no difference in stats for mini-game between a tengu and a heron. using same rigs/modules and the heron is suppose to give a "+10 virus strength to relic and data analyzers"

If i had a choice between having Archaeology and Hacking for PvE or having ONLY Hacking but in a broader meaning (Hacking in PvP please!), then get rid of Archaeology.
But you created those nice new relic sites... hold onto Archaeology and Hacking, but also do something that Hacking is more meaningful in the rest of the game.

In my opinion CCP has to do something about the invisible bumbing-range models of all the structurs ingame.
Its annoying if you can't get to the containers, which are drifting away, only because there are hundreds of meters of invisible walls.

Also imagine yourself inside this structure, while hacking, someone warps in and attacks you. you are dead. no way to get out of this invisible walls in time. i hope they will arrange the spew containers far enough from any bigger structure.

Any other comment about this method ? For me, releasing an unfinished feature and improving it a few weeks later should be for the test-server only. We are not talking about a fix or something that has a high priority, we are talking about a rewamp of something functional (btw there were so many other things to rewamp first... *ahem* POSes *cough* *cough*).

Also, I'm still waiting for this new version of Planetary Interaction... Oh wait, we already know what happens to unfinished-but-somehow-stable features in Eve.

The probabilities to see an interesting minigame post Odyssey 1.0 are thus extremely low.

CCP Bayesian how about a toned down version at least along the lines of combat site escalation? Like players can find artifact puzzles or data discs in nodes of the minigame. They are not tradable, could just be a cryptic message in the journal. Say once player stumpled upon 5 that belong together he's rewarded with an expedition to a system that he never visited before. (or random system should a player actualy have visited each and every k-space system).
This should be much easier to implement but still provide some sense of exploration.

I propose that we always know where the core is located. This mini-game is just random clicks and hope that you don't click the wrong way into suppressors. If we know from the start where the core is then we can work to get to it while strategically avoiding the bad clicks.

We should find some way of negating the random clicking.

Are you planning to give hacking-strenght-boni (etc.) to other ships than the t1 frigates?
I think I read a dev post some pages back where you said you are thinking about new ships for hacking/archaeology, for the progression.
When do you plan to deliver us these new ships? In the next expansion?
How is your roadmap right now? (yes, i am curious )

O.K. tried it again. I'm getting about a 50% failure rate on the mini game in low sec now, I will try more latter tonight. All lvl 4 skills and a covert ops ship so no bonuses or rigs of the t1 ship (I'm trying to simulate how I actually do exploration). I think the most frustrating thing is the 50% I fail, there seems to be no way I could have won even mathematically. It just feels like I'm at war with some random number generator.

Add to this the fact that once I do "win" the min game rather than watching the loot blow up, I get to deal with he frustration of loot pinata (still bumping to structures!), so winning is just slightly less frustrating than loosing.

Also even though I've only played it a handful of times the mini game is already getting old. Also a rat spawned I thought they had been removed but not in this build perhaps?

http://i.imgur.com/OQqZnSM.png

Two things. Does Access Difficulty mean anything anymore? It's still on Analyzer modules as well.

-and-

Is the "10" at the bottom supposed to be a bonus to coherence?


e: Bug reported it.


Another minor point that may have been mentioned already; apologies if so, I'm way behind on the thread. But, debris/remains/etc gives no indication that it's been successfully completed, as opposed to something like wrecks which show if they've been opened and/or looted.

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.

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

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.

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

Is this some sort of confirmation that the bonuses will be present on the T2 Cov ops hulls??

Ah thanks, sorry I missed it.

Yes it has never been a "stable" income, but now it becomes even more unstable because I might miss the few goodies that made it worthwhile. So it feels like luck-¦ (luck squared), because I do not only need luck to have a site with something in it, but also to grab the correct container.

Before it was somewhat stable. Doing 20 sites gave you a relatively constant amount of ISK - maybe a bit more on one day and a bit less the next, but over time you could be fairly accurate about your income. Now with that "fast fast" "grab grab" "hush hush" it is not what I'm looking for, it becomes to stressy and to quick and I don't like it. That's all I am saying and I think I am entitled to my opinion and to share it, especially if CCP asked for it.

I would be interested in more details on this. At first I assumed the can names meant something and reflected what kind of items could spawn in it, beyond just the low value items like the test reports. However, upon more testing it was apparant that the good loot, like the decyptors in a data site, was randomly spawning in any given container that was scattered from the spew container. Ill be sure to get back on sisi to try to figure it out myself but would apprecaite if you could take a moment for some clarification.