These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Project Discovery is now active on Singularity

First post First post
Author
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#41 - 2016-01-24 14:55:17 UTC
Un Lapin wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

The payouts are fine just as they are. It works on diminishing returns...

...It will be farmed (excessively) by a few and used for short term gain by many...

...This will devalue SOE LP...

...It seems this is all reward and quite good rewards for a minority...


So you say the payout is fine, then contradict yourself with the everything you say afterwards?

It's not diminishing returns since diminishing returns implies as you increase 1 factor (accuracy) then the output per unit (reward) will reduce. Example of diminishing returns in EVE: Incursions and player numbers in fleet; at a certain threshold increasing players reduces the individual gains.

They need to figure out the threshold between random clicking and being bad at this game, below this should be no payout. You shouldn't get paid well for being bad at EVE, especially considering this game requires no skill training or capital investment.

No contradiction at all. The diminishing returns (reducing payouts) will eventually weed out those simply farming for a bit of LP because they get paid less for each click.
F** I don't know where seemingly intelligent people put their brains when they log in to the Eve forums.

Diminishing returns - the lower your accuracy the less you get, for fuks sake what is hard about seeing that.
Payout starts at XX level and reduces as / when / if, your accuracy drops.
See, in this instance, the payouts start at a maximum and reduce. Maybe you should actually try the newest mini game in Eve and see how it works before responding.

Those with professional knowledge could easily devalue SOE LP if the rewards are increased.
-- - -- - -- - --
HPA Dichroic. I'm not offended at all, I know I'm not a scammer, just like I know this is something i will farm as much as possible to get risk free LP. A scammer is someone who deliberately offers something for sale which does not exist. I'll simply be playing a new mini game as a part of Eve to profit from it.
IMO this type of thing should not be put in the hands of people without adequate training. It is too important to be just left so open to misuse and random clicks, or maybe it isn't and risking unreliable results is no problem.

You might want to go check out the Reddit post related to your project - It has been interesting so far.




Ralph King-Griffin - An internet psychologist your not. Don't try.
Having played Eve for 8 years, mistrust is part of the game and I think warning the OP about the type of people he is risking his work on would be important. No point simply showing him those who have what he wants for his project, you aren't representative of the overall player base.

Eve in general - Making isk / LP is something you do in a way that is fast, as easy as possible and efficient. If it is too time consuming or risky - Go do something else. If it is too complicated or requires too much effort - Go do something else.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
#42 - 2016-01-24 16:11:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Torgeir Hekard
This thing needs a crash course in fluorescent strain marking. Not a bunch of pictures of "it should look like here" (especially with such a short tutorial), but a description of how the marking is done, how the images are taken, what are the common mistakes at identifying stuff and why they happen.

For examlpe, from what I've gathered, it's important to understand that cells are still 3D structures, and some green dots over the nucleii might actually be marking/imaging artifacts caused by, say, vesicles.

Currently the application teaches you that if you see green dots on the nucleus, you should look for something in the nucleus, but that's often not the case.


PS: now that I've thought on it a bit more, I think there's a fundamental problem with the whole approach that makes it into rather a social science experiment than a cell classification project.

You see, since we don't know how it all works we are essentially doing dumb pattern matching with some self-learning, so what this thing is achieving is training human-based artifical neural networks which kinda defeats the point of outsourcing task to humans in the first place, because we humans can be more effective than machines because we can into semantics.


But even if we leave it as it is, it's still going to end up a disaster due to the way self-learning is designed in this particular case.

I managed to progress to rank 6, and the total number of "educational" slides I've encountered was maybe a dozen, and they didn't even remotely cover all possible situations. I think I haven't seen a single "educational" slide since rank 2 or 3, so I'm long since going effectively blind. Relying on user percentages on "pending" slides for self-correction because it kinda makes "psycological" sense (if the majority thinks this way it must be right).

BUT. The user percentages on "pending" slides are only there due to the same under-educated human based artifical neural networks. They can make mistakes. They DO make mistakes. In some cases the mistakes ar painfully obvious, but there are many gray area cases where the aforementioned psychological effect will make your decisions sway the majority way.

