These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Loot Scattering removed from Exploration Sites

First post First post
Author
Jinn Aideron
#61 - 2014-05-20 19:34:47 UTC
Owen Levanth wrote:
...

Here, have some ice-cream, you've been out in the sun too long.

Stealth deletes are bad.

Guth'Alak
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#62 - 2014-05-20 19:53:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Guth'Alak
Moth Eisig wrote:
Sophaya Fortelleren wrote:
I always liked the idea of the loot spill being a 'punishment' for not succeeding in the hack. So instead of getting some good stuff, you get (mostly) trash and it gets literally thrown in your face.


The loot distribution would have to be completely random or the failure loot spew would have to contain only a small amount of the full loot for this to be even remotely viable. Otherwise a character with nothing but a rookie ship and basic scanning/hacking skills could head out to null and make hundreds of millions by just failing on purpose and grabbing the valuable loot anyhow.


Heres how i could see this working: each can requires 2 attempts. if you fail once, you get loot spew with only 50% of the loot. if you fail both, the can blows up and you get nothing. if you win both, you get 100% of the loot conveniently from the container.

furthermore, this system would appropriately reward success and punish failure and no loot tables need to be adjusted whatsoever.
Seamus Donohue
EVE University
Ivy League
#63 - 2014-05-20 19:59:51 UTC
CCP, for the history during which loot spew was in effect, what was the proportion of loot that was collected and what was the proportion that was lost to decay? How do these proportions vary by the specific item type?

Survivor of Teskanen.  Fan of John Rourke.

I have video tutorials for EVE Online on my YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/SeamusDonohueEVE

DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#64 - 2014-05-20 21:50:49 UTC
Daenna Chrysi wrote:
CCP Bayesian wrote:
Sisi should be updated today and I went and pulled the trigger to remove the loot scattering mechanic from the Exploration Sites. I've also reverted most of the doubled rewards. Some need to be done manually by our designers so consider what you're getting out of the sites as WIP. It works pretty much as before but with the Hacking mechanic remaining. Simply hack the site to gain access to the cargo hold of your target.

We've tested quite a lot internally but there are likely to be some rough edges somewhere. Any feedback you guys can give me is greatly appreciated.


dont revert the doubled rewards, but make the sites immune to cargo scanner, so players cant pick the cream of the crop but have to work for it by hacking all containers to see what is in them.

I agree 100%.

The problem with an influx of loot crashing Market Prices isn't due to a large amount of players doing exploration, it's due to a large amount of explorers cherry picking and blitzing exploration sites.

Instead of reducing the loot table, just remove the ability to cargo-scan the hacking containers thus requiring players to complete the entire site, not just a couple of select containers.

Expedition, DED and non-rated Combat sites should have the NPC Commanders and Overseers spawn after all other NPC defenders within the site have been destroyed.

Also acceleration gates requiring a special key for access need to have a second key type available for access. For example the Angel DED 1/10 and 2/10 sites do not have an alternate key type to access the gates like the Watch and Vigil sites have.. Speaking of the Angel DED 1/10 site, it seriously needs to have some Faction loot added to it's loot table.

Speaking of loot tables, when are Rogue Drones going to get the loot table that was promised back when you guys thought it was wise to remove Alloys and Compounds?

Anyway, I'm glad the loot spew is being removed, I never liked that mechanic. However, I still won't be doing the hacking sites due to the click fest mini hacking game.



DMC
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#65 - 2014-05-20 22:01:24 UTC
Guth'Alak wrote:
Heres how i could see this working: each can requires 2 attempts. if you fail once, you get loot spew with only 50% of the loot. if you fail both, the can blows up and you get nothing. if you win both, you get 100% of the loot conveniently from the container.


So 7 cans on grid an we have to hack them 14 times to get 100% loot. It's exploration, not hacking in space. No.

DeMichael Crimson wrote:
The problem with an influx of loot crashing Market Prices isn't due to a large amount of players doing exploration, it's due to a large amount of explorers cherry picking and blitzing exploration sites.

Instead of reducing the loot table, just remove the ability to cargo-scan the hacking containers thus requiring players to complete the entire site, not just a couple of select containers.


