EVE Search - Sticky:Feedback for Hacking/Archaeology feature from 27/5/13 onward

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Sticky:Feedback for Hacking/Archaeology feature from 27/5/13 onward

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 53 post(s)

CCP Affinity C C P C C P Alliance 1023	Posted - 2013.05.27 16:23:00 - [1] - Quote Hi, This feedback thread is for the hacking and archaeology sites by Team Prototype Rocks - keep feedback on the scattering mechanic, site layout, hacking minigame please :) We have taken your feedback on board and made some changes to the pace of the feature and the loot amounts within the scattering. It would be great to get your feedback on the updated version on SISI - both from the mass test today and from playing the sites yourselves. Please keep the feedback constructive and give specific examples/suggestions to help us fully understand any concerns you may have. CCP Affinity \| Follow me on Twitter Content Designer for EVE Online

Sugar Kyle The humbleless Crew 242	Posted - 2013.05.27 16:53:00 - [2] - Quote I'm working on this today in low sec and updated it during TQ's downtime today. Loot tables are improved. With two people I am getting an average haul of what I would get by myself on TQ atm. I don't feel that these are where they should be for the work that goes into getting them. Also, I'd like to see more salvage bits in general. NPCs are still randomly in site when I start. There are fewer cans and two people can scoop them up unless (read below) I dislike that data sites are still tucked up against large collidable structures. With the spew mechanism you slam into the structure trying to chase the cans. The data site structure itself is MUCH larger than the relic site structure. The relic site structure is the size of my Legion while the Data site structure is massive. The NPCs spawning on failed hacks are not leaving wrecks. A RELIC site I just did some cans exploded after 1 failed hack attempt. Out of the 4 cans, one hacked the first time, 2 exploded after 1 failed hack, 1 let me hack it twice. I am getting the firewall/virus icons not showing up. The node looks black like nothing is there but if I click it again my stats are going down and it shows me fighting something. I've seen this about 4 times so far between relic and data sites. A scanning bug but might as well list it here. Once I ignored a site I scanned, when I now jump into new systems the scanner does not update with the signatures and instead shows no signature. It did this for quite a while and I had to close and reopen it to see the correct list of unscanned signatures. No gatefire with the new gates. That seems as if it was over looked. Tilde soaked words from something kinda like a pirate.
blink alt Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 44	Posted - 2013.05.27 16:56:00 - [3] - Quote I hate to say it but I feel like the null sites are way too good, From the sites I ran it comes down to at least a 50% chance of getting the good drop from any giving spew container, which seems like a reasonable rate to me with how good the drops are in general. My biggest concern as of right now is the actual icons for the cans that are ejected, they are quite small and there have been several occasions where I could of swore I clicked on it and then realize that it was a missclicked several seconds later which reduced my overall ability to scoop 50% of the cans. When it comes to layout and graphics I am having the biggest issues with Central [Faction] Sparking Transmitter. The structure is so bright and the position of where the cans get jettison make it very difficult to scoop the cans on this one. I really hope there are no plans to remove the ability to cargo scan the spew containers. It is wonderful how much using a cargo scanner will increase completion time due to skipping low value spew containers.

CCP Bayesian 797	Posted - 2013.05.27 17:00:00 - [4] - Quote Sugar Kyle wrote: I am getting the firewall/virus icons not showing up. The node looks black like nothing is there but if I click it again my stats are going down and it shows me fighting something. I've seen this about 4 times so far between relic and data sites. This is a known defect but thanks for confirming it as we've only seen it the once internally. EVE Software Engineer Team Prototyping Rocks

Morwen Lagann Tyrathlion Interstellar 610	Posted - 2013.05.27 17:06:00 - [5] - Quote First issue I've noticed is that collision detection and distance measurement seems to be off for hacking containers - I can orbit a container at 1km and still be inside the spinning rings of the structure. At 500m, I collide with the structure as I orbit. Will update post as I find more. xD Morwen Lagann Director, Tyrathlion Interstellar
blink alt Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 44	Posted - 2013.05.27 17:06:00 - [6] - Quote Sugar Kyle wrote: A RELIC site I just did some cans exploded after 1 failed hack attempt. Out of the 4 cans, one hacked the first time, 2 exploded after 1 failed hack, 1 let me hack it twice. Would this be due to previous attempts by other pilots?
Sugar Kyle The humbleless Crew 242	Posted - 2013.05.27 17:11:00 - [7] - Quote blink alt wrote: Sugar Kyle wrote: A RELIC site I just did some cans exploded after 1 failed hack attempt. Out of the 4 cans, one hacked the first time, 2 exploded after 1 failed hack, 1 let me hack it twice. Would this be due to previous attempts by other pilots? I don't think so. I am opening the systems as I enter. Also, when you warp out the sites explode. Tilde soaked words from something kinda like a pirate.
Azicus Masrama Cha0s Legion 0	Posted - 2013.05.27 17:13:00 - [8] - Quote I think that the new ng mini game will be a great addition to the expansion, the minigame was really something, hope more exploration thing come out with more suprising features, keep up the good work ccp!
Sugar Kyle The humbleless Crew 242	Posted - 2013.05.27 17:24:00 - [9] - Quote blink alt wrote: I hate to say it but I feel like the null sites are way too good, From the sites I ran it comes down to at least a 50% chance of getting the good drop from any giving spew container, which seems like a reasonable rate to me with how good the drops are in general. My biggest concern as of right now is the actual icons for the cans that are ejected, they are quite small and there have been several occasions where I could of swore I clicked on it and then realize that it was a missclicked several seconds later which reduced my overall ability to scoop 50% of the cans. When it comes to layout and graphics I am having the biggest issues with Central [Faction] Sparking Transmitter. The structure is so bright and the position of where the cans get jettison make it very difficult to scoop the cans on this one becaue it is very difficult to see the icons. I really hope there are no plans to remove the ability to cargo scan the spew containers. It is wonderful how much using a cargo scanner will increase completion time due to skipping low value spew containers. Share some of this too-goodness with the low sec sites please. Tilde soaked words from something kinda like a pirate.
Nicen Jehr The Scope Gallente Federation 197	Posted - 2013.05.27 17:52:00 - [10] - Quote The only minor issue I encounterd was when someone ECM bursted the fleet as we destroyed the tower. I re-locked the POS. For about five seconds, after completing my lock, the tower showed up in my targets list without its shield/armor/structure bars. It was just the circular icon of the tower, and I think the distance to target. And maybe my drones icon underneath it. No screenshot, sry. After five seconds the bars showed up and it looked normal. After the fight I got podded. The ship destruction, pod ejection, and pod death sequence was great! Only problem was - my corpse had breasts, which you can clearly see is a mistake! Little Things to improve GëíGïüGëí-á\| My Little Things posts

Raven Solaris The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance 195	Posted - 2013.05.27 18:20:00 - [11] - Quote I'll try to write up a proper feedback post tomorrow, but for now I'd like to propose a change to virus supressors. Currently they reduce your hacking strength by 20 (as far as I can tell.) This means that in a bonused ship such as an Imicus, your virus strength is cut from 40 to 20, somewhat annoying, but not too bad. Tonight, I was hacking in a Vexor, an unbonused ship, meaning I only had 30 virus strength, and a single virus supressor cut it to 10, which is crippling. In one hacking attempt, I was able to progress 2 nodes (no other way to go), before running into a virus supressor, the only option was to repeatedly attack it until it was dead, and due to only having 10 virus strength, I was reduced to I believe 5 (or maybe 15) virus coherance by the time it was gone, and I'd only progressed 3 nodes into the system, meaning the hack attempt was doomed from the start. What I'd like to suggest is changing them from being a static 20 virus strength cut, to a 50% cut. In the case of the bonused ship, a single supressor would still cut your virus strength from 40 to 20, but in an unbonused ship, it would cut your virus strength to 15 instead of 10, which at least somewhat less crippling.
Sugar Kyle The humbleless Crew 242	Posted - 2013.05.27 18:34:00 - [12] - Quote Oh yes. It would be nice if the new containers grayed out after they were accessed like containers do. Tilde soaked words from something kinda like a pirate.
JustinD Snodgrass Templar Guard Templar Command 0	Posted - 2013.05.27 18:52:00 - [13] - Quote Test went well but when i went in to the fight all of the drones lagged me out really bad ended up dying cause of lag. couldnt do much at all even lost my pod.
Sugar Kyle The humbleless Crew 242	Posted - 2013.05.27 19:11:00 - [14] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: Sugar Kyle wrote: I am getting the firewall/virus icons not showing up. The node looks black like nothing is there but if I click it again my stats are going down and it shows me fighting something. I've seen this about 4 times so far between relic and data sites. This is a known defect but thanks for confirming it as we've only seen it the once internally. http://imgur.com/jTDLbZf That is a picture of one of my invisible nodes I just hit. I currently have the hacking window still open. I stopped to post this. I killed/conquered/solved this one butt he node is not illuminated. Tilde soaked words from something kinda like a pirate.
Torgeir Hekard Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 4	Posted - 2013.05.27 19:31:00 - [15] - Quote I've done some hacking yesterday and on today's test. 1) Yesterday I haven't found a single radar/mag site in Heimatar near Rens. And I've sweeped about 10-15 systems with sec<0.9. Then I jumped to sansha space (Derelik? The region where the Jark solar system is) and got several systems with mini sites in a row. Please check site spawns in Heimatar. 2) The sites in sansha space were much much simplier than on today's test. I've ran across a sansha mainframe yesterday, and it was a walk in a park. Angel mainframes today were much more challenging. I believe the reason is the virus supressor thingie or something like that - the one which lowers your attack when encountered. Sansha sites were high on antiviruses, but I had 30 attack and was oneshotting them without taking any damage back. Basically they were just another pass-through nodes and were not contributing to the site difficulty in any meaningful way. 3) I must confess the hacking mechanics are uncompetitive and boring. Basically if you success or not relies on your ship and random distribution of defensive nodes. The "winning" strategies (that is, ways to minimize the node loss to uncovered defences) are figured out in 2 games, and there's nothing you can do with attack/defence balance but pray you don't step on th suppressor. TL;DR there isn't much player skill involved in the minigame. I suggest considering shifting the focus to some kind of a race against time and easier noticeable but active defences (inb4 pacman). 4) On loot. Yesterday I've done 4 or 5 mags (relics?) in hisec and was getting like 10K worth of loot on each site. Not much improvement. Radars were a bit better - similar loot to curent TQ, but more time spent on doing sites. Someone told in the fleet today that the profession site changes were aimed on making them woth doing, because now hey are worthless. Well, not entirely so. While hisec mags are indeed crap (and nullsec radars are crap compared to everything else nullsec), hisec radars on TQ are a decent way for a character with low SP (esp. with bad attack skills but decent astrometrics - I've got exactly that kind of an alt) to earn some good money. A good radar site can net you up to 30 mil, and you usually can get about 100mil in a couple of hours with a non-combat character. I would not call that worthless. On the contrary, they are going that way now. ISK/Hour seems worse on new radars, and you need to do them in an exploration frig, while on TQ you can combine doing radars with doing combat plexes on the same ship (I use gila. BTW it beats T3s on 3/10s and 4/10s hands down. The only advantage they have is the scan strength bonus, and you don't need high probe strength to find highsec sites. And they get banned from hisec sites, and gila still can enter them. Oh, and if you ban faction cruisers, then Ishtar is next on line... And then there were none. That's quite a slippery slope right there). 5) On can scattering. Manageable in explofrigs (I bet heavier ships ragequit on trying to go around ). The only problem I have is they go all chameleon on me and I can't for the love of God understand what that means. I mean they seem to change colours all together, and that does not seem to affect the ability to loot them. Is that a TTL indicator?
Veyer Erastus Red-dormice 11	Posted - 2013.05.27 19:34:00 - [16] - Quote Not to repeat others, i have one really major problems with hacking/arch as it is. It is weight. Every site usually has a bunch of objects to hack, but you inventory is limited. Often it would fill up just with one hack and will need to warpout to station..only for the site to despawn. Not even talking about if there is nowhere to warpout to. The weight should be adjusted. Speaking generally, there are many bad things about hacking as it is. Hacking itself is very random. The Deus Ex hacking game(from which eve hacking was clearly ripped out) was strategic. You could thought about strategy, what nodes to take, and what to leave. In current hacking there is only one thing that really affects the game - luck. Which is a bad. And even if you succeed the clicking game starts. I won't say it's that bad, but it's really not-like-eve. It's a game of who clicks faster. Something you expect of a cheap EA game, not Eve. To add constructive feedback - it's not intuitive. In order to grab maximum you need to know exactly when you get this small container. It's the matter of seconds. it's really hard to judge if it's already in your inventory and you should click on the next. And that's if you can grab it at all. One time they all bursted into opposite direction of mine and i barely had the time to accelerate and get a couple before they disappeared. And then comes the PvP. It was already the hard, cold world before. But now, with the fact that all signatures can be seen on overlay it's even easier to scan someone doing the site - not helping the fact that we must concentrate on the Game of Clicks. So. You hacked successfully. You got so much containers. And you weren't ganked. Hooray. Ah, no. Stop. What is this loot? Why is it so bad and cost nothing? I heard guys in sov null got really good loot, but i wasn't so successful in low/WH. They weren't worth the trouble fighting sleepers. Not even considering the dangers of TQ WHs. I guess it was just my luck. Twice my luck. Because first i was unlucky with the hacking object itself, and then i got unlucky getting the wrong containers. Luck, again and again and again. Luck hacking, container luck, luck playing Game of Clicks. I really believe there is too much luck involved. It's not Las Vegas. It's Eve.

CCP Bayesian 798	Posted - 2013.05.27 19:40:00 - [17] - Quote Sugar Kyle wrote: CCP Bayesian wrote: Sugar Kyle wrote: I am getting the firewall/virus icons not showing up. The node looks black like nothing is there but if I click it again my stats are going down and it shows me fighting something. I've seen this about 4 times so far between relic and data sites. This is a known defect but thanks for confirming it as we've only seen it the once internally. http://imgur.com/jTDLbZf That is a picture of one of my invisible nodes I just hit. I currently have the hacking window still open. I stopped to post this. I killed/conquered/solved this one butt he node is not illuminated. Awesome, it's a graphical bug that we'll squash before release. :) EVE Software Engineer Team Prototyping Rocks

mynnna GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1212	Posted - 2013.05.27 20:33:00 - [18] - Quote Had a rat spawn on me upon failure in a Central Guristas Sparking Transmitter site. I bug reported that one. A different point regarding the GST and that style of site - please, please do away with the giant infernal death glow thing. The structures and spinning doodads are fine, though they can screw you over if the can spews out the other side of the structure, but the infernal death glow thing makes it extremely difficult to even see the cans at all, which is the "wrong" kind of difficulty in my opinion. http://i.imgur.com/FhZOW4A.png Picture to illustrate what I mean. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

CCP Bayesian 798	Posted - 2013.05.27 20:51:00 - [19] - Quote Noted and will pass on to the team in the morning. EVE Software Engineer Team Prototyping Rocks

Nam Dnilb Universal Frog 18	Posted - 2013.05.27 22:08:00 - [20] - Quote Is this now supposed to be near release? I am asking, because every single Blood raider prof. site I found today in low an 0.0 has still all the stuff clustered in one spot. One site was so bad I couldn't even get an Imicus close enough to the cans.

EI Digin Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 642	Posted - 2013.05.27 22:59:00 - [21] - Quote In the site I did in Serpentis sov null, a Central Serpentis Sparking Node, there were NPCs waiting for me on the containers. It would be nice if there was an easier way to tell which spew containers have been completed already. UI scaling makes everything look out of place, I use 90% and everything is not in the right place. I hope there are going to be bonuses like the t1 covops frigates +10 virus strength applied to other variants of ships, like covert ops ships, recon ships, and covert T3's. Maybe even blackops . There's not much variation in items you can fit to your ship to change around your coherence/strength, perhaps you can add coherence/strength bonuses to the new scanning midslots? Or have different meta modules.
Manssell OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate 175	Posted - 2013.05.27 23:27:00 - [22] - Quote Well since it looks like we're splitting feedback threads, I'll just say that on the other thread I noted this morning I was about 50% finishing the mini-game in lowsec. Now I just go to run another site and completed all three hacks. However, the only reason I was successful was because I tried out a T1 ship with a bonus and put the bonus rigs for hacking on. LVL 4 hacking skill. Had I been in my Covet Ops ship rigged for scan probe strength (which is how I will always end up doing exploration on TQ) I defiantly would have failed one (possibly two) without the bonuses. The loot pi+¦ata was well, the loot pi+¦ata. There's really nothing more to say about it that hasn't been said other than it worked technically correct. It was hard to get the right zoom out to both read the containers and get a good look at how all of them drift away to maneuver. didn't get stuck this time on a structure. I was able to get about half the cans on the first tower and 1/2-2/3 the cans on the next two. My total income was about 6mil isk, which is about right for the absolute low end of TQ lowsec sites right now (I usually range from 5-25 mil sometimes even more). Hopefully I can try this out tomorrow in a system I know a few pirates live in and see how this mess works when you actually have to watch Dscan and are under pressure. Edit: Removed snark.
Gaia Ma'chello V.I.C.E. Aegis Solaris 52	Posted - 2013.05.27 23:43:00 - [23] - Quote During the mass test I had for the first time an opportunity to try the loot game with other people. Imm not sure, but I think at one time the spew cans turned from green to yellow without me clicking on one. It seemed to happen when someone else clicked on one. Its sort of hard for multiple people to cooperate on looting these things if as soon as one person loots one, the other person is locked out.
Nicola Arman Saiph Industries 23	Posted - 2013.05.28 00:01:00 - [24] - Quote The whole thing is luck based it seems. I've only done about 5 Relic Sites though. Not very exciting loot yet. The spew cans seem to change color based on distance from what I've been able to see. I don't like that you can't add them to the Overview. I think that is a very bad idea. And where does that tractor beam come from exactly? It doesn't exist normally.
Johan Toralen Clockwork X3 66	Posted - 2013.05.28 00:13:00 - [25] - Quote Copied my last post from the other thread incase it gets overlooked: Just did 3 low sec serpentis sites. The hacking difficulty was much easier then in the sites that i did yesterday. Only lost one container. The loot was underwhelming still. 2 decryptors from a data site, worth 11m. 7.5m and 10.5m from two relic sites. As i used a cargo scanner beforehand i can tell you that there was quite a bit of a discrepancy between what is in the sites and what i managed to get eventualy. 2 decryptors of i think 6 or 7. There was a bpc and two skillbooks in the last relic site (Decayed Serpentis Quarry) of which i got none. With 8 containers and the loot spew the chance to get the bpc is what like 30%? That just doesn't cut it. In the old site when there spawned a bpc in one of the cans you got it. End of story. But as i wrote in one of my earlier posts i don't even know how this can be balanced. If you put 3 bpc's in to give me as solo a reasonable chance to get one then a group of explorers can easily exploit the system and farm goodies en masse since for them it's not based on luck to get one but a certainty to get all. (or almost all, they can still lose a container to the hacking) edit: thinking about it i actualy know how it can be balanced to be fair: by scaling the loot and the number of cans according to the number of players on grid. Which then defeats the whole purpose of why the loot spew was invented in the first place. Added comment: My suspicion that the new mechanic is exploitable is just a suspicion at this point. I know that it could somewhat balance out because when you're alone you don't have to share the loot. But someone should crunch the numbers because i think the discrepancy on luck dependancy is there between solo and group exploration. Especialy with rare and expensive items like the new pos bpc's the numbers could swing in favor of group exploration since a streak of bad luck is way less likely (not grabbing the right can when expensive bpc has spawned on the site). On another note: - readability of the hacking game is suboptimal. It's hard to distinguish the grey nodes from the background no matter the settings for the window - loot spew sometimes feels laggy (hover mouse over icon but it doesn't show the name immediately) - when two cans are close at each other it gets tricky to click the correct one. sometimes its not possible to click the right one even when the mouse is on top of it - icons still too small and the mechanic too twitchy. maybe add an option to make the cans "magnetic" to the mouse pointer? That should help if ther's lag or if ppl use a trackpad or simply have bad motoric skills
Toddfish Multiplex Gaming Li3 Federation 7	Posted - 2013.05.28 01:32:00 - [26] - Quote Spent some time scanning and running data/relic sites in Null sec (typically -0.2 true sec). Scanning is quicker (the new mid-slot scanning mods are a nice addition). I did cargo scans on the cans prior to hacking attempts and the total loot seemed to be on-par with nice rolls on TQ now. Successful hacking (and collection of the right spew containers) lead to similar payouts as I currently get on TQ. The faction POS mod BPC was a nice touch too. While IGÇÖm not a big fan of the loot spew, IGÇÖve started to adapt and get better at the process. The reduced number of cans is nice, but clicking on the hard to see icons is still a problem. That said, IGÇÖm still having issues with a few collideable objects (the black monolith in the Ruined Guristas Crystal Quarry stood-out to me). Trying to collect cans is hard enough, but not understanding why your ship is bouncing off an object (knowing the cans are soon to disappear) is rage educing. Today the biggest change IGÇÖve notices is in the difficulty of the hacking mini-game. Running with lvl5 hacking/archeology skills in a Heron (+10 virus strength), T2 mods, T1 rigs for hacking/archeologyGÇª my virus strength is 135/40. Despite this, I was only ~50% successful at hacking attempts on the harder containers (Ruins, Remains, Mainframes, etc.). The other cans (Rubble, Com Towers, etc.) seemed like a decent difficulty, but maybe I was just getting lucky with the number of roadblocks I ran into. Most of my failed attempts were at the result of running into one (or more) virus suppressor. Trying to progress with the reduced strength didnGÇÖt seem to work, but fighting them drained most of my coherence. Without finding a utility to boost coherence there was little chance to get through the various firewalls/anti-virus blocksGÇª let alone the core at the end. I wouldnGÇÖt have had as much of a problem, but many of the firewalls/anti-virus had coherence of 60-90 each and took a while to get through them. I can understand trying to have a progression with difficulty (especially by the time you reach the hardest cans in Null sec), but I think the failure rate is too highGÇª especially for a fully-trained character using a specialized ship. Things should be a challenge, but with only having two attempts at hacking a container, there is a fairly high chance of complete failure. The failure also happens with the more difficult cans (which happen to contain the valuable loot), so greatly reducing the desirability and profitability of this profession. Note: Every time I had a failed attempt a rat spawned. It was mentioned previously that this mechanism was going to changeGÇª is that still the plan? Suggestions: + Implement the described mechanism for pre-loading various utilities to improve the chances during difficult hacking attempts. Until this is implemented, please consider decreasing the strength of the various supresors/firewalls/anti-virus. I feel a pilot with max skills, in a properly fitted ship, should fail one attempt from time-to-time, but rarely have a can explode. + Add additional mods to increase virus coherence/strength (similar to the new scanning mods). + Add additional ship bonuses to virus abilitiesGÇª it seems weird having to trade-out of a T2/T3 scanning/combat ship for a T1 frig to successfully hack a can. + Increase the number of failure attempts possible (maybe even remove the exploding cans) to encourage people to progress towards more difficult sites. If someone decides they want to spend an hour hacking a can (due to skills/fitting/difficulty, the possible loot, etc.) they should be able to.
Johan Toralen Clockwork X3 67	Posted - 2013.05.28 01:46:00 - [27] - Quote Toddfish sounds like you ran into the same problem i did on sunday with a nullsec guristas site. Lost 3 containers there, managed two others only on the second attempt. Found the minigame obscenely hard on some tries. Also used a skilled out char, rigs, t2 analyzers. Another thing, i noticed today that after failing a container on the first try and then hacking it there was still loot in it afterwards (i guess deducted from the full loot as a punishment for failing). Is this intentional or a bug?
Manssell OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate 175	Posted - 2013.05.28 01:58:00 - [28] - Quote Toddfish wrote: + Increase the number of failure attempts possible (maybe even remove the exploding cans) to encourage people to progress towards more difficult sites. If someone decides they want to spend an hour hacking a can (due to skills/fitting/difficulty, the possible loot, etc.) they should be able to. Great idea! Right now a lower skilled player can still get the same loot as a higher skilled one, it just takes them longer to do it. The new mingame with the 2 strikes boom mechanic seem like CCP just stepped in front of a bunch of part time and newer explorers and shouted "not perfect skillsGÇª NO LOOT FOR YOU!"
Derath Ellecon Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal 1388	Posted - 2013.05.28 03:15:00 - [29] - Quote Ok I've gotta say I'm completely confused. I just tried for the first time and found a "crumbling Serpentis Excavation" relic site. I warped in and have no idea what to do. There is a bunch of stuff here Abandonded drills Broken engines Depleted station battery Debris I have targeted everything and tried to activate my relic analyzer, only to get the message that it cannot be used on this object. So what am I supposed to be analyzing? Is it something hidden on the overview? [edit] Nevermind. Even though I had chosen the default "all" it did not have everything checked.
Jin Rot'hani Reliables Inc The Unthinkables 2	Posted - 2013.05.28 08:21:00 - [30] - Quote As i mentioned in the last thread, it was a problem for me clicking like 50 nodes for each container because of rsi (Repetitive-Strain-Injury). so i was very pleased to see that you got rid of them and created a much smaller layout (because you care about the health of your players, right ? ). Well till yesterday when i tried it again after 1-2 weeks and had to realize you went back to the click 50 - mostly empty - nodes layout to get cookie or be doomed. it lead for me to not being able to continue exploration after the 2nd site because it simply did hurt too much I don't understand why you did that, there is no way to even guess where to click to reach anything till you click it and then it's pure luck if it's a trap, a cookie or one of ~40 empty useless nodes. Another thing i am not sure if that's intended or not is that i had to leave a hacking site after a failed hack because the structure was causing constant damage up to ~10-15km range, forcing me to leave. No NPCs to shoot and continue, so i couldn't even try hacking the remaining containers at least in my untanked scanfrig. will try again with some tank later. Maybe that's just another barrier to get the goodies or even the price for easier and faster scanning. the loot in general looked good to me. some sites where crap as usual and then there is the random faction loot to make your day and come back tomorrow. But i don't see bringing people together to do exploration except for DED sites where you might need help killing stuff. Exploration is what i do if there simply is nobody else around to do something else, so i get in my frig and start looking for profession sites. Forcing me to partner up even with strangers to get all the loot seems strange to me but maybe it will work out, maybe not. Looting the stuff takes some practice but as far as i understand it works so that you click any green container, all others become yellow. if loot finished the yellow ones become green again. green=loot 1 of them now yellow=loot in progress wait till green white=out of range (oh no my cookies floating away, doubleclick to approach) blinking=container is lost in space soon(tm) My hopes are still very high on this expansion as it looks really great so far, so keep on your good work.

Tryaha Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2013.05.28 09:34:00 - [31] - Quote Last night (27th) i did 3 Relic sites with a tengu with 3 T1 "medium emission scope hardener" rigs, a T2 analyser and perfect skills. I was able to hack 40-50% of the cans and loot about 5 cans each time (out of 10?) This was on my own without a alt helping to scoop cans. The loot was about 15m for the 3 sites total, currently this would be around 100m on avarage per site. (mostly because of the intact armor plates dropping) I think i'll bring a cargo scanner tonight to see what the potential drop is, because the loot at the moment is worth alot less then the current situation on TQ. As others allready mentioned, it would be nice to see a couple of points changed; - I would like to see more ways to boost virus coherence and strenght, and more ships need build in bonusses,T1 frigs are a no-go for 0.0 - Loot pinata sucks, just the cans opening after the hack would be more reasonable in my opinion. - I liked the old sites with their NPC's, it required people to think about a nice balance between tank, DPS and hacking gear, why not just keep the old sites and put the hacking minigame on it's cans? - The loot needs to be massivly boosted, atm it looks like it's down to 10m from 100m per site on avarage. - Make the cans appear on overview. I do like the new hacking mechanics in general, they just need some tweaking. Also it would be nice to have a (more detailed) devblog with some details about the new mods, changed rigs (did their calibration change?), change hardwirings and other stuff that is being changed in relation to these sites. Also, why not make players able to tractor the loot cans? this gives players a good reason to bring a noctis alt for instance or fit some tractor beams on their ships. The small tractor beam that is being used now doesn't make sense (we don't see it anywhere else and it's not on the ships fit)

CCP Bayesian 801	Posted - 2013.05.28 10:08:00 - [32] - Quote Tryaha wrote: I do like the new hacking mechanics in general, they just need some tweaking. Also it would be nice to have a (more detailed) devblog with some details about the new mods, changed rigs (did their calibration change?), change hardwirings and other stuff that is being changed in relation to these sites. Also, why not make players able to tractor the loot cans? this gives players a good reason to bring a noctis alt for instance or fit some tractor beams on their ships. The small tractor beam that is being used now doesn't make sense (we don't see it anywhere else and it's not on the ships fit) You can tractor the loot cans. On the devblog front the numbers are changing at the moment as we work on balancing things. I'll pass on to the guys involved in that work the request for a devblog outlining the changes. EVE Software Engineer Team Prototyping Rocks


CCP Bayesian 801	Posted - 2013.05.28 10:39:00 - [33] - Quote For the people saying the 'loot pinata sucks' and the like could you vocalise the problems you have with it? So far I've collated: - It's not the way EVE has previously worked. - Collision is a pain, both with the size of the Data Sites and the positioning of some containers. - Picking can be difficult if you're not using a mouse. - Picking can be difficult if you're blinded by the site contents. - Loot haul seems low in comparison with how it was before. - Losing cans feels bad, particular after the effort of having to hack the container. This makes it feel like a penalty. - Not knowing what is any particular can so it feels bad not being able to make good choices. - The 'bad loot' is far too bulky so it is excessively penalising as you have to stop and sort it out. EVE Software Engineer Team Prototyping Rocks

Omnathious Deninard The Scope Gallente Federation 1065	Posted - 2013.05.28 10:45:00 - [34] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: For the people saying the 'loot pinata sucks' and the like could you vocalise the problems you have with it? So far I've collated: - It's not the way EVE has previously worked. - Collision is a pain, both with the size of the Data Sites and the positioning of some containers. - Picking can be difficult if you're not using a mouse. - Picking can be difficult if you're blinded by the site contents. - Loot haul seems low in comparison with how it was before. - Losing cans feels bad, particular after the effort of having to hack the container. This makes it feel like a penalty. - Not knowing what is any particular can so it feels bad not being able to make good choices. With the hacking now harder, after succeeding the hack then grabbing the cans only to get a few worthless items ( last time I was able to test) felt terrible, like despite succeeding at the hard part you still fail. Ideas For Drone Improvement Repourpose Deep Space Scanner Probes
Raven Solaris The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance 196	Posted - 2013.05.28 11:02:00 - [35] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: For the people saying the 'loot pinata sucks' and the like could you vocalise the problems you have with it? So far I've collated: - It's not the way EVE has previously worked. - Collision is a pain, both with the size of the Data Sites and the positioning of some containers. - Picking can be difficult if you're not using a mouse. - Picking can be difficult if you're blinded by the site contents. - Loot haul seems low in comparison with how it was before. - Losing cans feels bad, particular after the effort of having to hack the container. This makes it feel like a penalty. - Not knowing what is any particular can so it feels bad not being able to make good choices. - The 'bad loot' is far too bulky so it is excessively penalising as you have to stop and sort it out. As an encouragement for co-op, it falls short, who wants to be the guy who sits there and waits while you do the fun parts, so he can run around like a maniac trying to grab sweets?
Tryaha Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2013.05.28 11:15:00 - [36] - Quote About the loot pinata sucking, it's hard to explain why i feel this way, but i will try. I think it is mostly the idea that there is loot you could get, but are not getting because you cannot loot the cans in time, if there is a structure in the way preventing you to get to the cans, that is extra frustrating. Also, if half your hacks fail and you fail to loot more then 50% of then cans, your efforts seem kinda useless. I also feel that the way it is done is another extra set of stuff in EVE. I like consistency as much as possible, but with the loot pinata there is a new type of can being dropped (spewed) in a way we didn't see before. Also there is some mystery tractor beam picking the cans up. On top of this it ads new mystery brackets around these cans that are completely new too. Why not keep it simple and just have the old sites with their 5-6 cans and make these hackable without the loot pinata. This way you do have to think about your ship fitting because of the rats and there is still some thinking involved doing the actual hacking. What is exactly the idea behind the loot pinata? to make these sites doable for multiple people and have the rewards scale with the amount of people actually picking the cans up?
Raven Solaris The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance 196	Posted - 2013.05.28 11:19:00 - [37] - Quote I'm gonna add onto that last post of mine. When I go scanning on TQ right now, and I find Hacking, Archaelogy, and Salvaging sites, I'll run them myself. I don't really need help, and it's a nice little boost to my wallet. If I find a Combat site, which since I'm talking about 0.0 is usually an 8/10 or 10/10 and such, I have 2 friends I ask along, no alts, no super solo ship (don't even think there's a ship in EVE that can solo 10/10s.) Usually I'll go in in something heavy, my first friend brings a Logistics cruiser, and my second brings an Ishtar or something to cover the Logi and help with DPS. Everyone has a role, and we work together to (maybe) get something awesome like a Nightmare Blueprint (never happens.) It's fun. So I have no qualms with calling friends up to come do hacking sites with me if they're available, but I don't want to ask them to come twiddle their thumbs 90% of the time and click frantically for the other 10%, it wouldn't be fun for them.
Chi'Nane T'Kal Interminatus Aeterna Anima 82	Posted - 2013.05.28 11:26:00 - [38] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: For the people saying the 'loot pinata sucks' and the like could you vocalise the problems you have with it? So far I've collated: - It's not the way EVE has previously worked. - Collision is a pain, both with the size of the Data Sites and the positioning of some containers. - Picking can be difficult if you're not using a mouse. - Picking can be difficult if you're blinded by the site contents. - Loot haul seems low in comparison with how it was before. - Losing cans feels bad, particular after the effort of having to hack the container. This makes it feel like a penalty. - Not knowing what is any particular can so it feels bad not being able to make good choices. - The 'bad loot' is far too bulky so it is excessively penalising as you have to stop and sort it out. - Wild random clicking is not the way any I would WANT EVE to work? (Regardless if it was previously so or not) - What about lag? - Things that REQUIRE a mouse are not optimal, ideally everything should be keybindable or at least a combination of mouse + key. (My wrist is suffering enough as is :( )
Johan Toralen Clockwork X3 70	Posted - 2013.05.28 11:46:00 - [39] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: But on that note I don't think I agree with the ability to cargo scan these sites, it would be like Indiana Jones walking up to a ancient ruin and saying to himself "I don't know these ruins only have a couple gold coins, I will pass" That shouldn't be changed tho. You can scan everything in the rest of Eve including overseers in escalations which makes them farmable for the perfect loot. And that never was changed. We already have the inconsistency with the rest of the game via the magical tractor beam. Cargo scan doesn't really help to get the goodies per se as you always try to get the best cans anyway based on their name. But it helps to prioritise. For instance i was in a site with 8 containers yesterday. That would make me quite nervous on TQ due to time involvement. Cargo scan showed two containers only had t1 salvage. So that's the ones i would do last or ignore completely. You trade this ability for a mid slot that could be used for other useful stuff. Probe mod, ecm, mwd or whatever. So it's not unfair in any way imo.
Omnathious Deninard The Scope Gallente Federation 1065	Posted - 2013.05.28 11:59:00 - [40] - Quote Johan Toralen wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: But on that note I don't think I agree with the ability to cargo scan these sites, it would be like Indiana Jones walking up to a ancient ruin and saying to himself "I don't know these ruins only have a couple gold coins, I will pass" That shouldn't be changed tho. You can scan everything in the rest of Eve including overseers in escalations which makes them farmable for the perfect loot. Sorry I can't take this part seriously, are you implying that someone would scan down a complex run the complex all the way up to the point the faction ships comes out, scan the ship and then warp off because they didn't like what loot was in there? Ideas For Drone Improvement Repourpose Deep Space Scanner Probes

Johan Toralen Clockwork X3 70	Posted - 2013.05.28 12:11:00 - [41] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: Sorry I can't take this part seriously, are you implying that someone would scan down a complex run the complex all the way up to the point the faction ships comes out, scan the ship and then warp off because they didn't like what loot was in there? Yes some people collect escalations, scan the overseer, come back after the next downtime to scan him again. Rinse and repeat till jackpot is there. It works for escalations because the 24h timer resets every time you warp in and you have these sites for yourself. You can test this on regular ded sites but it doesn't make sense there because someone else will find the site and kill the overseer before you. Has been like this for years and never was changed afaik. I guess because not too many ppl do it. Have to run quite a few anomalies to get enough escalations for steady income this way. farming 4/10 is more popular as far as i can tell. Thread on reddit if you don't believe me: http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/1aq9tv/free_tip_for_explorers_out_there/
Omnathious Deninard The Scope Gallente Federation 1065	Posted - 2013.05.28 12:25:00 - [42] - Quote No need to provide evidence I believed you. I did not realize something like that was possible to do and it is almost disturbing that it is possible to do. Ideas For Drone Improvement Repourpose Deep Space Scanner Probes
blink alt Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 45	Posted - 2013.05.28 12:25:00 - [43] - Quote NPCs still spawning after a failed hack. I thought the penalty was going to be more cans ejected?
Cordelia Mulholland IV Big Bill's Bovine Burger Bistro 2	Posted - 2013.05.28 12:25:00 - [44] - Quote The actual pi+¦ata mechanics are fine and work quite well. Some niggly details that I concur with: CCP Bayesian wrote: - Collision is a pain, both with the size of the Data Sites and the positioning of some containers. I've bounced off and got stuck on "invisible walls". That is always frustrating and sometimes bad for your ship. This is an EvE wide problem and not just in the new explo sites. CCP Bayesian wrote: - Picking can be difficult if you're blinded by the site contents. Yes it is. White stuff on a white background isn't much fun. CCP Bayesian wrote: - The 'bad loot' is far too bulky so it is excessively penalising as you have to stop and sort it out. This is a minor problem that people will probably adapt to. The other points you have are IMHO either insignificant, incorrect or people being adverse to change. Don't take all of the moaning to heart. If you're after stuff related to the new sites and not just loot spew... There is no indication of which "cans" within the site you've already hacked. This is a step backward given we already have this functionality on TQ. The rats that spawn in low-sec upon a failed attempt do not leave a wreck when you kill them. Is this just to upset people a bit more on top of their failed hacking attempt? If so, nice troll :-) If not, it's a bug. I envisage the mini-game becoming tedious fairly quickly. But then a games company such as CCP probably already know that simple, luck based, non-strategic, low reaction, low skill, input heavy click fest mini games don't really hold long appeal to people who play in-depth, strategic and complex games like EvE.
Naomi Hale Children of New Eden 90	Posted - 2013.05.28 12:31:00 - [45] - Quote I think what a lot of people are trying to say is this is about 'Tone.' The tone of this new system contrasts sharply with all existing content and that can make something jarring and unpleasant. For me personally it's more about lack of depth and discovery. Odyssey's presentation at fanfest and it's own web page pitched it as exploration and moving away from combat sites, ship switching and sitting waiting for the module to hack a can. The new system does achieve those things but still doesn't feel like exploration. Hacking is good but feels out of place here and especially out of place in archaeology/relic sites, where it's a reskin of hacking rather than a skill of it's own. I read this... Odyssey Web page wrote: EVE Online's nineteenth free expansion, Odyssey, offers new tools for exploring the stars, challenges you to breach the unknown for adventure and rewards, and to face what lies on the other side. A re-imagined scanning system, intuitive navigation and new exploration modules will aid you as you search the heavens for your next conquest. Some will encounter sites never discovered before, and others will be confronted with intriguing tests of skill and resolve. Ample rewards await those that return from their journeys with ships intact. I expect something else. I know it's not any fault of the dev teams as I doubt one of you wrote that, but there it is. 'A re-imagined scanning system' is more of a change to the existing scanner system than a re-imagining, a good change but still just a change. 'Some will encounter sites never discovered before' they seem to be the same or very similar sites with three pieces of additional art assets added (looked up the models with TriExporter, two types of data hubs and an Ancient Battleship derelict, there is an intact version but as far as I know it's not used). 'Breach the unknown' we don't seem to be finding anything unknown as they are all labelled as pirate faction anomalies and pirate rats spawn at them. The loot is existing items (except some newer datacore variations) and even the junk loot is existing junk items. Overall it's a good system for making Isk, getting certain items and as a spring board for future features and content. The real problem is mine (and the explorer community's) for letting expectations cloud reality and what is feasible. I've been waiting for exploration to get attention again since Apocrypha and you never could have lived up to my wild dreams of wonder and adventure. Sorry for that. I choose to believe what I was PROGRAMMED to believe!
Morgan Resnev Mjolnir Astroworks Moose Alliance 0	Posted - 2013.05.28 12:40:00 - [46] - Quote I got an awful lot of lag (during the fleet x/y operation) , to the point that I had to be fully zoomed out and on the lowest graphical settings in order to run in any capacity. Not sure if a bug (No report submitted as of yet): During the capital cyno jump (I was in a Hel) the fitted module UI was still visible and i could still interact with it.
Kor'el Izia 55	Posted - 2013.05.28 13:07:00 - [47] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: - Losing cans feels bad, particular after the effort of having to hack the container. This makes it feel like a penalty. The more I watch this 30s clip commerical the more it feels like the old and new exploration system. Watch and feel Why would I bother do something that makes me feel bad about myself? It doesn't matter if a fireman saves lives from a building, the ones he can't will forever taunt his memories, just like policemen with criminals that walks free due to lack of evidence. If you wan't exploration to be more team friendly (which it inherently isn't) make it only throw up more cans when more ppl(+6/player up to max count) are on grid, you can't pick more cans even if you are multiboxing so it can only be used with other players. This will make one player able to get it all and not feel angry/depressed about himself/herself
Sven Viko VIkolander Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic 68	Posted - 2013.05.28 13:44:00 - [48] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: For the people saying the 'loot pinata sucks' and the like could you vocalise the problems you have with it? So far I've collated: - It's not the way EVE has previously worked. - Collision is a pain, both with the size of the Data Sites and the positioning of some containers. - Picking can be difficult if you're not using a mouse. - Picking can be difficult if you're blinded by the site contents. - Loot haul seems low in comparison with how it was before. - Losing cans feels bad, particular after the effort of having to hack the container. This makes it feel like a penalty. - Not knowing what is any particular can so it feels bad not being able to make good choices. - The 'bad loot' is far too bulky so it is excessively penalising as you have to stop and sort it out. Mainly, clicking games are not fun. The push in the revamp of scanning seemed to be "less clicks for all," and that is a good thing. With the hacking game and esp. the loot spew, it simply reintroduced far more clicks into the system, and that's bad. If the mechanic is here to stay, I'd say put the cans on the overview at least. Collision is a pain, too, and a lot of the hacking sites could be moved away from the objects in the room a bit.

CCP Bayesian 802	Posted - 2013.05.28 13:48:00 - [49] - Quote blink alt wrote: NPCs still spawning after a failed hack. I thought the penalty was going to be more cans ejected? This is in the process of being fixed. Sadly it's a manual process and not easy to automate so it takes a long time! :( EVE Software Engineer Team Prototyping Rocks


CCP Bayesian 802	Posted - 2013.05.28 13:51:00 - [50] - Quote Cordelia Mulholland IV wrote: The other points you have are IMHO either insignificant, incorrect or people being adverse to change. Don't take all of the moaning to heart. Indeedy, I just want to make sure we have the main complaints noted so that we've not dropped the ball on user feedback. Quote: If you're after stuff related to the new sites and not just loot spew... There is no indication of which "cans" within the site you've already hacked. This is a step backward given we already have this functionality on TQ. The rats that spawn in low-sec upon a failed attempt do not leave a wreck when you kill them. Is this just to upset people a bit more on top of their failed hacking attempt? If so, nice troll :-) If not, it's a bug. I envisage the mini-game becoming tedious fairly quickly. But then a games company such as CCP probably already know that simple, luck based, non-strategic, low reaction, low skill, input heavy click fest mini games don't really hold long appeal to people who play in-depth, strategic and complex games like EvE. The first point is a bug which we're fixing. The second shouldn't happen as the failure rats are being removed. We're intending to increase the depth that hacking has as we go. EVE Software Engineer Team Prototyping Rocks


James Amril-Kesh 4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance 5217	Posted - 2013.05.28 14:13:00 - [51] - Quote And the god damn clouds are back. The only way to mitigate the effect these clouds have on my FPS is to zoom all the way out, but of course that isn't possible to do with the new loot mechanic. So I guess I just can't run these ******* sites then because you insist on putting the clouds back even after years of people complaining about how pointless and stupid they are. -áMy (mostly boring) Youtube channel.
Random Woman Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 22	Posted - 2013.05.28 14:31:00 - [52] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: Cordelia Mulholland IV wrote: The other points you have are IMHO either insignificant, incorrect or people being adverse to change. Don't take all of the moaning to heart. Indeedy, I just want to make sure we have the main complaints noted so that we've not dropped the ball on user feedback. Quote: If you're after stuff related to the new sites and not just loot spew... There is no indication of which "cans" within the site you've already hacked. This is a step backward given we already have this functionality on TQ. The rats that spawn in low-sec upon a failed attempt do not leave a wreck when you kill them. Is this just to upset people a bit more on top of their failed hacking attempt? If so, nice troll :-) If not, it's a bug. I envisage the mini-game becoming tedious fairly quickly. But then a games company such as CCP probably already know that simple, luck based, non-strategic, low reaction, low skill, input heavy click fest mini games don't really hold long appeal to people who play in-depth, strategic and complex games like EvE. The first point is a bug which we're fixing. The second shouldn't happen as the failure rats are being removed. We're intending to increase the depth that hacking has as we go.
blink alt Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 45	Posted - 2013.05.28 14:34:00 - [53] - Quote I see that the solution to Central [Faction] Sparking Transmitter was to just move the spew containers away from the structure entirely. Even though it is a 100km burn from the warp in to get to the spew containers I approve =)
Vladimir Norkoff Income Redistribution Service 164	Posted - 2013.05.28 14:36:00 - [54] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: Cordelia Mulholland IV wrote: The other points you have are IMHO either insignificant, incorrect or people being adverse to change. Don't take all of the moaning to heart. Indeedy, I just want to make sure we have the main complaints noted so that we've not dropped the ball on user feedback. So you will deign to listen to the feedback, even though you agree it is just insignificant, incorrect, or people adverse to change.... awesome.
Sheena Tzash Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 24	Posted - 2013.05.28 14:37:00 - [55] - Quote I guess you guys should probably lock the old thread then to avoid duplication or redundancy of posts. Since this is the new one I'll just re-post my comments from the other one: Tried the hacking mini game yesterday and I all I can say at the moment is that when the expansion comes out I simply won't bother with exploration anymore because its just not fun! I tried with a Probe with hacking rigs, and reasonably high hacking skills (4s) and found the sites to be frustrating and boring. 1) Its a MASSIVE click-fest with no clear goal or objective that I can see other than 'click on all the pretty dots' 2) When a firewall comes up it seems to disable the other 'helpful' modules (like the spanner) so I can't click them. 3) The strength values on a firewall don't seem to relate to anything - I have around 70 points available and if I click a firewall with say a value of 10 I sometimes lose more or less than 10 points? So how can I decide which firewall to click if I don't know what the results will be? 4) If I just click on anything and everything and run out of clickable nodes and all I'm left with are firewall nodes (say 3 for example) but not enough points to do all 3, which node do I click? I can't see an 'end' node I need to reach so I don't know which node is best to click on. So its either take a random chance, run out of points and not be able to do the next one, fail. I was fairly happy that the rats that spawn after a failure were only small and I could easily run away from them and use some drones to take them out. The loot spillage affect to me is also very annoying simply because you put the work into getting this far to only get 10% of what your after - and most people won't be glad of the loot they got, they'll concern themselves with the stuff that they MISSED and so it'll seem like whenever you do exploration you'll LOSE something (or not gain 100%) Even if you bring a friend the chances are that they'll be bored out of their minds waiting for you to scan down a site and then hack it just so that maybe they can click on some boxes that spew out and run away with the good stuff. Personally I think the whole thing needs to be re-designed; at the end of the day you're taking an activity that before required ZERO skill (ie, click a can and wait for the module to finish) to now require some skill, understanding and a LOT of luck to finish. You're also making an activity that before was done automatically within a decent time frame (less than 1 min) and 100% chance of success into something that can now take MUCH longer with no guarantee of success. Basically this means you're EXCLUDING all the players who are bad at mini games. 1) HALVE the size of the mini game so that is short and quick (less than 30 seconds from start to finish) 2) If the hack is successful then the loot is left in ONE container for the hacker to access. 3) If the hack FAILS then you get the 'loot spawn' as before with SOME loot (but not the best). 4) If the user exits the mini game or the module ends then its NOT considered a failure 5) A failure only occurs when the hacker loses all points their in the mini game At the end of the day the player has put in the time, effort and skills to FIND the site in the first place and therefore deserve SOMETHING for their time; especially if they've risked going into dangerous space to do it. Giving loot upon failure means that the hacker now has a choice of action to take: 1) Spend more time (and risk of exposure) in completing the mini game for the best loot and 100% chance to full retrieval. Even if this means that they go so far in the mini game, find they can't complete it and cancel and try again. The additional time it takes to re-try is the risk they take. 2) Run the site quick and dirty to get SOME loot thrown out all over the place but not the best.
Zeta Kalin Large Rodent Hunters 3	Posted - 2013.05.28 14:43:00 - [56] - Quote I haven't been exposed to the new explo system before today on SiSi. I must say that save a few minor problems (like some default overview not showing the right items) it's a huge improvement and very enjoyable. Rewards seem on par with what it was before (but I only did a data site, so not significant sample size). Expected doom and gloom, left pretty confident, good work (and that's a from a monument shooter).
Rob Crowley State War Academy 60	Posted - 2013.05.28 15:06:00 - [57] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: - The 'bad loot' is far too bulky so it is excessively penalising as you have to stop and sort it out. The biggest troublemaker in regards to bulky loot is part of the "good" loot AFAICS. As I noted in the old thread interface parts (e.g. for Guristas: Spare Parts, Power Couplings, Electronic Links, Armor Blocks, Computer Chips) drop as "good" loot in data sites often in stacks of 50-100 and are 1m-¦ per unit. This can fill up a cargo hold really quickly. IMO there should be no loot bigger than a couple m-¦ at most in those surprise cans, neither good nor bad.
Raven Solaris The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance 197	Posted - 2013.05.28 15:29:00 - [58] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: Cordelia Mulholland IV wrote: The other points you have are IMHO either insignificant, incorrect or people being adverse to change. Don't take all of the moaning to heart. Indeedy, I just want to make sure we have the main complaints noted so that we've not dropped the ball on user feedback. So you didn't actually care about our feedback, you just wanted it so that you could check a box saying "we listened." Nice, thanks.
Kahns Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore 0	Posted - 2013.05.28 15:46:00 - [59] - Quote I would echo some comments/complaints and add some of my own. Sorry if this is kind of long. My biggest complaint is that radar and mag were already not great isk makers, and now they're set to be worse. Even with the newest version the average seems very low. Particularly if you consider that many will be doing this in random systems in low-sec and null, where you will occasionally get jumped. If you want to get people to explore low and null sec for exploration, there's going to need to be some real reward to do so, as the barriers for most are high. You're barely going to be able to pay for the occasional lost ship! I actually enjoy the mini-game as it stands. The newest version that changed anti-virus helped substantially. Before they were very binary-- depending on the layout, you either won or lost. Now your decisions at least seem like they could alter the result. I definitely want more depth, but imo the minigame is not the problem at this point. Can gathering is hard and frustrating. If you have tracking camera on, which I think was defaulted on for me, it's damn near impossible as your camera veers towards things you didn't intend. Things got better once I turned it off, but it still wasn't great. I got stuck on things, I couldn't tell when I was going to tractor and when the object was just out of range (no feedback), and the icons were small and hard to get... Even some of the new geometry seemed intended to frustrate. The trap circle thing around you in radar sites may have seemed like a good idea, but often you wind up stuck on it in very broken ways. It would be better with fewer cans, but that won't really solve the problem. My suggestion for the time being would be to give us something closer to the fanfest video, where the cans do not float far enough away that you have to move. Instead, they simply disappear before you can grab them all. Also, make the tractoring faster and more responsive. While this is even less eve-like than what's on singularity now, at least it wouldn't seem broken. I have yet to find any truly exciting drops. One of the things that draws people to exploration is the randomness of it, and yet what I found on singularity has seemed very even and disappointing. If there are great drops happening, they're too rare to entice anyone. Again, please consider the danger of doing running these sites in low and null and how poorly this compares isk/effort wise to selling/doing complexes, running anomalies, mining post patch, ratting in belts or even salvaging. We're talking less than half the reward at the moment for a fairly risky and involved activity. Some of the frustration with the new sites is that we're losing the old versions, and the new kind of pale in comparison. And for people who liked them, it's even worse that the new sites are just some objects tacked onto the old ones. Radar/mag sites weren't brilliant, but they offered a nice alternative to ratting that had OK isk payouts on average. I'm sad that these sites weren't added in as a lower level, with the old sites being left as a higher level where both combat and hacking was required. Just to be straight with you all, very few people are realistically going to team up for this -- it's just not that cooperative an experience... Last, to end on a positive, In my opinion scanning process itself is improved. I disagree with most forum posts I've seen complaining about the changes. I don't hate it as much as that all makes it sound, I just think it's not going to be worth the effort and risk for most outside of hisec.
Kahns Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore 0	Posted - 2013.05.28 16:03:00 - [60] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: Indeedy, I just want to make sure we have the main complaints noted so that we've not dropped the ball on user feedback. I gotta say, after taking the time to test this and give feedback, this is pretty disheartening. I don't hate what you've done, I actually think some of it is impressive, but it's got some serious problems and releasing it in this state after getting this kind of feedback would be the definition of dropping the ball on user feedback. I never thought I would write something this pithy, but at least pretend you're taking our feedback seriously.

Sugar Kyle The humbleless Crew 242	Posted - 2013.05.28 16:19:00 - [61] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: For the people saying the 'loot pinata sucks' and the like could you vocalise the problems you have with it? So far I've collated: - It's not the way EVE has previously worked. - Collision is a pain, both with the size of the Data Sites and the positioning of some containers. - Picking can be difficult if you're not using a mouse. - Picking can be difficult if you're blinded by the site contents. - Loot haul seems low in comparison with how it was before. - Losing cans feels bad, particular after the effort of having to hack the container. This makes it feel like a penalty. - Not knowing what is any particular can so it feels bad not being able to make good choices. - The 'bad loot' is far too bulky so it is excessively penalising as you have to stop and sort it out. The size of the cans is to small. Double clicking tractors? Doesn't tractor? The tractor beam is slow. Being far away means a slow tractor which means less loot collected. The speed of the cans sucks. I do this in a legion. it isn't the most agile thing ever. The hacking screen needs to be more transparent. The mechanics/engineering pieces are not 'bad loot' they are massively bulky loot Frankly, we should have some way to cherry pick these cans since we have to make a series of decisions on what to collect after we have just finished fighting through through the mini game, tried to watch dscan and not die and we only have two chances to hack the game or we lose the can. There needs to be some announcement to the fleet mate helping that cans are about to spew into space. Tilde soaked words from something kinda like a pirate.
Anabella Rella Gradient Electus Matari 789	Posted - 2013.05.28 16:26:00 - [62] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: For the people saying the 'loot pinata sucks' and the like could you vocalise the problems you have with it? The cans move too quickly. The brackets on the cans are far too small. The size of the cans are small making it even more difficult to click. What you want is irrelevant, what you've chosen is at hand.
Manssell OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate 175	Posted - 2013.05.28 16:35:00 - [63] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: Cordelia Mulholland IV wrote: The other points you have are IMHO either insignificant, incorrect or people being adverse to change. Don't take all of the moaning to heart. Indeedy, I just want to make sure we have the main complaints noted so that we've not dropped the ball on user feedback. Well it looks like I just stopped giving up anymore of my time to test your systems for you on Sisi. What's the point if you are only using my feedback to check off the feedback box? You know, in my job if I make something for my clients and they all but one hate it, I can make up any number of self serving generic conceptual reasoning why they hate it, like "they are being adverse to change" all I want. And even if that one person who likes it agrees with me that my grand vision was right and everyone else just doesn't get it. The simple fact still remains that if I don't make my clients happy, I have failed at what I do.
Naomi Hale Children of New Eden 92	Posted - 2013.05.28 16:37:00 - [64] - Quote What I would have liked Archaeology to be like... You discover something and scan it Which leads to... Using science and industry skills to study it a narrow down other linked sites so you... Fly there and discover more clues which then goes to... More exploration of New Eden's history and so on and so on, until... The reulting data and notes from your search are turned into factions, thus leading to rewards, knowledge and a feeling of accomplishment Added future features... Incarna lab to study discoveries and... Cartography room to view results and plan your next move. (Thanks to CCP, Bioware, Square-Enix and Relic for some of the art) I choose to believe what I was PROGRAMMED to believe!
Kahns Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore 1	Posted - 2013.05.28 16:44:00 - [65] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: For the people saying the 'loot pinata sucks' and the like could you vocalise the problems you have with it? Sure... It's really unresponsive. There's no feedback for when you've got one locked up and it will tractor, when it ends, when you've failed because the item is out of range. And it's all very slow, from the tractoring, to getting to groups of cans in even a fast ship, etc. I feel like when I wind up not tractoring a can I have no idea why it's not working or what I need to do to fix the situation. Again, feedback. We do not have direct control of our ships, so don't expect it from us! Moving towards floating cans that you can't select in the overview highlights some of the worst parts of how Eve's ship control mechanics work. It was already frustrating to nimbly move our ships around in Eve, we just typically didn't have to do it. As you know, we don't have direct control of our ships, but in this case you're basically asking us to pretend we do. This ties into the first two points, but 9/10 times I don't feel like I lost loot because of something I did... I lost loot because I got stuck on something, the interface broke in some weird way, or my cargo was full because I picked up something massive and now I don't get to pick up anything more until it all disappears. It's completely inconsistent with the metaphors you've used elsewhere in the game. Clicking on something doesn't bring something towards you anywhere but in this one single little mini-game. Worse yet, you've got the metaphor of tractoring using a module elsewhere in the game and it works completely differently. It's just bad design! I'm still encountering situations where the loot shoots into a structure and I can't get it, or spews the opposite of where I am and if I double click on the loot I just... navigate into the wall. It sucks. Again, if you simply removed having to move your ship around and made the items disappear after a certain amount of time, so it was really just grabbing as much loot as you could whack a mole style, it would still be whole-ly inconsistent and out of some Facebook game, but at least it wouldn't seem broken and frusterating and it would far more be in line with what you advertised at Fanfest.
Tsubutai Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 207	Posted - 2013.05.28 17:32:00 - [66] - Quote The nullsec sites in the current version of SiSi now seem to be in a pretty good state. I ran three relic sites (Ruined Serpentis Monument Site/Science Outpost/Temple Site) in a heron with a virus coherence/strength of 135/40. I was able to open every can in each site, usually on the first attempt. It took just under 50 minutes to hack and loot all the sites, and I got 110m worth of stuff plus a few things that the game doesn't value properly (T2 rig BPCs and the Spatial Attunement Unit things required to build T2 probing mods). Given that this was in Serpentis space and so there was no possibility of getting any of the more valuable T2 salvage types (i.e. Intact Armor Plates or Capacitor Consoles), that's a pretty decent return. The loot spew mechanic has probably become a bit too easy to manage as a lone player now, if the intent is to induce people to group up. I was consistently able to gather all bar 2-3 of the spewed cans in my heron, so there's no real incentive to bring a friend along, especially if you use a cargo scanner to determine which spew cans to prioritize. I didn't have any problems with bumping into things in the three sites I ran. The problem with invisible defensive nodes still seems to occur - I ran into one in the Temple Site.

CCP Bayesian 803	Posted - 2013.05.28 17:33:00 - [67] - Quote Vladimir Norkoff wrote: So you will deign to listen to the feedback, even though you agree it is just insignificant, incorrect, or people adverse to change.... awesome. No we sit down and discuss the feedback we've got, it leads us to make changes and add further metrics gathering so we can find out how the problems are manifesting across the population playing not just the people who choose to post in the forums. Some things are obviously wrong and broken, some are issues that require smoothing of rough edges or reworking things and others are differences of opinion. Part of our job is to make sure we've listened, understood and considered the constructive feedback we get. I posted my list above here to make sure I wasn't missing anything as the feedback we get can be quite difficult to decipher. EVE Software Engineer Team Prototyping Rocks


CCP Bayesian 803	Posted - 2013.05.28 17:36:00 - [68] - Quote Tsubutai wrote: The problem with invisible defensive nodes still seems to occur - I ran into one in the Temple Site. I fixed this today so it shouldn't happen after Sisi is next updated. EVE Software Engineer Team Prototyping Rocks


CCP Bayesian 803	Posted - 2013.05.28 17:43:00 - [69] - Quote I just want to apologise as people seem to have misunderstood my previous post. I was not agreeing that we should ignore feedback and that wasn't what the poster I was quoting meant either. I was agreeing that we were not disheartened. If we didn't care about your feedback I wouldn't be listing a whole bunch of things out, asking for your input and I wouldn't have been active in all the feedback threads on our feature. EVE Software Engineer Team Prototyping Rocks

Salpun Paramount Commerce 502	Posted - 2013.05.28 18:08:00 - [70] - Quote Are you going to put a ships on grid element into calculation for the hacking and cans speed and direction.

Omnathious Deninard The Scope Gallente Federation 1068	Posted - 2013.05.28 18:09:00 - [71] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: I just want to apologise as people seem to have misunderstood my previous post. I was not agreeing that we should ignore feedback and that wasn't what the poster I was quoting meant either. I was agreeing that we were not disheartened. If we didn't care about your feedback I wouldn't be listing a whole bunch of things out, asking for your input and I wouldn't have been active in all the feedback threads on our feature. There did seem to be confusion but it would seem it was how the quote was perceived, I believe you may have meant something like this. CCP Bayesian wrote: Cordelia Mulholland IV wrote: Don't take all of the moaning to heart. Indeedy, I just want to make sure we have the main complaints noted so that we've not dropped the ball on user feedback. But because this was included and was first people believed it is what you were agreeing to. Quote: The other points you have are IMHO either insignificant, incorrect or people being adverse to change. Ideas For Drone Improvement Repourpose Deep Space Scanner Probes

CCP Bayesian 803	Posted - 2013.05.28 18:13:00 - [72] - Quote Omnathious Deninard, yup! EVE Software Engineer Team Prototyping Rocks

Scuzzy Logic Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce 5	Posted - 2013.05.28 18:14:00 - [73] - Quote Kahns wrote: CCP Bayesian wrote: For the people saying the 'loot pinata sucks' and the like could you vocalise the problems you have with it? Sure... It's really unresponsive. There's no feedback for when you've got one locked up and it will tractor, when it ends, when you've failed because the item is out of range. And it's all very slow, from the tractoring, to getting to groups of cans in even a fast ship, etc. I feel like when I wind up not tractoring a can I have no idea why it's not working or what I need to do to fix the situation. Again, feedback. We do not have direct control of our ships, so don't expect it from us! Moving towards floating cans that you can't select in the overview highlights some of the worst parts of how Eve's ship control mechanics work. It was already frustrating to nimbly move our ships around in Eve, we just typically didn't have to do it. As you know, we don't have direct control of our ships, but in this case you're basically asking us to pretend we do. This ties into the first two points, but 9/10 times I don't feel like I lost loot because of something I did... I lost loot because I got stuck on something, the interface broke in some weird way, or my cargo was full because I picked up something massive and now I don't get to pick up anything more until it all disappears. It's completely inconsistent with the metaphors you've used elsewhere in the game. Clicking on something doesn't bring something towards you anywhere but in this one single little mini-game. Worse yet, you've got the metaphor of tractoring using a module elsewhere in the game and it works completely differently. It's just bad design! I'm still encountering situations where the loot shoots into a structure and I can't get it, or spews the opposite of where I am and if I double click on the loot I just... navigate into the wall. It sucks. Again, if you simply removed having to move your ship around and made the items disappear after a certain amount of time, so it was really just grabbing as much loot as you could whack a mole style, it would still be whole-ly inconsistent and out of some Facebook game, but at least it wouldn't seem broken and frusterating and it would far more be in line with what you advertised at Fanfest. Pretty much this. I'm getting more and more disappointed as CCP seems to ignore more and more blatantly any constructive criticism that comes form these forums.

CCP Bayesian 803	Posted - 2013.05.28 18:15:00 - [74] - Quote Salpun wrote: Are you going to put a ships on grid element into calculation for the hacking and cans speed and direction. Nope but we are making a host of changes to make the system more usable. I'll get CCP Prime to post what they are tomorrow as he is the guy making them and I'm posting from home. EVE Software Engineer Team Prototyping Rocks

Scuzzy Logic Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce 5	Posted - 2013.05.28 18:19:00 - [75] - Quote Nicola Arman wrote: The whole thing is luck based it seems. I've only done about 5 Relic Sites though. Not very exciting loot yet. The spew cans seem to change color based on distance from what I've been able to see. I don't like that you can't add them to the Overview. I think that is a very bad idea. And where does that tractor beam come from exactly? It doesn't exist normally. I know right? Initially I thought I had to bring a Noctis or have a tractor installed, but nope, it just pops outta nowhere. I want to whack the devs over the head so far for pushing this quite honestly HORRENDOUS loot pinata mechanis up our rectums. It's as if they really want to make solo ANYTHING short of unboosted mining impossible or just far less profitable than it ought to be.
Garviel Tarrant Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 941	Posted - 2013.05.28 18:31:00 - [76] - Quote My main issue with the can picking is that its not fun Would be more fun with visual clues as to what cans might have a higher chance of having good drops or something.. adding some skill to the thing with trying to pick out the really valuable ones instead of just clicking a ton of stuff.. BYDI (Shadow cartel) Recruitment open!
Scuzzy Logic Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce 5	Posted - 2013.05.28 18:36:00 - [77] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: For the people saying the 'loot pinata sucks' and the like could you vocalise the problems you have with it? So far I've collated: - It's not the way EVE has previously worked. - Collision is a pain, both with the size of the Data Sites and the positioning of some containers. - Picking can be difficult if you're not using a mouse. - Picking can be difficult if you're blinded by the site contents. - Loot haul seems low in comparison with how it was before. - Losing cans feels bad, particular after the effort of having to hack the container. This makes it feel like a penalty. - Not knowing what is any particular can so it feels bad not being able to make good choices. - The 'bad loot' is far too bulky so it is excessively penalising as you have to stop and sort it out. As much as I normally hate stacking forum posts. I feel forced to do so because exploration is my primary ISK source. The can loss pretty much kills the profession as it stands because solo pilots get too little and it pushes amall gang structure. However, a small gang would make more isk per hour doing L4s or even just nullsec ratting. Second, while I feel the site difficulty is all over the place, I noticed I can now solve 1 out of 8 nullsec sites with my Echelon, which, while bad, yeilded enough cans not to make me want to jettison your entire dev team into the nearest Blood Raider encampment. Third, the fact I can't pinpoint the valuable BPs from the dropped cans is enough to make me want to ram my fist through the screen when I do get a can out in null. At the very least make the cans unscannable because I'm going to foam at the mouth after two weeks of seeing the amount of valuable loot I'm wasting going at it solo. Finally, why hasn't the loot pinata, which everyone pushed forward as feeling like a punishment, implemented as a punishment instead of an integral part of the profession? You're seemingly more active than you used to be in getting feedback, but honestly you seem to love making specific styles of gameplay (read: Anything not requiring alts) a blatant nightmare.
Scuzzy Logic Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce 5	Posted - 2013.05.28 18:42:00 - [78] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: No need to provide evidence I believed you. I did not realize something like that was possible to do and it is almost disturbing that it is possible to do. Why do you think the larger corps in null have very specific IF YOU TOUCH IT YOU WILL GET PODDED FOREVER policies regarding their exploration sites? To be honest CCP ought to throw out the damned pinata system (Is this getting though to you devs yet?) and work on solving these exploits. Hell, the fact Goonswarm was able to exploit the f*** out of Loyalty Points using Boosters was obvious but required a lot of logistics (WHICH THEY HAVE) and so CCP just shrugged it off until it became a problem so overt the markets were on the bink of collapse. I'm amazed I still play this game considering they keep nerfing solo play and buffing the large megacorps so they can PLEX their supercap pilots every hour.
Scuzzy Logic Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce 5	Posted - 2013.05.28 18:53:00 - [79] - Quote Manssell wrote: Toddfish wrote: + Increase the number of failure attempts possible (maybe even remove the exploding cans) to encourage people to progress towards more difficult sites. If someone decides they want to spend an hour hacking a can (due to skills/fitting/difficulty, the possible loot, etc.) they should be able to. Great idea! Right now a lower skilled player can still get the same loot as a higher skilled one, it just takes them longer to do it. The new mingame with the 2 strikes boom mechanic seem like CCP just stepped in front of a bunch of part time and newer explorers and shouted "not perfect skillsGÇª NO LOOT FOR YOU!" CCP's entire policy has always been *"not perfect skillsGÇª NO Insert relevant activity here* FOR YOU!"**. If you haven't noticed yet, they keep hammering hate on anything that can be done solo yet keep ignoring the fact that most of the people mining and/or hauling at any given moment are very likely bots. Also, I approve of this. HARD. As anything that would get low-skileld characters a chance at null content would be so welcome I'd practically pay its rent.
Scuzzy Logic Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce 5	Posted - 2013.05.28 19:16:00 - [80] - Quote Naomi Hale wrote: What I would have liked Archaeology to be like... You discover something and scan it Which leads to... Using science and industry skills to study it a narrow down other linked sites so you... Fly there and discover more clues which then goes to... More exploration of New Eden's history and so on and so on, until... The resulting data and notes from your search are turned into interested factions, thus leading to rewards, standing, knowledge and a feeling of accomplishment Added future features... Incarna lab to study discoveries and... Cartography room to view results and plan your next move. (Thanks to CCP, Bioware, Square-Enix and Relic for some of the art) You know, THIS is what I was expecting. Sure, the hacking minigame isn't all bad. (The pinata, however, IS.) I'd expect this to be how Archaeology should function. It would make RPers much more heppy, too. it's to bad you didn't make this your CSM platform, I'd have liquidated anyone who'd have run against you for free because of how much I like the idea.

Brooks Puuntai Solar Nexus. 1495	Posted - 2013.05.28 19:28:00 - [81] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: For the people saying the 'loot pinata sucks' and the like could you vocalise the problems you have with it? So far I've collated: - It's not the way EVE has previously worked. - Collision is a pain, both with the size of the Data Sites and the positioning of some containers. - Picking can be difficult if you're not using a mouse. - Picking can be difficult if you're blinded by the site contents. - Loot haul seems low in comparison with how it was before. - Losing cans feels bad, particular after the effort of having to hack the container. This makes it feel like a penalty. - Not knowing what is any particular can so it feels bad not being able to make good choices. - The 'bad loot' is far too bulky so it is excessively penalising as you have to stop and sort it out. A copy and paste from another thread. Brooks Puuntai wrote: A shortish summery: -It's terrible for anyone who is colorblind, has bad eye sight, or has slow hand to eye coordination(or is intoxicated). -After finding the site then hacking the site, having to quickly click little green dots seems more of a punishment then a reward. -It DOES NOT promote "Good" group game play. Scanning takes 1 person, hacking takes 1 person, looting promotes multiple? So pretty much you have to have your friends wait around only to grab cans for 10sec. Looting should be the least of the group activity, not the only. -It doesn't fit Eve's design. Eve is not a real twitch based game, not to mention flight control is mostly point to point, not manual. Which means having to click to move the ship in a certain direction, while trying to chase a group of scattering cans, is a chore not entertainment. I'm sure there are others, but in the end the overall mechanic is terrible. The feedback from the (vocal)majority who have tested it have stated it as well. One thing I do have to commend CCP about, is there unrelenting stubbornness over a ~~prototype~~ feature that is almost universally disliked. E: Also could you remove this thread from being stickied? It is jammed up with the rest of stickies which I'm sure many people ignore by this point. It will remain at the top, similar to the other one(this section isn't that active tbh). CCP's Motto: If it isn't broken, break it. If it is broken, ignore it. Idea for Improving NPE.
Johan Toralen Clockwork X3 71	Posted - 2013.05.28 19:58:00 - [82] - Quote Question: Are the can names in reality completely irrelevant for grabbing the good loot? Just got a enhanced ward console from a scraps container.
Omnathious Deninard The Scope Gallente Federation 1069	Posted - 2013.05.28 20:28:00 - [83] - Quote Johan Toralen wrote: Question: Are the can names in reality completely irrelevant for grabbing the good loot? Just got a enhanced ward console from a scraps container. From what I can gather parts containers contain components for blueprints, data containers have blueprints and data cores, scrap containers have salvage and I have gotten a ASB box from one once I believe. I could be wrong though. Ideas For Drone Improvement Repourpose Deep Space Scanner Probes
Johan Toralen Clockwork X3 71	Posted - 2013.05.28 20:30:00 - [84] - Quote I got salvage from equipment and materials containers also.
Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. Aegis Solaris 1904	Posted - 2013.05.28 20:31:00 - [85] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: ......If we didn't care about your feedback I wouldn't be listing a whole bunch of things out, asking for your input and I wouldn't have been active in all the feedback threads on our feature. There is another reason to be active in a feedback thread other than caring about the feedback. Its to make it look like you care so you can wave a "We Care!" flag. How to tell the difference? By what actually gets deployed on June 4th. If its the same features as were on Sisi, then we know you are here "asking for input" for the one and only purpose of shutting people up, and you place zero value on the opinions of your customers. If the features have been changed to reflect the feedback we gave, then you are right and you are respecting to what we have to say and assuming it is important enough to change what you do. Remember: We watch what you do, not what you say. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/
Naomi Hale Children of New Eden 92	Posted - 2013.05.28 20:47:00 - [86] - Quote Vincent Athena wrote: There is another reason to be active in a feedback thread other than caring about the feedback. Its to make it look like you care so you can wave a "We Care!" flag. How to tell the difference? By what actually gets deployed on June 4th. If its the same features as were on Sisi, then we know you are here "asking for input" for the one and only purpose of shutting people up, and you place zero value on the opinions of your customers. If the features have been changed to reflect the feedback we gave, then you are right and you are respecting to what we have to say and assuming it is important enough to change what you do. Remember: We watch what you do, not what you say. Okay, first, that's a real creepy post right there. Second, They have only a week before Odyssey's launch, what do you want them to do? I've said before, I'll say again, accurate feedback won't come until they release it on TQ and have a larger sample size. I choose to believe what I was PROGRAMMED to believe!
Naomi Hale Children of New Eden 92	Posted - 2013.05.28 20:49:00 - [87] - Quote Scuzzy Logic wrote: You know, THIS is what I was expecting. Sure, the hacking minigame isn't all bad. (The pinata, however, IS.) I'd expect this to be how Archaeology should function. It would make RPers much more heppy, too. it's to bad you didn't make this your CSM platform, I'd have liquidated anyone who'd have run against you for free because of how much I like the idea. But, I suspect then only you and I would be playing the game. I choose to believe what I was PROGRAMMED to believe!
Heinel Coventina University of Caille Gallente Federation 25	Posted - 2013.05.28 20:57:00 - [88] - Quote Hmm, the dissidents seem to be blowing this quite out of proportion. However, I think the concerns about the new exploration system being a framework for a feature, rather than an actual feature, is somewhat valid. What is CCP's plan to introduce new players into exploration, a gameplay mechanic that has no parallels from other MMOs, hence unfamiliar, and, What is CCP doing to mitigate disappointments during this transitional period between phasing out the old passive system and a highly integrated play style?
Raven Solaris The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance 198	Posted - 2013.05.28 21:17:00 - [89] - Quote Naomi Hale wrote: Vincent Athena wrote: There is another reason to be active in a feedback thread other than caring about the feedback. Its to make it look like you care so you can wave a "We Care!" flag. How to tell the difference? By what actually gets deployed on June 4th. If its the same features as were on Sisi, then we know you are here "asking for input" for the one and only purpose of shutting people up, and you place zero value on the opinions of your customers. If the features have been changed to reflect the feedback we gave, then you are right and you are respecting to what we have to say and assuming it is important enough to change what you do. Remember: We watch what you do, not what you say. Okay, first, that's a real creepy post right there. Second, They have only a week before Odyssey's launch, what do you want them to do? I've said before, I'll say again, accurate feedback won't come until they release it on TQ and have a larger sample size. Most of this feedback has been being posted all month.
Naomi Hale Children of New Eden 92	Posted - 2013.05.28 21:25:00 - [90] - Quote Raven Solaris wrote: Most of this feedback has been being posted all month. A month? No way, has it been that long since it hit Sisi? Or do you mean it's showing at fanfest... that's about a month ago right? Anyway, it's only a week now, so asking for a radical change to happen in that time seems unfair. I choose to believe what I was PROGRAMMED to believe!