But suppose a few people stumble on a new "gray area case" slide and make the same non-trivial mistake. Then the slide has a "wrong" voting map (even if it's by a few people), and any subsequent classification attemps will self-learn from a wrong example.

In effect since our initial self-learning sample is very small and we don't get pervasive correction tests every so often, we substitude learning samples with popular voting samples, and any initial mistake has a great chance to propagate over the population and steer the whole self-learning process in the wrong direction.

While the voting thing does not affect the current slide you are working on (because it appears after you're done), in absence of acual informed peer review it acts as a de-facto task success evaluation and affects the way you handle further examples in a probably unintended way. You dropped us in a petri dish with a critical lack of information and prior learning, and now we are a study in the evolution of cancer ourselves.
Sven Viko VIkolander
Allemannsrett
#43 - 2016-01-24 19:41:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Sven Viko VIkolander
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Un Lapin wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

The payouts are fine just as they are. It works on diminishing returns...

...It will be farmed (excessively) by a few and used for short term gain by many...

...This will devalue SOE LP...

...It seems this is all reward and quite good rewards for a minority...


So you say the payout is fine, then contradict yourself with the everything you say afterwards?

It's not diminishing returns since diminishing returns implies as you increase 1 factor (accuracy) then the output per unit (reward) will reduce. Example of diminishing returns in EVE: Incursions and player numbers in fleet; at a certain threshold increasing players reduces the individual gains.

They need to figure out the threshold between random clicking and being bad at this game, below this should be no payout. You shouldn't get paid well for being bad at EVE, especially considering this game requires no skill training or capital investment.

No contradiction at all. The diminishing returns (reducing payouts) will eventually weed out those simply farming for a bit of LP because they get paid less for each click.
F** I don't know where seemingly intelligent people put their brains when they log in to the Eve forums.

Diminishing returns - the lower your accuracy the less you get, for fuks sake what is hard about seeing that.
Payout starts at XX level and reduces as / when / if, your accuracy drops.
See, in this instance, the payouts start at a maximum and reduce. Maybe you should actually try the newest mini game in Eve and see how it works before responding.

Those with professional knowledge could easily devalue SOE LP if the rewards are increased.
-- - -- - -- - --
HPA Dichroic. I'm not offended at all, I know I'm not a scammer, just like I know this is something i will farm as much as possible to get risk free LP. A scammer is someone who deliberately offers something for sale which does not exist. I'll simply be playing a new mini game as a part of Eve to profit from it.
IMO this type of thing should not be put in the hands of people without adequate training. It is too important to be just left so open to misuse and random clicks, or maybe it isn't and risking unreliable results is no problem.

You might want to go check out the Reddit post related to your project - It has been interesting so far.


Ralph King-Griffin - An internet psychologist your not. Don't try.
Having played Eve for 8 years, mistrust is part of the game and I think warning the OP about the type of people he is risking his work on would be important. No point simply showing him those who have what he wants for his project, you aren't representative of the overall player base.

Eve in general - Making isk / LP is something you do in a way that is fast, as easy as possible and efficient. If it is too time consuming or risky - Go do something else. If it is too complicated or requires too much effort - Go do something else.



So far as I can tell, you've really one made one suggestion to this thread (the same sort of suggestion many other people have said), yet somehow it has taken you a few thousand words to state it. Let me try and help you succinctly summarize your feedback--without the unintelligible parts, the random belittling, and the bizarre accusations you've thrown in:
- The Project Discovery mini-game should be designed with the assumption that a decent number of players will try to "game" the system and click randomly simply for rewards. As a result, rewards as well as input to the project should be highly tailored to those players who have a high sustained accuracy on solved images.

I agree with that feedback.
MJ Greyleaf
Perkone
Caldari State
#44 - 2016-01-24 20:48:57 UTC
Chillya wrote:
Some feedback:

Just some additional thoughts on 1: the more examples you could provide, the better (both single elements and combination). After an hour and a half of several tutorials and regular voting, I'm still not sure about the visual distinction between, say, cytoplasm and plasma membrane. And I have positively no idea how to identify focal adhesions. I wouldn't mind a more expansive tutorial (15 steps?).