100% agree.

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville

DaOpa
Static Corp
#66 - 2014-05-20 22:19:21 UTC

Greetings,

I just tested Multiple COSMOS STATIC Complexes in ZIMSE, APHI and GARISAS


All seem to be working correctly with loot spew gone.




Blink
ShadowBlood Sentinel
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#67 - 2014-05-20 22:52:49 UTC  |  Edited by: ShadowBlood Sentinel
While I understand how CCP arrived at this 50% figure, being that loot was buffed when loot spew was added; i believe that this is now outdated considing how much the economy as evolved around this profession.

I do agree that with removing loot spew, some loot table nerf is necessary. However, I don't think 50% is realistic. A 10-20% nerf would be more acceptable in my view.

Most of the isk made in this profession of Relic and Data sites comes from low and null sec. Making it a high risk profession, with moderate time investment (probing, hacking, travel) on some level comparable with DED sites. Although on average, more time is spent in DED sites compared to exploration sites, while more time is spent traveling in between exploration sites than in DED sites (on average).

If CCP feels that the profit vs. effort ratio isn't correct, I believe that there are alternatives than nerfing the loot table by 50%. Nerfing the loot table by 15%, or adding new skills to the profession to increase the investment curve of the profession (Archaeology and Archaelogy Expertise for example). I heard others propose making the cans in Relic and Data sites unscannable by cargo scanners, forcing pilots to complete the whole site to make sure they got all exceptional and unique loot, thus increasing the time invested to reward ratio (this may be not as practical). The point being there are other options available.

I'm sure there are many in the exploration community that agree with me.


P.S.

While CCP is working on these sites can they please reduce the m3 size of datacores from 1m3 each to .1m3 each? I not aware of any reason why they need to be this size. I find it slightly ridiculous that in some sites I would have to have a secondary character in a hauler just to carry around the total loot of just one site (this is just the profitable loot, not counting the rest).

"I make my home in the stars, the shadows my adventure."
Conjaq
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#68 - 2014-05-20 23:15:56 UTC
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Daenna Chrysi wrote:
CCP Bayesian wrote:
Sisi should be updated today and I went and pulled the trigger to remove the loot scattering mechanic from the Exploration Sites. I've also reverted most of the doubled rewards. Some need to be done manually by our designers so consider what you're getting out of the sites as WIP. It works pretty much as before but with the Hacking mechanic remaining. Simply hack the site to gain access to the cargo hold of your target.

We've tested quite a lot internally but there are likely to be some rough edges somewhere. Any feedback you guys can give me is greatly appreciated.


dont revert the doubled rewards, but make the sites immune to cargo scanner, so players cant pick the cream of the crop but have to work for it by hacking all containers to see what is in them.

I agree 100%.

The problem with an influx of loot crashing Market Prices isn't due to a large amount of players doing exploration, it's due to a large amount of explorers cherry picking and blitzing exploration sites.

Instead of reducing the loot table, just remove the ability to cargo-scan the hacking containers thus requiring players to complete the entire site, not just a couple of select containers.

Expedition, DED and non-rated Combat sites should have the NPC Commanders and Overseers spawn after all other NPC defenders within the site have been destroyed.

Also acceleration gates requiring a special key for access need to have a second key type available for access. For example the Angel DED 1/10 and 2/10 sites do not have an alternate key type to access the gates like the Watch and Vigil sites have.. Speaking of the Angel DED 1/10 site, it seriously needs to have some Faction loot added to it's loot table.

Speaking of loot tables, when are Rogue Drones going to get the loot table that was promised back when you guys thought it was wise to remove Alloys and Compounds?

Anyway, I'm glad the loot spew is being removed, I never liked that mechanic. However, I still won't be doing the hacking sites due to the click fest mini hacking game.



DMC


This.. So much this, can't say I agree with the need to kill all npcs before a commander spawns, but having a look on exploration whole not be a bad thing.