Naomi Hale Children of New Eden 92	Posted - 2013.05.28 21:31:00 - [91] - Quote People outside this thread still seem upbeat about it, Massively Make of it what you will. Cough 'more user-friendly controls' cough excuse me bad cough I choose to believe what I was PROGRAMMED to believe!
Brooks Puuntai Solar Nexus. 1495	Posted - 2013.05.28 21:32:00 - [92] - Quote Naomi Hale wrote: Raven Solaris wrote: Most of this feedback has been being posted all month. A month? No way, has it been that long since it hit Sisi? Or do you mean it's showing at fanfest... that's about a month ago right? Anyway, it's only a week now, so asking for a radical change to happen in that time seems unfair. The overall exploration changes have been out for about a month, the hacking minigame and pinata about 2 weeks. CCP's Motto: If it isn't broken, break it. If it is broken, ignore it. Idea for Improving NPE.
Raven Solaris The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance 198	Posted - 2013.05.28 21:35:00 - [93] - Quote Naomi Hale wrote: Raven Solaris wrote: Most of this feedback has been being posted all month. A month? No way, has it been that long since it hit Sisi? Or do you mean it's showing at fanfest... that's about a month ago right? Anyway, it's only a week now, so asking for a radical change to happen in that time seems unfair. Month since fanfest, think the Odyssey changes started hitting SiSi around the 8th. Naomi Hale wrote: People outside this thread still seem upbeat about it, Massively Make of it what you will. Cough 'more user-friendly controls' cough excuse me bad cough Problems with the hacking minigame are few and far between, albeit it could stand to be less luck-based. People's problems are with the loot pinata, which that article fails to mention.
Kahns Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore 1	Posted - 2013.05.28 21:43:00 - [94] - Quote Naomi Hale wrote: Anyway, it's only a week now, so asking for a radical change to happen in that time seems unfair. Fixing this doesn't require radical change in a week. I don't think anyone is suggesting that. Things CCP could do, off the top of my head: Take out having to move to get the cans (aka, how it was described at fanfest) get rid of loot pinatas and you get the loot if you solve the hacking within two tries delay just the hacking minigame and cans for changes and leave the old sites for now (people would get over it, it's a free expansion) Make the cans simply appear around you like old cans, you have to access them like old cans before they explode on a timer delay the expansion (CCP only publishes quality and all that) ship it as is but detail planned fixes and not just abandon the feature for some new winter theme I'm not saying that all of these are great options, but saying that the only way to fix the problems brought up is to make radical changes in a week is a straw man argument.
Kahns Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore 1	Posted - 2013.05.28 21:48:00 - [95] - Quote Naomi Hale wrote: People outside this thread still seem upbeat about it, Massively Seriously... you know it's great and people love it because of a preview?
Naomi Hale Children of New Eden 92	Posted - 2013.05.28 21:54:00 - [96] - Quote Kahns wrote: Naomi Hale wrote: People outside this thread still seem upbeat about it, Massively Seriously... you know it's great and people love it because of a preview? It was supposed to be sarcasm (forums need a sarcasm button or font or something). I didn't mean everyone was upbeat but the author of that article certainly is (or paid to be). You seem overly confrontational... perhaps some calming tea or deep slow breaths? I choose to believe what I was PROGRAMMED to believe!
Naomi Hale Children of New Eden 92	Posted - 2013.05.28 22:10:00 - [97] - Quote Kahns wrote: Naomi Hale wrote: Anyway, it's only a week now, so asking for a radical change to happen in that time seems unfair. Fixing this doesn't require radical change in a week. I don't think anyone is suggesting that. Things CCP could do, off the top of my head: Take out having to move to get the cans (aka, how it was described at fanfest) get rid of loot pinatas and you get the loot if you solve the hacking within two tries delay just the hacking minigame and cans for changes and leave the old sites for now (people would get over it, it's a free expansion) Make the cans simply appear around you like old cans, you have to access them like old cans before they explode on a timer delay the expansion (CCP only publishes quality and all that) ship it as is but detail planned fixes and not just abandon the feature for some new winter theme I'm not saying that all of these are great options, but saying that the only way to fix the problems brought up is to make radical changes in a week is a straw man argument. Removing the 'Pinata' is a radical change, time and effort have gone into designing and creating it and your asking them to throw it out before the majority of the player base have tried it. Players that treat EVE as a casual game, rather than invested in it like 'a second job'. Look, I'm disappointed about the new exploration stuff, but I also know that expecting what I want to overrule the game's designers, programmers, artists and animators is unrealistic compared to the (potentially) thousands of players on TQ that may end up liking it. If, in a months time, we see a mass exodus of players from the game because of these features then feel free to send me an 'I told you so' eve-mail. I choose to believe what I was PROGRAMMED to believe!
Kahns Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore 1	Posted - 2013.05.28 22:10:00 - [98] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: I just want to apologise as people seem to have misunderstood my previous post. I was not agreeing that we should ignore feedback and that wasn't what the poster I was quoting meant either. I was agreeing that we were not disheartened. If we didn't care about your feedback I wouldn't be listing a whole bunch of things out, asking for your input and I wouldn't have been active in all the feedback threads on our feature. Sorry if I mistook you. I get now what you meant. And I do agree, Eve is great, CCP obviously cares, we appreciate you being on the forums at all, etc. Just speaking for myself though, I think I was just somewhat frustrated because it feels like this was all kind of rammed into Singularity without enough time for any real meaningful feedback and iteration. If we're just here to make sure it doesn't functionally break, OK, but that kind of sucks in an MMO driven by players with an elected player council. On top of that, some of the problems seem like things that I can't imagine a tester, focus group or hell a programmer wouldn't catch (colorblind issues, getting stuck on stuff, getting loot worse than low level missions, you now have two tractor beams that work two completely different ways without reason or explanation, etc.) CCP Bayesian wrote: You seem overly confrontational... perhaps some calming tea or deep slow breaths? Nah, I just care and refuse to blow smoke up people's asses. It's not great, what can I say? But sure, I'll stop hogging up the thread now, I've made my point as clear as I know how to . CCP-- Please don't abandon this feature on the vine, I like exploration!
Kahns Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore 1	Posted - 2013.05.28 22:12:00 - [99] - Quote Naomi Hale wrote: If, in a months time, we see a mass exodus of players from the game because of these features then feel free to send me an 'I told you so' eve-mail. You loooooooove the strawman arguments
Naomi Hale Children of New Eden 92	Posted - 2013.05.28 22:22:00 - [100] - Quote Kahns wrote: Naomi Hale wrote: If, in a months time, we see a mass exodus of players from the game because of these features then feel free to send me an 'I told you so' eve-mail. You loooooooove the strawman arguments But of course! He's my favourite character from 'The Wonderful Wizard of Oz' as I too lack a brain But the straw man argument being that a lot of people on this thread want the 'Pinata' loot removed? Yes I think I was addressing that. I choose to believe what I was PROGRAMMED to believe!

Mangus Wieland SystemShock 5	Posted - 2013.05.28 22:26:00 - [101] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: For the people saying the 'loot pinata sucks' and the like could you vocalise the problems you have with it? ... In addition to the points mentioned: Exploration income was already random based on finding and scanning down a site and its contents. Now you add another layer of gambling with the RNG when a hacking fail explodes containers. As if that was not enough, we get to play the lottery again with the loot pi+¦ata. Compare that to the target rat, press F1, receive ISK of ratting. This coincides with drastically raising the time spent at a profession site and increasing the visibility of the sites in the overview - both raising the risk explorers have to take.
J3ssica Alba Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 777	Posted - 2013.05.28 23:01:00 - [102] - Quote Naomi Hale wrote: In response to my earlier post, this is more what I would have liked Archaeology to be like... You discover something and scan it Which leads to... Using science and industry skills to study it and narrow down other linked sites so you... Fly there and discover more clues which then goes to... More exploration of New Eden's history, landmarks and scenic vistas and so on and so on, until... The resulting data and notes from your search are turned into interested factions, thus leading to rewards, standing, knowledge and a feeling of accomplishment Added future features... Incarna lab to study discoveries and... Cartography room to view results and plan your next move. (Thanks to CCP, Bioware, Square-Enix and Relic for some of the art) Not suggesting you change the existing idea or implement this, just saying, in an ideal world, this is what I would have liked EVE Achaeology to be like. Do want. Gief nao. Why aren't you working for CCP ? This is my signature. There are many others like it, but this one is mine.-á Without me, my signature is useless. Without my signature, I am useless
Scuzzy Logic Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce 6	Posted - 2013.05.28 23:36:00 - [103] - Quote Naomi Hale wrote: Kahns wrote: Naomi Hale wrote: Anyway, it's only a week now, so asking for a radical change to happen in that time seems unfair. Fixing this doesn't require radical change in a week. I don't think anyone is suggesting that. Things CCP could do, off the top of my head: Take out having to move to get the cans (aka, how it was described at fanfest) get rid of loot pinatas and you get the loot if you solve the hacking within two tries delay just the hacking minigame and cans for changes and leave the old sites for now (people would get over it, it's a free expansion) Make the cans simply appear around you like old cans, you have to access them like old cans before they explode on a timer delay the expansion (CCP only publishes quality and all that) ship it as is but detail planned fixes and not just abandon the feature for some new winter theme I'm not saying that all of these are great options, but saying that the only way to fix the problems brought up is to make radical changes in a week is a straw man argument. Removing the 'Pinata' is a radical change, time and effort have gone into designing and creating it and your asking them to throw it out before the majority of the player base have tried it. Players that treat EVE as a casual game, rather than invested in it like 'a second job'. Look, I'm disappointed about the new exploration stuff, but I also know that expecting what I want to overrule the game's designers, programmers, artists and animators is unrealistic compared to the (potentially) thousands of players on TQ that may end up liking it. If, in a months time, we see a mass exodus of players from the game because of these features then feel free to send me an 'I told you so' eve-mail. For every thousand that like it, a million will hate it. So far the pinata has received a 98% negative feedback with 1.5% of the remainder being indifferent because they find it nifty. As someone whose main job in EVE is to explore during my off hours at work, I hate the feature to the bone. I'm sure a lot of effort went into the Hindenburg, doesn't mean Hydrogen was ever a good idea in a dirigible.
Brooks Puuntai Solar Nexus. 1496	Posted - 2013.05.28 23:38:00 - [104] - Quote J3ssica Alba wrote: Naomi Hale wrote: In response to my earlier post, this is more what I would have liked Archaeology to be like... You discover something and scan it Which leads to... Using science and industry skills to study it and narrow down other linked sites so you... Fly there and discover more clues which then goes to... More exploration of New Eden's history, landmarks and scenic vistas and so on and so on, until... The resulting data and notes from your search are turned into interested factions, thus leading to rewards, standing, knowledge and a feeling of accomplishment Added future features... Incarna lab to study discoveries and... Cartography room to view results and plan your next move. (Thanks to CCP, Bioware, Square-Enix and Relic for some of the art) Not suggesting you change the existing idea or implement this, just saying, in an ideal world, this is what I would have liked EVE Achaeology to be like. Do want. Gief nao. Why aren't you working for CCP ? Actually quite mad I overlooked that post. That is how it should be, however it seems too complex for CCP to be willing to do. Since CCP has given up being innovative it seems. CCP's Motto: If it isn't broken, break it. If it is broken, ignore it. Idea for Improving NPE.
Karsa Egivand Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 192	Posted - 2013.05.28 23:41:00 - [105] - Quote Scuzzy Logic wrote: As much as I normally hate stacking forum posts. I feel forced to do so because exploration is my primary ISK source. The can loss pretty much kills the profession as it stands because solo pilots get too little and it pushes amall gang structure. However, a small gang would make more isk per hour doing L4s or even just nullsec ratting. There are very valid critcisms of loot pinata, but income isn't one of them. Why? The market sets the prices for the items got by archeology/hacking (many of which are unique to the profession). Which means that more or less loot recovered means lower or higher prices for the indivual items. Overall, this will tend to approach a certain ISK/hour. Acutally, less loot dropped is probably beneficial for the profession, as it can lead to some specific bottlenecks (lets say with invention), driving prices up more than needed to compensate. If the looted amount drops, prices will rise, meaning you still get roughly the same ISK/hour. Usually, you should be worried about too much dropping... Now, regarding solo vs. groups: If group-explorations becomes a significant thing, then yes, it'll hurt the ISK/hour of solo players. But, as you noted, almost all professions scale with the amount of players, and exploration should't be better than most (actually, it'll be quite a bit worse), so I don't expect much group-exploration (because running missions, etc., will usually beat it ISK/hour&account). So the market will adapt to the amount of loot recovered / hour by a solo explorer. Meaning: income will be fine. Doesn't mean the loot spew isn't somewhat unattractive in other ways (basically FEELING like you are losing out on sth., like you are apparently feeling - even though obj. it doesn't make much of a difference because it effects all players).
Scuzzy Logic Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce 6	Posted - 2013.05.28 23:43:00 - [106] - Quote Brooks Puuntai wrote: One thing I do have to commend CCP about, is there unrelenting stubbornness over a ~~prototype~~ feature that is almost universally disliked. E: Also could you remove this thread from being stickied? It is jammed up with the rest of stickies which I'm sure many people ignore by this point. It will remain at the top, similar to the other one(this section isn't that active tbh). I agree. I get irritated at CCP completely trashing my 'Geddon, but I didn't feel this roused up over anything in the game since the LP exploits were pointed out and CCP took over 14 days to patch them. CCP is hell-bent on making sure flying solo is always unviable in EVE because the CSM never has an independent elected. If the next winter expansion kills WH-solo gas mining, I'm gone. Especially since mining Arknor in the now easily scannable belts is suicide. To CCP: The minigame is good, but needs tweaking. The playerbase hates the pinata. Understand that.
Scuzzy Logic Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce 6	Posted - 2013.05.28 23:48:00 - [107] - Quote Vincent Athena wrote: CCP Bayesian wrote: ......If we didn't care about your feedback I wouldn't be listing a whole bunch of things out, asking for your input and I wouldn't have been active in all the feedback threads on our feature. There is another reason to be active in a feedback thread other than caring about the feedback. Its to make it look like you care so you can wave a "We Care!" flag. How to tell the difference? By what actually gets deployed on June 4th. If its the same features as were on Sisi, then we know you are here "asking for input" for the one and only purpose of shutting people up, and you place zero value on the opinions of your customers. If the features have been changed to reflect the feedback we gave, then you are right and you are respecting to what we have to say and assuming it is important enough to change what you do. Remember: We watch what you do, not what you say. You know, as much as I like to whine in my current rage-filled state (induced by losing cans I know should have at least 2 BPCs), your post sums up my sober feelings about this forum and CCP as a whole right now.
Scuzzy Logic Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce 6	Posted - 2013.05.28 23:52:00 - [108] - Quote Naomi Hale wrote: Vincent Athena wrote: There is another reason to be active in a feedback thread other than caring about the feedback. Its to make it look like you care so you can wave a "We Care!" flag. How to tell the difference? By what actually gets deployed on June 4th. If its the same features as were on Sisi, then we know you are here "asking for input" for the one and only purpose of shutting people up, and you place zero value on the opinions of your customers. If the features have been changed to reflect the feedback we gave, then you are right and you are respecting to what we have to say and assuming it is important enough to change what you do. Remember: We watch what you do, not what you say. Okay, first, that's a real creepy post right there. Second, They have only a week before Odyssey's launch, what do you want them to do? I've said before, I'll say again, accurate feedback won't come until they release it on TQ and have a larger sample size. It's quite simple, really: Remove the pinata entirely, or have the pinata only shoot out 1 can per type of good (I only ever saw 3 differently named can types) and have us choose what we pick up. It's fairly easy to code, considering how quickly they changed it from the first wave.
Karsa Egivand Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 192	Posted - 2013.05.28 23:54:00 - [109] - Quote Scuzzy Logic wrote: CCP is hell-bent on making sure flying solo is always unviable in EVE because the CSM never has an independent elected. If the next winter expansion kills WH-solo gas mining, I'm gone. Especially since mining Arknor in the now easily scannable belts is suicide. To CCP: The minigame is good, but needs tweaking. The playerbase hates the pinata. Understand that. The pinata DOESN'T nerf solo income, read my post above. If you still disagree, I am happy to elaborate. The TLDR-version: ISK/hour is market-based. Groups have other income that scales better per player/account. Therefore exploration income is still set by the market based on solo-explorer loot recovery. It DOES favor the guy who can figure out how to get most cans, though.
Scuzzy Logic Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce 6	Posted - 2013.05.28 23:56:00 - [110] - Quote Naomi Hale wrote: Scuzzy Logic wrote: You know, THIS is what I was expecting. Sure, the hacking minigame isn't all bad. (The pinata, however, IS.) I'd expect this to be how Archaeology should function. It would make RPers much more heppy, too. it's to bad you didn't make this your CSM platform, I'd have liquidated anyone who'd have run against you for free because of how much I like the idea. But, I suspect then only you and I would be playing the game. (As always, I'm saddened by how little response I get when I post mock-ups, concepts and ideas. Which leads me to believe they are terrible feel free to laugh at my tears.) YOu'd be surprised. Many people came back to WoW just to play the Archaeology minigame profession even if it is long, tedious and less rewarding then doing dungeons just because they like it. As a matter of fact, I love the hacking minigame (except when it has unwinnable maps with max skills+gear). I just think that archaeology as it was described would brong back the alienated RP crowd back to life alogn with offering players much mroe options. Thats wy I was a big supporter of PI, because it's an option.

Karsa Egivand Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 192	Posted - 2013.05.28 23:59:00 - [111] - Quote Scuzzy Logic wrote: YOu'd be surprised. Many people came back to WoW just to play the Archaeology minigame profession even if it is long, tedious and less rewarding then doing dungeons just because they like it. As a matter of fact, I love the hacking minigame (except when it has unwinnable maps with max skills+gear). I just think that archaeology as it was described would brong back the alienated RP crowd back to life alogn with offering players much mroe options. Thats wy I was a big supporter of PI, because it's an option. Even if we disagree on the loot-pinata (solo-income) issue - even though I hope I can convince you - I agree with you there. The mini game is a good fit for hacking, but it would be nice if Archeology had a different "mini-game" that felt a bit more explorer-like (involving travel most certainly).
Davion Falcon Those Once Loyal 55	Posted - 2013.05.29 00:03:00 - [112] - Quote Naomi Hale wrote: In response to my earlier post, this is more what I would have liked Archaeology to be like... You discover something and scan it Which leads to... Using science and industry skills to study it and narrow down other linked sites so you... Fly there and discover more clues which then goes to... More exploration of New Eden's history, landmarks and scenic vistas and so on and so on, until... The resulting data and notes from your search are turned into interested factions, thus leading to rewards, standing, knowledge and a feeling of accomplishment Added future features... Incarna lab to study discoveries and... Cartography room to view results and plan your next move. (Thanks to CCP, Bioware, Square-Enix and Relic for some of the art) Not suggesting you change the existing idea or implement this, just saying, in an ideal world, this is what I would have liked EVE Achaeology to be like. Now this sounds friggin ace right here. Ruthlessness is the kindness of the wise. Never forgotten, never forgiven.
Scuzzy Logic Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce 6	Posted - 2013.05.29 00:04:00 - [113] - Quote Karsa Egivand wrote: Scuzzy Logic wrote: CCP is hell-bent on making sure flying solo is always unviable in EVE because the CSM never has an independent elected. If the next winter expansion kills WH-solo gas mining, I'm gone. Especially since mining Arknor in the now easily scannable belts is suicide. To CCP: The minigame is good, but needs tweaking. The playerbase hates the pinata. Understand that. The pinata DOESN'T nerf solo income, read my post above. If you still disagree, I am happy to elaborate. The TLDR-version: ISK/hour is market-based. Groups have other income that scales better per player/account. Therefore exploration income is still set by the market based on solo-explorer loot recovery. It DOES favor the guy who can figure out how to get more cans, though (but I don't think there'll be much difference). The Pinata can also make you FEEL as if you have lost income (the vanishing cans), but as that happen to all players it doesn't effect prices negatively - it sill FEELS sucky though.
Manssell OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate 177	Posted - 2013.05.29 00:13:00 - [114] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: I just want to apologise as people seem to have misunderstood my previous post. I was not agreeing that we should ignore feedback and that wasn't what the poster I was quoting meant either. I was agreeing that we were not disheartened. If we didn't care about your feedback I wouldn't be listing a whole bunch of things out, asking for your input and I wouldn't have been active in all the feedback threads on our feature. Sorry if i misunderstood you. As Omnathious Deninard said it seemed you where agreeing with a different sentiment.
Karsa Egivand Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 192	Posted - 2013.05.29 00:19:00 - [115] - Quote Scuzzy Logic wrote: No, having a non-scaling profession scale with people always hurts the solo player. Exploration has always been a scaling profession, even now your income does take that into account. Even now you obviously get more total income if you do exploration as a group (either by doing the sites faster with more DPS or doing more than one site in parallel). So more people/accounts running exploration now means lower loot prices. I don't see a change insofar. So, more accounts will get more total income after the expansion as well, but I don't see that it scales better for the group than it does now. Actually I think they'll get less ISK/hour&account (e.g. not scaling linearly) beyond two accounts (well, they can simply do the sites in parallel, but that's like it always has been). And for two accounts it'll be double the total income which is okay and just as it is now. It simply doesn't deviate much from linear scalinging. Scuzzy Logic wrote: But having the OPTION of guaranteeing that BPC drop gives the advantage to corps as the prices would scale down with there being more BPCs on the market. Hurting the little guy and quartering his isk income. They cannot guarantee that without actually having the other accounts present, so there ISK/(hour*account) won't be higher. Guaranteeing the BPC drop with more accounts doesn't in the long run change that, as a solo-explorer will get a respective chance for every site done. Again, the TOTAL income will always be higher for multiple accounts, but that guaranteed BPC income needs to be split for the relative income. TLDR: Absolute income (loot got per time) scales roughly the same as it did before.
Scuzzy Logic Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce 6	Posted - 2013.05.29 00:27:00 - [116] - Quote Karsa Egivand wrote: Scuzzy Logic wrote: YOu'd be surprised. Many people came back to WoW just to play the Archaeology minigame profession even if it is long, tedious and less rewarding then doing dungeons just because they like it. As a matter of fact, I love the hacking minigame (except when it has unwinnable maps with max skills+gear). I just think that archaeology as it was described would brong back the alienated RP crowd back to life alogn with offering players much mroe options. Thats wy I was a big supporter of PI, because it's an option. Even if we disagree on the loot-pinata (solo-income) issue - even though I hope I can convince you - I agree with you there. The mini game is a good fit for hacking, but it would be nice if Archeology had a different "mini-game" that felt a bit more explorer-like (involving travel most certainly). Y'know, if Naomi's idea or anything remotely similar ever happens, I'd let CCP have the extremely-unreliable-yet-potentially-profitable lottery that is pinata hacking. It's just that, as-is, I see my only option is to group with 2 other corpmates because I know I'm losing the good BPOs and only so many Radar sites spawn in my little NPC Nullsec pocket on a given day.
Scuzzy Logic Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce 6	Posted - 2013.05.29 00:30:00 - [117] - Quote Karsa Egivand wrote: Guaranteeing the BPC drop with more accounts doesn't in the long run change that, as a solo-explorer will get a respective chance for every site done. Again, the TOTAL income will always be higher for multiple accounts, but that guaranteed BPC income needs to be split for the relative income if you take the number of people/accounts into account. TLDR: Absolute income (loot got per time) scales roughly the same as it did before for mulitple people/accounts. ISK/(hour&account) shouldn't change due to loot pinata for solo vs. group. What you're not taking into account here is that the supply of radar sites between downtimes is limited. And it is overall more profitable to do so in a gorup than solo under the proposed system. Especially on a per-sovereign-system basis for null corps. As it stands on SiSi my corpmates won't let me solo the sites because they KNOW I'll be wasting 1/3 of the loot on every timer. I do agree that the isk/hour for highsec solo probers will likely remain the same, though.
Karsa Egivand Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 192	Posted - 2013.05.29 00:35:00 - [118] - Quote Scuzzy Logic wrote: ... I'd let CCP have the extremely-unreliable-yet-potentially-profitable lottery that is pinata hacking. It's just that, as-is, I see my only option is to group with 2 other corpmates because I know I'm losing the good BPOs and only so many Radar sites spawn in my little NPC Nullsec pocket on a given day. But ... lets say your chance of getting the nice blueprint is 33% per site (because each site drops one and you can scoop a third of the cans). You run 30 sites in two weeks. You'll get aprox. 10 of those blueprints. Now you run the same 30 sites with 3 accounts/persons. You'll get all 30 blueprints, but you also invested three times the person/account-time (roughly). Or put another way, you still get the same 10 blueprints/account in a similiar amount of time.
Karsa Egivand Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 192	Posted - 2013.05.29 00:38:00 - [119] - Quote Scuzzy Logic wrote: Karsa Egivand wrote: Guaranteeing the BPC drop with more accounts doesn't in the long run change that, as a solo-explorer will get a respective chance for every site done. Again, the TOTAL income will always be higher for multiple accounts, but that guaranteed BPC income needs to be split for the relative income if you take the number of people/accounts into account. TLDR: Absolute income (loot got per time) scales roughly the same as it did before for mulitple people/accounts. ISK/(hour&account) shouldn't change due to loot pinata for solo vs. group. What you're not taking into account here is that the supply of radar sites between downtimes is limited. And it is overall more profitable to do so in a gorup than solo under the proposed system. Especially on a per-sovereign-system basis for null corps. As it stands on SiSi my corpmates won't let me solo the sites because they KNOW I'll be wasting 1/3 of the loot on every timer. I do agree that the isk/hour for highsec solo probers will likely remain the same, though. Okay, now I am starting to get what you are getting at. You are talking about limited supply of sites (while I mostly assumed a limited amount of time). Probably a function of where you live and explore & your game-time (me: lowsec, not that much time). Assuming limited amount of sites to explore, running it in groups will be a good idea, yes. But I don't think that'll apply for most explorers, so I'd assume the prices will be mostly set by solo-explorers. I suspect solo income won't change much even for your case (in terms of ISK), but if run in groups ISK-income should rise for that limited site-supply pocket in null/wspace(?) Therefore you might feel forced/pressured to run those limited sites as a group, to make the most of it.
Scuzzy Logic Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce 8	Posted - 2013.05.29 00:57:00 - [120] - Quote Karsa Egivand wrote: Scuzzy Logic wrote: Karsa Egivand wrote: Guaranteeing the BPC drop with more accounts doesn't in the long run change that, as a solo-explorer will get a respective chance for every site done. Again, the TOTAL income will always be higher for multiple accounts, but that guaranteed BPC income needs to be split for the relative income if you take the number of people/accounts into account. TLDR: Absolute income (loot got per time) scales roughly the same as it did before for mulitple people/accounts. ISK/(hour&account) shouldn't change due to loot pinata for solo vs. group. What you're not taking into account here is that the supply of radar sites between downtimes is limited. And it is overall more profitable to do so in a gorup than solo under the proposed system. Especially on a per-sovereign-system basis for null corps. As it stands on SiSi my corpmates won't let me solo the sites because they KNOW I'll be wasting 1/3 of the loot on every timer. I do agree that the isk/hour for highsec solo probers will likely remain the same, though. Okay, now I am starting to get what you are getting at. You are talking about limited supply of sites (while I mostly assumed a limited amount of time). Probably a function of where you live and explore & your game-time (me: lowsec, not that much time). Assuming limited amount of sites to explore, running it in groups will be a good idea, yes. But I don't think that'll apply for most explorers, so I'd assume the prices will be mostly set by solo-explorers. I suspect solo income won't change much even for your case (in terms of ISK), but if run in groups ISK-income should rise for that limited site-supply pocket in null/wspace(?) Therefore you might feel forced/pressured to run those limited sites as a group, to make the most of it. Exactly, if you have enough time to, say, do every site in Fountain well odds are people will cringe at the fact you wasted all the timers for 1/3 of the drops. It's fine and dandy for the people with a lot of room to wander about. But for people like me who only have about 10-or-so non-WH NPC systems out in Null to loot the uneasy truce we have with the explorers and miners to keep the area supplied will now exclude the former. Now if you scale this to small alliances with only 2-3 SOV systems, things will heat up. Even more so in wormhole corps. EDIT: Also, if by feeling forced you mean podded and kicked form the corp if they catch you, you're right.

Johan Toralen Clockwork X3 72	Posted - 2013.05.29 01:03:00 - [121] - Quote Since we're talking about income i must say so far my average is below TQ. Having run a couple more sites today in low and null, despite getting a bit better at the pinata i average about 40m in nullsec (best was 84m) and 10m in low sec (best around 20m). I know its hard to put a number on random income like exploration. But from what i've heard about nullsec and my own experience with low sec exploration the numbers don't add up yet. And truth be told i'll not be happy with the income even if it reaches pre-Odyssey levels given the hassle of doing them and something i'm about to explain: Profession sites used to be more of a bonus. You did them on the side when you stumpled upon them, either quickly refitting your ship or using a all in one fit to run both exploration and combat sites. Perhaps for newer chars it was a bit different. With Odyssey it goes now in a direction where the profession sites become more specialiced. To master the hacking game and loot spew you'll want a ship that is maxed out for the job. Rigs, mods, perhaps a hacking implant for your char. Multiple tractor beams in the hi slots and a fit for insta locking helps a lot with the loot pinata (something i learned today). So it goes in a direction where you have to chose between profession and combat sites. The thing is as it stands now ther's still a lot more isk to be made in combat sites. Enough people manage to have an income in the billions per week. For profession sites on the other hand you're probably gonna count in tens or hundreds of millions instead. Some lucky fellas will get the pos bpc but in the newest dev blog it's decribed as a very very rare drop. So i doubt its close anywhere near the probability of a good drop in a combat site. If profession sites are supposed to be their own thing then it should pay off to specialice in them. Perhaps not quite as good as combat sites but definitely closer then what it used and is right now. Otherwise i see it drifting into obscurity. For older players it doesn't pay well enough, newer players will stick to for a while maybe then move on. Karsa Egivand has a point about the market making the prices. So just putting more salvage, decryptors and datacores in will have a negative effect. Instead loot needs to be spiced up with a wide variety of things and different loot tables in different parts of the game world. I'm not sure with what exactly the loot tables could be spiced up. Perhaps more pirate bpc's. maybe cosmos stuff? It's so obscure right now. With better supply for the materials and bpc's whole new markets could evolve from it.
Scuzzy Logic Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce 8	Posted - 2013.05.29 01:09:00 - [122] - Quote Johan Toralen wrote: Since we're talking about income i must say so far my average is below TQ. Having run a couple more sites today in low and null, despite getting a bit better at the pinata i average about 40m in nullsec (best was 84m) and 10m in low sec (best around 20m). I know its hard to put a number on random income like exploration. But from what i've heard about nullsec and my own experience with low sec exploration the numbers don't add up yet. And truth be told i'll not be happy with the income even if it reaches pre-Odyssey levels given the hassle of doing them and something i'm about to explain: Profession sites used to be more of a bonus. You did them on the side when you stumpled upon them, either quickly refitting your ship or using a all in one fit to run both exploration and combat sites. Perhaps for newer chars it was a bit different. With Odyssey it goes now in a direction where the profession sites become more specialiced. To master the hacking game and loot spew you'll want a ship that is maxed out for the job. Rigs, mods, perhaps a hacking implant for your char. Multiple tractor beams in the hi slots and a fit for insta locking helps a lot with the loot pinata (something i learned today). So it goes in a direction where you have to chose between profession and combat sites. The thing is as it stands now ther's still a lot more isk to be made in combat sites. Enough people manage to have an income in the billions per week. For profession sites on the other hand you're probably gonna count in tens or hundreds of millions instead. Some lucky fellas will get the pos bpc but in the newest dev blog it's decribed as a very very rare drop. So i doubt its close anywhere near the probability of a good drop in a combat site. If profession sites are supposed to be their own thing then it should pay off to specialice in them. Perhaps not quite as good as combat sites but definitely closer then what it used and is right now. Otherwise i see it drifting into obscurity. For older players it doesn't pay well enough, newer players will stick to for a while maybe then move on. Karsa Egivand has a point about the market making the prices. So just putting more salvage, decryptors and datacores in will have a negative effect. Instead loot needs to be spiced up with a wide variety of things and different loot tables in different parts of the game world. I'm not sure with what exactly the loot tables could be spiced up. Perhaps more pirate bpc's. maybe cosmos stuff? It's so obscure right now. With better supply for the materials and bpc's whole new markets could evolve from it. Thats another gripe I have. The isk/hour might eventually round out to be the same, but it is now significaly harder and requires more gear and skills to do what I currently do properly with L4 hacking and L5 probing skills in a T1 frig that costs me 20m to replace (if rigged and podded with the new clone costs). EDIT: Although SiSi prices usually don't stand up to scrutiny, I estimate it will cost me 45-50mil ISK to replace my current tractor-instalock-hacking frig with no defense mods or cloak...
Johan Toralen Clockwork X3 72	Posted - 2013.05.29 01:50:00 - [123] - Quote http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Hidden_Ruins This site hasn't been replaced with a new one. Got it as a relic site in nullsec. Was a bit surprising to get welcome by 3 battleships after warping to it.
Naren Vintas Space Busters 9	Posted - 2013.05.29 02:40:00 - [124] - Quote I'm sorry, it seems that you guys got new thread for the feedback. I already gave you one, but since you ask for another one from after certain date... and since my feedback does not change by any recent changes... let me quote myself. Naren Vintas wrote: It's been said many times before, but I need to say it myself. Here's my individual feedback on the new "exploring". Needless to say, I like the idea behind the hacking minigame. It's something new, and has some potential. Although it's not very eve-like. It can get frustrating a bit at times, but overall it's some nice change, for me, personally. There's something in successfully hacking the site. But in the success lies the greatest failure of this new idea: can spewing. What's wrong with can spewing? Why do I consider it a failure? - Of all things, it definitely is not enjoyable and feels more like a punishment than reward. You have to click the tiny icons on screen that jump chaotically around and get further and further away from the ship. - Unlike pretty much everything else clickable in space, these loot cans are the only thing that cannot be added to an overview. This is a major drawback. - You can't really see whether you are already tracking the can into your bay, or not. You can't really see, whether you can proceed to the next. - The collision with the environment can make it nigh impossible to actually catch any container. Congratulations! You've hacked tremendously hard site. Now it's going to spew out cans in such way, that you won't catch any of them. - Loot in these containers is often crap. - Even should I bring a friend, or a dozen, it will not make it any more pleasant. I understand that you want to have players do something nicer for a change than just staring at their overview, issuing orbit/approach commands and activating modules. Hacking minigame is actually something that works and can be enjoyable. Alas! believe me, container spewing is not something I am willing to accept. You guys at CCP seem pretty adamant at keeping the mechanic in the game, despite a lot of negative feedback towards it. Please do listen to the players and review the idea from scratch. If you really want to keep it in, make it a failure proc, and not result of a successful hack. Reducing the amount of cans spewed and/or increasing their lifetime is not going to help either. The whole idea should be scrapped. I realize that Odyssey deadline is almost here. But I'd rather have one feature less/postponed, than a crappy feature on time. On a side note: I wouldn't call this "exploring" or "exploration sites". It has nothing to do with exploring, really. Just some treasure hunting. That's what it should be called. Treasure Hunting professions. Definately not Exploration. I don't feel like I'm exploring anything. That is all from me for now. Hope the feedback comes useful. Now. One way or another, all my points still stand. Every single thing about can spewage, stands to this moment. Now, let me make it clear. I have done more "exploration" sites between my last feedback and now... and it sure does not change a single bit for me. Looking at this very thread here, I can see that many people complain about excessive clicking for the Hacking minigame itself. It's not bad... but wait. We've got more clicking ahead of us even after we successfully complete the hacking minigame! Thus, the point of Can Spewage feeling more like punishment for failure than reward of success... stands. Let me re-quote, and highlight the most important issue: CCP Bayesian wrote: For the people saying the 'loot pinata sucks' and the like could you vocalise the problems you have with it? So far I've collated: - It's not the way EVE has previously worked. - Collision is a pain, both with the size of the Data Sites and the positioning of some containers. - Picking can be difficult if you're not using a mouse. - Picking can be difficult if you're blinded by the site contents. - Loot haul seems low in comparison with how it was before. - Losing cans feels bad, particular after the effort of having to hack the container. This makes it feel like a penalty. - Not knowing what is any particular can so it feels bad not being able to make good choices. - The 'bad loot' is far too bulky so it is excessively penalising as you have to stop and sort it out. I am very glad that you folks come to realize that. But let me make it clear: It's not that I/we feel bad about losing cans. It's that I feel bad about something I theoretically already would have otherwise won (given both the current way the TQ works, and the plain common sense). And of course, picking cans is hard with all the other issues, like not knowing what's in cans, or collision issues. But solving those will not solve the issue of can spewage still feeling like a punishment. Let me ask you a serious question: We successfully hack the site. In current TQ version of hacking, the successful attempt unlocks the container, so that you can loot it. Now... with Odyssey, you actually made the hacking more 'entertaining' (or at least less of a "click and wait"). But you also broke logic of accessing the loot. What is it that makes the cans spew out? In my reasoning, I hacked the container's seal to access and open container to loot it. I did not whack the container with a hammer so it can spew all the contents out. Maybe I should've just shot it instead and hope for same result? Thus a plea: if you really want to keep the can spewage in the game that feels like a punishment... make it be a punishment for failure, not a "reward" for success.
Sorcha Lothain Vogon Galactic Construction 0	Posted - 2013.05.29 04:11:00 - [125] - Quote I think the idea of making "loot pinata" a punishment for a failed hacking/archaeology attempt is an excellent idea. Having something blow up in your face is usually a bad thing. It seems really, really, odd as a reward. If you successfully hack the site you get everything in the can. If you fail you get "loot pinata" AND everything else that comes with a failed attempt (e.g. rats, explosive traps). I guess from a pvp or loot ninja's perspective having the can explode with every success is a good thing.
Scuzzy Logic Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce 8	Posted - 2013.05.29 04:47:00 - [126] - Quote Sorcha Lothain wrote: I think the idea of making "loot pinata" a punishment for a failed hacking/archaeology attempt is an excellent idea. Having something blow up in your face is usually a bad thing. It seems really, really, odd as a reward. If you successfully hack the site you get everything in the can. If you fail you get "loot pinata" AND everything else that comes with a failed attempt (e.g. rats, explosive traps). I guess from a pvp or loot ninja's perspective having the can explode with every success is a good thing. I agree. In fact, having Loot Pinata for a few other things like when destroying very large structures would be fine. Hell, CCP should introduce a loot pinata when someone destroys an asteroid with a capital weapon. But as it stands, it does and will feel like a punishment.
Sorcha Lothain Vogon Galactic Construction 0	Posted - 2013.05.29 05:07:00 - [127] - Quote Scuzzy Logic wrote: Sorcha Lothain wrote: I think the idea of making "loot pinata" a punishment for a failed hacking/archaeology attempt is an excellent idea. Having something blow up in your face is usually a bad thing. It seems really, really, odd as a reward. If you successfully hack the site you get everything in the can. If you fail you get "loot pinata" AND everything else that comes with a failed attempt (e.g. rats, explosive traps). I guess from a pvp or loot ninja's perspective having the can explode with every success is a good thing. I agree. In fact, having Loot Pinata for a few other things like when destroying very large structures would be fine. Hell, CCP should introduce a loot pinata when someone destroys an asteroid with a capital weapon. But as it stands, it does and will feel like a punishment. Heh, it could work for asteroids too, but only if it switches to a mini game of the classic arcade game of Asteroids.
Kern Hotha 41	Posted - 2013.05.29 05:20:00 - [128] - Quote It looks like you're going to change profession sites to be boring and unpleasant whether we complain or not. I'm just going to avoid them and hope that eventually you can come up with something enjoyable in the future. Here's an experienced explorer (JonnyPew) running a data site and not enjoying it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfHIMb4VM9E And here he is running a relic site and not enjoying it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qo81Y79558 To be pleased with one's limits is a wretched state. -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Scuzzy Logic Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce 8	Posted - 2013.05.29 05:28:00 - [129] - Quote Sorcha Lothain wrote: Scuzzy Logic wrote: Sorcha Lothain wrote: I think the idea of making "loot pinata" a punishment for a failed hacking/archaeology attempt is an excellent idea. Having something blow up in your face is usually a bad thing. It seems really, really, odd as a reward. If you successfully hack the site you get everything in the can. If you fail you get "loot pinata" AND everything else that comes with a failed attempt (e.g. rats, explosive traps). I guess from a pvp or loot ninja's perspective having the can explode with every success is a good thing. I agree. In fact, having Loot Pinata for a few other things like when destroying very large structures would be fine. Hell, CCP should introduce a loot pinata when someone destroys an asteroid with a capital weapon. But as it stands, it does and will feel like a punishment. Heh, it could work for asteroids too, but only if it switches to a mini game of the classic arcade game of Asteroids. Only if the little triangle pointer is transfomed into the mighty Veldnought.
Xanadu Redux Small Target 0	Posted - 2013.05.29 05:40:00 - [130] - Quote Reformatted from another thread: Aside from the difference to current exploration sites, look at the other mainstay loot mechanism: When I shoot a rat (or someone shoots me ) wreckage is left behind based on ship components and a cargo manifest. cans from these new sites spew loot - wreckage does not cans are not owned by the hacker / fleet / corp - wreckage is cans last seconds - wreckage lasts an hour an exploding ship can potentially be rewarded twice over (loot and salvage) - these sites have diminishing returns based on time Another rub for me is there are any number of ways to blow up rats/players. Exploration skills are finite and tightly focused whereas combat skills are extremely broad in scope. This mechanism feels like a punishment for explorers when compared to combat oriented loot generation.

Sorcha Lothain Vogon Galactic Construction 0	Posted - 2013.05.29 06:06:00 - [131] - Quote Also, this doesn't have to be a "you can't lose" scenario as I'm fine with hacking the occasional empty can. Perhaps make it a chance to either spew loot, completely lock you out, summon rats, or whatever else would be a proper punishment. Bringing friends is still helpful as you can have someone to help loot or cover you from rats when you fail. I'm still a fairly new player to this game, but I will argue that there are virtually no situations where bringing friends is a bad idea.
Naomi Hale Children of New Eden 98	Posted - 2013.05.29 06:47:00 - [132] - Quote J3ssica Alba wrote: Do want. Gief nao. Why aren't you working for CCP ? Thanks. I think it's because there is a massive difference between making designed content and some quick mock-ups in photoshop. Brooks Puuntai wrote: Actually quite mad I overlooked that post. That is how it should be, however it seems too complex for CCP to be willing to do. Since CCP has given up being innovative it seems. Davion Falcon wrote: Now this sounds friggin ace right here. Thanks CCP Affinity wrote: Hi, This feedback thread is for the hacking and archaeology sites by Team Prototype Rocks - keep feedback on the scattering mechanic, site layout, hacking minigame please :) We have taken your feedback on board and made some changes to the pace of the feature and the loot amounts within the scattering. It would be great to get your feedback on the updated version on SISI - both from the mass test today and from playing the sites yourselves. Please keep the feedback constructive and give specific examples/suggestions to help us fully understand any concerns you may have. Bit off topic. Could we get a practise hacking panel in the Captain's Quarters, no rewards, just maybe flicker the light or a message from station maintenance to 'stop doing that'. I'd like playing it as a game, like that strategy game that was shown for Incarna. (How do you add big puppy dog eyes to a forum post?) I choose to believe what I was PROGRAMMED to believe!
Sheena Tzash Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 25	Posted - 2013.05.29 07:57:00 - [133] - Quote So what is the plan CCP? You've released a dev blog explaining about the exploration changes and two threads full of people saying that they don't like it. Is anything being done or planned to be done with the feedback we've provided? Has the CSM been made aware that this is a potential raging issue that needs to be looked at before its too late?
Nar Tha Neural-Boost.com 123	Posted - 2013.05.29 08:00:00 - [134] - Quote Hi. I have two questions. 1) Will there still be ladar sites with hacking containers in them? (The pirate gas facility sites.) 2) I assume this is to make testing on SiSi easier and will be changed for Tranquility but because the containers are all stacked up on each other the art for them is clipping in each other multiple times, which looks awkward. Is this on purpose or going to be changed before going live?
James Amril-Kesh 4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance 5260	Posted - 2013.05.29 08:09:00 - [135] - Quote Naomi Hale wrote: Second, They have only a week before Odyssey's launch, what do you want them to do? Well if it were up to me they'd push back the launch until they got it right. I've done my share of defending the hacking and loot system, but that was really just me trying to convince myself that it was a good system. In all honesty it's a total piece of crap. Hacking at the moment is extremely difficult (at least in nullsec) which alone brings down the isk efficiency, then on top of that you have the loot spew mechanic which brings things down even further. The loot is absolute **, the hacking is far too much about luck and the odds are stacked against you, the loot is , the spew mechanic means that even if you successfully hack a can you still don't necessarily get the loot unless you're in a fast ship, gave great eyesight and no colorblindness, have a high-end gaming mouse, have a fast internet connection, have excellent reflexes and hand-eye coordination, have a large monitor, and/or bring a friend who spends 80% of his time sitting on his hands feeling incredibly bored and the rest frustrated at chasing after cans, and oh, did I mention that the loot is absolute **? -áMy (mostly boring) Youtube channel.
James Amril-Kesh 4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance 5260	Posted - 2013.05.29 08:11:00 - [136] - Quote There are some really good parts to this expansion. This expansion, however, is about exploration, and it utterly fails at making exploration any more worthwhile of a profession than it currently is. Most of the people who will try exploration as a result of this expansion will quickly become frustrated and give up because the mechanics are still absolutely awful. The entire thing is a rushed, botched job. -áMy (mostly boring) Youtube channel.
Tsubutai Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 207	Posted - 2013.05.29 08:49:00 - [137] - Quote The Regional Blood Raider Data Processing Center data site in blood raider lowsec seems to have a major design flaw: all of the cans are located inside a very large cross-shaped asteroid, which makes it impossible to collect loot without approaching the site from a very specific angle. The congestion in the site is so severe that the loot cans were bouncing around like pinballs after being ejected following a successful hack. Here's a picture that shows the position of the hacking cans inside the asteroid: http://i.imgur.com/YLf4OZn.png Ran a few more data and relic sites in blood raider lowsec using a heron (virus coherence/strength = 135/40). The four data sites I did (Blood Raider Data Mining Site/Data Processing Center/Command Center/Regional Backup Server) dropped around 90m of loot plus a few BPCs that the game doesn't value properly; each site took around 10 minutes to hack and loot. I was easily able to hack everything at the first time of asking, and got 80-90% of the spew cans. That seems OK-ish, although nothing like so good as nullsec sites. The two relic sites (Decayed Blood Raider Particle Accelerator/Collision Site) dropped around 4m of T1 and T2 salvage with no other loot of note, which seems like a rather poor return for around 15 minutes of hacking and looting. Obviously, it's possible that this just means that the random number generator wasn't feeling nice this morning, but it may be worth having another look at the lowsec relic loot tables.
Chi'Nane T'Kal Interminatus Aeterna Anima 83	Posted - 2013.05.29 08:55:00 - [138] - Quote The hacking minigame does have potential, it probably just needs some finetuning and maybe some additional features - for example some visibility of the general layout based on hacking skills. The spew mechanism is simply awful, though. It should be used purely as a punishment for failed hacking attempts.
Omnathious Deninard The Scope Gallente Federation 1074	Posted - 2013.05.29 10:54:00 - [139] - Quote Sorcha Lothain wrote: I think the idea of making "loot pinata" a punishment for a failed hacking/archaeology attempt is an excellent idea. Having something blow up in your face is usually a bad thing. It seems really, really, odd as a reward. If you successfully hack the site you get everything in the can. If you fail you get "loot pinata" AND everything else that comes with a failed attempt (e.g. rats, explosive traps). I guess from a pvp or loot ninja's perspective having the can explode with every success is a good thing. Why should you have your cake and eat it too? Loot pi+¦ata as a failure mechinac defeats the purpose of the mini game and any player skill/luck in exploration and will only glorify blobing in even more areas of the game. Ideas For Drone Improvement Repourpose Deep Space Scanner Probes
Scuzzy Logic Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce 13	Posted - 2013.05.29 11:52:00 - [140] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: Sorcha Lothain wrote: I think the idea of making "loot pinata" a punishment for a failed hacking/archaeology attempt is an excellent idea. Having something blow up in your face is usually a bad thing. It seems really, really, odd as a reward. If you successfully hack the site you get everything in the can. If you fail you get "loot pinata" AND everything else that comes with a failed attempt (e.g. rats, explosive traps). I guess from a pvp or loot ninja's perspective having the can explode with every success is a good thing. Why should you have your cake and eat it too? Loot pi+¦ata as a failure mechinac defeats the purpose of the mini game and any player skill/luck in exploration and will only glorify blobing in even more areas of the game. As opposed to what, forcing blobbing jsut to make sure you do get all the good loot like every other dang profession in the game? Not to mention boring the f*** out of your friends? You might as well be mining.

Castelo Selva Selva Brasil Moon Warriors 23	Posted - 2013.05.29 11:55:00 - [141] - Quote Naomi Hale wrote: In response to my earlier post, this is more what I would have liked Archaeology to be like... You discover something and scan it Which leads to... Using science and industry skills to study it and narrow down other linked sites so you... Fly there and discover more clues which then goes to... More exploration of New Eden's history, landmarks and scenic vistas and so on and so on, until... The resulting data and notes from your search are turned into interested factions, thus leading to rewards, standing, knowledge and a feeling of accomplishment Added future features... Incarna lab to study discoveries and... Cartography room to view results and plan your next move. (Thanks to CCP, Bioware, Square-Enix and Relic for some of the art) Not suggesting you change the existing idea or implement this, just saying, in an ideal world, this is what I would have liked EVE Achaeology to be like. For the love of Gods, please apply to work for CCP! And please post it on the features & Ideas. I will direct everyone that I know to support it! Forward this to all CSM members! Let-¦s start the revolution!!!
Scuzzy Logic Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce 13	Posted - 2013.05.29 11:56:00 - [142] - Quote Sheena Tzash wrote: So what is the plan CCP? You've released a dev blog explaining about the exploration changes and two threads full of people saying that they don't like it. Is anything being done or planned to be done with the feedback we've provided? Has the CSM been made aware that this is a potential raging issue that needs to be looked at before its too late? CCP POLICY: Ignore failed features. Fixes are always coming SOON(tm). Derail CSM away from POS concerns. Nerf solo professions. Encourage blobbing.
Omnathious Deninard The Scope Gallente Federation 1074	Posted - 2013.05.29 11:58:00 - [143] - Quote Scuzzy Logic wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: Sorcha Lothain wrote: I think the idea of making "loot pinata" a punishment for a failed hacking/archaeology attempt is an excellent idea. Having something blow up in your face is usually a bad thing. It seems really, really, odd as a reward. If you successfully hack the site you get everything in the can. If you fail you get "loot pinata" AND everything else that comes with a failed attempt (e.g. rats, explosive traps). I guess from a pvp or loot ninja's perspective having the can explode with every success is a good thing. Why should you have your cake and eat it too? Loot pi+¦ata as a failure mechinac defeats the purpose of the mini game and any player skill/luck in exploration and will only glorify blobing in even more areas of the game. As opposed to what, forcing blobbing jsut to make sure you do get all the good loot like every other dang profession in the game? Not to mention boring the f*** out of your friends? You might as well be mining. No, if you fail you fail, loot destroyed just like current, just no loot pi+¦ata for a win. That's what I think at least. Ideas For Drone Improvement Repourpose Deep Space Scanner Probes

CCP Bayesian 809	Posted - 2013.05.29 12:02:00 - [144] - Quote Naomi Hale wrote: Could we get a practise hacking panel in the Captain's Quarters, no rewards, just maybe flicker the light or a message from station maintenance to 'stop doing that'. I'd like playing it as a game, like that strategy game that was shown for Incarna. (How do you add big puppy dog eyes to a forum post?) Put it on the door access panel? More seriously yes we can do that but won't for at least this first release. The Hacking system itself is entirely independent of the object being hacked so we can add hacking to literally anything in EVE. Although we should make the mechanic deeper first. I also like the idea for Archaeology. EVE Software Engineer Team Prototyping Rocks

Rytell Tybat Kallocain Pharmaceuticals 39	Posted - 2013.05.29 12:03:00 - [145] - Quote Naomi Hale wrote: In response to my earlier post, this is more what I would have liked Archaeology to be like... You discover something and scan it Which leads to... Using science and industry skills to study it and narrow down other linked sites so you... Fly there and discover more clues which then goes to... More exploration of New Eden's history, landmarks and scenic vistas and so on and so on, until... The resulting data and notes from your search are turned into interested factions, thus leading to rewards, standing, knowledge and a feeling of accomplishment Added future features... Incarna lab to study discoveries and... Cartography room to view results and plan your next move. (Thanks to CCP, Bioware, Square-Enix and Relic for some of the art) Not suggesting you change the existing idea or implement this, just saying, in an ideal world, this is what I would have liked EVE Achaeology to be like. Great ideas! Depth and a bit of mystery all tied into the lore? This really puts CCP's version of archeology to shame. Would love to see something like this in-game.
Naomi Hale Children of New Eden 103	Posted - 2013.05.29 12:17:00 - [146] - Quote Castelo Selva wrote: For the love of Gods, please apply to work for CCP! And please post it on the features & Ideas. I will direct everyone that I know to support it! Forward this to all CSM members! Let-¦s start the revolution!!! F&I Re-post Like I said, it's how I'd like it to be in an ideal world, but I think feasibility and practicality stop something like it being made. I'm also unsure the idea could be justified over already present features needing attention. Fleshing out the likes of PI, Epic Missions, EVE Lore, Incarna and the new hacking feature would however lead to something like my idea being more realistic. So we need to be patient. I'm not an expert on the system, but I think a scrum based development model stops some of the more widespread features and ideas from being added or made in EVE as the small teams are tightly focused on their goals (not a bad thing). That said, CCP Seagull did give the impression of a more cross team communication and collaboration of goals and a more epic scope for EVE's future, so it's looking good. I choose to believe what I was PROGRAMMED to believe!
Naomi Hale Children of New Eden 103	Posted - 2013.05.29 12:26:00 - [147] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: Naomi Hale wrote: Could we get a practise hacking panel in the Captain's Quarters, no rewards, just maybe flicker the light or a message from station maintenance to 'stop doing that'. I'd like playing it as a game, like that strategy game that was shown for Incarna. (How do you add big puppy dog eyes to a forum post?) Put it on the door access panel? More seriously yes we can do that but won't for at least this first release. The Hacking system itself is entirely independent of the object being hacked so we can add hacking to literally anything in EVE. Although we should make the mechanic deeper first. I also like the idea for Archaeology. The door panel would indeed be cruel, especially if you successfully hacked it and it then said "well done!... I'm still not gonna open though." Good to know hacking is flexible in where it can be placed. The possibilities for the future hehehe And thanks. I choose to believe what I was PROGRAMMED to believe!
Seth Asthereun Oscura Simmetria Yulai Federation 17	Posted - 2013.05.29 12:43:00 - [148] - Quote Naomi Hale wrote: In response to my earlier post, this is more what I would have liked Archaeology to be like... You discover something and scan it Which leads to... Using science and industry skills to study it and narrow down other linked sites so you... Fly there and discover more clues which then goes to... More exploration of New Eden's history, landmarks and scenic vistas and so on and so on, until... The resulting data and notes from your search are turned into interested factions, thus leading to rewards, standing, knowledge and a feeling of accomplishment Added future features... Incarna lab to study discoveries and... Cartography room to view results and plan your next move. (Thanks to CCP, Bioware, Square-Enix and Relic for some of the art) Not suggesting you change the existing idea or implement this, just saying, in an ideal world, this is what I would have liked EVE Achaeology to be like. This for archeology. Really you should hire him/her But i'd like an improvement in the hacking site part: beacuse you can increase the depth of the minigame but the MAIN PROBLEM will remain. All the site will be basically the same just a bit harder with a different could colour but the same. I know that goes against your aim to remove combat from those site, but imho it will make them more different and entertaining. Seth Asthereun wrote: why do not add some variety to different sites? Not al sites must have that ugly pinata. You can leave high sec site without npc, but i don't think removing combat ships for low and 0.0 is a good idea. You can add sites were turrets activates when you encounter a firewall: you can choose to go on and ignore them, to destroy them or to suppress the firewall deactivating them. First firewall spawn only damage turrets, second firewall damage + web, third damage + neut. Or sites where hacking allows you to shot a structure for a while (similar to the incursion vg) and the loot is in the structure. So you can hack less and bring more dps, or hack more and bring less dps (they remain soloable) but having only a set of hackable sites forces you to destroy the structure before you run out of them. You can have an hacking site where succesful hacking send a fake signal that lure and enemy overseer that drops the loot. A data site where there are 4 cans to analize, each can except the last one when hacked release a cloud that does for example 300 dps of a type of damage (sansha space em) so after the first can you take 300 dps, the second 600 dps, that is still easy tankable, but after the third it become 900 dps and you have to choose if hack the last can fast, or bring a more tanked ship. Those are only the first things that have come to my mind, but you can add a lot more variety. In the current state those site are very boring more than sorry for my english, i really hope ccp reads this
Scuzzy Logic Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce 13	Posted - 2013.05.29 12:46:00 - [149] - Quote Naomi Hale wrote: Castelo Selva wrote: For the love of Gods, please apply to work for CCP! And please post it on the features & Ideas. I will direct everyone that I know to support it! Forward this to all CSM members! Let-¦s start the revolution!!! F&I Re-post Like I said, it's how I'd like it to be in an ideal world, but I think feasibility and practicality stop something like it being made. I'm also unsure the idea could be justified over already present features needing attention. Fleshing out the likes of PI, Epic Missions, EVE Lore, Incarna and the new hacking feature would however lead to something like my idea being more realistic. So we need to be patient. I'm not an expert on the system, but I think a scrum based development model stops some of the more widespread features and ideas from being added or made in EVE as the small teams are tightly focused on their goals (not a bad thing). That said, CCP Seagull did give the impression of a more cross team communication and collaboration of goals and a more epic scope for EVE's future, so it's looking good. Stop shooting yourself in the foot. WoW was able to so a heavily simplified iteration of what you suggest as a minigame. CCP could ery well do the same. The features are not that integrated into anything except Incarna, and that'd mostly be an art department thing. The rest would be an almost entirely detached player-unique system like WoW did, which would allow for the first individualized resource in EVE. Once it's up you can then start adding stuff from epic arcs and whatnot into it. As much as I hate how WoW turned out, there is no reason not to steal what I think is one of the few redeeming aspects of it and puttign an EVE twist on it. TL;DR - From a programming standpoint, making a workable prototype of this shouldn't be hard at all.
Scuzzy Logic Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce 13	Posted - 2013.05.29 12:48:00 - [150] - Quote Naomi Hale wrote: CCP Bayesian wrote: Naomi Hale wrote: Could we get a practise hacking panel in the Captain's Quarters, no rewards, just maybe flicker the light or a message from station maintenance to 'stop doing that'. I'd like playing it as a game, like that strategy game that was shown for Incarna. (How do you add big puppy dog eyes to a forum post?) Put it on the door access panel? More seriously yes we can do that but won't for at least this first release. The Hacking system itself is entirely independent of the object being hacked so we can add hacking to literally anything in EVE. Although we should make the mechanic deeper first. I also like the idea for Archaeology. The door panel would indeed be cruel, especially if you successfully hacked it and it then said "well done!... I'm still not gonna open though." Good to know hacking is flexible in where it can be placed. The possibilities for the future hehehe And thanks. Worse, have the door open to ANOTHER door with a fixed IMPOSSIBRU setting with supressors almost every node.

Johan Toralen Clockwork X3 74	Posted - 2013.05.29 13:03:00 - [151] - Quote Sharing with you the awesome abomination that i used to run null sec sites last night: http://i.imgur.com/zzsBLLI.jpg That's the future of exploration right there. A new ship for a new generation.
Naomi Hale Children of New Eden 106	Posted - 2013.05.29 13:09:00 - [152] - Quote One of the ideas I had for Archaeology was a new skill, 'Iconography', used for studying cultural objects you discovered. I'm thinking it (or something similar) could be repurposed for the hacking game. Allowing you to decipher markings and obscure languages on the hulls of hacking and relic objects, as I imagine spaceships and stations have labels for access panels and data terminals, indicating their function. Increasing levels of the skill could provide hints to possible locations of defences, cores and utilities found during hacking. Each level adds a one node radius to detection of active nodes but not what type it is... This could add that layer of strategy some people have wanted. I choose to believe what I was PROGRAMMED to believe!
Naomi Hale Children of New Eden 106	Posted - 2013.05.29 13:11:00 - [153] - Quote Johan Toralen wrote: Sharing with you the awesome abomination that i used to run null sec sites last night: http://i.imgur.com/zzsBLLI.jpg That's the future of exploration right there. A new ship for a new generation. How'd you get a Covert-Op cloak on a Noctis? Aren't they limited to covert ships? I choose to believe what I was PROGRAMMED to believe!
Johan Toralen Clockwork X3 74	Posted - 2013.05.29 13:13:00 - [154] - Quote Naomi Hale wrote: How'd you get a Covert-Op cloak on a Noctis? Aren't they limited to covert ships? It's a Tengu. That's just the name of the fit
Naomi Hale Children of New Eden 106	Posted - 2013.05.29 13:16:00 - [155] - Quote Johan Toralen wrote: Naomi Hale wrote: How'd you get a Covert-Op cloak on a Noctis? Aren't they limited to covert ships? It's a Tengu. That's just the name of the fit Ah, I see it now... oops I choose to believe what I was PROGRAMMED to believe!
Scuzzy Logic Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce 14	Posted - 2013.05.29 13:30:00 - [156] - Quote Johan Toralen wrote: Sharing with you the awesome abomination that i used to run null sec sites last night: http://i.imgur.com/zzsBLLI.jpg That's the future of exploration right there. A new ship for a new generation. The fit whispered to me last night: ''Kill me, it hurts to liiiiiive'' Honestly, if you have to use a T3 for this, have CCP give us a T2 Noctis with an AoE vacuum tractor. Kudos for making it work, though. I'm running a similar fit on a Stabber, but now my ''low'' hacking skills cause me to give up on nullsec sites.
Tryaha Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2013.05.29 13:31:00 - [157] - Quote Kahns wrote: Sure... It's really unresponsive. There's no feedback for when you've got one locked up and it will tractor, when it ends, when you've failed because the item is out of range. And it's all very slow, from the tractoring, to getting to groups of cans in even a fast ship, etc. I feel like when I wind up not tractoring a can I have no idea why it's not working or what I need to do to fix the situation. Again, feedback. We do not have direct control of our ships, so don't expect it from us! Moving towards floating cans that you can't select in the overview highlights some of the worst parts of how Eve's ship control mechanics work. It was already frustrating to nimbly move our ships around in Eve, we just typically didn't have to do it. As you know, we don't have direct control of our ships, but in this case you're basically asking us to pretend we do. This ties into the first two points, but 9/10 times I don't feel like I lost loot because of something I did... I lost loot because I got stuck on something, the interface broke in some weird way, or my cargo was full because I picked up something massive and now I don't get to pick up anything more until it all disappears. It's completely inconsistent with the metaphors you've used elsewhere in the game. Clicking on something doesn't bring something towards you anywhere but in this one single little mini-game. Worse yet, you've got the metaphor of tractoring using a module elsewhere in the game and it works completely differently. It's just bad design! I'm still encountering situations where the loot shoots into a structure and I can't get it, or spews the opposite of where I am and if I double click on the loot I just... navigate into the wall. It sucks. Again, if you simply removed having to move your ship around and made the items disappear after a certain amount of time, so it was really just grabbing as much loot as you could whack a mole style, it would still be whole-ly inconsistent and out of some Facebook game, but at least it wouldn't seem broken and frusterating and it would far more be in line with what you advertised at Fanfest. Please listen to this man. I like the hacking minigame, why not just keep the sites as they are on TQ atm (with rats!) and just "secure" the cans with the hacking minigame, there should be no reason to put the loot pinata in. If you want the loot pinata, just put it on the cans as punishment for a failed attempt (and make them fly out faster) If it goes live as it currently is, i'm sure there will be alot of unhappy explorers and knowing CCP, things won't get fixed that quick.
Scuzzy Logic Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce 14	Posted - 2013.05.29 13:38:00 - [158] - Quote Naomi Hale wrote: One of the ideas I had for Archaeology was a new skill, 'Iconography', used for studying cultural objects you discovered. I'm thinking it (or something similar) could be repurposed for the hacking game. Allowing you to decipher markings and obscure languages on the hulls of hacking and relic objects, as I imagine spaceships and stations have labels for access panels and data terminals, indicating their function. Increasing levels of the skill could provide hints to possible locations of defences, cores and utilities found during hacking. Each level adds a one node radius to detection of active nodes but not what type it is... This could add that layer of strategy some people have wanted. I was thinking of a minesweeper-like warning system, but that seems fun. Have them be random symbols but have an arrow point towards the system core or the nearest bonus if you successfully use a relevant analyzer-derived clue chip. (have them be of varying accuracy, like a Sansha guest pass (highsec) point you towards the nearest bad node, a Sansha password (lowsec) point you towards the nearest bonus and a Sansha root password (nullsec) point you to the system core. Now you have the option of using those or harvesting and selling them. Would also force people to traffic between high low and nullsec wih their exploration. EDIT: In hindsight, have the clues be generated through archeology and change the arch mechanics acoordingly. Would be fun having the two professions interact without literally sharing a minigame as it stands now.
Johan Toralen Clockwork X3 74	Posted - 2013.05.29 13:48:00 - [159] - Quote Scuzzy Logic wrote: The fit whispered to me last night: ''Kill me, it hurts to liiiiiive'' Pretty much what all the new fits that i come up with scream. Anything that helps with survivability is gonna compromise the hacking and loot amount. The containers being directly at or close to warp in point doesn't help either. You're pretty much a fly waiting to get squashed. So might as well go full on risk and hope the higher loot amount sets of the unavoidable losses. Not gonna fly this 400m piece of art into nullsec on TQ tho if the loots stays as poor as it is.
Ruskarn Andedare Lion Investments 187	Posted - 2013.05.29 13:52:00 - [160] - Quote Naomi Hale wrote: Castelo Selva wrote: For the love of Gods, please apply to work for CCP! And please post it on the features & Ideas. I will direct everyone that I know to support it! Forward this to all CSM members! Let-¦s start the revolution!!! F&I Re-post Like I said, it's how I'd like it to be in an ideal world, but I think feasibility and practicality stop something like it being made. I'm also unsure the idea could be justified over already present features needing attention. Fleshing out the likes of PI, Epic Missions, EVE Lore, Incarna and the new hacking feature would however lead to something like my idea being more realistic. So we need to be patient. I'm not an expert on the system, but I think a scrum based development model stops some of the more widespread features and ideas from being added or made in EVE as the small teams are tightly focused on their goals (not a bad thing). That said, CCP Seagull did give the impression of a more cross team communication and collaboration of goals and a more epic scope for EVE's future, so it's looking good. I absolutely love your proposal there - it's close to what I was hoping for when I took up exploring. What I do know for now is that I won't be training Hacking or Archaeology to V as I had intended as, regardless of how much fun the mini-game is, I stand no chance of collecting anything worth a damn from the cans (I'm developing arthritis and I usually play EVE on an 11" laptop, yes I have a good graphics card and a decent gaming mouse) given my test runs on SiSi. Current results - data sites take a little longer to complete than TQ radar sites (so slightly higher exposure risk) with vastly reduced income. No, I will not be configuring my ship to optimise its can-grabbing as swapping ships for a data site will likely mean someone else will have taken it by the time I get there.


CCP Prime C C P C C P Alliance 36	Posted - 2013.05.29 14:16:00 - [161] - Quote So for the scattering mechanism we've reduced the speed that the cans eject out at. It'll make chasing them almost unneeded. Crimewatch will now apply to the cans like as with any other loot. The mini container names will actually hint at what you can get from them (currently on SiSi it is a completely random association.) This will help deciding on what loot you are actually going for. Also, a few bugs, like the one when the bracket disappears for a container that had started to blink, has been fixed. We want to iterate on tying hacking success to the scattering, and hopefully we'll be able to do so in a point release. Programmer Team Prototyping Rocks

Salpun Paramount Commerce 502	Posted - 2013.05.29 14:29:00 - [162] - Quote CCP Prime wrote: So for the scattering mechanism we've reduced the speed that the cans eject out at. It'll make chasing them almost unneeded. Crimewatch will now apply to the cans like as with any other loot. The mini container names will actually hint at what you can get from them (currently on SiSi it is a completely random association.) This will help deciding on what loot you are actually going for. Also, a few bugs, like the one when the bracket disappears for a container that had started to blink, has been fixed. We want to iterate on tying hacking success to the scattering, and hopefully we'll be able to do so in a point release. Looks better. Great job.
Saheed Cha'chris'ra Krautz WH Exploration and Production 53	Posted - 2013.05.29 14:39:00 - [163] - Quote CCP Prime wrote: So for the scattering mechanism we've reduced the speed that the cans eject out at. It'll make chasing them almost unneeded. Crimewatch will now apply to the cans like as with any other loot. The mini container names will actually hint at what you can get from them (currently on SiSi it is a completely random association.) This will help deciding on what loot you are actually going for. Is this live on Sisi right now? I asked in the old feedback thread but got no answer, so i'll ask here again: Is it on purpose that you lose a can if you are clicking on the next one too early? And is it tied to this sound which is played when the can is in scoop-to-cargo-range after you tractor-beamed them there? Can you fix the sound, so i can have feedback when to click the next can? right now the sound plays too early and my cans get lost because i am clicking the next one too early.
Midnight Hope Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 112	Posted - 2013.05.29 14:46:00 - [164] - Quote I finally hacked a few times yesterday. To be honest the whole thing feels...random. And I am not talking about the loot pinata at the end. The hacking games itself lacks strategy and purpose. There seems to be no actual strategy to all the clicking. You just click on all the nodes until you hit the core. There is no reason I would click this node or that node, They all look the same and they all feel the same. From that perspective I just have to keep clicking nodes, it doesn't matter the order or sequence or position they are in. Ther eis no thought process or desicion making I have to do when choosing this node over that node when clicking. Please correct me if i'm wrong , but I don't see the "gameplay" in the minigame.
Gilbaron Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda 886	Posted - 2013.05.29 14:55:00 - [165] - Quote Midnight Hope wrote: I finally hacked a few times yesterday. To be honest the whole thing feels...random. And I am not talking about the loot pinata at the end. The hacking games itself lacks strategy and purpose. There seems to be no actual strategy to all the clicking. You just click on all the nodes until you hit the core. There is no reason I would click this node or that node, They all look the same and they all feel the same. From that perspective I just have to keep clicking nodes, it doesn't matter the order or sequence or position they are in. Ther eis no thought process or desicion making I have to do when choosing this node over that node when clicking. Please correct me if i'm wrong , but I don't see the "gameplay" in the minigame. you can click around a firewall if you actually can, but that's it for now. i really hope to see some more depth in this in a future release We are recruiting german-speaking PVP players, contact me :) Banner was used for this Post
Vladimir Norkoff Income Redistribution Service 167	Posted - 2013.05.29 15:01:00 - [166] - Quote Midnight Hope wrote: I finally hacked a few times yesterday. To be honest the whole thing feels...random. And I am not talking about the loot pinata at the end. The hacking games itself lacks strategy and purpose. There seems to be no actual strategy to all the clicking. You just click on all the nodes until you hit the core. There is no reason I would click this node or that node, They all look the same and they all feel the same. From that perspective I just have to keep clicking nodes, it doesn't matter the order or sequence or position they are in. Ther eis no thought process or desicion making I have to do when choosing this node over that node when clicking. Please correct me if i'm wrong , but I don't see the "gameplay" in the minigame. Yeah it is pretty limited, but there is a miniscule amount of strategy involved in building your lines out in order to minimize the impact of Firewalls etc. It's mostly common sense, but yeah, other than that it's just "click everything'. They say it will be "iterated on Soon(tm)".
Sheena Tzash Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 26	Posted - 2013.05.29 15:11:00 - [167] - Quote CCP Prime wrote: So for the scattering mechanism we've reduced the speed that the cans eject out at. It'll make chasing them almost unneeded. Crimewatch will now apply to the cans like as with any other loot. The mini container names will actually hint at what you can get from them (currently on SiSi it is a completely random association.) This will help deciding on what loot you are actually going for. Also, a few bugs, like the one when the bracket disappears for a container that had started to blink, has been fixed. We want to iterate on tying hacking success to the scattering, and hopefully we'll be able to do so in a point release. 1) If the speed is much slower now is it actually possible to get 100% of the ejected loot? 2) If the cans are now named will they show on the overview or will you have to spend time mousing over each can to find out whats in it before you click it?
Nicola Arman Saiph Industries Upholders 23	Posted - 2013.05.29 15:19:00 - [168] - Quote Is Loot really the only difference between the new Relic and Data sites? Both are the same minigame??
Scuzzy Logic Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce 14	Posted - 2013.05.29 15:36:00 - [169] - Quote Salpun wrote: CCP Prime wrote: So for the scattering mechanism we've reduced the speed that the cans eject out at. It'll make chasing them almost unneeded. Crimewatch will now apply to the cans like as with any other loot. The mini container names will actually hint at what you can get from them (currently on SiSi it is a completely random association.) This will help deciding on what loot you are actually going for. Also, a few bugs, like the one when the bracket disappears for a container that had started to blink, has been fixed. We want to iterate on tying hacking success to the scattering, and hopefully we'll be able to do so in a point release. Looks better. Great job. CCP LISTENING to the forums? CCP Prime is now my Developer Jesus.