Overall, I feel very excited about this feature.


Plasma membrane overlaps and surrounds the entire cell, it is the outermost surface so to say. Easiest way to differentiate between the two is to look at where the higher concentration of green markers is. If they overlap the outer rim of microtubules and are otherwise uniform throughout the cell image its a plasma membrane, if it has a higher concentration just around the nucleus and doesnt stretch beyond the reach of the microtubules then its cytoplasm. 4/5 times it's cytoplasm which probably makes it the single most exploitable option.

Focal adhesion is rare but not hard to identify. Like with membrane youll notice high concentration immediately at the edge of the cell, right at the end of microtubules, but unlike the plasma membrane they dont have a uniform spread throughout the cell's image, theyre very localised at the rim of the cell. Theyre usually very bright and hard to miss. The only difference between focal adhesion and cell junction is that cell junction is only present where a cell is in contact with another. If you see bright residue between two cells touching one another, check the rest of the cell's perimeter to see if there are any other residues. If there are - it's focal adhesion, if not it's a cell junction.

It is very easy to see that many people have tried to exploit PD on SiSi, cytoplasm, nuclear particles (few) and mitochondria are often highlighted regardless of whether they make sense or not (I can understand cytoplasm and the (few) particles but mitochondria?!? they are WAY too distinct to be justified as 'mistakes'). Rewards being what they are, I don't particularly care, I'll let other people argue over how game-breaking it is to make a little LP, tutorial though definitely needs improvement.

A) we need more examples to be clearly defined, maybe after submitting an answer parts of the sample should be highlighted the same way they are on the hover example pictures next to each option. That should help people understand what they need to look for.

B) someone said that the hover example pictures should include a slideshow. That person deserves a jar of cookies. The examples are labelled well and description are clear but we need to see a wider range of possibilities, each of them labelled.

C) skip button definitely needs to be a thing and with it should come penalties for spammers. a 'three strikes and youre out' kind of policy where if your results are outlier too much you get a strike. How about giving strikes each strike its own timer, say 30 minutes (or more depending on how far out you are from consensus) and then if you manage to accumulate all three (or more) than you need to wait for all of them to cool down before you can play again. of course you should be able to still use the minigame, just that your results are not taken and you dont get rewards, just practice.

D) doing this in groups doesnt make much sense (I'm talking about the idea to have people agree on a category before being able to submit), but you should definitely be able to drag and drop the picture into chat to ask other people their opinion. It'll raise awereness about the project, motivate people to try it, increase result fidelity etc. It NEEDS to be a thing.
Qoquaq To-Transic
Moorglade Movers
#45 - 2016-01-25 00:50:18 UTC
Hello HPA and CCP! Just wanted to say that as an aspiring researcher and current biology student, Project Discovery is beyond amazing and I'm so glad to be able to contribute as much as I can. I think the activity is really great and shows a lot of promise. That being said, I have a few questions and suggestions.

For HPA Dichroic:

1. I've worked with fluorescence stains before and am well aware at the vast array of techniques used to visualize cell structures. Are you able to share with me the specific techniques or probes employed in the images used for Project Discovery? Specifically, I'm wondering if you're staining for a particular structure or whether the probe is targeting one specific protein which you're then sending to us to describe its localization? Or, are you designing transgenic cell lines to express GFP reporter attached to a protein of interest?

2. Are you able to share the types of tissues we're seeing in-game? Are these tissue explants or cultured cell lines (and if so, what sort of medium are you working with)?

I ask the above because I'm interested in making a guide to help other players without a lot of biological know-how to make informed decisions about what exactly they're describing. From my own observations on the test server, I noticed that a lot of people are marking 'vesicles' or 'cytoplasm' when there's clearly only negligible green reporting. As someone who's done imaging before, I know that's likely just an artifact of the staining/cleaning/mounting process, but other players likely don't know that and are misidentifying structures. Having the above contextual information would really help me point out some of the finicky issues and tricks of doing cell imaging which might improve our responses and give you better reports to work with.