Simple stuff as making a guarantee on unrated ded sites to escalate fully, or have a guaranteed dead space module drop(or even just the tokdn) .. Would go a long long way to make exploration way better....
On that note, why was the 9\10 plexes changed to not always escalate?
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#69 - 2014-05-20 23:34:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Domanique Altares
CCP Affinity wrote:
After talking with CCP Bayesian, we think you have all made some good points and we agree with you, the 'halving' of the loot tables may be a bit harsh. We will take a look at it again and boost them a bit and get back to you with specifics :)


Perhaps for once you might try being reactive, rather than proactive. CCP seems to have an affinity (pun not intended) for trying to game the system before you even have the result of one change in hand.

The last time you fooled around with this we were repeatedly told 'Oh, don't worry explorers! We'll adjust things so that your income doesn't suffer.' Except that it did, because sites were spewing invention and T2 salvage loot into the hands of fresh explorers like no one's business; the cargo scanner cherry picking is the only thing that kept a dedicated explorer making decent isk. (I freely admit to abusing the cargo scanner mechanic. It's there, so I use it. I would not be sad to see it gone, and would prefer if it was. DMC has already pointed out that the desire to cheat the loot lottery crashed the market.)
MuraSaki Siki
ChuangShi
Fraternity.
#70 - 2014-05-21 01:41:47 UTC
excuse me for an odd question,


which update (Kronos / Crius) will this change be focus to arrived at?
as it is not stated at the topic.
Nicola Arman
Deep Maw Salvage
#71 - 2014-05-21 02:33:21 UTC
It's very sad to see development time wasted with the removal of the spew...

Successful attempt = No spew, all loot earned
First Failure = Spew loot
2nd Failure = Explosions!
MuraSaki Siki
ChuangShi
Fraternity.
#72 - 2014-05-21 04:29:22 UTC
Nicola Arman wrote:
It's very sad to see development time wasted with the removal of the spew...

Successful attempt = No spew, all loot earned
First Failure = Spew loot
2nd Failure = Explosions!


+1 this idea

reward for prefect hack
George Gouillot
MASS
Pandemic Horde
#73 - 2014-05-21 05:56:10 UTC
Nicola Arman wrote:
It's very sad to see development time wasted with the removal of the spew...

Successful attempt = No spew, all loot earned
First Failure = Spew loot
2nd Failure = Explosions!


That is a brilliant idea! +1
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#74 - 2014-05-21 07:16:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
ShadowBlood Sentinel wrote:
While I understand how CCP arrived at this 50% figure, being that loot was buffed when loot spew was added; i believe that this is now outdated considing how much the economy as evolved around this profession.

I do agree that with removing loot spew, some loot table nerf is necessary. However, I don't think 50% is realistic. A 10-20% nerf would be more acceptable in my view.

Most of the isk made in this profession of Relic and Data sites comes from low and null sec. Making it a high risk profession, with moderate time investment (probing, hacking, travel) on some level comparable with DED sites. Although on average, more time is spent in DED sites compared to exploration sites, while more time is spent traveling in between exploration sites than in DED sites (on average).

If CCP feels that the profit vs. effort ratio isn't correct, I believe that there are alternatives than nerfing the loot table by 50%. Nerfing the loot table by 15%, or adding new skills to the profession to increase the investment curve of the profession (Archaeology and Archaelogy Expertise for example). I heard others propose making the cans in Relic and Data sites unscannable by cargo scanners, forcing pilots to complete the whole site to make sure they got all exceptional and unique loot, thus increasing the time invested to reward ratio (this may be not as practical). The point being there are other options available.

I'm sure there are many in the exploration community that agree with me.


P.S.

While CCP is working on these sites can they please reduce the m3 size of datacores from 1m3 each to .1m3 each? I not aware of any reason why they need to be this size. I find it slightly ridiculous that in some sites I would have to have a secondary character in a hauler just to carry around the total loot of just one site (this is just the profitable loot, not counting the rest).

"I make my home in the stars, the shadows my adventure."


In addition to this, reducing the loot drop amount in light of the recent changes to freighters would be extremely harmful to freighter pilots. Even with the current prices it already costs a fortune to rig freighters; reducing the loot availability and thus increasing prices even further is outrageous. Not to mention Invention: the current standard is the usage of Symmetries and Parities. Decreasing their and decryptor/datacore (yes, I fill my needs only via exploration) drop rate significantly in combination with the horrendous coming changes in Crius, would have highly negative effects on this part of the game as well.