CCP Prime C C P C C P Alliance 37	Posted - 2013.05.29 15:44:00 - [170] - Quote Sheena Tzash wrote: CCP Prime wrote: So for the scattering mechanism we've reduced the speed that the cans eject out at. It'll make chasing them almost unneeded. Crimewatch will now apply to the cans like as with any other loot. The mini container names will actually hint at what you can get from them (currently on SiSi it is a completely random association.) This will help deciding on what loot you are actually going for. Also, a few bugs, like the one when the bracket disappears for a container that had started to blink, has been fixed. We want to iterate on tying hacking success to the scattering, and hopefully we'll be able to do so in a point release. 1) If the speed is much slower now is it actually possible to get 100% of the ejected loot? 2) If the cans are now named will they show on the overview or will you have to spend time mousing over each can to find out whats in it before you click it? 1) No. By design a one player is never meant to be able to catch all cans. Hence the constant take time and the expiring of stuff. 2) They still will not show on the overview. We want players to actually use our space view. It is a challenge in 3D based decision making and for CCP it is a challenge to improve whatever needs improving when you have to deal with things directly in space. Programmer Team Prototyping Rocks


Panhead4411 Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge 316	Posted - 2013.05.29 15:48:00 - [171] - 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. Also, planing on doing anything about the sites uber-stacked objects melting video cards? If it ships as its current form, i know a few ppl whose GFX cards WILL get damaged by heat if they attempt to do one of these new shiney great idea sites. http://blog.beyondreality.se/shift-click-does-nothing -á-á < Unified Inventory is NOT ready...

CCP Bayesian 813	Posted - 2013.05.29 15:49:00 - [172] - Quote With respect to the Hacking strategy itself there are definite strategies that are not entirely obvious that allow you to be much more successful as it currently stands. Clicking randomly is provably less successful than applying some thought. EVE Software Engineer Team Prototyping Rocks

Omnathious Deninard The Scope Gallente Federation 1074	Posted - 2013.05.29 15:50:00 - [173] - Quote How will you Handle loot distribution in the scattered cans? As of right now they is a lot junk and only a few with treasure, a cargo scanner on the hacking container reveals what is in there and how much stuff is in there, this confirms that only a few cans will be worth grabbing. Ideas For Drone Improvement Repourpose Deep Space Scanner Probes
Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. Aegis Solaris 1913	Posted - 2013.05.29 15:52:00 - [174] - Quote CCP Prime wrote: Sheena Tzash wrote: CCP Prime wrote: So for the scattering mechanism we've reduced the speed that the cans eject out at. It'll make chasing them almost unneeded. Crimewatch will now apply to the cans like as with any other loot. The mini container names will actually hint at what you can get from them (currently on SiSi it is a completely random association.) This will help deciding on what loot you are actually going for. Also, a few bugs, like the one when the bracket disappears for a container that had started to blink, has been fixed. We want to iterate on tying hacking success to the scattering, and hopefully we'll be able to do so in a point release. 1) If the speed is much slower now is it actually possible to get 100% of the ejected loot? 2) If the cans are now named will they show on the overview or will you have to spend time mousing over each can to find out whats in it before you click it? 1) No. By design a one player is never meant to be able to catch all cans. Hence the constant take time and the expiring of stuff. 2) They still will not show on the overview. We want players to actually use our space view. It is a challenge in 3D based decision making and for CCP it is a challenge to improve whatever needs improving when you have to deal with things directly in space. Maybe we need "sticky mice". That is the pointer starts following things I set it on. Sort of like sticky aiming in Dust. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/
Sheena Tzash Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 26	Posted - 2013.05.29 16:00:00 - [175] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: With respect to the Hacking strategy itself there are definite strategies that are not entirely obvious that allow you to be much more successful as it currently stands. Clicking randomly is provably less successful than applying some thought. What thought can really be applied? What feedback do we get from the mini game that says any combination of nodes or lines is better than any other? YOU know that its better because you've been involved in the development of the mini game, but we don't and without any feedback to tell us "that was good, keep doing it" or "this is a bad idea, try something else" the only thought we have left is "click nodes randomly" My approach is generally keep clicking down a line until I hit a firewall and then try another path - but again I don't have a clear objective or node to activate to know HOW to win the mini game - so any prospect of thought or strategy is pretty much redundant when the success conditions are random and unknown.

CCP Prime C C P C C P Alliance 37	Posted - 2013.05.29 16:05:00 - [176] - Quote Quote: Maybe we need "sticky mice". That is the pointer starts following things I set it on. Sort of like sticky aiming in Dust. Indeed, we've already (not out on SiSi though) changed it so that the command to take happens when the mouse button goes down as opposed to up. If we get to iterate, ideas like a magnetic mouse, bracket selection prediction etc are on the table because they would improve the eve experience not only for this feature, but for the game in general. Programmer Team Prototyping Rocks

Gilbaron Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda 886	Posted - 2013.05.29 16:08:00 - [177] - Quote CCP Prime wrote: Quote: Maybe we need "sticky mice". That is the pointer starts following things I set it on. Sort of like sticky aiming in Dust. Indeed, we've already (not out on SiSi though) changed it so that the command to take happens when the mouse button goes down as opposed to up. If we get to iterate, ideas like a magnetic mouse, bracket selection prediction etc are on the table because they would improve the eve experience not only for this feature, but for the game in general. any chance for a "freeze brackets" button ? much like STRG did with the overview some time ago We are recruiting german-speaking PVP players, contact me :) Banner was used for this Post
Johan Toralen Clockwork X3 74	Posted - 2013.05.29 16:15:00 - [178] - Quote The loot spewing out slower doesn't that make one problem worse while improving on another? Personaly i have a problem especially right in the beginning when all cans are close to each other to pick the right can that i want or not by accident clicking on something else like the containers or whatever else stuff is floating around there. It would have been better to tweak the range and the speed of the tractor instead.
Midnight Hope Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 112	Posted - 2013.05.29 16:18:00 - [179] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: With respect to the Hacking strategy itself there are definite strategies that are not entirely obvious that allow you to be much more successful as it currently stands. Clicking randomly is provably less successful than applying some thought. That being the case, there's still no feedback to the player that tells him if he is doing something better than the last time or not. - Do you mean that the number and location of firewalls is not predefined when the graphs is initially presented? - Do you mean that by clicking the nodes in a different sequence I will find more or less firewalls in different spots? - Do you mean the strength of those firewalls changes depending on the sequence and location of nodes I click? Even if this is the case and no feedback is still not presented to the player, it will be good to know. As it stands now it seems to me that we are only uncovering nodes that have already been preset and configured when the graph is built in the first place. If the layout is truly dynamic and get built and decided as the player goes along, it would be nice to have some kind of overall indicator on our performance,. It could be a simple "system integrity" indicator in green-yellow-red that tells us how well we are doing or if we are digging ourselves in a hole.
Omnathious Deninard The Scope Gallente Federation 1075	Posted - 2013.05.29 16:20:00 - [180] - Quote Got an easy one ( kinda off topic though), did the mirror every happen? Ideas For Drone Improvement Repourpose Deep Space Scanner Probes

Utremi Fasolasi The Jagged Edge Rebel Alliance of New Eden 244	Posted - 2013.05.29 16:23:00 - [181] - Quote Heinel Coventina wrote: What is CCP's plan to introduce new players into exploration, a gameplay mechanic that has no parallels from other MMOs, hence unfamiliar, and, What is CCP doing to mitigate disappointments during this transitional period between phasing out the old passive system and a highly integrated play style? There is a new Exploration career tutorial, I gave my feedback about it here.
Salpun Paramount Commerce 502	Posted - 2013.05.29 16:25:00 - [182] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: Got an easy one ( kinda off topic though), did the mirror every happen? No so no bug reports from me
Salpun Paramount Commerce 502	Posted - 2013.05.29 16:27:00 - [183] - Quote Utremi Fasolasi wrote: Heinel Coventina wrote: What is CCP's plan to introduce new players into exploration, a gameplay mechanic that has no parallels from other MMOs, hence unfamiliar, and, What is CCP doing to mitigate disappointments during this transitional period between phasing out the old passive system and a highly integrated play style? There is a new Exploration career tutorial, I gave my feedback about it here. Thanks for looking at that I was planning to do that as soon as I could log in. Did you bug report all those issues?
Panhead4411 Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge 316	Posted - 2013.05.29 16:29:00 - [184] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: For the people saying the 'loot pinata sucks' and the like could you vocalise the problems you have with it? So far I've collated: -feel good list You missed the: -Uberstacked objects causing MASSIVE graphics overheating issues among other things (frame rate drops ect) http://blog.beyondreality.se/shift-click-does-nothing -á-á < Unified Inventory is NOT ready...
Kel hound Lycosa Syndicate Surely You're Joking 37	Posted - 2013.05.29 16:33:00 - [185] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: For the people saying the 'loot pinata sucks' and the like could you vocalise the problems you have with it? So far I've collated: - It's not the way EVE has previously worked. - Collision is a pain, both with the size of the Data Sites and the positioning of some containers. - Picking can be difficult if you're not using a mouse. - Picking can be difficult if you're blinded by the site contents. - Loot haul seems low in comparison with how it was before. - Losing cans feels bad, particular after the effort of having to hack the container. This makes it feel like a penalty. - Not knowing what is any particular can so it feels bad not being able to make good choices. - The 'bad loot' is far too bulky so it is excessively penalising as you have to stop and sort it out. FEw extra things I'd like to add to that list, especially if you're set on keeping this stupid loot ejection system. - Loot ejection is random. I've had cases where after a successful hack the loot has spewed into the structure I was hacking, causing most of the loot to be lost as my ship bounces helplessly off the structure. The general cluttered nature of anoms doesn't help much either. See quote below for an example. mynnna wrote: http://i.imgur.com/FhZOW4A.png Picture to illustrate what I mean. -When attempting to tractor in the mini-cans its very difficult to know when your ship is ready to tractor in a new can and if your too eager (because why wouldn't you be, your hard earned loot is about to despawn) to click a new can the system seems to "lock up" for want of a better phrase and won't do anything for a few precious seconds. CCP Prime wrote: 1) No. By design a one player is never meant to be able to catch all cans. Hence the constant take time and the expiring of stuff. 2) They still will not show on the overview. We want players to actually use our space view. It is a challenge in 3D based decision making and for CCP it is a challenge to improve whatever needs improving when you have to deal with things directly in space. 1) Thats fine, look if you want to give us a limited time to access these cans, so be it. But the loot ejection system is punishment. It is a punishment mechanic. A better way would be on a successful hack to instead give the same system only in a loot window. None of this "chase it down!" bullshit. A simple, standard loot window where we can only pull one "mini-can" at a time and have a limited amount of time to do it before it locks permanently; but with the reward of not having to madly rotate the camera (while trying to avoid the visual clutter that lags frame rate) madly trying to pick out cans. 2) That would be fine - if the space view was intuitive to navigate. It's not. There is a reason we still have an 8 year old overview - its the best system for navigating EVE you've yet given us. Suddenly expecting us to be master of clicking on things in 3D space when for years you've taught us to use the overview is pants on head STUPID.

CCP Prime C C P C C P Alliance 38	Posted - 2013.05.29 16:40:00 - [186] - Quote Panhead4411 wrote: CCP Bayesian wrote: For the people saying the 'loot pinata sucks' and the like could you vocalise the problems you have with it? So far I've collated: -feel good list You missed the: -Uberstacked objects causing MASSIVE graphics overheating issues among other things (frame rate drops ect) Yeah, that was an unfortunate consequence of having to redo 200+ dungeons and not being able to finish all that massive work before it hit SiSi. Of course that will not be apparent on SiSi. Programmer Team Prototyping Rocks

Nicola Arman Saiph Industries Upholders 24	Posted - 2013.05.29 16:42:00 - [187] - Quote I'm so glad you changed the "can spew" speed. Feels much better and is more sensible to manage now.
Heinel Coventina University of Caille Gallente Federation 26	Posted - 2013.05.29 16:44:00 - [188] - Quote Utremi Fasolasi wrote: Heinel Coventina wrote: What is CCP's plan to introduce new players into exploration, a gameplay mechanic that has no parallels from other MMOs, hence unfamiliar, and, What is CCP doing to mitigate disappointments during this transitional period between phasing out the old passive system and a highly integrated play style? There is a new Exploration career tutorial, I gave my feedback about it here. Hmm. I personally do not believe in the tutorials at all. Not only were they unhelpful in introducing new players to what makes EVE the game that it is, or what one could expect, but they were also set up like those text-laden quests from other MMOs. It pushes people to the missioning play style, which makes actual exploration completely counter intuitive.
Nicola Arman Saiph Industries Upholders 24	Posted - 2013.05.29 16:47:00 - [189] - Quote Heinel Coventina wrote: Utremi Fasolasi wrote: Heinel Coventina wrote: What is CCP's plan to introduce new players into exploration, a gameplay mechanic that has no parallels from other MMOs, hence unfamiliar, and, What is CCP doing to mitigate disappointments during this transitional period between phasing out the old passive system and a highly integrated play style? There is a new Exploration career tutorial, I gave my feedback about it here. Hmm. I personally do not believe in the tutorials at all. Not only were they unhelpful in introducing new players to what makes EVE the game that it is, or what one could expect, but they were also set up like those text-laden quests from other MMOs. It pushes people to the missioning play style, which makes actual exploration completely counter intuitive. I highly doubt that true newbies to the game would go seek out sites by themselves after they complete the tutorials. The more likely scenario would be that most of them will go find more agents instead. Agreed. Tutorials send the wrong message..
Azurielle Silestris Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce 0	Posted - 2013.05.29 16:49:00 - [190] - Quote CCP Prime wrote: Sheena Tzash wrote: CCP Prime wrote: So for the scattering mechanism we've reduced the speed that the cans eject out at. It'll make chasing them almost unneeded. Crimewatch will now apply to the cans like as with any other loot. The mini container names will actually hint at what you can get from them (currently on SiSi it is a completely random association.) This will help deciding on what loot you are actually going for. Also, a few bugs, like the one when the bracket disappears for a container that had started to blink, has been fixed. We want to iterate on tying hacking success to the scattering, and hopefully we'll be able to do so in a point release. 1) If the speed is much slower now is it actually possible to get 100% of the ejected loot? 2) If the cans are now named will they show on the overview or will you have to spend time mousing over each can to find out whats in it before you click it? 1) No. By design a one player is never meant to be able to catch all cans. Hence the constant take time and the expiring of stuff. 2) They still will not show on the overview. We want players to actually use our space view. It is a challenge in 3D based decision making and for CCP it is a challenge to improve whatever needs improving when you have to deal with things directly in space. Scuzzy's in full-blown rage mode right now so I'll take over: #1 Is fine, even if I don't get all the loot if I can at least get the most valuable item (blueprint) 100% of the time if I'm alert and I'm fine with that. #2 Would it be a problem to have the brackets color-coded or the cans differently shaped to identify whats in them now that can names are specific? I don't mind chasing cans as long as I can go Arr! There be me gold nuggit' and make a beeline for it even if I miss 60-90% of the other cans. Right now I keep zooming my mouse over all of them to spot the BPC's can and had a few close encounters of almost missing them since I accidentally went for a decoder instead. Overall I feel it could be fixed in a point release, but the new ''fixed'' system with the slower-yet-faster-despawning cans feels pretty good and might warrant bringing the new corp noobs along for some free iskies since the cans they'd loot would go to waste anyways. My suggestions: Color-coded brackets for pinata spew types, bigger brackets. Otherwise, the new iteration doesn't feel nearly as frustrating. I'll have to strap down scuzzy so he'll actually go back to hacking the cans again on SiSi before the expansion, though.

Nicola Arman Saiph Industries Upholders 24	Posted - 2013.05.29 17:04:00 - [191] - Quote wrote: When attempting to tractor in the mini-cans its very difficult to know when your ship is ready to tractor in a new can and if your too eager (because why wouldn't you be, your hard earned loot is about to despawn) to click a new can the system seems to "lock up" for want of a better phrase and won't do anything for a few precious seconds. The cans turn green when they are clickable and in range. They turn yellow when the item is "busy". No color when out of range. Correct me if I'm wrong.

CCP Prime C C P C C P Alliance 39	Posted - 2013.05.29 17:12:00 - [192] - Quote Nicola Arman wrote: wrote: When attempting to tractor in the mini-cans its very difficult to know when your ship is ready to tractor in a new can and if your too eager (because why wouldn't you be, your hard earned loot is about to despawn) to click a new can the system seems to "lock up" for want of a better phrase and won't do anything for a few precious seconds. The cans turn green when they are clickable and in range. They turn yellow when the item is "busy". No color when out of range. When your hack is successful and the cans spew, take a moment to hover over them and decide which ones you want first over others (eg. avoiding scrap). They move much slower now and there is also an audio queue after you loot a can. Correct me if I'm wrong. Green = In range and you can take one Yellow = In range but you are currently busy taking a can so you'll have to wait until they turn green White = If the bracket is BIG and your tractor beam effect is connected, it is the can you are currently taking. Otherwise, it is a can that is out of range and you can gauge the distance by the opacity of the bracket. The small cans are already differently shaped, but I'll admit, they are small! It's an ongoing challenge to decide how far we can go with brackets while staying within the UI design rules for brackets. (And if we have to expand upon those). Programmer Team Prototyping Rocks

Yinmatook Skilled Refugees Carthaginian Naval Supply Industries 4	Posted - 2013.05.29 17:12:00 - [193] - Quote Is it intentional that resizing the scan range by clicking the blue sphere and dragging it also rearranges the probes in space (to maintain coverage). However, selecting all the probes in the list and resizing the scan range via the right-click menu does not rearrange the probes in space?

CCP RedDawn C C P C C P Alliance 333	Posted - 2013.05.29 17:18:00 - [194] - Quote In related news we've made the following changes: Introduced the Polymorphic Shield Utility Subsystem to difficulty tier 3. Removed the Secondary Vector Utility Subsystem from difficulty tier 3. Lowered the Coherence of the Anti-Virus Suppressors in difficulty tier 3. Lowered the Virus Strength stat bonus on all the Tech I exploration frigates from +10 to + 5. Given all the the Tech II exploration frigates a +10 Virus Strength stat bonus. Fixed an issue where some containers in exploration dungeons where still overlapping. We are still in the process of balancing the hacking and scattering mechanics but please keep your eyes on Singularity as it get's updated and keep the feedback coming. Cheers! CCP RedDawn Team Prototyping Rocks

Omnathious Deninard The Scope Gallente Federation 1075	Posted - 2013.05.29 17:24:00 - [195] - Quote CCP RedDawn wrote: In related news we've made the following changes: Introduced the Polymorphic Shield Utility Subsystem to difficulty tier 3. Removed the Secondary Vector Utility Subsystem from difficulty tier 3. Lowered the Coherence of the Anti-Virus Suppressors in difficulty tier 3. Lowered the Virus Strength stat bonus on all the Tech I exploration frigates from +10 to + 5. Given all the the Tech II exploration frigates a +10 Virus Strength stat bonus. Fixed an issue where some containers in exploration dungeons where still overlapping. We are still in the process of balancing the hacking and scattering mechanics but please keep your eyes on Singularity as it get's updated and keep the feedback coming. Cheers! CCP RedDawn What about T3 ships will they get a bonus to the coherence at all? Ideas For Drone Improvement Repourpose Deep Space Scanner Probes
Nicola Arman Saiph Industries Upholders 24	Posted - 2013.05.29 17:24:00 - [196] - Quote CCP RedDawn wrote: In related news we've made the following changes: Introduced the Polymorphic Shield Utility Subsystem to difficulty tier 3. Removed the Secondary Vector Utility Subsystem from difficulty tier 3. Lowered the Coherence of the Anti-Virus Suppressors in difficulty tier 3. Lowered the Virus Strength stat bonus on all the Tech I exploration frigates from +10 to + 5. Given all the the Tech II exploration frigates a +10 Virus Strength stat bonus. Fixed an issue where some containers in exploration dungeons where still overlapping. We are still in the process of balancing the hacking and scattering mechanics but please keep your eyes on Singularity as it get's updated and keep the feedback coming. Cheers! CCP RedDawn You mean I don't have to leave my wonderful Cheetah ever again??? I LOVE YOU SO MUCH!
Manssell OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate 178	Posted - 2013.05.29 17:25:00 - [197] - Quote CCP RedDawn wrote: In related news we've made the following changes: Introduced the Polymorphic Shield Utility Subsystem to difficulty tier 3. Removed the Secondary Vector Utility Subsystem from difficulty tier 3. Lowered the Coherence of the Anti-Virus Suppressors in difficulty tier 3. Lowered the Virus Strength stat bonus on all the Tech I exploration frigates from +10 to + 5. Given all the the Tech II exploration frigates a +10 Virus Strength stat bonus. Fixed an issue where some containers in exploration dungeons where still overlapping. We are still in the process of balancing the hacking and scattering mechanics but please keep your eyes on Singularity as it get's updated and keep the feedback coming. Cheers! CCP RedDawn Just need to ask, since I've seen it asked dozens of times and have yet to see it answered (if it has been I'm sorry), but what the bloody ell are you guys referring to when you say "tier"? I assume it's the hierarchy of difficulty to the games but what are they, how many? Everyone seems to be assuming it's a reference to Hi-sec, Low-sec, and 0.0 but as I far as I know this is just an assumption.
Rob Crowley State War Academy 60	Posted - 2013.05.29 17:38:00 - [198] - Quote CCP RedDawn wrote: Lowered the Virus Strength stat bonus on all the Tech I exploration frigates from +10 to + 5. Given all the the Tech II exploration frigates a +10 Virus Strength stat bonus. That's excellent, I still think a certain cruiser class linked closely to exploration should get some strength bonus too, but the above is already a good start towards a working ship progression and risk/reward balancing. Manssell wrote: Just need to ask, since I've seen it asked dozens of times and have yet to see it answered (if it has been I'm sorry), but what the bloody ell are you guys referring to when you say "tier"? I assume it's the hierarchy of difficulty to the games but what are they, how many? Everyone seems to be assuming it's a reference to Hi-sec, Low-sec, and 0.0 but as I far as I know this is just an assumption. This describes the difficulty of the cans and their minigame. It is not linked exclusively to system sec as for example in some lowsec sites you could have cans from tier 1, 2 and 3. At least where I have tested tier 1 cans are called debris, tier 2 rubble and tier 3 remains. The higher the tier the bigger the minigame grid and the more coherence the defences have and at tier 3 you get those nasty Suppressors too. I'm not sure if there are more than 3 tiers, I haven't tested in nullsec yet.
Omnathious Deninard The Scope Gallente Federation 1075	Posted - 2013.05.29 17:45:00 - [199] - Quote Rob Crowley wrote: CCP RedDawn wrote: Lowered the Virus Strength stat bonus on all the Tech I exploration frigates from +10 to + 5. Given all the the Tech II exploration frigates a +10 Virus Strength stat bonus. That's excellent, I still think a certain cruiser class linked closely to exploration should get some strength bonus too, but the above is already a good start towards a working ship progression and risk/reward balancing. I don't think +6/level on the Emergent Locus Analyzer would be too much and then maybe move the tractor beam bonus to a static bonus on the sub system. Ideas For Drone Improvement Repourpose Deep Space Scanner Probes

CCP RedDawn C C P C C P Alliance 333	Posted - 2013.05.29 17:53:00 - [200] - Quote In response to the above questions since my post. When "tier" is used it means the difficulty level of the loot containers and it ranges from 1 to 4. (Easy to Hard) Also, we're going to be looking at the Tech III bonuses soon. (but not soonGäó) I'll post more when things change. Team Prototyping Rocks


Nar Tha Neural-Boost.com 124	Posted - 2013.05.29 17:56:00 - [201] - Quote I think the coherence bonuses from rigs are not working.
Johan Toralen Clockwork X3 74	Posted - 2013.05.29 18:04:00 - [202] - Quote Any chance for virus strenght bonus to Force Recon Ships? That would create a nice progression from T1 Frigate>T2Frigate>T2 Cruiser>T3 Cruiser as Force Recon is somewhere in the middle of price range and in terms of versatility. Slot layout is nice for exploration + ability to fit cov ops. Pilgrim used to be a popular ship for profession sites with the old sites.. Falcon looks like a good replacement after the removal of the rats.
Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. Aegis Solaris 1913	Posted - 2013.05.29 18:05:00 - [203] - Quote CCP Prime wrote: Nicola Arman wrote: wrote: When attempting to tractor in the mini-cans its very difficult to know when your ship is ready to tractor in a new can and if your too eager (because why wouldn't you be, your hard earned loot is about to despawn) to click a new can the system seems to "lock up" for want of a better phrase and won't do anything for a few precious seconds. The cans turn green when they are clickable and in range. They turn yellow when the item is "busy". No color when out of range. When your hack is successful and the cans spew, take a moment to hover over them and decide which ones you want first over others (eg. avoiding scrap). They move much slower now and there is also an audio queue after you loot a can. Correct me if I'm wrong. Green = In range and you can take one Yellow = In range but you are currently busy taking a can so you'll have to wait until they turn green White = If the bracket is BIG and your tractor beam effect is connected, it is the can you are currently taking. Otherwise, it is a can that is out of range and you can gauge the distance by the opacity of the bracket. The small cans are already differently shaped, but I'll admit, they are small! It's an ongoing challenge to decide how far we can go with brackets while staying within the UI design rules for brackets. (And if we have to expand upon those). And they are red when someone else is tractoring it in. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/

CCP RedDawn C C P C C P Alliance 333	Posted - 2013.05.29 18:07:00 - [204] - Quote Nar Tha wrote: I think the coherence bonuses from rigs are not working. This might be because you are encountering a known issue where the descriptions are misleading. So the following happens below: The Memetic Algorithm Bank rig has a description: "This ship modification is designed to increase the efficiency of a ship's hacking modules." This is correct as it only affects the hacking (Data) Analyzers, not the Relic Analyzers *but* it should display: "This ship modification is designed to increase the efficiency of a ship's Data modules." The Emission Scope Sharpener has the description: "This ship modification is designed to increase the efficiency of a ship's analyzer modules." This is incorrect as it only affects the Relic Analyzers and should be: "This ship modification is designed to increase the efficiency of a ship's Relic modules." This should be fixed before release. Hope this helps. Team Prototyping Rocks

Nar Tha Neural-Boost.com 124	Posted - 2013.05.29 18:22:00 - [205] - Quote Nevermind I'm stupid.
Rengerel en Distel Amarr Science and Industry 1520	Posted - 2013.05.29 18:33:00 - [206] - Quote Should we be bug reporting the sites that still spawn rats on failed hacks, or are you guys just working down a list to remove them? With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.
Sorcha Lothain Vogon Galactic Construction 0	Posted - 2013.05.29 19:00:00 - [207] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: Sorcha Lothain wrote: I think the idea of making "loot pinata" a punishment for a failed hacking/archaeology attempt is an excellent idea. Having something blow up in your face is usually a bad thing. It seems really, really, odd as a reward. If you successfully hack the site you get everything in the can. If you fail you get "loot pinata" AND everything else that comes with a failed attempt (e.g. rats, explosive traps). I guess from a pvp or loot ninja's perspective having the can explode with every success is a good thing. Why should you have your cake and eat it too? Loot pi+¦ata as a failure mechinac defeats the purpose of the mini game and any player skill/luck in exploration and will only glorify blobing in even more areas of the game. It doesn't defeat the purpose of the mini game at all. If anything it would encourage you being successful at the mini game. If you've maxxed your skills and fitted your ship expressly for completing the mini game then why should my reward be the chance I don't get all my loot. It isn't that I want to "have my cake and eat it too", I just don't want it to blow up in my face. I wanted exploration to be my solo profession because it was much more satisfying than mining. Though sadly it's starting to seem more appealing. As a miner if you dedicate your skills to your trade and fit your ship you get 100% of your loot in your hold every single time. There's something to do in every single system and you don't really need to bring a friend or a second ship.
Omnathious Deninard The Scope Gallente Federation 1076	Posted - 2013.05.29 19:05:00 - [208] - Quote Sorcha Lothain wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: Sorcha Lothain wrote: I think the idea of making "loot pinata" a punishment for a failed hacking/archaeology attempt is an excellent idea. Having something blow up in your face is usually a bad thing. It seems really, really, odd as a reward. If you successfully hack the site you get everything in the can. If you fail you get "loot pinata" AND everything else that comes with a failed attempt (e.g. rats, explosive traps). I guess from a pvp or loot ninja's perspective having the can explode with every success is a good thing. Why should you have your cake and eat it too? Loot pi+¦ata as a failure mechinac defeats the purpose of the mini game and any player skill/luck in exploration and will only glorify blobing in even more areas of the game. It doesn't defeat the purpose of the mini game at all. If anything it would encourage you being successful at the mini game. If you've maxxed your skills and fitted your ship expressly for completing the mini game then why should my reward be the chance I don't get all my loot. It isn't that I want to "have my cake and eat it too", I just don't want it to blow up in my face. I wanted exploration to be my solo profession because it was much more satisfying than mining. Though sadly it's starting to seem more appealing. As a miner if you dedicate your skills to your trade and fit your ship you get 100% of your loot in your hold every single time. There's something to do in every single system and you don't really need to bring a friend or a second ship. Right now if you are successful you get loot, if you are not I will be destroyed with no loot at all. With what you are proposing if you are successful you get loot, if you fail you still get loot. How is that not having your cake and eating it too? Ideas For Drone Improvement Repourpose Deep Space Scanner Probes

CCP RedDawn C C P C C P Alliance 334	Posted - 2013.05.29 19:12:00 - [209] - Quote Rengerel en Distel wrote: Should we be bug reporting the sites that still spawn rats on failed hacks, or are you guys just working down a list to remove them? No need for bug reports for this right now. We are in the process of fixing all of these containers and it should be finished soon, but please hold off on the reports about the rats. Thanks! Team Prototyping Rocks

Sven Viko VIkolander Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic 72	Posted - 2013.05.29 19:41:00 - [210] - Quote CCP Prime wrote: Vincent Athena wrote: Maybe we need "sticky mice". That is the pointer starts following things I set it on. Sort of like sticky aiming in Dust. Indeed, we've already (not out on SiSi though) changed it so that the command to take happens when the mouse button goes down as opposed to up. If we get to iterate, ideas like a magnetic mouse, bracket selection prediction etc are on the table because they would improve the eve experience not only for this feature, but for the game in general. Forget about "if we get to iterate," the hacking game and loot scatter should not go on live until you figure out: 1. That on one likes the loot spew, and 2. That the mini-game, to be enjoyable, needs to involve much more strategy and much less random clicks. You are basically putting something that is only a neat prototype straight on to live, and after 10 years I'd except CCP to know not to do that. After the first wave of trial I think you are going to get far less people doing these sites than even do them now. The only reason I am going to scan them down is so I can cloak in them and wait for people to kill.

Sorcha Lothain Vogon Galactic Construction 0	Posted - 2013.05.29 19:59:00 - [211] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: Sorcha Lothain wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: Sorcha Lothain wrote: I think the idea of making "loot pinata" a punishment for a failed hacking/archaeology attempt is an excellent idea. Having something blow up in your face is usually a bad thing. It seems really, really, odd as a reward. If you successfully hack the site you get everything in the can. If you fail you get "loot pinata" AND everything else that comes with a failed attempt (e.g. rats, explosive traps). I guess from a pvp or loot ninja's perspective having the can explode with every success is a good thing. Why should you have your cake and eat it too? Loot pi+¦ata as a failure mechinac defeats the purpose of the mini game and any player skill/luck in exploration and will only glorify blobing in even more areas of the game. It doesn't defeat the purpose of the mini game at all. If anything it would encourage you being successful at the mini game. If you've maxxed your skills and fitted your ship expressly for completing the mini game then why should my reward be the chance I don't get all my loot. It isn't that I want to "have my cake and eat it too", I just don't want it to blow up in my face. I wanted exploration to be my solo profession because it was much more satisfying than mining. Though sadly it's starting to seem more appealing. As a miner if you dedicate your skills to your trade and fit your ship you get 100% of your loot in your hold every single time. There's something to do in every single system and you don't really need to bring a friend or a second ship. Right now if you are successful you get loot, if you are not I will be destroyed with no loot at all. With what you are proposing if you are successful you get loot, if you fail you still get loot. How is that not having your cake and eating it too? Loot pinata means you get LESS loot. I've always considered less loot a bad thing. Being successful means you get all the loot or minimally get to pick through the crappy stuff. I'm trying hard to justify a mechanic that seems more functional as punishment. Not to mention the fact that there's the chance you will end up with crap no matter what. The loot pinata greatly increases that chance.
Yugo Reventlov Hax. Game Over. 20	Posted - 2013.05.29 20:03:00 - [212] - Quote The hacking minigame UI seems to have issues with UI scaling. I have my UI scaling set to 90% and the minigame UI overflows out of the window. Screen: http://i.imgur.com/oPHegZ9.png
James Amril-Kesh 4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance 5274	Posted - 2013.05.29 20:16:00 - [213] - Quote CCP RedDawn wrote: Rengerel en Distel wrote: Should we be bug reporting the sites that still spawn rats on failed hacks, or are you guys just working down a list to remove them? No need for bug reports for this right now. We are in the process of fixing all of these containers and it should be finished soon, but please hold off on the reports about the rats. Thanks! Some of the data sites seem to have even more rats than before, now not just as a fail mechanic. -áMy (mostly boring) Youtube channel.
Von Keigai 9	Posted - 2013.05.29 20:18:00 - [214] - Quote I have read through all of both of these threads, with a mounting sense of horror about the loot spew feature. As soon as I read about the loot spew mechanic, I thought it was unrealistic, magical, and wrong for EVE. Kahns captures much of what I feel about it here, so I'll just quote his: Kahns wrote: CCP Bayesian wrote: For the people saying the 'loot pinata sucks' and the like could you vocalise the problems you have with it? ... We do not have direct control of our ships, so don't expect it from us! Moving towards floating cans that you can't select in the overview highlights some of the worst parts of how Eve's ship control mechanics work. It was already frustrating to nimbly move our ships around in Eve, we just typically didn't have to do it. As you know, we don't have direct control of our ships, but in this case you're basically asking us to pretend we do. ... It's completely inconsistent with the metaphors you've used elsewhere in the game. Clicking on something doesn't bring something towards you anywhere but in this one single little mini-game. Worse yet, you've got the metaphor of tractoring using a module elsewhere in the game and it works completely differently. It's just bad design! Let me add a few points about "realism". A game should be internally consistent, and also consistent with real reality with the exception of magical or scifi elements within the game's reality. The loot spew mechanic fails massively on both of these criteria. Kahns points out some of the internal inconsistency. Let me add to that: in no other part of EVE is loot collection in any way a twitch game, or significantly time-limited. Loot just sits there, be it in a wreck or a can. Yes, wrecks eventually evaporate and cans eventually will be despawned. But these things are never time-sensitive on the scale of seconds, and they never involve fast mousing. Fast mousing is necessary in combat, to gain access to rewards. It is never required for the reward itself. I think it is this aspect of it that many player find feels wrong: they've just succeeded at the ostensible challenge, only to find an even harder challenge. Is "exploration" or "treasure finding" supposed to be a thinking game or a twitch game? In real reality, at least, it is a thinking game. Now let me turn to real reality. This is another way in which loot spew fails, at least for me. It just makes no sense because there is no real world analog at all. In the real world, loot (like pretty much all other physical objects) just sits there, just like all current EVE loot. Certainly the only thing likely to spew loot out in the real world would be an explosion. But since you don't do loot-spew for loot on exploding ships (and please don't get any ideas), it is inconsistent to do it to loot coming out of much-less-explodey computer systems and ancient relics. Furthermore, there is almost nothing in the real world that is analogous to radically time-sensitive moving loot. Perhaps a fiery explosion? And this is doubly true in computers. A file is either there, or not; it never self-erases, it does not burn up if you copy it. Nor, especially, does a file copy itself onto a physical object, erase itself, then light itself on fire and shoot out of the computer into nearby space. It's just ludicrous. And yet that is what is evidently supposed to be happening in EVE. You are ruining my fictional-world immersion on every loot-spew. Suddenly I am not in new Eden, grabbing hard-won loot. I am staring a screen watching something stupid and nonsensical. Look, I grasp the idea behind the mechanic. It is to reward small group play because you believe only social groups stay in EVE long term. Social group == long term == subscriptions == money. I realize why you want the mechanic. It's a perfectly good reason. It's just a bad mechanic. Why is it bad? Human irrationality: we feel differently about things lost (which connote wrongdoing) and bonuses (which connote success). It is functionally equivalent to either give 2x loot and then take away half from the soloer, as to give 1x loot but then double it for non-soloers. But the two things feel entirely different: in the first, the soloer is punished, in the second, the group is rewarded. It's the same reason why stores have sales, but never surcharges, even though economically the two are equivalent. Loot spew comes across to the solo player (which, currently at least, I guess that almost all explorers are) as a hose. I feel you ought to balance the desirability of rewarding small groups against the undesirability of putting in a mechanic that 98% of the players feel as a punishment. Find a way to increase loot for groups, not decrease it for soloers. If it is not too late, I'd suggest that you put off rewarding groups for a later iteration, where it should be done via cooperative play within the minigame. (I.e.: if two+ players click on the same node at the same time (within, say, 1 second of each other), they get better results.) Lower the loot amounts back to current levels, and get rid of the spew.
Heinel Coventina University of Caille Gallente Federation 26	Posted - 2013.05.29 20:35:00 - [215] - Quote Rob Crowley wrote: CCP RedDawn wrote: Lowered the Virus Strength stat bonus on all the Tech I exploration frigates from +10 to + 5. Given all the the Tech II exploration frigates a +10 Virus Strength stat bonus. That's excellent, I still think a certain cruiser class linked closely to exploration should get some strength bonus too, but the above is already a good start towards a working ship progression and risk/reward balancing. . I'd rather they re-vamp deep space transport completely into an exploration vessel class instead. Especially if they're going to make exploration into an industrial activity, rather than combat.
James Amril-Kesh 4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance 5274	Posted - 2013.05.29 20:38:00 - [216] - Quote http://i.imgur.com/pQ94uKh.jpg Holy *** CCP, are you serious?* What's all this ridiculous particulate crap? It's killing my graphics and it's here for no reason. I also have GPU particles turned off, but it seems you're just ignoring that setting with every new little cloud and smoke, etc. -áMy (mostly boring) Youtube channel.
Ali Aras Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind 288	Posted - 2013.05.29 21:44:00 - [217] - Quote So I understand why the loot speed was changed, but I think you guys went too far-- on sisi today, I was able to collect 9/12 and usually 10/12 cans all by my lonesome. Even when loot went out in two completely opposite directions I rarely saw a can turn white. Prior to the change, I got closer to 5/12 or 6/12, up to 8/12 on one good run. I'm an interceptor pilot (read: not bad at manual piloting) and like a challenge, so I may not be the Typical EVE Player here, but the advantage is back to soloing with the loot speed change. With the new mechanic, if it's going to benefit you to bring a friend people are always going to miss out on some cans if it's working as intended. I understand that people are mad about that, but I feel that that's something for them to get over and start treating like a challenge. If loot values are still too low, they can be tweaked a bit. EVE isn't supposed to be easy. http://warp-to-sun.tumblr.com -- my blog

CCP Bayesian 820	Posted - 2013.05.29 22:26:00 - [218] - Quote Yugo Reventlov wrote: The hacking minigame UI seems to have issues with UI scaling. I have my UI scaling set to 90% and the minigame UI overflows out of the window. Screen: http://i.imgur.com/oPHegZ9.png Will defect it when I get in tomorrow morning. EVE Software Engineer Team Prototyping Rocks


CCP Bayesian 820	Posted - 2013.05.29 22:35:00 - [219] - Quote With regards the previous strategy posts the things to look for to judge your success is the kind of object you hacked as this indicates difficulty, how regularly you win and how much coherence you have left when you do win. Fewer clicks is also a good metric for being better but somewhat at the mercy of the layout that is generated. Obviously as its EVE, skills and your fit play a part in how easy any difficulty tier is. There is also an updated tutorial and we intend to put together a small explanation video. All of that is on top of the information displayed in the lower right of the modules UI window which updates when hovering over nodes. EVE Software Engineer Team Prototyping Rocks

Salpun Paramount Commerce 503	Posted - 2013.05.29 23:26:00 - [220] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: Yugo Reventlov wrote: The hacking minigame UI seems to have issues with UI scaling. I have my UI scaling set to 90% and the minigame UI overflows out of the window. Screen: http://i.imgur.com/oPHegZ9.png Will defect it when I get in tomorrow morning. Might want to check the Tutorial also. The scaling code also gets forgotten there allot.

Nicola Arman Saiph Industries Upholders 27	Posted - 2013.05.29 23:32:00 - [221] - Quote It feels a lot better right now. It's so easy to gank people in Odyssey that this will actually be a pretty thrilling profession. I have good skills. Most of the cans are scooped. I'm able to watch Local and D-Scan with the slower cans. It's fun! I'm gonna make a killing at something I'm good at while the rest keep crying about the growing pains. This will be a fun expansion.
Nicola Arman Saiph Industries Upholders 27	Posted - 2013.05.30 00:08:00 - [222] - Quote Though.... Seriously.... What's the difference between Relic and Data Sites?? It's the same thing! Whyyy?? They're exactly the same process. Different module...
Omnathious Deninard The Scope Gallente Federation 1077	Posted - 2013.05.30 00:14:00 - [223] - Quote Did a Null Sec Relic site, collected 9 cans with a Tengu. I did a cargo scan of it first to have something to compare my results with. http://i.imgur.com/DopUWcs.jpg?1 Ideas For Drone Improvement Repourpose Deep Space Scanner Probes
Naomi Hale Children of New Eden 110	Posted - 2013.05.30 00:53:00 - [224] - Quote Ali Aras wrote: I understand that people are mad about that, but I feel that that's something for them to get over and start treating like a challenge. If loot values are still too low, they can be tweaked a bit. EVE isn't supposed to be easy. Not trolling, Genuinely curious. Aren't you, as a CSM, supposed to represent the people? That statement seems counterintuitive. I choose to believe what I was PROGRAMMED to believe!
Omnathious Deninard The Scope Gallente Federation 1078	Posted - 2013.05.30 00:56:00 - [225] - Quote The Virus Suppressors are still to strong, hitting one is pretty much end hacking in null sec. Either there coherence needs lowered or there suppression needs to be adjusted so it doesn't reduce you to 10. As it stands they have a strength of 20 and a coherence of 80 whilst crippling you to 10 strength. Ideas For Drone Improvement Repourpose Deep Space Scanner Probes
Nicola Arman Saiph Industries Upholders 27	Posted - 2013.05.30 01:17:00 - [226] - Quote I don't think you're guaranteed to win.
Johan Toralen Clockwork X3 74	Posted - 2013.05.30 01:17:00 - [227] - Quote Here is a common issue that i have with the loot spew. It's one of the things that makes it so clunky and rage inducing for me: http://i.imgur.com/SMe1Iu1.jpg I want to see what the can at the red arrow is. But the mouse doesn't register it. I actualy have to move the mouse into the yellow area to see the name or to select the can. This happens a lot when cans are close together. It wastes precious time and is frustrating. Hence i wrote earlier that the slower cans, while making one issue better make another one worse. Another problem that now starts to go on my nerves more and more is cans flying behind ui elements which makes for some hectic camera adjustments to grab them. I already freed up as much space as possible in the center of the screen. It's still an issue and i have a big screen. This is gonna infuriate people with small screens. Therefore among other reasons please reconsider to put the cans in the overview. Naomi Hale wrote: Ali Aras wrote: I understand that people are mad about that, but I feel that that's something for them to get over and start treating like a challenge. If loot values are still too low, they can be tweaked a bit. EVE isn't supposed to be easy. Not trolling, Genuinely curious. Aren't you, as a CSM, supposed to represent the people? That statement seems counterintuitive. Yea i don't get it. Among the very few positive voices two CSM members. Looks like brown nosing to me. If anything CSM should be even mnore mad then regular players since they wern't consulted on the exploration changes. The conduct is noted and taken into consideration for the next election.
Suicidal Blonde Alchemical Aquisitions 36	Posted - 2013.05.30 01:39:00 - [228] - Quote Ive been watching this for a while. The concern with loot spew being too slow as I see it is that it defeats the whole purpose of its introduction. Whilst I'm not a fan I'd rather it existed for a reason. Specifically the stated intention to promote multi player.
Omnathious Deninard The Scope Gallente Federation 1078	Posted - 2013.05.30 01:50:00 - [229] - Quote My final test for tonight. http://i.imgur.com/FykOGd3.jpg http://i.imgur.com/rdR2TzH.jpg http://i.imgur.com/UusZKJr.jpg http://i.imgur.com/4x2427E.jpg http://i.imgur.com/8fJzic3.jpg http://i.imgur.com/HvDdkfn.jpg The system now is something that is manageable for a single person, but will work best still with a team mate. Ideas For Drone Improvement Repourpose Deep Space Scanner Probes
Ali Aras Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind 290	Posted - 2013.05.30 02:48:00 - [230] - Quote Naomi Hale wrote: Ali Aras wrote: I understand that people are mad about that, but I feel that that's something for them to get over and start treating like a challenge. If loot values are still too low, they can be tweaked a bit. EVE isn't supposed to be easy. Not trolling, Genuinely curious. Aren't you, as a CSM, supposed to represent the people? That statement seems counterintuitive. It is mathematically impossible for me to represent all the players, and the people who have issues with the spew are so effectively representing yourselves in this thread Given that, I must state my honest and genuine perspective for which I was elected, having marked it with my prior relevant history in similar tasks and disclaimed any representation of the majority (and yes, I realize most of my campaign was run on NPE-- I've given that feedback on this feature too, and not all of it was nice). I've spent hours testing this, partly on the urging of the players, and I've given feedback other places than this. Johan Toralen wrote: Yea i don't get it. Among the very few positive voices two CSM members. Looks like brown nosing to me. If anything CSM should be even mnore mad then regular players since they wern't consulted on the exploration changes. The conduct is noted and taken into consideration for the next election. Not all feedback I've given has been in this and the previous thread. Notably, the following: CCP RedDawn wrote: In related news we've made the following changes: ... Lowered the Coherence of the Anti-Virus Suppressors in difficulty tier 3. Lowered the Virus Strength stat bonus on all the Tech I exploration frigates from +10 to + 5. Given all the Tech II exploration frigates a +10 Virus Strength stat bonus. ... CCP RedDawn was brought to you at least in part by the feedback from myself and mynnna (with testing assist from CCP Affinity, thanks!). The words I used w.r.t playing without the +10 bonus were "frustrating", "feels random and senseless" and "Based on solely the covops test, I would not use this feature on TQ". Please explain how this constitutes brown-nosing. http://warp-to-sun.tumblr.com -- my blog

Panhead4411 Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge 316	Posted - 2013.05.30 02:55:00 - [231] - Quote Manssell wrote: Just need to ask, since I've seen it asked dozens of times and have yet to see it answered (if it has been I'm sorry), but what the bloody ell are you guys referring to when you say "tier"? I assume it's the hierarchy of difficulty to the games but what are they, how many? Everyone seems to be assuming it's a reference to Hi-sec, Low-sec, and 0.0 but as I far as I know this is just an assumption. CCP RedDawn wrote: In response to the above questions since my post. When "tier" is used it means the difficulty level of the loot containers and it ranges from 1 to 4. (Easy to Hard) Also, we're going to be looking at the Tech III bonuses soon. (but not soonGäó) I'll post more when things change. So, how does that actually answer the question? Yes we all figured the higher "tier" level is harder...but what is that rating tied to? System Sec status? Random Number Generator? CCP Tuxfords whim? We asked a simple 'what is this rating tied to?" question, and you responded with something along the lines of, "yes, it is a rating." http://blog.beyondreality.se/shift-click-does-nothing -á-á < Unified Inventory is NOT ready...
mynnna GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1222	Posted - 2013.05.30 02:55:00 - [232] - Quote Naomi Hale wrote: Ali Aras wrote: I understand that people are mad about that, but I feel that that's something for them to get over and start treating like a challenge. If loot values are still too low, they can be tweaked a bit. EVE isn't supposed to be easy. Not trolling, Genuinely curious. Aren't you, as a CSM, supposed to represent the people? That statement seems counterintuitive. Yes, I'm here to represent the players. Of course, I'm allowed to think for myself as well, and I rather liked the notion of things that you actually have to cooperate with others to leverage to their fullest potential. So, if (as in this case) I believe people are being spoiled little whiners, stamping their feet and demanding ALL THE THINGS, I'm going to tell them as much. I sincerely hope that CCP doesn't abandon the original intent of the can spray and that future iterations on this feature bring back sites that really do require cooperation. Multiplayer hacking to release multiple can sprays and the like, perhaps. Johan Toralen wrote: Yea i don't get it. Among the very few positive voices two CSM members. Looks like brown nosing to me. If anything CSM should be even mnore mad then regular players since they wern't consulted on the exploration changes. The conduct is noted and taken into consideration for the next election. There is no big enough for this post. Practically every part of it is wrong. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Flamespar Woof Club 602	Posted - 2013.05.30 02:58:00 - [233] - Quote I'm enjoying the exploration a lot more. I think the difficulty of the sites could be increased though. The only thing I would suggest is adding the following. It would be great if each time you destroyed a system core, you were given the choice to go a level deeper into the system, or to jettison the accessed cargo. Each time you enter a deeper level it becomes more complex and difficult, yet the potential rewards become greater. Of course the risk of failure should also escalate with every additional level. I can post on a forum, therefore I represent everyone.
mynnna GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1223	Posted - 2013.05.30 03:03:00 - [234] - Quote Flamespar wrote: It would be great if each time you destroyed a system core, you were given the choice to go a level deeper into the system, or to jettison the accessed cargo. Each time you enter a deeper level it becomes more complex and difficult, yet the potential rewards become greater. Of course the risk of failure should also escalate with every additional level. Now this, I like. This seems like a Good IdeaGäó. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Ali Aras Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind 290	Posted - 2013.05.30 03:04:00 - [235] - Quote Flamespar wrote: I'm enjoying the exploration a lot more. I think the difficulty of the sites could be increased though. The only thing I would suggest is adding the following. It would be great if each time you destroyed a system core, you were given the choice to go a level deeper into the system, or to jettison the accessed cargo. Each time you enter a deeper level it becomes more complex and difficult, yet the potential rewards become greater. Of course the risk of failure should also escalate with every additional level. I'm going to represent the player base a little and +1 the hell out of this Bonus points if the double-or-nothing mechanic is easier with a friend, maintaining the intent of more multiplayer PvE. http://warp-to-sun.tumblr.com -- my blog
Flamespar Woof Club 602	Posted - 2013.05.30 03:07:00 - [236] - Quote OMG. CSM agreeing with my post. Body shutting down .. can't cope with positivity on EVE forums I can post on a forum, therefore I represent everyone.
mynnna GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1226	Posted - 2013.05.30 03:08:00 - [237] - Quote Flamespar wrote: OMG. CSM agreeing with my post. Body shutting down .. can't cope with positivity on EVE forums Obviously, we're brownnosing. I mean I don't know how that actually works here, but it's obvious. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
James Amril-Kesh 4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance 5275	Posted - 2013.05.30 03:13:00 - [238] - Quote James Amril-Kesh wrote: http://i.imgur.com/pQ94uKh.jpg Holy *** CCP, are you serious?* What's all this ridiculous particulate crap? It's killing my graphics and it's here for no reason. I also have GPU particles turned off, but it seems you're just ignoring that setting with every new little cloud and smoke, etc. -áMy (mostly boring) Youtube channel.
Telrei Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 13	Posted - 2013.05.30 03:15:00 - [239] - Quote mynnna wrote: I sincerely hope that CCP doesn't abandon the original intent of the can spray and that future iterations on this feature bring back sites that really do require cooperation. Multiplayer hacking to release multiple can sprays and the like, perhaps. And in the meantime, since the loot is currently (in theory?) tuned to be rewarding for two players working to get all the cans, I hope they dial it back, since after all, one player getting loot meant for two would be a bit too good, right? [;) They should abandon the can spew because it solves a problem in the complete opposite way of EvE... As many have stated before NOWHERE ELSE from mining, running plexes, missioning, PvE, PvP, High Sec, Low Sec, Null Sec, does the end goal involve a time sensitive reward factor. The punishment is never AFTER you trigger the reward it is always before. If I bring a Battleship into a 10/10 complex I get obliterated.... I am not able to kill all mobs and then suddenly as soon as I kill the overseer I need to grab six cargo containers before they despawn. Soo I might get the tag or I might get that shield booster but not both.... No it is I bring at least a group of people to provide logistical support as well as added DPS and we see what goodies we have uncovered when the overseer is destroyed .. That is what hacking and the arch sides need to be as I and many others have stated... Have multi-tiered levels that require multiple people to hack at once.. Have the better sites constantly spew out NPCs so that a fleet is constantly needed to shield the hacker at every turn while hes trying to hack the system. Have it so that to even begin the hack you need a fleet to kill off the mobs. There are a lot of different ways to do it that don't focus on making Hacking and Arch into a group tablet game clickfest.....
mynnna GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1226	Posted - 2013.05.30 03:36:00 - [240] - Quote "It's always been this way, so it always should be that way" makes things pretty boring. Also, every single one of the ways you suggested to make it "multiplayer" just makes it "multi-account". Any of them could be multiboxed. The unique thing about the spray is that multiboxing it and being better off than having a genuine second person would be rather difficult. That's a good thing, because cooperation isn't cooperation when it involves your alts. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Vladimir Norkoff Income Redistribution Service 167	Posted - 2013.05.30 03:51:00 - [241] - Quote Telrei wrote: They should abandon the can spew because it solves a problem in the complete opposite way of EvE... Well yes, pretty much anybody with a lick of sense can look at the can spew and agree that is a particularly terrible way to encourage group play. One person is actively doing something, the other sits and twiddles his thumbs until the time comes where he gets to play janitor. Not very engaging. BUT.... it's here to stay. They've been pretty clear on that fact. No matter how much we hate it, somebody in CCP got very attached to the can spew gimmick. Adapt to it, or just quit exploration. Not trying to be a ****, just trying to be practical. CCP is fixated, and no matter how much we whine, complain, or even on rare occasions use well crafted logical arguments, they ain't gonna change their mind. Sure, the obvious and simple alternative to encourage group play would have been a multiplayer hacking mini-game, or even just have two separate games on a time limit so it'd be unfeasible to mutlibox. But we didn't get that. Instead we got loot bukkake. And we'll just have to live with it. Cuz they are committed to it.
Mike Azariah Gallente Benevolence Association 357	Posted - 2013.05.30 04:02:00 - [242] - Quote mynnna wrote: "IThe unique thing about the spray is that multiboxing it and being better off than having a genuine second person would be rather difficult. That's a good thing, because cooperation isn't cooperation when it involves your alts. qft Mike Azariah-á CSM8
Heinel Coventina University of Caille Gallente Federation 27	Posted - 2013.05.30 04:02:00 - [243] - Quote Ali Aras wrote: Flamespar wrote: I'm enjoying the exploration a lot more. I think the difficulty of the sites could be increased though. The only thing I would suggest is adding the following. It would be great if each time you destroyed a system core, you were given the choice to go a level deeper into the system, or to jettison the accessed cargo. Each time you enter a deeper level it becomes more complex and difficult, yet the potential rewards become greater. Of course the risk of failure should also escalate with every additional level. I'm going to represent the player base a little and +1 the hell out of this Bonus points if the double-or-nothing mechanic is easier with a friend, maintaining the intent of more multiplayer PvE. Bring friends to provide a backup hack for hacking escalations is brilliant, definitely +1.
Telrei Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 14	Posted - 2013.05.30 04:04:00 - [244] - Quote mynnna wrote: "It's always been this way, so it always should be that way" makes things pretty boring. Also, every single one of the ways you suggested to make it "multiplayer" just makes it "multi-account". Any of them could be multiboxed. The unique thing about the spray is that multiboxing it and being better off than having a genuine second person would be rather difficult. That's a good thing, because cooperation isn't cooperation when it involves your alts. Ok... Then I propose that we make all complexes have this new anti-multibox feature as well. Why should it be mandatory that all Hacking and Arch sites be shielded from multiboxers when I can run a 10/10 multibox and get 1-2b+ "You can't run a 10/10 that easily multi-boxed" Then make the high level hacking sites as difficult to run multi-boxed without this new gimmick Why are you and some of the other CSM so intent on making sure that Hacking and Arch sites MUST require two+ people to run when I can run a 5/10-6/10 complex solo and more than likely make as much isk if not more.... It almost seems as if you want to punish any solo player who isn't fielding a 1b+ ship and EVEN THEN in this situation it wouldn't help you one bit. Am I stating that I want to breeze through every hacking site no of course not. I am saying that the risk reward should remain constant... The higher level the site the more difficult the more risk I take running it solo or multi-boxed if even possible
mynnna GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1226	Posted - 2013.05.30 04:18:00 - [245] - Quote Telrei wrote: mynnna wrote: "It's always been this way, so it always should be that way" makes things pretty boring. Also, every single one of the ways you suggested to make it "multiplayer" just makes it "multi-account". Any of them could be multiboxed. The unique thing about the spray is that multiboxing it and being better off than having a genuine second person would be rather difficult. That's a good thing, because cooperation isn't cooperation when it involves your alts. Ok... Then I propose that we make all complexes have this new anti-multibox feature as well. Why should it be mandatory that all Hacking and Arch sites be shielded from multiboxers when I can run a 10/10 multibox and get 1-2b+ "You can't run a 10/10 that easily multi-boxed" Then make the high level hacking sites as difficult to run multi-boxed without this new gimmick Maybe they'll get to that someday. Telrei wrote: Why are you and some of the other CSM so intent on making sure that Hacking and Arch sites MUST require two+ people to run when I can run a 5/10-6/10 complex solo and more than likely make as much isk if not more.... They don't require 2+ people to run. They require 2+ people to loot all the cans, but since the loot is balanced for two, that's fine. If one person is running it, they still get their fair share. And, comparing these things to 5/10 or 6/10s is apples and oranges and you know it. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Vladimir Norkoff Income Redistribution Service 167	Posted - 2013.05.30 04:21:00 - [246] - Quote Telrei wrote: Why are you and some of the other CSM so intent on making sure that Hacking and Arch sites MUST require two+ people to run when I can run a 5/10-6/10 complex solo and more than likely make as much isk if not more.... Well actually they already are somewhat similar. In order to completely maximize your ISK haul in a complex, you'd want to have a buddy along with you to do looting and salvaging. And similar to the can spew, he sits there and does pretty much nothing while watching you be actively engaged with game content. And then when it's all over, you can split the reward with him even though you are the one with the skills and the ship that made the entire thing possible. Of course, that is assuming you can talk somebody into spending their time doing that. So yeah, it already is kinda like can spew.... :-/
Telrei Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 14	Posted - 2013.05.30 04:24:00 - [247] - Quote I don't usually like to double post but it just came to me.... This is the emergency nerf.... Someone suddenly realized that if you added the new mini-game people would go after EVERY hacking site in the game to try it out.... The entire market would be flooded with the onset of new and old people who never gave a hoot about hacking or just did it from time to time and now suddenly enmass are trying it... Rather then pulling the plug this late in the iteration you needed a balance.... You knew that most people run hacking/arch sites solo so you added the can spew in to make sure that the VAST amount of people who used to run hacking would still stay away... As I have said before if I try and get someone to help they will say don't waste your time on that hacking site come mine/plex/mission. et.... You keep the solo players in check because most will stop running and the market will remain unflooded.... Well played... you have succeeded on this until the next iteration where the can spew is magically gone and replaced with one if not multiple of the ideas listed that will take much much longer to code and balance....
Naomi Hale Children of New Eden 113	Posted - 2013.05.30 04:39:00 - [248] - Quote Ali Aras wrote: It is mathematically impossible for me to represent all the players, and the people who have issues with the spew are so effectively representing yourselves in this thread Given that, I must state my honest and genuine perspective for which I was elected, having marked it with my prior relevant history in similar tasks and disclaimed any representation of the majority (and yes, I realize most of my campaign was run on NPE-- I've given that feedback on this feature too, and not all of it was nice). I've spent hours testing this, partly on the urging of the players, and I've given feedback other places than this. mynnna wrote: Yes, I'm here to represent the players. Of course, I'm allowed to think for myself as well, and I rather liked the notion of things that you actually have to cooperate with others to leverage to their fullest potential. So, if (as in this case) I believe people are being spoiled little whiners, stamping their feet and demanding ALL THE THINGS, I'm going to tell them as much. I understand that you can't represent everyone and that you are allowed to express your own opinion even if (and sometimes especially because) it contradicts some players. My issue was more with the wording and tone of the post. Ali Aras wrote: I understand that people are mad about that, but I feel that that's something for them to get over and start treating like a challenge. If loot values are still too low, they can be tweaked a bit. EVE isn't supposed to be easy. This seems to acknowledge that some players have issues with the new feature and then literally tells them to 'get over' it. Where as something like... Ali Aras could have wrote: I feel that this should be treated like a challenge. If loot values are still too low, they can be tweaked a bit. EVE isn't supposed to be easy. Seems less confrontational. It's all about PR and spin, you're a politician now, I'm afraid this is stuff you need to consider. But at least you didn't refer to people as 'spoiled little whiners' I choose to believe what I was PROGRAMMED to believe!
Heinel Coventina University of Caille Gallente Federation 27	Posted - 2013.05.30 04:41:00 - [249] - Quote Naomi Hale wrote: It's all about PR and spin, you're a politician now, I'm afraid this is stuff you need to consider. But at least you didn't refer to people as 'spoiled little whiners' I'd rather my representatives do not lie, mince words, or otherwise wasting time fine tuning their PR spin.
mynnna GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1226	Posted - 2013.05.30 04:41:00 - [250] - Quote Telrei wrote: I don't usually like to double post but it just came to me.... This is the emergency nerf.... Someone suddenly realized that if you added the new mini-game people would go after EVERY hacking site in the game to try it out.... The entire market would be flooded with the onset of new and old people who never gave a hoot about hacking or just did it from time to time and now suddenly enmass are trying it... Rather then pulling the plug this late in the iteration you needed a balance.... You knew that most people run hacking/arch sites solo so you added the can spew in to make sure that the VAST amount of people who used to run hacking would still stay away... As I have said before if I try and get someone to help they will say don't waste your time on that hacking site come mine/plex/mission. et.... You keep the solo players in check because most will stop running and the market will remain unflooded.... Well played... you have succeeded on this until the next iteration where the can spew is magically gone and replaced with one if not multiple of the ideas listed that will take much much longer to code and balance.... You, uh, do realize that CCP went ahead and made the cans so slow that a reasonably capable player can get nearly all of them now, right? I mean, it kinda pokes a hole in your theory there... Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Naomi Hale Children of New Eden 113	Posted - 2013.05.30 04:45:00 - [251] - Quote Telrei wrote: I don't usually like to double post but it just came to me.... This is the emergency nerf.... Someone suddenly realized that if you added the new mini-game people would go after EVERY hacking site in the game to try it out.... The entire market would be flooded with the onset of new and old people who never gave a hoot about hacking or just did it from time to time and now suddenly enmass are trying it... Rather then pulling the plug this late in the iteration you needed a balance.... You knew that most people run hacking/arch sites solo so you added the can spew in to make sure that the VAST amount of people who used to run hacking would still stay away... As I have said before if I try and get someone to help they will say don't waste your time on that hacking site come mine/plex/mission. et.... You keep the solo players in check because most will stop running and the market will remain unflooded.... Well played... you have succeeded on this until the next iteration where the can spew is magically gone and replaced with one if not multiple of the ideas listed that will take much much longer to code and balance.... But aren't the number of sites spawned still limited so the amount of loot that can make it onto the market is consistent, no matter how many players run these sites? I choose to believe what I was PROGRAMMED to believe!
kyofu Praetorian Black Guard Frater Adhuc Excessum 34	Posted - 2013.05.30 05:07:00 - [252] - Quote mynnna wrote: snip So, if (as in this case) I believe people are being spoiled little whiners, stamping their feet and demanding ALL THE THINGS, I'm going to tell them as much.snip Some people have valid complaints with the spew. I tried it for a few hours and my wrists were throbbing. I found it a headache inducing, eye straining and extremely frustrating experience. Also explorers are used to getting nothing for their efforts, so I think you are misreading the intent behind most of the posts. The RNG on loot drops is a fickle and cruel mistress. While some posts have noted the negative psychological aspect of having to watch potential loot float away, it should be obvious that if you were to instead get all the loot that "all" would be significantly less than the current all. I have seen several much better ideas for loot distribution which integrate the minigame and allow for a dynamic experience. I see you read one and agreed its a good idea. Even if you agree with the intent behind the mechanic (cooperative gameplay) I think there are many far superior and less frustrating ideas out there as to how to achieve those same gameplay goals.
Tsubutai Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 207	Posted - 2013.05.30 05:31:00 - [253] - Quote mynnna wrote: They don't require 2+ people to run. They require 2+ people to loot all the cans, but since the loot is balanced for two, that's fine. If one person is running it, they still get their fair share. How can the loot be balanced for two when one person can grab 80-90% of the cans by themselves and the spew cans now move so slowly that it's trivial to get them all by dualboxing if you really care about the missing 10-20%?
Naomi Hale Children of New Eden 113	Posted - 2013.05.30 05:36:00 - [254] - Quote I want to clear up my position here as it does tend to get lost in posts and responses and moves off topic. I have no problem with the spew can/pinata mechanic or any of the new hacking and scanning, it's all good, different and promotes some new co-op play, I think it achieves what it set out to do. My issue is that it is focused too much on isk/hour, loot value and feels like just another way to make money in a game that already has lots of ways to make isk. Like a job where you need to maintain your level of productivity. I wanted exploration, and archaeology in particular, to focus more on the discovery and story elements of EVE Online and to bridge the large gap between the in-game world and the lore rich website content, like Evelopdia, the chronicles, news reports and yes even the EVE books. I was looking forward to an activity in EVE that used some of the games excellent story and wasn't just a means to make money and fund player corps, wars and conflict. Outside of the epic missions there isn't any story in EVE the isn't player driven or Corp politics. New Eden's in-game world feels static and unconnected to the events written about NPC actions. I didn't even notice Souro Foiritan had been out of office until I read 'Templar One'. Despite massive changes within the Armarr leadership out of game they still feel the same in-game. I know EVE is a player driven sandbox, but if the story isn't important why is it there? Minecraft is a sandbox, has no story and is still an excellent game. And I kind of hoped Odyssey was the beginning of bridging that gap and enriching the story of New Eden for players. That's why to me personally the new exploration is a good well designed activity to do in EVE Online, but it's not exploration. If I could make but one change to the new content it would be that the relic sites with salvage loot use existing assets in space, but sites that actually have relics use the new Terran ship derelict and just the derelict (clouds and rocks are fine) so that there is a feel of finding something long forgotten and hidden. Nothing shatters that feeling quicker than finding an ancient ship and seeing it in space along side Empire station ruins, Pirate structures or any number of assets you've already seen running missions and complexes.. I choose to believe what I was PROGRAMMED to believe!
Kel hound Lycosa Syndicate Surely You're Joking 38	Posted - 2013.05.30 06:04:00 - [255] - Quote mynnna wrote: "It's always been this way, so it always should be that way" makes things pretty boring. Also, every single one of the ways you suggested to make it "multiplayer" just makes it "multi-account". Any of them could be multiboxed. The unique thing about the spray is that multiboxing it and being better off than having a genuine second person would be rather difficult. That's a good thing, because cooperation isn't cooperation when it involves your alts. To be fair, there are reasons why "it has always been this way" and there are reasons why "it should always be this way". For one thing, the overview is the single most efficient way to navigate EVE's 3D space than CCP has ever given us. Any frigate/interceptor pilot can tell you that precision navigation in EVE is hard. While this is not necessarily a bad thing when it comes to ship-to-ship combat, it makes for an atrocious "reward" mechanic. Yes, having a system that discourages multiboxing is a good thing, but this loot bukaki is a cure worse than the disease. Why can't we have the same fast loot mechanic in a floating can, using the inventory window? A limited time to pick up vague mini-cans containing our loot, but without the frustration of having to click on tiny little cans flying off into space?
Telrei Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 14	Posted - 2013.05.30 06:10:00 - [256] - Quote mynnna wrote: You, uh, do realize that CCP went ahead and made the cans so slow that a reasonably capable player can get nearly all of them now, right? I mean, it kinda pokes a hole in your theory there... Not really just means that they went too far.... Your keyword is nearly.. still means a solo player will still be put off enough after time just because of the mechanics and missing a couple of cans. I have been playing for a very very long time and I know you have been around since the start. Eve is always and should always be the giant sandbox... If you want to play solo you can play solo If you come to a harder challenge you just need more skills and a better ship If you come to great challenges you can't beat no matter the skill or ship you need a group If you want to play with a group made up of yourself to overcome those same great challenges you can The current system does away with that as a blanket ban.... I guess my question to you is simple. Why do you feel that all hacking and Arch sites should require multiple players no matter what the difficulty of the challenge is. Doesn't matter if I have 100+SP char with a +1b properly fit ship. Doesn't matter if I have 4 accounts that I am multi-boxing at once that can easily run almost any other site/mission/plex in the game. Just that currently every hacking/Arch site no matter the level or difficulty must have two people running it....
Ali Aras Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind 292	Posted - 2013.05.30 07:40:00 - [257] - Quote Tsubutai wrote: mynnna wrote: They don't require 2+ people to run. They require 2+ people to loot all the cans, but since the loot is balanced for two, that's fine. If one person is running it, they still get their fair share. How can the loot be balanced for two when one person can grab 80-90% of the cans by themselves and the spew cans now move so slowly that it's trivial to get them all by dualboxing if you really care about the missing 10-20%? You...you realize that me pointing this out is the feedbacklet that started this whole kerfuffle, right? I'm aware, and I posted here (and will perhaps follow up later) to make sure CCP is aware. Telrei wrote: I have been playing for a very very long time and I know you have been around since the start. Eve is always and should always be the giant sandbox... If you want to play solo you can play solo If you come to a harder challenge you just need more skills and a better ship or a group of lesser skilled players If you come to great challenges you can't beat no matter the skill or ship you need a group If you want to play with a group made up of yourself to overcome those same great challenges you can The current system does away with that as a blanket ban.... I guess my question to you is simple. Why do you feel that all hacking and Arch sites should require multiple players no matter what the difficulty of the challenge is. Hacking and archaeology sites do not require multiple players to complete. I can and have gone into a hacking and archaeology site 100% solo and completed it, defined as completing the minigame successfully and scooping loot to my hold. The containers, especially under their previous scatter, are a challenge of ship piloting and judging trajectories, just as taking on a hard mission or DED site is a challenge of overheating hardeners and timing your attacks well. Even under the previous speeds, one could always get some containers, making a complete failure impossible. Progress in container-scooping is possible and optimizing it is a fun little learned skill, although I'm sure there are folks who'll disagree with that. Fine! It's a sandbox, content for everyone. If I complete the site solo or if I complete the site with a friend, I end up with the same reward-- intended to be balanced, as blueposts up thread have said, so that the usual containers-scooped by a single person are equivalent in value to pre-Odyssey push button sites. In short, nothing about the rewards earned should be changing. If it changes in the real world, and this is something CCP has the powers to evaluate, their stated design goals indicate that it should be tweaked and I can assure you that this is something I will follow up on after release. In short, the sandbox is intact. You can play how you want. You can bring a friend if you want to, and they can hack the container next to you (you can race, even!) and minimize when you open the container, giving you a faster completion of the site overall. If you do this, you will receive the same reward as if you ran solo except you'll be able to actually play with your friends for once. It's increasing options, not decreasing them. P.S: you know where no amount of multiboxing can overcome a well-oiled fleet? It's PvP. it's already in the game, it's just something you don't encounter. http://warp-to-sun.tumblr.com -- my blog
Westar Egdald NoobMeat Corporation 0	Posted - 2013.05.30 07:57:00 - [258] - Quote New system is bad. It's not about skills of your character. It's about your clicking skill.
Raven Solaris The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance 207	Posted - 2013.05.30 08:13:00 - [259] - Quote mynnna wrote: Yes, I'm here to represent the players. Of course, I'm allowed to think for myself as well, and I rather liked the notion of things that you actually have to cooperate with others to leverage to their fullest potential. So, if (as in this case) I believe people are being spoiled little whiners, stamping their feet and demanding ALL THE THINGS, I'm going to tell them as much. I sincerely hope that CCP doesn't abandon the original intent of the can spray and that future iterations on this feature bring back sites that really do require cooperation. Multiplayer hacking to release multiple can sprays and the like, perhaps. And in the meantime, since the loot is currently (in theory?) tuned to be rewarding for two players working to get all the cans, I hope they dial it back, since after all, one player getting loot meant for two would be a bit too good, right? The problem is that it's bad co-op. Raven Solaris wrote: I'm gonna add onto that last post of mine. When I go scanning on TQ right now, and I find Hacking, Archaelogy, and Salvaging sites, I'll run them myself. I don't really need help, and it's a nice little boost to my wallet. If I find a Combat site, which since I'm talking about 0.0 is usually an 8/10 or 10/10 and such, I have 2 friends I ask along, no alts, no super solo ship (don't even think there's a ship in EVE that can solo 10/10s.) Usually I'll go in in something heavy, my first friend brings a Logistics cruiser, and my second brings an Ishtar or something to cover the Logi and help with DPS. Everyone has a role, and we work together to (maybe) get something awesome like a Nightmare Blueprint (never happens.) It's fun. So I have no qualms with calling friends up to come do hacking sites with me if they're available, but I don't want to ask them to come twiddle their thumbs 90% of the time and click frantically for the other 10%, it wouldn't be fun for them. Ali Aras wrote: In short, the sandbox is intact. You can play how you want. You can bring a friend if you want to, and they can hack the container next to you (you can race, even!) As much as I love racing (I occasionally do"scan offs" with another Spoon,) that's a terrible idea. Especially if you want to make the cans spread faster again, since whoever "loses" is likely to end up having to move more than 6km away from their container causing them to fail.
Rob Crowley State War Academy 60	Posted - 2013.05.30 08:14:00 - [260] - Quote In my opinion the discussion is moving in a rather unconstructive direction here. Could we please get back to the part where can spewing is bad not because you don't get enough loot (which already has been fixed mostly) but because Eve's space view is rather terrible for twitchy gameplay and nobody in their right mind would actually enjoy sitting around waiting for someone else to do the actual hacking gameplay just to take part in that rather annoying catch-the-can game (and possibly spamming dscan before which is even less enjoyable)? mynnna wrote: "It's always been this way, so it always should be that way" makes things pretty boring. Well, let me answer in the roughly translated and shortened words of a comedian: 'You all know this sentence: "Everything was better in the past." That's bollocks! Nothing was better in the past! But some things were good in the past and they would still be good today if people had kept their damn fingers off them.' And just so I don't get misunderstood here, I'm not saying exploration didn't need some work, I'm simply trying to counter your notion that change as such is positive. Quote: Also, every single one of the ways you suggested to make it "multiplayer" just makes it "multi-account". Any of them could be multiboxed. The unique thing about the spray is that multiboxing it and being better off than having a genuine second person would be rather difficult. That's a good thing, because cooperation isn't cooperation when it involves your alts. I'm about as anti-alt as it gets, but you can't tell me that it's not possible to design a hacking minigame in a way that it prohibits alt play. I already mentioned in the other thread that some part of the gameplay needs to be twitchy and real-time to some degree to achieve the anti-alt goal, but in case of the hacking game it would at least be in a seperate window and hopefully without moving parts that are floating on top of each other. Telrei wrote: Why do you feel that all hacking and Arch sites should require multiple players no matter what the difficulty of the challenge is. Nobody said that and they don't require multiple players. There is no god-given right to get all loot solo, even though I agree that loot collecting is the worst possible part of an activity to encourage group play from a game design perspective.

