...

The loot distribution would have to be completely random or the failure loot spew would have to contain only a small amount of the full loot for this to be even remotely viable. Otherwise a character with nothing but a rookie ship and basic scanning/hacking skills could head out to null and make hundreds of millions by just failing on purpose and grabbing the valuable loot anyhow.

dont revert the doubled rewards, but make the sites immune to cargo scanner, so players cant pick the cream of the crop but have to work for it by hacking all containers to see what is in them.

Heres how i could see this working: each can requires 2 attempts. if you fail once, you get loot spew with only 50% of the loot. if you fail both, the can blows up and you get nothing. if you win both, you get 100% of the loot conveniently from the container.

The problem with an influx of loot crashing Market Prices isn't due to a large amount of players doing exploration, it's due to a large amount of explorers cherry picking and blitzing exploration sites.

Instead of reducing the loot table, just remove the ability to cargo-scan the hacking containers thus requiring players to complete the entire site, not just a couple of select containers.

I agree 100%.

The problem with an influx of loot crashing Market Prices isn't due to a large amount of players doing exploration, it's due to a large amount of explorers cherry picking and blitzing exploration sites.

Instead of reducing the loot table, just remove the ability to cargo-scan the hacking containers thus requiring players to complete the entire site, not just a couple of select containers.

Expedition, DED and non-rated Combat sites should have the NPC Commanders and Overseers spawn after all other NPC defenders within the site have been destroyed.

Also acceleration gates requiring a special key for access need to have a second key type available for access. For example the Angel DED 1/10 and 2/10 sites do not have an alternate key type to access the gates like the Watch and Vigil sites have.. Speaking of the Angel DED 1/10 site, it seriously needs to have some Faction loot added to it's loot table.

Speaking of loot tables, when are Rogue Drones going to get the loot table that was promised back when you guys thought it was wise to remove Alloys and Compounds?

Anyway, I'm glad the loot spew is being removed, I never liked that mechanic. However, I still won't be doing the hacking sites due to the click fest mini hacking game.



DMC

After talking with CCP Bayesian, we think you have all made some good points and we agree with you, the 'halving' of the loot tables may be a bit harsh. We will take a look at it again and boost them a bit and get back to you with specifics :)

It's very sad to see development time wasted with the removal of the spew...

Successful attempt = No spew, all loot earned
First Failure = Spew loot
2nd Failure = Explosions!

It's very sad to see development time wasted with the removal of the spew...

Successful attempt = No spew, all loot earned
First Failure = Spew loot
2nd Failure = Explosions!

While I understand how CCP arrived at this 50% figure, being that loot was buffed when loot spew was added; i believe that this is now outdated considing how much the economy as evolved around this profession.

I do agree that with removing loot spew, some loot table nerf is necessary. However, I don't think 50% is realistic. A 10-20% nerf would be more acceptable in my view.

Most of the isk made in this profession of Relic and Data sites comes from low and null sec. Making it a high risk profession, with moderate time investment (probing, hacking, travel) on some level comparable with DED sites. Although on average, more time is spent in DED sites compared to exploration sites, while more time is spent traveling in between exploration sites than in DED sites (on average).

If CCP feels that the profit vs. effort ratio isn't correct, I believe that there are alternatives than nerfing the loot table by 50%. Nerfing the loot table by 15%, or adding new skills to the profession to increase the investment curve of the profession (Archaeology and Archaelogy Expertise for example). I heard others propose making the cans in Relic and Data sites unscannable by cargo scanners, forcing pilots to complete the whole site to make sure they got all exceptional and unique loot, thus increasing the time invested to reward ratio (this may be not as practical). The point being there are other options available.

I'm sure there are many in the exploration community that agree with me.


P.S.

While CCP is working on these sites can they please reduce the m3 size of datacores from 1m3 each to .1m3 each? I not aware of any reason why they need to be this size. I find it slightly ridiculous that in some sites I would have to have a secondary character in a hauler just to carry around the total loot of just one site (this is just the profitable loot, not counting the rest).

"I make my home in the stars, the shadows my adventure."

It's very sad to see development time wasted with the removal of the spew...

Successful attempt = No spew, all loot earned
First Failure = Spew loot
2nd Failure = Explosions!

It's very sad to see development time wasted with the removal of the spew...

Successful attempt = No spew, all loot earned
First Failure = Spew loot
2nd Failure = Explosions!

The problem with that idea is that it means there is an incentive for people who aren't interested in hacking or exploration as such to come in and fail in order to get the loot out. It's mitigatable but ultimately we'd be leaving a mechanic in that doesn't quite fit into EVE's interaction scheme.

I'm personally much more of a fan of making the reward you get out proportional to how well you complete the hack. The idea floated by someone earlier of having to find 'loot nodes' is along the same lines of future ideas for hacking (here and elsewhere) I have.

The problem with that idea is that it means there is an incentive for people who aren't interested in hacking or exploration as such to come in and fail in order to get the loot out.

I'm personally much more of a fan of making the reward you get out proportional to how well you complete the hack. The idea floated by someone earlier of having to find 'loot nodes' is along the same lines of future ideas for hacking (here and elsewhere) I have.

I'm personally much more of a fan of making the reward you get out proportional to how well you complete the hack. The idea floated by someone earlier of having to find 'loot nodes' is along the same lines of future ideas for hacking (here and elsewhere) I have.

During the lowsec roundtable at Fanfest, we were discussing the merits of lowsec, and someone said "a great thing about lowsec is that it's one of the best-connected areas of space".

I'm personally much more of a fan of making the reward you get out proportional to how well you complete the hack. The idea floated by someone earlier of having to find 'loot nodes' is along the same lines of future ideas for hacking (here and elsewhere) I have.

another possibility would be to have the loot spew depending on your coherence %. if you finished the hack above 50% health, then you get direct access. if you finished under that then you get loot spew.

It's very sad to see development time wasted with the removal of the spew...

Successful attempt = No spew, all loot earned
First Failure = Spew loot
2nd Failure = Explosions!

P.S.

While CCP is working on these sites can they please reduce the m3 size of datacores from 1m3 each to .1m3 each? I not aware of any reason why they need to be this size. I find it slightly ridiculous that in some sites I would have to have a secondary character in a hauler just to carry around the total loot of just one site (this is just the profitable loot, not counting the rest).