Besides, what is it with these empty containers? I understand that it happens in High sec in low level sites, but I also have seen it happen in 00 sec in the high level containers, such as Ruins and Databanks. I can understand that you want people to waste time in High sec on these cans, but it is very frustrating in 00 sec.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

CCP Bayesian
#75 - 2014-05-21 08:35:03 UTC
As said earlier the loot in the cans is a WIP, expect it to change again very soon and thanks for the valuable feedback.

People that have raised technical issues, thanks, those are also in the process of being investigated and fixed. Smile

EVE Software Engineer Team Space Glitter

Ra'Shyne Viper
Native Freshfood
#76 - 2014-05-21 08:55:31 UTC
Nicola Arman wrote:
It's very sad to see development time wasted with the removal of the spew...

Successful attempt = No spew, all loot earned
First Failure = Spew loot
2nd Failure = Explosions!


Bingo

DUST 514 player

Ingame name: Vin Vicious

Kateryna I
Heavenly Sentinels
The Nameless Alliance
#77 - 2014-05-21 09:37:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Kateryna I
Nicola Arman wrote:
It's very sad to see development time wasted with the removal of the spew...

Successful attempt = No spew, all loot earned
First Failure = Spew loot
2nd Failure = Explosions!


this indeed sounds like a remarkable idea, no need to change the loot spew implant in this case, and extra reward for being good and incentive to skill up
And the value of stuff wouldn't dip as much either, all around win.

And it goes in line with the ghost sites as well, first attempt, access the can, no second attempt in this case Twisted

Polish PVP corp looking for members to have some fun together. Join me! Check our KB

CCP Bayesian
#78 - 2014-05-21 10:27:38 UTC
The problem with that idea is that it means there is an incentive for people who aren't interested in hacking or exploration as such to come in and fail in order to get the loot out. It's mitigatable but ultimately we'd be leaving a mechanic in that doesn't quite fit into EVE's interaction scheme.

I'm personally much more of a fan of making the reward you get out proportional to how well you complete the hack. The idea floated by someone earlier of having to find 'loot nodes' is along the same lines of future ideas for hacking (here and elsewhere) I have.

EVE Software Engineer Team Space Glitter

Loraine Gess
Confedeferate Union of Tax Legalists
#79 - 2014-05-21 10:31:26 UTC
CCP Bayesian wrote:
The problem with that idea is that it means there is an incentive for people who aren't interested in hacking or exploration as such to come in and fail in order to get the loot out. It's mitigatable but ultimately we'd be leaving a mechanic in that doesn't quite fit into EVE's interaction scheme.

I'm personally much more of a fan of making the reward you get out proportional to how well you complete the hack. The idea floated by someone earlier of having to find 'loot nodes' is along the same lines of future ideas for hacking (here and elsewhere) I have.




If so, could you please make the differences between T1 and T2 hacking/archaeology less dramatic, or otherwise introduce a middling step? The echelon is a pretty interesting hacking platform, the problem being I see no tactical use for it... because all it can do is hack. And die, I suppose.
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
#80 - 2014-05-21 10:54:30 UTC
CCP Bayesian wrote:
The problem with that idea is that it means there is an incentive for people who aren't interested in hacking or exploration as such to come in and fail in order to get the loot out.

I think what he was suggesting is:

If you FAIL the hack twice the can explodes.

If you SUCCEED in the hack on your second attempt you get the loot spew.

If you SUCCEED in the hack on your first attempt you get all the loot, without spew.

So there would be no loot received for failure and therefore no incentive to fail (other than the possibility of griefing another explorer).

CCP Bayesian wrote:
I'm personally much more of a fan of making the reward you get out proportional to how well you complete the hack. The idea floated by someone earlier of having to find 'loot nodes' is along the same lines of future ideas for hacking (here and elsewhere) I have.

I think "loot nodes" or something of that ilk is a fine idea. I don't think the two ideas are exclusive however, as you can have loot nodes to determine the quantity of loot and the 1st/2nd chance mechanic determine the manner in which that loot is delivered.