Raven Solaris The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance 207	Posted - 2013.05.30 08:15:00 - [261] - Quote I mean really does anyone want to come onto the test server now and be the guy who just sits around waiting while I hack? If you want co-op in the hacking sites, and I really think it'd be cool, it should be in the hacking itself, not in a ridiculous pinata with a magic tractor beam.
Sheena Tzash Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 27	Posted - 2013.05.30 09:01:00 - [262] - Quote I'm actually waiting for the hack troll to arrive. Existing System: Only the hacker really knows if its open or not and most likely will open the can and loot it straight away. New System: Everyone nearby knows when a hack was successful as loot is sprayed all over the place. The troll: Sit near a hacking site cloaked and wait for someone to hack the site for you. At the loot is released, uncloak and click away. Since you don't need to lock the container to loot it you don't need to worry about the lock delay. Yeah they can shoot at you but I would guess that most exploration ships will be the tinfoil T1 frigs with very limited offensive abilities; you can turn up in pretty much anything and do better. To be honest I can see what they are trying to do with the loot mechanic but I just don't think its just not fun interesting gameplay that would be interesting enough for groups to participate in. You don't even have rats in sites to deal with to require someone in a combat ship to help clear them out - so anyone you bring will be left sitting around doing nothing right until the loot spray occurs at which point you've pretty much done all the work and they will take some of the credit.
Andreus Ixiris Duty. 2769	Posted - 2013.05.30 09:54:00 - [263] - Quote Vladimir Norkoff wrote: [Well yes, pretty much anybody with a lick of sense can look at the can spew and agree that is a particularly terrible way to encourage group play. One person is actively doing something, the other sits and twiddles his thumbs until the time comes where he gets to play janitor. Not very engaging. BUT.... it's here to stay. They've been pretty clear on that fact. No matter how much we hate it, somebody in CCP got very attached to the can spew gimmick. Adapt to it, or just quit exploration. Not trying to be a ****, just trying to be practical. CCP is fixated, and no matter how much we whine, complain, or even on rare occasions use well crafted logical arguments, they ain't gonna change their mind. Sure, the obvious and simple alternative to encourage group play would have been a multiplayer hacking mini-game, or even just have two separate games on a time limit so it'd be unfeasible to mutlibox. But we didn't get that. Instead we got loot bukkake. And we'll just have to live with it. Cuz they are committed to it. Well then we just have to try harder to get their attention, because this is bad for the game, and anything bad for the game is bad for CCP. We've been right before. We were right about how terrible an idea racelocking character creation content was. We were right about how terrible an idea the NeX prices were. We were right about how terribe an idea releasing CQ/WiS in a completely unfinished state was. We were right about the Sanctum nerfs. We were right about Incarna. We were right about a whole lot of things. If CCP wants a test server, they should listen to the goddamn testers. Mane 614
Lady Manus Lumen et Umbra 11	Posted - 2013.05.30 10:06:00 - [264] - Quote mynnna wrote: [quote=Telrei][quote=mynnna]"It's always been this way, so it always should be that way" makes things pretty boring. "You can't run a 10/10 that easily multi-boxed" Then make the high level hacking sites as difficult to run multi-boxed without this new gimmick Maybe they'll get to that someday. Imprving the game overall mean to means to me, improving it to all the playstyles. Improving group play while discouraging solo players is bad. Improving group play and solo play is good. In this particular case i also think that: - most explorers do it alone so you'll end up discouragin more ppl than the ones you'll encourage - this new mechanic is quit complex for newbies so you'll end up making exploration more for veteran/organized corps than for new players... and it's bad imho LM
Andreus Ixiris Duty. 2770	Posted - 2013.05.30 10:43:00 - [265] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: For the people saying the 'loot pinata sucks' and the like could you vocalise the problems you have with it? So far I've collated: - It's not the way EVE has previously worked. - Collision is a pain, both with the size of the Data Sites and the positioning of some containers. - Picking can be difficult if you're not using a mouse. - Picking can be difficult if you're blinded by the site contents. - Loot haul seems low in comparison with how it was before. - Losing cans feels bad, particular after the effort of having to hack the container. This makes it feel like a penalty. - Not knowing what is any particular can so it feels bad not being able to make good choices. - The 'bad loot' is far too bulky so it is excessively penalising as you have to stop and sort it out. I find this post disappointing given that players have been vocalising their problems with this system in depth for over 40 pages across two threads for nearly a month at this point. In summary: *1. The loot pinata system is not fun.* This is the most important and most essential issue with the mechanic. It's not fun. It's not enjoyable. After having expended the effort to play the minigame (which is fun but somewhat limited), having the loot that we worked for scatter everywhere and vanish after far too short a time feels... disappointing. It doesn't feel rewarding, it doesn't feel like you've accomplished something. It is irritating to chase after the cans, it's irritating to have to click on all of them individually, it's irritating to have them disappear, it's irritating to have little to no idea what you're picking up until you have it. The entire system is irritating, and irritating isn't fun. You've made a mechanic in your game that does not serve the player's enjoyment of it, and this is a bad thing that game developers should not do, because one of the core principles of good video game design is that each and every element of a game should further the player's engagement with and enjoyment of it. *2. The loot pinata system feels arbitrary.* The fact that we have a magical tractor beam that can only move these specific types of cans and nothing else feels incongrous. The fact that you can't add the cans to overview and that they don't "stack" when you mouse over multiple items at a time feels incongrous. The fact that I'm apparently a masterful enough hacker to get past super-powerful Guristas mainframe security but not skilled enough to simply stop it from spewing everything everywhere feels incongrous. The fact that there's very little way to tell what's in the cans you're trying to pick up makes the system feel random and deeply unpredictable, like I'm playing Magic: The Gathering with someone else's deck. Please don't think that removing the arbitrary nature will actually make the spew itself fun, but it most certainly does make a bad idea worse. 3. The loot pinata system does not encourage teamwork, but will encourage theft. There is literally nothing else a fleet member can do while someone's hacking other than keep watch on D-scan and shoot any rats that appear (which, if the hacker is good, will not happen). The only useful thing a fleet member can do is pick up the cans after the hack is finished, which means that in terms of exploration you're only able to bring fleet members along for help with the least interesting parts of the experience. However, a random thief can sit cloaked off the object someone's hacking and then immediately start scooping spew cans with no penalty - no aggression timer, nothing. I'm not in any way against thievery, but when you make it easier (or at the very least no more difficult) for the thieves than the other members of a team, it doesn't send the right message. 4. The loot pinata system disrupts the flow of the exploration profession. You have to spend a fair amount of time sitting relatively immobile in space doing the minigame. This isn't a problem. The hacking minigame is fun. But then you have to spend another minute or two randomly flailing around trying to get the cans before moving onto the next minigame. This seriously breaks the flow of the experience. This might seem a weak point in comparison to the other three but it's yet another irritation. Bayesian, most of the things you're addressing in your post are symptoms of the loot pinata mechanic. The problem is the mechanic itself. Mane 614
Sheena Tzash Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 28	Posted - 2013.05.30 11:03:00 - [266] - Quote Andreus Ixiris wrote: However, a random thief can sit cloaked off the object someone's hacking and then immediately start scooping spew cans with no penalty - no aggression timer, nothing I believe that they added Crimewatch to the cans themselves so that if someone took them they'd be marked as a suspect - but I doubt that's hardly a deterrent. I agree with all of your points but I suspect that since we're so close to release the general opinion from the devs is that its too far gone to revise now, and everyone else will simply disregard it as being negative because we're all sore about potentially losing a bit of loot. Personally I think this whole mechanic is going to go down like a fart in a space suit simply because this expansion is supposed to be all about exploration and while the scanning mechanic has been much improved the REASON for scanning (ie, running exploration sites) has been made more tedious and annoying with the addition of an uninteresting mini game and a forced in loot spewing mechanism because "it seemed like a good idea at the time"
Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd 178	Posted - 2013.05.30 11:09:00 - [267] - Quote I would like to take this particular moment to say that I, for one, find the hacking minigame to be fun and interesting. The loot spew is .. less fun .. but it's not altogether impossible to adapt to. Now if only we had those new mini-containers that "hint at what might be inside".
Kai Pirinha Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 30	Posted - 2013.05.30 11:12:00 - [268] - Quote The hacking is doable, but frankly what I really do not appreciate is that "grab what you can"-experience. This is maybe fun once or twice, but if you are looking for a stable(!) income, than this makes those sites completely unattractive. Sorry but even though it looked nice, I find this new system of loot utterly disgusting and have no fun in it. My five cents. Of course others may have different opinions and try to convince me why it's better (or not). I just wanted to give you my personal input.
Raven Solaris The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance 208	Posted - 2013.05.30 11:25:00 - [269] - Quote Kai Pirinha wrote: The hacking is doable, but frankly what I really do not appreciate is that "grab what you can"-experience. This is maybe fun once or twice, but if you are looking for a stable(!) income, than this makes those sites completely unattractive. Sorry but even though it looked nice, I find this new system of loot utterly disgusting and have no fun in it. My five cents. Of course others may have different opinions and try to convince me why it's better (or not). I just wanted to give you my personal input. Doubtful, what you just said is the general consensus. Hacking = good, room for growth. Loot pinata = can jump out of a tenth-story window.
Raven Solaris The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance 211	Posted - 2013.05.30 12:26:00 - [270] - Quote Raven Solaris wrote: I mean really does anyone want to come onto the test server now and be the guy who just sits around waiting while I hack? If you want co-op in the hacking sites, and I really think it'd be cool, it should be in the hacking itself, not in a ridiculous pinata with a magic tractor beam. No really, if anyone needs a demonstration in why it's bad co-op, I'm more than willing to go site hunting/running with you on Sisi. http://puu.sh/34ocU.jpg

Naomi Hale Children of New Eden 114	Posted - 2013.05.30 12:33:00 - [271] - Quote Rytell Tybat wrote: Great ideas! Depth and a bit of mystery all tied into the lore? This really puts CCP's version of archeology to shame. Would love to see something like this in-game. Seth Asthereun wrote: This for archeology. Really you should hire him/her Ruskarn Andedare wrote: I absolutely love your proposal there - it's close to what I was hoping for when I took up exploring. Thanks! Fingers crossed we get something like it in the future Scuzzy Logic wrote: YOu'd be surprised. Many people came back to WoW just to play the Archaeology minigame profession even if it is long, tedious and less rewarding then doing dungeons just because they like it. It shames me greatly that I started playing WoW when they added the archaeology mini-game and after reaching max level with a paladin and completeing all the Archeology sets I left the game as it got really dull. Not gone back since, but I always come back to EVE. I choose to believe what I was PROGRAMMED to believe!
Ruskarn Andedare Lion Investments 193	Posted - 2013.05.30 12:41:00 - [272] - Quote Raven Solaris wrote: Raven Solaris wrote: I mean really does anyone want to come onto the test server now and be the guy who just sits around waiting while I hack? If you want co-op in the hacking sites, and I really think it'd be cool, it should be in the hacking itself, not in a ridiculous pinata with a magic tractor beam. No really, if anyone needs a demonstration in why it's bad co-op, I'm more than willing to go site hunting/running with you on Sisi. http://puu.sh/34ocU.jpg Thanks but no thanks, I'd rather do drone sites right now.
Johan Toralen Clockwork X3 74	Posted - 2013.05.30 12:56:00 - [273] - Quote If multiboxing is the enemy there's a simple solution: ban multiboxing. Of course that's not gonna happen because it's massively important to CCP's income stream. So let's not get all hypocritical and implement game mechanics against multiboxing to the detrimental of those who like a profession that never was a multiboxing heaven to begin with. Seeing as this thread has become a little chaotic and it's hard to follow what everybody stands for here is a sum up of my opinion: - hacking has potential, can be enjoyable with some tweaks and should be the center of the new sites - spew = bad. I don't see it ever to become fun and feeling rewarding since the design is flawed on a fundamental level and not a matter of fine tuning - average income should be higher then on old sites because profession sites are now a more specialized activity and require to decide between focussing on them or combat sites. As it stands i'm gonna stop doing profession sites on TQ and focus solely on combat sites. It remains to be seen what the overall effect is. Whether it stops a lot of veterans to run the sites or excites a new generation of explorers. My money is on veterans being put off. When someone like Jonny Pew, who many new explorers look up to has not much positives to say about the new sites that should give you a hint.
Ruskarn Andedare Lion Investments 193	Posted - 2013.05.30 13:29:00 - [274] - Quote Johan Toralen wrote: - average income should be higher then on old sites because profession sites are now a more specialized activity and require to decide between focussing on them or combat sites. As it stands i'm gonna stop doing profession sites on TQ and focus solely on combat sites. It remains to be seen what the overall effect is. Whether it stops a lot of veterans to run the sites or excites a new generation of explorers. My money is on veterans being put off. When someone like Jonny Pew, who many new explorers look up to has not much positives to say about the new sites that should give you a hint. This bit can't be emphasised enough. ATM a lot of explorer types put a single codebreaker or analyzer on their primarily PVE combat ships just in case a decent site pops up or there aren't any combat sigs around. The new professional sites pretty much require the ship to be optimised for them so these changes will likely lead to a splitting of exploration where some stick to the (waaay more fun and profitable atm) combat sites while others only run the hacking sites. Given that the new professional sites will likely be of more interest to those that are newer to scanning would it not make sense that they also become a little easier to scan down?
EvilweaselSA GoonCorp Goonswarm Federation 843	Posted - 2013.05.30 13:32:00 - [275] - Quote Ruskarn Andedare wrote: Johan Toralen wrote: - average income should be higher then on old sites because profession sites are now a more specialized activity and require to decide between focussing on them or combat sites. As it stands i'm gonna stop doing profession sites on TQ and focus solely on combat sites. It remains to be seen what the overall effect is. Whether it stops a lot of veterans to run the sites or excites a new generation of explorers. My money is on veterans being put off. When someone like Jonny Pew, who many new explorers look up to has not much positives to say about the new sites that should give you a hint. This bit can't be emphasised enough. ATM a lot of explorer types put a single codebreaker or analyzer on their primarily PVE combat ships just in case a decent site pops up or there aren't any combat sigs around. The new professional sites pretty much require the ship to be optimised for them so these changes will likely lead to a splitting of exploration where some stick to the (waaay more fun and profitable atm) combat sites while others only run the hacking sites. Given that the new professional sites will likely be of more interest to those that are newer to scanning would it not make sense that they also become a little easier to scan down? good, it is well that there is variation in exploration
Freighdee Katt Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 156	Posted - 2013.05.30 13:48:00 - [276] - Quote Andreus Ixiris wrote: Bayesian, most of the things you're addressing in your post are symptoms of the loot pinata mechanic. The problem is the mechanic itself. This, more than anything. Andreus said everything there is to say about this. It's clear to see by now that you all have no intention of listening to this feedback, which has been repeated often and loudly since this mechanic was first proposed. And that's sad. It is ironic, but unsurprising, that the "Exploration Expansion" basically means killing exploration as a fun, interesting, or in any way desirable profession. You have ruined non-combat exploration as a solo profession, and what is worse, you also ruined it as a noob friendly profession. The old exploration was one of the greatest things in the game for a day zero player, because you could hop in a cheap ship, with little SP, go wander around the universe, and make yourself a few million. It had its issues, and it took some patience, but you felt like with a little bit of time invested and some luck you really could get something out of the game right away, and get a start on making some real money. Now it is just annoying and frustrating even with maxed skills and the best gear, and with sub optimal kit, it's just a huge waste of time. People who are dedicated explorers with all Vs will try it out, get annoyed, and either sell or shelve their explo rigs until someone at CCP who was not involved in creating the loot pinata takes a look at it, sees how bad it is, and decides to just take it out. New players will just ignore it and move on to something more rewarding and less frustrating, which basically means missioning. And that's sad, because you've somehow managed to make what was one of the cleverest and most unique professions even less appealing than the most boring and grindy form of PvE in the game.
mynnna GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1227	Posted - 2013.05.30 14:04:00 - [277] - Quote 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! Cross-quoting from the other thread. However, I feel that T3 subs should have a different bonus (if they get a bonus), perhaps to coherence, so that it's a choice rather than clearly better... especially as T3 is not intended to be "clearly better" than T2 anyway! However, since a strength bonus is effectively a coherence bonus (by letting you kill defensive modules faster), a coherence bonus would have to be rather large to be competitive... Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Raven Solaris The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance 212	Posted - 2013.05.30 14:13:00 - [278] - Quote mynnna wrote: 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! Cross-quoting from the other thread. However, I feel that T3 subs should have a different bonus (if they get a bonus), perhaps to coherence, so that it's a choice rather than clearly better... especially as T3 is not intended to be "clearly better" than T2 anyway! However, since a strength bonus is effectively a coherence bonus (by letting you kill defensive modules faster), a coherence bonus would have to be rather large to be competitive... What if T3s had a utility system at the start of a hack?
Manssell OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate 179	Posted - 2013.05.30 14:25:00 - [279] - Quote mynnna wrote: "It's always been this way, so it always should be that way" makes things pretty boring. Also, every single one of the ways you suggested to make it "multiplayer" just makes it "multi-account". Any of them could be multiboxed. The unique thing about the spray is that multiboxing it and being better off than having a genuine second person would be rather difficult. That's a good thing, because cooperation isn't cooperation when it involves your alts. First off, so this doesn't come off wrong I want to say I'm a big supporter of you guys on the CSM, you've volunteered for a thankless terrible job. Now here's why I think your view of this is completely wrong I don't multi-box, but since when does Eve discourage multi-boxers? Where else in game does the game design try to eliminate the use of two accounts? Why is it perfectly fine for some poor guy to loose his shiny ship in a 1v1 that turns into a 3v1 when a multi-boxer jumps his two alts through a gate, but that same poor guy can't run two accounts to make back the isk for that ship if he happens to do exploration?! Are you going to support a new fleet window that is designed to discourage multi-acounts from coming to fleet fights now? As someone wonderfully pointed out to you on the original thread, how big a supporter of this would you be if the loot spew mechanic was added to moon mining, something a person can pick up solo right now. You know to encourage group play. Have the POS spew out the moon goo in cans that drift away and disappear so you need to bring a friend to grab it all before it's gone? Are you pushing for that to go into the game once exploration is done? Should market orders now require one to be present in two stations to place a region order to encourage people to trade with a friend? Should research now require two people to start a job or then get less of a chance to invent? Why are we singling out exploration for special encouragement mechanics? The simple fact is CCP is playing social engineering with the exploration profession, something that is extremely unsandboxy. I honestly feel the only reason this is getting CSM support is because we are not a political block ourselves. And what's really annoying here, All this is just a few weeks after CCP Seagull stood up in front of everyone at Fanfest and said that solo play was a play stye they support when designing the game. Yet the very first expansion since then the major feature is a mechanic design specifically to make a solo play style a pain in the ass! I guess the nod to solo at Fanfest was just a way for Seagull to buy some cover? But here's the big problem "bringing a friend" has always been a more efficient more rewarding way to do exploration! The way the system works on TQ now, it is much faster for one person to scan in a scanning ship, and another person to run the site with a combat ship while the scanner grabs the loot. The incentive has always been there to do this as a team. Two people scanning is faster and makes more isk than one, and that's the way every other activity in Eve scales with group play. You are more efficient, have more firepower or both. This loot spew was never needed, encouragement was already there just like it is everywhere else. The simple fact is exploration has always been kinda a solo activity with the types of players it attracts. Why are we now suddenly making their play style more frustrating for the sake of the mythical gang of explores? If CCP looked at exploration and wondered why so many do it solo, then perhaps they should have oh I don't know, asked the exploration community first why that is and then worked out a better way to encourage more groups from that (hint: dungeon design!) rather than throw together this awful mechanic that is not fun, is an awful clickfest, makes you feel as though you loose even if you win and is generally just a bad game design. Look I get that this is happening, it is far too late in the process for this amount of work to be scraped, but the people against this are not "whining", they are trying to limit the impact of this terrible gameplay that is being thrust on them for social engineering reasons in a supposed sandbox game.
Johan Toralen Clockwork X3 75	Posted - 2013.05.30 14:29:00 - [280] - Quote No give T3 the same if not better bonus. They gonna be used for nullsec mostly due to interdiction nullifier where the hardest sites are. No point using an expensive T3 for low sec profession sites after Odyssey. Takes a lot of low sec sites to break even on the investment and you gonna lose ships with the fast probing down of sites, the distraction of the new mechanics and being a sitting duck right near warp in point. Ban them from hisec sites if you want. At least that would be consistent with the changes to 3/10 and 4/10.

Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd 179	Posted - 2013.05.30 14:31:00 - [281] - Quote mynnna wrote: Cross-quoting from the other thread. However, I feel that T3 subs should have a different bonus (if they get a bonus), perhaps to coherence, so that it's a choice rather than clearly better... especially as T3 is not intended to be "clearly better" than T2 anyway! However, since a strength bonus is effectively a coherence bonus (by letting you kill defensive modules faster), a coherence bonus would have to be rather large to be competitive... Perhaps a +5 bonus to Strength on par with a T1 frigate, but with the ability to have four (or perhaps five) utility slots instead of three. Possibly a 30% reduction in Coherence lost during attacks if extra utility slots isn't a viable/good idea. According to the chart I can absolutely never find when I need it (the one shown at Fanfest this year detailing the relationship of T1, Faction,Pirate,T2 and T3 in terms of "Improvement", "Specialization" and "Generalization"), T3s are supposed to be generally better than T1s and overwhelmingly more versatile than anything else in the game. Kind of a of a Swiss Army Space-knife. Just slapping some kind of Strength/Coherence bonus onto the subsystem doesn't seem suitable, IMO. A T2 scanning ship gets a bigger version of the same bonus as a T1 because the T2 ships are direct improvements over T1 ships. T3s are unique, however, and so their bonuses should reflect it by being equally unique and equally focused on superior versatility. Ultimately, I would say T3 bonuses should wait until the appropriate team has had an opportunity to iterate a little more on the minigame. It will give some time to see what sort of bonuses might be useful as well. EDIT: I saw this and couldn't just leave it alone. How typical of me. Johan Toralen wrote: No give T3 the same if not better bonus. They gonna be used for nullsec mostly due to interdiction nullifier where the hardest sites are. No point using an expensive T3 for low sec profession sites after Odyssey. Takes a lot of low sec sites to break even on the investment and you gonna lose ships with the fast probing down of sites, the distraction of the new mechanics and being a sitting duck right near warp in point. Ban them from hisec sites if you want. At least that would be consistent with the changes to 3/10 and 4/10. This is probably the worst thing I've ever seen you post. T3s should not have a superior-to-T2 bonus. Ignoring that it's boring and absolutely will make T3s even more of a go-to "optimal" ship, it's completely against the spirit of what a T3 is. I love my T3s and I will do horrible, horrible things to the person who tries to take them away from me, but I do not agree with "T3 should be flat-out better than T2 at hacking" and the general idea that everyone should be forced to fly T3 for everything because they're the super-best. T1 should be good at hacking because you chose a ship that has a limited capacity to defend itself. T2 should be amazing at hacking because you trained for the hull and sacrificed more defenses. T3 should be just as amazing as T2, but for entirely different reasons and in an entirely different way. By the way, people will still fly cloaky T3s for lowsec hacking. They're still perfectly viable as all-in-one ships; even more so now that you don't need that blasted Salvager II taking up a weapon slot.
Sugar Kyle The humbleless Crew 252	Posted - 2013.05.30 14:36:00 - [282] - Quote Ali Aras wrote: I understand that people are mad about that, but I feel that that's something for them to get over and start treating like a challenge. If loot values are still too low, they can be tweaked a bit. EVE isn't supposed to be easy. Its not a challenge to also have to chase your dinner after you hunted it down, prepared it, cooked it, and placed it on your plate to have it come back to life and run off again. That is not the challenge that people who tend to be very patient and methodical, as explorers are, accepting bad drops for the possibility of good ones, are probably looking for. They are not doing this in interceptors. For people who want challenges, such as an interceptor pilot might want twisting and weaving through a fight keeping range and trying to tackle while not dying, there are challenges for that. Such as being an interceptor pilot in combat. For people who want to soak in seeking and spend the time and effort and thought into getting their processes, a frantic sprawling click fest of can chasing isn't a 'challenge'. It is an irritating, annoying, punishment to finally get a bite of food to eat. Tilde soaked words from something kinda like a pirate.
Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd 179	Posted - 2013.05.30 14:50:00 - [283] - Quote Sugar Kyle wrote: Ali Aras wrote: I understand that people are mad about that, but I feel that that's something for them to get over and start treating like a challenge. If loot values are still too low, they can be tweaked a bit. EVE isn't supposed to be easy. Its not a challenge to also have to chase your dinner after you hunted it down, prepared it, cooked it, and placed it on your plate to have it come back to life and run off again. That is not the challenge that people who tend to be very patient and methodical, as explorers are, accepting bad drops for the possibility of good ones, are probably looking for. They are not doing this in interceptors. For people who want challenges, such as an interceptor pilot might want twisting and weaving through a fight keeping range and trying to tackle while not dying, there are challenges for that. Such as being an interceptor pilot in combat. For people who want to soak in seeking and spend the time and effort and thought into getting their processes, a frantic sprawling click fest of can chasing isn't a 'challenge'. It is an irritating, annoying, punishment to finally get a bite of food to eat. As someone who's not entirely a fan of the loot spew, let me say: Stop with the over-exaggeration. Nobody's dinner is running away from them. Also, your analogy (as poor as it was) reminded me of Oregon Trail for some reason. Random thought but I figured I'd share it anyway. Having some familiarity with flying interceptors myself, I can tell you that the loot spew would be far, far beyond terrible if we were using interceptors to try and catch cans. The acceleration on an Interceptor is enormously too high. They're pretty fun for other things though. Worth a try if you haven't yet. This loot spew game though, if we want to call that part a game unto itself, it's not all that frantic if you stop panicking about making money or not. Just calmly click on them when they're green and use the time that they're yellow to hover your mouse over the other containers and pick the next one you want. Zooming out a bit helps, but don't zoom out too far. Knowing how your ship behaves and being able to effectively control it manually are enormous helps. "A bite of food to eat". Please spare me your desire to wax melodramatic. You're not Shakespeare, this isn't MacBeth and nobody's dying of starvation on the Oregon Trail.
Omnathious Deninard The Scope Gallente Federation 1080	Posted - 2013.05.30 15:09:00 - [284] - Quote Alvatore DiMarco wrote: Sugar Kyle wrote: Ali Aras wrote: I understand that people are mad about that, but I feel that that's something for them to get over and start treating like a challenge. If loot values are still too low, they can be tweaked a bit. EVE isn't supposed to be easy. Its not a challenge to also have to chase your dinner after you hunted it down, prepared it, cooked it, and placed it on your plate to have it come back to life and run off again. That is not the challenge that people who tend to be very patient and methodical, as explorers are, accepting bad drops for the possibility of good ones, are probably looking for. They are not doing this in interceptors. For people who want challenges, such as an interceptor pilot might want twisting and weaving through a fight keeping range and trying to tackle while not dying, there are challenges for that. Such as being an interceptor pilot in combat. For people who want to soak in seeking and spend the time and effort and thought into getting their processes, a frantic sprawling click fest of can chasing isn't a 'challenge'. It is an irritating, annoying, punishment to finally get a bite of food to eat. As someone who's not entirely a fan of the loot spew, let me say: Stop with the over-exaggeration. Nobody's dinner is running away from them. Also, your analogy (as poor as it was) reminded me of Oregon Trail for some reason. Random thought but I figured I'd share it anyway. Having some familiarity with flying interceptors myself, I can tell you that the loot spew would be far, far beyond terrible if we were using interceptors to try and catch cans. The acceleration on an Interceptor is enormously too high. They're pretty fun for other things though. Worth a try if you haven't yet. This loot spew game though, if we want to call that part a game unto itself, it's not all that frantic if you stop panicking about making money or not. Just calmly click on them when they're green and use the time that they're yellow to hover your mouse over the other containers and pick the next one you want. Zooming out a bit helps, but don't zoom out too far. Knowing how your ship behaves and being able to effectively control it manually are enormous helps. "A bite of food to eat". Please spare me your desire to wax melodramatic. You're not Shakespeare, this isn't MacBeth and nobody's dying of starvation on the Oregon Trail. The new speed for the cans makes it manageable in a non-nanofiber fit tengu. All in all if the pi+¦ata is here to stay, the current method is good. It is right now like you hunted your food, cooked your food, put it in a plate and started walking to the table and tripped. How much food can you catch? Ideas For Drone Improvement Repourpose Deep Space Scanner Probes
Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd 179	Posted - 2013.05.30 15:11:00 - [285] - Quote To me, at least, it is not like food is involved at all. You people and your questionable-at-best food analogies. Is it mealtime where you are?
Johan Toralen Clockwork X3 75	Posted - 2013.05.30 15:18:00 - [286] - Quote Alvatore DiMarco wrote: This is probably the worst thing I've ever seen you post. T3s should not have a superior-to-T2 bonus. Ignoring that it's boring and absolutely will make T3s even more of a go-to "optimal" ship, it's completely against the spirit of what a T3 is. I love my T3s and I will do horrible, horrible things to the person who tries to take them away from me, but I do not agree with "T3 should be flat-out better than T2 at hacking" and the general idea that everyone should be forced to fly T3 for everything because they're the super-best. T1 should be good at hacking because you chose a ship that has a limited capacity to defend itself. T2 should be amazing at hacking because you trained for the hull and sacrificed more defenses. T3 should be just as amazing as T2, but for entirely different reasons and in an entirely different way. I respect your opinion. I said same tho. Like Emergent Locus gives same scan bonus as t2 frig. ok with the "if not better" i went overboard. Had on the back of my head tho how much more difficult the nullsec hacking sites are and that's where you want to use the T3. Quote: By the way, people will still fly cloaky T3s for lowsec hacking. They're still perfectly viable as all-in-one ships; even more so now that you don't need that blasted Salvager II taking up a weapon slot. With the new sites you want instead rigs, cargo scanner, t2 tractors and sensor boosters to do it in an optimized way. All-in-one ships are gonna be even more jack-off-all-trades/good at nothing then before. If people want to fly that way more power to them. I think it's gonna be economical nonsense. And they'll be easier gank targets then ever due to the changes. I would think really really hard before risking a half billion or more ship for some decryptor and a few data cores.

CCP RedDawn C C P C C P Alliance 335	Posted - 2013.05.30 15:20:00 - [287] - Quote Hello again. Here are some more changes which will be on Singularity within the next few updates: Anti-Virus Suppressors now have a Coherency of 60. (Previously 80) Anti-Virus Suppressors now have a Strength of 15. (Previously 20) Anti-Virus Suppressors now have a suppression rate of 15. (Previously 20) Anti-Virus Suppressors are no longer in the tier 3 difficulty. They only appear in tier 4 now. Restoration Nodes can now be found in the tier 3 difficulty. The Tech III Emergent Locus Analyzer electronic subsystems now have a +10 Virus Strength bonus. Hack safe. CCP RedDawn Team Prototyping Rocks

Sugar Kyle The humbleless Crew 252	Posted - 2013.05.30 15:35:00 - [288] - Quote A nice bonus to covops and exploration frigates (maybe scanning T3 sub and recons) would be a + to the tractor speed of the can. Tilde soaked words from something kinda like a pirate.
Azurielle Silestris Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce 0	Posted - 2013.05.30 15:36:00 - [289] - Quote Manssell wrote: mynnna wrote: "It's always been this way, so it always should be that way" makes things pretty boring. Also, every single one of the ways you suggested to make it "multiplayer" just makes it "multi-account". Any of them could be multiboxed. The unique thing about the spray is that multiboxing it and being better off than having a genuine second person would be rather difficult. That's a good thing, because cooperation isn't cooperation when it involves your alts. First off, so this doesn't come off wrong I want to say I'm a big supporter of you guys on the CSM, you've volunteered for a thankless terrible job. Now here's why I think your view of this is completely wrong I don't multi-box, but since when does Eve discourage multi-boxers? Where else in game does the game design try to eliminate the use of two accounts? Why is it perfectly fine for some poor guy to loose his shiny ship in a 1v1 that turns into a 3v1 when a multi-boxer jumps his two alts through a gate, but that same poor guy can't run two accounts to make back the isk for that ship if he happens to do exploration?! Are you going to support a new fleet window that is designed to discourage multi-acounts from coming to fleet fights now? As someone wonderfully pointed out to you on the original thread, how big a supporter of this would you be if the loot spew mechanic was added to moon mining, something a person can pick up solo right now. You know to encourage group play. Have the POS spew out the moon goo in cans that drift away and disappear so you need to bring a friend to grab it all before it's gone? Are you pushing for that to go into the game once exploration is done? Should market orders now require one to be present in two stations to place a region order to encourage people to trade with a friend? Should research now require two people to start a job or then get less of a chance to invent? Why are we singling out exploration for special encouragement mechanics? The simple fact is CCP is playing social engineering with the exploration profession, something that is extremely unsandboxy. I honestly feel the only reason this is getting CSM support is because we are not a political block ourselves. And what's really annoying here, All this is just a few weeks after CCP Seagull stood up in front of everyone at Fanfest and said that solo play was a play stye they support when designing the game. Yet the very first expansion since then the major feature is a mechanic design specifically to make a solo play style a pain in the ass! I guess the nod to solo at Fanfest was just a way for Seagull to buy some cover? But here's the big problem "bringing a friend" has always been a more efficient more rewarding way to do exploration! The way the system works on TQ now, it is much faster for one person to scan in a scanning ship, and another person to run the site with a combat ship while the scanner grabs the loot. The incentive has always been there to do this as a team. Two people scanning is faster and makes more isk than one, and that's the way every other activity in Eve scales with group play. You are more efficient, have more firepower or both. This loot spew was never needed, encouragement was already there just like it is everywhere else. The simple fact is exploration has always been kinda a solo activity with the types of players it attracts. Why are we now suddenly making their play style more frustrating for the sake of the mythical gang of explores? If CCP looked at exploration and wondered why so many do it solo, then perhaps they should have oh I don't know, asked the exploration community first why that is and then worked out a better way to encourage more groups from that (hint: dungeon design!) rather than throw together this awful mechanic that is not fun, is an awful clickfest, makes you feel as though you loose even if you win and is generally just a bad game design. Look I get that this is happening, it is far too late in the process for this amount of work to be scraped, but the people against this are not "whining", they are trying to limit the impact of this terrible gameplay that is being thrust on them for social engineering reasons in a supposed sandbox game. I'm beginning to sound like Scuzzy here, but it honestly IS social engineering. The again, if it discourages multiboxing it's kind of good. On the other hand, having the moon goo machine loot spew would be fun as hell...
Omnathious Deninard The Scope Gallente Federation 1080	Posted - 2013.05.30 15:47:00 - [290] - Quote CCP RedDawn wrote: Hello again. Here are some more changes which will be on Singularity within the next few updates: Anti-Virus Suppressors now have a Coherency of 60. (Previously 80) Anti-Virus Suppressors now have a Strength of 15. (Previously 20) Anti-Virus Suppressors now have a suppression rate of 15. (Previously 20) Anti-Virus Suppressors are no longer in the tier 3 difficulty. They only appear in tier 4 now. Restoration Nodes can now be found in the tier 3 difficulty. The Tech III Emergent Locus Analyzer electronic subsystems now have a +10 Virus Strength bonus. Hack safe. CCP RedDawn Thank you Ideas For Drone Improvement Repourpose Deep Space Scanner Probes

BlakPhoenix Veni Vidi Vici Reloaded Darkspawn. 23	Posted - 2013.05.30 16:02:00 - [291] - Quote Tested this out a bit tonight and have to say that in general I like it HOWEVER, there are some issues that I had. The biggest issue I kept having was what felt like punishment for bad RNG. What I mean by this is, I get too many firewalls twice in a row and then I lose all the potential goodies. This just feels unfair and while I tried my best to make smart decisions I was forced into losing good drops due to bad luck. This gave me anticipation about every hack I had and made me worry if I failed the first attempt that the last 15+ minutes of scanning and hacking would be in vain. I really feel like the destroyed loot is an unfair mechanic that makes players feel betrayed when they tried their best multiple times in an event. I don't want it given to me on a platter but only having 2 attempts really isn't very many especially with what feels like such high RNG mechanics. I would rather struggle for an hour knowing the reward is worth it than struggle for 15 minutes and not know if I will get anything or if it will disappear in front of my eyes because of a lousy firewall. The speed of the can's feels good now (I don't have to manoeuvre my ship any more) and while I feel like every click should open up more than 1 node (maybe between 2-4 nodes in a random direction) so make it less clicky, it's on a good track. Please keep working on this system CCP, it's fun and definitely the right direction however I do feel like I've been punished sometimes in its current state.
Destoya Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 94	Posted - 2013.05.30 16:02:00 - [292] - Quote Please please reserve the +10 bonus for the specialized T2 ships. It should be +5 or +7.5. This theme of making T3 as good or better than specialized T2 ships does not fit with the original vision or promise of the ships and is counterproductive to balance. Other than that, I like these changes a lot
Maximus Andendare Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 233	Posted - 2013.05.30 16:09:00 - [293] - Quote Destoya wrote: Please please reserve the +10 bonus for the specialized T2 ships. It should be +5 or +7.5. This theme of making T3 as good or better than specialized T2 ships does not fit with the original vision or promise of the ships and is counterproductive to balance. Other than that, I like these changes a lot You're making an assumption that T2 ships won't have better bonuses to this without any information on T2 rebalancing. Probably better to wait to make statements like this.
Vladimir Norkoff Income Redistribution Service 172	Posted - 2013.05.30 16:13:00 - [294] - Quote Destoya wrote: Please please reserve the +10 bonus for the specialized T2 ships. It should be +5 or +7.5. This theme of making T3 as good or better than specialized T2 ships does not fit with the original vision or promise of the ships and is counterproductive to balance.t This. Woulda thought you guys learned your lesson with Warfare Links. Apparently not. When released T3 was stressed as being about adaptability and jack-of-all-trades, while specialized ships would do a better job. But once again, T3 does as good a job if not better. (Note - I do 90% of my exploration on TQ in a Tengu.)
Mr Morita Calamitous-Intent 36	Posted - 2013.05.30 16:17:00 - [295] - Quote Alvatore DiMarco wrote: Sugar Kyle wrote: Ali Aras wrote: I understand that people are mad about that, but I feel that that's something for them to get over and start treating like a challenge. If loot values are still too low, they can be tweaked a bit. EVE isn't supposed to be easy. Its not a challenge to also have to chase your dinner after you hunted it down, prepared it, cooked it, and placed it on your plate to have it come back to life and run off again. That is not the challenge that people who tend to be very patient and methodical, as explorers are, accepting bad drops for the possibility of good ones, are probably looking for. They are not doing this in interceptors. For people who want challenges, such as an interceptor pilot might want twisting and weaving through a fight keeping range and trying to tackle while not dying, there are challenges for that. Such as being an interceptor pilot in combat. For people who want to soak in seeking and spend the time and effort and thought into getting their processes, a frantic sprawling click fest of can chasing isn't a 'challenge'. It is an irritating, annoying, punishment to finally get a bite of food to eat. As someone who's not entirely a fan of the loot spew, let me say: Stop with the over-exaggeration. Nobody's dinner is running away from them. Also, your analogy (as poor as it was) reminded me of Oregon Trail for some reason. Random thought but I figured I'd share it anyway. Having some familiarity with flying interceptors myself, I can tell you that the loot spew would be far, far beyond terrible if we were using interceptors to try and catch cans. The acceleration on an Interceptor is enormously too high. They're pretty fun for other things though. Worth a try if you haven't yet. This loot spew game though, if we want to call that part a game unto itself, it's not all that frantic if you stop panicking about making money or not. Just calmly click on them when they're green and use the time that they're yellow to hover your mouse over the other containers and pick the next one you want. Zooming out a bit helps, but don't zoom out too far. Knowing how your ship behaves and being able to effectively control it manually are enormous helps. "A bite of food to eat". Please spare me your desire to wax melodramatic. You're not Shakespeare, this isn't MacBeth and nobody's dying of starvation on the Oregon Trail. To be fair, there's already enough loot pinatas flying around in-game as it is.
Raven Solaris The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance 213	Posted - 2013.05.30 16:20:00 - [296] - Quote Eh, I'll just leave this here: https://twitter.com/Harkconnan/status/340083565041684480 Think I'm done talking about the loot pinata, just about everything's already been stated and restated. Do we have any ETA on the latest hacking changes hitting SiSi?
Omnathious Deninard The Scope Gallente Federation 1080	Posted - 2013.05.30 16:20:00 - [297] - Quote Destoya wrote: Please please reserve the +10 bonus for the specialized T2 ships. It should be +5 or +7.5. This theme of making T3 as good or better than specialized T2 ships does not fit with the original vision or promise of the ships and is counterproductive to balance. Other than that, I like these changes a lot Lets not for get that covert ops frigates are much more nimble than a t3 and will be able to escape much faster. I don't want to say cost is balancing factor because it is not, but covert ops frigates are disposable. Ideas For Drone Improvement Repourpose Deep Space Scanner Probes
Ali Aras Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind 294	Posted - 2013.05.30 16:31:00 - [298] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: Destoya wrote: Please please reserve the +10 bonus for the specialized T2 ships. It should be +5 or +7.5. This theme of making T3 as good or better than specialized T2 ships does not fit with the original vision or promise of the ships and is counterproductive to balance. Other than that, I like these changes a lot Lets not for get that covert ops frigates are much more nimble than a t3 and will be able to escape much faster. I don't want to say cost is balancing factor because it is not, but covert ops frigates are disposable. Tech 3s have nullification, which makes them impossible to catch at your standard gatecamp, even with highly skilled decloakers. When we see a tech3 jumping into the infamous 9-F0B2 permacamp, we often grumble about cloaky nulli being a thing that exists, spread out to 12km around the gate, and then watch it as it warps off into the distance. Cost balancing or not, flying a t3 is lower risk, and I agree with the thought that the +10s should be specialized ships only. +7 or +8 is a reasonable midpoint. http://warp-to-sun.tumblr.com -- my blog
Omnathious Deninard The Scope Gallente Federation 1080	Posted - 2013.05.30 16:49:00 - [299] - Quote Ali Aras wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: Destoya wrote: Please please reserve the +10 bonus for the specialized T2 ships. It should be +5 or +7.5. This theme of making T3 as good or better than specialized T2 ships does not fit with the original vision or promise of the ships and is counterproductive to balance. Other than that, I like these changes a lot Lets not for get that covert ops frigates are much more nimble than a t3 and will be able to escape much faster. I don't want to say cost is balancing factor because it is not, but covert ops frigates are disposable. Tech 3s have nullification, which makes them impossible to catch at your standard gatecamp, even with highly skilled decloakers. When we see a tech3 jumping into the infamous 9-F0B2 permacamp, we often grumble about cloaky nulli being a thing that exists, spread out to 12km around the gate, and then watch it as it warps off into the distance. Cost balancing or not, flying a t3 is lower risk, and I agree with the thought that the +10s should be specialized ships only. +7 or +8 is a reasonable midpoint. What does the interdiction nullified have to do with catching someone in and escaping from a exploration site? Are they going to repurpose covert ops ships from dedicated scanning ships to dedicated exploration ships? Because scanning is =/= to exploration. Ideas For Drone Improvement Repourpose Deep Space Scanner Probes

CCP Bayesian 823	Posted - 2013.05.30 16:49:00 - [300] - Quote Andreus Ixiris wrote: CCP Bayesian wrote: For the people saying the 'loot pinata sucks' and the like could you vocalise the problems you have with it? So far I've collated: - It's not the way EVE has previously worked. - Collision is a pain, both with the size of the Data Sites and the positioning of some containers. - Picking can be difficult if you're not using a mouse. - Picking can be difficult if you're blinded by the site contents. - Loot haul seems low in comparison with how it was before. - Losing cans feels bad, particular after the effort of having to hack the container. This makes it feel like a penalty. - Not knowing what is any particular can so it feels bad not being able to make good choices. - The 'bad loot' is far too bulky so it is excessively penalising as you have to stop and sort it out. I find this post disappointing given that players have been vocalising their problems with this system in depth for over 40 pages across two threads for nearly a month at this point. In summary: *1. The loot pinata system is not fun.* This is the most important and most essential issue with the mechanic. It's not fun. It's not enjoyable. After having expended the effort to play the minigame (which is fun but somewhat limited), having the loot that we worked for scatter everywhere and vanish after far too short a time feels... disappointing. It doesn't feel rewarding, it doesn't feel like you've accomplished something. It is irritating to chase after the cans, it's irritating to have to click on all of them individually, it's irritating to have them disappear, it's irritating to have little to no idea what you're picking up until you have it. The entire system is irritating, and irritating isn't fun. You've made a mechanic in your game that does not serve the player's enjoyment of it, and this is a bad thing that game developers should not do, because one of the core principles of good video game design is that each and every element of a game should further the player's engagement with and enjoyment of it. *2. The loot pinata system feels arbitrary.* The fact that we have a magical tractor beam that can only move these specific types of cans and nothing else feels incongrous. The fact that you can't add the cans to overview and that they don't "stack" when you mouse over multiple items at a time feels incongrous. The fact that I'm apparently a masterful enough hacker to get past super-powerful Guristas mainframe security but not skilled enough to simply stop it from spewing everything everywhere feels incongrous. The fact that there's very little way to tell what's in the cans you're trying to pick up makes the system feel random and deeply unpredictable, like I'm playing Magic: The Gathering with someone else's deck. Please don't think that removing the arbitrary nature will actually make the spew itself fun, but it most certainly does make a bad idea worse. 3. The loot pinata system does not encourage teamwork, but will encourage theft. There is literally nothing else a fleet member can do while someone's hacking other than keep watch on D-scan and shoot any rats that appear (which, if the hacker is good, will not happen). The only useful thing a fleet member can do is pick up the cans after the hack is finished, which means that in terms of exploration you're only able to bring fleet members along for help with the least interesting parts of the experience. However, a random thief can sit cloaked off the object someone's hacking and then immediately start scooping spew cans with no penalty - no aggression timer, nothing. I'm not in any way against thievery, but when you make it easier (or at the very least no more difficult) for the thieves than the other members of a team, it doesn't send the right message. 4. The loot pinata system disrupts the flow of the exploration profession. You have to spend a fair amount of time sitting relatively immobile in space doing the minigame. This isn't a problem. The hacking minigame is fun. But then you have to spend another minute or two randomly flailing around trying to get the cans before moving onto the next minigame. This seriously breaks the flow of the experience. This might seem a weak point in comparison to the other three but it's yet another irritation. Bayesian, most of the things you're addressing in your post are symptoms of the loot pinata mechanic. The problem is the mechanic itself. Thanks for the lengthy feedback. I was making a list to make sure we had all the feedback points covered. These are things we're well aware of as we've been gathering feedback from you guys, as you've noticed, over several weeks and several threads. With the theft stuff explicitly CCP Prime has tied the system into Crimewatch now so the person that steals your stuff will be open for retribution. EVE Software Engineer Team Prototyping Rocks


James Amril-Kesh 4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance 5282	Posted - 2013.05.30 16:56:00 - [301] - Quote CCP RedDawn wrote: Hello again. Here are some more changes which will be on Singularity within the next few updates: Anti-Virus Suppressors now have a Coherency of 60. (Previously 80) Anti-Virus Suppressors now have a Strength of 15. (Previously 20) Anti-Virus Suppressors now have a suppression rate of 15. (Previously 20) Anti-Virus Suppressors are no longer in the tier 3 difficulty. They only appear in tier 4 now. Restoration Nodes can now be found in the tier 3 difficulty. The Tech III Emergent Locus Analyzer electronic subsystems now have a +10 Virus Strength bonus. Hack safe. CCP RedDawn Excellent. -áMy (mostly boring) Youtube channel.
Rob Crowley State War Academy 64	Posted - 2013.05.30 17:04:00 - [302] - Quote While I generally agree with T2 being stronger than T3 in this special case I think the +10 T3 bonus is okay for 2 reasons: 1. Covert Ops frigs are very cheap for T2 ships. If there were a T2 exploration cruiser or BC with a price tag of 100+m I would absolutely agree that it should be stronger than T3, but as it is using a T3 is massively more risky than a T2 frig because of the price difference, so making the T3 equally strong is okay in my book. 2. I don't really see a good way to make the T3 bonus more all-round than the T2 bonus with the current simple form of the minigame. This might very well change when it gets fleshed out a bit more in the future.

CCP Bayesian 823	Posted - 2013.05.30 17:10:00 - [303] - Quote Changes should be on Sisi everyday. As well as the balancing that RedDawn and Soundwave have been doing we've squashed a whole bunch of defects and added in some more audio cues. Prime is currently making some changes so the stuff is scattered in a more sensible manner so that it limits the bad cases where you are screwed over by collision issues. We'll be making further changes to everything after release to improve the mechanics involved and the general usability. EVE Software Engineer Team Prototyping Rocks

Euripides Salamanca Aldebaran Eclipse INC 0	Posted - 2013.05.30 17:55:00 - [304] - Quote While not being much of a forum warrior and rather new to EVE (although I kept reading posts here and on various other EVE related sites long before even starting to play) I strongly feel that constructive feedback in this case, from as many players as possible, is crucial in convincing both CCP and our CSM representatives that - what they conceived and approved as improvement - is not going to work in current shape. Many posters above already nailed it on the head. Rob Crowley, Naomi Hale, Kel Hound, Von Keigai and excellent summary post by Andreus Ixiris express what my thoughts are on the subject - so excuse me for creating yet another wall of text. I'll try to keep it as concise as possible. I'd also like to point out that it feels universal for both solo and group play as well as stays outside of the ISK/hour or "balancing amount of loot" discussion. "Loot pinata" idea is contrary to design objectives for EVE presented by CCP during Fan Fest 2013 Those were: accessibility improvement for new players, getting rid of elements which are unnecessary, and apply thoughtful streamlining to create "involving and easier to get into, but still complex and hard to master" environment. I'm relatively new player and it's hard to accuse me of being either bound to the "good old ways" or having 10 years trained "muscle memory" - and still "loot pinata" feels like exactly opposite of "accessible" . I know at least few people who are under 5mil SP or don't play longer than, say, 6 months, who had similar impressions after either trying this feature on SiSi or from watching this feature on stream. New players also don't feel comfortable with "loot pinata" - it feels awkward, confusing and inconsistent compared to everything else they start to learn about interaction with objects in EVE world. Assuming that it's good and fun design which will be loved by new players and easy to get used to for those who agree to adapt only because new players don't complain (as opposed to "stagnant veterans" voiced concerns) is invalid. Because, lets face it, how many new players bother to check new features on SiSi, post outside of New Citizen Q&A forum or even watch FanFest or developers streams? The way how player interact with the game world and how objects interact with each other makes it impossible to rely solely on "twitch" skills even for very agile players. When I'm being faced with challenge where scale of my (or team I belong to) success depends on my actual agility, I expect to get most precise tools to achieve that goal. Which basically means as close 1:1 translation of movement between my hand and its "extension" in the game world - my avatar. In shooter or simulator it's input latency reduction for example. EVE plays like RTS rather than flight simulator, though. We can only decide where we want our ship to go but how fast and what route it will take to get there is decided by two main factors: ship stats and pathfinding. And we know both factors are far from being consistent: - big and heavy vessels with otherwise slow turn rate can do instant 180 degree spin when bumped by much smaller ships or when colliding with nearby objects; - collision boxes on collidable objects don't match up exactly with shape we see in game (which leads to either being bumped in random direction or ship taking different path than we would expect it to); - while our ship can clip through some massive objects it can also get randomly stuck on tiny debris and slow to a crawl; - instead of free 360 degree camera its jaw axis movement is restricted to some arbitrary invisible "horizon plane". While all those issues have small impact on "normal" EVE activities (either PvP or PvE) they often happen to be a deciding factor in high precision minigame, creating - instead of challenge to test reaction and ability to cooperate - frustrating struggle. Only EVE activity where unexpected technical issues lead to complete failure If connection to server is lost ship automatically warp out if ability to warp was possible. Very often if connection is established soon enough even disabled ship can survive to finish its task - is it mining, PvP or PvE combat ship can come back to the site and still collect reward, salvage or loot. Not after successful hacking attempt though. Site cleared, containers disappeared. Nothing. Feature discouraging multi-boxing but provoking other even more unwanted activities instead? While I'm one of those anti-alt purists applauding every change leading to reduction and viability of multiboxing I don't buy that argument. Apart from surprising sudden twist from actively promoting multi accounts (Power of Two campaign etc) it seems bringing alt instead of friend will be common practice - because hacking minigame makes other person obsolete and alt can act as "scout" good enough. Real issue here, though is that "loot pinata" looks like activity which just waits for automation by some 3rd party "utility". If there are bots able to recognise which asteroid to mine and docking and undocking multiple ships then writing script simulating left clicks on screen position if pixel changes colour from yellow to green sounds like exercise from "C++ for Dummies " I even had some ideas to post, to make it look less moan and groan. Imagine how one tiny feature can spoil the day if you care, and leave you with only 44 remaining characters...
Nam Dnilb Universal Frog 18	Posted - 2013.05.30 18:25:00 - [305] - Quote oh another thread, x-poasting: Quote: Hello CCP, still there's no adjustable columns on the results window. I have a hunch people with not so much excess screen real estate will want that badly. Just think of all the forum whining you could avoid with this simple change. Thank you in advance.
Andreus Ixiris Duty. 2780	Posted - 2013.05.30 18:54:00 - [306] - Quote Euripides Salamanca, your post is awesome. You are a true EVEbro. Mane 614
Kahns Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore 4	Posted - 2013.05.30 19:35:00 - [307] - Quote CCP Prime wrote: So for the scattering mechanism we've reduced the speed that the cans eject out at. It'll make chasing them almost unneeded. Thanks for listening to us guys! I really think this will fix a vast number of the things I was complaining about. Group hug yo! (I still think the loot pinata is a bad mixed metaphor and all that, but if we can at least avoid chasing cans into walls it won't feel so.... broken.)
Kahns Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore 4	Posted - 2013.05.30 19:48:00 - [308] - Quote Sheena Tzash wrote: The troll: Sit near a hacking site cloaked and wait for someone to hack the site for you. At the loot is released, uncloak and click away. Since you don't need to lock the container to loot it you don't need to worry about the lock delay. . OK, maybe I was wrong and this new mechanic is so, so very much Eve like :D . Screw waiting for the loot to spew, kill the explorer... there's no NPC's to gum up the works.
Yuki Kasumi Some names are just stupid 15	Posted - 2013.05.30 20:07:00 - [309] - Quote I tried this feature out only 2 hours or so ago. So I assume I played the latest build available Distribution of sites, I went through 45 systems (half empire and other half null/low) looking for exploration sites. I found 3 (1 empire and 2 in null), is this consistent with the rarity of these or was I just unlucky? Expected return. Having done some mags and radars sites in the past I often got around 20-40m average per site unless I was a bit unlucky. Total look value for the three sites I was able to do (according to inventory) 52m isk, averaging 17.3m per site. That is hardly excellent income for 45 jumps and 1-2h of playing paying attention. Again is this consistent, with your wanted income for this profession? I realize that 3 sites is hardly statistically significant to draw much if any conclusions from, but I would strongly urge you to consider the fact that hacking before was mostly a passive activity (sitting at the can and waiting). Now it requires constant attention (hacking minigame) at greater risk (due to easier scanning), not to mention that it has become a somewhat more involved activity. Personally at this rate even as a part time / just for fun explorer I find this level of income not to be worthwhile for anything else than occasional recreation. For reference two hours of mining would yield the same amount of isk approximately. I do hope I was just unlucky...
Omnathious Deninard The Scope Gallente Federation 1081	Posted - 2013.05.30 20:09:00 - [310] - Quote Yuki Kasumi wrote: I tried this feature out only 2 hours or so ago. So I assume I played the latest build available Distribution of sites, I went through 45 systems (half empire and other half null/low) looking for exploration sites. I found 3 (1 empire and 2 in null), is this consistent with the rarity of these or was I just unlucky? Expected return. Having done some mags and radars sites in the past I often got around 20-40m average per site unless I was a bit unlucky. Total look value for the three sites I was able to do (according to inventory) 52m isk, averaging 17.3m per site. That is hardly excellent income for 45 jumps and 1-2h of playing paying attention. Again is this consistent, with your wanted income for this profession? I realize that 3 sites is hardly statistically significant to draw much if any conclusions from, but I would strongly urge you to consider the fact that hacking before was mostly a passive activity (sitting at the can and waiting). Now it requires constant attention (hacking minigame) at greater risk (due to easier scanning), not to mention that it has become a somewhat more involved activity. Personally at this rate even as a part time / just for fun explorer I find this level of income not to be worthwhile for anything else than occasional recreation. For reference two hours of mining would yield the same amount of isk approximately. I do hope I was just unlucky... Because there are fewer players on the test server the sites tend to clump up in systems less traveled. Ideas For Drone Improvement Repourpose Deep Space Scanner Probes

Tim Ryder Flippin DaBird Corporation 2 8	Posted - 2013.05.30 20:47:00 - [311] - Quote For me, being visually impaired, what's not on the overview doesn't exist. The containers supposed to be analyzed doesn't appear on the overview using Load Default -> All, only Load Default -> General shows them. The spawn containers doesn't appear on the overview even with that setting, so they're bugged even worse.
blink alt Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 54	Posted - 2013.05.30 20:48:00 - [312] - Quote I am loving the items being mapped to specific cans now. One small complaint would be the speed to the cans now. Dare I say it but now the cans seem I bit too slow. Since the items are now mapped it creates this situation where during say about the first 3-6 seconds of the jettison all the cans are stacked on eachother in a way where you can pick a specific can. I suppose it is not too big of a deal having the first pick or two outside your control but just a thought.
Omnathious Deninard The Scope Gallente Federation 1081	Posted - 2013.05.30 20:54:00 - [313] - Quote Kahns wrote: Sheena Tzash wrote: The troll: Sit near a hacking site cloaked and wait for someone to hack the site for you. At the loot is released, uncloak and click away. Since you don't need to lock the container to loot it you don't need to worry about the lock delay. . OK, maybe I was wrong and this new mechanic is so, so very much Eve like :D . Screw waiting for the loot to spew, kill the explorer... there's no NPC's to gum up the works. I would feel it to be more entertaining to wait for the spew to occur then smart bomb right next to it. Ideas For Drone Improvement Repourpose Deep Space Scanner Probes
Raven Solaris The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance 213	Posted - 2013.05.30 21:01:00 - [314] - Quote Tim Ryder wrote: For me, being visually impaired, what's not on the overview doesn't exist. The containers supposed to be analyzed doesn't appear on the overview using Load Default -> All, only Load Default -> General shows them. The spawn containers doesn't appear on the overview even with that setting, so they're bugged even worse. Intentional, they want to experiment with forcing people to use the space scape instead of the overview. My condolences.
Tim Ryder Flippin DaBird Corporation 2 8	Posted - 2013.05.30 21:11:00 - [315] - Quote Raven Solaris wrote: Tim Ryder wrote: For me, being visually impaired, what's not on the overview doesn't exist. The containers supposed to be analyzed doesn't appear on the overview using Load Default -> All, only Load Default -> General shows them. The spawn containers doesn't appear on the overview even with that setting, so they're bugged even worse. Intentional, they want to experiment with forcing people to use the space scape instead of the overview. My condolences. Pity that doesn't work - at all - for all of us.

CCP Bayesian 823	Posted - 2013.05.30 21:14:00 - [316] - Quote Tim Ryder, we'd like to try to make it work for everyone so if you could suggest some changes that might improve your ability to see these things well enough to interact with them we'll definitely try to improve things. EVE Software Engineer Team Prototyping Rocks

Tim Ryder Flippin DaBird Corporation 2 8	Posted - 2013.05.30 21:19:00 - [317] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: Tim Ryder, we'd like to try to make it work for everyone so if you could suggest some changes that might improve your ability to see these things well enough to interact with them we'll definitely try to improve things. The single most important thing then - beyond anything else - is contrast. If you can, make them react to their background in some way so they're always clearly distinguished. That'd help everyone. After that, size is important. Trying to have them roughly the size of things on the overview would help a lot.
Liltha Lost My Way Enterprises 7	Posted - 2013.05.30 21:31:00 - [318] - Quote If you are going to make the sites better with multiple people why not actually make them better with multiple people? Instead of that second person waiting around just to get cans let him add his hacking ability to the object as well, either by having the second person's virus strength get added to first or even better by having both hack the board at the same time with failure only happening if both fail.
Liltha Lost My Way Enterprises 7	Posted - 2013.05.30 21:42:00 - [319] - Quote On another note, it feels as if the high sec sites might be a tad too difficult for low skilled entry players to be able to hack the items in two runs. In part because the virus strength is only dependent on ship type and hacking module with the only way to get the better hacking module is to train hacking to 5 and the only way to get a better ship bonus by training to covert ops ships. With 20 virus strength it was taking at least 3 clicks per firewall to get past them and with only 2 tries luck is a bit against you if you don't also have the higher cohesion of trained skills. I'd suggest adding skills that can raise virus strength or maybe weaken defenses on the site, or possibly other modules to do the same. Additionally there seems to be a useless implant that lowers cycle time on hacking and archeology modules that could be repurposed into a virus strength implant.

CCP Prime C C P C C P Alliance 40	Posted - 2013.05.30 21:58:00 - [320] - Quote Tim Ryder wrote: CCP Bayesian wrote: Tim Ryder, we'd like to try to make it work for everyone so if you could suggest some changes that might improve your ability to see these things well enough to interact with them we'll definitely try to improve things. The single most important thing then - beyond anything else - is contrast. If you can, make them react to their background in some way so they're always clearly distinguished. That'd help everyone. After that, size is important. Trying to have them roughly the size of things on the overview would help a lot. Thanks for that constructive feedback. I really want to improve on the brackets so they are usable for all. This kind of feedback helps to make that case. Programmer Team Prototyping Rocks


kyofu Praetorian Black Guard Frater Adhuc Excessum 37	Posted - 2013.05.30 22:18:00 - [321] - Quote Tim Ryder wrote: CCP Bayesian wrote: Tim Ryder, we'd like to try to make it work for everyone so if you could suggest some changes that might improve your ability to see these things well enough to interact with them we'll definitely try to improve things. The single most important thing then - beyond anything else - is contrast. If you can, make them react to their background in some way so they're always clearly distinguished. That'd help everyone. After that, size is important. Trying to have them roughly the size of things on the overview would help a lot. This would also help the eye strain issue I complained of earlier. My eyesight is fine, but trying to distinguish those silly little cross hairs ends up giving me a headache. Larger sized icons, or a working overview would also help significantly with the carpal tunnel issue. Preferably a working overview.
Veyer Erastus Red-dormice 12	Posted - 2013.05.30 22:29:00 - [322] - Quote Practiced a bit in Obj A today and was rather pleasantly surprised. Loot pinata seemed much more doable than a couple days ago. Still the problem i raised in the beginning of the thread is still here. After doing 4 mainframes, my cargo was completely full. Parts, which are probably the most common container, take absurdly much space - 99% of everything that drops. I seriously believe it's necessary to shrink them from 1m^3 to 0.1m^3.
Tim Ryder Flippin DaBird Corporation 2 9	Posted - 2013.05.30 22:33:00 - [323] - Quote kyofu wrote: Tim Ryder wrote: CCP Bayesian wrote: Tim Ryder, we'd like to try to make it work for everyone so if you could suggest some changes that might improve your ability to see these things well enough to interact with them we'll definitely try to improve things. The single most important thing then - beyond anything else - is contrast. If you can, make them react to their background in some way so they're always clearly distinguished. That'd help everyone. After that, size is important. Trying to have them roughly the size of things on the overview would help a lot. This would also help the eye strain issue I complained of earlier. My eyesight is fine, but trying to distinguish those silly little cross hairs ends up giving me a headache. Larger sized icons, or a working overview would also help significantly with the carpal tunnel issue. Preferably a working overview. Yes, getting this on the overview should be a no brainer, experimentation is fine, but maybe a working system is better? In addition, I'm taking damage - despite no rats present - while analyzing, making a covops ship worse than useless - is that intended?
Nihill Widderslaint EVE University Ivy League 0	Posted - 2013.05.30 23:06:00 - [324] - Quote Not sure if this should be mentioned here, but it does relate to hacking so.. The Implant - Poteque 'Prospector' Environmental Analysis EY-1005 - is still set to -5% cycle time, for salvaging (which is ok) and hacking and archeology modules (for both of which cycle time is now pointless.) The Implant - Poteque 'Prospector' Hacking HC-905 - Is adjusted for the update, with a +5 Coherence. On this one I just want to give my opinion, +5 coherence is quite pointless considering most strengths from the minigame are rounded to the x0 (20,30,40,etc) - So my feedback would be either set it to +10 coherence or +5 strength (which would be relevant considering sometimes you halve the firewall/etc coherence to half, sometimes a 05 does count in strength) Probably many ppl pointed this out ahead of me but just to make sure it is said. Cheers!
Karsa Egivand Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 197	Posted - 2013.05.30 23:24:00 - [325] - Quote Veyer Erastus wrote: Practiced a bit in Obj A today and was rather pleasantly surprised. Loot pinata seemed much more doable than a couple days ago. Still the problem i raised in the beginning of the thread is still here. After doing 4 mainframes, my cargo was completely full. Parts, which are probably the most common container, take absurdly much space - 99% of everything that drops. I seriously believe it's necessary to shrink them from 1m^3 to 0.1m^3. Also, people being able to loot for hours and accumulate a lot of explorer loot in their cargoholds will make for some nice killmails!
Brooks Puuntai Solar Nexus. 1515	Posted - 2013.05.31 02:26:00 - [326] - Quote One thing that still bothers me about the minigame, is the randomness of it. The game is interesting, but not really hard per say. It's hard to win in the same way winning the lottery is hard. With Hacking V and T2 Codebreaker I still need to hope not to hit a suppressor and hope I find utilities or else in 0.0/Low sites or it's pretty much a failed hack. Making the core defined may help to remove the click and pray aspect and give it some strategy. CCP's Motto: If it isn't broken, break it. If it is broken, ignore it. Idea for Improving NPE.
haloden Gods Of Agony 0	Posted - 2013.05.31 05:41:00 - [327] - Quote Brooks Puuntai wrote: One thing that still bothers me about the minigame, is the randomness of it. The game is interesting, but not really hard per say. It's hard to win in the same way winning the lottery is hard. With Hacking V and T2 Codebreaker I still need to hope not to hit a suppressor and hope I find utilities or else in 0.0/Low sites or it's pretty much a failed hack. Making the core defined may help to remove the click and pray aspect and give it some strategy. could allso make it like minesweeper :)
Flamespar Woof Club 605	Posted - 2013.05.31 05:46:00 - [328] - Quote haloden wrote: Brooks Puuntai wrote: One thing that still bothers me about the minigame, is the randomness of it. The game is interesting, but not really hard per say. It's hard to win in the same way winning the lottery is hard. With Hacking V and T2 Codebreaker I still need to hope not to hit a suppressor and hope I find utilities or else in 0.0/Low sites or it's pretty much a failed hack. Making the core defined may help to remove the click and pray aspect and give it some strategy. could allso make it like minesweeper :) Well CCP could introduce a module that you can fit to your ship that allows you to see the number of enemy nodes adjacent to your current node whilst hacking. I can post on a forum, therefore I represent everyone.
Flamespar Woof Club 605	Posted - 2013.05.31 05:52:00 - [329] - Quote Some interesting additions that could be made to the derelict sites with further iterations. - Loot should include some of the unreleased avatar clothing. - Audio logs that give insight into the original colonization of the EVE universe. - Relics from earth. Even better if these could be placed in your Captains Quarters. I can post on a forum, therefore I represent everyone.
Naomi Hale Children of New Eden 119	Posted - 2013.05.31 06:56:00 - [330] - Quote Ali Aras wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: Destoya wrote: Please please reserve the +10 bonus for the specialized T2 ships. It should be +5 or +7.5. This theme of making T3 as good or better than specialized T2 ships does not fit with the original vision or promise of the ships and is counterproductive to balance. Other than that, I like these changes a lot Lets not for get that covert ops frigates are much more nimble than a t3 and will be able to escape much faster. I don't want to say cost is balancing factor because it is not, but covert ops frigates are disposable. Tech 3s have nullification, which makes them impossible to catch at your standard gatecamp, even with highly skilled decloakers. When we see a tech3 jumping into the infamous 9-F0B2 permacamp, we often grumble about cloaky nulli being a thing that exists, spread out to 12km around the gate, and then watch it as it warps off into the distance. Cost balancing or not, flying a t3 is lower risk, and I agree with the thought that the +10s should be specialized ships only. +7 or +8 is a reasonable midpoint. What about a fixed role bonus for the frigates (+5 tech I, +10 tech II) and a subsystem skill bonus for the tech III's (+2 per level)? That way Tech III pilots are subject to the SP loss and need to invest time to train the skill to overshadow covert-ops frigates. Flamespar wrote: Well CCP could introduce a module that you can fit to your ship that allows you to see the number of enemy nodes adjacent to your current node whilst hacking. I mentioned a skill based version of this here, but that skill could link into your module idea, so there'd be Tech I and Tech II versions. Flamespar wrote: Some interesting additions that could be made to the derelict sites with further iterations. - Loot should include some of the unreleased avatar clothing. - Audio logs that give insight into the original colonization of the EVE universe. - Relics from earth. Even better if these could be placed in your Captains Quarters. Love this! Though the cloths should be one run BPC as I don't wanna wear a 20'000 year old piece of space junk, but you could use the discovered design to recreate it. The relics scattered around the Captain's quarter's was something I meant to mention with regards to my Archaeology lab idea, that ongoing or private projects would be represented in the lab by artifacts and relics. (If you've ever played Mass Effect 2's Stolen memory DLC and seen Hock's vault, something like an Incarna version of that would blow my mind) Audio logs I like as it adds story and a collection element to exploration. I'm beginning to think that data sites should focus on profit and industry and relic sites should have bonus items, like you said, avatar add-ons, CQ items and audio/text logs, stuff that you can't or won't want to sell on the market. I choose to believe what I was PROGRAMMED to believe!


CCP Bayesian 823	Posted - 2013.05.31 07:21:00 - [331] - Quote Nihill Widderslaint wrote: Not sure if this should be mentioned here, but it does relate to hacking so.. The Implant - Poteque 'Prospector' Environmental Analysis EY-1005 - is still set to -5% cycle time, for salvaging (which is ok) and hacking and archeology modules (for both of which cycle time is now pointless.) The Implant - Poteque 'Prospector' Hacking HC-905 - Is adjusted for the update, with a +5 Coherence. On this one I just want to give my opinion, +5 coherence is quite pointless considering most strengths from the minigame are rounded to the x0 (20,30,40,etc) - So my feedback would be either set it to +10 coherence or +5 strength (which would be relevant considering sometimes you halve the firewall/etc coherence to half, sometimes a 05 does count in strength) Probably many ppl pointed this out ahead of me but just to make sure it is said. Cheers! Thanks I'll pass that on. EVE Software Engineer Team Prototyping Rocks

Josef Djugashvilis Acme Mining Corporation 1240	Posted - 2013.05.31 07:25:00 - [332] - Quote Sheena Tzash wrote, "The loot spillage affect to me is also very annoying simply because you put the work into getting this far to only get 10% of what your after - and most people won't be glad of the loot they got, they'll concern themselves with the stuff that they MISSED and so it'll seem like whenever you do exploration you'll LOSE something (or not gain 100%)" If CCP do not understand this, they should hire any psychologist for half an hour, who will explain it to them. This is not a signature.

