Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 44 post(s) |
|
CCP Affinity
C C P C C P Alliance
1266
|
Posted - 2013.11.04 16:25:00 -
[31] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:There is something Im not quite getting lore-wise. If the empires are so concerned with these activities, why are they not placing bounties on the rats that show up? I understand you do not want people farming these sites, but:
They do not show up that often, so whatever is gained from farming will be small in the overall scheme of things. You could make the bounties be smaller than usual, so farming would be less lucrative than other activities. All it would be is a consolation prize for blowing the site.
So please reconsider the "no bounty" plan, if for no other reason than lore consistency.
They do not want to encourage capsuleers to go to the sites - you are supposed to stay away, so why would they place a bounty o the heads of the pirates they never want you to meet? |
|
Utremi Fasolasi
The Scope Gallente Federation
297
|
Posted - 2013.11.04 16:25:00 -
[32] - Quote
The previous hacking mechanic of press butan wait 5 mins staring at a spinning module for bacon is what was broken. Odyssey fixed that problem.
Let's get the facts right. |
MainTrain
7th Deepari Defence Armada SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2013.11.04 16:27:00 -
[33] - Quote
CCP Affinity wrote:MainTrain wrote:You say the explosions will rip apart bulkheads. We talking they will insta pop untanked frigates levels of damage, or levels that will cause even a well tanked battleship to worry about the timer.
Or will damage, and damage type vary between region/sec status?
Realise you don't want to give away all the secrets, just after ball park info We haven't decided on an exact number yet... but more than 5000 damage I would imagine and explosive damage.
Im hoping you go higher. I feel it should enough to put a covops frigate into structure, and a recon ship into deep armor. Scare us! |
Utremi Fasolasi
The Scope Gallente Federation
297
|
Posted - 2013.11.04 16:27:00 -
[34] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:There is something Im not quite getting lore-wise. If the empires are so concerned with these activities, why are they not placing bounties on the rats that show up?
These are special black ops pirates who don't have the usual transponders that would register CONCORD bounties.
Just use your imagination. |
|
CCP Affinity
C C P C C P Alliance
1268
|
Posted - 2013.11.04 16:29:00 -
[35] - Quote
MainTrain wrote:CCP Affinity wrote:MainTrain wrote:You say the explosions will rip apart bulkheads. We talking they will insta pop untanked frigates levels of damage, or levels that will cause even a well tanked battleship to worry about the timer.
Or will damage, and damage type vary between region/sec status?
Realise you don't want to give away all the secrets, just after ball park info We haven't decided on an exact number yet... but more than 5000 damage I would imagine and explosive damage. Im hoping you go higher. I feel it should enough to put a covops frigate into structure, and a recon ship into deep armor. Scare us!
At the moment, I have it set to 9000 .. but I have feedback from my team that maybe that is a little bit much, especially as sometimes you get hit by 2 containers at the same time - we will see what it ends up at :) |
|
Berluth Luthian
Meltdown.
120
|
Posted - 2013.11.04 16:30:00 -
[36] - Quote
Utremi Fasolasi wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:There is something Im not quite getting lore-wise. If the empires are so concerned with these activities, why are they not placing bounties on the rats that show up? These are special black ops pirates who don't have the usual transponders that would register CONCORD bounties. Just use your imagination.
Hmmm... pirate transponders that let you hide from CONCORD in highsec you say... |
Fonac
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
28
|
Posted - 2013.11.04 16:31:00 -
[37] - Quote
Even though i'm probably never going to use these sites, it's always nice with new(and new) content!
On top of my head, one thing made my cringe abit, and is exactly why i dont want to touch these sites. - The new hacking system. I like the minigame, i really do, i dont have any problems with -it- whatsoever.