I understand if you're not allowed to (or otherwise can't) tell me about these specific details, but any context you could give us players is greatly appreciated! Let's do awesome science!

For CCP Devs:

Many of the suggestions I have regarding the client-side implementation of Project Discovery have already been made, but it never hurts to reiterate:

1. Please let us be able to resize the window. I don't have a 4K display or anything but even on my laptop it's remarkably difficult to pick out details or click the response buttons because the window is so small, especially since the UI is as dark as it is. You could even set a maximum and minimum dimension if the actual cell images are limiting the possible window size but even a little larger would go a long way.

2. Instead of having Tricolor, Green, Blue-Green and Red-Green options, would it be possible to instead have toggles for each fluorescence channel? So, having all three toggled would represent the current Tricolor option and having two or fewer toggled would represent the combinatoric options. My own experience in lab tells me that being able to see each channel individually considerably helps in successful identification.

3. I'm not sure whether this is an artifact of players randomly selecting options or otherwise, but I noticed very clear examples where there was absolutely no green fluorescence yet the responses were all over the board, and 0% selected the 'no fluorescence' option. Is it possible that the response frequencies reported after each image aren't matching up correctly?

4. A 'No Idea' or 'Skip This Image' button would be really really helpful for people who are having a very difficult time describing an image. Maybe I missed it during my few hours on SiSi, but the 'No Fluorescence' and 'Complete Fluorescence' buttons aren't enough. The Skip button wouldn't reward players, but it also wouldn't penalize them.

5. As for farming the minigame, while I'm not knowledgable enough to comment on appropriate ISK, Research Point, and LP rewards, I do think some sort of system to severely penalize intentional random guessing (that doesn't penalize 'IDK' answers) needs to be in place. We don't want to make the HPA researchers have to go back through all our responses and sort out what's actually right and wrong because some players are just in it for some SOE LP and a quick buck. Someone else in the thread mentioned a 'strike system' which I think is a great place to start. If your responses are wildly inaccurate or otherwise clearly random guessing, you get a strike. Enough strikes (I think three's just a great number), and you're forced to redo the tutorial (without rewards) before you get to go back to the actual data. This (I think) would discourage people just trying to farm LP by setting a cap on how much they can cheat for rewards, while assisting players who are genuinely struggling with identifying structures by having them run through some more practice. And, if you just happen to be good enough to farm while giving accurate and precise responses, then I honestly think you deserve the LP.

6. Speaking of the tutorial, I agree that there ought to be more examples of each structure to give players a better sense of the natural variability in cell stains. Maybe for each 'section' (nuclear, cellular, and periphery), there could be at least one or two images for each structure that, upon transmission, would point out not only the correct structure but also which part of the image reveals that structure. For example, if a slide was to find 'golgi bodies' and the player selected 'vesicles', it would highlight or point arrows to the parts of the image that indicated fluorescence of golgi bodies as well as 'red x-ing' vesicles.

Like I said, overall I think Project Discovery has a lot of potential, and with a bit of extra polish, this would be another great opportunity for EvE players to do something awesome. I welcome any and all comments, questions, and critiques and would be more than happy to clarify if necessary.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#46 - 2016-01-25 01:27:11 UTC
Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Un Lapin wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

The payouts are fine just as they are. It works on diminishing returns...

...It will be farmed (excessively) by a few and used for short term gain by many...

...This will devalue SOE LP...

...It seems this is all reward and quite good rewards for a minority...


So you say the payout is fine, then contradict yourself with the everything you say afterwards?

It's not diminishing returns since diminishing returns implies as you increase 1 factor (accuracy) then the output per unit (reward) will reduce. Example of diminishing returns in EVE: Incursions and player numbers in fleet; at a certain threshold increasing players reduces the individual gains.

