Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 .. 20 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 51 post(s) |
Kel hound
Lycosa Syndicate Surely You're Joking
37
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 12:06:00 -
[511] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:CCP Bayesian wrote:We made a considered decision to not do that in order to release in a timely manner. There seems to be a lot of that sentiment in Reykjavik right now.
Seriously. At this point I'd rather the old sites with the old mechanics than this "new and improved" crap. |
Brooks Puuntai
Solar Nexus.
1502
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 12:08:00 -
[512] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:CCP Bayesian wrote:We made a considered decision to not do that in order to release in a timely manner. There seems to be a lot of that sentiment in Reykjavik right now.
I'm more curious on why they thought rushing a prototype(pinata) onto sisi 3 weeks prior to release was a good idea. CCP's Motto: If it isn't broken, break it. If it is broken, ignore it.
Idea for Improving NPE. |
Scuzzy Logic
Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce
13
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 12:19:00 -
[513] - Quote
Brooks Puuntai wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:CCP Bayesian wrote:We made a considered decision to not do that in order to release in a timely manner. There seems to be a lot of that sentiment in Reykjavik right now. I'm more curious on why they thought rushing a prototype(pinata) onto sisi 3 weeks prior to release was a good idea.
Protip: Strip the feature and scrap it from the patch! You'll be ready to release even faster!
Seriously Bayesian, decisions like these is the reason I might drop this game for good. |
Scuzzy Logic
Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce
13
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 12:26:00 -
[514] - Quote
CCP Bayesian wrote:Vladimir Norkoff wrote:CCP Bayesian wrote:The problem at the moment is that hackers start each attempt from scratch, you can't bring Utilities in with you and there are no utility elements that give you a peak at what might be where on the board. This limits the strategies that can be developed quite severely. I don't understand how you can acknowledge this is a problem and yet NOT fix it before implementing the system. It's just mind-boggling. We made a considered decision to not do that in order to release in a timely manner. We don't think the hacking mechanics are broken or ruined by not including it but we are making it a priority for the work we are doing right after release because it is the cornerstone to adding more depth to the mechanic. Ideas like the one Dax Buchanan mentioned of going deeper to get a chance at better loot are the sorts of additional mechanics we actively thinking about.
Way to go improving the acceptable aspect of the minigame while completely ingoring the reason why most of us think the feature might deserve dropping.
For what its worth, Dax's idea seems great.
On the other hand, just nerfing supressors (especially in negsec sites) would alleviate much of the impossible scenarios that show up. Making the hacking itself too easy when you're going to shove the pinata in our faces despite our complaints might be your best bet at avoiding a 50-page forum rage on release week. |
Random Woman
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 12:28:00 -
[515] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:CCP Bayesian wrote:We made a considered decision to not do that in order to release in a timely manner. There seems to be a lot of that sentiment in Reykjavik right now.
Part of the quality offensive they are running... |
Raven Solaris
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
201
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 12:30:00 -
[516] - Quote
Scuzzy Logic wrote:Brooks Puuntai wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:CCP Bayesian wrote:We made a considered decision to not do that in order to release in a timely manner. There seems to be a lot of that sentiment in Reykjavik right now. I'm more curious on why they thought rushing a prototype(pinata) onto sisi 3 weeks prior to release was a good idea. Protip: Strip the feature and scrap it from the patch! You'll be ready to release even faster! Seriously Bayesian, decisions like these is the reason I might drop this game for good.
Sadly, I'll +1 this.
Last real thing I'm going to raise about this is why does Odyssey seem like it's adding magic into the game?
We have magic probes that teleport into your hold if you leave system, but if they have to move around system or are recalled manually, we wait for them to warp.
We have a magic tractor beam on all of our ships now that can only be used to tractor in a very specific type of can, and nothing else, and auto-loots them after a few seconds. Meanwhile our non-magic tractor beams can tractor anything, don't auto-loot the special cans and the things that they're tractoring in can suddenly disappear despite being right next to you.
My suspension of disbelief is wearing thin. It's like when you put lockpicking into a fantasy game and let you break into vaults and chests but you can't break into random joe's house. |
blink alt
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
53
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 12:31:00 -
[517] - Quote
CCP Bayesian wrote:Nubchucker wrote:I was pretty excited when I first read about the changes.