CCP Bayesian 823	Posted - 2013.05.31 07:26:00 - [333] - Quote With regards the hacking we're definitely going to add some more tools that let you get useful but not perfect knowledge about the board. But essentially there aren't nearly enough interesting choices right now. We're aware of that. EVE Software Engineer Team Prototyping Rocks


CCP Bayesian 823	Posted - 2013.05.31 07:30:00 - [334] - Quote Tim Ryder wrote: CCP Bayesian wrote: Tim Ryder, we'd like to try to make it work for everyone so if you could suggest some changes that might improve your ability to see these things well enough to interact with them we'll definitely try to improve things. The single most important thing then - beyond anything else - is contrast. If you can, make them react to their background in some way so they're always clearly distinguished. That'd help everyone. After that, size is important. Trying to have them roughly the size of things on the overview would help a lot. Yeah this is a problem even if you have good eyesight in some of the sites! It won't be something we can fix before release sadly. I'll pass this on to the UI designer working with us. EVE Software Engineer Team Prototyping Rocks

Sheena Tzash Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 30	Posted - 2013.05.31 08:14:00 - [335] - Quote Kahns wrote: Sheena Tzash wrote: The troll: Sit near a hacking site cloaked and wait for someone to hack the site for you. At the loot is released, uncloak and click away. Since you don't need to lock the container to loot it you don't need to worry about the lock delay. . OK, maybe I was wrong and this new mechanic is so, so very much Eve like :D . Screw waiting for the loot to spew, kill the explorer... there's no NPC's to gum up the works. Well; 'someone' has to hack the can for you - once the loot is released and you appear it gives them the choice, the loot or their ship. The hacker then needs to decide if the potential loot is worth their ship and they can either click away and hope to have enough time to run away afterwards or just run first and leave the loot for you. You've got to wait for the lock delay to pass so you might as well click on some containers while its running down ;)
Sheena Tzash Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 30	Posted - 2013.05.31 08:23:00 - [336] - Quote Josef Djugashvilis wrote: Sheena Tzash wrote, "The loot spillage affect to me is also very annoying simply because you put the work into getting this far to only get 10% of what your after - and most people won't be glad of the loot they got, they'll concern themselves with the stuff that they MISSED and so it'll seem like whenever you do exploration you'll LOSE something (or not gain 100%)" If CCP do not understand this, they should hire any psychologist for half an hour, who will explain it to them. My concern exactly. Even if this is considered to be a 'fun' mechanic (by the developers) the average player running the site won't feel like it because they would have missed out on something. Very similar to the 'JC Penny Effect' recently covered in Extra Creditz: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmCn-csZStA
Brooks Puuntai Solar Nexus. 1523	Posted - 2013.05.31 08:49:00 - [337] - Quote I await the cries when it goes live, when people miss out on loot because of brackets. CCP's Motto: If it isn't broken, break it. If it is broken, ignore it. Idea for Improving NPE.
Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd 181	Posted - 2013.05.31 08:50:00 - [338] - Quote Checking in as (possibly) the only pilot on Singularity who does not feel the way described in the two posts above me.
Naomi Hale Children of New Eden 123	Posted - 2013.05.31 09:01:00 - [339] - Quote Sheena Tzash wrote: Josef Djugashvilis wrote: Sheena Tzash wrote, "The loot spillage affect to me is also very annoying simply because you put the work into getting this far to only get 10% of what your after - and most people won't be glad of the loot they got, they'll concern themselves with the stuff that they MISSED and so it'll seem like whenever you do exploration you'll LOSE something (or not gain 100%)" If CCP do not understand this, they should hire any psychologist for half an hour, who will explain it to them. My concern exactly. Even if this is considered to be a 'fun' mechanic (by the developers) the average player running the site won't feel like it because they would have missed out on something. I'm curious if your (and others) concern is for the missed items being something you need for manufacturing/invention or if it's solely about a deminshed isk/hour as you recieve less to sell on the market? The first I could see myself getting mad at if you've searched and searched, then finally found it only for it to drift away, the second I'd be a little annoyed by but would take in stride as part of EVE. I choose to believe what I was PROGRAMMED to believe!

CCP Bayesian 823	Posted - 2013.05.31 09:10:00 - [340] - Quote Sheena Tzash wrote: My concern exactly. Even if this is considered to be a 'fun' mechanic (by the developers) the average player running the site won't feel like it because they would have missed out on something. Very similar to the 'JC Penny Effect' recently covered in Extra Creditz: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmCn-csZStA Interesting video, I've got to say I think they overlooked the effect of an economy there. Firefall AFAIK doesn't have a player driven economic system in it (or even trading?) and that's a key component to making crafting more understandable and less abstract. Resources then have a known value and you measure your progress by what you can afford to buy or make and can set goals that way. Which is how EVE works. That said you should very obviously still be able to find items in the world in places where the context makes sense but those kind of drops need to be managed carefully as they essentially are creating value from nowhere which leads to inflation. In Firefall a system with more persistence might work nicely, so players have a chance of dropping some of their items when they die. In turn other players need to drive off/kill the NPCs or stumble across the item to discover it. Even better if it still bore the name of the previous owner on it for bragging rights. This says a few things to me in terms of what people might want to make this system better fit perceptions: There needs to be more ceremony about the things you do get. One of the things we added was the icon displaying what you just picked up over the Cargo button. This is comparatively small and out of the way. Something we've discussed just this week is making the text box that currently displays things like "Orbiting" show what you're pulling in and allowing you to cancel and reselect another can. This is much nicer because it lets you take the risk of not getting anything in order to have more control over finding what you want. Our work to make the contents of the cans reflect the name, which should have been done much earlier, also helps a lot with the frustration of being interested in something in particular but entering into a pot luck to get it. Particularly if you've scanned the contents of the site object to find out what is in it. We need to make this visualisation much better than mouse over text. Adding things to the overview, this is really an option of last resort that I think fixes things which are usability defects. It's the "easy way out" as it's the workaround in EVE to dealing with the problems that exist interacting with things in the scene. Overall I think it's that feeling of control that is missing. It feels like a punishment not to get the thing you want because the game system is in charge of that more than you are. If we give people more information and let them make choices based on it EVE Software Engineer Team Prototyping Rocks



CCP Bayesian 823	Posted - 2013.05.31 09:11:00 - [341] - Quote Alvatore DiMarco wrote: Checking in as (possibly) the only pilot on Singularity who does not feel the way described in the two posts above me. In which case I'd really like your feedback in what I've written above. Would any of that ruin the system for you? EVE Software Engineer Team Prototyping Rocks

Sheena Tzash Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 30	Posted - 2013.05.31 09:18:00 - [342] - Quote Naomi Hale wrote: I'm curious if your (and others) concern is for the missed items being something you need for manufacturing/invention or if it's solely about a deminshed isk/hour as you recieve less to sell on the market? The first I could see myself getting mad at if you've searched and searched, then finally found it only for it to drift away, the second I'd be a little annoyed by but would take in stride as part of EVE. A little bit of everything actually. - The old system you had 100% of the loot (even if this new system means you get roughly the same amount) - The hard work is finding the site in the first place; to have that 'reward' reduced because of some sort of 'cash grab' is annoying. - No other gameplay activity in EVE offers this 'partial' reward and so it feels like you'd be better off doing almost anything else where loot is 100% assured. Its like finding a site now and from 4 cans available only 2 of them have any loot. Its annoying because you feel like you've done all the activities that would normally give a reward and then not getting any. I will admit that its likely something that I will simply get used to and not think or care about as much; but my concern is more than a general reception of the idea is that you do 100% of the work and get 80% of the reward; it doesn't take a genius to find that is a bad deal..
Naomi Hale Children of New Eden 123	Posted - 2013.05.31 09:46:00 - [343] - Quote Sheena Tzash wrote: Naomi Hale wrote: I'm curious if your (and others) concern is for the missed items being something you need for manufacturing/invention or if it's solely about a deminshed isk/hour as you recieve less to sell on the market? The first I could see myself getting mad at if you've searched and searched, then finally found it only for it to drift away, the second I'd be a little annoyed by but would take in stride as part of EVE. A little bit of everything actually. - The old system you had 100% of the loot (even if this new system means you get roughly the same amount) - The hard work is finding the site in the first place; to have that 'reward' reduced because of some sort of 'cash grab' is annoying. - No other gameplay activity in EVE offers this 'partial' reward and so it feels like you'd be better off doing almost anything else where loot is 100% assured. Its like finding a site now and from 4 cans available only 2 of them have any loot. Its annoying because you feel like you've done all the activities that would normally give a reward and then not getting any. I will admit that its likely something that I will simply get used to and not think or care about as much; but my concern is more than a general reception of the idea is that you do 100% of the work and get 80% of the reward; it doesn't take a genius to find that is a bad deal.. But if a system (like CCP Bayesian described here) was added to let you chose the cans you want and so you knew the can you're letting get away is filled with carbon, datasheet or slavage you don't want, would you be more okay with the lose rather than getting 100% of the loot? I choose to believe what I was PROGRAMMED to believe!
Naomi Hale Children of New Eden 123	Posted - 2013.05.31 09:53:00 - [344] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: For the people saying the 'loot pinata sucks' and the like could you vocalise the problems you have with it? Given the quote below CCP Bayesian needs to add an additional question. Alvatore DiMarco wrote: Checking in as (possibly) the only pilot on Singularity who does not feel the way described in the two posts above me. "For the people saying the 'loot pinata is good/fine' and the like could you vocalise the things you like about it? To know what not to change and counteract some of the threads negativity." I choose to believe what I was PROGRAMMED to believe!

CCP Bayesian 824	Posted - 2013.05.31 09:56:00 - [345] - Quote Sheena Tzash wrote: I will admit that its likely something that I will simply get used to and not think or care about as much; but my concern is more than a general reception of the idea is that you do 100% of the work and get 80% of the reward; it doesn't take a genius to find that is a bad deal.. My take on it is that the first implementation that hit was essentially a random lottery. You get to the end and have literally no way to make sure you get anything good. It was worse than a random cash grab because you couldn't tell things apart until you had collected them and there is a variety of things of varying value. Not only that but there were a number of issues that made grabbing really hard. I think we've improved a lot on the ability to grab stuff and a bit on the ability to discern what you want to grab but there is room for improvement to both. EVE Software Engineer Team Prototyping Rocks

Sheena Tzash Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 36	Posted - 2013.05.31 09:56:00 - [346] - Quote Naomi Hale wrote: But if a system (like CCP Bayesian described here) was added to let you chose the cans you want and so you knew the can you're letting get away is filled with carbon, datasheet or slavage you don't want, would you be more okay with the lose rather than getting 100% of the loot? Yes I was actually in the process of saying that if what CCP Bayesian goes ahead and the floating cans have clear name associated with them then I would agree that it would be BETTER than the existing system as you can pick the loot you like and it becomes a little more exciting to pick out the good stuff and at the same time avoiding the trash. In that way the feeling you get from looting changes from only getting 80% of the overall loot (even if that loot is 30% trash) to 80% of the stuff you WANT :D +1 to that idea CCP Bayesian!
Solkara Starlock Circle of Mystery 29	Posted - 2013.05.31 10:31:00 - [347] - Quote First of all, Thank you for making the loot scattering more playable. Unfortunately, it's still an inherently bad mechanic. It is bad because it is simply not fun to do! It is bad because it feels like losing loot after playing having to play two minigames to access that loot! Giving more info on the cans will, in my opinion, increase the rage when a 'blueprint can' vanishes before your eyes. It is bad because it does not invite more team play. It is bad because it gravely diminishes the value and appreciation of the wonderful work that has been done to make the sites more beautiful and to the hacking game which has potential. It is bad because it does not make sense! It is bad because it goes against the very nature of EVE, which is not a clicking game and where loot does not vanish after a few seconds. It is bad because a large majority of your playerbase think it is bad. Not only the whiners and cynical ones. Check Youtube. It really pains me to say this because I love this game! It could be a great feature if it was used when you fail a hack once and if you succeed on the second try, or something like that.
Tsubutai Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 208	Posted - 2013.05.31 12:01:00 - [348] - Quote Giving Tech 3 ships a virus strength bonus of any kind is, IMO, a huge mistake because there's nothing to stop people farming even the hardest nullsec relic/data sites in ships that are at no meaningful risk of dying while doing the sites or while travelling to and fro. From a combat pve standpoint, the power of the cloak/nullifier subsystems is counterbalanced by the fact that they cripple the ship's dps, making cloaky nullified ships unsuitable for running high end combat sites alone. However, the loss of damage and a low slot is completely immaterial if you're running relic and data sites. Furthermore, the design of the relic and data sites is such that people running them will be virtually impossible to catch if they're paying any kind of attention to local and d-scan because they can cloak up at will with no NPCs to lock them up or tackle them. Therefore, Tech 3s will be able to farm these sites without being subject to any risk of dying either in site or when travelling between sites. Giving them a virus strength bonus on top of that seems completely excessive- fitting the cloak/nullifier subsystems should make you bad at running relic/data sites for exactly the same reason that it makes you bad at running combat sites.
Johan Toralen Clockwork X3 81	Posted - 2013.05.31 12:04:00 - [349] - Quote Tsubutai wrote: Giving Tech 3 ships a virus strength bonus of any kind is, IMO, a huge mistake because there's nothing to stop people farming even the hardest nullsec relic/data sites in ships that are at no meaningful risk of dying while doing the sites or while travelling to and fro. From a combat pve standpoint, the power of the cloak/nullifier subsystems is counterbalanced by the fact that they cripple the ship's dps, making cloaky nullified ships unsuitable for running high end combat sites alone. However, the loss of damage and a low slot is completely immaterial if you're running relic and data sites. Furthermore, the design of the relic and data sites is such that people running them will be virtually impossible to catch if they're paying any kind of attention to local and d-scan because they can cloak up at will with no NPCs to lock them up or tackle them. Therefore, Tech 3s will be able to farm these sites without being subject to any risk of dying either in site or when travelling between sites. Giving them a virus strength bonus on top of that seems completely excessive. Have you played the new sites? It's hard to pay attention to that or to keep the attention up over longer period of time. The minigame and loot mechanic are very distracting from everything else. The ships in the sites are sitting ducks near the warp in point. Many explorers will lose their ships for not being absolutely on their toes. Also afaik in nullsec the sites are still connected to the industry index so you have to look for them in more populated areas of nullsec where its easier to get caught in the site. Another thing. Suppose as an explorer you have cargo scanned a container and see there is a jackpot in. Just in this moment someone jumps into the system. Do you warp to your safe spot and have the site despawn or do you take the risk and stay?
Omnathious Deninard The Scope Gallente Federation 1097	Posted - 2013.05.31 12:06:00 - [350] - Quote I disagree Ideas For Drone Improvement Repourpose Deep Space Scanner Probes

Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd 190	Posted - 2013.05.31 12:07:00 - [351] - Quote I suppose you're going to tell me "the fact that cloaky nullified T3s lack the agility to get the same amount of loot as a covops doesn't balance out the fact that they're hard or impossible to kill". It sounds mostly like you don't actually care about T3s in the sites, but that you just don't like the nullifier.

CCP Bayesian 829	Posted - 2013.05.31 12:14:00 - [352] - Quote Solkara Starlock, thanks for the feedback. I just want to tackle a few of these points. Firstly I don't think a mechanic can be inherently bad if a portion of people like it and the trend we've seen so far on these threads is that as we make changes the feedback is becoming more positive. I think the mechanic in it's original form is annoying, unsatisfying and feels bad because it is inherently random. Quote: It is bad because a large majority of your playerbase think it is bad. Not only the whiners and cynical ones. Check Youtube. It is bad because it is simply not fun to do! It is bad because it gravely diminishes the value and appreciation of the wonderful work that has been done to make the sites more beautiful and to the hacking game which has potential. To me these things are the same point. It's also an overarching one and doesn't really explain why people don't find it fun. Quote: It is bad because it feels like losing loot after playing having to play two minigames to access that loot! Giving more info on the cans will, in my opinion, increase the rage when a 'blueprint can' vanishes before your eyes. It is bad because it does not invite more team play. I imagine it working in this way for some people: A player approaches a site object and cargo scan it to find out the contents. They continue until they find a site object with contents that they like. They identify what kind of cans they want to go for. They complete the hacking attempt, there is tension here because of the knowledge about what it contains. They identify the correct can types and begin to collect one. They see the can type is correct but the contents of it are not what they really, really want to get so they cancel the tractoring. They find and tractor in another can of the same type. Get Bacon of the kind you are interested in. This invites play between players in a couple of ways, firstly the sites themselves can be tackled optimally by groups working together. There was a Twitter conversation linked earlier that outlined one way people have tried this on a bigger scale. You can for example wait to destroy the system core and give people a chance to come to you. This lets groups clear out sites by tackling low value site objects individually that they don't mind losing some items from and clustering to deal with a site that contains excellent items. The players then also get to make choices about what kinds of stuff they want to take to maximise weight to value. Solo players can now still go out and make a decent living (perhaps even better than before given the additional loot) by being selective about what they take. Taking a friend with you is more viable to deal with any other people who might steal your stuff and also to optimise the filtering and collection of cans. Then we have all the opportunities for PVP and stealing of cans that create conflict and pull in everything from Crimewatch to the Bounty System. Quote: It is bad because it does not make sense! Could you expand as to why it does not make sense please? Quote: It is bad because it goes against the very nature of EVE, which is not a clicking game and where loot does not vanish after a few seconds. The first objection is untrue as there is lots of clicking in EVE, often that requires accuracy and speed. True, less of it is in the space scene. The second point is valid as this rapid decay of cans hasn't happened before but that is not to say that it shouldn't happen for that reason. EVE Software Engineer Team Prototyping Rocks

Tsubutai Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 208	Posted - 2013.05.31 12:14:00 - [353] - Quote Alvatore DiMarco wrote: I suppose you're going to tell me "the fact that cloaky nullified T3s lack the agility to get the same amount of loot as a covops doesn't balance out the fact that they're hard or impossible to kill". It sounds mostly like you don't actually care about T3s in the sites, but that you just don't like the nullifier. [Tengu, hardcore pve] Nanofiber Internal Structure II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Analyzer II Codebreaker II 10MN Afterburner II Cargo Scanner II NEW Scan Rangefinding Array II NEW Scan Rangefinding Array II NEW Scan Pinpointing Array II Covert Ops Cloaking Device II Expanded Probe Launcher II, Sisters Combat Scanner Probe Small Tractor Beam II Small Tractor Beam II Small Tractor Beam II Medium Memetic Algorithm Bank I Medium Emission Scope Sharpener I Tengu Electronics - Emergent Locus Analyzer Tengu Engineering - Capacitor Regeneration Matrix Tengu Offensive - Covert Reconfiguration Tengu Propulsion - Interdiction Nullifier Tengu Defensive - Supplemental Screening That aligns in under 4 seconds (which is actually better than a lot of covops fits achieve) and has bonused tractors to grab any juicy cans you can't reach for whatever reason. I am consistently able to get 80%+ of the spewed cans in this setup, exactly as I was in a Heron beforehand.
Kel hound Lycosa Syndicate Surely You're Joking 41	Posted - 2013.05.31 12:24:00 - [354] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: ... Prime is currently making some changes so the stuff is scattered in a more sensible manner so that it limits the bad cases where you are screwed over by collision issues. He has also tweaked the lifecycle calculation so that it works better. ... One way you could do this is to have the spread pattern always eject towards the hackers ship. This would at the very least allow the hacker to account for LCO's in the site by positioning themselves accordingly.

CCP Bayesian 829	Posted - 2013.05.31 12:26:00 - [355] - Quote Kel hound wrote: One way you could do this is to have the spread pattern always eject towards the hackers ship. This would at the very least allow the hacker to account for LCO's in the site by positioning themselves accordingly. CCP Prime is doing something similar to this right now that will hopefully be on Sisi soon before the release. EVE Software Engineer Team Prototyping Rocks

Omnathious Deninard The Scope Gallente Federation 1097	Posted - 2013.05.31 12:27:00 - [356] - Quote Tsubutai wrote: Alvatore DiMarco wrote: I suppose you're going to tell me "the fact that cloaky nullified T3s lack the agility to get the same amount of loot as a covops doesn't balance out the fact that they're hard or impossible to kill". It sounds mostly like you don't actually care about T3s in the sites, but that you just don't like the nullifier. [Tengu, hardcore pve] Nanofiber Internal Structure II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Analyzer II Codebreaker II 10MN Afterburner II Cargo Scanner II NEW Scan Rangefinding Array II NEW Scan Rangefinding Array II NEW Scan Pinpointing Array II Covert Ops Cloaking Device II Expanded Probe Launcher II, Sisters Combat Scanner Probe Small Tractor Beam II Small Tractor Beam II Small Tractor Beam II Medium Memetic Algorithm Bank I Medium Emission Scope Sharpener I Tengu Electronics - Emergent Locus Analyzer Tengu Engineering - Capacitor Regeneration Matrix Tengu Offensive - Covert Reconfiguration Tengu Propulsion - Interdiction Nullifier Tengu Defensive - Supplemental Screening That aligns in under 4 seconds (which is actually better than a lot of covops fits achieve) and has bonused tractors to grab any juicy cans you can't reach for whatever reason. I am consistently able to get 80%+ of the spewed cans in this setup, exactly as I was in a Heron beforehand. How does that nullified stop you from being insta locked and pointed while you are hacking the site? Ideas For Drone Improvement Repourpose Deep Space Scanner Probes
Tsubutai Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 208	Posted - 2013.05.31 12:29:00 - [357] - Quote Johan Toralen wrote: Have you played the new sites? Yes, I've been fiddling with them and providing feedback posts for the last week or so. The minigame doesn't have any time pressure, so keeping an eye on local and d-scan is not at all difficult - you can take as long as you like between turns. Quote: Another thing. Suppose as an explorer you have cargo scanned a container and see there is a jackpot in. Just in this moment someone jumps into the system. Do you warp to your safe spot and have the site despawn or do you take the risk and stay? Cloak up, align out, wait to see what they do.
Kel hound Lycosa Syndicate Surely You're Joking 41	Posted - 2013.05.31 12:36:00 - [358] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: The first objection is untrue as there is lots of clicking in EVE, often that requires accuracy and speed. True, less of it is in the space scene. The second point is valid as this rapid decay of cans hasn't happened before but that is not to say that it shouldn't happen for that reason. Speed and accuracy yes, however EVE very rarely required BOTH at the same time and almost never when floating in space. There's a good reason for that too, navigating EVE's 3D space and using it to target things is very hard. There is a reason you do not expect us to use the camera controls and clicking in fleet fights or other forms of PVP. There is a reason you gave us the overview to work with. Thus far, all the problems and complaints Solkara Starlock gave you could probably be solved by letting us use the overview to chase down the mini-cans. I do not understand why you are so dead-set on forcing us to use the camera controls to manually click down each tiny can after a hack.
Johan Toralen Clockwork X3 81	Posted - 2013.05.31 12:43:00 - [359] - Quote Tsubutai wrote: That aligns in under 4 seconds (which is actually better than a lot of covops fits achieve) and has bonused tractors to grab any juicy cans you can't reach for whatever reason. I am consistently able to get 80%+ of the spewed cans in this setup, exactly as I was in a Heron beforehand. That ship costs about 5x times as much as a Buzzard. The big perk you get for that isk is the interdiction nullifier, which sounds fair to me. If i compare the ships next to each other the one other thing that really stands out is the probing strenght for the Tengu. It can be a monster probing boat now due to the bonus and mid slots for scanning array. That i would defo consider overpowered compared to the scan frigs. Maybe that would be a more fitting point to aim your criticism at. I think it would be a bit silly if only frigs were good for hacking.

CCP Bayesian 829	Posted - 2013.05.31 12:44:00 - [360] - Quote Kel hound, I'll quote myself from the previous page: Quote: Adding things to the overview, this is really an option of last resort that I think fixes things which are usability defects. It's the "easy way out" as it's the workaround in EVE to dealing with the problems that exist interacting with things in the scene. I don't think we're dead set against it but would prefer to make the space interaction work. EVE Software Engineer Team Prototyping Rocks


Brooks Puuntai Solar Nexus. 1540	Posted - 2013.05.31 12:45:00 - [361] - Quote Kel hound wrote: Thus far, all the problems and complaints Solkara Starlock gave you could probably be solved by letting us use the overview to chase down the mini-cans. I do not understand why you are so dead-set on forcing us to use the camera controls to manually click down each tiny can after a hack. It would make it too easy, there for removing the point of the system. Ofc I still don't see the point of the spew, other then to force players to adapt to a unneeded play style change. CCP's Motto: If it isn't broken, break it. If it is broken, ignore it. Improving NPE-á/ Dynamic New Eden
Veyer Erastus Red-dormice 13	Posted - 2013.05.31 12:50:00 - [362] - Quote Tsubutai wrote: Alvatore DiMarco wrote: I suppose you're going to tell me "the fact that cloaky nullified T3s lack the agility to get the same amount of loot as a covops doesn't balance out the fact that they're hard or impossible to kill". It sounds mostly like you don't actually care about T3s in the sites, but that you just don't like the nullifier. [Tengu, hardcore pve] Nanofiber Internal Structure II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Analyzer II Codebreaker II 10MN Afterburner II Cargo Scanner II NEW Scan Rangefinding Array II NEW Scan Rangefinding Array II NEW Scan Pinpointing Array II Covert Ops Cloaking Device II Expanded Probe Launcher II, Sisters Combat Scanner Probe Small Tractor Beam II Small Tractor Beam II Small Tractor Beam II Medium Memetic Algorithm Bank I Medium Emission Scope Sharpener I Tengu Electronics - Emergent Locus Analyzer Tengu Engineering - Capacitor Regeneration Matrix Tengu Offensive - Covert Reconfiguration Tengu Propulsion - Interdiction Nullifier Tengu Defensive - Supplemental Screening That aligns in under 4 seconds (which is actually better than a lot of covops fits achieve) and has bonused tractors to grab any juicy cans you can't reach for whatever reason. I am consistently able to get 80%+ of the spewed cans in this setup, exactly as I was in a Heron beforehand. Not to fight your point, but wanted to mention one thing. Setup you link is HARD hacking setup - it can't do anything except hacking sites. So it's kinda just that it's strong in its purpose. Even more - it can't even do hacking sites as it lacks mean to kill spawned NPC. While you Helios can with it's drones. Not even mentioning that every other t3 except tengu don't have midslots to do this.
Sven Viko VIkolander Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic 75	Posted - 2013.05.31 12:52:00 - [363] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: Solkara Starlock, thanks for the feedback. I just want to tackle a few of these points. Firstly I don't think a mechanic can be inherently bad if a portion of people like it and the trend we've seen so far on these threads is that as we make changes the feedback is becoming more positive. I think the mechanic in it's original form is annoying, unsatisfying and feels bad because it is inherently random. I've read these threads, read countless reviews and watched many youtube trials, and I've yet to find anyone that actually likes the loot spew (ofc, maybe you can find just a few somewhere). No one, so far as I've seen, likes twitch games, needless clicking, randomness, etc. Yes, you've made improvements in the right direction, but it seems like the overwhelming consensus here is the best direction is to remove the loot spew, focus on the hacking game to make it more strategy-based, and find another way to make it optionally co-op. That said, I'm very positive about the new exploration sites. Why? Because when I watch videos of people running them, they have limited time to check dscan, pay attention to local, and they spend a long time in space, etc.
Sheena Tzash Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 36	Posted - 2013.05.31 13:00:00 - [364] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: Quote: It is bad because it feels like losing loot after playing having to play two minigames to access that loot! Giving more info on the cans will, in my opinion, increase the rage when a 'blueprint can' vanishes before your eyes. It is bad because it does not invite more team play. I imagine it working in this way for some people: A player approaches a site object and cargo scan it to find out the contents. They continue until they find a site object with contents that they like. They identify what kind of cans they want to go for. They complete the hacking attempt, there is tension here because of the knowledge about what it contains. They identify the correct can types and begin to collect one. They see the can type is correct but the contents of it are not what they really, really want to get so they cancel the tractoring. They find and tractor in another can of the same type. Get Bacon of the kind you are interested in. This invites play between players in a couple of ways, firstly the sites themselves can be tackled optimally by groups working together. There was a Twitter conversation linked earlier that outlined one way people have tried this on a bigger scale. You can for example wait to destroy the system core and give people a chance to come to you. This lets groups clear out sites by tackling low value site objects individually that they don't mind losing some items from and clustering to deal with a site that contains excellent items. The players then also get to make choices about what kinds of stuff they want to take to maximise weight to value. Solo players can now still go out and make a decent living (perhaps even better than before given the additional loot) by being selective about what they take. Taking a friend with you is more viable to deal with any other people who might steal your stuff and also to optimise the filtering and collection of cans. Then we have all the opportunities for PVP and stealing of cans that create conflict and pull in everything from Crimewatch to the Bounty System. I think this is a best case situation. What is more likely to happen is: 1) You have one person scanning. Even with multiple people chances are you'd end up stepping on each others toes and scanning down sites that others have either already scanned or in the process of scanning resulting in a waste of time. Since you've only got a single person scanning the rest are either sitting around getting bored or belt ratting for more immediate fun. 2) Once you've found a site you'll again only really have one person hacking as the others won't want to waste mid slots on a utlitiy item. Since there are no longer any rats they will sit around getting bored (when they should be checking Dscan :P) 3) No one has a cargo scanner as they want to loot all the cans regardless and it takes up a valuable mid slot. 4) Once the loot is thrown out they'll all scramble for the good stuff and leave the hacker / scanner person short 5) If anyone shows up all your mates run away leaving the hacker mid - hack and an easy target :P Although I do agree with what your saying Baesian; overall it would allow for some form of co-operation to be able to hack sites quickly and clean up the majority of the loot and good effective teams will do well. CCP Bayesian wrote: Quote: It is bad because it does not make sense! Could you expand as to why it does not make sense please? To me I feel that if your being some master hacker who is trying to get the goodies from inside an encrypted vault you wouldn't want the results to be splashed all over space. You wouldn't see someone hack into a bank and set it up so that all the money inside the bank vault would be blasted into the sky - yeah its done the job of getting the loot but its in such an ineffective method and most likely means that you lose a good amount of the loot you've worked hard to get.
Ruskarn Andedare Lion Investments 194	Posted - 2013.05.31 13:13:00 - [365] - Quote Sheena Tzash wrote: CCP Bayesian wrote: Quote: It is bad because it feels like losing loot after playing having to play two minigames to access that loot! Giving more info on the cans will, in my opinion, increase the rage when a 'blueprint can' vanishes before your eyes. It is bad because it does not invite more team play. I imagine it working in this way for some people: A player approaches a site object and cargo scan it to find out the contents. They continue until they find a site object with contents that they like. They identify what kind of cans they want to go for. They complete the hacking attempt, there is tension here because of the knowledge about what it contains. They identify the correct can types and begin to collect one. They see the can type is correct but the contents of it are not what they really, really want to get so they cancel the tractoring. They find and tractor in another can of the same type. Get Bacon of the kind you are interested in. This invites play between players in a couple of ways, firstly the sites themselves can be tackled optimally by groups working together. There was a Twitter conversation linked earlier that outlined one way people have tried this on a bigger scale. You can for example wait to destroy the system core and give people a chance to come to you. This lets groups clear out sites by tackling low value site objects individually that they don't mind losing some items from and clustering to deal with a site that contains excellent items. The players then also get to make choices about what kinds of stuff they want to take to maximise weight to value. Solo players can now still go out and make a decent living (perhaps even better than before given the additional loot) by being selective about what they take. Taking a friend with you is more viable to deal with any other people who might steal your stuff and also to optimise the filtering and collection of cans. Then we have all the opportunities for PVP and stealing of cans that create conflict and pull in everything from Crimewatch to the Bounty System. I think this is a best case situation. What is more likely to happen is: 1) You have one person scanning. Even with multiple people chances are you'd end up stepping on each others toes and scanning down sites that others have either already scanned or in the process of scanning resulting in a waste of time. Since you've only got a single person scanning the rest are either sitting around getting bored or belt ratting for more immediate fun. 2) Once you've found a site you'll again only really have one person hacking as the others won't want to waste mid slots on a utlitiy item. Since there are no longer any rats they will sit around getting bored (when they should be checking Dscan :P) 3) No one has a cargo scanner as they want to loot all the cans regardless and it takes up a valuable mid slot. 4) Once the loot is thrown out they'll all scramble for the good stuff and leave the hacker / scanner person short 5) If anyone shows up all your mates run away leaving the hacker mid - hack and an easy target :P Although I do agree with what your saying Baesian; overall it would allow for some form of co-operation to be able to hack sites quickly and clean up the majority of the loot and good effective teams will do well. CCP Bayesian wrote: Quote: It is bad because it does not make sense! Could you expand as to why it does not make sense please? To me I feel that if your being some master hacker who is trying to get the goodies from inside an encrypted vault you wouldn't want the results to be splashed all over space. You wouldn't see someone hack into a bank and set it up so that all the money inside the bank vault would be blasted into the sky - yeah its done the job of getting the loot but its in such an ineffective method and most likely means that you lose a good amount of the loot you've worked hard to get. Can we have a butterfly net module please? (preferably with loony tunes music running as it operates)

CCP Bayesian 829	Posted - 2013.05.31 13:14:00 - [366] - Quote Sven Viko VIkolander wrote: I've read these threads, read countless reviews and watched many youtube trials, and I've yet to find anyone that actually likes the loot spew (ofc, maybe you can find just a few somewhere). No one, so far as I've seen, likes twitch games, needless clicking, randomness, etc. Yes, you've made improvements in the right direction, but it seems like the overwhelming consensus here is the best direction is to remove the loot spew, focus on the hacking game to make it more strategy-based, and find another way to make it optionally co-op. That said, I'm very positive about the new exploration sites. Why? Because when I watch videos of people running them, they have limited time to check dscan, pay attention to local, and they spend a long time in space, etc. Thanks, I just went through and tallied up the responses in the past five pages to see what the spread was of people recounting their feelings towards this feature. I counted posts that talked about the scattering specifically as it exists today and ignored replies or speculation (and dev posts). I got: Negative: 6 Positive: 6 Neutral: 5 At least from my sense of the feedback we've come along way from the original very negative impressions. EVE Software Engineer Team Prototyping Rocks

Freighdee Katt Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 162	Posted - 2013.05.31 13:17:00 - [367] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: Sven Viko VIkolander wrote: I've read these threads, read countless reviews and watched many youtube trials, and I've yet to find anyone that actually likes the loot spew (ofc, maybe you can find just a few somewhere). No one, so far as I've seen, likes twitch games, needless clicking, randomness, etc. Yes, you've made improvements in the right direction, but it seems like the overwhelming consensus here is the best direction is to remove the loot spew, focus on the hacking game to make it more strategy-based, and find another way to make it optionally co-op. That said, I'm very positive about the new exploration sites. Why? Because when I watch videos of people running them, they have limited time to check dscan, pay attention to local, and they spend a long time in space, etc. Thanks, I just went through and tallied up the responses in the past five pages to see what the spread was of people recounting their feelings towards this feature. I counted posts that talked about the scattering specifically as it exists today and ignored replies or speculation (and dev posts). I got: Negative: 6 Positive: 6 Neutral: 5 At least from my sense of the feedback we've come along way from the original very negative impressions. Confirmation bias FTW.
Chi'Nane T'Kal Interminatus Aeterna Anima 86	Posted - 2013.05.31 13:20:00 - [368] - Quote CCP Bayesian: Did you count concessions that it is not as unbearable as it was in its first iteration as positive? I may have overlooked someone, but I did not see anyone that outright stated he preferred the spew containers over a regular container. (Minigame to open it aside)
Brooks Puuntai Solar Nexus. 1540	Posted - 2013.05.31 13:21:00 - [369] - Quote This is why the Eve forum needs polls. CCP's Motto: If it isn't broken, break it. If it is broken, ignore it. Improving NPE-á/ Dynamic New Eden
Johan Toralen Clockwork X3 81	Posted - 2013.05.31 13:22:00 - [370] - Quote Thinking a bit more about the Tengu virus bonus. If it was removed or nerfed i would defo use a t2 frig instead. Wouldn't want to risk losing a faction pos bpc because i didn't max out my hacking. Would that really change a thing tho? I would then run the sites in a disposable frig that with some luck pays off from a single site and haul the loot back in a nullified Tengu that i've parked in a safe place somewhere meanwhile. That to me actualy sounds the most economicaly reasonable thing to do either way.


CCP Bayesian 829	Posted - 2013.05.31 13:24:00 - [371] - Quote Freighdee Katt wrote: CCP Bayesian wrote: Sven Viko VIkolander wrote: I've read these threads, read countless reviews and watched many youtube trials, and I've yet to find anyone that actually likes the loot spew (ofc, maybe you can find just a few somewhere). No one, so far as I've seen, likes twitch games, needless clicking, randomness, etc. Yes, you've made improvements in the right direction, but it seems like the overwhelming consensus here is the best direction is to remove the loot spew, focus on the hacking game to make it more strategy-based, and find another way to make it optionally co-op. That said, I'm very positive about the new exploration sites. Why? Because when I watch videos of people running them, they have limited time to check dscan, pay attention to local, and they spend a long time in space, etc. Thanks, I just went through and tallied up the responses in the past five pages to see what the spread was of people recounting their feelings towards this feature. I counted posts that talked about the scattering specifically as it exists today and ignored replies or speculation (and dev posts). I got: Negative: 6 Positive: 6 Neutral: 5 At least from my sense of the feedback we've come along way from the original very negative impressions. Confirmation bias FTW. Indeedy, very possibly but I'm not claiming this view to be scientific or absolute fact, just recounting what I did and the results. Obviously Sven's opinion is also going to be affected by confirmation bias as well. As will anyone who has an opinion on this feature and does the same thing. EVE Software Engineer Team Prototyping Rocks

Freighdee Katt Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 162	Posted - 2013.05.31 13:30:00 - [372] - Quote Sheena Tzash wrote: CCP Bayesian wrote: Quote: It is bad because it does not make sense! Could you expand as to why it does not make sense please? To me I feel that if your being some master hacker who is trying to get the goodies from inside an encrypted vault you wouldn't want the results to be splashed all over space. You wouldn't see someone hack into a bank and set it up so that all the money inside the bank vault would be blasted into the sky - yeah its done the job of getting the loot but its in such an ineffective method and most likely means that you lose a good amount of the loot you've worked hard to get. This. Bayes, you keep asking for people to 'splain it to you like you're five years old, as if it's some big mystery while people find the loot spew mechaninc annoying and stupid. Andreus said all that needs to be said about it in his earlier post. Others have repeated his same points in different words. It's all been said, and people have been saying it all since this mechanic was first proposed, over and over and over. You obviously put a lot of work into implementing this, and it sucks when people don't say nice things about something you worked hard on. But you can't say you weren't warned that people would hate it. Obviously we're now at the point where you're personally attached to the mechanic, so there is not really any point in complaining about it anymore, or trying to explain to you why it sucks. You'll just keep figuring out ways to not get why people dislike it, because you think it's cool, and you don't want to think about scrapping or majorly reworking something you worked hard on and thought people would love.
Sheena Tzash Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 36	Posted - 2013.05.31 13:38:00 - [373] - Quote Freighdee Katt wrote: Sheena Tzash wrote: CCP Bayesian wrote: Quote: It is bad because it does not make sense! Could you expand as to why it does not make sense please? To me I feel that if your being some master hacker who is trying to get the goodies from inside an encrypted vault you wouldn't want the results to be splashed all over space. You wouldn't see someone hack into a bank and set it up so that all the money inside the bank vault would be blasted into the sky - yeah its done the job of getting the loot but its in such an ineffective method and most likely means that you lose a good amount of the loot you've worked hard to get. This. Bayes, you keep asking for people to 'splain it to you like you're five years old, as if it's some big mystery while people find the loot spew mechaninc annoying and stupid. Andreus said all that needs to be said about it in his earlier post. Others have repeated his same points in different words. It's all been said, and people have been saying it all since this mechanic was first proposed, over and over and over. That being said I think it would be fairly reasonable to allocate this kind of mechanic on Relic sites over data sites. The difference being is that a data site your hacking into a network node for valuable information in the form of datacores and blueprints etc. Any half decent hacker would make every attempt to ensure that the information was obtained in the most efficient fashion. A relic site on the other hand are old broken and rusty wrecks that are already falling apart. You coming along to the site and getting all 'Lara Croft' on those wrecks are likely to cause many of them to fall apart and the loot spilling out into space because they are fragile enough to break in this fashion and would make perfect sense that items are strewn about space.

CCP Bayesian 829	Posted - 2013.05.31 13:40:00 - [374] - Quote Freighdee Katt wrote: Sheena Tzash wrote: To me I feel that if your being some master hacker who is trying to get the goodies from inside an encrypted vault you wouldn't want the results to be splashed all over space. You wouldn't see someone hack into a bank and set it up so that all the money inside the bank vault would be blasted into the sky - yeah its done the job of getting the loot but its in such an ineffective method and most likely means that you lose a good amount of the loot you've worked hard to get. This. Bayes, you keep asking for people to 'splain it to you like you're five years old, as if it's some big mystery while people find the loot spew mechaninc annoying and stupid. Andreus said all that needs to be said about it in his earlier post. Others have repeated his same points in different words. It's all been said, and people have been saying it all since this mechanic was first proposed, over and over and over. You obviously put a lot of work into implementing this, and it sucks when people don't say nice things about something you worked hard on. But you can't say you weren't warned that people would hate it. Obviously we're now the point where you're personally attached to the mechanic, so there is not really any point in complaining about it anymore, or trying to explain to you why it sucks. You'll just keep figuring out ways to not get why people dislike it, because you think it's cool, and you don't want to think about scrapping or majorly reworking something you worked hard on and thought people would love. Actually this feature has primarily been developed by CCP Prime. I came up with, helped design and made the hacking mechanics for the vast majority of this release. Obviously we act collaboratively in lots of aspects but I'm not here to defend my baby if that's what you're implying. I just happen to be the person on the team who is on the forums the most so end up being a spokesman for the team. I'm prompting people to explain in their own words why they think something isn't fun in case they have new insights. Making the assumption that I know why they don't like something when they haven't said would be arrogant. It also prompts people to add more constructive detail. Nothing about acting like a five year old or being to stupid to know that people are saying similar things. EVE Software Engineer Team Prototyping Rocks

Brooks Puuntai Solar Nexus. 1540	Posted - 2013.05.31 13:43:00 - [375] - Quote Aw you got my hopes up. http://eve-files.com/dl/262763 Using the cargo container icon, made me think you scrapped the pinata and just did a mix of the old system and the hacking. Also on Sansha Mass Grave, the cans are still inside the station. E: Did you reduce the duration of the spew cans? CCP's Motto: If it isn't broken, break it. If it is broken, ignore it. Improving NPE-á/ Dynamic New Eden
Raven Solaris The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance 218	Posted - 2013.05.31 13:44:00 - [376] - Quote Ran into this just a minute ago. As far as I know, that's a Terran ship, while I'm in a Sansha's Nation archaelogical site. Would it be possible to add a bit of factional flavour to the archaelogy sites? The Guristas sites having broken Rattlesnakes or the Sansha sites having derelict Phantasms, etc. Perhaps then the Terran assets could be placed into more rare sites, named, say "Ancient Ruined Monument Site" instead of "Ruined Faction Monument Site." Would make finding Terran stuff feel like more of an interesting and cool discovery, people might even get a little giddy over it even if the loot's the same. Of course I have no idea how much of a hassle this would be for the art department so slap me if it's not feasable.
Karsa Egivand Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 201	Posted - 2013.05.31 13:45:00 - [377] - Quote Freighdee Katt wrote: Sheena Tzash wrote: CCP Bayesian wrote: Could you expand as to why it does not make sense please? To me I feel that if your being some master hacker who is trying to get the goodies from inside an encrypted vault you wouldn't want the results to be splashed all over space. You wouldn't see someone hack into a bank and set it up so that all the money inside the bank vault would be blasted into the sky - yeah its done the job of getting the loot but its in such an ineffective method and most likely means that you lose a good amount of the loot you've worked hard to get. This. Bayes, you keep asking for people to 'splain it to you like you're five years old, as if it's some big mystery while people find the loot spew mechaninc annoying and stupid. Andreus said all that needs to be said about it in his earlier post. Others have repeated his same points in different words. It's all been said, and people have been saying it all since this mechanic was first proposed, over and over and over. You obviously put a lot of work into implementing this, and it sucks when people don't say nice things about something you worked hard on. But you can't say you weren't warned that people would hate it. Obviously we're now at the point where you're personally attached to the mechanic, so there is not really any point in complaining about it anymore, or trying to explain to you why it sucks. You'll just keep figuring out ways to not get why people dislike it, because you think it's cool, and you don't want to think about scrapping or majorly reworking something you worked hard on and thought people would love. I am on the fence on loot pinata, tbh, I don't see it as a big problem, but I get why people feel as if they lose sth and I suspect that as a game feature it'll cause more negative reactions than satisfaction. BUT, by now it is too late to change it for release. Simple fact. So I suggest waiting for the reactions of the wider playerbase once it hits TQ, and then go back to argue the point with CCP Bayesian (et al). The coming few days, we are not going to get any further on this. Tbh, I'd rather have them make a few more last-minute adjustments to the hacking game itself, which needs more depth yet and which is - imho - the bigger issue (your milage may vary). --> I think the mini-game itself has potential, if all your promises are upheld (tools to take away and sell, more ways to influence/scout the map, more game-options, etc.)
Karsa Egivand Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 201	Posted - 2013.05.31 13:51:00 - [378] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: I'm prompting people to explain in their own words why they think something isn't fun in case they have new insights. Making the assumption that I know why they don't like something when they haven't said would be arrogant. It also prompts people to add more constructive detail. Nothing about acting like a five year old or being to stupid to know that people are saying similar things. As a neutral observer on that particular issue, I think the main "problem" is this: People get an emotional attachment to stuff they have unlocked and can almost reach, before it is getting snatched away again. Objectively, doing it this way is no different than simply having less loot in the can (which then will be priced appropriately by the market), but the player feels as if he deserves to get that stuff now. Because IT WAS THERE. Yet he doesn't get it. Hence: Dangle the candy in front of the baby, then snatch it away. Tears. Simple emotional response.
Solkara Starlock Circle of Mystery 29	Posted - 2013.05.31 13:55:00 - [379] - Quote Thanks for the reply Really appreciated. What I mean that it doesn't make sense is that if someone hacks into a computer or mainframe or whatever, the result of a succesfull hack is access to that computer or mainframe. Not triggering some exploding mechanic. That sounds more like triggering a defensive system to protect the content. I'm not so thrilled having to tag along a cargoscanner in my scanning ship to guarantee my exploration income. The allocation of mid slots on the scanning ships is already quite taxing with the new scanning mods, the data and relic analyser and perhaps a propulsion mod. Basicly, Anathema and Cheetah are at a distinct disadvantage because of that. People adapt! They have always done so and will do so again. But that does not mean they like the new mechanic. I'm afraid a lot will adapt by abandoning exploration, which is not what an exploration expansion should achieve. There will become a whole new dynamic around the new sites. That's a good thing. Pirates will love those undefended scanning ships in their territory. Brave explorers could steal valuables from null sec alliances like Indiana Jones beating the ***** to an artifact. But the inpact on group play will be limited, I fear, and that was the whole point of this loot mechanic. There are more engaging, rewarding or thrilling ways to play with a group. I find it not fun because it feels unrewarding. It also becomes too much of a hassle to (sometimes) get the loot I want. I'm not enjoying myself chasing cans. The more I do it, the more I dislike it. I'm thrilled at succesfully hacking a difficult container but I immediately sigh at the sight of those containers flying of. I think that is a pity. It replaces my sense of enjoyment at finally getting to the loot by a sense of dreariness as I have to do another chore.

CCP Bayesian 829	Posted - 2013.05.31 14:02:00 - [380] - Quote Solkara Starlock wrote: Thanks for the reply Really appreciated. What I mean that it doesn't make sense is that if someone hacks into a computer or mainframe or whatever, the result of a succesfull hack is access to that computer or mainframe. Not triggering some exploding mechanic. That sounds more like triggering a defensive system to protect the content. I think that's a fair criticism from a narrative point of view. Solkara Starlock wrote: I'm not so thrilled having to tag along a cargoscanner in my scanning ship to guarantee my exploration income. The allocation of mid slots on the scanning ships is already quite taxing with the new scanning mods, the data and relic analyser and perhaps a propulsion mod. Basicly, Anathema and Cheetah are at a distinct disadvantage because of that. This isn't a new feature though, it was already possible to do this beforehand. I guess many people didn't because the effort to get into the containers wasn't worth finding out in advance what was in them. Solkara Starlock wrote: People adapt! They have always done so and will do so again. But that does not mean they like the new mechanic. I'm afraid a lot will adapt by abandoning exploration, which is not what an exploration expansion should achieve. There will become a whole new dynamic around the new sites. That's a good thing. Pirates will love those undefended scanning ships in their territory. Brave explorers could steal valuables from null sec alliances like Indiana Jones beating the ***** to an artifact. But the inpact on group play will be limited, I fear, and that was the whole point of this loot mechanic. There are more engaging, rewarding or thrilling ways to play with a group. I find it not fun because it feels unrewarding. It also becomes too much of a hassle to (sometimes) get the loot I want. I'm not enjoying myself chasing cans. The more I do it, the more I dislike it. I'm thrilled at succesfully hacking a difficult container but I immediately sigh at the sight of those containers flying of. I think that is a pity. It replaces my sense of enjoyment at finally getting to the loot by a sense of dreariness as I have to do another chore. Thanks for that. EVE Software Engineer Team Prototyping Rocks


Raven Solaris The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance 218	Posted - 2013.05.31 14:06:00 - [381] - Quote And I just realised something, will the Gnosis get a +5 to Virus Strength? Edit - What about the Echelon?
Naomi Hale Children of New Eden 125	Posted - 2013.05.31 14:10:00 - [382] - Quote Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote: CCP Bayesian: Did you count concessions that it is not as unbearable as it was in its first iteration as positive? I may have overlooked someone, but I did not see anyone that outright stated he preferred the spew containers over a regular container. (Minigame to open it aside) I here by state that I prefer the new loot mechanic over the old static containers. There, that's a +1. I choose to believe what I was PROGRAMMED to believe!
Sheena Tzash Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 36	Posted - 2013.05.31 14:11:00 - [383] - Quote Raven Solaris wrote: Edit - What about the Echelon? Yeah, I've been meaning to wipe the dust of that old thing... Well.. when it actually becomes USEFUL ;)
Sven Viko VIkolander Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic 75	Posted - 2013.05.31 14:28:00 - [384] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: [quote=Sven Viko VIkolander] Negative: 6 Positive: 6 Neutral: 5 At least from my sense of the feedback we've come along way from the original very negative impressions. Perhaps we are reading positive in different ways, as I see the most positive posts still just saying stuff like "this change [e.g. making cans fly slower] makes the loot spew bearable" and I don't see posts like "wow I really look forward to quickly clicking in space chasing loot it took 15 minutes of repetitive clicks to get." When I see negative reviews from vet explorers like JonnyPew ( e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qo81Y79558), who are very rarely negative, that tends to bias me against a change, sure. But no point debating about this, numbers later on won't lie. The numbers vindicated most of Retribution, we'll see if they vindicate exploration in Odyssey, which I certainly hope they do for low sec esp. etc.
Vladimir Norkoff Income Redistribution Service 178	Posted - 2013.05.31 14:29:00 - [385] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: I just want to tackle a few of these points. Firstly I don't think a mechanic can be inherently bad if a portion of people like it and the trend we've seen so far on these threads is that as we make changes the feedback is becoming more positive. I think the mechanic in it's original form is annoying, unsatisfying and feels bad because it is inherently random. Well it's becoming more positive in the same way that if somebody is punching you repeatedly in the face, and then slows down the rate of punching and doesn't punch you quite as hard. Sure it's a improvement... but you are still getting punched in the face! The change doesn't make it a positive liked experience, it just makes it less bad. Maybe with a bunch more work it will reach the level of the current "click & wait" hacking modules - not particularly odious, but not entertaining either. But isn't that the reason that you changed the hacking mods to begin with? To make them fun? And this mechanic just isn't fun. There is no drama or dynamic to grab your attention. You aren't struggling against an adversary for success. You are just laboring against your own ineptitude hoping that you don't lose anything that you "won" in the hacking game. There is no victory. There is only "not losing" what you previously "earned". The best you can hope for is a tie. And that ain't fun.
Veyer Erastus Red-dormice 13	Posted - 2013.05.31 14:30:00 - [386] - Quote Solkara Starlock wrote: I'm not so thrilled having to tag along a cargoscanner in my scanning ship to guarantee my exploration income. The allocation of mid slots on the scanning ships is already quite taxing with the new scanning mods, the data and relic analyser and perhaps a propulsion mod. Basicly, Anathema and Cheetah are at a distinct disadvantage because of that. Think about non-tengu t3s. Like Legion. Even plugging data analyzer is hurting. Not even talking about anything else.

CCP Bayesian 829	Posted - 2013.05.31 14:36:00 - [387] - Quote Sven Viko VIkolander, absolutely we're keenly aware that this part of the feature has had lots of negative reactions and will be watching the statistics we get back about use very closely. EVE Software Engineer Team Prototyping Rocks

Naomi Hale Children of New Eden 125	Posted - 2013.05.31 14:38:00 - [388] - Quote Johan Toralen wrote: Thinking a bit more about the Tengu virus bonus. If it was removed or nerfed i would defo use a t2 frig instead. Wouldn't want to risk losing a faction pos bpc because i didn't max out my hacking. Would that really change a thing tho? I would then run the sites in a disposable frig that with some luck pays off from a single site and haul the loot back in a nullified Tengu that i've parked in a safe place somewhere meanwhile. That to me actualy sounds the most economicaly reasonable thing to do either way. There did seem to be more of a "I can't kill a Tengu at my gatecamp or hacking site now, unfair" tone to their complaints. That said a skilled pilot can avoid any gatecamp in a Covert-ops Frigate, and the range of hacking modules and loot mechanic means a Frigate doesn't need to be within 2km of a loot can so can cloak when it wants. The only true edge the Tengu has is offensively and defensively it is better than a Covert-ops. The way I see it is a covert-ops frigate is used by groups to find the sites and the other members of the group provide protection, keep an eye on d-scan/local and assist with looting, a Tech 3 ship isn't worth the risk if you've got friends that can protect a T2 Frigate and if they meet overwhelming odds it's lose won't hurt too bad (30 million isk fitted?). A Tengu is the ship for a solo explorer to feel a little safer in but faces a bigger lose in sp and isk if caught. Even a Tengu can't compensate for an unskiiled pilot in null. (500 million isk fitted?) As I said back here if you give the Frigates fixed role bonuses to hacking they beat the Tengu as you'd get you're +10 virus strenght even at covert-ops level 1, but if the Tech 3 was per level (+2 virus strenght) you need to train to match the frigate and can lose that bonus with the ship. I choose to believe what I was PROGRAMMED to believe!
Raven Solaris The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance 218	Posted - 2013.05.31 14:41:00 - [389] - Quote So I've swapped over to the Helios now that it has the +10 virus strength bonus instead of the Imicus. Never really had a problem with the failure cruisers in the Imicus because of it's 4 drones, however the Helios only has 1, and I've been at this for about 8 minutes now and am currently wishing someone would come along and end my life. Are the cruisers staying in?

CCP Bayesian 829	Posted - 2013.05.31 14:43:00 - [390] - Quote The failure cruisers are definitely going away. EVE Software Engineer Team Prototyping Rocks


Rob Crowley State War Academy 65	Posted - 2013.05.31 14:46:00 - [391] - Quote Raven Solaris wrote: And I just realised something, will the Gnosis get a +5 to Virus Strength? Edit - What about the Echelon? The Echelon doesn't really need a bonus cause its Sansha codebreaker has much stronger stats than even a T2 analyzer.
Kor'el Izia 56	Posted - 2013.05.31 14:47:00 - [392] - Quote Current exploration system has you doing one minigame(scanning) and then rolling dice(module) in order to get loot, but you'll get it if you have patience and cunning. Next system will have you do one minigame(scanning), followed by another minigame(hacking) followed by a wild goose chase with exploding gooses(can spew), ultimately leaving you with less loot than what you worked hard for to get. Second system is more bearable if the gooses don't explode.

CCP Bayesian 829	Posted - 2013.05.31 14:57:00 - [393] - Quote Kor'el Izia, there are also no NPCs in the sites (except where they haven't been updated) and we've doubled the loot in them as well as adding some good rare items. EVE Software Engineer Team Prototyping Rocks

Naomi Hale Children of New Eden 125	Posted - 2013.05.31 14:57:00 - [394] - Quote Solkara Starlock wrote: What I mean that it doesn't make sense is that if someone hacks into a computer or mainframe or whatever, the result of a succesfull hack is access to that computer or mainframe. Not triggering some exploding mechanic. That sounds more like triggering a defensive system to protect the content. I was working under the assumption that we were hacking an airlock release, delivery bay or access panel, and success exposed the contents to vacuum, blowing it out into space, failure locked the hatch and the system kicking you out. I think we'd have little luck hacking a computer bigger than our ships, also blueprints and datacores are physical objects (disks, usb sticks, hard-drive etc), they need cargo space, we aren't copying the data to our ship's computer, are we? But like I said, that was my assumption of what was occurring, it could be wrong. I choose to believe what I was PROGRAMMED to believe!
Kor'el Izia 56	Posted - 2013.05.31 15:05:00 - [395] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: Kor'el Izia, there are also no NPCs in the sites (except where they haven't been updated) and we've doubled the loot in them as well as adding some good rare items. That is correct, you doubled them back to the level we had before, what a solo explorer could expect to get. Had you not doubled the loot it would've been half of what we have today. Edit: With regards to the NPC's you swapped them for the hacking game as far as I see, which is an obstacle keeping you from the loot. Some obstacles are good, if they are in relation to the loot
Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. Aegis Solaris 1927	Posted - 2013.05.31 15:18:00 - [396] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: Sven Viko VIkolander wrote: I've read these threads, read countless reviews and watched many youtube trials, and I've yet to find anyone that actually likes the loot spew (ofc, maybe you can find just a few somewhere). No one, so far as I've seen, likes twitch games, needless clicking, randomness, etc. Yes, you've made improvements in the right direction, but it seems like the overwhelming consensus here is the best direction is to remove the loot spew, focus on the hacking game to make it more strategy-based, and find another way to make it optionally co-op. That said, I'm very positive about the new exploration sites. Why? Because when I watch videos of people running them, they have limited time to check dscan, pay attention to local, and they spend a long time in space, etc. Thanks, I just went through and tallied up the responses in the past five pages to see what the spread was of people recounting their feelings towards this feature. I counted posts that talked about the scattering specifically as it exists today and ignored replies or speculation (and dev posts). I got: Negative: 6 Positive: 6 Neutral: 5 At least from my sense of the feedback we've come along way from the original very negative impressions. This is why we need actual polls built into the forums. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/
Elena Morin'staal Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group 4	Posted - 2013.05.31 15:19:00 - [397] - Quote I might be a minority, but I like the new hacking/spew mechanics. Hacking makes it less percentage based than before, as I can try and avoid firewalls and the like, as opposed to just sitting there until the module gets a success. As for spew, it has good and bad parts. I like the idea - you've hacked open the pressurized cargo bay, and the vacuum of space pulls everything out. I even like that you can't get everything that spews - BUT, and its a big but, you have to be able to either get enough to make it worthwhile, or at least let the pilot choose what to go after. I don't like a mechanic where I click containers at random and try to get as much junk as possible and hope I get a good can. But I do like a system where I see the spew, and make a beeline straight to something that looks juicy. I'd rather be able to try and get 80% of good loot by cherry picking than it being pot luck. I don't mind junk loot, but it should be after you've tried to get something good - you then use up whatever time is left to cram as much in as possible. So far, with the changes, I do like where its going. Just with I could find more relic sites in Heimatar on Sisi.... all I find a Data :D
Raven Solaris The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance 218	Posted - 2013.05.31 15:23:00 - [398] - Quote Elena Morin'staal wrote: As for spew, it has good and bad parts. I like the idea - you've hacked open the pressurized cargo bay, and the vacuum of space pulls everything out. I even like that you can't get everything that spews - BUT, and its a big but, you have to be able to either get enough to make it worthwhile, or at least let the pilot choose what to go after. I don't like a mechanic where I click containers at random and try to get as much junk as possible and hope I get a good can. But I do like a system where I see the spew, and make a beeline straight to something that looks juicy. I'd rather be able to try and get 80% of good loot by cherry picking than it being pot luck. I don't mind junk loot, but it should be after you've tried to get something good - you then use up whatever time is left to cram as much in as possible. So far, with the changes, I do like where its going. Just with I could find more relic sites in Heimatar on Sisi.... all I find a Data :D Only way to "cherry pick" currently is to cargo scan the hackable containers and then go for containers that should have what you want. Shiny blueprints in there? Go straight for data cans. Armour plates? Materials (or Parts, or both, not sure yet.) etc. It's fairly easy to get what you want now, but I still can't say I enjoy zooming in and rapidly clicking on tiny boxes.
blink alt Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 57	Posted - 2013.05.31 15:39:00 - [399] - Quote Enjoying the role bonus on the covops now. The rewards being tweaked back quite a bit also feels fine. However, with the loot being tweaked backed and the difficulty of the puzzles generally increased at the same time makes it pretty tough to feel good about. Never failed so many puzzles. Hope it continues to get tweaked.
Ali Aras Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind 296	Posted - 2013.05.31 15:50:00 - [400] - Quote Elena Morin'staal wrote: As for spew, it has good and bad parts. I like the idea - you've hacked open the pressurized cargo bay, and the vacuum of space pulls everything out. I even like that you can't get everything that spews - BUT, and its a big but, you have to be able to either get enough to make it worthwhile, or at least let the pilot choose what to go after. I don't like a mechanic where I click containers at random and try to get as much junk as possible and hope I get a good can. But I do like a system where I see the spew, and make a beeline straight to something that looks juicy. I'd rather be able to try and get 80% of good loot by cherry picking than it being pot luck. I don't mind junk loot, but it should be after you've tried to get something good - you then use up whatever time is left to cram as much in as possible. You can pick containers based on name ('scrap' vs. 'data'), and there's been IME enough time to pick between them. http://warp-to-sun.tumblr.com -- my blog

Seth Asthereun Oscura Simmetria Yulai Federation 17	Posted - 2013.05.31 16:04:00 - [401] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: Freighdee Katt wrote: Sheena Tzash wrote: To me I feel that if your being some master hacker who is trying to get the goodies from inside an encrypted vault you wouldn't want the results to be splashed all over space. You wouldn't see someone hack into a bank and set it up so that all the money inside the bank vault would be blasted into the sky - yeah its done the job of getting the loot but its in such an ineffective method and most likely means that you lose a good amount of the loot you've worked hard to get. This. Bayes, you keep asking for people to 'splain it to you like you're five years old, as if it's some big mystery while people find the loot spew mechaninc annoying and stupid. Andreus said all that needs to be said about it in his earlier post. Others have repeated his same points in different words. It's all been said, and people have been saying it all since this mechanic was first proposed, over and over and over. You obviously put a lot of work into implementing this, and it sucks when people don't say nice things about something you worked hard on. But you can't say you weren't warned that people would hate it. Obviously we're now the point where you're personally attached to the mechanic, so there is not really any point in complaining about it anymore, or trying to explain to you why it sucks. You'll just keep figuring out ways to not get why people dislike it, because you think it's cool, and you don't want to think about scrapping or majorly reworking something you worked hard on and thought people would love. Actually this feature has primarily been developed by CCP Prime. I came up with, helped design and made the hacking mechanics for the vast majority of this release. Obviously we act collaboratively in lots of aspects but I'm not here to defend my baby if that's what you're implying. I just happen to be the person on the team who is on the forums the most so end up being a spokesman for the team. I'm prompting people to explain in their own words why they think something isn't fun in case they have new insights. Making the assumption that I know why they don't like something when they haven't said would be arrogant. It also prompts people to add more constructive detail. Nothing about acting like a five year old or being to stupid to know that people are saying similar things. I can explain why i don't like it in 3 points: -Beacuse it's repetitive and everytime the same. You can return that the pattern changes every time and that you are adding encyptors etc etc, but will still be the same, and each site is losing his uniqueness.why archeology has became the same of hacking? Is it true that as it is on tranquillity now is not much better and doesn't offer a lot of distinction but it's till more then the new method. As written some post above "hacking" is a tool to access somekind of "mainframe" and then through this do something that is certainly not making cans explode. And well archeology is..... no longer archeology, you can remove the skill and give us the sp back -Because it should be an "expansion" not a BETA. But it seems that most of the content of this patch is a "we are sorry we can't do it in time for the release" and it is a behaviour that i can't stand. You can mess up with things when you have a real new solution not one that is "en train de" as you did with AI, with 5% resistence bonus, with exploration.. -Because I personally expected a better job with exploration, with increasing depth both in probbing and new sites but all i got seems more an ipad game than a part of EVE online.
Liltha Lost My Way Enterprises 13	Posted - 2013.05.31 16:08:00 - [402] - Quote I've have been sitting here trying to think how best to explain what it is that I really dislike about the spew mechanic as it stands that would make me want to pass up these sites if it goes live as it stands. I would like to start by stating you have done a lot to make it less head bangingly annoying to deal with but it still has a long way to go. The single biggest issue I've had so far is that it's hard with the size of the objects themselves on screen to pick out and click on what I want in a hurry, complicated further by the fact that eve as a 3d environment is difficult for me to work in, the overview works much better normally for interacting with spatial objects. Another issue I've had is that sometimes it is difficult to tell exactly when you loot the can unless you are watching to cargo button (there is a delay between looting and the icons setting back to green it seems). I can deal with the feelings I may have missed a key can in the spew and the mass of crap loot that cans often give as it sounds like you are trying to make cherry picking a little easier, I can even deal with the annoyance of having to click in X number of cans to equal the loot I got out of the old method. But the way it currently interfaces is just a pain, please strongly consider either adding the cans to the overview or maybe make a scanner work like the current asteroid scanners and make a list of the cans.
Palal Go For Broke 7	Posted - 2013.05.31 16:12:00 - [403] - Quote Tried in lowsec today. Got a relic site with 5 containers + 1 npc flying around it. - I was only successful in opening 2 of the containers with 90/30. - Got 2 carbon,2 metal scraps and other worthless crap. ie 1 electronic part. - 2 skill books - caldari encryption methods, minmatar encryption methods. Basically again - a giant waste of time. On several of the puzzles I cleared the board with only protection nodes left.. :( How does anyone defeat a half dozen firewalls/etc? I mean it should winnable right? Not just fluky luck?
Veyer Erastus Red-dormice 13	Posted - 2013.05.31 16:29:00 - [404] - Quote Palal wrote: Tried in lowsec today. Got a relic site with 5 containers + 1 npc flying around it. - I was only successful in opening 2 of the containers with 90/30. - Got 2 carbon,2 metal scraps and other worthless crap. ie 1 electronic part. - 2 skill books - caldari encryption methods, minmatar encryption methods. Basically again - a giant waste of time. On several of the puzzles I cleared the board with only protection nodes left.. :( How does anyone defeat a half dozen firewalls/etc? I mean it should winnable right? Not just fluky luck? Well, it's not so hard to win if you do it in rigged bonused ship with t2 analyzer. Implants help also. But if you don't - then yeah. Hacking is now for specialized pilots, not just sticking module on a ship.
Brooks Puuntai Solar Nexus. 1540	Posted - 2013.05.31 16:34:00 - [405] - Quote Veyer Erastus wrote: Well, it's not so hard to win if you do it in rigged bonused ship with t2 analyzer. Implants help also. But if you don't - then yeah. Hacking is now for specialized pilots, not just sticking module on a ship. Eh being specialized for it only increases the chance of surviving it. It is still primarily luck based. Like I said earlier, the hacking system is difficult in the same sense that winning the lottery is difficult. CCP's Motto: If it isn't broken, break it. If it is broken, ignore it. Improving NPE-á/ Dynamic New Eden
Liltha Lost My Way Enterprises 13	Posted - 2013.05.31 16:40:00 - [406] - Quote Veyer Erastus wrote: Palal wrote: Tried in lowsec today. Got a relic site with 5 containers + 1 npc flying around it. - I was only successful in opening 2 of the containers with 90/30. - Got 2 carbon,2 metal scraps and other worthless crap. ie 1 electronic part. - 2 skill books - caldari encryption methods, minmatar encryption methods. Basically again - a giant waste of time. On several of the puzzles I cleared the board with only protection nodes left.. :( How does anyone defeat a half dozen firewalls/etc? I mean it should winnable right? Not just fluky luck? Well, it's not so hard to win if you do it in rigged bonused ship with t2 analyzer. Implants help also. But if you don't - then yeah. Hacking is now for specialized pilots, not just sticking module on a ship. I realize he is talking about low sec sites here, but doesn't it strike you as a bit wrong that you would need to have hacking 5+implants+rigs just to do sites? I mean it's not like he tossed a hacking modules on his cruiser he obviously was using a cov ops frig to do the sites. Face it new pilots aren't likely doing combat sites, if you take away profession sites what is there for the newer pilots in exploration?
Maximus Andendare Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 239	Posted - 2013.05.31 16:43:00 - [407] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: Sven Viko VIkolander, absolutely we're keenly aware that this part of the feature has had lots of negative reactions and will be watching the statistics we get back about use very closely. It really just seems that the success or failure of the hack should determine whether you get inside "cleanly" or whether the contents go flying off in space, and you collect what you can as a consolation prize. Scenario 1: Hacker is successful at getting the goods. Present him or her with a loot window. Profit. Scenario 2: Hacker is unsuccessful at getting the goods. Present loot scatter mechanic as the penalty. (Less) profit. ^^ This totally should be the way this plays out. The GAME is the hacking, not the loot scattering. I think you guys are somehow stuck on the idea that the loot scatter is game-like, when in actuality its the hacking that is the main shining point of the new hacking system. The loot scattering (from some lore-based emergency protection mechanic of the container) would provide the explorer with loot, albeit not as much, while the "good" hackers take most of it. This system rewards players who specialize into--and work at being good at--the hacking skills and exploration parts of the game. It certainly makes the most sense.
Maximus Andendare Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 239	Posted - 2013.05.31 16:45:00 - [408] - Quote Palal wrote: I mean it should winnable right? Not just fluky luck? Tying the loot scatter to whether the hacker is successful or not would solve both of the problems. Unlucky hackers get a consolation prize (from whatever they can grab from the scatter) and the successful hacker is rewarded for his or her work.
Omnathious Deninard The Scope Gallente Federation 1097	Posted - 2013.05.31 16:54:00 - [409] - Quote Liltha wrote: Veyer Erastus wrote: Palal wrote: Tried in lowsec today. Got a relic site with 5 containers + 1 npc flying around it. - I was only successful in opening 2 of the containers with 90/30. - Got 2 carbon,2 metal scraps and other worthless crap. ie 1 electronic part. - 2 skill books - caldari encryption methods, minmatar encryption methods. Basically again - a giant waste of time. On several of the puzzles I cleared the board with only protection nodes left.. :( How does anyone defeat a half dozen firewalls/etc? I mean it should winnable right? Not just fluky luck? Well, it's not so hard to win if you do it in rigged bonused ship with t2 analyzer. Implants help also. But if you don't - then yeah. Hacking is now for specialized pilots, not just sticking module on a ship. I realize he is talking about low sec sites here, but doesn't it strike you as a bit wrong that you would need to have hacking 5+implants+rigs just to do sites? I mean it's not like he tossed a hacking modules on his cruiser he obviously was using a cov ops frig to do the sites. Face it new pilots aren't likely doing combat sites, if you take away profession sites what is there for the newer pilots in exploration? I am doing null sec sites with only a T2 analyzer in a tengu. There is a trick to doing the sites which I will go in to detail about right now. Do not try to hack any nodes you don't have to. Keep multiple paths open at all times. Hack all Restoration nodes immediately. Do not hack Virus suppressor nodes until you have to and/or have the tools to destroy them. Do not open any data caches until you are 2 nodes away from it. Every 3 nodes click D-Scan. Ideas For Drone Improvement Repourpose Deep Space Scanner Probes
Veyer Erastus Red-dormice 13	Posted - 2013.05.31 17:14:00 - [410] - Quote Brooks Puuntai wrote: Veyer Erastus wrote: Well, it's not so hard to win if you do it in rigged bonused ship with t2 analyzer. Implants help also. But if you don't - then yeah. Hacking is now for specialized pilots, not just sticking module on a ship. Eh being specialized for it only increases the chance of surviving it. It is still primarily luck based. Like I said earlier, the hacking system is difficult in the same sense that winning the lottery is difficult. Well, no. If you have 50 virus strength you will squash any 50hp nodes without taking damage and 80hp ones taking damage ones. With all mentioned you will have more then 100 coherence. With this you can pretty much squash EVERY node before reaching the end even without utility. Liltha wrote: I realize he is talking about low sec sites here, but doesn't it strike you as a bit wrong that you would need to have hacking 5+implants+rigs just to do sites? I mean it's not like he tossed a hacking modules on his cruiser he obviously was using a cov ops frig to do the sites. Face it new pilots aren't likely doing combat sites, if you take away profession sites what is there for the newer pilots in exploration? As it stand because how inherently important strength is there is big gap between low-mid and high skill level pilots. But that's not bad at all. Bad is the fact you have only 2 tries. Right now on tranq you can have very low skill and just keep spinning around container waiting for hack. What you risk is your life - you can get ganked. It is just. And i believe same should be applied here. You can try hacking as many times, but you risk getting ganked while you play the game.

Raven Solaris The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance 218	Posted - 2013.05.31 17:20:00 - [411] - Quote Veyer Erastus wrote: Brooks Puuntai wrote: Veyer Erastus wrote: Well, it's not so hard to win if you do it in rigged bonused ship with t2 analyzer. Implants help also. But if you don't - then yeah. Hacking is now for specialized pilots, not just sticking module on a ship. Eh being specialized for it only increases the chance of surviving it. It is still primarily luck based. Like I said earlier, the hacking system is difficult in the same sense that winning the lottery is difficult. Well, no. If you have 50 virus strength you will squash any 50hp nodes without taking damage and 80hp ones taking damage ones. With all mentioned you will have more then 100 coherence. With this you can pretty much squash EVERY node before reaching the end even without utility. You can't get 50 strength, only 40, so those 50hp anti-virus nodes with 40 strength are actually pretty nasty.
Liltha Lost My Way Enterprises 13	Posted - 2013.05.31 17:21:00 - [412] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: Liltha wrote: Veyer Erastus wrote: Palal wrote: Tried in lowsec today. Got a relic site with 5 containers + 1 npc flying around it. - I was only successful in opening 2 of the containers with 90/30. - Got 2 carbon,2 metal scraps and other worthless crap. ie 1 electronic part. - 2 skill books - caldari encryption methods, minmatar encryption methods. Basically again - a giant waste of time. On several of the puzzles I cleared the board with only protection nodes left.. :( How does anyone defeat a half dozen firewalls/etc? I mean it should winnable right? Not just fluky luck? Well, it's not so hard to win if you do it in rigged bonused ship with t2 analyzer. Implants help also. But if you don't - then yeah. Hacking is now for specialized pilots, not just sticking module on a ship. I realize he is talking about low sec sites here, but doesn't it strike you as a bit wrong that you would need to have hacking 5+implants+rigs just to do sites? I mean it's not like he tossed a hacking modules on his cruiser he obviously was using a cov ops frig to do the sites. Face it new pilots aren't likely doing combat sites, if you take away profession sites what is there for the newer pilots in exploration? I am doing null sec sites with only a T2 analyzer in a tengu. There is a trick to doing the sites which I will go in to detail about right now. Do not try to hack any nodes you don't have to. Keep multiple paths open at all times. Hack all Restoration nodes immediately. Do not hack Virus suppressor nodes until you have to and/or have the tools to destroy them. Do not open any data caches until you are 2 nodes away from it. Every 3 nodes click D-Scan. Yeah learning those tricks myself, however I would like to note that a tengu with a t2 analyzer means you have higher coherance and the same virus strength as the person having issues with the sites. Now I don't really think you need to be super specialized to do basic sites, but it does seem to make it much more luck based at those skill levels, so it can be daunting/frustrating for newer explorers in a way the old system never was. My comment though was mostly in response to the notion that one needs to be specialized to do profession sites which seems like it would be wrong to lower skills characters. Also something that occurs to me, doesn't it seem like the +5 virus strength bonus from the scanning frigs is largely useless? I have yet to come across nodes that weren't in round numbers like 10, 20, etc. Is there a situation I'm missing where 25 vrus strength is actually useful over 20?
Tsubutai Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 208	Posted - 2013.05.31 17:40:00 - [413] - Quote Liltha wrote: Also something that occurs to me, doesn't it seem like the +5 virus strength bonus from the scanning frigs is largely useless? I have yet to come across nodes that weren't in round numbers like 10, 20, etc. Is there a situation I'm missing where 25 vrus strength is actually useful over 20? At least some nullsec and lowsec sites have defensive nodes with 50 or 70 coherence.
Liltha Lost My Way Enterprises 13	Posted - 2013.05.31 17:43:00 - [414] - Quote Tsubutai wrote: Liltha wrote: Also something that occurs to me, doesn't it seem like the +5 virus strength bonus from the scanning frigs is largely useless? I have yet to come across nodes that weren't in round numbers like 10, 20, etc. Is there a situation I'm missing where 25 vrus strength is actually useful over 20? At least some nullsec and lowsec sites have defensive nodes with 50 or 70 coherence. Ah okay I kept coming across nodes with 60 or 70, hadn't thought about it being one less click on the 70 one, dumb me on that one. I'd love to test more but the area of space I'm in still has blood raiders spawning on failure or sitting at the site when I get there, and my poor buzzard cannot seem to take down a blood raider cruiser.

CCP RedDawn C C P C C P Alliance 339	Posted - 2013.05.31 17:45:00 - [415] - Quote Some more updates: I've lowered the Coherence of all the Defensive Software in the first two difficulty tiers so it should be a lot easier now. I have however, upped the Coherence of the Core a little bit in the first two tiers as it was slightly too easy. I've also just finished a small tutorial video for the new hacking mechanic which should be viewable soon. Team Prototyping Rocks

Liltha Lost My Way Enterprises 13	Posted - 2013.05.31 17:51:00 - [416] - Quote CCP RedDawn wrote: Some more updates: I've lowered the Coherence of all the Defensive Software in the first two difficulty tiers so it should be a lot easier now. I have however, upped the Coherence of the Core a little bit in the first two tiers as it was slightly too easy. I've also just finished a small tutorial video for the new hacking mechanic which should be viewable soon. Good that should help some on the lower end of skills.
Azurielle Silestris Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce 1	Posted - 2013.05.31 19:35:00 - [417] - Quote Maximus Andendare wrote: CCP Bayesian wrote: Sven Viko VIkolander, absolutely we're keenly aware that this part of the feature has had lots of negative reactions and will be watching the statistics we get back about use very closely. It really just seems that the success or failure of the hack should determine whether you get inside "cleanly" or whether the contents go flying off in space, and you collect what you can as a consolation prize. Scenario 1: Hacker is successful at getting the goods. Present him or her with a loot window. Profit. Scenario 2: Hacker is unsuccessful at getting the goods. Present loot scatter mechanic as the penalty. (Less) profit. ^^ This totally should be the way this plays out. The GAME is the hacking, not the loot scattering. I think you guys are somehow stuck on the idea that the loot scatter is game-like, when in actuality its the hacking that is the main shining point of the new hacking system. The loot scattering (from some lore-based emergency protection mechanic of the container) would provide the explorer with loot, albeit not as much, while the "good" hackers take most of it. This system rewards players who specialize into--and work at being good at--the hacking skills and exploration parts of the game. It certainly makes the most sense. You're not the first one to propose the idea. However I think the coders feel a little too entitled towards their pet project.
Azurielle Silestris Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce 1	Posted - 2013.05.31 19:40:00 - [418] - Quote Sheena Tzash wrote: Raven Solaris wrote: Edit - What about the Echelon? Yeah, I've been meaning to wipe the dust of that old thing... Well.. when it actually becomes USEFUL ;) Echelon needs a probe launcher or some massive coherence/virus bonus. It is meant to be an overspecialized novelty ship...
Omnathious Deninard The Scope Gallente Federation 1097	Posted - 2013.05.31 19:51:00 - [419] - Quote Azurielle Silestris wrote: Sheena Tzash wrote: Raven Solaris wrote: Edit - What about the Echelon? Yeah, I've been meaning to wipe the dust of that old thing... Well.. when it actually becomes USEFUL ;) Echelon needs a probe launcher or some massive coherence/virus bonus. It is meant to be an overspecialized novelty ship... The Purloined Sansha Data Analyzer has a Virus Strength of 40 and a Coherence of 80. And that is before skills. That ship will be a hacking monster if it has a guard fleet. Ideas For Drone Improvement Repourpose Deep Space Scanner Probes
Freighdee Katt Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 162	Posted - 2013.05.31 19:54:00 - [420] - Quote Sven Viko VIkolander wrote: But no point debating about this, numbers later on won't lie. The numbers vindicated most of Retribution, we'll see if they vindicate exploration in Odyssey, which I certainly hope they do for low sec esp. etc. It depends on what numbers they look at. It's not like anyone will unsub over loot spew. They likely will get a nontrivial number of returns or new subs by virtue of the fact that it's "an expansion" and it will get some media coverage and account for some new ad buys. People might stay for reasons that have nothing to do with exploration, and that's always good. If they just count new subs, then it will almost certainly come out as a "win" no matter how the actual content is perceived in the end. I assume they can track how many instances of what types of explo sites people run before and after the patch. It's certain there will be a big uptick in explo activity right after the patch drops. If it settles at a higher level than it was before the expansion, then that's at least something. And no matter what people say about it here, if there is any overall uptick in explo activity, it will certainly be proclaimed a win, even if it's just a very low level of activity getting somewhat less low. If the numbers are small enough now, it's pretty easy to add a small number to a small number and get a "200% improvement!" Whatever numbers they look at though, none of them will tell you what those same numbers would have been with everything else in Odyssey the same, but minus the loot spew. We're never going to see that number, because that permutation is never going to be tested.

Azurielle Silestris Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce 1	Posted - 2013.05.31 19:57:00 - [421] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: Sven Viko VIkolander wrote: I've read these threads, read countless reviews and watched many youtube trials, and I've yet to find anyone that actually likes the loot spew (ofc, maybe you can find just a few somewhere). No one, so far as I've seen, likes twitch games, needless clicking, randomness, etc. Yes, you've made improvements in the right direction, but it seems like the overwhelming consensus here is the best direction is to remove the loot spew, focus on the hacking game to make it more strategy-based, and find another way to make it optionally co-op. That said, I'm very positive about the new exploration sites. Why? Because when I watch videos of people running them, they have limited time to check dscan, pay attention to local, and they spend a long time in space, etc. Thanks, I just went through and tallied up the responses in the past five pages to see what the spread was of people recounting their feelings towards this feature. I counted posts that talked about the scattering specifically as it exists today and ignored replies or speculation (and dev posts). I got: Negative: 6 Positive: 6 Neutral: 5 At least from my sense of the feedback we've come along way from the original very negative impressions. For what its worth, I forced myself to make a positive comment. I personally hate the feature, but liked the fact you were trying to make it bearable. So far my tabulation of the last 20 pages gives me a total of 4 positive posts towards the curent iteraion, and most of them heavily hint of it as being ''better'', not ''good''. Confirmation bias confirmed.
Freighdee Katt Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 162	Posted - 2013.05.31 20:01:00 - [422] - Quote Maximus Andendare wrote: CCP Bayesian wrote: Sven Viko VIkolander, absolutely we're keenly aware that this part of the feature has had lots of negative reactions and will be watching the statistics we get back about use very closely. It really just seems that the success or failure of the hack should determine whether you get inside "cleanly" or whether the contents go flying off in space, and you collect what you can as a consolation prize. Scenario 1: Hacker is successful at getting the goods. Present him or her with a loot window. Profit. Scenario 2: Hacker is unsuccessful at getting the goods. Present loot scatter mechanic as the penalty. (Less) profit. ^^ This totally should be the way this plays out. The GAME is the hacking, not the loot scattering. I think you guys are somehow stuck on the idea that the loot scatter is game-like, when in actuality its the hacking that is the main shining point of the new hacking system. The loot scattering (from some lore-based emergency protection mechanic of the container) would provide the explorer with loot, albeit not as much, while the "good" hackers take most of it. This system rewards players who specialize into--and work at being good at--the hacking skills and exploration parts of the game. It certainly makes the most sense. Used in this way, the loot spew would actually be pretty reasonable and funny, and it would happen rarely enough to most dedicated explorers that it doesn't feel like a constant annoyance in the middle of "the real game." It's a good idea.
Naomi Hale Children of New Eden 125	Posted - 2013.05.31 20:02:00 - [423] - Quote Okay, played some more Sisi and ran some relic sites. I'm still liking (learning to love) this new stuff, I only get about 40-50% loot and i ignore scarps/parts containers but even then I collected 110 million isk of loot in 2 low sec sites. I am now sure of my earlier assumption (here). We are hacking/overriding airlocks and access ports. This makes the entire system far more enjoyable and realistic to me now. Removing the jettison mechanic would remove the feel of the derelict's contents being blown out into space. On that note, I've found that if I close or minimize everything on the ui except the overview, hold 2500m from objects, assume hostiles are in system and navigate/interact with the new radial menu the experience is even better. Hats off to both dev teams on that combo. I choose to believe what I was PROGRAMMED to believe!
Azurielle Silestris Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce 1	Posted - 2013.05.31 20:04:00 - [424] - Quote Freighdee Katt wrote: Sven Viko VIkolander wrote: But no point debating about this, numbers later on won't lie. The numbers vindicated most of Retribution, we'll see if they vindicate exploration in Odyssey, which I certainly hope they do for low sec esp. etc. It depends on what numbers they look at. It's not like anyone will unsub over loot spew. They likely will get a nontrivial number of returns or new subs by virtue of the fact that it's "an expansion" and it will get some media coverage and account for some new ad buys. People might stay for reasons that have nothing to do with exploration, and that's always good. If they just count new subs, then it will almost certainly come out as a "win" no matter how the actual content is perceived in the end. I assume they can track how many instances of what types of explo sites people run before and after the patch. It's certain there will be a big uptick in explo activity right after the patch drops. If it settles at a higher level than it was before the expansion, then that's at least something. And no matter what people say about it here, if there is any overall uptick in explo activity, it will certainly be proclaimed a win, even if it's just a very low level of activity getting somewhat less low. If the numbers are small enough now, it's pretty easy to add a small number to a small number and get a "200% improvement!" Whatever numbers they look at though, none of them will tell you what those same numbers would have been with everything else in Odyssey the same, but minus the loot spew. We're never going to see that number, because that permutation is never going to be tested. CCP will derail any conversation saying e hate a ''feature''. Take a loof at how they keep changing the subject of POSes when CSM brings it up because ''it'd only benefit a small fraction of players'' despite the fact that most people who ever had to do with a POS, like me, just hate how damned impractical they are as they stand. Sure, we got 1 new module addressing 1 problem, but then they made it so outposts (read: supercorps) get more assembly lines and booster labs if they want to. CCP is worse than a certain Greatest Ally middle-eastern country when it comes to pushing hidden agendas.
Scuzzy Logic Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce 22	Posted - 2013.05.31 20:12:00 - [425] - Quote Naomi Hale wrote: Solkara Starlock wrote: What I mean that it doesn't make sense is that if someone hacks into a computer or mainframe or whatever, the result of a succesfull hack is access to that computer or mainframe. Not triggering some exploding mechanic. That sounds more like triggering a defensive system to protect the content. I was working under the assumption that we were hacking an airlock release, delivery bay or access panel, and success exposed the contents to vacuum, blowing it out into space, failure locked the hatch and the system kicking you out. I think we'd have little luck hacking a computer bigger than our ships, also blueprints and datacores are physical objects (disks, usb sticks, hard-drive etc), they need cargo space, we aren't copying the data to our ship's computer, are we? But like I said, that was my assumption of what was occurring, it could be wrong. And it seems logical to you that a skilled hacker could not depressurize an unmanned (seriously they're data access terminals, why need an atmosphere) hangar and hook up his cargo bay to it? Or just point the magic beam directly in front of it as it opens? Hell, why can't I have my salvage drones bore a hole in the thing and go inside? Now if you FAIL your hacking attempt and just force the door to open like a script kiddie without depresurizing, then loot spew happening makes sense.
Omnathious Deninard The Scope Gallente Federation 1097	Posted - 2013.05.31 20:15:00 - [426] - Quote CCP Bayesian is it possible to make the 2 modules into one but still affected by the 2 different skills? For instance a T1 Analyzer would have virus strength of 20 and a Relic Coherence of 40 and a Data Coherence of 40. If you had hacking trained to level 4 and archeology trained to 1 you would have a Virus strength of 20, a Relic Coherence of 50 and a Data Coherence of 80. Ideas For Drone Improvement Repourpose Deep Space Scanner Probes
Scuzzy Logic Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce 22	Posted - 2013.05.31 20:16:00 - [427] - Quote Maximus Andendare wrote: CCP Bayesian wrote: Sven Viko VIkolander, absolutely we're keenly aware that this part of the feature has had lots of negative reactions and will be watching the statistics we get back about use very closely. It really just seems that the success or failure of the hack should determine whether you get inside "cleanly" or whether the contents go flying off in space, and you collect what you can as a consolation prize. Scenario 1: Hacker is successful at getting the goods. Present him or her with a loot window. Profit. Scenario 2: Hacker is unsuccessful at getting the goods. Present loot scatter mechanic as the penalty. (Less) profit. ^^ This totally should be the way this plays out. The GAME is the hacking, not the loot scattering. I think you guys are somehow stuck on the idea that the loot scatter is game-like, when in actuality its the hacking that is the main shining point of the new hacking system. The loot scattering (from some lore-based emergency protection mechanic of the container) would provide the explorer with loot, albeit not as much, while the "good" hackers take most of it. This system rewards players who specialize into--and work at being good at--the hacking skills and exploration parts of the game. It certainly makes the most sense. You know, having friends around and just boring your way through the system blindly and having them pick up the spew instead of doing a quality hack would then become a thing, allowing two play styles for 1 mechanic. I like it.
Naomi Hale Children of New Eden 125	Posted - 2013.05.31 20:38:00 - [428] - Quote Scuzzy Logic wrote: Naomi Hale wrote: Solkara Starlock wrote: What I mean that it doesn't make sense is that if someone hacks into a computer or mainframe or whatever, the result of a succesfull hack is access to that computer or mainframe. Not triggering some exploding mechanic. That sounds more like triggering a defensive system to protect the content. I was working under the assumption that we were hacking an airlock release, delivery bay or access panel, and success exposed the contents to vacuum, blowing it out into space, failure locked the hatch and the system kicking you out. I think we'd have little luck hacking a computer bigger than our ships, also blueprints and datacores are physical objects (disks, usb sticks, hard-drive etc), they need cargo space, we aren't copying the data to our ship's computer, are we? But like I said, that was my assumption of what was occurring, it could be wrong. And it seems logical to you that a skilled hacker could not depressurize an unmanned (seriously they're data access terminals, why need an atmosphere) hangar and hook up his cargo bay to it? Or just point the magic beam directly in front of it as it opens? Hell, why can't I have my salvage drones bore a hole in the thing and go inside? Now if you FAIL your hacking attempt and just force the door to open like a script kiddie without depresurizing, then loot spew happening makes sense. But now you're surpassing what is present in the game. We don't know what system we are hacking (though it seems optimistic that we use a module and get access to the central computer), we don't know if data sites are unmanned (they are pirate facilities), we don't know where the loot jettison will come from or what direction it will go so can't 'hook up' our cargo bays. We do know that the on-board micro-tractor beam can only handle one can at a time, so aiming it directly at the jettison point (if we knew it) wouldn't help. We do know that there is an effect of venting atmosphere accompanying the jettison. And we definitely know salvage drones can't breach hulls and we can't enter the structures (unless you mean enter with your ship, that would take your drones awhile to cut that hole). As for 'skilled hackers' that is a wait an see. We can hack something at data sites and relics, but we don't gain control of the system, we stick a virus in the system core and destroy it (not an elegant hack). We are far from taking down Concord's computers, crashing the market or even opening doors on stations. So yes, it seems very logical to me. I choose to believe what I was PROGRAMMED to believe!
Heinel Coventina University of Caille Gallente Federation 28	Posted - 2013.05.31 20:38:00 - [429] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: CCP Bayesian is it possible to make the 2 modules into one but still affected by the 2 different skills? For instance a T1 Analyzer would have virus strength of 20 and a Relic Coherence of 40 and a Data Coherence of 40. If you had hacking trained to level 4 and archeology trained to 1 you would have a Virus strength of 20, a Relic Coherence of 50 and a Data Coherence of 80. This is a balance issue, I think it's too early to make changes of that sort right now. They have already stated the intent of making hacking focused ship non-combat capable. If you're trying to do otherwise, you probably are doing it wrong. You may be trying to fit scanning arrays on top of the analyzers. I don't think this is supposed to be done on cov ops frigs either, as I'm under the impression that the arrays were introduced to allow other non-scanning-focused hulls to be temporarily converted into a scanning ship. You aren't supposed to stack them, and it's doubtful that stacking them would yield perceivable differences, to begin with.
Omnathious Deninard The Scope Gallente Federation 1097	Posted - 2013.05.31 21:34:00 - [430] - Quote Heinel Coventina wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: CCP Bayesian is it possible to make the 2 modules into one but still affected by the 2 different skills? For instance a T1 Analyzer would have virus strength of 20 and a Relic Coherence of 40 and a Data Coherence of 40. If you had hacking trained to level 4 and archeology trained to 1 you would have a Virus strength of 20, a Relic Coherence of 50 and a Data Coherence of 80. This is a balance issue, I think it's too early to make changes of that sort right now. They have already stated the intent of making hacking focused ship non-combat capable. If you're trying to do otherwise, you probably are doing it wrong. You may be trying to fit scanning arrays on top of the analyzers. I don't think this is supposed to be done on cov ops frigs either, as I'm under the impression that the arrays were introduced to allow other non-scanning-focused hulls to be temporarily converted into a scanning ship. You aren't supposed to stack them, and it's doubtful that stacking them would yield perceivable differences, to begin with. In order to be even remotely efficient you must have a cargo scanner fitted also. I have ran across sites that have had 6 containers to hack and only 4 had anything in them. With the length of time it takes to hack a site you need to know if the site is even worth hacking. Ideas For Drone Improvement Repourpose Deep Space Scanner Probes

Kahns Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore 7	Posted - 2013.05.31 21:37:00 - [431] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: Thanks, I just went through and tallied up the responses in the past five pages to see what the spread was of people recounting their feelings towards this feature. I counted posts that talked about the scattering specifically as it exists today and ignored replies or speculation (and dev posts). I got: Negative: 6 Positive: 6 Neutral: 5 At least from my sense of the feedback we've come along way from the original very negative impressions. I personally feel far better about the system now than I did, so you can put me in the positive camp, by a nose. Making it so that I don't have to chase cans did a LOT. I wish it was more consistent with the rest of the game (you have multiple tractoring mechnics that work differently and all that) but it seems to work well enough now. I am still concerned that you won't get enough loot to make it worthwhile. My attempts on singularity in null have been somewhat underwhelming. but even in old exploration I'd often hit a bum run and I understand that's part of the game. I actually love the hacking mini-game at this point. I think it's a blast. I'm excited for there to be more depth, but I'm positive about that part as-is.
Tsubutai Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 208	Posted - 2013.05.31 21:52:00 - [432] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: How does that nullified stop you from being insta locked and pointed while you are hacking the site? Instalocked by what, exactly? Anything without a covops cloak warping to your site will be visible on your overview for several seconds before it can do anything as it drops out of warp, giving you ample time to warp off since you align in less than 4 seconds. Because of the decloak targeting delay, the same is true for any covert cloaker (with the exception of a bomber) that warps to your site or is waiting for you there. So the only way you're at risk of being tackled (other than being AFK or having a reaction time that would embarrass a sloth) is if someone has probed out the site before you get there and is waiting for you with a bomber. That's... unlikely to happen, to say the least. However, if even that miniscule risk is too much for you, fear not - with strength-bonused T3s, you can eliminate all bar the very faintest possibility of losing your ship without compromising your hacking capabilities in any way: [Proteus, hacker] Nanofiber Internal Structure II Nanofiber Internal Structure II Synthetic Hull Conversion Inertia Stabilizers I 'Halcyon' Core Equalizer I 'Halcyon' Core Equalizer I 'Halcyon' Core Equalizer I 10MN Afterburner II Cargo Scanner II Analyzer II Analyzer II Covert Ops Cloaking Device II Expanded Probe Launcher II, Sisters Combat Scanner Probe [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] Medium Memetic Algorithm Bank I Medium Emission Scope Sharpener I Proteus Electronics - Emergent Locus Analyzer Proteus Engineering - Capacitor Regeneration Matrix Proteus Propulsion - Interdiction Nullifier Proteus Offensive - Covert Reconfiguration Proteus Defensive - Augmented Plating Now, that hero tackle bomber has to not only probe out the site before you get there and rely on you being willing to keep running sites with a hostile in local, it also has to fit at least two scrams to prevent you from just blithely warping to freedom. Moreover, since the new sites aren't sensitive to things like tank, dps, or targeting, this awful comedy fit is actually not gimped in any way when it comes to hacking. It's beyond ridiculous that something fit like this should be capable of running some of the highest tier pve content in the game, but under the current system, it's one of the best available options. That aside, I ran a few nullsec sites this evening in a Tengu (120/40 coherence/strength). Somewhat perversely, the newly reduced speed of the spew cans actually limits the amount of loot you can collect as a single player in a reasonably fast and agile ship - although the cans move much more slowly, they also expire a lot more quickly than they did previously. The rate at which you tractor cans hasn't changed, which means that whereas someone who was reasonably fast on their mouse and capable of maneuvering their ship sensibly could collect a clear majority of the spewed cans under the old system, you can now only get 50-60% at most. That's probably a good change overall in that it provides more of an incentive to bring a buddy to help with the looting, although it's a little disappointing as someone who prefers to pve alone. There's still a problem with the spew mechanic in that when two cans are very close to one-another in space, it becomes very hard to select the one you want. This is particularly awkward during the first few seconds after the cans have been ejected when they haven't had much time to separate. The nullsec sites seem to have become quite a lot easier to hack after the most recent patch: I ran a Ruined Blood Raider Monument Site, Central Blood Raider Data Mining Site, 2x Central Blood Raider Sparking Transmitter, and a Ruined Blood Raider Crystal Quarry and accessed all of the cans bar one on the first attempt (and I opened the one I flubbed at the second time of asking). On average, the sites took 12 minutes to run. The combined loot haul came to just over 300m plus a number of things the game doesn't value properly (2 ship interface blueprints, a Capital Trimark II BPC, a bunch of AAR/ASB/RAH prints, and some of the new decryptors): http://i.imgur.com/iUDqG0o.png :words:
Heinel Coventina University of Caille Gallente Federation 28	Posted - 2013.05.31 21:58:00 - [433] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: Heinel Coventina wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: CCP Bayesian is it possible to make the 2 modules into one but still affected by the 2 different skills? For instance a T1 Analyzer would have virus strength of 20 and a Relic Coherence of 40 and a Data Coherence of 40. If you had hacking trained to level 4 and archeology trained to 1 you would have a Virus strength of 20, a Relic Coherence of 50 and a Data Coherence of 80. This is a balance issue, I think it's too early to make changes of that sort right now. They have already stated the intent of making hacking focused ship non-combat capable. If you're trying to do otherwise, you probably are doing it wrong. You may be trying to fit scanning arrays on top of the analyzers. I don't think this is supposed to be done on cov ops frigs either, as I'm under the impression that the arrays were introduced to allow other non-scanning-focused hulls to be temporarily converted into a scanning ship. You aren't supposed to stack them, and it's doubtful that stacking them would yield perceivable differences, to begin with. In order to be even remotely efficient you must have a cargo scanner fitted also. I have ran across sites that have had 6 containers to hack and only 4 had anything in them. With the length of time it takes to hack a site you need to know if the site is even worth hacking. What kind of ship are you using that doesn't have 3 mids for 2 analyzer and 1 scanner?
kyofu Praetorian Black Guard Frater Adhuc Excessum 37	Posted - 2013.05.31 22:06:00 - [434] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: Solkara Starlock wrote: Thanks for the reply Really appreciated. What I mean that it doesn't make sense is that if someone hacks into a computer or mainframe or whatever, the result of a succesfull hack is access to that computer or mainframe. Not triggering some exploding mechanic. That sounds more like triggering a defensive system to protect the content. I think that's a fair criticism from a narrative point of view. Muchly agree with Solkara's post here. I'd also like to point out that there is an issue with consistency with the above point. Why if I shoot missiles at a ship, or a station or any other object in the universe and blow it into pieces is the loot not subject to the same mechanic? It is simply odd to have different loot mechanics and physics being applied in what are essentially the same situation. ie individual, at velocity and disapearing. My main beef is the usability issues I have (frantically clicking tiny things while navigating my ship and orienting the camera makes my wrists and eyeballs hurt) but issues like the one mentioned above do detract from the environment as a whole IMO. -Kyo
Veyer Erastus Red-dormice 13	Posted - 2013.05.31 22:09:00 - [435] - Quote Were WH space hacking sites balanced lately? Did a full site just now with 8 cans, not loosing even one to the game and got altogether about 2-3m in loot. Most of it were from a single lucky can. And i wasn't going for scraps. You could say i was unlucky, but i see a tendency here. More high level hacking containers have all their "parts" containers contain valuable loot on regular basis giving steady income with occasional rare drop from other containers. I think such system of "steady&chance" should be applied to all tiers of content as it's not really cool to get more isk from initial npc's wrecks than from hacking itself. Heinel Coventina wrote: What kind of ship are you using that doesn't have 3 mids for 2 analyzer and 1 scanner? Any t3 except tengu.
Raven Solaris The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance 218	Posted - 2013.05.31 22:32:00 - [436] - Quote Heinel Coventina wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: Heinel Coventina wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: CCP Bayesian is it possible to make the 2 modules into one but still affected by the 2 different skills? For instance a T1 Analyzer would have virus strength of 20 and a Relic Coherence of 40 and a Data Coherence of 40. If you had hacking trained to level 4 and archeology trained to 1 you would have a Virus strength of 20, a Relic Coherence of 50 and a Data Coherence of 80. This is a balance issue, I think it's too early to make changes of that sort right now. They have already stated the intent of making hacking focused ship non-combat capable. If you're trying to do otherwise, you probably are doing it wrong. You may be trying to fit scanning arrays on top of the analyzers. I don't think this is supposed to be done on cov ops frigs either, as I'm under the impression that the arrays were introduced to allow other non-scanning-focused hulls to be temporarily converted into a scanning ship. You aren't supposed to stack them, and it's doubtful that stacking them would yield perceivable differences, to begin with. In order to be even remotely efficient you must have a cargo scanner fitted also. I have ran across sites that have had 6 containers to hack and only 4 had anything in them. With the length of time it takes to hack a site you need to know if the site is even worth hacking. What kind of ship are you using that doesn't have 3 mids for 2 analyzer and 1 scanner? Might be a Legion, only way to get 4 mids on that thing is to either use a subsystem other than the locus analyzer (so no probing bonus,) or make it a Drone Legion... which is less than stellar.
Raven Solaris The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance 218	Posted - 2013.05.31 22:33:00 - [437] - Quote Veyer Erastus wrote: Were WH space hacking sites balanced lately? Did a full site just now with 8 cans, not loosing even one to the game and got altogether about 2-3m in loot. Most of it were from a single lucky can. And i wasn't going for scraps. You could say i was unlucky, but i see a tendency here. More high level hacking containers have all their "parts" containers contain valuable loot on regular basis giving steady income with occasional rare drop from other containers. I think such system of "steady&chance" should be applied to all tiers of content as it's not really cool to get more isk from initial npc's wrecks than from hacking itself. Heinel Coventina wrote: What kind of ship are you using that doesn't have 3 mids for 2 analyzer and 1 scanner? Any t3 except tengu. Nah, Loki's fine and a Drone Proteus has the mids for it too, it's just the Legion that's kind of ****... unless it's a Drone Le-yeah nevermind ****.
Scuzzy Logic Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce 22	Posted - 2013.05.31 22:35:00 - [438] - Quote Veyer Erastus wrote: Were WH space hacking sites balanced lately? Did a full site just now with 8 cans, not loosing even one to the game and got altogether about 2-3m in loot. Most of it were from a single lucky can. And i wasn't going for scraps. You could say i was unlucky, but i see a tendency here. More high level hacking containers have all their "parts" containers contain valuable loot on regular basis giving steady income with occasional rare drop from other containers. I think such system of "steady&chance" should be applied to all tiers of content as it's not really cool to get more isk from initial npc's wrecks than from hacking itself. Heinel Coventina wrote: What kind of ship are you using that doesn't have 3 mids for 2 analyzer and 1 scanner? Any t3 except tengu. Not to mention now Tengus outdo the other T3s who do this better than T2s by a wide margin due to being able to fit some of the passive utility mids.
Scuzzy Logic Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce 22	Posted - 2013.05.31 22:42:00 - [439] - Quote Naomi Hale wrote: Scuzzy Logic wrote: Naomi Hale wrote: Solkara Starlock wrote: What I mean that it doesn't make sense is that if someone hacks into a computer or mainframe or whatever, the result of a succesfull hack is access to that computer or mainframe. Not triggering some exploding mechanic. That sounds more like triggering a defensive system to protect the content. I was working under the assumption that we were hacking an airlock release, delivery bay or access panel, and success exposed the contents to vacuum, blowing it out into space, failure locked the hatch and the system kicking you out. I think we'd have little luck hacking a computer bigger than our ships, also blueprints and datacores are physical objects (disks, usb sticks, hard-drive etc), they need cargo space, we aren't copying the data to our ship's computer, are we? But like I said, that was my assumption of what was occurring, it could be wrong. And it seems logical to you that a skilled hacker could not depressurize an unmanned (seriously they're data access terminals, why need an atmosphere) hangar and hook up his cargo bay to it? Or just point the magic beam directly in front of it as it opens? Hell, why can't I have my salvage drones bore a hole in the thing and go inside? Now if you FAIL your hacking attempt and just force the door to open like a script kiddie without depresurizing, then loot spew happening makes sense. But now you're surpassing what is present in the game. We don't know what system we are hacking (though it seems optimistic that we use a module and get access to the central computer), we don't know if data sites are unmanned (they are pirate facilities), we don't know where the loot jettison will come from or what direction it will go so can't 'hook up' our cargo bays. We do know that the on-board micro-tractor beam can only handle one can at a time, so aiming it directly at the jettison point (if we knew it) wouldn't help. We do know that there is an effect of venting atmosphere accompanying the jettison. And we definitely know salvage drones can't breach hulls and we can't enter the structures (unless you mean enter with your ship, that would take your drones awhile to cut that hole). As for 'skilled hackers' that is a wait an see. We can hack something at data sites and relics, but we don't gain control of the system, we stick a virus in the system core and destroy it (not an elegant hack). We are far from taking down Concord's computers, crashing the market or even opening doors on stations. So yes, it seems very logical to me. Okay, then figure this one: How come if I take this here beauty points at Tahyon Laser bank and fire it at this here frigate blows up Venture this here freighter blow up an Iteron 5 or this here random npc faclity blows up mission decor the goods spew out all nice and cozy in their own itty bitty container. Not to mention my friend here who tried using a Capital Missile warhead to do the same. Hell, Frigates that survive stealthbomber bombs still drop neat containers. And then you're going to tell me this freaking thing can't spew out a freaking can that can survive space? B**** please.
Omnathious Deninard The Scope Gallente Federation 1097	Posted - 2013.05.31 22:48:00 - [440] - Quote Heinel Coventina wrote: They have already stated the intent of making hacking focused ship non-combat capable. Anyone got a link for this information, I must have missed it as I have never heard about this till now. Ideas For Drone Improvement Repourpose Deep Space Scanner Probes

Proteus Thompsen Chronic Delirium 57th Combat 0	Posted - 2013.06.01 00:23:00 - [441] - Quote Scuzzy Logic wrote: Okay, then figure this one: How come if I take this here beauty points at Tahyon Laser bank and fire it at this here frigate blows up Venture this here freighter blow up an Iteron 5 or this here random npc faclity blows up mission decor the goods spew out all nice and cozy in their own itty bitty container. Not to mention my friend here who tried using a Capital Missile warhead to do the same. Hell, Frigates that survive stealthbomber bombs still drop neat containers. And then you're going to tell me this freaking thing can't spew out a freaking can that can survive space? B**** please. Exactly!! How about to satisfy CCp's desire for feedback and the exploration folks desire to get rid of the loot spew mechanic, we do this. All PVP and PVE wrecks now do the loot spew, since they were blown up in a nice pretty explosion and the loot disappears after a few seconds, and exploration sites go back to the old loot mechanic, since we are highly skilled professionals. I'm quite sure they will recieve more than enough feedback from the PVP/PVE community to help them understand what others here have been telling them for the last 20+ pages.
Johan Toralen Clockwork X3 81	Posted - 2013.06.01 00:23:00 - [442] - Quote Tsubutai you have a point. That Proteus fit is pretty boss for the job. I stand by my opinion that it would be silly if only frigs were good for hacking. The sensible thing for CCP would be to create an intermediate step. I've mentioned this a few times but so far looks i'm alone with that opinion. The Force Recon ships look pretty good to me. What if they get a +15 virus strenght bonus? That would make them at roughly 200m isk price tag the best hacking ships. But they have neither the probe strenght bonuses of t2 frig and t3 cruiser nor the nullifier of t3. The null sites could perhaps tweaked a bit so they emmit a smartbomb after failed hack so you have to fit at least some tank and not put all stabs and nanos in the lows or probe mods in the mids. That would mean you cant run them in frig anymore but the option to use Force Recon would make that aceptable imo.
Emuar Vak'Atioth War Veterans 2	Posted - 2013.06.01 00:24:00 - [443] - Quote few points, that you guys overlooked: first - while new hacking game looks nice, it still based on your luck. even hacking 5, hacking bonused ship, implants does not give a guarantee, that you open the can. difference if you have hacking skill 3 or 4 or 5 not so high. so your hacking success is based on your luck, not on your skills (thats impression from few nullsec relic and radar sites after last patch). second point - what you get from spew cans is random too if you cant pick all cans. and even if you do it with friend/s - look at first point - hacking based on your luck :) not your skills, if you hit few nasty defensive nodes, your hacking skill wont help (i am talking about present hacking game). i would like to see face of player, who will find tower bpc inside can and fail to hack it ;) The mind is a constant. Unfortunately the number of people increases every year....
Heinel Coventina University of Caille Gallente Federation 28	Posted - 2013.06.01 00:42:00 - [444] - Quote Johan Toralen wrote: Tsubutai you have a point. That Proteus fit is pretty boss for the job. I stand by my opinion that it would be silly if only frigs were good for hacking. The sensible thing for CCP would be to create an intermediate step. I've mentioned this a few times but so far looks i'm alone with that opinion. The Force Recon ships look pretty good to me. What if they get a +15 virus strenght bonus? That would make them at roughly 200m isk price tag the best hacking ships. But they have neither the probe strenght bonuses of t2 frig and t3 cruiser nor the nullifier of t3. The null sites could perhaps tweaked a bit so they emmit a smartbomb after failed hack so you have to fit at least some tank and not put all stabs and nanos in the lows or probe mods in the mids. That would mean you cant run them in frig anymore but the option to use Force Recon would make that aceptable imo. I agree that there should be a bigger ship, but I don't think it'd be "an intermediate step." The T3s are supposed to be jack of all trades, it's not an end point to anything. I still stand by my idea that Deep Space Transports are the ones that needs to get the overhaul to be the advanced exploration ship.
Omnathious Deninard The Scope Gallente Federation 1097	Posted - 2013.06.01 00:54:00 - [445] - Quote A prowler can do that with no problems, has two highs, 3 Mids, and 2 lows. With T2 rigs has a 4s align time And recons already have a specialized role as a cyno ship. Ideas For Drone Improvement Repourpose Deep Space Scanner Probes
Johan Toralen Clockwork X3 81	Posted - 2013.06.01 01:02:00 - [446] - Quote I like the idea of a transport exploration ship. Some of the useful loot can be quite bulky. Would be a nice incentive to not leave it behind. Don't see much room to iterate on that idea with the loot spew tho unless CCP makes an exception and puts bulky loot in the containers after the hacking. Otherwise it's gonna **** everyone else off.
Heinel Coventina University of Caille Gallente Federation 28	Posted - 2013.06.01 01:26:00 - [447] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: A prowler can do that with no problems, has two highs, 3 Mids, and 2 lows. With T2 rigs has a 4s align time And recons already have a specialized role as a cyno ship. Hmm. The thing is, blockade runners also already fill a niche, and you get neither scanning nor analyzer bonus with them, that kinda sucks. Johan Toralen wrote: I like the idea of a transport exploration ship. Some of the useful loot can be quite bulky. Would be a nice incentive to not leave it behind. Don't see much room to iterate on that idea with the loot spew tho unless CCP makes an exception and puts bulky loot in the containers after the hacking. Otherwise it's gonna **** everyone else off. I guess it really depends on how they are going to iterate on hacking. If it's just doing the exploration sites we have now, the cov ops frigs mostly fits the bill. If they're going to introduce more elaborate scenarios where hacking is going to be involved, then we're going to need a ship that is more of a comprehensive solution to whatever it is that they're going to introduce. I think that will be a good time to assess what kind of ships should we need?
Omnathious Deninard The Scope Gallente Federation 1097	Posted - 2013.06.01 01:29:00 - [448] - Quote Heinel Coventina wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: A prowler can do that with no problems, has two highs, 3 Mids, and 2 lows. With T2 rigs has a 4s align time And recons already have a specialized role as a cyno ship. Hmm. The thing is, blockade runners also already fill a niche, and you get neither scanning nor analyzer bonus with them, that kinda sucks. Johan Toralen wrote: I like the idea of a transport exploration ship. Some of the useful loot can be quite bulky. Would be a nice incentive to not leave it behind. Don't see much room to iterate on that idea with the loot spew tho unless CCP makes an exception and puts bulky loot in the containers after the hacking. Otherwise it's gonna **** everyone else off. I guess it really depends on how they are going to iterate on hacking. If it's just doing the exploration sites we have now, the cov ops frigs mostly fits the bill. If they're going to introduce more elaborate scenarios where hacking is going to be involved, then we're going to need a ship that is more of a comprehensive solution to whatever it is that they're going to introduce. I think that will be a good time to access what kind of ships should we need? whispers strategic cruisers Ideas For Drone Improvement Repourpose Deep Space Scanner Probes
Telrei Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 15	Posted - 2013.06.01 01:39:00 - [449] - Quote Heinel Coventina wrote: I guess it really depends on how they are going to iterate on hacking. If it's just doing the exploration sites we have now, the cov ops frigs mostly fits the bill. Unless you have five virus on the board at once and fail the hack....... I will admit at least that would give the second needed person SOMETHING TO DO instead of twiddling their thumbs until the clickfest begins....
Heinel Coventina University of Caille Gallente Federation 28	Posted - 2013.06.01 02:22:00 - [450] - Quote Telrei wrote: Heinel Coventina wrote: I guess it really depends on how they are going to iterate on hacking. If it's just doing the exploration sites we have now, the cov ops frigs mostly fits the bill. Unless you have five virus on the board at once and fail the hack....... I will admit at least that would give the second needed person SOMETHING TO DO instead of twiddling their thumbs until the clickfest begins.... Twiddling thumbs is really just a choice. It doesn't take that long to begin with, and if your friend is whining about it taking long, then you'll just have to click faster. That's basically a timer mechanic with dynamic failure conditions and unpredictable (and yet not hopelessly frustrating) punishment. You can't program this stuff. In the case you really cannot do it any quicker, if you're doing it in high sec, the second person can be scanning for the next signature or something. If it's low or null, the second person should be hunting down trappers and gankers. The hacking mechanic is not a silo, you're still interacting with others in space by virtue of undocking. In any case, the mechanic has yet to be tested live on TQ, exactly how people are going to behave is still an unknown at the moment. If it really doesn't work, adjustments can be made in a point release. === As for multiplayer hacking, as a mechanic in general, I wouldn't be surprised if they add that in later as part of advanced hacking. It's just that, these sites are still supposed to be solo-able. It's a good starting point, no need to make it too complicated.

Newh Zurillian Research and Development Corp 0	Posted - 2013.06.01 06:00:00 - [451] - Quote I am on Sisie now, Eve time 05:40. 2013 16 01 Logged in just after the serverst came up, in Arifsdald, scanned down Data Site TZV-786, 2 NPCs are at the site, one of which does not apear on the overlay (I can see him in space BUT i can not see him on the overview list dispte both being less then 30km away). Arch Angel Friggate (apears on overlay) Angel Cartel Cruiser (not on overlay) After some testing I have discovered that my overlay was not setup to see the MiniProfesion Crusers. ... imported the Overview from live. The NPC behaviour was strange, I could fly right up to them and they would not Agro, (-1.17 standings with this group). It wasnt untill I targeted the info shard that they started to target me, and it was only the NPC who was orbiting the info shard that I was hacking (the other NPC was less then 12 km away and continued to ignore me) I hacked the only unguarded Angle Info Shard (which looked awasome BTW) got loot comparable with live, the hacking game was fair dificulty wise. In short: 1 - did the enemies spawn at the site when they werent supose to (only asking because the server was down so im not sure if sisi resets when its down) 2 - A few people have complaned about being attacked by invisible enemies (could this be due to things missing after an overlay inport from live? 3 - Strange NPC agression 4 - Hack game was nice, it wasnt imposible 5 - Compairable with live server. PS while I do respect the drive to try something new, I would prefer not to have to deal with the scatter mechanic. Cheers Newh
Wenthrial Solamar Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 19	Posted - 2013.06.01 06:04:00 - [452] - Quote I think at this point Sora has really made all the salient points I have. The work over the last two weeks has taken this feature from a complete train wreck, to a playable new feature that could use some iteration, thank you for actually listening to the feedback and using it to make visible changes, I wish more of the dev teams did the same. Three general feedback items on the current state of things; 1. @ccp prime sounds like he may not get to iterate on the loot scatter; if that is truly the case, please do not include it in this release, push it to a point release, it is much, much improved, but not ready yet to be left on TQ untouched for a year or more. 2. A bit off topic, but related to how I hack sites; I literally live in a ship with probes on it, right now on TQ all my scanning ships are fit to be able to do Radar or Mag sites should I find one ( Also with point for hero tackle ) . With the addition of three new mid slot mod's That will no longer be true, it's a minor point, but if I want to scan now I will not be fitting Analyzer mod's by default. It would be nice if when i am using a dedicated exploration ship, fit for that purpose, I could still do the exploration sites. TQ Exploration fit: 2H / 3M / 0L SISI Explo. Fitting: 1H / 6M / 0L It just seems out of place, I'm flying a ship fit exclusively for exploration, yet I must choose between scanning as well as I can to find sites to explore, or being able to do something with the site's I find. 3. Playablity... I have spent a lot of time testing this on SISI, however I don't think I will bother with k-space exploration post patch. Despite what seems to have been a huge effort, some very good ideas, and a lot of really focused improvements on marginal ideas, the gameplay is still simply not rewarding enough to be worth it. The old system was boring, but it was easy and fast, and could be done in the scanning ship I was in any way, so was worth the time to grab a friend or alt to kill rats, and go do quick, the new system is just falling short. Though much improved It's still kinda boring , but it is now tedious and unrewarding feeling ( even if I get more loot ). I think the big thing is coupling the very flat-land mini-game to the highly spacial 3D can explosion is failing. Either one would have been a good stand alone change, but together they just fight each other diminishing both. The hacking mini-game on incursion sites seems like a really good addition, Annoying in some ways, but all the complaints I can come up with for it are "change is bad". Need to get a real group to go test that in more depth.
Flamespar Woof Club 608	Posted - 2013.06.01 06:24:00 - [453] - Quote I didn't like the can spray mechanic initially, but the recent improvements have swayed me. Good going CCP, keep it up I can post on a forum, therefore I represent everyone.
Naomi Hale Children of New Eden 125	Posted - 2013.06.01 07:14:00 - [454] - Quote Scuzzy Logic wrote: Okay, then figure this one: How come if I take this here beauty points at Tahyon Laser bank and fire it at this here frigate blows up Venture this here freighter blow up an Iteron 5 or this here random npc faclity blows up mission decor the goods spew out all nice and cozy in their own itty bitty container. Not to mention my friend here who tried using a Capital Missile warhead to do the same. Hell, Frigates that survive stealthbomber bombs still drop neat containers. And then you're going to tell me this freaking thing can't spew out a freaking can that can survive space? B**** please. (This is in-game terms to provide narrative structure) When you attack another ship (player or npc) you are causing it to explode and leave behind a twisted and burned wreck. Some of that ships cargo, modules, rigs and objects survive that explosion and that's what you loot. You don't get 100% value of the destroyed ship back as loot, there is a lose as objects are destroyed or are flung off into space. Salvaging and salvage drones remove the twisted remains and collect anything of value as they go. The can that is left is the battered cargo hold or jet-can with the loot. (Now I will admit that the wreckage should have momentum and that the new mechanic could be used to try and capture those smaller items thrown into space as additional loot, but that's up to CCP in the future.) However, hacking implies that you are attempting to access a structure or system that you were not meant to access. Maybe that is why the mini-cans degrade so fast, you are exposing them to a scenario outside their original design, maybe these cans are used for internal storage within structures and stations, moved by human dock workers and specialised loading equipment. They aren't meant to withstand micro-tractor beams and in space transfers. Now you could fire on the data/relic sites but you run the risk of destroying the very items you're seeking. But then you are no longer a hacker. There must be a reason we are hacking these structures rather than blowing them up, that applies to both the new and old hacking mechanics. I choose to believe what I was PROGRAMMED to believe!
Andreus Ixiris Duty. 2795	Posted - 2013.06.01 08:32:00 - [455] - Quote CCP, I've got a serious question for you: why are you trying to treat symptoms of the mechanic when the cause of the problem is the mechanic itself, and why do you continually ignore people who are telling you this? You wouldn't have to put twice the loot into these sites that need to be in them if half of it wasn't likely to be lost due to the cans timing out and self-destructing. You still haven't addressed how this doesn't really encourage teamplay because there still isn't anything else for the other players to do. You still haven't addressed how this style of gameplay doesn't fit with the rest of EVE's experience. You haven't addressed how this distracts from the profession's core engagement. Is there any point to us even testing this mechanic if you aren't going to listen to us? Mane 614
Henry Montclaire Vortex Research Dalek Asylum 55	Posted - 2013.06.01 09:06:00 - [456] - Quote The frustration with spew cans is itself a symptom. A symptom of these sites being utterly WORTHLESS. I'm sorry, I want to be positive, I really really do. But I've just spent four hours flying through null sec on the test server. Four long, horribly horribly boring hours. Before that I spent another hour and a half with a buddy in low sec. In low sec, our biggest find from a hacked site was a grand 10 mil worth of data stuff (mind you we were able to collect all the cores). Seeing how pathetic the haul in low sec was, both today, and when I tried it in the past couple of weeks, I decided to check out null sec. Surely that would be worth some isk? So, after four hours of flying through I don't know how many null sec systems, half of them NPC null sec, and half player, I found a grand total of one data site and no relic sites. In this one data site, due to the absurd difficulty and my own bad luck and poor skills I managed to blow up four of the five cans / structures. Each of these hacking points was about 50kms + away from the others, making each one take a small eternity to get to. The one I did successfully hack awarded me with less than 1 million isk of loot. After that site, I could not find another. I searched, for hours, through empty systems, and not a one showed up on the system scanner. So at this point, I'm a bit pissed off, and a bit worried. Pissed off because of the colossal waste of time the entire frustrating effort was. Worried because the reward is NOWHERE NEAR high enough to justify the risk. Spending that much time in null sec on live would be incredibly dangerous. You would have to dodge gate camps, bubbles, and hunters. You may have to abandon a site mid hack, blowing up or abandoning precious loot to escape a hostile. There is no guarantee you will be able to get your loot back to high sec to sell it off. About the only thing I could imagine funding with exploration at this point is an imicus. With my glorious findings, I could afford to buy an imicus. An imicus with all T1 fittings, and no faction probes. There is no way I would doom one of my beloved proteuses with low or null sec exploration when this goes live. Maybe there's a magic jackpot hidden in some data site somewhere, but the chances of finding it are so frustratingly low, with luck coming into play in so very very many places, it's absolutely absurd. If gold was worthless and impossible to find, there would have been no gold rush. The reason the spew mechanic is irritating is because the player can't help but feel that the loot that might have made all the trouble of finding that site, hacking the data mainframe, and clicking on those little cans worth it just despawned somewhere. Maybe I'm just being stupidly, absurdly unlucky. Maybe most people are pulling 100+ mil out of each data site in null sec, and are finding one every two to three systems. Maybe even low sec sites are worth 60+ mil on average. But I can tell you that that has not been my experience, and I've been deeply frustrated by the entire ordeal. And it was an ordeal. It can be fixed. Increase the frequency of sites, and increase the worth of all the loot. Don't bother spewing cans that only drop a freakin' hydrogen battery, because sucking in something worth a grand total of 1 isk is NOT rewarding. Give people a REASON to risk their ships in low sec and null sec. I WANT to do exploration. I want to enjoy it! But it's just plain painful at the moment.
Andreus Ixiris Duty. 2795	Posted - 2013.06.01 09:32:00 - [457] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: Firstly I don't think a mechanic can be inherently bad if a portion of people like it and the trend we've seen so far on these threads is that as we make changes the feedback is becoming more positive. I think the mechanic in it's original form is annoying, unsatisfying and feels bad because it is inherently random. CCP Bayesian wrote: To me these things are the same point. It's also an overarching one and doesn't really explain why people don't find it fun. CCP Bayesian wrote: Thanks, I just went through and tallied up the responses in the past five pages to see what the spread was of people recounting their feelings towards this feature. I counted posts that talked about the scattering specifically as it exists today and ignored replies or speculation (and dev posts). I got: Negative: 6 Positive: 6 Neutral: 5 At least from my sense of the feedback we've come along way from the original very negative impressions. Bayesian, I'm now having a very serious issue with the frankly insultingly dismissive attitude you're taking towards players who are using their own personal time to test your prototype game mechanics. It feels deeply disappointing that you're apparently not really listening to what we're saying. OK, firstly: yes, Bayesian, a game mechanic most certainly can be inherently bad even if a portion of people like it - that is precisely why balance changes were made to things like ECM and nano-Typhoons. That's why you're changing starbase mechanics. That's why, if you play League of Legends, they removed the deny element of Gangplank's Raise Morale ability. Actually, that one's a really good example, so for the MOBAphobic, allow me to expand. League of Legends, unlike a lot of other MOBA games, does not have "deny" (killing your own minions to deny their cash and XP rewards to enemies) - in LoL, you generally cannot target your own minions with offensive abilities. Gangplank, one of the playable characters, has an ability called Raise Morale which gives a significant movement speed and attack speed buff to any allied champions in a considerable AoE. It used to work by killing one of his own minions, introducing a deny element into a game that otherwise didn't have one. No other champion had a comparable ability, and in draft-pick mode (which all competitive ladder games use) you cannot pick a character the other team has picked, meaning they could not compensate. "Denyplank" actually became a legitimate strategy to essentially cockblock enemies in his lane, starving them of gold and XP, meaning that over time they would be underleveled and underfunded compared to their peers. It was removed by Riot because having one deny ability in an otherwise denyless game caused very serious issues, even though a section of the playerbase enjoyed using it. Now, while this issue is not directly comparable with the loot pinata, because one caused direct issues in competitive game balance and one is an irritation to people undertaking a certain profession, they are both examples of mechanics that a section of the playerbase can enjoy can be inherently bad. Now, certainly, you may be making the mechanic better, but I would remind you of a common adage in EVE Online - you are surely aware of "safer, not safe?" Well what you're doing here is you're making the loot pinata better, not good. You are addressing the worst symptoms of the condition, certainly, but the root problem is the general mechanic itself, not the exact details. Things like adding crimewatch tracking to the spew cans, doubling the loot in each site, altering the physics of the spew - this is a classic case of fixing many small problems that you wouldn't have if you got rid of one big problem. My general feeling is that what you're seeing is more people are now tolerating the loot pinata system because it's not as bad as it was, but I think people "enjoying" it is a little bit of a stretch. Unlike the CQ/NeX/Incarna debacle, this is most definitely not an issue I feel many people are going to unsubscribe over, but I feel like a large part of CCP's development time on this mechanic will be wasted because a lot of people are going to find that the loot pinata system is a dealbreaker, which I think is a terrible shame. If you would like me to further iterate on my beliefs regarding why this mechanic is so problematic I'm perfectly happy to do so, but I'd like to know that the time I spend writing such a critique wouldn't be wasted. Mane 614
Andreus Ixiris Duty. 2795	Posted - 2013.06.01 10:00:00 - [458] - Quote I mean, here's a suggestion for a test you could run, Bayesian. Book some time on Singularity, or if you can't do it on Singularity use Duality or Buckingham or whatever. If loot is at 2.0 right now, dial it back down to 1.0 or perhaps 1.2 (since you said you wanted sites to be a little more profitable), and give us the new hacking mechanic but with no loot pinata. See how people take to it. Mane 614
Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd 190	Posted - 2013.06.01 10:18:00 - [459] - Quote I've been reading the same replies from the devs that you have and I'm at a complete loss for how they sound insulting. I simply don't see it. That being said, CCP Soundwave himself has said quite firmly that the loot pinata is not being removed. Probably better to focus your attempts on how to improve it rather than continuing to insist it be done away with.
Naomi Hale Children of New Eden 125	Posted - 2013.06.01 10:25:00 - [460] - Quote Johan Toralen wrote: I like the idea of a transport exploration ship. Some of the useful loot can be quite bulky. Would be a nice incentive to not leave it behind. Don't see much room to iterate on that idea with the loot spew tho unless CCP makes an exception and puts bulky loot in the containers after the hacking. Otherwise it's gonna **** everyone else off. What you (and others) are after is this. A ship that is dedictated to exploration with matching bonuses, large cargo hold (cruiser or larger), has a good but not overpowered defense, little or no offence, can only be gotten from an LP store from a faction that has most of it's agents in low or null sec space and finally looks good... But sadly doesn't exist... there's always a catch. I choose to believe what I was PROGRAMMED to believe!

Andreus Ixiris Duty. 2795	Posted - 2013.06.01 10:26:00 - [461] - Quote Alvatore DiMarco wrote: That being said, CCP Soundwave himself has said quite firmly that the loot pinata is not being removed. Probably better to focus your attempts on how to improve it rather than continuing to insist it be done away with. That's an utterly terrible attitude for a game developer to have. If the general consensus is that the mechanic is not positively contributing to the experience of EVE Online, it should be removed and replaced with something better - that is the entire reason hacking is being changed in the first place. Focusing on attempts to "improve" the loot pinata mechanic aren't ever going to fix the core problems with it because they're systemic. It's like slapping a bandage over a bullet wound. Mane 614
Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd 190	Posted - 2013.06.01 10:40:00 - [462] - Quote Andreus Ixiris wrote: Alvatore DiMarco wrote: That being said, CCP Soundwave himself has said quite firmly that the loot pinata is not being removed. Probably better to focus your attempts on how to improve it rather than continuing to insist it be done away with. That's an utterly terrible attitude for a game developer to have. If the general consensus is that the mechanic is not positively contributing to the experience of EVE Online, it should be removed and replaced with something better - that is the entire reason hacking is being changed in the first place. Focusing on attempts to "improve" the loot pinata mechanic aren't ever going to fix the core problems with it because they're systemic. It's like slapping a bandage over a bullet wound. The general consensus around here seems to be that nothing contributes positively to EVE except spaceships. Everything that doesn't involve shooting another player and killing his ship is generally agreed upon by the player base to be a frivolous waste of developer time, even if some of us disagree. By your argument, everything except direct ship-to-ship PVP should be removed. That wouldn't make for a very interesting game, now would it? Lose the overdramatic hyperbole and then try posting again.
Satego Kogan Hedion University Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2013.06.01 10:51:00 - [463] - Quote Johan Toralen wrote: The Force Recon ships look pretty good to me. What if they get a +15 virus strenght bonus? That would make them at roughly 200m isk price tag the best hacking ships. But they have neither the probe strenght bonuses of t2 frig and t3 cruiser nor the nullifier of t3. As a low SP player, who trained for the Pilgrim to have a decent exploration ship, I really support this idea ;)
Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd 190	Posted - 2013.06.01 10:52:00 - [464] - Quote Satego Kogan wrote: Johan Toralen wrote: The Force Recon ships look pretty good to me. What if they get a +15 virus strenght bonus? That would make them at roughly 200m isk price tag the best hacking ships. But they have neither the probe strenght bonuses of t2 frig and t3 cruiser nor the nullifier of t3. As a low SP player, who trained for the Pilgrim to have a decent exploration ship, I really support this idea ;) Nope. If it happens, it should be +10 strength just like the CovOps. A Recon has other bonuses to make it more attractive.
Johan Toralen Clockwork X3 81	Posted - 2013.06.01 13:23:00 - [465] - Quote Alvatore DiMarco wrote: Nope. If it happens, it should be +10 strength just like the CovOps. A Recon has other bonuses to make it more attractive. Recon has bonusses which probably nobody would use for an exploration fit since its more important to fit scan arrays to make up for the lack of probe bonuses. I suggested +15 because people have a point when they say T3 shouldn't be the outright best in everything. In an ideal world i would say it would be best if CCP comes up with a new class of t2 exploration cruisers. Slightly better bonuses on probing and virus strenght then t2 frig and t3 cruiser, decent enough cargo hold for the bulky materials, cov cloak but not much room in the slot design to deviate from the role of the ships.
Naren Vintas Space Busters 9	Posted - 2013.06.01 13:37:00 - [466] - Quote Andreus Ixiris wrote: CCP Bayesian wrote: Firstly I don't think a mechanic can be inherently bad if a portion of people like it and the trend we've seen so far on these threads is that as we make changes the feedback is becoming more positive. I think the mechanic in it's original form is annoying, unsatisfying and feels bad because it is inherently random. CCP Bayesian wrote: To me these things are the same point. It's also an overarching one and doesn't really explain why people don't find it fun. CCP Bayesian wrote: Thanks, I just went through and tallied up the responses in the past five pages to see what the spread was of people recounting their feelings towards this feature. I counted posts that talked about the scattering specifically as it exists today and ignored replies or speculation (and dev posts). I got: Negative: 6 Positive: 6 Neutral: 5 At least from my sense of the feedback we've come along way from the original very negative impressions. Bayesian, I'm now having a very serious issue with the frankly insultingly dismissive attitude you're taking towards players who are using their own personal time to test your prototype game mechanics. It feels deeply disappointing that you're apparently not really listening to what we're saying. (...) Now, certainly, you may be making the mechanic better, but I would remind you of a common adage in EVE Online - you are surely aware of "safer, not safe?" Well what you're doing here is you're making the loot pinata better, not good. You are addressing the worst symptoms of the condition, certainly, but the root problem is the general mechanic itself, not the exact details. Things like adding crimewatch tracking to the spew cans, doubling the loot in each site, altering the physics of the spew - this is a classic case of fixing many small problems that you wouldn't have if you got rid of one big problem. My general feeling is that what you're seeing is more people are now tolerating the loot pinata system because it's not as bad as it was, but I think people "enjoying" it is a little bit of a stretch. Unlike the CQ/NeX/Incarna debacle, this is most definitely not an issue I feel many people are going to unsubscribe over, but I feel like a large part of CCP's development time on this mechanic will be wasted because a lot of people are going to find that the loot pinata system is a dealbreaker, which I think is a terrible shame. If you would like me to further iterate on my beliefs regarding why this mechanic is so problematic I'm perfectly happy to do so, but I'd like to know that the time I spend writing such a critique wouldn't be wasted. Holy Words. I couldn't have said this any better. CCP, indeed. You are making things better and the feedback indeed gets more positive... but it is relative to the improvements you make, not the core mechanic itself. The changes you make are getting positive feedback, but the core mechanic itself is still not very welcome by many - and I dare say, most. Please, don't delude yourself that you can make it 'good' just by tweaking certain issues, only slightly better. I do understand that you are fond of this mechanic. You spent a lot of time working on it, and I appreciate your enthusiasm and understand why you are reluctant to remove it. But in it's current form, all that time will go to waste, as players won't be able to enjoy it. That's not very nice, is it? To spend lot of time on something that people hate, and even worse, won't use? Because that's what's going to happen. Many will simply not use this. Some will still do, of course, but not as many as they would if you listened to the feedback and targeted the core problem itself, not just tweaking up variables. Why don't you go for compromise? Just for the sake of the testing, move the can scattering to the "failure" mechanic, and simple "loot window" for success - as many players suggest that. And then see the feedback. It's the test server, after all - you should be testing that option as well. Surely it won't hurt you, and this way you'll gather even more of your precious metrics. There really isn't much time left before Odyssey ships. You really don't have to remove it from the game, just change the purpose of it. As "success" mechanic, this is very frustrating and dealbraking. But as a "failure" mechanic, it would actually be fun for many - because even if they fail the hacking, they can still get some of the loot (which is punishment enough), and they have to put more effort into that then. Having that from time to time would be even refreshing... but not every single time you succeed at hacking. And, yes. I am repeating myself here for, I don't know which time already. And don't get me wrong - I actively test the Hacking feature/profession on SiSi each time you iterate it, so it's not like I'm just commenting on the idea.
Omnathious Deninard The Scope Gallente Federation 1097	Posted - 2013.06.01 13:57:00 - [467] - Quote Alvatore DiMarco wrote: Satego Kogan wrote: Johan Toralen wrote: The Force Recon ships look pretty good to me. What if they get a +15 virus strenght bonus? That would make them at roughly 200m isk price tag the best hacking ships. But they have neither the probe strenght bonuses of t2 frig and t3 cruiser nor the nullifier of t3. As a low SP player, who trained for the Pilgrim to have a decent exploration ship, I really support this idea ;) Nope. If it happens, it should be +10 strength just like the CovOps. A Recon has other bonuses to make it more attractive. It should not get it at all as they have a role already as e-war ships. It is just some pilgrim pilots who don't want have to switch ships. I would also like to bring up again that the only sites you would really need the strength bonus for are WH and null sec sites which you will probably doing in a T3 ship and they said the were getting the +10 bonus already. Ideas For Drone Improvement Repourpose Deep Space Scanner Probes
Helmut Rul The Funkalistic Imperial Republic Of the North 0	Posted - 2013.06.01 14:02:00 - [468] - Quote I agree with several of the posters in the last few pages. The hacking game is fine, sure it would not hurt to make it a bit less formulaic but still as it is currently, i kinda like it. You certainly have improved the Loot Pinata mechanic and rightfully deserve praise for that, but the fundamentals of the mechanic is still dis-empowering and incongruous. It is just plain annoying, it manages to make you feel like you failed even when you succeeded, which is kind of an accomplishment. Whenever a player is unlucky with the payout once this is fully implemented, he or she will be wondering if they were just plain unlucky or if they could have had the jackpot if only they had clicked the right can. Unless of course they scanned the can first and Know that all that separates the junk they got this time from a blueprint of some sort is that the can blasted the loot the wrong way. As others have mentioned the loot partner is also mostly passive, just hanging around waiting for the hacker to finish his job. If active participation for more than one player is desired, why not allow for cooperative hacking? If one player hacks a can, there is a normal payout. If two hack it, double the loot or increase the payout with 1.5 or whatever is considered appropriate. Honestly, as it is, the only reason i can see for having the loot pinata is to obfuscate just how much loot one can get from hacking per site.
Johan Toralen Clockwork X3 81	Posted - 2013.06.01 14:05:00 - [469] - Quote Pilgrim for exploration is death with this expansion. Even with that bonus ther's not enough mid slots to fit scan arrays. If anything it would concern Falcon, Arazu and Rapier. But really it's just one idea. I would welcome any alternative to t2 frig and t3 cruiser. More options will keep things fresh. I don't personally really care what it is in the end since i can fly pretty much everything either way.
Omnathious Deninard The Scope Gallente Federation 1097	Posted - 2013.06.01 14:56:00 - [470] - Quote is it just me or did the cans get faster after the patch today? Ideas For Drone Improvement Repourpose Deep Space Scanner Probes

Telrei Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 15	Posted - 2013.06.01 16:20:00 - [471] - Quote Naren Vintas wrote: You really don't have to remove it from the game, just change the purpose of it. As "success" mechanic, this is very frustrating and dealbraking. But as a "failure" mechanic, it would actually be fun for many - because even if they fail the hacking, they can still get some of the loot (which is punishment enough), and they have to put more effort into that then. Having that from time to time would be even refreshing... but not every single time you succeed at hacking. This.... As one of the biggest critics of the can spew even I can see where it could be used in this case. If used on a failure it makes sense and is more EvE like. You screwed up, deal with it, welcome to EvE. Would also have the added bonus if combined with NPC spawning of making you chose if soloing.... Do you have a strong enough ship to loot and tank the NPC and get anything. Or are you going to be blow to bits in the covert ops when that big nasty cruiser whatever else spawns on top of you.. In fact I dare say if you make it so that the cans go faster in this case I wouldn't care. As above, you failed..
Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd 191	Posted - 2013.06.01 17:15:00 - [472] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: is it just me or did the cans get faster after the patch today? People have been saying things about not needing to maneuver much and getting 80% of the cans. Maybe I'm terrible at this, but I can't get more than 50% of the cans if even that much. It's always been like that for me. Telrei wrote: Would also have the added bonus if combined with NPC spawning of making you chose if soloing.... Because anything that punishes soloing is a good thing, right? /sarcasm
Zircon Dasher 197	Posted - 2013.06.01 17:19:00 - [473] - Quote Naren Vintas wrote: because even if they fail the hacking, they can still get some of the loot (which is punishment enough) in other words: "CCP should reward us for failure. The punishment will be in knowing that we did not get all the shiny." Is this really what EVE players have become? Everyone should get a medal for trying?! I for one am now quite content with the can spew mechanic and the mini-game. I especially like the fact that you have maintained solo payouts while simultaneously opening the door for non-zero sum cooperative play. If there was one thing I would change it would be to maintain "failure" spawns in the higher end Null sites. This is really a matter of taste though and is not necessary. Next fanfest I owe you all beers. Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.
Heinel Coventina University of Caille Gallente Federation 29	Posted - 2013.06.01 18:07:00 - [474] - Quote Zircon Dasher wrote: Naren Vintas wrote: because even if they fail the hacking, they can still get some of the loot (which is punishment enough) in other words: "CCP should reward us for failure. The punishment will be in knowing that we did not get all the shiny." Is this really what EVE players have become? Everyone should get a medal for trying?! I for one am now quite content with the can spew mechanic and the mini-game. I especially like the fact that you have maintained solo payouts while simultaneously opening the door for non-zero sum cooperative play. If there was one thing I would change it would be to maintain "failure" spawns in the higher end Null sites. This is really a matter of taste though and is not necessary. Next fanfest I owe you all beers. Failures spawns will make T3s the best exploration ship again >.< That said I'm not against more punishment, just something that can be done in a peaceful vessel is good for me.
Naren Vintas Space Busters 11	Posted - 2013.06.01 19:29:00 - [475] - Quote Zircon Dasher wrote: Naren Vintas wrote: because even if they fail the hacking, they can still get some of the loot (which is punishment enough) in other words: "CCP should reward us for failure. The punishment will be in knowing that we did not get all the shiny." Is this really what EVE players have become? Everyone should get a medal for trying?! I for one am now quite content with the can spew mechanic and the mini-game. I especially like the fact that you have maintained solo payouts while simultaneously opening the door for non-zero sum cooperative play. If there was one thing I would change it would be to maintain "failure" spawns in the higher end Null sites. This is really a matter of taste though and is not necessary. Next fanfest I owe you all beers. You misunderstood me. Please do not try to turn my words into something they are not. And if you quote, please quote the entire fragment to maintain all the relevant information, which pretty much invalidates your "in other words" assumption. As per the beginning of the fragment you gracefully skipped: Quote: You really don't have to remove it from the game, just change the purpose of it. ... I am only presenting them with an option of keeping the loot spewing mechanic while addressing the problem of the can pinata being a 'success' reward. If they decide to remove the can pinata altogether and not make it as failure possibility, and failure should not give loot at all, as it does now, it is all fine by me. Just get rid of the can spewage as a success, which they are adamant on keeping in.
Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd 192	Posted - 2013.06.01 19:35:00 - [476] - Quote If they were to somehow decide that they were going to remove the loot pinata, I promise you they'd reduce the number of attempts from two to one. Your very first failure to hack would be met with the dazzling blue-white blaze of a can self-destructing.
Veyer Erastus Red-dormice 13	Posted - 2013.06.01 20:53:00 - [477] - Quote Alvatore DiMarco wrote: If they were to somehow decide that they were going to remove the loot pinata, I promise you they'd reduce the number of attempts from two to one. Your very first failure to hack would be met with the dazzling blue-white blaze of a can self-destructing. Why is there a try count at all? I don't understand it. You punishment for losing the game should be time and risk that comes with continuous stay on site playing the game, like it's on TQ, not loosing your loot because you don't have Hacking V.
Kel hound Lycosa Syndicate Surely You're Joking 41	Posted - 2013.06.01 22:20:00 - [478] - Quote Zircon Dasher wrote: Naren Vintas wrote: because even if they fail the hacking, they can still get some of the loot (which is punishment enough) in other words: "CCP should reward us for failure. The punishment will be in knowing that we did not get all the shiny." Is this really what EVE players have become? Everyone should get a medal for trying?! A better mechanic would be to keep the self destruct on double fail but use the loot spew if the hacker managed to actually find, but was for whatever reason unable to defeat, the system core. That has happened to me often enough that I can realistically see it getting used often enough to warrant the edge case. Remove the ability to cargo scan the cans (I don't really get why this is even a thing) and allow players to simply loot the can like a normal can on a successful hack. This would allow for the focus to be placed on the hacking rather than the looting. The system core could be buffed in higher end data and relic sites to make it feel more like an end boss, and the hack to find it more intense as a result. Zircon Dasher wrote: I for one am now quite content with the can spew mechanic and the mini-game. I especially like the fact that you have maintained solo payouts while simultaneously opening the door for non-zero sum cooperative play. If there was one thing I would change it would be to maintain "failure" spawns in the higher end Null sites. This is really a matter of taste though and is not necessary. Next fanfest I owe you all beers. I don't think anyone in either of the threads giving feedback to this feature has had a strong dislike for the hacking minigame. The complaints stem almost exclusively from the loot distribution mechanic. Perhaps the loot spew would have worked with hacking or archo just another type of salvage module that you sat and watched cycle. In that instance it actually makes sense since the effort to acquire the loot be in clicking on those bloody cans and not on the actual hack. But having to not only navigate through the hacking mini-game, but then also have to bob for loot like a goldfish is a 1-2 punch. Sincerely though, I'm glad someone is having fun with this feature because I sure as hell am not.
Andreus Ixiris Duty. 2801	Posted - 2013.06.01 23:17:00 - [479] - Quote Alvatore DiMarco wrote: If they were to somehow decide that they were going to remove the loot pinata, I promise you they'd reduce the number of attempts from two to one. Your very first failure to hack would be met with the dazzling blue-white blaze of a can self-destructing. I'm perfectly fine with this idea. Mane 614
Zircon Dasher 198	Posted - 2013.06.02 00:08:00 - [480] - Quote Kel hound wrote: Perhaps the loot spew would have worked with hacking or archo just another type of salvage module that you sat and watched cycle. In that instance it actually makes sense since the effort to acquire the loot be in clicking on those bloody cans and not on the actual hack. But having to not only navigate through the hacking mini-game, but then also have to bob for loot like a goldfish is a 1-2 punch. Sincerely though, I'm glad someone is having fun with this feature because I sure as hell am not. Are you really complaining that the hacking game and loot mechanic are too much effort? Even if you don't spam the mouse button like Micheal J. Fox (which statistically will give you comparable payouts relative to today... assuming CCP got their math right) it takes almost no effort to cherry pick the can types you want given the contents you are searching for. Is the mini-game that mentally exhausting? Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.

Veyer Erastus Red-dormice 14	Posted - 2013.06.02 01:00:00 - [481] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: is it just me or did the cans get faster after the patch today? Confirming this. Cans fly and disappear much faster than it was two days ago, tested on the same spot. I can't even get half the cans now.
Zircon Dasher 198	Posted - 2013.06.02 01:06:00 - [482] - Quote Naren Vintas wrote: You really don't have to remove it from the game, just change the purpose of it. And Naren Vintas wrote: If they decide to remove the can pinata altogether and not make it as failure possibility, and failure should not give loot at all, as it does now, it is all fine by me. Are not equivalent statements as there is no logical reason to assume the latter from the former. I am glad you clarified your statement. I wonder if you were unclear about what you meant re: only getting some loot as being "punishment enough" as well. The only way "some" loot could be a punishment would be if you felt entitled to all the loot.....But that would be silly in relation to failure OR success. Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.
Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd 199	Posted - 2013.06.02 01:10:00 - [483] - Quote Veyer Erastus wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: is it just me or did the cans get faster after the patch today? Confirming this. Cans fly and disappear much faster than it was two days ago, tested on the same spot. I can't even get half the cans now. I tried to sympathize with devs on the loot pinata and thought it was bearable after the slowing they got few days ago, but this is too much. I can't even start understanding why would you return all this pain and agony again. It probably has something to do with everyone talking about how they "can get 80% of the cans by themselves now" and also to do with how loot now maps to specific can types. I have to say that they definitely start disappearing a bit too quickly now; I barely have time to see what all the cans are before I have to start dealing with them disappearing.
Veyer Erastus Red-dormice 14	Posted - 2013.06.02 01:23:00 - [484] - Quote Alvatore DiMarco wrote: It probably has something to do with everyone talking about how they "can get 80% of the cans by themselves now" and also to do with how loot now maps to specific can types. I have to say that they definitely start disappearing a bit too quickly now; I barely have time to see what all the cans are before I have to start dealing with them disappearing. Loot was mapping to can types for a long time already. And i don't really see any issue with getting 80%. Come on, let's be frank. Going solo is one of the main incentives of exploration and 95% do it like this.
Tsubutai Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 208	Posted - 2013.06.02 06:29:00 - [485] - Quote Ran a Ruined Sansha Monument Site in my tengu (120/40 coherence/strength). Hacked all cans successfully, although one required two attempts. The spew cans do seem to be moving a bit more quickly than they were previously; coupled with their faster rate of expiry, that meant that I was only able to get 40-50% of the cans emitted after successful hacking attempts. However, the mapping of loot to specific can types seems to be working - I cargo scanned the hacking containers before accessing them and only missed out on one valuable drop (a stack of 4 Intact Armor Plates). My total haul for the site was 94m worth of salvage and a 3-run True Sansha Large Pulse Laser battery blueprint, worth 60m if you dump the built batteries onto buy orders or 180m if you go by sell order prices. That gives a total loot value of 150-270m for the site, plus around 80m of Intact Armor Plates that I missed. Seems like a pretty good return for 15 minutes of clicking around. I then ran a Ruined Sansha Monument Site - hacked everything without issue but was surprised that I wasn't getting any loot. Only realised on the last can that my cargo was full and that was preventing me from scooping anything. It might be helpful to make the 'cargo full' notification more prominent or to have some kind of sound to alert people when they fail to loot a spew can because their cargo is full, especially given the volume of some of the components you get from the data sites. edit: it's still a little tricky to pick the spew cans you want immediately after you first hack a container because they're all right on top of one-another when they're first ejected. Cherry-picking becomes more viable after a few seconds once the spew cans have separated a bit, but it would be nice if they were more clearly distinguished from the get-go. edit 2: in crude ISK/hour terms, that monument site was worth between 600m isk/hr on the low end and 1.4b isk/hr on the high end. You really, really should not be able to get that kind of ISK in a cloaky, nullified, triple-stabbed ship with the align time of a frigate. If you are determined to keep the virus strength bonus on the Emergent Locus Analyzer subsystems, it would probably be sensible to put a corresponding -10 strength malus on the Interdiction Nullifier sub in order to maintain some semblance of risk:reward balance.
Tsubutai Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 208	Posted - 2013.06.02 07:04:00 - [486] - Quote Regarding the balance of the hacking minigame, I think it's currently in a pretty good state for people who have everything maxed out - in an (effectively) all-V character flying a strength-bonused ship with T2 analyzers, I am able to easily smash through the highsec sites without any issue, almost never run into trouble with lowsec ones, and only occasionally require a second attempt in even the hardest nullsec sites as long as I don't do anything stupid. However, because the T2 analyzers are so much stronger than their T1 counterparts, anyone who doesn't have hacking/archaeology V is at a major disadvantage in nullsec sites and the tougher lowsec ones. In addition, hacking ships are currently very cheap to fit since there are no faction modules that are useful for hackers. I think that a nice way of addressing this would be to introduce faction analyzers (possibly from the SoE LP store?) with the same SP requirements as the T1 modules but with the same strength as the T2 variants and a little more coherence. That would allow less-skilled explorers to compete with max-skilled vets on a more level playing field at the cost of a bigger ISK investment, and also provide at least some incentive for the vets to go with slightly more expensive fits than are required at present.
Omnathious Deninard The Scope Gallente Federation 1108	Posted - 2013.06.02 07:40:00 - [487] - Quote Tsubutai wrote: edit 2: in crude ISK/hour terms, that monument site was worth between 600m isk/hr on the low end and 1.4b isk/hr on the high end. You really, really should not be able to get that kind of ISK in a cloaky, nullified, triple-stabbed ship with the align time of a frigate. You completely devote a ship to one role and then complain that it works well. I don't understand that logic. Tsubutai wrote: If you are determined to keep the virus strength bonus on the Emergent Locus Analyzer subsystems, it would probably be sensible to put a corresponding -10 strength malus on the Interdiction Nullifier sub in order to maintain some semblance of risk:reward balance. In that same light, a nullified T3 should have a penalty to there tank. With the ability to avoid bubbles it is redundant. All of these counter T3 arguments seem to be applying to Sov space, I have not heard one WH dweller complain about the virus strength bonus on the T3 ships. Ideas for Drone Improvement-á
Tsubutai Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 208	Posted - 2013.06.02 07:57:00 - [488] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: You completely devote a ship to one role and then complain that it works well. I don't understand that logic. Specialized/focused ships should be good at what they do but not so crushingly good as to render all alternatives redundant or completely trivialize the content. Do you think it would be OK for a "completely devoted" machariel fit to be capable of soloing a DED 10/10 or high end wormhole anom in 10 minutes while also fitting multiple stabs, having a covops cloak, and being bubble-proof? Quote: In that same light, a nullified T3 should have a penalty to there tank. With the ability to avoid bubbles it is redundant. Nullfiers do hurt your tank/dps because they provide 1 low slot fewer than the other propulsion subs. In addition, fitting one of the cloaky subsystems dramatically reduces your DPS output relative to that achieved with the other offensive subs. That's a very important part of their balancing - the massive benefits provided by being cloaky and nullified come with significant balancing drawbacks that hurt the ship's performance in other respects. Consequently, cloaky nullified T3s are incapable of completing the high-end PvE content that is currently available on TQ; if you want to do nullsec DED sites or w-space anoms, you need to use ships that are exposed to much higher levels of risk. The same should apply to high-end hacking content.
Omnathious Deninard The Scope Gallente Federation 1108	Posted - 2013.06.02 08:18:00 - [489] - Quote Tsubutai wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: You completely devote a ship to one role and then complain that it works well. I don't understand that logic. Do you think it would be OK for a "completely devoted" machariel fit to be capable of soloing a DED 10/10 or high end wormhole anom in 10 minutes? Do you feel a assault frigate should be able to compete with that Machariel on the same level? Ideas for Drone Improvement-á
Johan Toralen Clockwork X3 81	Posted - 2013.06.02 12:05:00 - [490] - Quote Tsubutai wrote: edit 2: in crude ISK/hour terms, that monument site was worth between 600m isk/hr on the low end and 1.4b isk/hr on the high end. That's a strange way to look at isk/h. When i station trade and make a billion profit on some item does that mean my isk/h is around 60b? I would be really really surprised if i play for 4 hours on tuesday night and come back with 2-6 billion. Pretty unrealistic unless i luck into a pos bpc.

Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd 220	Posted - 2013.06.03 11:42:00 - [491] - Quote Veyer Erastus wrote: Alvatore DiMarco wrote: It probably has something to do with everyone talking about how they "can get 80% of the cans by themselves now" and also to do with how loot now maps to specific can types. I have to say that they definitely start disappearing a bit too quickly now; I barely have time to see what all the cans are before I have to start dealing with them disappearing. Loot was mapping to can types for a long time already. And i don't really see any issue with getting 80%. Come on, let's be frank. Going solo is one of the main incentives of exploration and 95% do it like this. I'm not disagreeing. I'm saying that CCP is trying to actively (and maybe it feels like "aggressively") promote people to explore in groups and when people say "I can get 80% of the loot by myself" that maybe seems like it will defeat what they're trying to accomplish.
Degin'eth Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 2	Posted - 2013.06.03 12:18:00 - [492] - Quote I tried submitting this bug through the in-game interface. Got an error: Data Site named "Digital Compund" is actually a combat site even though it shows as a Data Site in the scan window.

CCP RedDawn C C P C C P Alliance 339	Posted - 2013.06.03 13:44:00 - [493] - Quote Degin'eth wrote: I tried submitting this bug through the in-game interface. Got an error: Data Site named "Digital Compund" is actually a combat site even though it shows as a Data Site in the scan window. Yup there is a small problem with the bug report site which is currently getting worked on. I'll let the relevant team know about this issue. Thanks, CCP RedDawn Team Prototyping Rocks

Johan Toralen Clockwork X3 81	Posted - 2013.06.03 13:53:00 - [494] - Quote Some people have bragged too much imo with what they got from the sites based on their anecdotal evidence. Would be sad if CCP thinks that's the norm. I've tested for two weeks and never lucked in a jackpot, only a handful acceptable drops. Overall not enough that i would consider doing this for a regular source of income. Low sec seemed ok for a short time then loot was nerved again from what i can tell. Have yet to find a nullsec site that yields me over 100m. I only got close to that 80% cans mark with 4 tractor II and insta lock fit which was a bit pointless to fit after the cans got slowed down and vanished quicker. Let's see how it actualy turns out on TQ. Sisi doesn't really provide an accurate perception with the low spawn rate of sites and lack of hostiles.
Omnathious Deninard The Scope Gallente Federation 1120	Posted - 2013.06.03 14:07:00 - [495] - Quote I have only ever been able to grab 66% of the cans, as such it spews out 12 cans and I get 8 on average, before I could get 8 and I can still get 8 now but it is much harder and I usually end up grabbing random cans in the end. Ideas for Drone Improvement-á
S Kills Hedion University Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2013.06.03 14:53:00 - [496] - Quote i never got my reward and i did everything you said
Scuzzy Logic Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce 23	Posted - 2013.06.03 15:24:00 - [497] - Quote Regarding the new can speed: F*** you CCP. Just when I thought you listened, you had to go and backhand us. Someone's not getting my money come september.
Scuzzy Logic Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce 23	Posted - 2013.06.03 15:25:00 - [498] - Quote Alvatore DiMarco wrote: Veyer Erastus wrote: Alvatore DiMarco wrote: It probably has something to do with everyone talking about how they "can get 80% of the cans by themselves now" and also to do with how loot now maps to specific can types. I have to say that they definitely start disappearing a bit too quickly now; I barely have time to see what all the cans are before I have to start dealing with them disappearing. Loot was mapping to can types for a long time already. And i don't really see any issue with getting 80%. Come on, let's be frank. Going solo is one of the main incentives of exploration and 95% do it like this. I'm not disagreeing. I'm saying that CCP is trying to actively (and maybe it feels like "aggressively") promote people to explore in groups and when people say "I can get 80% of the loot by myself" that maybe seems like it will defeat what they're trying to accomplish. Hello, my name is CCP and I think anything but blobbing should be nerfed.
Johan Toralen Clockwork X3 81	Posted - 2013.06.03 15:51:00 - [499] - Quote Scuzzy Logic wrote: Regarding the new can speed: F*** you CCP. Just when I thought you listened, you had to go and backhand us. Someone's not getting my money come september. CCP needs to get real. This mechanic is crap and nothing's gonna change that. People only started to find it bearable and be a bit more positive about it when they got most of the goodies they were looking for. But of course that defeated the whole purpose of the mechanic. So now we're back where most people get fed up with it again. I said it before, it's a bad design on a fundamental level and the symptoms show. It's all about the psychology. You can't induce positive feelings with something that will always make a player feel like he's is losing out on stuff.
Gris X Core Industry. Insidious Empire 13	Posted - 2013.06.03 16:51:00 - [500] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: Tim Ryder, we'd like to try to make it work for everyone so if you could suggest some changes that might improve your ability to see these things well enough to interact with them we'll definitely try to improve things. I am color blind. Do not use colors like yellow and green together as different state. blue and either yellow/green is better. Thanks

Mocktar Olachenko 20	Posted - 2013.06.03 17:02:00 - [501] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: I just want to tackle a few of these points. Firstly I don't think a mechanic can be inherently bad if a portion of people like it and the trend we've seen so far on these threads is that as we make changes the feedback is becoming more positive. I think the mechanic in it's original form is annoying, unsatisfying and feels bad because it is inherently random. A few people like being slapped in the face. And slapping someone in the face with less force is indeed a more positive thing. But the bottom line is that you're slapping us in the face. I understand that's a tired metaphor but it illustrates what you're trying to tell us. I appreciate that you're both listening and responding to the feedback on this issue, which is the only dark spot in what looks like a great expansion. No matter how much you try to force it, both myself and many others will continue to explore solo. It's one of the few things in the game you can do by yourself, and it's very satisfying in its present state. I'm not completely against incorporating more cooperative features into it, but there has to be a better way than "hey man, tag along and MASH BUTTAN every few minutes." Please find some compromise that doesn't discourage our favored playstyle.

CCP RedDawn C C P C C P Alliance 339	Posted - 2013.06.03 17:06:00 - [502] - Quote Gris X wrote: CCP Bayesian wrote: Tim Ryder, we'd like to try to make it work for everyone so if you could suggest some changes that might improve your ability to see these things well enough to interact with them we'll definitely try to improve things. I am color blind. Do not use colors like yellow and green together as different state. blue and either yellow/green is better. Thanks Hi Gris X, This is part of the feedback we have already received and we are working on making these icons more distinctive, both in shape and colour for an update soon after Odyssey. Hopefully this will alleviate any issues that you have been encountering. Thanks, CCP RedDawn Team Prototyping Rocks

Whim Aqayn Ministry of War Amarr Empire 39	Posted - 2013.06.03 18:53:00 - [503] - Quote The loot explosion is nothing short of tedious.
Johan Toralen Clockwork X3 81	Posted - 2013.06.03 19:09:00 - [504] - Quote After trying the newest iteration i would agree with who said the containers disappear too quickly. This is annoying because i still find myself wasting precious time in the beginning when the containers are close together, fighting with the interface and camera, trying to get a good look at the can names. PLEASE, put the cans in the overview. This is still so tedious and clunky. You said you want to make this work in the 3d space. Let me tell you there is no sense of where the cans are in the 3d space because the brackets are all the same size no matter the distance and position in the room. Only via wild camera acrobatics i get a sense of their positioning and then be able to check the names and choose.
S'No Flake Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 21	Posted - 2013.06.03 19:17:00 - [505] - Quote Scuzzy Logic wrote: Regarding the new can speed: F*** you CCP. Just when I thought you listened, you had to go and backhand us. Someone's not getting my money come september. Can i have your stuff
Rob Crowley State War Academy 65	Posted - 2013.06.03 19:54:00 - [506] - Quote Odyssey patch notes wrote: The Echelon now has +10 bonus to your Data and Relic Analyzer Strength I find this slightly confusing. The Echelon can't use any Relic Analyzers and since the only Data Analyzer it can use is the Sansha Purloined Data Analyzer (which can't be fitted to any other ship) why would you give a ship bonus to the Echelon instead of just altering the stats of the Sansha Analyzer?
LiKuei Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 1	Posted - 2013.06.03 20:02:00 - [507] - Quote With the number of additional things added to the exploration sub-career, the only addition that I would like to see dropped is the explosion of containers. I would say exploration is a sub-career in highsec and as such, many are not going to call in help to catch containers in the HOPES that the drops are worth it. Make gaining entry to the containers a little more difficult so that there is reason to skill higher levels and drop the explosion all together. REASON: If you can find it, access it and then roll on the loot table, all successfully, it justifies the changes ... adding the catch-a-container may deter people from actually going through additional steps.
Midnight Hope Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 114	Posted - 2013.06.03 20:10:00 - [508] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: Something we've discussed just this week is making the text box that currently displays things like "Orbiting" show what you're pulling in and allowing you to cancel and reselect another can. This is much nicer because it lets you take the risk of not getting anything in order to have more control over finding what you want. Our work to make the contents of the cans reflect the name, which should have been done much earlier, also helps a lot with the frustration of being interested in something in particular but entering into a pot luck to get it. Particularly if you've scanned the contents of the site object to find out what is in it. We need to make this visualisation much better than mouse over text. ^ +1
Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd 224	Posted - 2013.06.03 20:21:00 - [509] - Quote Being probably the most open-minded person on the Test Server forums in regards to the loot explosion and CCP generally trying new things as a whole.. ...I don't know what exactly you did to the loot explosion, but it's fairly terrible. I haven't been able to try it within the last 24h, but it was hard to get even half the cans. I don't know how people are managing to get more stuff by using regular tractors, since I tried it myself and end up actually getting less.
Omnathious Deninard The Scope Gallente Federation 1124	Posted - 2013.06.03 20:34:00 - [510] - Quote Alvatore DiMarco wrote: Being probably the most open-minded person on the Test Server forums in regards to the loot explosion and CCP generally trying new things as a whole.. ...I don't know what exactly you did to the loot explosion, but it's fairly terrible. I haven't been able to try it within the last 24h, but it was hard to get even half the cans. I don't know how people are managing to get more stuff by using regular tractors, since I tried it myself and end up actually getting less. I have to say myself, that 2 patched ago the loot spew was manageable but now it is pretty bad again. I can handle the speed of the cans if they would hang around for a little longer. I could handle the rapid dissipation of the cans if they did not travel so fast. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious

Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd 224	Posted - 2013.06.03 20:38:00 - [511] - Quote Exactly. Mostly though, they disappear too soon. There's not really enough time to check through what all the cans are before they start disappearing, and once they start doing that it's basically too late.
Kahns Ixion Defence Systems Test Alliance Please Ignore 8	Posted - 2013.06.03 20:55:00 - [512] - Quote Naomi Hale wrote: I am now sure of my earlier assumption (here). We are hacking/overriding airlocks and access ports. This makes the entire system far more enjoyable and realistic to me now. Removing the jettison mechanic would remove the feel of the derelict's contents being blown out into space. I don't disagree- in fact, you can see airlocks on the sides of the buildings in data sites that we hack. This to me is actually a very cool part about the new system. If people are complaining about the actual concept of loot shooting into space, I'm with you on this one. It seems fun and interesting. I don't have a background in user interface or anything, so I am more than likely completely full of it. But I realized recently that I've never really explained why I keep saying I think the mechanic itself is inconsistent, so I'm going to take a stab. If I made sense before or you don't care, I encourage you to ignore this post :) Obviously all UI's have metaphors that they use. You don't actually shoot a ship's guns, you hit F1, etc. etc. With a game as complicated and deep as Eve Online, the metaphors have to be pretty sweeping and consistent or the game becomes harder to learn. Eve Online's UI is closer to an OS than a game, something that I think is pretty cool. My concern is that NORMALLY when you click on something in 3D space, the overview, the inventory, etc. in Eve, you select it. You can then apply actions to it or whatever, but single clicking is afaik always a selection. So, the proper way to tractor something in Eve's UI metaphor would be to click on it, click on a module that tractors, and there you go. We have this functionality already... it's called tractor beam. With this update, we now have a portion of the game (exploration) where single clicking both selects and does an action. Plus, it does the same thing that is already used somewhere else in the game, tractor beams. If you were going to make an exception to the OS style selection when you click rule, I just wish it was made so that all tractor beams worked the same way. So you ask, does this REALLY matter? Probably not. As I tried to make clear before, chasing cans without direct control of your ship, the size of the cans, loot balance, etc. are way way more important to me. Operating system UI's are littered with inconsistencies and we seem to learn them just fine. But does it seem like a good UI design choice? Nah. Again, I'm genuinely excited about the new mechanic and I think it's come a long way in the short time we've had to play with it. So don't get me wrong. I actually think that additional UI/sound feedback on what is being tractored and the ability to cancel it are the most important outstanding issues with exploration. Anyway, it's been fun talking with all of you on here about these new features. See you in space o/
Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd 225	Posted - 2013.06.03 21:43:00 - [513] - Quote I sincerely hope most of TQ is as welcoming and enthusiastic about this as you and Naomi are. In the meantime, I'll be stocking up on canned meat just in case they start shooting the station in Dodixie for lack of a statue.
Robert Caldera Caldera Trading and Investment 573	Posted - 2013.06.03 21:46:00 - [514] - Quote Sheena Tzash wrote: You wouldn't see someone hack into a bank and set it up so that all the money inside the bank vault would be blasted into the sky - yeah its done the job of getting the loot but its in such an ineffective method and most likely means that you lose a good amount of the loot you've worked hard to get. for what I've seen its different than that - you're rather digging in a trash bin hoping for a half of a hamburger someone dumped there under all the waste, or you go the easy mode and scan the cans, because all stuff whats not a tower or other POS module BPC is basically worthless sh*t, which is btw. one thing what bothers me most - the first explorer arriving at a fresh spawned site checks all cans and moves on if there is nothing of value, for all his successors probing down and doing the same thing (scanning cans) is basically a pure waste of time, over and over till the site despawns or some noob really hacks everything inside causing the site to despawn. Big flaws I see with this new concept (of scannable cans especially).
Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd 225	Posted - 2013.06.03 21:54:00 - [515] - Quote Cans detonate when you leave the site.
Robert Caldera Caldera Trading and Investment 573	Posted - 2013.06.03 21:58:00 - [516] - Quote Alvatore DiMarco wrote: Cans detonate when you leave the site. im pretty sure they dont. I tried 1 hour ago hacking with a gila, then docked, switched to a helios and went back to bookmark, the cans and half done site was still there.
Lyra Gerie Bareback Pornstars Carthage Empires 0	Posted - 2013.06.03 21:58:00 - [517] - Quote Possible suggestion Perhaps you could make it so that the better the hack the slower the cans go and/or the longer they last? Perhaps allow a standard loot drop (as in it stays put and has more then 1 set of items in it) for say, never failing a hack in the site, or allow for more cans to jettison, or some things along those lines. Don't just encourage us to bring a friend, encourage players to do a better job based on skill.
Garviel Tarrant Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 985	Posted - 2013.06.03 22:31:00 - [518] - Quote One thing i just don't get is why does my ship suddenly have a tractor beam that only works for this? BYDI (Shadow cartel) Recruitment open!
Mmkay Northern Flemish Bastards Inc Yulai Federation 0	Posted - 2013.06.03 22:52:00 - [519] - Quote I'm hoping CCP surprises us all... Tomorrow Odyssey will be released and everyone will discover that the can spew mechanic is actually the result of a failed hack while successful hacks present the player with all the loot. The current can spew on Sisi has actually been CCP testing the failure mechanic since there wouldn't have been enough data to analyze it as thoroughly if it had been limited to failed hacks only. Presenting a player with loot after a successful hack is not a difficult/new game mechanic which can be implemented on TQ without testing. Everyone is happy and many of the critics are pleasantly surprised by CCP's clever marketing trick.
Robert Caldera Caldera Trading and Investment 573	Posted - 2013.06.03 23:08:00 - [520] - Quote so, NPC are removed from relic sites? "This gate is locked! There are synchronized gate scramblers on all hostile entities in this deadspace pocket. Unless you are physically inside one of them to unscramble the signal, you must simply clear the vicinity of enemy ships. So grab your guns." 3 NPC BS waiting to be killed in a "Forgotten Ruins" Site. then this in "Digital Complex" Data Site

Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd 225	Posted - 2013.06.03 23:45:00 - [521] - Quote Canned meat. You should all stock up on it and find a secure place to weather the storm.
Robert Caldera Caldera Trading and Investment 573	Posted - 2013.06.04 01:00:00 - [522] - Quote What I've learned about cargo scanner is that scanning cans is totally pointless because its unreliable. The cans may contain items which dont appear on scan, or dont contain items which are displayed in scan - basically after the scan you know exactly the same as before what loot is possible and what is not, you could simply omit that without loosing any information.
Brooks Puuntai Solar Nexus. 1547	Posted - 2013.06.04 01:11:00 - [523] - Quote Robert Caldera wrote: What I've learned about cargo scanner is that scanning cans is totally pointless because its unreliable. The cans may contain items which dont appear on scan, or dont contain items which are displayed in scan - basically after the scan you know exactly the same as before what loot is possible and what is not, you could simply omit that without loosing any information. I've had the exact opposite result. Every time I've scanned a can I've been able to cherry pick whatever comes up on scan(Decryptors, BPCs, Data Cores) and when I grab cans that aren't shown on the result all I get is NPC junk. CCP's Motto: If it isn't broken, break it. If it is broken, ignore it. Improving NPE-á/ Dynamic New Eden
Telrei Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 17	Posted - 2013.06.04 01:22:00 - [524] - Quote Robert Caldera wrote: so, NPC are removed from relic sites? "This gate is locked! There are synchronized gate scramblers on all hostile entities in this deadspace pocket. Unless you are physically inside one of them to unscramble the signal, you must simply clear the vicinity of enemy ships. So grab your guns." 3 NPC BS waiting to be killed in a "Forgotten Ruins" Site. then this in "Digital Complex" Data Site Oh please god yes....... Please tell me that you replaced can spew on success and instead actually gave us a valid reason to either have a fleet up or an expensive ship/high skill sp char. I fully approve.... and as I said this forces fleets for hacking/Arch in a EvE way not in a we're going to force teamplay through a new gimmick even on success.....
Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd 225	Posted - 2013.06.04 01:40:00 - [525] - Quote Sorry to inform you, Telrei. Those sites are not actually Data/Relic sites. They're Combat sites that were mis-categorized because of their names.
Johan Toralen Clockwork X3 81	Posted - 2013.06.04 01:46:00 - [526] - Quote Robert Caldera wrote: What I've learned about cargo scanner is that scanning cans is totally pointless because its unreliable. The cans may contain items which dont appear on scan, or dont contain items which are displayed in scan - basically after the scan you know exactly the same as before what loot is possible and what is not, you could simply omit that without loosing any information. No, the cargo scan has been reliable to me. Only the random crap doesn't show up. The goodies do. Only which cans exactly to scoop isn't entirely clear to me yet. But other players will have figured that out in no time once the spew hit TQ.
Brooks Puuntai Solar Nexus. 1547	Posted - 2013.06.04 01:52:00 - [527] - Quote Datacores and Decrypters=Parts Container BPCs and skillbooks=Data Relic sites I really haven't payed much attention to as of yet. CCP's Motto: If it isn't broken, break it. If it is broken, ignore it. Improving NPE-á/ Dynamic New Eden
Johan Toralen Clockwork X3 81	Posted - 2013.06.04 01:57:00 - [528] - Quote I could swear i got some decrytors from data cans.
Brooks Puuntai Solar Nexus. 1547	Posted - 2013.06.04 01:59:00 - [529] - Quote Johan Toralen wrote: I could swear i got some decrytors from data cans. Out of the 8 sites I've ran so far I've been 100% on whats on the scan, using that. I will run some more and focus on data to see, but i've only seen them drop from parts. CCP's Motto: If it isn't broken, break it. If it is broken, ignore it. Improving NPE-á/ Dynamic New Eden
James Amril-Kesh 4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance 5317	Posted - 2013.06.04 04:00:00 - [530] - Quote Tsubutai wrote: edit 2: in crude ISK/hour terms, that monument site was worth between 600m isk/hr on the low end and 1.4b isk/hr on the high end. Bullshit. There's no way you're making this much. -áMy (mostly boring) Youtube channel.

LiKuei Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 1	Posted - 2013.06.04 04:24:00 - [531] - Quote So the new mechanic, which is going to be presented to new players as a valid source of income in-game, and is going to be presented as such requires the following: Known: 1. A ship they can fit all of the items for exploration (unless you are going to give EVERY new player a Gnosis) 2. Four skill books for encryption (one for each race) 3. Four skill books for items currently in game (Probe launcher, Codebreaker, cargo scanner and Analyzer) 4. Four modules that require skill level 4 to use (CCPs minimum standard for T2 items) Ok. This is fair if you are going to be presented as a viable primary source of income. Anything less would unbalance it vs the other professions. Now, the things they have to contend with once they acquire all of this: Highsec: 1. Competition for a very limited source of income. 2. Will have to roll against a loot table to see what they may or may not get when ... 3. they have to deal with loot spew. Loot spew can be mitigated by ... 4. having a friend sit there and wait for you to either succeed or fail In Low sec/Null: 5. Players intent on your destruction While I do not disagree that the risk/reward should be greater for Low/Null, I do disagree with additional hurdles that low SP players are going to have to overcome ... primarily the loot spew. For team play to be profitable, loot generated would have to be ~1.2 as, at a minimum, there would be two people. MOST people who I know/see do exploration do it solo, with profits paying for their upgrades and a reserve for the inevitable destruction of that ship. While the current professions do support group play, it is based on mutual need and benefit ... risks can be mitigated and rewards shared. While the same can be said of team exploration, the profit margin will be drastically reduced as all loot could very well be split 50/50, more as each additional person is added to catch cans, with little to no reward if one turns out to be to not share the same shared mindset. In the other careers, as you improve skills, ships and modules, the amount an individual can make improves, irregardless if you partner runs with the mission money, the salvage money or the ore ... the current implementation does not allow for it ... you don't get the cans (or your partner runs with the loot), you don't get paid. Find a new use for the 'loot pinata' (as people are calling it) ... it does not fit well with a career path you are actively encouraging newer players to pursue.
James Amril-Kesh 4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance 5318	Posted - 2013.06.04 04:45:00 - [532] - Quote LiKuei wrote: 2. Four skill books for encryption (one for each race) The hell are you talking about? What does any of this have to do with decryption? LiKuei wrote: 4. Four modules that require skill level 4 to use (CCPs minimum standard for T2 items) Which modules are you talking about? The T2 data analyzer, T2 relic analyzer, and all the T2 scan arrays require their skill at level 5. -áMy (mostly boring) Youtube channel.
Telrei Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 17	Posted - 2013.06.04 04:51:00 - [533] - Quote Alvatore DiMarco wrote: Sorry to inform you, Telrei. Those sites are not actually Data/Relic sites. They're Combat sites that were mis-categorized because of their names. One can dream....
Brooks Puuntai Solar Nexus. 1547	Posted - 2013.06.04 05:07:00 - [534] - Quote LiKuei wrote: So the new mechanic, which is going to be presented to new players as a valid source of income in-game, and is going to be presented as such requires the following: Known: 1. A ship they can fit all of the items for exploration (unless you are going to give EVERY new player a Gnosis) 2. Four skill books for encryption (one for each race) 3. Four skill books for items currently in game (Probe launcher, Codebreaker, cargo scanner and Analyzer) 4. Four modules that require skill level 4 to use (CCPs minimum standard for T2 items) Ok. This is fair if you are going to be presented as a viable primary source of income. Anything less would unbalance it vs the other professions. Now, the things they have to contend with once they acquire all of this: Highsec: 1. Competition for a very limited source of income. 2. Will have to roll against a loot table to see what they may or may not get when ... 3. they have to deal with loot spew. Loot spew can be mitigated by ... 4. having a friend sit there and wait for you to either succeed or fail In Low sec/Null: 5. Players intent on your destruction While I do not disagree that the risk/reward should be greater for Low/Null, I do disagree with additional hurdles that low SP players are going to have to overcome ... primarily the loot spew. For team play to be profitable, loot generated would have to be ~1.2 as, at a minimum, there would be two people. MOST people who I know/see do exploration do it solo, with profits paying for their upgrades and a reserve for the inevitable destruction of that ship. While the current professions do support group play, it is based on mutual need and benefit ... risks can be mitigated and rewards shared. While the same can be said of team exploration, the profit margin will be drastically reduced as all loot could very well be split 50/50, more as each additional person is added to catch cans, with little to no reward if one turns out to be to not share the same shared mindset. In the other careers, as you improve skills, ships and modules, the amount an individual can make improves, irregardless if you partner runs with the mission money, the salvage money or the ore ... the current implementation does not allow for it ... you don't get the cans (or your partner runs with the loot), you don't get paid. Find a new use for the 'loot pinata' (as people are calling it) ... it does not fit well with a career path you are actively encouraging newer players to pursue. The new probing mods require L3 for T1 and L5 for T2 of their respected skills(Astro Acuisition, Pinpointing, Rangefinding). Relic/Data analyzers aren't new they are just renamed Codebreaker and Analyzer, skills are the same for T1 and T2. Also interesting enough Virus bonus is capped at 40. So putting on mods or using ships that put your virus str past 40 is pointless, as I don't believe it increases your overall HP. I do agree that Exploration is lacking as a progressive profession, pretty much you are better off just stopping at a Cov-Ops and L4 astro skills, and not even look towards a all-in-one ship or a T3 as the final progression(unless you plan on doing WHs).. CCP's Motto: If it isn't broken, break it. If it is broken, ignore it. Improving NPE-á/ Dynamic New Eden
Tsubutai Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 209	Posted - 2013.06.04 05:47:00 - [535] - Quote Johan Toralen wrote: Tsubutai wrote: edit 2: in crude ISK/hour terms, that monument site was worth between 600m isk/hr on the low end and 1.4b isk/hr on the high end. That's a strange way to look at isk/h. When i station trade and make a billion profit on some item does that mean my isk/h is around 60b? I would be really really surprised if i play for 4 hours on tuesday night and come back with 2-6 billion. Pretty unrealistic unless i luck into a pos bpc. I specifically said it was a crude measure; the point is that the high end 0.0 hacking sites are now quite lucrative, to the point that they are at least competitive with the high end combat sites. As such, they should require a similar investment to run, and farming them should entail similar levels of risk. You'd be lucky to get multiple billions for your two hours given that there will be a few minutes of moving from system to system and probing in between running sites, but I'd be surprised if you didn't get a few hundred million assuming you have appropriate skills, are reasonably good at the hacking minigame, and are in blue space or a quiet backwater. Quote: Do you feel a assault frigate should be able to compete with that Machariel on the same or at a better level? Neither is good. Being able to farm high end or very lucrative content in cheap throwaway ships such as covops or the T1 exploration frigates just devalues the content (see FW plexing and missioning), but the same is true for farming in more expensive ships if they're essentially immune to the intervention of hostile players. I'm fine with tech 3s having a bonus to virus strength, but I think that bonus and the nullifier/cloak subs should be mutually exclusive, for exactly the same reason that tech 3s fit for running combat sites can be ganky or cloaky/nullified, but not both at once. James Amril-Kesh wrote: Tsubutai wrote: edit 2: in crude ISK/hour terms, that monument site was worth between 600m isk/hr on the low end and 1.4b isk/hr on the high end. Bullshit. There's no way you're making this much. As I said to Johan above, I was using the crudest possible measure - ISK value of loot gained divided by time taken to do the site. My point wasn't "you will make billions per hour", it was "the value of these sites is now comparable to that of other high end pve content, and as such, you should not be able to farm it in ships that are either so cheap as to be completely disposable to almost any established player or in ships that are cloaky, nullified, and multiply-stabbed."
Robert Caldera Caldera Trading and Investment 573	Posted - 2013.06.04 07:52:00 - [536] - Quote Brooks Puuntai wrote: I've had the exact opposite result. Every time I've scanned a can I've been able to cherry pick whatever comes up on scan(Decryptors, BPCs, Data Cores) and when I grab cans that aren't shown on the result all I get is NPC junk. well, it did definitely happen for me, stuff popped out which hasnt been on scan, so who says it couldnt be a tower BPC surprisingly spew out despite scan displayed otherwise?? Why to scan at all if you would hack all cans anyways disregarding scan result??
Brooks Puuntai Solar Nexus. 1547	Posted - 2013.06.04 08:30:00 - [537] - Quote Robert Caldera wrote: Brooks Puuntai wrote: I've had the exact opposite result. Every time I've scanned a can I've been able to cherry pick whatever comes up on scan(Decryptors, BPCs, Data Cores) and when I grab cans that aren't shown on the result all I get is NPC junk. well, it did definitely happen for me, stuff popped out which hasnt been on scan, so who can certainly tell if tower BPC dont surprisingly pop out despite scan displayed otherwise too?? Why to scan at all if you would hack all cans anyways disregarding scan result?? They changed the spew mechanics so it is almost impossible now to get all of them solo. So cherry picking is the best option. CCP's Motto: If it isn't broken, break it. If it is broken, ignore it. Improving NPE-á/ Dynamic New Eden
Robert Caldera Caldera Trading and Investment 573	Posted - 2013.06.04 08:43:00 - [538] - Quote Brooks Puuntai wrote: Robert Caldera wrote: Brooks Puuntai wrote: I've had the exact opposite result. Every time I've scanned a can I've been able to cherry pick whatever comes up on scan(Decryptors, BPCs, Data Cores) and when I grab cans that aren't shown on the result all I get is NPC junk. well, it did definitely happen for me, stuff popped out which hasnt been on scan, so who can certainly tell if tower BPC dont surprisingly pop out despite scan displayed otherwise too?? Why to scan at all if you would hack all cans anyways disregarding scan result?? They changed the spew mechanics so it is almost impossible now to get all of them solo. So cherry picking is the best option. How is this related to my concern? I know I need an alt to get all lootz.
Brooks Puuntai Solar Nexus. 1547	Posted - 2013.06.04 08:52:00 - [539] - Quote What wasn't on scan that you got? CCP's Motto: If it isn't broken, break it. If it is broken, ignore it. Improving NPE-á/ Dynamic New Eden
Robert Caldera Caldera Trading and Investment 573	Posted - 2013.06.04 09:03:00 - [540] - Quote Dunno im not at home now will check recorded clips later

Galatea Galilei Profoundly Inquisitive Exploration 30	Posted - 2013.06.04 10:34:00 - [541] - Quote CCP Bayesian wrote: Kel hound, I'll quote myself from the previous page: Quote: Adding things to the overview, this is really an option of last resort that I think fixes things which are usability defects. It's the "easy way out" as it's the workaround in EVE to dealing with the problems that exist interacting with things in the scene. I don't think we're dead set against it but would prefer to make the space interaction work. The only way space interaction will work here is if the objects don't move. I can't click on a moving icon to save my life. If these things are moving and not appearing on the overview... that effectively ends my career in EVE. Loot from exploration will be simply irretrievable...
Tsubutai Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 209	Posted - 2013.06.04 10:41:00 - [542] - Quote Final trip report before this goes live. Ran a Ruined Sansha Temple Site (relic) in my tengu with 120/40 coherence/strength. The minigame puzzles seemed a little tougher than they were in the previous version, although that may just have been down to the RNG rather than a real change. Regardless, was able to access all of the cans. Site took 18 minutes to complete and yielded 330m of T2 salvage; the only potentially valuable drop I missed was a stack of Spatial Attunement Units. I'm a little concerned about the disttribution of loot within the hacking cans and the effects this might have on site completion. Here's a screenshot for reference, showing the scanned contents of three unhacked cans: http://i.imgur.com/KEVOjvn.png The loot in the leftmost can is completely worthless (<1m ISK), the center can is worth a few million, and the rightmost can is worth well over 100m. If this occurred on TQ, I'd expect most people to prioritize the rightmost can, then do the central one, and completely ignore the leftmost one. However, if the leftmost can isn't hacked to complete the site, it won't despawn, so you may end up with a bunch of partially-completed sites that have been stripped of all the good loot but can't despawn because they still have a few unhacked cans that contain only junk. That'd be pretty frustrating for anyone who came through the region to do exploration afterwards, especially since uncompleted sites persist for several days. Ideally, every hacking container would have enough loot to warrant hacking so as to prevent this.
Robert Caldera Caldera Trading and Investment 573	Posted - 2013.06.04 11:20:00 - [543] - Quote Brooks Puuntai wrote: What wasn't on scan that you got? so, checked the vids. its Carbon, Data Sheets and Hydrogen Batteries which werent in scan result but dropped from cans. And a completely different matter CCP, why do you put T1 salvage crap into loot tables? Seriously, noone cares about T1 salvage since the introduction of the Noctis it has become totally worthless.
Johan Toralen Clockwork X3 81	Posted - 2013.06.04 12:21:00 - [544] - Quote Tsubutai wrote: I specifically said it was a crude measure; the point is that the high end 0.0 hacking sites are now quite lucrative, to the point that they are at least competitive with the high end combat sites. As such, they should require a similar investment to run, and farming them should entail similar levels of risk. You'd be lucky to get multiple billions for your two hours given that there will be a few minutes of moving from system to system and probing in between running sites, but I'd be surprised if you didn't get a few hundred million assuming you have appropriate skills, are reasonably good at the hacking minigame, and are in blue space or a quiet backwater. You had intact armor plates and a good bpc in the site that you use as a measure. That's a jackpot, not the norm. In the weeks of testing i didn't luck into a nullsec site that yielded me over 100m. So your math is quite off from my perspective. You assume all sites are as great as your jackpot when they really arn't. In the dev blog it was said the faction pos bpc drop is very very rare so i doubt it can be compared with the rate of good drops from combat sites. Granted i have not much experience with nullsec exploration on TQ. Will start doing it this week, see if its worth it. Don't think its worth doing the profession sites in hisec and low sec as a main profession, except for new players. To my knowledge the sites in nullsec are tied to the industry index so in your "quiet backwater" ther's probably a whole lot of nothing. People who have done nullsec profession sites in the past say you have to be lucky to find one in the wastelands. So i have to look for them in populated areas, which i assume makes it not idiot proof farming for a neutral. For people surrounded by blues that's a different story but should have no bearing on how its like for neutrals. If it's too easy for them then CCP should perhaps look into randomizing the spawns all over null. That would make more sense anyway as long as the profession is called exploration and an actual incentive to go out into the deeper regions to find riches. Quote: However, if the leftmost can isn't hacked to complete the site, it won't despawn, so you may end up with a bunch of partially-completed sites that have been stripped of all the good loot but can't despawn because they still have a few unhacked cans that contain only junk. Profession sites despawn when you warp out no matter if completed or not.
Ruskarn Andedare Lion Investments 196	Posted - 2013.06.04 14:51:00 - [545] - Quote Johan Toralen wrote: Tsubutai wrote: However, if the leftmost can isn't hacked to complete the site, it won't despawn, so you may end up with a bunch of partially-completed sites that have been stripped of all the good loot but can't despawn because they still have a few unhacked cans that contain only junk. Profession sites despawn when you warp out no matter if completed or not. Are we absolutely sure that is still the case now on TQ as that doesn't appear to be how it's been on SiSi?
Tyco Iinuit Grey Dawn Initiative 0	Posted - 2013.06.04 16:11:00 - [546] - Quote I think the minigame is fun and adds a lot of depth to the exploration mechanics, but the loot scattering is very annoying and frustating. You can get ridiculous loots of like 2000 isk when at the older system never happened this. The rewarding cerebral circuit is not rewarded at all with this mechanic!!! We play at the end of day for our neurotransmisor dose n and this mechanic is not FUN at all, you always end with the sensation of having lose not won. Exploration was mean to be a lonely profession, and it was ok, for lonewolfs. yes to minigame no to loot ejecting.
Radgette New Eden Renegades 16	Posted - 2013.06.04 16:12:00 - [547] - Quote Ok so i tried some of these on TQ today and ran into a small problem. In my cov ops frigs if i try to collect the cans while moving the minin tractor beam slingshots the can past my ship and it takes twice as long to loot meaning i miss a whole bunch of stuff in the site that despawns as i'm chasing this can about. Perhaps increase the speed of the mini tractor beam so if your in a fast ship your not penalised for clicking on the items.
Ruskarn Andedare Lion Investments 196	Posted - 2013.06.04 16:16:00 - [548] - Quote Radgette wrote: Ok so i tried some of these on TQ today and ran into a small problem. In my cov ops frigs if i try to collect the cans while moving the minin tractor beam slingshots the can past my ship and it takes twice as long to loot meaning i miss a whole bunch of stuff in the site that despawns as i'm chasing this can about. Perhaps increase the speed of the mini tractor beam so if your in a fast ship your not penalised for clicking on the items. Or you could set your max speed down a lot
Johan Toralen Clockwork X3 81	Posted - 2013.06.04 16:50:00 - [549] - Quote Ruskarn Andedare wrote: Are we absolutely sure that is still the case now on TQ as that doesn't appear to be how it's been on SiSi? Been like that for me on Sisi. Someone said it always was like that. So i assume its still the case unless the've changed it in one of the recent updates.
Ruskarn Andedare Lion Investments 196	Posted - 2013.06.04 17:23:00 - [550] - Quote Johan Toralen wrote: Ruskarn Andedare wrote: Are we absolutely sure that is still the case now on TQ as that doesn't appear to be how it's been on SiSi? Been like that for me on Sisi. Someone said it always was like that. So i assume its still the case unless the've changed it in one of the recent updates. I had a couple of sites that I could warp to after failing.

Schluffi Schluffelsen State War Academy Caldari State 1	Posted - 2013.06.04 19:39:00 - [551] - Quote TLDR: + scanning down the sites is way more comfortable negative: - mini-game doesn't add variety, it gets monotone like just letting a mod run a cycle - long-term motivation/fun meh - scattering...? why? let's make it simple, survey how many sites will be done by a team of explorers - my guess, you can count them on one hand in the whole community - a clear distinction between the different kind of cans and what they contain would be more useful - completed cans only show up "touched" (darkened) on overview not on the actual HUD - 50 km between cans, why? - the sites look horrible and make me want to kill myself due to eye cancer
Johan Toralen Clockwork X3 81	Posted - 2013.06.04 20:15:00 - [552] - Quote Ruskarn Andedare wrote: I had a couple of sites that I could warp to after failing. On TQ i warped out of a site with two cans not completed today and the site immediately despawned.
Aldo Hanso The Red Circle Inc. 23	Posted - 2013.06.04 23:26:00 - [553] - Quote TL;DR - Love the hacking minigame, no complaints! Just did my first hacking site today in nullsec, and I really liked it. I have seen a lot of critical responses to the "lootsplosion," but I saw it as part of the new game that didn't exist yesterday. Sure, I didn't get every can (I was solo), but I didn't care, 'cause to me it was part of the experience of feeling like I'm actually living in space. It was also very cool to be able to go to a nullsec site, not worry about combat at all, and really get into hacking. I didn't bother to learn much about it prior, and instead decided to just learn by doing. Totally worth it, as I pulled in some decent loot, exploded other cans, and was genuinely perplexed by the defensive nodes. It was actually challenging to try to do the math and keep eyes on local/overview at the same time. I can't believe I didn't get ganked. Also, as a wormhole resident, I cannot express enough how great the new scanning mechanics are. It was so much more efficient. I do admit, it was almost too easy, but you better not change it. You had me at "pinpoint formation." Well done, CCP. Aldo Hanso
Johan Toralen Clockwork X3 81	Posted - 2013.06.04 23:55:00 - [554] - Quote First impressions from TQ: Did a bunch of sites in nullsec today. Loot average around 100m per site. That's better then i ever managed on Sisi. Had luck with two stacks of intact armor plates tho. They make like 60% of my todays loot value. Data sites were a bit meh in comparison to the Relic sites. But overall i can't complain. Strangly the minigame i found a bit more annoying then the loot spew today. I think that is because i never found multiple nullsec sites on Sisi. When doing multiple sites in a row the clicking is a bit extreme. But i think that can be fixed with a smaller grid where instead more time is spent thinking about strategic moves instead of just clicking, clicking, clicking. Some of the minigames were a bit nuts in regard to difficulty but i didnt lose too many containers. I lost more containers by dodging locals. One site despawned out of nowhere. Someone jumped into the system and started scanning, i cloaked up and tried to get a bit of distance between me and the containers. I really wasn't far out only like 30-40km and suddenly the despawn triggered. Maybe that trigger area could be made a bit bigger. In summary the nullsec sites felt well balanced to me in regard to difficulty and loot but ther's plenty room to make them more enjoyable. All in all i feel a bit more positive about it after trying it on TQ.
FT Diomedes The Graduates RAZOR Alliance 164	Posted - 2013.06.05 01:56:00 - [555] - Quote Still a terrible new mechanism.
Robert Caldera Caldera Trading and Investment 573	Posted - 2013.06.05 02:13:00 - [556] - Quote after doing a sh*tload of hackings now after 2 evenings I believe its a big waste of time doing them as profession. You might complete 2-3 of them and get lucky with drop, then wasting next 20 hours for almost nothing. Not worth the effort IMO.
Lephardo Gruntexia Chaos Level 5 Elemental Tide 0	Posted - 2013.06.05 09:45:00 - [557] - Quote Pretty hard to get the cans if you ask me. And if i reach them many times i have just got bad scraps and data sheets -.-" And to make the whole system harder, bonus globes can turn into virus and raise it strength by other virus systems. The system isnt good in my opinion.
Ametyste Aek Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 0	Posted - 2013.06.05 13:26:00 - [558] - Quote Ran a few of them yesterday and today. So far the paybback is terrible i'd be better just ratting. The game is repetitive as **** id rather cycle my salvager and go watch youtube. Yea sure it's fun the 2 frist time then it get old. If there was a way to improve loot or anything by performing well maybe it would be more intresting but as it is right now it's just plain dull after a few game, and also completely random with my 4/4 skills, a bad spawn of maluses and you're toasted. The loots fairy has been terrible to me as usual, did like 15 sites, got 60 m out of it. Don't bother with that imho.
Galatea Galilei Profoundly Inquisitive Exploration 30	Posted - 2013.06.05 19:55:00 - [559] - Quote One more note: I was really hopeful when I read you were adding labels to the cans so you can get an idea what's in them before going after them, but alas I apparently misinterpreted that. The cans spew forth with no labels, and you have to go after them first. Only when you successfully catch one with your mouse, as the pointing is hovering over it, do you see the label. As such, they're entirely useless. They give you no indication what cans to go after, you have to go after them first to get an indication of whether they're worth going after! At that point, your choice is to click it and at least get something during the next several seconds it will take you to go after another can, or not and get absolutely nothing while chasing down another can. The only thing the label does give you that moment of taunting, "Ha ha! You just wasted your last five seconds trying to click on a scrap container! Enjoy your booby prize!" I'm sure there are many people enjoying this loot-scatter arcade mini-game, but there's a reason why I could never get past the third wave of Missile Command. Sure, when the missiles are coming down one at a time and take a minute to reach the ground, it's easy to precisely place an explosion in its path, but when you have a dozen inbounds and less than a minute to stop them, well, let's just say living in my virtual cities was not a good experience for the poor simulated citizens... That was fine, I just played other games... it's just... EVE was always a game that never required that kind of arcade gaming skill before. This mechanic is so utterly out of place in what has prior to this been much more a thinking game than a high hand-eye coordination game. It used to be enjoyable by the kinds of people who weren't good at Missile Command... now you cannot be a successful explorer without it. The hacking mini-game is fun, but the only reward an extraordinarily frustrating experience and three cans of scrap... it ruins the whole experience, and insures there's no real profit in it compared to the time involved.
NEONOVUS Saablast Followers 440	Posted - 2013.06.05 21:32:00 - [560] - Quote The Cosmos sites seem to have been messed up Specifically they drop less of the supplies from last time A run around the Lai Dai refinery Gurista Spy station used to net 30+ armor blocks 5 gravity focuser 3 light weapons consoles and a medium weapons consoles Now I am the king of hydrogen batteries and reports. and get 10 armor blocks 2 light weapons and a gravity focuser. The minigame is fine though for them

Achaiah7 Interwebs Cooter Explosion Fatal Ascension 14	Posted - 2013.06.06 01:36:00 - [561] - Quote Sorry if it's already been posted elsewhere but what about the electronics rigs that used to make hacking faster? Do they add any bonuses to the game or have they just been overlooked for now? Thanks.
Yur Ko The Sith Syndicate REFORD 0	Posted - 2013.06.06 10:29:00 - [562] - Quote Achaiah7 wrote: Sorry if it's already been posted elsewhere but what about the electronics rigs that used to make hacking faster? Do they add any bonuses to the game or have they just been overlooked for now? Thanks. They do add Virus Coherence Bonus and also have a Access Difficulty Bonus Modifier (which probably should make those minigames easier)
Tyco Iinuit Grey Dawn Initiative 1	Posted - 2013.06.06 11:31:00 - [563] - Quote Ok. some post behind this one I said that I didn-¦t like the mechanics of the scattering and some of the changes. Well, to be honest, after running 12 or so sites and traveling trough EVE I can only say that I changed my mind. I really started to enjoy the new minigame and even the loot scattering. Maybe it was only time and adaptation what I needed and feel nostalgic for the old system. On a foot note I think cargo scanning should be eliminated from exploration relic and data sites cause it negates the scattering making you able to gather only what you want.
Yur Ko The Sith Syndicate REFORD 0	Posted - 2013.06.06 11:46:00 - [564] - Quote After 3 day of doing mainly exploration the feelings about this new system are mixed at best. The best thing of the changes is obviously the new scanning overlay which makes it so much faster. Thanks for that. Yet it's not without a minor drawback -- most people would be just happy to disable it while they fly in fleet. The hacking mini-game was interesting only during the first few sites. But as soon as you learn all the possibilities - which is soon - it definitely becomes boring. And the worst thing for me that it feels like playing poker - that is you very much dependent on luck - like in this attempt: http://imgur.com/J2vt0n9 No matter what are your skills you won't pass 4 virus suppressors + at least one restoration node (bye-bye 12 Intact Armor Plates ). Yet I feel that there is a room for improvement. If we could make an informed decisions where to move (more like in chess) it would feel much much better. And when it becomes less luck dependent you can make fewer cans to crack but with more complicated game to hack and more rewarding loot. And here it comes to "lootsplosion"... As it is it's absolutely crappy click-fest. Of course you can bring an alt (or a friend) and catch almost all that matters but it feels so alien to Eve - even in combat you don't have to be champion of clicking to be successful. While here all you need is being able to hit minuscule rapid crap and do it fast... For now I solved this problem by bringing an alt along but IMHO it would be better to scrap it altogether, or (if you feel like keeping it) make the time before containers disappear reasonably long - like 1min - so that you can gather all you want, yet it'll leave a window for all those ninja-looters
Yur Ko The Sith Syndicate REFORD 0	Posted - 2013.06.06 12:37:00 - [565] - Quote And a new idea just hit my mind - you can keep lootsplosion (probably with even faster speed or shorter duration) for the occasion when you loose the mini-game. But if you win - you get it all conveniently laying on its place. or (personally I don't _really_ like it but it sounds fun) you can allow shooting at the containers to blow 'em up for those who feel like running after debris is ok, or if they're low on hacking skills or just don't feel like playing stupid games or both for the win
Mipe Kamach University of Caille Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2013.06.06 12:39:00 - [566] - Quote Scanning I can deal with. It's a matter of patience with potential for great rewards. Hacking I can deal with. It is the process of acquiring the reward. Loot spewing? Now that I cannot deal with. It is like being taken away the lollipop you worked so hard for. It is a psychological thing - very undesirable one a that. You have to invest so much time, patience and effort to get to the reward only for it to slip between fingers. TL;DR: Loot spewing is fail. You can blow frigates up with cruise missiles and even torpedoes, but the entire loot remains intact. You hack into those data/relic containers (SUCCESSFULLY, may I add) an the thing spews the hard-earned reward all over the space? The time limit on these can is an added insult to the injury. Take this however you will.
Kalithia11 Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 7	Posted - 2013.06.06 19:05:00 - [567] - Quote Loot spewing is my only "problem" with the entire game at this point. I actually really enjoy the probe and hacking changes since I sank significant skills into exploration and gear. The mini-game is fun and adds an element of fear/danger having to watch your own back more than you already do. BUT. to have your hard earned loot just vanish before your eyes is incredibly tough and brutal. I even had a friend graciously help me out and we still were hard pressed to clean up all container contents. We tried several methods, all with low speeds set and "sides" picked out so we don't try to gather the same thing. When this doesn't work, there is a major problem. I believe CCP officially stated isk per hour would remain unchanged vs. the old system. I have hacked the same few systems for years and based on the last 2 days I'm making significantly less and working a lot harder for it. Please listen to the community. Suggestions: -Failed or partial successful hacks should result in a low quality loot spew or none at all, with the current timer enabled on the items. -Successful hacks should have no timer or a much longer timer so solo players can grab all of their hard earned contents. Abolishing loot spew for successful hacks would be a dream come true. Please reconsider what you've done, you took something that needed a low amount of effort and doubled its difficulty while adding risk of reward loss, its completely awful.
Rhubarb Kishunuba EVE University Ivy League 0	Posted - 2013.06.06 20:21:00 - [568] - Quote This has been the most enjoyable expansion for me so far. When I first heard about it I felt like it was made just for me. Exploration has been my favorite part of the game, but it always felt limited and incomplete. Odyssy actually realizes much of the potential of exploration. The hacking minigame makes breaking into containers actually fun and interesting. Removing the monsters from sites allows me to actually explore in low sec and wormholes by myself without removing the sense of danger because I still have to hide from potential gankers(it's good that one can scan while cloaked now). The new ui for probe scanning is much better looking and intuitive to use. I love 99 percent of what you did with Odyssy. Great work. However, I agree with many other people that the whole "pinata" mechanic just does not feel right. locating sites and unlocking their containers is slow,methodical work that I find enjoyable. Having to frantically fight with the camera while trying to pick up tiny icons with my mouse pointer while watching my hard earned loot vanish is frustrating and kills the whole experience. Imagine working overtime to complete a project at your job and having your boss say, "OK, I have your weeks worth of pay here in a stack of dollar bills and I'm going to throw them into the wind. Good luck." I think exploration should be more like mining, in that a player locates a desired object(asteroid/ice/whatever), takes his/her ship over to it,collects the desired item from it,then moves on. My suggestion for this would be to change it so that the containers work in a way similar to how they did before. Previously, containers would be in a "locked" state by default. Using a codebreaker or analyzer would "unlock" them so they could be opened by anyone. You could make it so that once someone successfully completed the hacking minigame the container would "unlock". The containers locked/unlocked status could be conveyed to everybody nearby by having a status light change from red to green in the overview or even on the object itself. That way, the player(s) who unlocked the container would be able to take all that they earned. This solution would also be conductive to pvp. Players looking to gank and steal could stalk explorers and pounce on them when the containers they were working on went green. On another note, I do like the idea of cooperative exploration. Maybe some containers could be labeled something like "super secure data bank" and have in their description "this device has such a secure data network that it can only be defeated by x hackers working together". To get the container opened more than one player would have to use a data/relic analyzer on it at once. Then each player would have to conquer their own portion of the game board. Another possibility for the future might be to give hacking some kind of role outside of just exploration. PVP ewar might be one possibility. Imagine if a skilled hacker in a fleet could hack an opposing ship to disable its engines, temporarily take control of it, or produce some other negative effect. One final thought on exploration sites: Why not sometimes have the large structures found in sites be the actual objects to be hacked instead of only used as decorations? I have always wanted to have meaningful interaction with the the big rocks, destroyed ships, abandoned stations,etc I found in sites. It would be way cooler than always working on the same things. Maybe some day in the future the large objects could even be involved with simple puzzles presented in their description
Tabane Shinonono Namu Corporation Factory 5	Posted - 2013.06.07 09:09:00 - [569] - Quote After getting a cargo scanner and knowing what kind of spew container to go for, I realised that a solo player can grab almost everything s/he is aiming for (ie, BPC/Decryptors/not so sure about t2 salvage though) without much effort. TBH my loot that I want per container has doubled/tripled and I have not missed out on a single piece of Decryptor/BPC/Skillbook that could be dropped. Perhaps CCP could randomize or obfuscate what each spew container contains instead of like making it so easy with its parts/equipment/data/scrap containers. Else , Decryptors might be going for 1m per pc soon at the rate we are picking them up like pebbles on the beach. Hacking Minigame Loot Distribution : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=243898&find=unread
Galatea Galilei Profoundly Inquisitive Exploration 32	Posted - 2013.06.07 09:27:00 - [570] - Quote Tabane Shinonono wrote: After getting a cargo scanner and knowing what kind of spew container to go for, I realised that a solo player can grab almost everything s/he is aiming for (ie, BPC/Decryptors/not so sure about t2 salvage though) without much effort. A solo player with good dexterity, yes. Alas, for someone like me, who has great difficulty using the tiny icons in space even for stationary targets, exploration has simply become impossible, at least until the little containers show up on the overview, or we get some system like the tab-targeting in other games where you can cycle through and interact with objects in the scene using the keyboard. Clicking on things on the overview is okay, the lines are wide enough that you only have to worry about one axis of movement (you need to get up/down right, how sideways the mouse moves while you're doing it doesn't matter), and you don't have to move very far to go from item to item, so I can do that accurately. But those tiny, tiny hitboxes for objects in space are very difficult to use on even stationary objects, and it takes me several seconds get the mouse properly over one so that I can click on it. That makes it flat-out impossible for moving objects. The only way I can get any loot at all is to just click rapidly in the general area and hope I hit something. Selecting what kind of container to grab is simply not an option. In the end, I get three or four random cans. Everything else goes up in smoke...

Ruskarn Andedare Lion Investments 198	Posted - 2013.06.07 09:53:00 - [571] - Quote Quick update on my personal experience with the new mini-profession sites since the release. Full Disclosure: I am one of the older EVE players, my reactions are no longer the best as I am developing arthritis and tendonitis. I travel a lot for work so am usually playing on an 11" HiRes laptop screen (this is the largest size laptop that you can guarantee to be allowed to keep in the cabin of a plane as it fits under a seat). I am usually playing using random hotel internet access. In the past month my access has varied from under 1Mb/s to over 50 Mb/s. What I'm finding: Scanning simply feels too easy now, it used to feel like you were working to get those hits but now it seems impossible to not get them in a couple of scan cycles. The sense of accomplishment has gone (yes, I know it wasn't overly hard before but now it really is press-button-get-bacon mode). The hacking game is still fun but that's wearing thin already, it won't be long before it gets to the 'oh, that again, I can't be bothered' stage. The pinata is currently worse on TQ than it was in any of the versions I tried on SiSi (other than the very first there). On average I collect 3 random cans. Yes, I cargo scan in advance but I might as well not bother - in fact I probably shouldn't as I then wouldn't know what I've missed (like the L ASB BPCs last night ). The loot containers are far too small for the speed they are moving at on my screen. It's hard enough to get a click on a container, never mind to get the mouse-over to work to decide which one to click on. The mouse-over display tends to pop up after the mouse has moved on to something else. In hisec I'm averaging roughly 1m ISK per data can, 100 ISK per relic can (I'm only doing them in hisec now as my Ishtar isn't optimised for the mini-profession sites). My overall income from these sites is down by around 80% although the time taken is up by a significant amount. Part of this is due to the sheer number of frisbees now flooding the market. Given the reduction in income from these sites the only reason to do them has to be for the fun of it and they're really more frustrating than fun now. Little things: Had a DC while hacking a can (DCs are not unusual when using hotel internet). When I signed back in I warped back to the site. The can I had been hacking was gone but the rest were still there. Although I'm still confused that Grav sites are now public they are quite funny in hisec. Previously they were almost like an exclusive social gathering where the chosen few would meet up and mine together peacefully for a while, usually fleeting up and chatting till the site was cleared. I've seen more than one exploration based corporation formed from those meetings. Now they're more like a feeding frenzy for the few minutes they exist as every miner in the system warps over to grab their little bit. TL:DR - I don't think I'll bother with the mini-profession sites unless I'm bored. The explorers social club has been closed.
Ruskarn Andedare Lion Investments 198	Posted - 2013.06.07 10:00:00 - [572] - Quote Galatea Galilei wrote: Tabane Shinonono wrote: After getting a cargo scanner and knowing what kind of spew container to go for, I realised that a solo player can grab almost everything s/he is aiming for (ie, BPC/Decryptors/not so sure about t2 salvage though) without much effort. A solo player with good dexterity, yes. Alas, for someone like me, who has great difficulty using the tiny icons in space even for stationary targets, exploration has simply become impossible, at least until the little containers show up on the overview, or we get some system like the tab-targeting in other games where you can cycle through and interact with objects in the scene using the keyboard. Clicking on things on the overview is okay, the lines are wide enough that you only have to worry about one axis of movement (you need to get up/down right, how sideways the mouse moves while you're doing it doesn't matter), and you don't have to move very far to go from item to item, so I can do that accurately. But those tiny, tiny hitboxes for objects in space are very difficult to use on even stationary objects, and it takes me several seconds get the mouse properly over one so that I can click on it. That makes it flat-out impossible for moving objects. The only way I can get any loot at all is to just click rapidly in the general area and hope I hit something. Selecting what kind of container to grab is simply not an option. In the end, I get three or four random cans. Everything else goes up in smoke... I guess if the intent was to turn EVE into an arcade game where the point is to reward players for being better at tasks of physical dexterity, I guess this change makes sense. This used to be more of a thinking-persons strategy game than a twitch-skill game, though, and it's really disappointing to have wasted all this time building up characters in a game that I thought I was going to be able to play, only to have the game changed into the kind of game that's all about dexterity instead of intelligence. That's a game I cannot play. Suddenly the game has moved into an entire different gaming genre, and it's one I cannot play in... I like games that are mentally challenging. I cannot play games that are physically challenging. Why did you need to remake EVE into the latter? You're not alone, unfortunately many of us that took up exploring previously are in the same boat as we all did it for similar reasons. Exploration used to be the place for the thinking, patient types who didn't care if it took a while to get things done. Time to try find a new niche in the game for the old / infirm / disabled as CCP doesn't want us playing exploration any more.
Brooks Puuntai Solar Nexus. 1574	Posted - 2013.06.07 10:24:00 - [573] - Quote Exploration is no longer a profession but just another activity. CCP's Motto: If it isn't broken, break it. If it is broken, ignore it. Improving NPE-á/ Dynamic New Eden
Ruskarn Andedare Lion Investments 198	Posted - 2013.06.07 10:42:00 - [574] - Quote Brooks Puuntai wrote: Exploration is no longer a profession but just another activity. and one that anyone can do without specialist skills as long as they have good reflexes and hand-eye co-ordination
Johan Toralen Clockwork X3 85	Posted - 2013.06.07 12:09:00 - [575] - Quote In regard to cargo scanner. It's the one thing that redeems the spew and makes it bearable for solo player. Without it you would never get a decent bpc because the goodies are in parts containers for vast majority of the data sites. The income also wouldn't roughly match pre Odyssey levels. Before the can names actualy had an influence on Sisi my average was pathetic. I know it somewhat negates the original intent of the spew but at this point it's a necessity and the thing that makes the sites work despite all the negativity that was expressed in early Sisi testing. If CCP wants to buff group exploration to its original intend they need to find a solution to scale the loot and number of cans to the number of players on grid. Perhaps if the container registers fleet members of the hacker within 10km radius. Tabane Shinonono wrote: After getting a cargo scanner and knowing what kind of spew container to go for, I realised that a solo player can grab almost everything s/he is aiming for (ie, BPC/Decryptors/not so sure about t2 salvage though) without much effort. TBH my loot that I want per container has doubled/tripled and I have not missed out on a single piece of Decryptor/BPC/Skillbook that could be dropped. Perhaps CCP could randomize or obfuscate what each spew container contains instead of like making it so easy with its parts/equipment/data/scrap containers. Else , Decryptors might be going for 1m per pc soon at the rate we are picking them up like pebbles on the beach. Hacking Minigame Loot Distribution : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=243898&find=unread Not feeling it. Average pre Odyssey was roughly 20m per low sec site, 100m per nullsec site (if i can believe those who did it before). That's roughly at the same levels where it is now. CCP can always tweak loot tables if some items become too common and their price deteriorating.
Brooks Puuntai Solar Nexus. 1575	Posted - 2013.06.07 12:21:00 - [576] - Quote I don't expect the cargo scanner method to stay. Mainly since it negates the main reason they added in the horrible mechanic, which is making it a group activity. CCP's Motto: If it isn't broken, break it. If it is broken, ignore it. Improving NPE-á/ Dynamic New Eden
Johan Toralen Clockwork X3 85	Posted - 2013.06.07 12:38:00 - [577] - Quote Brooks Puuntai wrote: I don't expect the cargo scanner method to stay. Mainly since it negates the main reason they added in the horrible mechanic, which is making it a group activity. It's a pretty crappy situation. On the hand i can see how it doesn't work as intended on the other hand i don't want the spew going back to how god awful it was in the early Sisi testing. I can't wrap my head around how this can be balanced in a way that makes it work for a group but doesn't ruin it for solo explorers. Some sort of scaling mechanism is the best idea that i can come up with.
Omnathious Deninard The Scope Gallente Federation 1132	Posted - 2013.06.07 12:48:00 - [578] - Quote I have to say, I a few months the cargo scanning thing will negate all reason for the can spew to occur. I can get most of the loot that appears on the cargo scan solo. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious
Johan Toralen Clockwork X3 85	Posted - 2013.06.07 13:02:00 - [579] - Quote I wonder how many people actualy tried group exploration in these last few days? Perhaps if numbers show that there really isn't much interest in group exploration (which i reckon) CCP can do away with this whole idea and spare us the pain.
Ruskarn Andedare Lion Investments 198	Posted - 2013.06.07 13:06:00 - [580] - Quote Johan Toralen wrote: I wonder how many people actualy tried group exploration in these last few days? Perhaps if numbers show that there really isn't much interest in group exploration (which i reckon) CCP can do away with this whole idea and spare us the pain. And for some of us it is exactly that - real, physical pain

Sorcha Lothain Vogon Galactic Construction 1	Posted - 2013.06.08 04:41:00 - [581] - Quote There seems to be a pretty big difference between what I tried on the test server and what went live as far as the loot barf thing. All in all, it's really disappointing it was retained as a "successful" game mechanic.. The cargo scanner trick is equally disappointing. I'm sure it's still an excellent way to make some isk, but it's just not for me. I think for the time being I'm done with hacking and archaeology. I've only been playing this game a couple months now and I had focused most of my skills on exploration as my profession. Ded sites seem to be a pretty good way to make isk (and more fun too!).
Johan Toralen Clockwork X3 91	Posted - 2013.06.09 12:35:00 - [582] - Quote Some thought after playing this for a few more days: - The minigame makes my wrist hurt after a couple sites in nullsec. it's just too much clicking. Feels like playing Diablo. So i would really like to see the minigame develop in a less clicky but more strategic direction - The threshold for running the sites in null is too low and that's why we see the loot market prices in free fall. I've seen a km for a Buzzard with over billion loot and t1 analyzers fitted. The loot tables are not the problem imo because running sites in nullsec should pay well. But not every low skilled char in a cheap ship should be able to farm them in such a way. The skill requirements to get adequate virus coherence and strenght for the highest tier sites needs to be higher. Make some new skills for that or use existing ones like encryption methods. I would happily specialize and learn them if it means less competiton and casual exploring out there. Also probably needs something that puts out damage to the ship. Rats are removed but maybe some defensive nodes or smartbomb for punishing failure. And perhaps a necessity to fit expensive mods for the hacking or a new set of hacking implants. Anything really that sets a higher threshold. Or at least as a compromise tier the sites more distinctively like the ded sites. Have the lower tiers still be able to run in cheap frig but with payouts closer to hi and low sec and higher tier sites that absolutely require better skills, mods and some tank.
Wolfyne Aliastra Gallente Federation 7	Posted - 2013.06.10 07:53:00 - [583] - Quote My 2 cents I played about 4 hours this WE with my exploration cover ops. In High Sec. My feeling is that wormholes are around 80% of system things to discover, fighting site and data are equals, around 10% each. In 4 hours, I found 4 data site, 2 relic and 2 data. The hacking minigame is ok, need luck and a bit of strategy (and a good ship/module) The loot minigame is realy boring, sometimes I don't understand why my tractor beam do nothing, sometimes I don't have time to get more than 2 or 3, and sometime I can get almost all interesting cans. After the 4h run I had around 5-10Million to sell depending the demands on the market In conclusion, spending 4h to locate wormholes changing systems, beeing lost, pesting about the tractor beam and returning home with a full cargo give less money than farming L3 mission in the same time - It could be very much interesting if the spawn rate was better, there is too much wormholes (or too much players scanning I don't know) - Why not giving exploration agents. giving, in a deapspace, a more personalized scanning. - There is no real need of a good scanning/hacking ship, it's easyer and faster, but there is no "level" in scanning, if we expect the system security level. But with the crapy spawn rate, there is more chance to find sites where there is a lot of people than in 0.5 or less. By the way, this is greatly better than the previous system, removing the rats help a lot, gallente cover ops by example have only 2Hslots, so cloak and launcher and it's over. The scaning game is also easyer, giving 8 probes is too easy I think, and with skills (min 4 in all) the scanning is just a 3D probe moving, in 4 or 5 scans I can get almost anything. I don't know if it's harder in low and null sec. But for now, it's fun, but not lucrative, very hard to find system with data/relic sites, time needed to hack and looting mecanism, made the whole exploration job not realy good for money. Maybe a rooky can get 1 or 2 million faster than L1 or L2 mission, but with L3 or L4, there is no match
Ms Valkyrie State War Academy Caldari State 2	Posted - 2013.06.12 03:18:00 - [584] - Quote I feel like the most recent changes to the despawn mechanics is the most detrimental change. It is creating this situation where it become more often than not that you run into partially ran sites with no good value left to be had. It is not fun at all to going around scanning for hours on end and to find close to zero fresh sites. At least with the old mechanic I could be garunteed two outcomes, a untoched site or a target in said site. Now I am left with unfinished sites that are of no use to me that just waste my time. Please tell me this is still being at least looked into. If this is going to stay in as a means to tone down item injection or fix some other problem I feel like it is the completely wrong way to go about fixing those issues. It is doing more harm than good at the moment. I would make plea for it to go back to the way it was before but perhaps a increase despawn timer.
Zip Joint Ekchuah's Shrine Comporium Kill It With Fire 0	Posted - 2013.06.12 14:03:00 - [585] - Quote Well could go through all posts so excuse me if i will point out same things. Iv set up my ship for mostly 0.0 explorations and finding those Relic and Data sites. First day i was trying to hack can's without using Cargo Scanner.. Big mistake. Without this scanner you just kinda testing your luck. I made 40 mill in 4-5 hours of flying around 0.0. I have a perfect hacking and decent scanning skills. Next day i went on same journey with cargo scanner fitted and made 100 mill in half an hour couse i did know which small cans i am catching. There is few things that me and probably most of the players don't like in new hacking system. 1. You have to use extra module which has nothing to do with hacking (cargo scanner ) to get good loot from can. 2. You have to use external tools/websites to see what drops what. 3. Even after scanning(Cargo) , hacking, you still get in trouble to catch the right cans couse they all comes in one blob and hard to seperate them. So you ending up with losing what you was after. 4. After scanning Relic/Data site when you come in you realize that (No further tools required) to hack the cans.. Its been done already by some1 else but the site still there .. Lost time on scanning site that is empty. I would think if you going to keep this hacking system you should seperate small can's that fireing from main can, or launch them in groups of 3-4.. becouse 'tractor beam' simply can not tractor all of them before it disapears.. no metter how fast you are. Also would be a good idea to be able to add small cans to overview.. If we can not do that.. make them diferent collors Ie Material-Red, Parts-Blue, Data-green.. etc. And last.. These sites MUST be gone if some1 already hacked at least one can in it. Couse using cargo scanner they can take best cans and leave the rest for new explorers :). Sorry for bad english. I hope you got the point :)
Johan Toralen Clockwork X3 98	Posted - 2013.06.12 15:21:00 - [586] - Quote If half finished sites stick around for long time that's not a good solution for the issues with these sites. More frustrating then anything. Just raise the damn entry barrier!
Ms Valkyrie State War Academy Caldari State 2	Posted - 2013.06.13 02:52:00 - [587] - Quote Johan Toralen wrote: If half finished sites stick around for long time that's not a good solution for the issues with these sites. More frustrating then anything. Just raise the damn entry barrier! Well I suppose their solution acomplishes the same mission. I have offically rage quit exploration with the despawn changes. I suppose I could ignore all sigs with the DT sig id, but how many fresh sites we really going to get if hardly anyone is going to despawn the sites? I am starting to think it was their full intention to make things worst with the changes since we have yet to see any response to the feedback or concerns regarding the new despawn mechanics. Granted it is only been a day, but in my eyes it is a game breaking change and im freaking out, help!
Ruskarn Andedare Lion Investments 202	Posted - 2013.06.13 08:48:00 - [588] - Quote Ms Valkyrie wrote: Johan Toralen wrote: If half finished sites stick around for long time that's not a good solution for the issues with these sites. More frustrating then anything. Just raise the damn entry barrier! Well I suppose their solution acomplishes the same mission. I have offically rage quit exploration with the despawn changes. I suppose I could ignore all sigs with the DT sig id, but how many fresh sites we really going to get if hardly anyone is going to despawn the sites? I am starting to think it was their full intention to make things worst with the changes since we have yet to see any response to the feedback or concerns regarding the new despawn mechanics. Granted it is only been a day, but in my eyes it is a game breaking change and im freaking out, help! There's always the option to just run around blowing up the cans to tidy the place up a bit. Though it doesn't seem right that we should spend our space time doing house cleaning
pmchem GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 524	Posted - 2013.06.16 23:12:00 - [589] - Quote Faction tower BPCs should be low/nullsec only. Make this worth our while. @pmchem on twitter \|\| GARPA \|\| Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
LiKuei Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 1	Posted - 2013.06.18 04:24:00 - [590] - Quote OK CCP, it in your lap again. The failed cargo spew needs to be adjusted. We all let you know that from the test server, now lets hear how you intend to change it. You said it won't go away, so here is a suggestion: For failed attempts, create an explosion that destroys parts of the containers but releases them into space (salvage). For successful, leave it in place.