However, i think putting hack/analyser modules in as a requirement in order to do these sites, a very very bad idea. If you want to do any kind of exploration, and dont want to use a multi billion isk ship, you jump into a covert op. This makes you very good at doing the hack sites, and useless at combat sites. Vice versa, with pve fitted "dps" ships. Someone is not going to do this with a normally fitted pve ship, which means you have to go back and get your covert op, this is a timesink, of more warping around.. this does not make it a better enjoyment - This is boring. It's exactly the same problem the non-ded sites have, warping around for very little reward where you might get an escalation, or you may not, loot may drop, or it may not. (yay for using 4-5 hours on a escalation chain, only to have it drop 3 meta 1 modules)
Also the double negative random factor of getting a site, doing a hack, which "might" drop something worthwhile. Sounds like an extremely random encounter.
As an explorer, who has done and used more time at exploration than what is healthy, i do not foresee this new content as being wildy used, and probably not hugely profitable, i know i wouldn't use any time on it. - And i love(well except certain exceptions) every aspect of the exploration game we have in eve.
But we'll see. And if i'm wrong i'll only be glad to be so.
That being said, i have one question for the devs doing content stuff. - When are you going to fix the current pve content that so desperately need a tune up?
For those interested, and have no clue on what i'm talking about... i'm refering to our current CSM Jester's blog. http://jestertrek.blogspot.dk/2013/10/serpentis-prison-camp.html
|
ChromeStriker
The Riot Formation Fatal Ascension
605
|
Posted - 2013.11.04 16:34:00 -
[38] - Quote
CCP Affinity wrote:At the moment, I have it set to 9000 .. but I have feedback from my team that maybe that is a little bit much, especially as sometimes you get hit by 2 containers at the same time - we will see what it ends up at :)
I like this There should be a real danger attached to these sites. Too many step by step guides out there that make every mission and site a walk in the park...
9000 is a good... more would be good personally... make me sweat as im sitting in the site!!! |
|
CCP Affinity
C C P C C P Alliance
1270
|
Posted - 2013.11.04 16:36:00 -
[39] - Quote
Fonac wrote:Even though i'm probably never going to use these sites, it's always nice with new(and new) content! On top of my head, one thing made my cringe abit, and is exactly why i dont want to touch these sites. - The new hacking system. I like the minigame, i really do, i dont have any problems with -it- whatsoever. However, i think putting hack/analyser modules in as a requirement in order to do these sites, a very very bad idea. If you want to do any kind of exploration, and dont want to use a multi billion isk ship, you jump into a covert op. This makes you very good at doing the hack sites, and useless at combat sites. Vice versa, with pve fitted "dps" ships. Someone is not going to do this with a normally fitted pve ship, which means you have to go back and get your covert op, this is a timesink, of more warping around.. this does not make it a better enjoyment - This is boring. It's exactly the same problem the non-ded sites have, warping around for very little reward where you might get an escalation, or you may not, loot may drop, or it may not. (yay for using 4-5 hours on a escalation chain, only to have it drop 3 meta 1 modules) Also the double negative random factor of getting a site, doing a hack, which "might" drop something worthwhile. Sounds like an extremely random encounter. As an explorer, who has done and used more time at exploration than what is healthy, i do not foresee this new content as being wildy used, and probably not hugely profitable, i know i wouldn't use any time on it. - And i love(well except certain exceptions) every aspect of the exploration game we have in eve. But we'll see. And if i'm wrong i'll only be glad to be so. That being said, i have one question for the devs doing content stuff. - When are you going to fix the current pve content that so desperately need a tune up? For those interested, and have no clue on what i'm talking about... i'm refering to our current CSM Jester's blog. http://jestertrek.blogspot.dk/2013/10/serpentis-prison-camp.html
Thanks for your feedback - I will definitely take it on board and re-evaluate as we go along.
With regards to the rest of PvE - this is definitely on my radar and I have had many talks with the CSM about it :) I can't say too much for now but in the new year I hope to post a blog with a bit more information.
|
|
Lair Osen
Unlawful Unit Initiative Mercenaries
69
|
Posted - 2013.11.04 16:37:00 -
[40] - Quote
Any info on explosion range? Thinking, if you know you're gonna fail the hack, could you just burn away 1st? |
|
Katarina Reid
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
411
|
Posted - 2013.11.04 16:38:00 -
[41] - Quote
The content looks good but those rewards look pointless. How much isk should you make from a site? |
|
CCP Affinity
C C P C C P Alliance
1270
|
Posted - 2013.11.04 16:41:00 -
[42] - Quote
Lair Osen wrote:Any info on explosion range? Thinking, if you know you're gonna fail the hack, could you just burn away 1st?