Finally I can do hacking/arch/exploration in an all in one ship \o/.
Imagine my disappointment to find T1 ships have a bonus to virus strength and T2 doesn't.
Basically due to the new hacking rigs etc I STILL need 2 ships.. A covert ops to scan the sites down and a T1 to run the site.
Seems stupid to me
It seemed silly to us as well so we're rebalancing that aspect of it.
Are we going to see that rebalancing in time for the launch of odyssey? Also, I think im not crazy and the most recent build had another down tweak on the strength of the scanning modules. I think it is at a pretty good point now, seems to leave room for virtue set and makes them useful. Are you happy with the current ballance of the added probe strength through modules and how that relates to the virtue set? Sorry to be off topic T T |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
169
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 12:36:00 -
[518] - Quote
Raven Solaris wrote:Scuzzy Logic wrote:Brooks Puuntai wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:CCP Bayesian wrote:We made a considered decision to not do that in order to release in a timely manner. There seems to be a lot of that sentiment in Reykjavik right now. I'm more curious on why they thought rushing a prototype(pinata) onto sisi 3 weeks prior to release was a good idea. Protip: Strip the feature and scrap it from the patch! You'll be ready to release even faster! Seriously Bayesian, decisions like these is the reason I might drop this game for good. Sadly, I'll +1 this. Last real thing I'm going to raise about this is why does Odyssey seem like it's adding magic into the game? We have magic probes that teleport into your hold if you leave system, but if they have to move around system or are recalled manually, we wait for them to warp. We have a magic tractor beam on all of our ships now that can only be used to tractor in a very specific type of can, and nothing else, and auto-loots them after a few seconds. Meanwhile our non-magic tractor beams can tractor anything, don't auto-loot the special cans and the things that they're tractoring in can suddenly disappear despite being right next to you. My suspension of disbelief is wearing thin. It's like when you put lockpicking into a fantasy game and let you break into vaults and chests but you can't break into random joe's house.
In the interest of dispelling magic, I would suggest that perhaps the "magic tractor beam" is in one way or another integrated into the analyzer modules.
|
Scuzzy Logic
Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce
13
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 12:36:00 -
[519] - Quote
Raven Solaris wrote:Scuzzy Logic wrote:Brooks Puuntai wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:CCP Bayesian wrote:We made a considered decision to not do that in order to release in a timely manner. There seems to be a lot of that sentiment in Reykjavik right now. I'm more curious on why they thought rushing a prototype(pinata) onto sisi 3 weeks prior to release was a good idea. Protip: Strip the feature and scrap it from the patch! You'll be ready to release even faster! Seriously Bayesian, decisions like these is the reason I might drop this game for good. Sadly, I'll +1 this. Last real thing I'm going to raise about this is why does Odyssey seem like it's adding magic into the game? We have magic probes that teleport into your hold if you leave system, but if they have to move around system or are recalled manually, we wait for them to warp. We have a magic tractor beam on all of our ships now that can only be used to tractor in a very specific type of can, and nothing else, and auto-loots them after a few seconds. Meanwhile our non-magic tractor beams can tractor anything, don't auto-loot the special cans and the things that they're tractoring in can suddenly disappear despite being right next to you. My suspension of disbelief is wearing thin. It's like when you put lockpicking into a fantasy game and let you break into vaults and chests but you can't break into random joe's house.
You know, when you put it like THAT it makes even less sense. I just considered the TB module to focus the pinata beam into a more focused form, but magic is a much better explanation for why the other unexplainable garbage happens.
The probe thing I raised serious concerns about in the other thread, due to having max-researched BPOs of all the probe types. People gating out represent more than 90% of our sales.
It's funny how the expansion that promised my favourite occupation a load of improvements is giving me a visual upgrade and a mechanic sh*tfest in perspective. |
|
CCP Bayesian
809
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 12:45:00 -
[520] - Quote
blink alt wrote:Are we going to see that rebalancing in time for the launch of odyssey? Also, I think im not crazy and the most recent build had another down tweak on the strength of the scanning modules. I think it is at a pretty good point now, seems to leave room for virtue set and makes them useful. Are you happy with the current ballance of the added probe strength through modules and how that relates to the virtue set? Sorry to be off topic T T
Yes this rebalance will be in for release. I'm not the guy to talk to about tweaks to scanning modules. EVE Software Engineer Team Prototyping Rocks |
|
|
spaceking7591
The Generic Pirate Corporation Fusion.
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 12:46:00 -
[521] - Quote
Bienator II wrote:CCP Bayesian wrote:Maddan69 wrote:Can we get a response from a Dev if they are even considering changing the variable which causes the Loot Explosion?
Instead of having two tries at the hacking mini-game either: Failing the hack attempt you get the loot explosion. Succeeding in the hack attempt you loot the container like you would normally.
Twenty-four pages of basically everyone calling this loot explosion mechanic horrible is not a good sign and this is just the people "testing" the mechanic... I don't even want to see the outcry on the forums the following days after the patch hits the live server if this mechanic is introduced as it currently stands. We're talking about the scattering mechanic just now and are making a lot of changes to make it more usable. make scattering a punishment for an unsuccessful hack, not something you have to do after you won the hacking game.
this, 100x this... the minigame as it stands is still way to difficult. even with lvl 5 skills. also didn't ccp want to remove rats from these sites? even if you fail? spawning rats when you fail a hack isn't a lot of fun. especially if you are in an exploration frigate. please CCP change it. because I won't be exploring anymore if these changes get on TQ. |
Omnathious Deninard
The Scope Gallente Federation
1074
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 12:50:00 -
[522] - Quote
spaceking7591 wrote:Bienator II wrote:CCP Bayesian wrote:Maddan69 wrote:Can we get a response from a Dev if they are even considering changing the variable which causes the Loot Explosion?
Instead of having two tries at the hacking mini-game either: Failing the hack attempt you get the loot explosion. Succeeding in the hack attempt you loot the container like you would normally.
Twenty-four pages of basically everyone calling this loot explosion mechanic horrible is not a good sign and this is just the people "testing" the mechanic... I don't even want to see the outcry on the forums the following days after the patch hits the live server if this mechanic is introduced as it currently stands. We're talking about the scattering mechanic just now and are making a lot of changes to make it more usable. make scattering a punishment for an unsuccessful hack, not something you have to do after you won the hacking game. this, 100x this... the minigame as it stands is still way to difficult. even with lvl 5 skills. also didn't ccp want to remove rats from these sites? even if you fail? spawning rats when you fail a hack isn't a lot of fun. especially if you are in an exploration frigate. please CCP change it. because I won't be exploring anymore if these changes get on TQ. Why do you feel you should still get loot for an unsuccessful hack? The loot pi+Ĥata is bad, but that would be worse. It would encourage blobing at data and relic sites with absolutely no hacking done at all. The new failure method is the correct one, container destruction. Ideas For Drone Improvement Repourpose Deep Space Scanner Probes |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
1889
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 13:01:00 -
[523] - Quote
CCP Bayesian wrote:Ideas like the one Dax Buchanan mentioned of going deeper to get a chance at better loot are the sorts of additional mechanics we actively thinking about. Well, at least my input gets considered.
Sovereignty and Population New Mining Mechanics |
Salpun
Paramount Commerce
502
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 13:19:00 -
[524] - Quote
So what where all the changes made since yesterdays build. |
Sven Viko VIkolander
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
71
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 13:34:00 -
[525] - Quote
After reading a lot of reviews on blogs and video reviews on youtube, I don't think there is anyone that actually enjoys the new sites. Most find some/most/all of it frustrating, from the amount of clicks, the randomness, and the spew mechanic esp. I don't see how they are an improvement over the current system, which yes isn't great (wait for a module to successfully open a can) but at least isn't frustrating like the new system. Given a choice between boring (but at least a bit relaxing) versus frustrating, the former is much preferable. Honestly, this should be kept out of live until it is something the majority of players enjoy when testing. The co-op element should be co-op in the hacking game itself, and the spew mechanic should be removed or at least only used when, say, the player fails to beat the system core. The hacking game needs to actually be a puzzle game, rather than a random clickfest, where player foresight and thoughtfulness determine the outcome. EVE players are patient and most, I think, would prefer things stay in development until they are quality (e.g., the way many ship rebalances have been done). |
MainDrain
7th Deepari Defence Armada Apocalypse Now.
210
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 13:48:00 -
[526] - Quote
CCP Bayesian wrote:Nubchucker wrote:I was pretty excited when I first read about the changes.
Finally I can do hacking/arch/exploration in an all in one ship \o/.
Imagine my disappointment to find T1 ships have a bonus to virus strength and T2 doesn't.
Basically due to the new hacking rigs etc I STILL need 2 ships.. A covert ops to scan the sites down and a T1 to run the site.
Seems stupid to me
It seemed silly to us as well so we're rebalancing that aspect of it.
Is this some sort of confirmation that the bonuses will be present on the T2 Cov ops hulls?? |
Kel hound
Lycosa Syndicate Surely You're Joking
37
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 13:55:00 -
[527] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Forgive me if I am mistaken, but were all Data and Relic sites supposed to have no rats? Worm Hole Data and Relic Sites still seem to have sleepers. This should not be the case. Filed a quick bug report and added to the known problems in the OP.
Is this still the case? I just warped out of a C3 relic site with 5 - 6 cruisers and 6 - 8 frigates. Is this working as intended? |
Omnathious Deninard
The Scope Gallente Federation
1074
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 14:02:00 -
[528] - Quote
Kel hound wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Forgive me if I am mistaken, but were all Data and Relic sites supposed to have no rats? Worm Hole Data and Relic Sites still seem to have sleepers. This should not be the case. Filed a quick bug report and added to the known problems in the OP. Is this still the case? I just warped out of a C3 relic site with 5 - 6 cruisers and 6 - 8 frigates. Is this working as intended? No it is not still the case, it was decided to leave the sleepers in wormholes alone. Ideas For Drone Improvement Repourpose Deep Space Scanner Probes |
Itis Zhellin
28
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 14:05:00 -
[529] - Quote
Agree 120% that the exploration part should be left out from the next week expansion and work on it untill you get a positive feedback from the players. Why we need to shoot the Jita monument just to get us heard? As it is now, the exploration part is a total disaster. |
|
CCP Bayesian
811
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 14:06:00 -
[530] - Quote
MainDrain wrote:Is this some sort of confirmation that the bonuses will be present on the T2 Cov ops hulls??
Yup. T1 will have a +5 Strength bonus and T2 +10.
EVE Software Engineer Team Prototyping Rocks |
|
|
blink alt
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
54
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 14:08:00 -
[531] - Quote
CCP Bayesian wrote:MainDrain wrote:Is this some sort of confirmation that the bonuses will be present on the T2 Cov ops hulls?? Yup. T1 will have a +5 Strength bonus and T2 +10.
Will the t3 scanning sub system get +10 too? |
Palal
Go For Broke
5
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 14:30:00 -
[532] - Quote
blink alt wrote:CCP Bayesian wrote:MainDrain wrote:Is this some sort of confirmation that the bonuses will be present on the T2 Cov ops hulls?? Yup. T1 will have a +5 Strength bonus and T2 +10. Will the t3 scanning sub system get +10 too?
^^^ +1
Please make the T3's viable.. Played several null sec sites just now before singularity went offline. I was able to finish 2 and several I couldn't finish. Using the T1 module and hacking:4 & arch:4. So I'm not terrible.
PRO TIP: You're goning to want cargo hold extenders on your ships! Nothing worse than grabbing cans and not having enough room!
|
Mario delTorres
GBTeam C0VEN
17
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 15:19:00 -
[533] - Quote
t3 scanning subsystem has already +10% scan strength per level.
Palal wrote:blink alt wrote:CCP Bayesian wrote:MainDrain wrote:Is this some sort of confirmation that the bonuses will be present on the T2 Cov ops hulls?? Yup. T1 will have a +5 Strength bonus and T2 +10. Will the t3 scanning sub system get +10 too? ^^^ +1 Please make the T3's viable.. Played several null sec sites just now before singularity went offline. I was able to finish 2 and several I couldn't finish. Using the T1 module and hacking:4 & arch:4. So I'm not terrible. PRO TIP: You're goning to want cargo hold extenders on your ships! Nothing worse than grabbing cans and not having enough room!
|
Panhead4411
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge
316
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 15:30:00 -
[534] - Quote
Nubchucker wrote:I was pretty excited when I first read about the changes.
Finally I can do hacking/arch/exploration in an all in one ship \o/.
Imagine my disappointment to find T1 ships have a bonus to virus strength and T2 doesn't.
Basically due to the new hacking rigs etc I STILL need 2 ships.. A covert ops to scan the sites down and a T1 to run the site.
Seems stupid to me
Yeah, imagine that, CCP not actually testing something. Never happens though...ever...
Also, on a side note...don't those same T1 hulls have a drone bay, to...i don't know....defend themselves...whereas, the T2 hulls...ummm...don't??!?!?!
Again with the boneheaded 'designing while in a very small single minded box' ideas that somehow escape reason.
http://blog.beyondreality.se/shift-click-does-nothing -á-á < Unified Inventory is NOT ready... |
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
167
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 15:31:00 -
[535] - Quote
CCP Bayesian wrote:We made a considered decision to not do that in order to release in a timely manner. We don't think the hacking mechanics are broken or ruined by not including it but we are making it a priority for the work we are doing right after release because it is the cornerstone to adding more depth to the mechanic. Ideas like the one Dax Buchanan mentioned of going deeper to get a chance at better loot are the sorts of additional mechanics we actively thinking about. Yeah I agree, it doesn't make it broken or ruined. It just makes it completely random and frustrating. Every other aspect of EvE you can make an effort to plan ahead (ship fitting, map checking, etc) in order to affect your success/survival. But not in this. And it's gonna annoy players when it goes live.
So you made this decision as a team? It's like you guys made the conscious decision to shoot yourselves in the foot. Well whatever works for you. Just hope you guys have prepped yourselves (and your bosses) for the upcoming ragestorm, and hope your reiteration comes within a couple weeks (if not days) of release.
Would love to see the metrics of average exploration sites run per day before and then following the release of this.
|
Saheed Cha'chris'ra
Krautz WH Exploration and Production
54
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 15:36:00 -
[536] - Quote
By the way guys, there is a NEW FEEDBACK THREAD since monday. Maybe you should tell your problems there, so the devs don't have to read both threads (why is this one not locked yet?). |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Aegis Solaris
1913
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 15:43:00 -
[537] - Quote
CCP Bayesian wrote: FWIW we think the "mini tractor beam" goes part of the way to removing some of the magic from EVE. Namely how do you transfer loot from whatever contains it to your hold at a distance. To go the full way we would need to add the visualization to the other actions where this happens.
That would have to include putting stuff into cans, or transferring between cans. There it would be more of a "manipulator beam" rather than a tractor. Then consider the POS with the new long range transfer rules. Presumably the beams would come from the tower and be shown moving stuff as I do logistics. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Karsa Egivand
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
192
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 15:46:00 -
[538] - Quote
CCP Bayesian wrote:Vladimir Norkoff wrote:CCP Bayesian wrote:The problem at the moment is that hackers start each attempt from scratch, you can't bring Utilities in with you and there are no utility elements that give you a peak at what might be where on the board. This limits the strategies that can be developed quite severely. I don't understand how you can acknowledge this is a problem and yet NOT fix it before implementing the system. It's just mind-boggling. We made a considered decision to not do that in order to release in a timely manner. We don't think the hacking mechanics are broken or ruined by not including it but we are making it a priority for the work we are doing right after release because it is the cornerstone to adding more depth to the mechanic. Ideas like the one Dax Buchanan mentioned of going deeper to get a chance at better loot are the sorts of additional mechanics we actively thinking about.
Some of us understand that you won't delay the whole release just to make this mini-game more exciting. Here is hoping that you'll make it a pretty big priority for the first few (point) releases afterwards, though. Try hard to add more depth to the game, the longevity of this staying interesting is the mini-game itself having enough depth to have replay-value instead of repeat-tedium.
I like the idea of getting more (or better) stuff into the cans by exploring more of the map or finding specific data nodes. |
Degin'eth
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
1
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 18:48:00 -
[539] - Quote
A Visual bug in Ruined Serpentis Crystal Quarry:
http://imgur.com/a/U3SSS
Or maybe it's intended? |
Andreus Ixiris
Duty.
2756
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 20:22:00 -
[540] - Quote
CCP, is there any particular reason you're ignoring the massive volume of posts from people saying that the loot spew mechanic either:
a. shouldn't be implemented at all b. is seriously not ready for primetime?
Because I'm beginning to question why the test server is there at all. Mane 614
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 .. 20 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |