifically you could, as a narrative conceit, see the abstract presentation as you marshalling the limited resources of the slave AI in order that it best utilised, giving you the greatest chance of success.



Thanks CCP Bayesian for replying, I do agree that it's subjective and I'm not so bittervet that I can't welcome change, if as you've hinted there's more of this on the way I will do my best to get used to it and embrace it if it becomes another form of pvp for example, hacking another capsuleers stuff to take control of it, where my enemies skills make the task all of the more difficult or even in a direct mind to mind contest. I can see merit in that. I still stick to my earlier point that it breeches the character/player divide as that's important to me, not so much to others perhaps but it is to me...

EDIT: It suddenly dawned on me why I am not a fan of the hacking mini gane, it's mainly because it's constantly referred to as a mini game, we don't do this with any other part of the UI. We don't have a fitting mini game or a scanning mini game, pi mini game, overview mini game etc. PI is as much a mini game as the hacking mini game yet it's never referred to as a mini game in official ccp press releases or publications. Referring to it as a mini game is also immersion breaking in my opinion. Even the community refers to it as a mini game and not as part of the UI.

Thanks again for replying, it does help to know that the hacking game wasn't implemented to exist in isolation and that future plans may increase integration of it into the game mechanics and the general eve universe.

Whilst I am thinking of it how about being able to hack some of those locked acceleration gates out there if you cant find the key, that would be useful.

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
#48 - 2013-10-24 23:32:44 UTC
CCP Bayesian wrote:
CCP Prime... took the scattering mechanic we had in some mining prototypes and bought it into EVE... [and] has since left to pastures new...
Color me shocked and surprised. Only question would be - why was the team lead who rubber stamped that idea not invited to join him?

CCP Bayesian wrote:
There is definitely desire to move the Hacking, sans the Scattering mechanic into new places and to deepen the gameplay involved in Hacking. I and other people have a whole bunch of stuff we want to implement further but it's a case of us not being the people who decide project priorities.
Sounds good. And maybe those Deciders need to be reminded leaving things half-assed is an endemic problem of EvE which has a negative effect on the brand. When players are bitching about things being left unfinished, it doesn't inspire prospective customers (ie. friends we are bitching to) to sign up.

CCP Bayesian wrote:
We intended to ultimately have the Utilities as player built resource that would be fitted to the module so you have more agency in that regard.
This a million times over. It would do so much to make the Hacking mini-game more interesting. Plus anything that promotes more -layer-driven industry tends to be good for the game. Well that and ditching the scattering mechanic.
epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#49 - 2013-10-25 14:48:22 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
Ok lets start from the end and work backwards.
1 loot spew. This is unsaveable in any form, I am afraid it is misconceived at so many levels. shoot it, drown it,kill it, put us out of our misery.
2 hacking game. not good not good at all. real issue is it is in the wrong place.
in captains quarters as a diversion sure why not? in nullsec while being actively hunted by 2 sabres and half a dozen combat frigates,not so much.I can live with it, don't enjoy it, adds nothing really.
3 difficuilty yeah well what can i say, for null right ship right mods right skills and then ...... 3 restoration nodes and screwed.please give it at least some non luck function.
4 scanning down sites, yes, needed,keep it. honestly? enough of a challange without the rest.

Did i mention loot spew? kill it.... now if not sooner.

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
Previous page123