Around 9000m at the moment but that is subject to change |
|
Quintessen
Messengers of Judah Socius Inter Nos
225
|
Posted - 2013.11.04 16:42:00 -
[43] - Quote
This would be a great time to announce that you're also adding the capability to save, buy, and sell utilities from hacking sites as I imagine you'll want these a bit.
Can you tell us the approximate difficulty of the hacking sites in relation to current hacking exploration sites? |
|
CCP Affinity
C C P C C P Alliance
1270
|
Posted - 2013.11.04 16:43:00 -
[44] - Quote
Katarina Reid wrote:The content looks good but those rewards look pointless. How much isk should you make from a site?
Almost impossible to tell until the content has been out there for a while - I did not include the full loot tables but to give estimates on the value of never before released items would be silly. However, these sites are not a career path and there will be no guaranteed amount of isk made. |
|
MainTrain
7th Deepari Defence Armada SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2013.11.04 16:44:00 -
[45] - Quote
CCP Affinity wrote:MainTrain wrote:CCP Affinity wrote:MainTrain wrote:You say the explosions will rip apart bulkheads. We talking they will insta pop untanked frigates levels of damage, or levels that will cause even a well tanked battleship to worry about the timer.
Or will damage, and damage type vary between region/sec status?
Realise you don't want to give away all the secrets, just after ball park info We haven't decided on an exact number yet... but more than 5000 damage I would imagine and explosive damage. Im hoping you go higher. I feel it should enough to put a covops frigate into structure, and a recon ship into deep armor. Scare us! At the moment, I have it set to 9000 .. but I have feedback from my team that maybe that is a little bit much, especially as sometimes you get hit by 2 containers at the same time - we will see what it ends up at :)
I could almost live with that value, even if you get hit by 2, with 80% resists (you know the damage type you would surely tank against it!) you only going to suffer 3600 or so (if my maths is wrong feel free to correct it)
PVE needs to be made more of a challenge, and the introduction of these sites are totally a step in the right direction. They just need to be made hard enough that people actually feel their ship is at risk.
If you do lower the damage, try and mix up the damage types a bit. Lower overall damage, but the inability to predict what type would be brilliant. Plus im sure the art guys could have some fun designing different style explosions for the different types. Massive ball of fire for thermal, EM shockwave (like a smartbomb) Kinectic with proper sharpnel effects. |
|
CCP Affinity
C C P C C P Alliance
1270
|
Posted - 2013.11.04 16:45:00 -
[46] - Quote
MainTrain wrote:CCP Affinity wrote:MainTrain wrote:CCP Affinity wrote:MainTrain wrote:You say the explosions will rip apart bulkheads. We talking they will insta pop untanked frigates levels of damage, or levels that will cause even a well tanked battleship to worry about the timer.
Or will damage, and damage type vary between region/sec status?
Realise you don't want to give away all the secrets, just after ball park info We haven't decided on an exact number yet... but more than 5000 damage I would imagine and explosive damage. Im hoping you go higher. I feel it should enough to put a covops frigate into structure, and a recon ship into deep armor. Scare us! At the moment, I have it set to 9000 .. but I have feedback from my team that maybe that is a little bit much, especially as sometimes you get hit by 2 containers at the same time - we will see what it ends up at :) I could almost live with that value, even if you get hit by 2, with 80% resists (you know the damage type you would surely tank against it!) you only going to suffer 3600 or so (if my maths is wrong feel free to correct it) PVE needs to be made more of a challenge, and the introduction of these sites are totally a step in the right direction. They just need to be made hard enough that people actually feel their ship is at risk. If you do lower the damage, try and mix up the damage types a bit. Lower overall damage, but the inability to predict what type would be brilliant. Plus im sure the art guys could have some fun designing different style explosions for the different types. Massive ball of fire for thermal, EM shockwave (like a smartbomb) Kinectic with proper sharpnel effects.