They need to figure out the threshold between random clicking and being bad at this game, below this should be no payout. You shouldn't get paid well for being bad at EVE, especially considering this game requires no skill training or capital investment.

No contradiction at all. The diminishing returns (reducing payouts) will eventually weed out those simply farming for a bit of LP because they get paid less for each click.
F** I don't know where seemingly intelligent people put their brains when they log in to the Eve forums.

Diminishing returns - the lower your accuracy the less you get, for fuks sake what is hard about seeing that.
Payout starts at XX level and reduces as / when / if, your accuracy drops.
See, in this instance, the payouts start at a maximum and reduce. Maybe you should actually try the newest mini game in Eve and see how it works before responding.

Those with professional knowledge could easily devalue SOE LP if the rewards are increased.
-- - -- - -- - --
HPA Dichroic. I'm not offended at all, I know I'm not a scammer, just like I know this is something i will farm as much as possible to get risk free LP. A scammer is someone who deliberately offers something for sale which does not exist. I'll simply be playing a new mini game as a part of Eve to profit from it.
IMO this type of thing should not be put in the hands of people without adequate training. It is too important to be just left so open to misuse and random clicks, or maybe it isn't and risking unreliable results is no problem.

You might want to go check out the Reddit post related to your project - It has been interesting so far.


Ralph King-Griffin - An internet psychologist your not. Don't try.
Having played Eve for 8 years, mistrust is part of the game and I think warning the OP about the type of people he is risking his work on would be important. No point simply showing him those who have what he wants for his project, you aren't representative of the overall player base.

Eve in general - Making isk / LP is something you do in a way that is fast, as easy as possible and efficient. If it is too time consuming or risky - Go do something else. If it is too complicated or requires too much effort - Go do something else.



So far as I can tell, you've really one made one suggestion to this thread (the same sort of suggestion many other people have said), yet somehow it has taken you a few thousand words to state it. Let me try and help you succinctly summarize your feedback--without the unintelligible parts, the random belittling, and the bizarre accusations you've thrown in:
- The Project Discovery mini-game should be designed with the assumption that a decent number of players will try to "game" the system and click randomly simply for rewards. As a result, rewards as well as input to the project should be highly tailored to those players who have a high sustained accuracy on solved images.

I agree with that feedback.

Please point out the unintelligible and bizarre accusations

As for belittling - Who did I randomly belittle?

Oh and trying to provide examples of why things happen - Takes words - This guy knows nothing about Eve aside from what CCP has told him, CCP is not going to give him accurate information because if they did there is a good chance Project Discovery would never be a part of Eve and CCP would not get paid for hosting it.

And no the game should not be highly designed for those with the skills and training to profit from it - If that is the only way the game can be implemented, then it has no place on TQ. Why should a minority group within such a large player base have something tailor made for them to compete against everyone else?

Best solution for this project would be as a 3rd party game sponsored by CCP and the Project, something like Somer or I want isk - Player deposits isk - Player wins or loses isk by playing the game. CCP could even up the anti by making special skins or (as someone suggested) Lab Coats and other game items "prizes" for participation.



This project is important and has done good work for many years with trained participants from around the world - It doesn't (and should never) rely on untrained people to gather results, CCP should not be putting the project at risk by adding it as part of its game.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

ISD Rontea
ISD STAR
#47 - 2016-01-25 09:51:12 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Rontea
Need 4 buttons in color filters UI:
All - Red - Green - Blue.
If you turn on Red you see only red. Turn Red and Blu - see only red and blue without green.
Turn All - all colors in picture.

Players be able to choose color combination by himself.

ISD Rontea

ISD STAR Executive

Волонтёр группы по взаимодействию с игроками

Interstellar Services Department

Haria Haritimado
Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd.
Arataka Research Consortium
#48 - 2016-01-25 11:20:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Haria Haritimado
I totally support the idea of Project Discovery, from both perspectives: science and gaming fun. I have two suggestions:

1) Since this mini-game does address players who are actually motivated by the project itself, not its game-relevant rewards, I would implement a non-material (non-virtual-material? :) reward as well. E.g. a SoE medal for highly skilled and continued contributions or some other collectable.