CCP RedDawn C C P C C P Alliance 345	Posted - 2013.06.20 12:35:00 - [591] - Quote In todays Tranquility update we have introduced new icons for the main scatter containers. A filled diamond indicates that the container still holds loot. A filled diamond with brackets around it indicates that it is currently being hacked by yourself or another player. An empty diamond indicates that there is no more loot held within the container. Also, we now have a fix in-house for the cherry picking / sites not despawning issue which will be introduced in the next few days. (Hopefully tomorrow) This fix is in the form of a site despawn timer that initiates upon the first successful hack of a container within a site. All the best, CCP RedDawn Team Prototyping Rocks

Ruskarn Andedare Lion Investments 202	Posted - 2013.06.20 13:24:00 - [592] - Quote CCP RedDawn wrote: In todays Tranquility update we have introduced new icons for the main scatter containers. A filled diamond indicates that the container still holds loot. A filled diamond with brackets around it indicates that it is currently being hacked by yourself or another player. An empty diamond indicates that there is no more loot held within the container. Also, we now have a fix in-house for the cherry picking / sites not despawning issue which will be introduced in the next few days. (Hopefully tomorrow) This fix is in the form of a site despawn timer that initiates upon the first successful hack of a container within a site. All the best, CCP RedDawn Thanks for the update RedDawn, the timer fix especially will make a lot of difference
Chris Winter Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T. 148	Posted - 2013.06.20 17:34:00 - [593] - Quote CCP RedDawn wrote: Also, we now have a fix in-house for the cherry picking / sites not despawning issue which will be introduced in the next few days. (Hopefully tomorrow) This fix is in the form of a site despawn timer that initiates upon the first successful hack of a container within a site. All the best, CCP RedDawn Please don't forget to include WH data/relic sites in this. There are still some sites that despawn after you warp off, even if no containers have been touched.
Lipbite Express Hauler 681	Posted - 2013.06.23 11:11:00 - [594] - Quote Too few data/relic sites in low - 1-2 per system at best (more like one per 2-4 systems). "Loot bukkake" explosion mechanics still sucks - until removed. I'm losing up to 2/3 loot. Could be interesting to know the name of "genius" who proposed it and got an idea to make exploration collective activity.
Colonel Sponz The Whiskers of Kurvi-Tasch 2	Posted - 2013.06.23 11:12:00 - [595] - Quote The first time I tried hacking (in the profession missions) I was so close to the can that I missed the "spew" and wondered how I was to get the loot to finish the mission! The fact that the mission wording hasn't been changed to take account of the new mechanic didn't help either. Fortunately for me I was aware of the new mini-game because I read the forums but I wonder what new players make of it when there are no clues/hints of what to do.

CCP RedDawn C C P C C P Alliance 349	Posted - 2013.06.25 13:24:00 - [596] - Quote Colonel Sponz wrote: The first time I tried hacking (in the profession missions) I was so close to the can that I missed the "spew" and wondered how I was to get the loot to finish the mission! The fact that the mission wording hasn't been changed to take account of the new mechanic didn't help either. Fortunately for me I was aware of the new mini-game because I read the forums but I wonder what new players make of it when there are no clues/hints of what to do. Yup, this is a known issue. We will be fixing up the mission descriptions to incorporate these new mechanics soon. Team Prototyping Rocks

Hosedna FumbleFamily Corp 35	Posted - 2013.06.25 13:57:00 - [597] - Quote The hacking minigame is good as a basis for a more complex and interactive game (it's limited at the moment, but it's ok as a basis for future iteration). Loot spewing is ... well... not Eve at all ? I mean, it's ok, I get the cans I want by checking the name, and have the valuable loots, so I just don't care about missing cans. But man ! Frantically running after disappearing objects just isn't Eve at all. I feel like playing a flash game on armorgames :-(
Kaye Costello Swell and Marbury Tangled Webs 0	Posted - 2013.07.02 04:00:00 - [598] - Quote Alright...I slugged my way through all 30 pages of this drekk, and I am ready to give my well thought through and deliberated opinion. All is fine with the exceptions of: Loot Pinata Samey Game I'll tackle the latter first as it's shorter: I expect this to clear up as the actual minigame gets deepened and expanded, but right now the hacking minigame, while enjoyable, is going to get very repetitive very quickly, I can tell. Worsened only by the fact that it is identical for both Relic and Data sites. Again, subsequent expansions on the system should remedy this. Now, for the elephant sized bugbear in the room: Dat pinata. Do not get me wrong. I think it's novel. I think it has it's place. I also think, and strongly so, that it is not in it's place. I shaln't delve back into what more people than I can count on both hands have spent whole pages clarifying with exceptional eloquence, suffice to say that having a frantic scrabble as the ultimate victory condition is a hectic end for an otherwise laid-back and almost labor-less process (typical vigilance required for low/null/WH presence excepted. In highsec, you can do this with one hand, half asleep and slightly drunk, and I don't see that this is a bad thing. Most everything can (with varying degrees of efficiency)). Unlike several, I shall attempt to offer alternatives to bring this more in line with the rest of the process. In so doing, I shall quite literally steal others' ideas I approve of, add a few of my own, and I will not reference them because I do not want to have to go back through these 30 pages. Sorry guys, credit's due but I'm not giving it out. Also, quotes take up too many characters as I found out. This post got a bit lengthy. Anyways, to ideas: 1) Loot Pinata is a loss occurrence. I'm not 100% fan of this, but it might be workable. You hack the site. you fail it. Loot splurts out everywhere and you have to do your best to salvage your rewards before they drift away into obscurity. Somewhat more satisfying than the old system of waiting for another cycle on module x/y/z. Not terribly conducive to the "you fail? 1 more try" notion. That's a matter of balance though. 1.1) Time limit on attempts? Maybe? Work that however you want. Jetcanning the notion out there. 2) Loot Pinata is a partial victory There are several ways this can be implemented, as these are (straight up copies or adaptations of) idea's I've pulled out of my arse in the hour I've been sitting here or stolen from others: A) You clear the board (of firewalls or completely), you get a tidy loot can. You only hack the core, enjoy chasing your goodies :3 Rewards the extra effort for the extra clicking, and it also means that a experienced hacker won't have to go scrambling As often. (I haven't been graced with a high tier system to hack yet, but it seems the consensus is some of them would be nigh-impossible to clear completely) B) Multiple cores to hack. Each one gives a portion of the total rewards in a loot can, and the rest on eventual failure are jettisoned for cluster-clicking/exploded mercilessly/insert-alternative-unpleasant-fate. C) Multiple levels of encryption to break through. See B), just more drawn out. 3) Loot Pinata is a Partial Failure Not entirely sure how this would be balanced, but I'm throwing it out there anyways. I guess one way it could work is if you had multiple anti-cores/attempts within the minigame (lives, if you will, instead of straight up 2 tries) and each one you botch removes a portion of your eventual loot (if any) And scatters it for you to sift though. Though this very much relies on how the minigame itself expands, it's something to consider. 4) Topical Pinataing. I can get by having archeology sites blow their load all over my face like the old geezers they are. I don't particularly enjoy it just as much as the analogy I unintentionally made, but I can live with it - it makes a bit of contextual sense to have an ancient hulk's cargo be blasted off into space when the wrong seal is broken - but aren't data sites supposed to be - well - modernish? Lore aside, it would give a much needed distinction between relic and data sites beyond the loot they drop and the modules they need :/ Hell, take that idea a few yards further and make a handful of (subtly) Different minigames with different results. Variety is the spice of life, and exploration has always needed some spicing. I am fully aware that this would be a bunch of coding, but you've got time. Don't get me wrong. I like most of the changes, especially to the scanning UI. You've got a good idea going for your guys here and I do not want to see it scrapped - but your implementation is all cockeyed IMO. I've literally spent an hour of my life hemorrhaging ideas into this textbox for you, attempting to refine 30 pages of mostly butthurting into something somewhat palatable (and I give kudos to the handful who already attempted to refine it so I could palate it) and hopefully workable. I WANT this to get tidied up and functional, because I very much think it's not a terrible idea, but it's like watching a 5 year old trying to stick a square block in a circular hole, and I think we (read: you) need to stop trying to shave the block and start trying to find the proper hole. And speaking of hemorrhaging ideas, though I'm running out of characters - I can only reiterate what so many people have said before with varying tones of amicability-hostility: If you REALLY want to make exploration more group orientated, you have to work on the minigame aspect. Get multiple people involved with the puzzle (how, I can't figure. I leave that to you like an unhelpful forumer) and THEN you can justify having them scramble to pick up the pieces (though with 2+ people working, it offeres more ways to screw up, so you can find more and more adventurous ways to punish them) TL,DR: Tough, go back and read it. Minigame needs more shizz in it though.
Garviel Tarrant Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1140	Posted - 2013.07.19 18:09:00 - [599] - Quote This hacking thing was so good that it crashed the market Op successsss? :P BYDI recruitment closed-ish
Ruskarn Andedare Lion Investments 230	Posted - 2013.07.22 08:36:00 - [600] - Quote Garviel Tarrant wrote: This hacking thing was so good that it crashed the market Op successsss? :P Scanning and hacking so easy anyone can do it without skills, market flooded so now the return isn't worth anything except for the new guys, perfect result if you only want the new pilots doing anything to do with exploration.

Garviel Tarrant Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1157	Posted - 2013.07.22 09:02:00 - [601] - Quote Ruskarn Andedare wrote: Garviel Tarrant wrote: This hacking thing was so good that it crashed the market Op successsss? :P Scanning and hacking so easy anyone can do it without skills, market flooded so now the return isn't worth anything except for the new guys, perfect result if you only want the new pilots doing anything to do with exploration. I don't know, with subpar skills i did blow up a few 150 mill+ cans when i tried it out =< I really like the hacking minigame, i don't have time to PVE so i dont' do it but if i did it would probably be this.. or WH's.. probably WH's.. i like isk/hr. BYDI recruitment closed-ish
Johan Toralen IIIJIIIITIIII 202	Posted - 2013.07.24 21:09:00 - [602] - Quote So any news about changes to the data/relic sites? It's been disturbingly quiet on the dev front the last couple weeks. This is poor form releasing a half assed "expansion" and then let it rot and have it run into the ground, when really it needed some swift tweaks. The loot drops need a rework, especialy for data sites. And i would like to hear whether the hacking minigame and loot spew is still worked on.
Ruskarn Andedare Lion Investments 239	Posted - 2013.08.01 10:15:00 - [603] - Quote Johan Toralen wrote: So any news about changes to the data/relic sites? It's been disturbingly quiet on the dev front the last couple weeks. This is poor form releasing a half assed "expansion" and then let it rot and have it run into the ground, when really it needed some swift tweaks. The loot drops need a rework, especialy for data sites. And i would like to hear whether the hacking minigame and loot spew is still worked on. The devs should be getting back into the office from their holidays round about now so if they're intending to make any changes they'll only just be starting to look at them.
Johan Toralen IIIJIIIITIIII 203	Posted - 2013.08.01 15:27:00 - [604] - Quote Ruskarn Andedare wrote: The devs should be getting back into the office from their holidays round about now so if they're intending to make any changes they'll only just be starting to look at them. Ah well can't blame them for not spending the short Icelandic summer in the office. But begs the question if a spring/autumn release schedule for the expansions wouldn't be better.
War Kitten Panda McLegion 2517	Posted - 2013.08.07 15:05:00 - [605] - Quote Checking in after more months have passed since this post is still sticky. Loot spew is still an un-fun chore to do. The interface is clunky in space, and doesn't follow established EVE interface patterns. On initial spew, cans are stacked on top of one another and you cannot isolate the type you want until they spread. Why doesn't the loot spew mechanic use the bracket-stacking feature on the "brackets in space"? This is probably the one and only time I would want the instant stacking effect to happen instantly, but instead it doesn't happen at all. With the server ticking once every second, and this being a frantic game where seconds matter, it is unrewarding to see a flashing can go green, click on it, wait a second, and have it disappear instead at site after site. The frustration of dealing with a timed click-fest on a once-per-second server response is such that I've given up on even bothering with data and relic sites now. I don't need the aggravation. I hope this feedback is helpful. I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
epicurus miner Black Ice Klan 0utlanders. 0	Posted - 2013.08.11 05:59:00 - [606] - Quote Interesting reading the responses on both sides, clearly the developers have been raised with consoles and feel that a bit of a click feat with the mouse is missing? WRONG Not all players are twenty five year olds with great mouse skills and sat at a desktop with a gaming mouse. We play eve for many reasons and none of them fit the loot vomit mechanic. The whole concept is wrong /misguided. Leave it for dust. Exploration in odyssey? Sounded a great improvement, looked forward to it, something to add interest and a new challenge and more diversity to play style and encourage spreading the areas of eve you visit. Reality total waste of time a massively missed opportunity. Exploration? An excercise in frustration and dissatisfying in the extreme, You clearly have an emotional attachment to your creation, a lot of work went into it, and you naturally wish to fine tune it to make it more satisfying. Unfortunately there is a proverb that covers this. You cannot polish a turd. Please put it out of its misery. The loot vomit is misplaced and misconceived. If you MUST keep it keep it as a failure mode. I really wanted to do exploration, it sounded ideal and a satisfying career path. I have abandoned it and will not re try it until this appalling mechanic is completely gone. Listen to your users it is the equivalent of windows 8 and your reaction so far has been the same.
Vladimir Norkoff Income Redistribution Service 230	Posted - 2013.08.12 22:15:00 - [607] - Quote What would be fantastic is at least a Dev response saying they are still working on Exploration. Instead of letting us believe that it is just another dropped ball in a long list of half-finished projects from our beloved CCP.
Gaerlan Harbinger Caldari Provisions Caldari State 0	Posted - 2013.08.13 06:27:00 - [608] - Quote Another thing, I'm not sure if its been mentioned, but the sites don't seem to despawn if you leave a few cans not looted. In a certain system I scanned down a relic site in null sec, cargo scanned each container and left 3 looted as it wasn't worth my time as they were really crappy. A couple days later I came back to the same site and it was still spawned at the same bookmark I had with the same 3 containers not looted. I ended up destroying all 3 containers so it would despawn, which it did after an hour or so.
Ruskarn Andedare Lion Investments 239	Posted - 2013.08.13 11:00:00 - [609] - Quote Gaerlan Harbinger wrote: Another thing, I'm not sure if its been mentioned, but the sites don't seem to despawn if you leave a few cans not looted. In a certain system I scanned down a relic site in null sec, cargo scanned each container and left 3 looted as it wasn't worth my time as they were really crappy. A couple days later I came back to the same site and it was still spawned at the same bookmark I had with the same 3 containers not looted. I ended up destroying all 3 containers so it would despawn, which it did after an hour or so. I'm pretty sure this behaviour was supposed to be fixed so the site would despawn on a timer after the first can was hacked, might be worth a petition if you still have the details.
Ruskarn Andedare Lion Investments 239	Posted - 2013.08.13 11:07:00 - [610] - Quote Vladimir Norkoff wrote: What would be fantastic is at least a Dev response saying they are still working on Exploration. Instead of letting us believe that it is just another dropped ball in a long list of half-finished projects from our beloved CCP. They're very likely letting things settle down for a while before deciding what to do next if anything. Unfortunately the stats probably show the changes as a massive success due to the number of pilots that started accessing sites of all kinds.

Vladimir Norkoff Income Redistribution Service 231	Posted - 2013.08.14 00:01:00 - [611] - Quote LOL So instead of responding or doing anything even remotely informative, they just un-sticky the thread. Awesome!
Rengerel en Distel 1781	Posted - 2013.08.14 00:17:00 - [612] - Quote Vladimir Norkoff wrote: LOL So instead of responding or doing anything even remotely informative, they just un-sticky the thread. Awesome! That's probably answer enough, eh? With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.
Johan Toralen IIIJIIIITIIII 223	Posted - 2013.08.14 00:41:00 - [613] - Quote This is some bullshit. It was promised that development of the new exploration site mechanics will not be abandoned after initial release. Two months ago it was also said that tweaking the loot tables is on high priority. Not a single fecking word from a dev since and now the thread just gets unstickied. I assume the mess will now just left to rot like so many other half arsed features. Great job CCP, hope you're proud of yourselfes!
Ruskarn Andedare Lion Investments 239	Posted - 2013.08.15 13:09:00 - [614] - Quote Odyssey 1.1 is on SiSi now, they obviously no longer care about anything we were discussing here.
Vladimir Norkoff Income Redistribution Service 237	Posted - 2013.08.19 17:27:00 - [615] - Quote Bumping in hopes that at some point Team Prototype Rocks will actually let us know whether or not Exploration is still being worked on and when we can hope to see future iterations on it.

CCP RedDawn C C P C C P Alliance 354	Posted - 2013.08.21 14:53:00 - [616] - Quote Hi all. Some info about Hacking and Exploration for you. First off, we've been quiet in these threads due to the summer holidays. Apologies for that. Also, Team Prototyping Rocks and Team Pony Express have merged to create a new team called Team Kuromaku. We are currently in the process of meetings regarding the new hacking feature and we are pushing for further iteration. So I can't give you an definite yes/no to further iteration as of yet, but it's something that we would very much like to improve upon. Like all development, it all depends on priority. Team Kuromaku

Maximus Andendare Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 452	Posted - 2013.08.21 15:15:00 - [617] - Quote CCP RedDawn wrote: Hi all. Some info about Hacking and Exploration for you. First off, we've been quiet in these threads due to the summer holidays. Apologies for that. Also, Team Prototyping Rocks and Team Pony Express have merged to create a new team called Team Kuromaku. We are currently in the process of meetings regarding the new hacking feature and we are pushing for further iteration. So I can't give you an definite yes/no to further iteration as of yet, but it's something that we would very much like to improve upon. Like all development, it all depends on priority. No scatter on successful hacks! It's already a penalty when you fail twice for most hacks; why penalize us when we succeed??? Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day.
Kynric Sky Fighters 21	Posted - 2013.08.21 16:11:00 - [618] - Quote I could accept getting only one try per can if in exchange we loat the scatter game. At least it would play faster.
Phoenix Jones Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking 166	Posted - 2013.08.21 17:38:00 - [619] - Quote Forgive me if what I say is in error. I have not spent a ton of time researching the mechanic regarding the sites themselves. I've gone out sporatically flying through highsec and nullsec looking for these sites. In highsec, if I go far enough off the beaten path, I can find 2 or 3 sites. There payout generally is Zilch as there will only be maybe a invention decryptor or some carbon inside. Generally the sites in highsec are ravaged and no longer exist when I log in (lets say at 7pm eastern time). I'd have to spend 1 to 2 hours to find a place that has signatures that are not wormholes. Nullsec though, I haven't found any. Most likely its my bad luck, but the only signatures I see will be either combat sites, or wormholes. Now I don't know if people have all these sites camped, but do these sites spawn on a regular basis throughout the day, or do they spawn just after downtime? I am guessing (and this is just a guess), that if they are spawning just after downtime, people are mass sprinting to login just to run any new sigs that have poped up in 20 minutes or less. Again I do not know if that is how it functions or not, if not then no biggie I've just had lousy luck trying to find lowsec/nullsec relic and hacking sites. If it is though, could the spawn be randomly generated throughout the day, instead of at a static time at downtime (I remember this being a issue with people sprint running combat sites at downtime to collect faction modules). Again I don't know if this is how they currently function or not, I just haven't seen any sites in low or null except for combat sites since odyssey. Stabbers are totally broken http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=15116553
Ali Aras Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind 323	Posted - 2013.08.21 18:00:00 - [620] - Quote I have seen sites spawn throughout the day when I was living in a sov null system. We would regularly get USTZ spawns of the relic or data sites and run them for dat isk, while the EUTZ guys ran theirs. http://warp-to-sun.tumblr.com -- my blog

Orakkus Winds of Dawn Kraken. 119	Posted - 2013.08.21 18:48:00 - [621] - Quote CCP RedDawn wrote: Hi all. Some info about Hacking and Exploration for you. First off, we've been quiet in these threads due to the summer holidays. Apologies for that. Also, Team Prototyping Rocks and Team Pony Express have merged to create a new team called Team Kuromaku. We are currently in the process of meetings regarding the new hacking feature and we are pushing for further iteration. So I can't give you an definite yes/no to further iteration as of yet, but it's something that we would very much like to improve upon. Like all development, it all depends on priority. No apologies needed for your vacations. Seems quite a few of the folks here on this thread could use one away from Eve too. And interesting choice of team name as well. Let me tell ya what I do like about the current Hacking/Archeology(sp?): What I like: The Scatter Mechanic - Plesae, please DON'T get rid of this. It is a nice little challenge that is a bit like gambling, giving me a little of bit of a rush each time I choose a good container. I don't care what anyone else says, I think it is a good thing to have and I will be disappointed if it gets removed. Profitability - I have perfect Arch and Hacking skills, and it is a nice and reasonable way for a guy like me (a man with a job, wife, and three kids), to make isk without spending hours upon hours upon hours ratting or mining. It isn't EASY to make money, but it isn't time-consuming, either. Mini-game Challenge - I think the challenge of the mini-game is just about right. Even with the best possible virus offense and defense (ships/rigs/skills), I still lose one from time to time. Danger - I run my Relic and Data sites in a Cheetah in null-sec. Which means that I have to trade between speed and effectiveness for safety while working/Travelling and carrying capacity. I think its a fair trade. What I don't like: Random Tractor beam lock/speed - This might be intentional, as it means it ALWAYS takes x number of seconds to pull in a container no matter how close or far away it is. Scraps/Equipment containers/Loot Options - Scraps and Equipment Containers can be largely ignored as even their contents aren't likely to have anything of value. While I still think you need to have "junk" containers, it would be nice to have a little more variety with loot possibilities. Decryptor BPCs - I could wallpaper a titan with how many of these things I get each week. Cut the spawn rate in half. And is there any other use for the parts we get to make these decryptors either?
Vladimir Norkoff Income Redistribution Service 241	Posted - 2013.08.21 19:18:00 - [622] - Quote CCP RedDawn wrote: We are currently in the process of meetings regarding the new hacking feature and we are pushing for further iteration. So I can't give you an definite yes/no to further iteration as of yet, but it's something that we would very much like to improve upon. Like all development, it all depends on priority. Well something you might want to remind the Power That Be during those meetings, is that leaving things in a half-assed state tends to leave your players with a rather pessimistic view of the company. And hack/arch sites are definitely in a half-assed state at the moment. Stop leaving things half done! The player base can certainly give you guys more feedback after a few months of playing. Just start a new thread and we'd be thrilled to give you our input.
Johan Toralen IIIJIIIITIIII 230	Posted - 2013.08.22 17:10:00 - [623] - Quote Tell me one good reason why the feature that was advertised as the big selling point for the last expansion wouldn't be on high priority? It's kinda like i advertised a big machine gun expansion for my fps, hyped all the players, excited them for it but then on release day only gave them some pistols that look like machine guns. Surely you could see how this would **** off some players and why it should be rather high on the priority list. Situation with the new exploration sites is very similar. It was advertised as something that it turned out not to be and got pretty useless quickly thanks to the market crashes.
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 1467	Posted - 2013.08.23 17:47:00 - [624] - Quote I don't know about you two but my opinion on hacking has not changed since the final version was released on SISI before odyssey was deployed. Novis Initiis is Recruting-á --á Ideas for Drone Improvement
Ruskarn Andedare Lion Investments 247	Posted - 2013.08.26 14:59:00 - [625] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: I don't know about you two but my opinion on hacking has not changed since the final version was released on SISI before odyssey was deployed. Most people's views have't changed since SiSi as there haven't been any noticeable changes since then But everyone's views are still different.
Akiko Sciuto Cold Nova Industries 8	Posted - 2013.08.26 16:59:00 - [626] - Quote Orakkus wrote: The Scatter Mechanic - Plesae, please DON'T get rid of this. It is a nice little challenge that is a bit like gambling, giving me a little of bit of a rush each time I choose a good container. I don't care what anyone else says, I think it is a good thing to have and I will be disappointed if it gets removed. Personally I don't see this a problem/bad mechnic either. At first I was nerd raging about it too, but once I got used to it and found out which cans to go for it really isn't that bad. So I agree with this. Orakkus wrote: Profitability - I have perfect Arch and Hacking skills, and it is a nice and reasonable way for a guy like me (a man with a job, wife, and three kids), to make isk without spending hours upon hours upon hours ratting or mining. It isn't EASY to make money, but it isn't time-consuming, either. I would like to see the loot tables tweaked a bit, as with more people doing exploration now, the value of loot dropped in these sites has decreased quite a bit. Orakkus wrote: Mini-game Challenge - I think the challenge of the mini-game is just about right. Even with the best possible virus offense and defense (ships/rigs/skills), I still lose one from time to time. For the most part I would agree, but every now and again you get hacks with three, four and five restoration nodes which really gives you no chance of a succesful hack (or maybe I just really suck at the mini-game ^_^). Orakkus wrote: Interfaces BPCs - I could wallpaper a titan with how many of these things I get each week. Cut the spawn rate in half. And is there any other use for the parts we get to make these interfaces either? Yeah couldn't agree more, they are less then worthless at this stage. Lower the drop rate please. One other point I would like to make is that you have stated you want exploration to be a team effort, so that you would need some friends to be able to collect everything that is dropped. Well I regularly do exploration with a friend and one really annoying thing keeps happening to us. We keep tractoring the same can, tying both of us up until one of us wins the tug-o-war over the the can. Which is rather conterproductive to the whole team effort thing you guys were so keen about. So I would like the tractor beam to lock on to cans faster to lessen the chance of this happening
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai 1676	Posted - 2013.08.26 20:21:00 - [627] - Quote Issue: Scatter boxes are too small and move too fast. Fix: WAY LARGER click zones and slower movement Issue: Hisec exploration is a complete waste of time compared to just warping a Venture to a belt. Fix: play the game live at Tranquility and figure how should be loot tables in order to average 1.5 milion per hour under real conditions. The Greater Fool Bar is now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden!
Eraza Fuzzyness Enterprizes 72	Posted - 2013.08.27 13:35:00 - [628] - Quote Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote: Issue: Scatter boxes are too small and move too fast. Fix: WAY LARGER click zones and slower movement Issue: Hisec exploration is a complete waste of time compared to just warping a Venture to a belt. Fix: play the game live at Tranquility and figure how should be loot tables in order to average 1.5 milion per hour under real conditions. i have the same problem with the scatter mechanic, i keep frantically clicking a dozen times per container because i keep missing the ** thing and high sec data/relic sites, i have the same experience, it's kind of fun, and i really like the new minigames(everything but the scatter), but it's just not remotely worth it. at the moment i'm sad to have to have to tell my noob friends: "stay the * away from exploration in high sec, you make about 20x that for the same time spent just doing lvl 3 missions or mining" even just the anomaly sites, the ones you dont need probes for, grinding those is between 5x-10x more money per time spent then looking for data/relic sites(in high sec) Return varied color to Gallente ships! not everything looks good in DARK GREEN!
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai 1678	Posted - 2013.08.27 13:49:00 - [629] - Quote Eraza wrote: Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote: Issue: Scatter boxes are too small and move too fast. Fix: WAY LARGER click zones and slower movement Issue: Hisec exploration is a complete waste of time compared to just warping a Venture to a belt. Fix: play the game live at Tranquility and figure how should be loot tables in order to average 1.5 milion per hour under real conditions. i have the same problem with the scatter mechanic, i keep frantically clicking a dozen times per container because i keep missing the ** thing and high sec data/relic sites, i have the same experience, it's kind of fun, and i really like the new minigames(everything but the scatter), but it's just not remotely worth it. at the moment i'm sad to have to have to tell my noob friends: "stay the * away from exploration in high sec, you make about 20x that for the same time spent just doing lvl 3 missions or mining" even just the anomaly sites, the ones you dont need probes for, grinding those is between 5x-10x more money per time spent then looking for data/relic sites(in high sec) Yay, and then it turns you just clicked on the garbage can, of them all... Anyway I haven't seen anyone suggest that hisec exploration is a good career for noobs, and I doubt it was intended to be such. Both SP and money wise, everything else hisec is more profitable. The Greater Fool Bar is now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden!
Eraza Fuzzyness Enterprizes 73	Posted - 2013.08.27 17:00:00 - [630] - Quote Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote: Eraza wrote: Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote: snip snip Yay, and then it turns you just clicked on the garbage can, of them all... Anyway I haven't seen anyone suggest that hisec exploration is a good career for noobs, and I doubt it was intended to be such. Both SP and money wise, everything else hisec is more profitable. that's a point though, it's hard(sp wise) AND pointless, um, why is it there then? surely it's SUPPOSED to be worth the time for SOMEONE? i'm thinking some balance changes elsewere messed it up Return varied color to Gallente ships! not everything looks good in DARK GREEN!

Ishtanchuk Fazmarai 1682	Posted - 2013.08.27 20:04:00 - [631] - Quote Eraza wrote: Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote: Eraza wrote: Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote: snip snip Yay, and then it turns you just clicked on the garbage can, of them all... Anyway I haven't seen anyone suggest that hisec exploration is a good career for noobs, and I doubt it was intended to be such. Both SP and money wise, everything else hisec is more profitable. that's a point though, it's hard(sp wise) AND pointless, um, why is it there then? surely it's SUPPOSED to be worth the time for SOMEONE? i'm thinking some balance changes elsewere messed it up I think that it was modified as something people does on top of something else. On its own it's a dirt poor activity unless you already are living in lowsec/nullsec and have access to worthier exploration content just because you're there. I can't picture anyone bothering to go out of hisec just to find better exploration content. The Greater Fool Bar is now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden!
Altrue Exploration Frontier inc 549	Posted - 2013.08.27 23:27:00 - [632] - Quote I can't believe, after all the negative feedback we've done, that the hacking minigame is still in place. I thought that the Eve community was better than that. Eve is a game where knowledge is the key, when you know the mechanics it's easier, but you have to take the time to adapt, learn, assimilate, reproduce. Here we have a god damned clickfest with 100% of epic randomness. No knowledge requiered, no way to have any indication about what the next node is going to give, there are just some times when you loose the minigame and you know you couldn't have done better as you have perfect skills and fully rigged ship. One flagrant example, a few hours ago when I was recording a french walkthrough of the hacking minigame with my civilian hacking module : four remaining nodes, first a choice between two nodes, then two nodes one after the other with only one possible path. There was three defense subsystem for these four lasts node, and with my 25 coherence the whole minigame was just decided by complete randomness for choosing the path with two defensive, or the path with one. Speaking about clickfest, we can also say the same about the looting container thing. Bring a friend with you so that he can be bored while you hack ? Come on, you need to fire the genius who got the idea ! The only great solution would be if this very bad minigame turned into a nice coop game if you are two to hack the container, so that the other person isn't waiting, and it also becomes a multiplayer minigame (you know, in a multiplayer environnement, a bit of teamplay wouldn't hurt). Well anyway my point is that there is no word to express how much I feel that our money was poorly invested into some bad game design. A bad idea can happen, but there has to be someone into the developpement process that can put a veto when devs needs help to step back and look at their own ideas with an objective point of view. Let's hope that everything gets fixed for the winter expansion, but I doubt it sadly. G££ <= Me
Eraza Fuzzyness Enterprizes 73	Posted - 2013.08.28 15:35:00 - [633] - Quote Altrue wrote: I can't believe, after all the negative feedback we've done, that the hacking minigame is still in place. I thought that the Eve community was better than that. Eve is a game where knowledge is the key, when you know the mechanics it's easier, but you have to take the time to adapt, learn, assimilate, reproduce. Here we have a god damned clickfest with 100% of epic randomness. No knowledge requiered, no way to have any indication about what the next node is going to give, there are just some times when you loose the minigame and you know you couldn't have done better as you have perfect skills and fully rigged ship. One flagrant example, a few hours ago when I was recording a french walkthrough of the hacking minigame with my civilian hacking module : four remaining nodes, first a choice between two nodes, then two nodes one after the other with only one possible path. There was three defense subsystem for these four lasts node, and with my 25 coherence the whole minigame was just decided by complete randomness for choosing the path with two defensive, or the path with one. Speaking about clickfest, we can also say the same about the looting container thing. Bring a friend with you so that he can be bored while you hack ? Come on, you need to fire the genius who got the idea ! The only great solution would be if this very bad minigame turned into a nice coop game if you are two to hack the container, so that the other person isn't waiting, and it also becomes a multiplayer minigame (you know, in a multiplayer environnement, a bit of teamplay wouldn't hurt). Well anyway my point is that there is no word to express how much I feel that our money was poorly invested into some bad game design. A bad idea can happen, but there has to be someone into the developpement process that can put a veto when devs needs help to step back and look at their own ideas with an objective point of view. Let's hope that everything gets fixed for the winter expansion, but I doubt it sadly. the minigame is not that bad, the civilian sites in training are of course effortless, it gets a little challenging on other empire sites(enough to be kind of fun actually), and i hear those null sec hacking minigames are actually VERY hard the loot spew thing needs to go away though, the only way i can be sure to avoid a click fest, and then still missing something, is for me to bring someone, to be bored out of his mind, while i play a minigame, just for the loot spew.. Return varied color to Gallente ships! not everything looks good in DARK GREEN!
Altrue Exploration Frontier inc 550	Posted - 2013.08.28 17:51:00 - [634] - Quote Eraza wrote: Altrue wrote: Stuff the minigame is not that bad, the civilian sites in training are of course effortless, it gets a little challenging on other empire sites(enough to be kind of fun actually), and i hear those null sec hacking minigames are actually VERY hard Well imagine in wormhole space where the sites weren't redone, and every container with this ridiculously tiny amount of loot is a hard minigame. How much container do you have in null ? If I recall correctly, around five. Now in wormhole it's more around fifteen. Believe me, just run ONE data site in a wormhole C4 or more, and you'll understand what a clicfest is, especially when you have to try multiple times for some containers... You'll hate that before the end of the site, and it is only the FIRST site you've done. So, when you "hear" things about nullsec hacking minigame, I experienced them. And believe me, they achieved to do the only thing that can be actually worse than cycling a module and waiting for it to trigger. G££ <= Me
Eraza Fuzzyness Enterprizes 73	Posted - 2013.08.29 13:34:00 - [635] - Quote Altrue wrote: Eraza wrote: Altrue wrote: Stuff the minigame is not that bad, the civilian sites in training are of course effortless, it gets a little challenging on other empire sites(enough to be kind of fun actually), and i hear those null sec hacking minigames are actually VERY hard Well imagine in wormhole space where the sites weren't redone, and every container with this ridiculously tiny amount of loot is a hard minigame. How much container do you have in null ? If I recall correctly, around five. Now in wormhole it's more around fifteen. Believe me, just run ONE data site in a wormhole C4 or more, and you'll understand what a clicfest is, especially when you have to try multiple times for some containers... You'll hate that before the end of the site, and it is only the FIRST site you've done. So, when you "hear" things about nullsec hacking minigame, I experienced them. And believe me, they achieved to do the only thing that can be actually worse than cycling a module and waiting for it to trigger. yeah, HATE the click fest, especially when most of the clicks end up giving me data sheets and coal, and such nonsence, trade goods so worthless it's actually worth LESS then the same m3 of T1 ammo it makes me feel like i'm going through the npc's garbage, hoping they accidentally threw something useful out with their trash.. like i'm one of the "can people" i see going through MY garbage, hoping i threw out soda cans.. Return varied color to Gallente ships! not everything looks good in DARK GREEN!
Cheng Musana BetaMax Beta 1	Posted - 2013.08.29 22:59:00 - [636] - Quote Im constantly running sites in null and i got perfect skills for relic sites. I barely fail at them using a covert ops frigate but its getting tired to do the minigame. Its just annoying that after all the work you have done (scanning and then doing a clickfest) that you actually have to pick the scatter containers up. Couldnt we just simply grab the stuff out of the can instead? My arm starts to hurt after doing lots of sites. I would prefer it if we just do it the old fashion way and sit there and wait. I allready have to pay attention to local, d-scan and on top the mini game and loot mechanics.
Vladimir Norkoff Income Redistribution Service 254	Posted - 2013.09.07 10:47:00 - [637] - Quote Bumping for GREAT JUSTICE. And hopes that Devs will give us some sort of feedback on whether or not Exploration will be addressed substantially in the Winter update.
Owen Levanth Federated Deep Space Explorations 2	Posted - 2013.09.17 16:55:00 - [638] - Quote The minigame isn't too bad, even if I could easily live without it. The loot spew mechanic weirds me out, though. I like to pretend to be a space archaeologist and I keep thinking about how strange it is to analyze let's say an old Talocan wreck only for it to suddenly vomit stuff into space. That's just absurd. The mad clickfest to catch the cans is just the icing on the **** sundae for me. The trash items like carbon or data sheets are another thing. Wouldn't it be neat if instead of finding useless junk you could find some kind of lore item relating to what you are analyzing? Like if you analyze old Angel remnants, some of the trash could be stuff like a short diary from some long-dead Angel pirate or you could find something about the history of the Talocan by analyzing something left from them. For all I care, you could just randomly replace some of the junk inside a can with a lore item, that way even if you click the wrong can or are just plain unlucky, you could at least have something more interesting then a bunch of old hydrogen batteries. The lore items would spice up the game, even outside of the exploration-business: Years from now you could theoretically find some player willing to pay high prices for a rare lore item, just so they can finish their collection. No-one would pay for a bucket of coal, though. Even though both are equally worthless ISK-wise. Just a random idea I had.
Orakkus Winds of Dawn Kraken. 178	Posted - 2013.09.17 17:29:00 - [639] - Quote Owen Levanth wrote: The trash items like carbon or data sheets are another thing. Wouldn't it be neat if instead of finding useless junk you could find some kind of lore item relating to what you are analyzing? Like if you analyze old Angel remnants, some of the trash could be stuff like a short diary from some long-dead Angel pirate or you could find something about the history of the Talocan by analyzing something left from them. For all I care, you could just randomly replace some of the junk inside a can with a lore item, that way even if you click the wrong can or are just plain unlucky, you could at least have something more interesting then a bunch of old hydrogen batteries. The lore items would spice up the game, even outside of the exploration-business: Years from now you could theoretically find some player willing to pay high prices for a rare lore item, just so they can finish their collection. No-one would pay for a bucket of coal, though. Even though both are equally worthless ISK-wise. Just a random idea I had. While I have no problem with the mini-game or even the spew mechanic (good tech = good pressurization..), I do think the CCP devs working on Hacking/Archaeology need to figure out something other than junk in the cans.. at least not as much. Typically, while I operate Relic/Data sites in null-sec, this is my thought process after I scan a wreck: A.) Always go for parts because that group drop the most useful items, i.e. T1 and T2 Rig Materials or Datacores and Invention codes (forgot what those purple discs are called). B.) If there is a decent BPC (pretty rare) then hit Data containers. C.) If there isn't any decent BPCs, then go after Material Containers which also include T1 and T2 Rig materials or parts to build analyzers. D.) Always ignore Scrap and Equipment containers. Usually I get 90% of a potential payout a particular location has, so inviting a friend to help doesn't really net me any bonus.. in fact, I lose money. What I would love to see would be that scrap and equipment containers contain something of value. Maybe they could contain a single faction weapon, or DUST infantry parts. Valuable, and worth enough to click on, but not so valueable that I ignore materials and parts containers either. It would be nice too for a random "treasure" container to drop from time to time, maybe call it a "lockbox", something that you can pick up but can only open in station. Inside might be something cool, or it might be of little real in game value. Oh, and please do something about the number of Analyzer BPCs.. they are still way too much.
DeMichael Crimson Republic University Minmatar Republic 11594	Posted - 2013.09.20 03:43:00 - [640] - Quote I didn't bother to read all the replies in this thread but from the few I did read, seems I'm not the only one who thinks the Odyssey expansion has dumbed down and nerfed exploration all the way back to the stone age. DMC

Damien Labonte Empty Skies Industrial 0	Posted - 2013.09.30 17:39:00 - [641] - Quote I'm a new player, but from what I've seen so far, it would be nice if the cans showed up in the overview... If they do and I just haven't figured out how yet, can you let me know? "There is the sky, which is all men's together." -Euripides
Ruskarn Andedare Lion Investments 274	Posted - 2013.10.07 10:58:00 - [642] - Quote Damien Labonte wrote: I'm a new player, but from what I've seen so far, it would be nice if the cans showed up in the overview... If they do and I just haven't figured out how yet, can you let me know? Sorry to say they don't
Aeonidis Boss Hog and Son Industrial Consortium 0	Posted - 2013.11.04 03:03:00 - [643] - Quote DeMichael Crimson wrote: I didn't bother to read all the replies in this thread but from the few I did read, seems I'm not the only one who thinks the Odyssey expansion has dumbed down and nerfed exploration all the way back to the stone age. DMC I kinda feel like CCP just hit me on the nose with a rolled up newspaper...scanning=waste of ingame time now. Far too random to make any real ISK, too dangerous in low/null for the reward(I'm risking a 25-30mil cov-ops and fittings for petes sakes...for 3000 ISK of junk?!?), complete waste of time in highsec(Don't do it...just...don't...do it). mingame actually makes me angry...used to be when I found a data/relic site I got really excited now I just ignore them completely. aeon
Fred Flintst0ne Deep South Confederate Rebel Corp 0	Posted - 2013.11.04 04:42:00 - [644] - Quote THE NEW HACKING SUCKS> CHANGE IT BACK< EVERYONE I KNOW HATES IT!
PopeUrban El Expedicion 58	Posted - 2013.11.04 09:36:00 - [645] - Quote Aeonidis wrote: DeMichael Crimson wrote: I didn't bother to read all the replies in this thread but from the few I did read, seems I'm not the only one who thinks the Odyssey expansion has dumbed down and nerfed exploration all the way back to the stone age. DMC I kinda feel like CCP just hit me on the nose with a rolled up newspaper...scanning=waste of ingame time now. Far too random to make any real ISK, too dangerous in low/null for the reward(I'm risking a 25-30mil cov-ops and fittings for petes sakes...for 3000 ISK of junk?!?), complete waste of time in highsec(Don't do it...just...don't...do it). mingame actually makes me angry...used to be when I found a data/relic site I got really excited now I just ignore them completely. aeon You're doing it wrong. Really... really wrong. Our two man crews make ~5 mil from sites we consider "bad" in null. A "jackpot site" can be worth 500mil+ You need to meet faster hackers, learn which cans to click, and start organizing expeditions better overall. In fact, there are only two qualities not related to general wormhole/null survival I would say separate good exploration crews from bad ones these days. Player hacking speed, and anomoly cataloging efficiency. If you pair one really good hacker/scooper with one really good hauler/scanner that can keep notes on multiple systems worth of anoms and direct the hacker... there's a buttload of money to be made violating other people's sovereignity. Done right, with only two pilots, it's a very fast paced and profitable enterprise. Done wrong, you take 60+ seconds per hack, don't cargo scan cans, scan down all your own sites, click scrap cans, and go home with 3000 ISK of carbon and data sheets. Also, having a dedicated faction BPC production specialist on staff doesn't hurt when you're getting the best bang for your exploration buck ;) Like everything in EVE, this works better with teamwork, organization, and good operational planning. Where it's better is that there is very much a time/ISK skill component to hacking now, coupled with the luck that has always been inherant in the systems. Better still, the annoying requirement of sitting around waiting for salvagers to cycle is over. Exploration, even when you're solo scanning your own sites, is 100% DOING THINGS. I'd like to see more node types added to the minigame, and maybe some controls on "extreme failure" rolls (Like every resto node on grid past 1 should guarantee a useful counter-node somewhere) or a loot versus time component added, so better/faster hacks spit bonus cans or something. In addition, Hacking support modules would be nice to go along with the scanning support modules added in Odyssey..
Photon Ceray The Scope Gallente Federation 182	Posted - 2013.11.04 10:54:00 - [646] - Quote the "mini can" "scatter" "mechanic" is the dumbest thing i've seen in any game. there are no words to describe how retared it is. i beat the freaking dumb mini game, i should be able to get all the stuff inside. this retared mechanic didn't actually encourage any "team play" as they call it, nobody ever brought a "friend" just sit there and wait and to click on the **** cans in space. if someone ever brings a friend it's to hack 2 cans at the same time, not sit there like a cow waiting for the grass to grow - aka mini-cans. furthermore, they're mostly a waste of time. the risk/reward ration has decreased a ton. i suggest the CCP stops implementing half-assed features that take a 12 years old kid 5 minutes to come up with. think about MEANINGFUL GAMEPLAY, longevity, creativity, originality, FUN, because you completely fail at all those aspects. i am sure you're familiar with the saying "people love everything about eve except playing it", do something about that if you want your game to survive in the long term.
Tzar Sinak Mythic Heights 60	Posted - 2013.11.04 15:31:00 - [647] - Quote I do not care for the mini game but I can live with it. Although I do well solo with the loot spew mechanic, the spew for successful hack, is downright awful. It was bad when on SiSi for the first time and is still bad. Please remove the loot spew.
epicurus ataraxia Broken Wheel Mercantile and Trading Company Illusion of Solitude 89	Posted - 2013.11.04 20:27:00 - [648] - Quote Tzar Sinak wrote: I do not care for the mini game but I can live with it. Although I do well solo with the loot spew mechanic, the spew for successful hack, is downright awful. It was bad when on SiSi for the first time and is still bad. Please remove the loot spew. Agreed 100% Loot spew is beyond any saving,cannot even count the ways it is bad.
Jake Shifter Caldari Provisions Caldari State 4	Posted - 2013.11.08 17:19:00 - [649] - Quote Here's my two cents on this obviously inflamatory subject. 1. Loot scattering is an interesting new idea, and somewhat worth implementing, however it has not been done right. Cans need to have balanced loot, im noticing certain kinds of cans only have crap. But better things in Data, MAterials and Equipment types. Maybe implement a system where on warping to the site, it automatically calculates the four or five best drops, and either places them IN the wrecks when you're done hacking, like a normal CC, or have it as a guarenteed pickup, maybe add it to the inventory once it detects the cans have all either been picked or despawned. That way your're getting more bang for your buck, and can pick up the cans for what YOU wan, not having to worry as much for collecting crap loot.
Scuzzy Logic Midnight Elites United Federation of Commerce 55	Posted - 2013.11.08 18:43:00 - [650] - Quote Fred Flintst0ne wrote: THE NEW HACKING SUCKS> CHANGE IT BACK< EVERYONE I KNOW HATES IT! Let me assure you: Everyone you don't know hates it too, except for people working at CCP. This is why the new sites are basically the old sites, minus probing.

Batelle Komm susser Tod 301	Posted - 2013.11.08 19:22:00 - [651] - Quote DeMichael Crimson wrote: I didn't bother to read all the replies in this thread but from the few I did read, seems I'm not the only one who thinks the Odyssey expansion has dumbed down and nerfed exploration all the way back to the stone age. DMC you and i flamed eachother a bit over this pre-odyssey I believe. You're still wrong. probe formations and simultaneous probe launch- Very good DSPs removed - pretty much good, although some aspects of DSPs were good Signatures/anomalies available on entering system - depends who you are, imo good for the game ship scanner doesn't lose results - good (this always bothered me, we're in hyper-advanced spaceships) quicker identification of sig type - good shift grav signatures to anomalies, also ice belt change - good T3's out of hisec exploration - Good i guess. Clearly this was not as bad as the pre-odyssey crying indicated hacking minigame, especially removing NPCs from data/relic - good loot scatter - godawful WTF CCP whoever thought of this should stop smoking crack. Please iterate and make can-type identifiable without mousing over, add scatter-able containers to overview already or something. Or better yet remove it entirely. I assume this is some horrible anti-botting measure, if the point of this was really to encourage bringing multiple characters into a profession site then you guys are dumb and don't know anything about explorers.
Meyr SiN Corp Advent of Fate 128	Posted - 2013.11.09 07:54:00 - [652] - Quote The fact that there is now damned near zero learning curve in Exploration is disappointing. Sure it helps to have good skills, but the reward for devoting months of training time to acquiring good skills, and learning how to utilize them? Pretty much nada, zip, zilch, nothing. Train Racial Frigate to V. Train Cov Ops to IV. Train all Scanning Skills to III Train Mini-Game Skills to IV Beyond this point, there is not simply diminishing returns, there's vanishing returns. Re-work Exploration so that, at some point, it actually rewards your dedication in some tangible manner. Access to better sites requiring Lvl V skills, better loot chances, something. Right now, it's "Fit Analyzers, Cargo Scanner, probe launcher, cloak, MWD, and cargo expanders. Add one of each type of T1 mini-game rig. Off to the races." Sure, I can use T2 modules, but, for anyone who can do basic math, they're largely unnecessary. There's no real incentive any more, in terms of a tangible benefit, to devoting anything beyond minimal training time to Exploration. Not only that, it's BORING! Scan, hack, grab the two or three decent cans, move along, rinse & repeat. A Cov Ops accompanied by a Blockade Runner has absolutely nothing to fear in these sites. Just think about what I've written. You went too far with the changes, going from Impossible except for a few devoted to the trade (I was one of them) to "Heck with it, everyone's invited!" Also, the loot spew is just stupid. The only thing it does is irritate people. Repeatedly. Not a good example of thinking the whole process through.
Mipe Kamach University of Caille Gallente Federation 6	Posted - 2013.11.20 10:33:00 - [653] - Quote Came back from a hiatus. I see they still haven't addressed the loot spew joke. Disappointing.
Lady Naween Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel 304	Posted - 2013.11.25 21:31:00 - [654] - Quote Mipe Kamach wrote: Came back from a hiatus. I see they still haven't addressed the loot spew joke. Disappointing. You should know it takes a lot to get CCP to change their stance on something they thing is brilliant. nevermind most of us are letting them know at every turn: loot spew is bleep we dont want it.
Vladimir Norkoff Income Redistribution Service 310	Posted - 2014.01.12 22:41:00 - [655] - Quote Bump Cuz while CCP may have forgotten... we never will.
Cryo Kool Tax Holiday 25	Posted - 2014.01.13 10:37:00 - [656] - Quote Few things. 1) Rats are still present in the highsec static cosmos plexes. This isn't a huge deal but not being able to resize the hacking window inhibits my ability to monitor my ship and keep doing damage to the rat spawns. These particular rats respawn on a timer and depending on the particular site can be significant incoming damage. 2) Loot spew mechanic present in highsec static cosmos plexes that still contain rats. This is an issue because it adds another hurdle in collecting the items while trying to manage ship health and fighting respawning rats. It also causes a 50% chance to miss a high value rare item that is confirmed to appear in a random spew container. I have repeated this hundreds of time using two toons and verified that "Takmahl quantum sphere" can appear in any of the spew containers regardless of name. For a single player running the site this has effectively reduced their income by 50% over pre-spew mechanic. 3) Cans near structures can spew containers towards the structure and out of range of the ship. Port Maphante in Garisas system, to the far right of the room nestled into a corner against a structure, actually has a container that you cannot even get within range of to hack. I have tried burrowing through the structure with AB/MWD from every angle possible and the closest I have gotten to it is 7700m. The only possible way this could be accessed would be using an Echelon with the Purloined Sansha Codebreaker (10km range) but you would need logi support to keep the ship alive and still would not be able to collect the spew containers as they would need to travel 4700m toward you to be within the 3000m tractor range. I have scanned the container and it contains no special loot as compared to the other containers.
Aivlis Eldelbar Ubuntu Inc. The Fourth District 7	Posted - 2014.01.15 23:29:00 - [657] - Quote My 0.02isk on the state of nullsec exploration as of the current date: -Data sites are worthless right now, I no longer fit Data Analyzers. I am yet to scan a Data can and regret not having the module after months of exploration. -The loot spew is... tolerable. It increases the vulnerability of an exploration ship while they try to grab the loot, and if you know what you're after you can almost always get it all. And it still does feel like you're being punished by it, rather than rewarded for being successful at hacking the can; maybe we could get rid of it if you open a can on the first try? Since there isn't enough isk there to justify more than one player doing the site, I'd say it fails at forcing player cooperation. It would also be nice if the can types were a bit more meaningful; I mostly go for Materials/Parts, and they both contain the same stuff, while Scraps/Equipment are worthless 99% of the time. Data is situational, since you will always know if it's worth going for those or not, which oddly makes it the only can type that serves a distinct function. -The minigame is ok, but needs some tweaks. I certainly enjoy it more that the old orbiting a can waiting for a salvager cycle to succeed, but it really gets frustrating sometimes. My main source of annoyement are Restoration Nodes: other subs you can find and then decide on the best course of action, but these you need to kill asap, always, so they are essentially an automatic hit to your coherence that you can't avoid, because you don't see them coming. Where the rest of the minigame feels like you can strategically solve, Restoration Nodes devolve into a by-the-numbers head-bashing session. All amplified by the fact that the games is sometimes full of them, so it's just a matter of having enough coherence to grind through them all, which seems out of place in EVE. This becomes even more of an issue in ghost sites, where failing a hack means taking a substantial hit from the can, so I rather dislike failing because the RNG threw a ton of these things at me. The easiest way to solve this would be to implement a cap on how much they can heal other subs, maybe 1.5x or 2x their original health? That would give us the decision: do I want to bash this thing straight up, or can I afford to look around a bit, since it can only do so much? Right now it can make you lose the game unless you headbutt it asap. The rest of the game is quite well done, with different utilities sinergizing nicely with subs, and more than one solution to most problems -The payout overall is fine for the time invested, though a bit on the low-end due to more people doing these sites than before. Data needs a buff, as do the Ghost Site loot tables; I've been to quite a few already that had nothing but tools, which begs the question: why would anyone risk a ship worth millions (the only kind that can do those with some safety) for such horrid payouts? You can always be sure of what's in there before npcs spawn, and just leave if it's not worth the try. I must add it's nice that's that's the case, since being scrammed before you see all there is is some trit and 10 tools would be absolute bs.
Rivr Luzade Coreli Corporation Ineluctable. 169	Posted - 2014.01.16 12:17:00 - [658] - Quote How are Data Sites worthless? For me they provide up to 30M ISK/site for even less effort than Relic sites because you only need to concentrate on 1 single can if you follow your cargo scan results. They also provide me with free data cores and decryptors (don't even start with opportunity cost. They need to be factored into the calculations like any other material, but you didn't pay for them on the market, thus giving you some more leeway on price dumping.) The loot spew is -- while irritating at times in certain regions where the nebula makes it hard to see the green cans -- very enjoyable. More than one player also is definitely not necessary if you follow your cargo scan. You'll lose some cans, but the vast majority is claimable, even without the Poteque hardwirings to increase the decay time. Apart from Material/Parts in Relics and Parts only in Datas you can just ignore the rest until you have all the desirable cans and then go to the next hacking container. Again Cargo Scanners are mandatory. If you don't cargo scan the hackable container, don't complain that you miss out on loot. The minigame is the best new feature of all in Odyssey, even beating the streamlined probing. As you said, it's a lot more enjoyable than the mere sitting on a can, watching the analyzer go round after round and not achieving anything. Frustration is part of this game, not just the minigame. If Restoration Nodes annoy you, destroy as many as you can, and leave the rest. I for myself find those defensive measure that reduce the Attack Points of your virus more annoying. But I don't care much about it. If there are too many RN (I sometimes encounter 6 on one grid, that's a blast I tell you. ) or of the other mentioned defenses, I just leave them and explore as much of the grid as possible. If it turns out that I cannot hack the minigame and I lose the can, so be it. You cannot expect that you get everything served to you on the silver platter in EVE. Sometimes you lose things, sometimes you are lucky and get it all. In case of the Ghost Sites it is similar. You land and cargo scan the cans you see. If there is no good BPC inside, you just leave and don't risk your ship. If you have a can with a good BPC, you go there as quickly as possible, hack the can, take the goodies and leave. If there are 2 containers with good BPC, you need to make a decision: only take one or risk your life. The payout is a bit limited, that's true, but you are by no means in any danger of losing your ship if you don't get too greedy (unless of course you are unlucky in the hacking process). Again, you must not expect to gain everything the game offers you on the banquet: You are to take what you can, and if you are not able to carry everything, you need to try again later and improve. Payout cannot be increased by CCP by adding more things to the exploration sites. If Datas/Relics give more loot, prices will just drop even further. Less than expected people use the Ascendancy Implants so more BPCs of those would also only result in lower prices. So, if the payout is not in your favor, just leave the Ghost Site and it vanishes without putting you at risk. If you find a Relic/Data site that is not profitable enough, leave it alone completely and move on, or run it completely and make another one spawn somewhere else. The worst tactics of all those whiners I've encountered so far is only doing these sites halfway, leaving the bad containers intact and so blocking spawn of possibly better sites for the constellation/region. It's griefing, of course, but if I then read posts like yours, I cannot help but to run to the toilet and puke. This hypocrisy is inconceivable. So, all in all, you need to make decisions, which is an intended feature of the new systems, whether it is which cans to grab or which sites to run. It's a good foundation for interesting new features in the future. Especially the minigame should find more application in other areas. Payout depends on players, not primarily on CCP. Players like to destroy prices in the markets, not CCP; henceforth their collective fault for not getting desired payouts in exploration. Risk is also up to the player. CCP gave us choices, you have to decide on them. Also the mindset that everyone is entitled to get everything out of what the game offers needs to change. You cannot expect that, it's simply stupid and childish.
Altrue Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective 861	Posted - 2014.01.17 10:08:00 - [659] - Quote Scuzzy Logic wrote: Fred Flintst0ne wrote: THE NEW HACKING SUCKS> CHANGE IT BACK< EVERYONE I KNOW HATES IT! Let me assure you: Everyone you don't know hates it too, except for people working at CCP. This is why the new sites are basically the old sites, minus probing. The hacking has two things that I hate a lot, and that oddly enough are only mostly found in cheap pay-to-win smartphone games : 1- Clickfest 2- Luck-based result. Clickfest : The scattering mechanic has added nothing to the gameplay and has never been what the player asked for. The hacking minigame just asks for people to click again and again and again... If you've ever run ghost sites you know what I'm talking about. Poor mouse. And I thought that you had learned something with PI :D Luck-based result : Sure there is some slight decision macking by choosing when to activate your bonuses and if you open containers or not. But for most part it is luck... and this is bad. And I'm not even mentionning Wormhole sites, in which the minigame has been added WITHOUT reducing the number of cans. Seriously this is bad too, and I mean it, B-A-D ;D I'm signature tanking !
Rivr Luzade Coreli Corporation Ineluctable. 171	Posted - 2014.01.17 12:38:00 - [660] - Quote How is luck based bad? And it is not just since Odyssey luck based; in contrast it also was luck based before. Moreover, I really like to click a lot over a grid and be done with the hacking in under 5 minutes than having to wait 15 minutes on a can and watch my hacker run mad circles without any result. And again I have to stress that, if you use a Cargo Scanner, you don't have any luck involved in the looting. Only the grid can be in bad favor.

Cryo Kool Tax Holiday 26	Posted - 2014.01.21 13:22:00 - [661] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: How is luck based bad? And it is not just since Odyssey luck based; in contrast it also was luck based before. Moreover, I really like to click a lot over a grid and be done with the hacking in under 5 minutes than having to wait 15 minutes on a can and watch my hacker run mad circles without any result. I don't know your specific skill levels but those two times are massive exaggerations for any suitably skilled pilot. I was using the T2 analyzers prior to the hacking game and never had a can go longer than 90 seconds. The vast majority of them were 30-40 seconds or less. Incidentally, after the introduction of the mini game, I can clear even the hardest tier mini games in under 30 seconds; with the mid tier ones being under 15 seconds and lowest tier is always under 8 seconds. Notable changes, I can often finish a mini game faster than a single cycle of the mod. Also, I use less capacitor accessing containers as you can immediately deactivate the mod once the mini game window appears; regardless of how long it takes to complete it. I have used this as an access denial tactic, leaving the window open for upwards of half an hour while I am alt-tabbing my other toon. Something you forget with the luck aspect is that a single person cannot get all the scatter containers. This means that rare drops that can appear in ANY mini container regardless of name, can be missed by a player effectively reducing their site income by 50%. Private message me if you want a really specific, easily repeatable, example of this; 'Bailey' 1600mm Reinforced Steel Plate is a big hint.
Cryo Kool Tax Holiday 26	Posted - 2014.01.21 13:34:00 - [662] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: . Again Cargo Scanners are mandatory. If you don't cargo scan the hackable container, don't complain that you miss out on loot. Since you are using two mid slots already (scanner, analyzer), why didn't you ever use two analyzers before the minigame? 2 T2 analyzers meant I rarely ever went more than a single cycle without a can opening. The only thing that has changed for me is that there are 50 more clicks involved and I now miss half my loot while alone. The loot tables for the sites I run were not updated to account for the fact that you now miss half the containers. The high value drops in those sites do not follow the mini container naming convention either. Opening in excess of 3000 containers in those sites while using two toons has extensively verified that the high value item appears in a random can. I suppose this could be a marketing ploy by CCP, as I now have no choice but to keep my 2nd account subscribed to maintain my pre-minigame income in those sites.
Rivr Luzade Coreli Corporation Ineluctable. 182	Posted - 2014.01.21 14:45:00 - [663] - Quote Cryo Kool wrote: Rivr Luzade wrote: . Again Cargo Scanners are mandatory. If you don't cargo scan the hackable container, don't complain that you miss out on loot. Since you are using two mid slots already (scanner, analyzer), why didn't you ever use two analyzers before the minigame? 2 T2 analyzers meant I rarely ever went more than a single cycle without a can opening. The only thing that has changed for me is that there are 50 more clicks involved and I now miss half my loot while alone. The loot tables for the sites I run were not updated to account for the fact that you now miss half the containers. The high value drops in those sites do not follow the mini container naming convention either. Opening in excess of 3000 containers in those sites while using two toons has extensively verified that the high value item appears in a random can. I suppose this could be a marketing ploy by CCP, as I now have no choice but to keep my 2nd account subscribed to maintain my pre-minigame income in those sites. Before I was lucky if I survived certain Data/Relic sites and used the mids of my Tengu for tank instead of analyzing power. I also had and still don't have 2 chars for that job, it is absolutely not necessary. I also still don't have T2 analyzer nor plan to have in the near future, simply because T1 is sufficient in all cases except for W-space. Also, to my shame I have to admit that I didn't know Cargo Scanners worked on those cans until Odyssey, but then again it was pointless anyways before Ody to scan them. I also don't understand how you can miss half of the scatter cans. My rate is 100% in most sites and only very rarely drops down to 80% when I am unlucky with the spew direction. Other than that I concentrate only on those cans that are of value to me and leave all the rest aside. The drops always follow the same simple pattern (for now): everything good is only and exclusively in Parts Cans, with the exception for the rare Faction BPC in Data Cans; the only good stuff in Relic Sites is in Parts and Material cans, where the T2/T1 distribution can vary a bit, with the exception for the rare Faction BPC in Data Cans. What is so difficult with it to only tractor these cans in and ignore the other cans? If there was even more loot in the cans, prices would only drop even further and decrease your income per site more.
Vladimir Norkoff Income Redistribution Service 310	Posted - 2014.01.22 23:27:00 - [664] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: The drops always follow the same simple pattern (for now): everything good is only and exclusively in Parts Cans, with the exception for the rare Faction BPC in Data Cans; the only good stuff in Relic Sites is in Parts and Material cans, where the T2/T1 distribution can vary a bit, with the exception for the rare Faction BPC in Data Cans. What is so difficult with it to only tractor these cans in and ignore the other cans? COSMOS sites use a slightly different mechanic. As he stated numerous times. It is completely random which can the loot shows up in - maybe it's in Parts this time, maybe it's Data, maybe it's Scraps. You just don't know. Hence, his frustration.
Rivr Luzade Coreli Corporation Ineluctable. 185	Posted - 2014.01.23 08:09:00 - [665] - Quote Vladimir Norkoff wrote: Rivr Luzade wrote: The drops always follow the same simple pattern (for now): everything good is only and exclusively in Parts Cans, with the exception for the rare Faction BPC in Data Cans; the only good stuff in Relic Sites is in Parts and Material cans, where the T2/T1 distribution can vary a bit, with the exception for the rare Faction BPC in Data Cans. What is so difficult with it to only tractor these cans in and ignore the other cans? COSMOS sites use a slightly different mechanic. As he stated numerous times. It is completely random which can the loot shows up in - maybe it's in Parts this time, maybe it's Data, maybe it's Scraps. You just don't know. Hence, his frustration. You are right, I have skipped this COSMOS part for some reason, and I have to admit that have not yet tried COSMOS sites. I think, however, that this random spawn is intended by CCP, since they are special sites. Has CCP already rejected a bug report regarding these sites? Also, have you tried the Poteque 'Prospector' Environmental Analysis EY-1005? It certainly does not solve the problem with the random appearing of the item, but 5 seconds more time before the cans decay can be quite valuable.
Cryo Kool Tax Holiday 26	Posted - 2014.02.01 10:09:00 - [666] - Quote Rivr Luzade wrote: Vladimir Norkoff wrote: Rivr Luzade wrote: The drops always follow the same simple pattern (for now): everything good is only and exclusively in Parts Cans, with the exception for the rare Faction BPC in Data Cans; the only good stuff in Relic Sites is in Parts and Material cans, where the T2/T1 distribution can vary a bit, with the exception for the rare Faction BPC in Data Cans. What is so difficult with it to only tractor these cans in and ignore the other cans? COSMOS sites use a slightly different mechanic. As he stated numerous times. It is completely random which can the loot shows up in - maybe it's in Parts this time, maybe it's Data, maybe it's Scraps. You just don't know. Hence, his frustration. You are right, I have skipped this COSMOS part for some reason, and I have to admit that have not yet tried COSMOS sites. I think, however, that this random spawn is intended by CCP, since they are special sites. Has CCP already rejected a bug report regarding these sites? Also, have you tried the Poteque 'Prospector' Environmental Analysis EY-1005? It certainly does not solve the problem with the random appearing of the item, but 5 seconds more time before the cans decay can be quite valuable. Yes, I have and use the implant. I assure you my technique is flawless with collecting the scatter cans. The simple fact is, it spews ~15 mini cans in cosmos sites. There is no way for a single player to get more than ~60% of the cans even with the implant. The can loot tables did not change with the addition of the mini game. Site income has as a result dropped 40-50% for a solo player.
Quinn Corvez Probe Patrol Awakened. 198	Posted - 2014.02.03 18:08:00 - [667] - Quote The hacking minigame is just a game of chance, blined clicking and brute force, which does not create any meaningful/rewarding feedback. To improve the game, show people where the core (the goal) at the beginning and make it a game about navigating a booby-traped to get to the core.
Batelle Komm susser Tod 1554	Posted - 2014.02.03 18:18:00 - [668] - Quote Biggest issue with loot spew is that there is no way to differentiate can-types without mousing over them first. I have to mouse over all the cans constantly to make sure I grabbed all the 'parts' cans, etc. Can scatter containers (the ones you pickup, not the ones you hack) be added to the overview? this would go a long way to making collection easier. Auto-locking overview will help ensure misclicks are few and far between. "CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!" Never forget.
Vladimir Norkoff Income Redistribution Service 323	Posted - 2014.02.18 18:27:00 - [669] - Quote Bumping for GREAT JUSTICE and the hope that some day, in some way, CCP will correct the horrible things they did to exploration. Never forgive, never forget!
seth Hendar I love you miners 464	Posted - 2014.02.19 15:03:00 - [670] - Quote Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote: Eraza wrote: Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote: Yay, and then it turns you just clicked on the garbage can, of them all... Anyway I haven't seen anyone suggest that hisec exploration is a good career for noobs, and I doubt it was intended to be such. Both SP and money wise, everything else hisec is more profitable. that's a point though, it's hard(sp wise) AND pointless, um, why is it there then? surely it's SUPPOSED to be worth the time for SOMEONE? i'm thinking some balance changes elsewere messed it up I think that it was modified as something people does on top of something else. On its own it's a dirt poor activity unless you already are living in lowsec/nullsec and have access to worthier exploration content just because you're there. I can't picture anyone bothering to go out of hisec just to find better exploration content. even in low there is no point running those, you will make better isk just ratting 5 belts or any combat anom the current explo is bad, minigame is god awefull, the loot bukkake is terrible design and it doesn't grant any kind of isk. highsec ones are worst, and WH are clearly not worth the time since the loot is less valuable now, there are still rats in them, and there are still as many container

hydraSlav Synergy Evolved 32	Posted - 2014.02.21 03:59:00 - [671] - Quote I love the mini-game (not the loot collection, that is terrible, but the concept of a mini-game is great). It's better than sitting there waiting for random failure chance on a modules cycle People have been begging for AGES to give a more "involved" gameplay to tasks that are otherwise left to "activate module and wait". Everyone's solution to AFK miners and botters is to give them something simple yet requiring human intervention to do. Imagine if mining required a similar mini-game where you had to navigate around the very dense asteroid spots to get to the ore. Everyone's solution to AFK cloakers is to give them something to do that requires someone present at the computer. Imagine is the cloaking module required a similar mini-game where you have to re-route cooling around your systems to keep the cloak engaged. Hell, even Battleclinic has this new "flash-mini-game" captcha that is simple yet requires a human to do. This is great to prevent all sorts of AFK and botters. People have been begging CCP for something like this. CCP is doing a trial-run on exploration, and now you all ***** and moan Yes, drops could be better. Yes, the loot collection could be better. But the mini-game is just what EvE needs.
SghnDubh BattleClinic 17	Posted - 2014.02.22 14:30:00 - [672] - Quote Minigames need variety. I cannot stand playing the same mini-game repeatedly. Mass Effect 2 is the perfect example of how NOT to do it. Killboard, Loadouts, PLEX and EVEMon at BattleClinic
Jinn Aideron 22	Posted - 2014.03.05 19:41:00 - [673] - Quote Hacking minigame is fun, nicely tiered in difficulty, and while bad luck can get the better of you, it's far from being a dice-roll. It is probabilistic. And you increase your chances with in-game and out-of-game skills, and strategy. Hence, it is as it should be. As for the loot spew, I always thought this added a nice touch of flying skills and spatial awareness to the task. Even motivates you to revisit your fit, and maybe allow for more agility in it. Which is a good thing, allowing players to specialize and be better at a task than others. Enabling player choice. Now, one can have an argument if two different skill sets, logic of the minigame and flying+spatial skills, should be hardwired together for players to only succeed if they bring both. I'd say, that's valid game design, but it's up for personal preferences. Who doesn't enjoy easy-moding once in a while. But disentangling this will take away from the game. So, good job on the current mechanics, sans unintentional fallout for cosmos and such which can be corrected for, unhappy to see it reduced in the future. Cheers. Related forum post - DScan change on Sisi as of Feb 26! Participate in testing, and don't you dare be demanding or not constructive in your feedback! :P G¥ñ "Little Things"-á G¥ñ CCP karkur G¥ñ
seth Hendar I love you miners 491	Posted - 2014.03.07 14:32:00 - [674] - Quote hydraSlav wrote: I love the mini-game (not the loot collection, that is terrible, but the concept of a mini-game is great). It's better than sitting there waiting for random failure chance on a modules cycle People have been begging for AGES to give a more "involved" gameplay to tasks that are otherwise left to "activate module and wait". Everyone's solution to AFK miners and botters is to give them something simple yet requiring human intervention to do. Imagine if mining required a similar mini-game where you had to navigate around the very dense asteroid spots to get to the ore. Everyone's solution to AFK cloakers is to give them something to do that requires someone present at the computer. Imagine is the cloaking module required a similar mini-game where you have to re-route cooling around your systems to keep the cloak engaged. Hell, even Battleclinic has this new "flash-mini-game" captcha that is simple yet requires a human to do. This is great to prevent all sorts of AFK and botters. People have been begging CCP for something like this. CCP is doing a trial-run on exploration, and now you all ***** and moan Yes, drops could be better. Yes, the loot collection could be better. But the mini-game is just what EvE needs. so CCP answer to something ppl ask is to not deliver it where ppl want, and kill one of the only thing that was working and player never complained about, ruining month of training and subs. how clever.....


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.