I fully intend these sites to be tough and for people to really feel at risk :) it's just about continuing to balance both pre and post release until we are at a good point.
|
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4420
|
Posted - 2013.11.04 16:45:00 -
[47] - Quote
This looks great. |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
601
|
Posted - 2013.11.04 16:46:00 -
[48] - Quote
CCP Affinity wrote:There are 4 hacking structures in each site - it is expected you will sometimes fail There isn't a problem when failure comes from mistakes or incompetence of the pilot, but when the game mechanics are the reason you're failing with no way to overcome it, that is a problem.
I should be failing because of my own bad choices within the mini-game not because the game randomly generates three restoration nodes in a row or sometimes worse. There are times when the game will start and not be winnable no matter the players set-up or skill. That's basically the same as having some cans just explode any way when we first activate the module.
The fact another Developer has even agreed this is a problem and could use some work makes it even more frustrating. |
Berluth Luthian
Meltdown.
120
|
Posted - 2013.11.04 16:46:00 -
[49] - Quote
Katarina Reid wrote:The content looks good but those rewards look pointless. How much isk should you make from a site?
I feel like 'this is only the beginning' is the response to this. They may have ballparks for what they want these sites to bring in in terms of isk, but it will depend on:
-Demand for their dropped items (which will be a function of their use and destruction) -How useful the yurts and wetus are -how much construction materials drop vs. amount of blueprints in circulation -how farmable are they? The more popular, then the more popular their loot, unless you want to just risk running 3-4 sites with pirates that can quickly pop you if a random frigate lands on you at the wrong time to warp scramble you just so you can find 1 site that gives decent loot.
I do wonder if it has been said yet, but where are these components going to be manufactured? Will empire space let you make them if they are 'unwanted'? Will they be contraband for that matter? |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
121
|
Posted - 2013.11.04 16:47:00 -
[50] - Quote
I'm a little concerned about the distribution of implant blueprint copies (BPCs) between the different security/wspace bands of space. Nullsec ghost sites do not have any "unique" implant BPCs -- it can be skipped completely and covered by low-sec and w-space areas, whereas even highsec has BPCs that can only be acquired within. Is there the possibility of the drops being tweaked so that there are a few implant BPCs that are exclusive to nullsec? |
|
|
CCP Affinity
C C P C C P Alliance
1270
|
Posted - 2013.11.04 16:47:00 -
[51] - Quote
Turelus wrote:CCP Affinity wrote:There are 4 hacking structures in each site - it is expected you will sometimes fail There isn't a problem when failure comes from mistakes or incompetence of the pilot, but when the game mechanics are the reason you're failing with no way to overcome it, that is a problem. I should be failing because of my own bad choices within the mini-game not because the game randomly generates three restoration nodes in a row or sometimes worse. There are times when the game will start and not be winnable no matter the players set-up or skill. That's basically the same as having some cans just explode any way when we first activate the module. The fact another Developer has even agreed this is a problem and could use some work makes it even more frustrating.
I talked to Bayesian before posting :) He never wants us to get to a place where you can win every single time.. but there are still some iterations needed on the hacking. |
|
|
CCP Affinity
C C P C C P Alliance
1270
|
Posted - 2013.11.04 16:49:00 -
[52] - Quote
Querns wrote:I'm a little concerned about the distribution of implant blueprint copies (BPCs) between the different security/wspace bands of space. Nullsec ghost sites do not have any "unique" implant BPCs -- it can be skipped completely and covered by low-sec and w-space areas, whereas even highsec has BPCs that can only be acquired within. Is there the possibility of the drops being tweaked so that there are a few implant BPCs that are exclusive to nullsec?