2) If possible, invest some efforts to build a solid bridge between the mini-game and serious e-learning content. For example, an elaborated introduction lecture into the project, held by a virtual SoE agent. This could also function as a tutorial, but I imagine it as an actual educational thing for those interested.

o/
Mr Mac
Dark Goliath
#49 - 2016-01-25 12:33:57 UTC
ISD Rontea wrote:
Need 4 buttons in color filters UI:
All - Red - Green - Blue.
If you turn on Red you see only red. Turn Red and Blu - see only red and blue without green.
Turn All - all colors in picture.

Players be able to choose color combination by himself.


Current color filters are fine.
I don't see reason to have red only and blue only buttons. For red, there are no red big circle and red dot in samples. Blue - can see any blue things very well in blue+green.
Morwen Lagann
Tyrathlion Interstellar
#50 - 2016-01-26 20:05:50 UTC
Had an additional thought regarding payouts.

Don't pay out for submissions that are still building a consensus. Pay out after a consensus has been reached for a particular slide.

That might help limit the spam-clicking and random submissions by people trying to **** around; in the event that you have people just spamming one thing in a concerted effort to disrupt the system it's not hard to spot it and penalize those players accordingly... and in the meantime they're not getting any reward for that "effort."

Morwen Lagann

CEO, Tyrathlion Interstellar

Coordinator, Arataka Research Consortium

Owner, The Golden Masque

Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#51 - 2016-01-27 23:45:38 UTC
Morwen Lagann wrote:
Had an additional thought regarding payouts.

Don't pay out for submissions that are still building a consensus. Pay out after a consensus has been reached for a particular slide.

That might help limit the spam-clicking and random submissions by people trying to **** around; in the event that you have people just spamming one thing in a concerted effort to disrupt the system it's not hard to spot it and penalize those players accordingly... and in the meantime they're not getting any reward for that "effort."

That would work so well - One jabber ping to an alliance, you have a consensus.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.

Titti Sabezan
SYNDIC Unlimited
#52 - 2016-01-28 17:47:13 UTC
Having thried this on tonight's mass-test, i am bound to say that either I'm sh*t-stupid or the tutorial gave little or no clue what was being ewpxetd, and the answers being offered were just too many for more than a guess-tinate methodology.

On the other hand, given that it awards ISK, I will probably try it out once it is in TQ (I ony use SiSi occasiuonally, so ISK there is a but ... redundant)
Ophilia IV
POS Party
Ember Sands
#53 - 2016-01-28 19:49:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Ophilia IV
The thing I'm a bit confused about is that these two options seem in direct conflict. Can you please clarify in the tooltip that they are NOT mutually exclusive, or if they are, make it so you can't select both?

http://puu.sh/mNaAe.jpg

The option I have selected indates the nucleus is large and evenly stained.

The option the community selected (along WITH my answer) is that the staining is seen throughout the cell EXCEPT in the nucleus.

I see examples of this kind of cell a lot, where the staining is kind of sort of everywhere, but also in the nucleus, but both those options are mutually exclusive, so what's the deal?

Hope this feedback helps.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#54 - 2016-01-28 20:59:42 UTC
Aden Ordinii wrote:
Just gave it a try on SiSi, dam its not like hacking...it is realy hard
.......
3. There is a change from Rank 2 to 3, i didn't see any new explanation on what is needed...only 4%, 8%, 55% or 0% overlays after hitting the submit. do i need to add 100% to get it done, to get a accuracy rating? or do i need all attributes?
......

I think you made it to new samples, that is samples that have not yet been classified., Those percentages are what other people selected. That is a hexagon with 55% was selected by other players 55% of the time. Thus, for these samples, there no known "right answer", just what most of us think is right.

This brings up a change I would like to see: After I see the consensus numbers, I sometimes take a second look and change my mind. But I cannot reclassify based on my new opinion. I would like the option to reclassify.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction

Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#55 - 2016-01-28 21:04:14 UTC
Ophilia IV wrote:
The thing I'm a bit confused about is that these two options seem in direct conflict. Can you please clarify in the tooltip that they are NOT mutually exclusive, or if they are, make it so you can't select both?

http://puu.sh/mNaAe.jpg

The option I have selected indates the nucleus is large and evenly stained.

The option the community selected (along WITH my answer) is that the staining is seen throughout the cell EXCEPT in the nucleus.

I see examples of this kind of cell a lot, where the staining is kind of sort of everywhere, but also in the nucleus, but both those options are mutually exclusive, so what's the deal?

Hope this feedback helps.

I think that means all the players selected cytoplasm, 50% also selected nucleus (they clicked on two things, which is fine).

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction

Morwen Lagann
Tyrathlion Interstellar
#56 - 2016-01-28 22:01:56 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:

That would work so well - One jabber ping to an alliance, you have a consensus.


Except for the fact that the slides you get are random.

Morwen Lagann

CEO, Tyrathlion Interstellar

Coordinator, Arataka Research Consortium

Owner, The Golden Masque

Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication
#57 - 2016-01-28 22:18:33 UTC
The tutorial definitely needs to do more to teach the user why one example sample is this way and not that. The descriptions of each classification need to be more distinct in their explanations. It may even be best to have a tutorial website where more detailed information and "select two classifications to see why they are not the same" would help the new users to PD.

Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.

Support better localization for the Japanese Community.

Darth Behelzebhu
Lair of Demons
#58 - 2016-01-29 10:41:27 UTC
Nice mini game, good way to spend some time when waiting on station for something to happen, nice.

Is very hard, which is not a bad thing, considering the rewards for it are very big even with little accuracy.

Seems tough, there are flaws; i'm 100% sure it has marked me error in the identifying when it was correct; i noticed this in many occasions, but couldn't be sure, till the "Yellow" cells came, first time was easy, only one option to be accurate and worked, second time after a few more submissions, i got a Yellow one again; now if it had only marked me i missed other identifying feature, fine, but being the Yellow one, marked me Incorrect, so pretty sure it has flaws there. It already is hard without considering it might be marking us down when is clear was correct.

The SoE LP farm is very high here, wouldn't it be a little better if it was Concord or another type of neutral LP?

Other than this is an interesting feature and other than the marking flaws, seems to all rest work fine. Big smile
Yadaryon Vondawn
Vicanthya
#59 - 2016-01-29 12:58:43 UTC
One thing I noticed is that when you dock Project Discovery on you left tab that upon the next logon it removed itself from the tab. Please allow it to stay docked there :)
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#60 - 2016-01-30 00:00:17 UTC
Morwen Lagann wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

That would work so well - One jabber ping to an alliance, you have a consensus.


Except for the fact that the slides you get are random.

Hmmm, Interesting you completed the other side of my arguement.

Even with random slides - What will happen if say a coalition of 30K or 40K players decided they wanted to screw with this, just to see what would happen? Or just to prove a point.
10K random clicks every 30 seconds 24 hours a day - Where do you find a consensus?
Even a small group of a few hundred players random clicking at a set time will make finding a consensus difficult, if not impossible. Not to mention how much SOE LP that little group can make per click.
Do you think you and your friends who have the specific training to do this are going to create a consensus against the masses of TQ?

Don't tell me it couldn't happen, this is Eve and it is a sad little community that is driven by profit the misery of others and pushing game mechanics to extremes.


As I said earlier in the thread - This should not be hosted on TQ. If CCP want to host this and use Eve currency as the reward, then do it as a 3rd party app.


Like the introduction of fatigue and limited jump ranges (as one of many examples), CCP is forging ahead without looking at this from all sides. CCP motto - Just do it, we'll worry about whether it is right or not later.

NB; For the sake of this project, I hope I am wrong but if the addition of this to TQ is to be a positive thing, it needs to be very carefully planned and not added as an income stream that WILL be used in unintended ways.

SOE LP, highly desired in the game - Given out for clicks in a risk free situation - Nah, no-one will take advantage of that.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.