There is a possibility however, nullsec have a much higher drop rate of the BPCs than low sec and WH - so some of them will be nearly impossible to acquire in low or WH space. We will see how it goes after release - I will keep a close eye on what is dropping from which location and tweak as necessary :) Thank you for the feedback though, it's a very good point. |
|
Cordelia Mulholland IV
Posh Space Tarts
3
|
Posted - 2013.11.04 16:50:00 -
[53] - Quote
Will cargo scanners work in ghost sites like they do in existing hacking sites? i.e. tell us what loot we'll get. |
Mara Tessidar
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
949
|
Posted - 2013.11.04 16:50:00 -
[54] - Quote
What's the total speed bonus from a low grade and a high grade set? |
|
CCP Affinity
C C P C C P Alliance
1270
|
Posted - 2013.11.04 16:53:00 -
[55] - Quote
Cordelia Mulholland IV wrote:Will cargo scanners work in ghost sites like they do in existing hacking sites? i.e. tell us what loot we'll get.
yes |
|
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
601
|
Posted - 2013.11.04 17:03:00 -
[56] - Quote
CCP Affinity wrote: I talked to Bayesian before posting :) He never wants us to get to a place where you can win every single time.. but there are still some iterations needed on the hacking.
That seems a little unfair, to develop a feature that no matter how much a player invests into it they can always fail because the games says so. To make them hard enough that only the top gun of the exploration world understand them would be interesting, but to have a feature where no matter what sometimes it just gives you the equivalent of a middle finger locks you out is from my point of view poor game design.
The entire chance of gaining rare items now goes though this. Item has to spawn, game has to not be an impossible version, need to collect the right scatter container (in a regular site).
This goes back to why not just have some randomly explode and say they were trapped than making players go through the stress of having an unbeatable game. From our point of view this really comes off more as an unintended element of the game and it being far easier to say "you can't win 'em all" than going back and refining or iterating on a feature that needs it, which is often perceived as CCP's normal way of doing things. |
Seamus Donohue
EVE University Ivy League
40
|
Posted - 2013.11.04 17:03:00 -
[57] - Quote
I'm a bit confused on the implant math. What are the multipliers to warp speed for the full Low-Grade set and for the full High-Grade set? |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
4421
|
Posted - 2013.11.04 17:11:00 -
[58] - Quote
I really like the idea of implants need things from all over the game to create. Adds a nice dynamic that is very much needed. And these things coming from the efforts of explorers.
Has there been thought of expanding this towards already existing methods to acquire implants? |
Berluth Luthian
Meltdown.
120
|
Posted - 2013.11.04 17:14:00 -
[59] - Quote
Turelus wrote:CCP Affinity wrote: I talked to Bayesian before posting :) He never wants us to get to a place where you can win every single time.. but there are still some iterations needed on the hacking.
That seems a little unfair, to develop a feature that no matter how much a player invests into it they can always fail because the games says so. To make them hard enough that only the top gun of the exploration world understand them would be interesting, but to have a feature where no matter what sometimes it just gives you the equivalent of a middle finger locks you out is from my point of view poor game design. The entire chance of gaining rare items now goes though this. Item has to spawn, game has to not be an impossible version, need to collect the right scatter container (in a regular site). This goes back to why not just have some randomly explode and say they were trapped than making players go through the stress of having an unbeatable game. From our point of view this really comes off more as an unintended element of the game and it being far easier to say "you can't win 'em all" than going back and refining or iterating on a feature that needs it, which is often perceived as CCP's normal way of doing things. *edit* If this is also a case of not being able to win them all why is it ONLY NullSec and WH space which suffers? HighSec sites you can win them all no matter what with high skills.
Isn't designing a feature that alternatively promises that "You CAN win them all as long as you do A, B, and C in x, y, and z circumstances" just as boring/riskless of a design?
The 'meta' aspect of exploration, could be such that what would really make them the most farmable, would be to control/settle/dominate a section of space to give your corporation/alliance more or less exclusive access to that farming grounds. This then becomes the measure of success/profit. Measuring access to content/loot at a 'per site level' kind of rewards an approach to content that is solo-oriented. I can't imagine that that is desired by CCP. |
Contractia
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2013.11.04 17:17:00 -
[60] - Quote
Why is the most expensive module bpc only dropping in WH ?
Ascendancy Omega Blueprint Copy
Adding yet more income to the WH guys, vs those who provide all the content in 0.0 where isk vs reward is way out of balance as it stands.
I don't see a problem with the different bpc's in different area's, but putting the most valuable one into just WH's is simply bad. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |