| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 13 post(s) |
Stalert Balakos
Fallen Angels Inc
INVICTUS.
   |
Posted - 2007.04.27 19:22:00 -
[31]
Thanks for taking the time to blog, Greyscale.
I've been enjoying playing around with exploring in the last few months but there are a few annoyances I've encountered.
The other day I tracked down two Serpentis Provisonal Outposts in a low sec (0.2) gallente system (I was looking for a radar signature that was also in there but that's another story). They were very simple, very easy deadspaces areas - neither of them escalated and neither dropped any notable loot. There was no obvious goal to complete apart from killing all the NPCs - basically it was a fairly average level 2 kill missions. So what's the point of these sites? If I wanted to run lvl 2 missions I could without the hassle of scanning down the site - and I'd get an agent mission reward as well. As it is it doesn't seem worth the time to scan down. If I'm missing something could we perhaps have a message - similar to the one you get when you warp to a static complex - that might give us a few clues as to what we have to do to get it to escalate?
Also there are far too few profession sites - I once scanned 30 low sec systems in a day and found only one radar site (which someone else was already scanning down). If you're going to continue developing exploration (and I very much hope you do), you are going to need to add many more profession sites so that we can all have a good chance of finding one in a decently long exploration session (say three hours).
And can we please have something (anything) in the profession cans rather than them just being empty half the time - it just looks like they're bugged. I got four empty cans out of five on the last hacking site I did  . Even a message saying "better luck next time" would be good.
Finally, one of the other dev blogs hinted at some exploration love for the drone regions - anything you could tell us about this?
On a personal note, if you could ensure that I get a full set of encryption skillbooks on my next exploration attempt that would be very nice of you 
Thanks again
|
Bozse
Caldari
Reikoku
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.04.27 19:23:00 -
[32]
 Originally by: CCP Greyscale
1) Signal Strength will be a very clear indicator of whether a site is meant to be found by the onboard scanner or by using exploration probes, which should let you extrapolate both how hard it will be and the level of reward you're likely to get
2) For low-end belts you'll be able to use the onboard scanner to find them, so you won't need to switch ships. For high-end stuff yes, you'll either need to scout the sites yourself first or pay someone else to do it for you. We haven't yet decided (among other things) what constitutes "low-end" or "high-end" for any particular security status though
3) Nothing regarding distribution has been finalised yet, but I'll keep that in mind
So if i got this correct if u built an outpost in a -1 system with 30 belts u will now have to have a scanning ship to find belts and there might not even be close to the 30 belts there was when u planed your investment?
Other concerns that u mentioned aswell would ofc be that the time to find people in a system will increase giving better reaction times for intended targets, i do have a hard time seeing how u will balance this but hoping on some explanation as soon as possible.
While i don't object to the static complex changes i have one issue with complexes from the get go and that is the drops same with faction and officer spawns, when u spend the time to do a complex or if ur lucky to find an officer there is an expectation to get an officer item or deadspace item and rightfully so, this is not the case as is though.
Hopefully this can be looked in to with the changes u are sugesting so that there allways is a reward for the effort / luck.
And a final bit of complaining, u say that there will be commander spawns added on occation in exploration plexes to make them more worth while, now if this would have been a year ago im sure this would have made sense but as it is today most faction items isn't realy worth that much but we have a huge lack of officer items due to capital ships beeing ideal to fit them to, so imo bump the occational commander in those plexes to include the even more occational officer and the reward ur looking for might be there (this would ofc only be in complexes in 0.0 where officers spawn)
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
EVE is designed to be a dark and harsh world
|
SamuraiJack
Caldari
Celestial Horizon Corp.
Valainaloce
|
Posted - 2007.04.27 19:24:00 -
[33]
lets see...
Nerf pirates/gankers. Check.
Nerf minings/industrialists. Check.
**** off the playerbase. Check.
All i'll say is you had better this works first time deployment. Otherwise you just nuked pretty much everyones playstyle.
I see probes and scanners becoming a new fit item permently.
Solo ganking in anything smaller than a cruiser is gone due to having to fit probes to find ppl.
WTG CCP.
SJ.
CLS Co-CEO and Standings Director
=-
|
|
CCP Greyscale
|
Posted - 2007.04.27 19:32:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Tempest Kane
I mean seriously, are you trying to KILL the small roaming gang?
If we can no longer go out with a dictor an a few ceptors, use our talent to scan down the system for people in belts within 20 seconds of been in the system and take them out, the roaming gang is done for.
Your forcing us into a box were our only major pvp option is the Blob, something you have assured us you are trying to combat.
Take a step back and look at world of w. And see how they messed up their game and then look at what your doing, and re-think it.
PVP is the heart of this game, it drives the econemy and your doing yet another step in the direction of online monopoly and blob lag warfair.
As I said in the blog, we're aware that this is a possible outcome if we're not careful, and that we will think very long and very hard about approving a design which leads to this situation, up to and including potentially canning the idea if we can't come up with a solution.
This is in fact one of the things I'm really hoping to get some good feedback about in this thread. I'm listening, talk to me!
My take is that the ideal situation would be one in which small PvP gangs can actually go out and find other small PvP gangs to engage rather than being reduced to just hunting NPCers - more challenge, more adrenaline, more fun. How we get there, I'm not sure yet, but if we can increase the number of small PvP gangs roaming around at any given time I'm hopeful that this will reduce the reliance on hunting NPCers for small gangs, which will in turn make this a less pressing issue and make the design for this change easier.
I do however fully realise that we need to ensure that small gangs can still effectively curtail their targets' money-making activities, which just scaring people into logging off for ten minutes won't do. Again, let me know what you think!
Originally by: Nifel
Question regarding changes to mining. Atm a LOT of infrastructure has been put in place for good mining systems in 0.0. What will be done to insure they still stay profitable?
We can tailor distributions by true security status, so there's no problem in scaling the value of asteroid sites with the security status. The question of numbers-of-belts is a slightly trickier one, and one we'll have to address once we start working up a proper design
Originally by: blkmajik
Can you quantify that? Are they still required to find things of significant value?
Yes. The onboard scanner will have a very hard time finding any current exploration content. To also address another question about mechanics, it's slated to use many of the same mechanics as existing exploration tools, but with a much weaker strength and no need for specialised equipment, plus various other tweaks and restrictions to keep it in line with our objectives. It'll be able to find content we specifically put in as "onboard scanner content" fairly easily (which will also be findable extremely easily with other exploration tools), but will have a very hard time finding content intended for the more specialised exploration tools.
|
|
Glaren
Eagle Inc.
Warlike Handicraft Organization
|
Posted - 2007.04.27 19:35:00 -
[35]
I think it would be great if multi-specs would show each individual signal. Especially looking at this blog where the number of exploration sites (encounters) is going to increase significantly. Anything that would help use distinguish what we are actually dealing with would be great.
This other thing that bugs me is finding a "unknown" when I thought I was zeroing in on a "radar" site. I would be nice, also, if probes showed the signal type when results are giving. Then I could easily know if I need to keep scanning to find the hacking site and just bookmark the unknown hit for finding later.
BTW, very exciting stuff in this blog.
|
Forum Alt
Caldari
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2007.04.27 19:39:00 -
[36]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
My take is that the ideal situation would be one in which small PvP gangs can actually go out and find other small PvP gangs to engage rather than being reduced to just hunting NPCers - more challenge, more adrenaline, more fun. How we get there, I'm not sure yet, but if we can increase the number of small PvP gangs roaming around at any given time I'm hopeful that this will reduce the reliance on hunting NPCers for small gangs, which will in turn make this a less pressing issue and make the design for this change easier.
I do however fully realise that we need to ensure that small gangs can still effectively curtail their targets' money-making activities, which just scaring people into logging off for ten minutes won't do. Again, let me know what you think!
Just keep in mind that PvP is fun for everyone. Ganking is not. Many people get the two confused and think they are the same thing. They are not.
|
hydraSlav
Synergy Evolved
Sparta Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.04.27 19:40:00 -
[37]
Hm... i am liking the idea of removing static belts to make mining/ratting more interesting.
==
Above comments are my personal views
Oveur >Local shouldn't be a tactical tool, it's for chat
|
hydraSlav
Synergy Evolved
Sparta Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.04.27 19:46:00 -
[38]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
This is in fact one of the things I'm really hoping to get some good feedback about in this thread. I'm listening, talk to me!
Simple. Remove list of players from local. Make it delayed by 5 minutes, or make it hidden unless a player talks.
This way, if a roaming gang comes into system, the ratter will not be alerted to them immediateness, and in the meanwhile the gang will have time to scan down the ratter.
On the other side, the guy ratting gets some perks too, cause the roaming gang coming into system won't immediately know that he is there at all, until they scan down his traces (NPC wrecks, etc) or his ship itself.
==
Above comments are my personal views
Oveur >Local shouldn't be a tactical tool, it's for chat
|
Ash Vincetti
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2007.04.27 19:54:00 -
[39]
Few concerns, and observations from exploration content.
Exploration mining
Great idea, in theory. We've done a few ops in deep 0,0 where bistot/crokite rocks were found.
Poor implementation. Particular asteroids could not be warped-to. Particular gang-mates could not be warped to. This makes the logistics of mining an exploration belt extremely tedius. You need to warp to the cosmic signature spot. Then you need to slowboat (at barge/hauler speeds) within range of the asteroid/can. Then you need to either tractor or pick up the items. Then you need to warp-off when an encounter triggers and wait for the tank to deal with the spawn. Rinse/repeat.
Good, in the sense that a potential enemy gang arrives at the warpin-point instead of on you. Bad, in the sense that it's not worth the risk for the (fairly low) reward. We found most asteroid popped after about 2K - 4K ore.
Would it be possible to make the "Common" sites, the ones that are found through the scanner, not deadspace both to differentiate from the high-end exploration content, and to aid with gang mechanics? (can warp to a particular player, can activate MWD, etc.)
/ash
-----
|
Forum Alt
Caldari
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2007.04.27 20:04:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Ash Vincetti
Few concerns, and observations from exploration content.
Exploration mining
Great idea, in theory. We've done a few ops in deep 0,0 where bistot/crokite rocks were found.
Poor implementation. Particular asteroids could not be warped-to. Particular gang-mates could not be warped to. This makes the logistics of mining an exploration belt extremely tedius. You need to warp to the cosmic signature spot. Then you need to slowboat (at barge/hauler speeds) within range of the asteroid/can. Then you need to either tractor or pick up the items. Then you need to warp-off when an encounter triggers and wait for the tank to deal with the spawn. Rinse/repeat.
Good, in the sense that a potential enemy gang arrives at the warpin-point instead of on you. Bad, in the sense that it's not worth the risk for the (fairly low) reward. We found most asteroid popped after about 2K - 4K ore.
Would it be possible to make the "Common" sites, the ones that are found through the scanner, not deadspace both to differentiate from the high-end exploration content, and to aid with gang mechanics? (can warp to a particular player, can activate MWD, etc.)
/signed.
Mining in scattered huge deadspace belts is about as fun as smashing your own fingers with a hammer. If deadspace is required then we need fewer larger roids, not smaller more numerous scattered roids.
|
|
|
Pizi
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.04.27 20:11:00 -
[41]
please also look into magnetronic sites
ther is no point doing them now at least in high , low sec
you pushed salvaging way to high
same will go for radar sites soon
_______________________________________________
EVEpedia[Deutsch/German]
add
|
Bein Glorious
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.04.27 20:14:00 -
[42]
The ideas actually sound pretty good to me. Just one thing though: Angel commanders seem to have messed-up loot tables, and has been for years. Domination NPCs tend to drop relatively disappointing stuff, like just some ammo and a low-level pirate tag, or a second-best named gyrostabilizer and such. They drop something good or even at least useful only rarely, and everybody knows that what you get is pitiful compared to what you can get from other faction NPC pirates. Try and find a few yourself on SiSi or wherever and its pretty clear to see the problem. I'm not sure if you consider Domination to be the same sort of thing as Arch Angels, but I figure you'd be the guy to let know about this, just as a reminder. |
Nate D
New Atlantis Tek Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.04.27 20:17:00 -
[43]
I like it... all of it. Keep up the good work and I look forward to seeing these features implemented in game.
-Nate
A New EVE Voice In Game Channel |
Gerome Doutrande
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.04.27 20:26:00 -
[44]
i can follow the belt changes from a server load and macroer elimination perspective, but what does it add to gameplay exactly? can you elaborate a bit on that please. you should be able to add triggers to current belts as well, so that can't really be the point i think.
|
Farrellus Cameron
Sturmgrenadier Inc
R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.04.27 20:31:00 -
[45]
Couple of concerns I have about removing asteroid belts.
Would the onboard scanner be system-wide or limited to the 14AU the directional scanner is? It may be good to make it system wide so that you don't have to fly to every planet and check for belts. Although that may be the intention.
It would be good if the asteroid belts results were easily sortable. I think someone mentioned this but I will reiterate. Because otherwise you may end up warping to the same belt multiple times thinking its a new one or not realizing it. It would be good if the current belt naming system was incorporated into the directional scanner so that you can tell people "go to this belt." Otherwise it would be very difficult coordinating with your gang going "um, he's at the belt, I think its near planet II, kind of towards the sun, its got scan signature 0.12842941..." That would be a pain.
Maybe you can link the onboard scanner with the solarsystem map so that you can see the results on the map.
Also, would the belts be near planets? I heard mention of system wide belts in the live dev blog. If they aren't near planets obviously you'd need to make the onboard scanner scan the whole system because otherwise you may not be able to find stuff at all.
----------------------------------------------------
|
Tarminic
Black Flame Industries
|
Posted - 2007.04.27 20:52:00 -
[46]
I have a concern that i don't think anyone has thought of yet...how will this impact explorers? When searching for an exploration site I really don't want to have 40 asteroid belts show up every time I complete a scan, makes it harder to locate what I was actually looking for in the results window. I only ask that you take that into consideration.
Otherwise, great blog. 
<sig>
IBTL! IBDS! IBTC! 1st in a BoB Post!
And other such forum tom-foolery.
Join my Corporation! |
Aykroyd
|
Posted - 2007.04.27 20:56:00 -
[47]
An excellent point was raised on the new content making it harder to make out higher grade finds. In addition to the signal strength of a return any chance of having a group classification added? Something we could just screen out of the scan?
|
Rumari Antar
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2007.04.27 20:57:00 -
[48]
My apologies for not reading all the replies, but I wanted to mention my concern before running off to work.
With everyone scanning to find belts and what not, I'm afraid that it'll increase the number of people that make to leap to scanning missions runners down and griefing them.
|
Aidelon
Caldari
AWE Corporation
Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2007.04.27 20:58:00 -
[49]
I must respectfully cry foul on the proposed ideas.
I agree with removing the static complexes and making them dynamic. I don't necessarily agree with making them hidden and requireing players to scan for them - these complexes generally take a team of players. So....you get a team of players together and have no complex scanned out....big problems. Or you scan a plex, and then have to go get a team before someone else does. You can't plan in advance, and that's not a good thing. I see a lot of frustration on this aspect of the game.
I don't agree with getting rid of static asteriod belts and rats. It's very easy to go rat/mine right now. I can hop in my ship and -boom- I'm there.
Now you want to make me scan for a belt to mine/rat at. How will grouping work for corp ops? How will getting a tank setup for mining work? How will this prevent enemies from finding me as you mentioned? It seems like we're going to be doing more work for less efficientcy and a lot less profit.
Granted, I don't know the internal proposals. And I do like some of the ideas. But these sweeping changes, wether it hurts macro miners or not, will put undue burdon on players that *don't* like exploration.
|
Jei'son Bladesmith
Bladesmith Mining and Development Consortium
|
Posted - 2007.04.27 20:58:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Kethry Avenger
I'm amazed at the people who post who apparently only read to the part that freaked them out and stopped there.
Amen to that!
Sounds like there's definetly some rough edges to be ironed out but I can't wait for all these changes, long overdue and very much welcome as far as im concerned 
Piewat Bunny approves!
(\_/)
(☼.0)....Yarr!
(>_<)
☼☼☼ Life's a *****, then you get podded ☼☼☼
|
|
|
Velsharoon
Gallente
Endgame.
|
Posted - 2007.04.27 21:11:00 -
[51]
What a load of tosh. Im a pirate who lives in 0.0. Sure small gang pvp is great and all but I actually make a living through my piracy, I need to be able to hit npcers. I dont care about your adrenaline rush. It says on the back of the box pirate well I damn well want to be able to pirate without a carebear alt.
Dont get me wrong, I will fight other small gangs, but removing our main source if income is idiotic.
if you remove static spawns then damn well remove local. give us the time to hunt before they safespot and log.
|
Taedron
Merch Industrial
We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.04.27 21:13:00 -
[52]
How about fixing bugs, optimizing code, and making large battles not cripple the node and lag everyone out before adding new content? Also, work on the interface.
|
Hunin
Minmatar
EVE Empowerment League Navy
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.04.27 21:22:00 -
[53]
These changes could be really good or they could be really bad. I definitely hope the asteroid belts are not in deadspace. It would be a pain for miners and PVPers alike. The mining ships are slow and miners rely on bookmarks to get to the best ores quickly. The PVPers rely on warping the slow/heavy ships to their fast/light frigates and interceptors to direct their firepower.
The current use of the overview is to show on grid and warpable points in space. When you go to a scanner instead of the overview to show warpable points in space, you need a good filtering system. I would like to see the scanner have a similar filtering system as the current overview. This way you can see different objects on the scanner than on the overview. You would also be able to save filter setups and quickly change your filter setup. So if you only wanted to see exploration site signatures, you could. If you only wanted to see common asteriod belt signatures, you could. If you wanted to see everything, you could. However you don't have to change your overview filters everytime you want to change the scanner filters.
|
Macmuelli
Gallente
Gallente Mercantile Exchange
Coalition Of Empires
|
Posted - 2007.04.27 21:26:00 -
[54]
Removing asteroid belts will be an interesting and exellenting change.
If i read it right and u change it into static complexes it woud make much more sense.
at least if one pirate complex is finished and destroeyd the "logic" woud say:
Lets build the next complex not at the same place. Perhpas an other system?
Its not possible to build it in 12 hrs that it can be destroeyd again. Why not give them pirates more thime to build a new complex like 3-4 days?
So a farming of them will be minimsed at least if the Group doing it has to scan etc at first for the new complex position.( which can be in one new system in the full region?)
courious about the future
mac
Whats a human without dreams?.....
DEATH
"Ein jeder ernte Ruhm auf seine Weise.....Gunnar von Hlidarendi "
|
Harle Armistice
|
Posted - 2007.04.27 21:29:00 -
[55]
I do a fair bit of mining, and I think that making mining more interesting than sitting reading the newspaper and listening for the tell-tale 'bwoop-bwoop' of a target lock, would be great.
That design would seriously make the miner protection gig a lot more profitable, meaning that miners wouldn't necessarily have to split their profits so much, since the protectors could make a fair chunk just by killing the NPCs. Which, in the end, would make it a lot easier to get together people for mining runs, since the old belts didn't offer too much for defending players. They were much better off jumping between belts in a system than sticking to one and waiting for a handful of rats to warp in.
That said, I think you should leave some 'protected empire belts' in highsec, similar to what already exists. There should be places for new folks to mine and make money. For those of us who really wanted to take an industrial profession, when we start out, we really don't necessarily want our mining to be a side-project on doing missions. And we don't necessarily want to have to be in a gang to mine. So highsec belts with few or no NPCs, just seeding common ores, maybe in smaller volume, would be great for giving the industrial trade a bit of a stepping stone into the more advanced, gang-based mining.
|
|
CCP Greyscale
|
Posted - 2007.04.27 21:33:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Stalert Balakos
The other day I tracked down two Serpentis Provisonal Outpost[...]
If you're going to continue developing exploration (and I very much hope you do), you are going to need to add many more profession sites so that we can all have a good chance of finding one in a decently long exploration session (say three hours).
And can we please have something (anything) in the profession cans rather than them just being empty half the time - it just looks like they're bugged. I got four empty cans out of five on the last hacking site I did . Even a message saying "better luck next time" would be good.
Finally, one of the other dev blogs hinted at some exploration love for the drone regions - anything you could tell us about this?
- Escalating path site rewards are being addressed (that's the thing with the extra commander spawns)
- I'm going to see if I can get some tools to evaluate this sort of thing and find out how sparse things are currently
- I'll have a look at this on Monday
- It's being looked at, and may well have something in Rev 2. Don't hold me to that though
Originally by: Bozse
So if i got this correct if u built an outpost in a -1 system with 30 belts u will now have to have a scanning ship to find belts and there might not even be close to the 30 belts there was when u planed your investment?
Other concerns that u mentioned aswell would ofc be that the time to find people in a system will increase giving better reaction times for intended targets, i do have a hard time seeing how u will balance this but hoping on some explanation as soon as possible.
[...]but we have a huge lack of officer items due to capital ships beeing ideal to fit them to[...]
- We're not at the stage where anything like that has been decided on yet. Point taken on board though.
- I'm not sure how we'll balance it yet either, because we haven't looked at it. As someone else suggested a few posts later, this and a "detune" of local might be two things that could go hand-in-hand to balance each other out. We'll see how it works out
- It's unlikely that officer gear will become much more common, as that's not its designated role. I'll keep this issue in mind though.
Originally by: Glaren
I think it would be great if multi-specs would show each individual signal. Especially looking at this blog where the number of exploration sites (encounters) is going to increase significantly. Anything that would help use distinguish what we are actually dealing with would be great.
That's something I've been thinking about too - we may reach the point where we need more differentiation. Maybe more informative multispecs, maybe multiple flavours of multispecs for finding different types of site, I'm not sure.
Originally by: hydraSlav
Simple. [...]
Interesting
Originally by: Ash Vincetti
Exploration mining
(Stuff)
Valid point, and something else I'd already been pondering. I'm going to do some digging on this front on Monday
Originally by: Bein Glorious
Just one thing though: Angel commanders seem to have messed-up loot tables
Not actually my area, but I've passed this on to the NPC guy
|
|
Aramendel
Amarr
Queens of the Stone Age
Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.04.27 21:42:00 -
[57]
Edited by: Aramendel on 27/04/2007 21:39:43
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
As I said in the blog, we're aware that this is a possible outcome if we're not careful, and that we will think very long and very hard about approving a design which leads to this situation, up to and including potentially canning the idea if we can't come up with a solution.
This is in fact one of the things I'm really hoping to get some good feedback about in this thread. I'm listening, talk to me!
Essentially, the only way how the move of belts to exploration could work without completely killing roaming gang warfare would be if local gets removed or replaced with an alternative which does not give instant results.
Right now when an hostile eneters the system most people warp to a safe and, optimally, cloak as soon as they notice you. This makes catching people which pay attention already more or less impossible to kill.
Now assume that instead 20-30 seconds you need at least 2+ minutes at the very minimum to get one location. There would be really no point anymore to try to catch ratters.
Another related issue is that right now exploration sites are deadspace complexes. Which makes probing for ships in them relatively useless. Possible, but not really viable since it usually takes ages to get a result. If this is also the case for the new belts this will makes ship scan probes pretty useless.
On the other hand, being able to probe down ships easily in the exploration sites would also make it possibly to simple to find them just by scanning for ships using them.
In the end it comes down to the same problem as for the same issue: if you need more time to get the location for a target the target also needs to take more time to notice your presence. Because once this happens it is extremly easy for it to retreat and make itself unfindable.
This leads to a small problem how to do that. Because a roaming gang needs to determine that theres a target around in the first place and then *in addition* to that needs to spend time to get it's location. So a target and the gang can find each other in the same time, but the gang then needs to spend additional time to get it's location while the target can retreat at once and cloak.
|
|
CCP Greyscale
|
Posted - 2007.04.27 21:43:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Farrellus Cameron
Couple of concerns I have about removing asteroid belts.
Would the onboard scanner be system-wide or limited to the 14AU the directional scanner is? It may be good to make it system wide so that you don't have to fly to every planet and check for belts. Although that may be the intention.
It would be good if the asteroid belts results were easily sortable. I think someone mentioned this but I will reiterate. Because otherwise you may end up warping to the same belt multiple times thinking its a new one or not realizing it. It would be good if the current belt naming system was incorporated into the directional scanner so that you can tell people "go to this belt." Otherwise it would be very difficult coordinating with your gang going "um, he's at the belt, I think its near planet II, kind of towards the sun, its got scan signature 0.12842941..." That would be a pain.
Maybe you can link the onboard scanner with the solarsystem map so that you can see the results on the map.
Also, would the belts be near planets? I heard mention of system wide belts in the live dev blog. If they aren't near planets obviously you'd need to make the onboard scanner scan the whole system because otherwise you may not be able to find stuff at all.
The current model is that the onboard scanner will act as a single 4AU probe at your location, and the sites will be balanced around this. They'll remain around planets (system-wide belts are a whole other can of worms), and as scan results already show up on the system map, they will using the onboard scanner too. Filtering looks like it'll be something we'll have to look at; how does consolidating some of the existing scan categories and adding a new category for easy belts and NPC encounters sound?
Originally by: Velsharoon
Im a pirate who lives in 0.0. Sure small gang pvp is great and all but I actually make a living through my piracy, I need to be able to hit npcers.
Good point, and one that I hadn't considered. (And this is why we're talking about this now, when the idea's still in its infancy.) That bumps the need for NPCers to be easily findable back up the priority list again.
Originally by: Aidelon
But these sweeping changes, wether it hurts macro miners or not, will put undue burdon on players that *don't* like exploration.
That's something we're going to be working very hard to avoid - if this goes in you will need to learn how to use the new system, but apart from that it needs to be as painless as possible for casual ratters and miners. The minor added effort needed to find the location in the first place will hopefully be balanced by there being more content at each site, meaning you don't need to visit as many locations in a given time period.
|
|
Vyktor Abyss
The Abyss Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.04.27 21:44:00 -
[59]
Edited by: Vyktor Abyss on 27/04/2007 21:42:47
Ignore the fact I'm wasted.....You're completely now my favourite Dev Mr.Greyscale for your wonderful blog of sweeping changes withe remarkable and unparralleled sarcasm!! (NB: I hope Greyscale's spelt correctly with an 'e' and not some rubbishy 'a'...I'll check that later!)
Anyway.....EVOLUTION!!! Yes thats one of the best corps in Eve I believe, BUT its also what your talking about...
Massive changes to the current mechanics of static belts and complexes, which is marvellous imho...
There's obvious concerns that PVE will now be able to escape harrasment, but I'm sure pirates and others will adapt to having to scan people out, however I think it could reduce the nmber of places where fights actually occur and MORE fights will take place at gate (which is NOT a good thing!)...
Also good news on complexes...push that through ASAP! Revelations 2 please...It simply makes 0 sense that the NPC factions lose billions of ISK every day in these areas and they've not thought about moving their operations yet!!!
I'd also advocate making COSMOS more 'floaty'...I mean if you're going to be Indiana Jones, you really want to find somewhere with truely 'hidden' treasures for you to exploit rather than somewhere with a big bloody signpost marking 'Hidden treasure ---> THIS WAY'...
What else..? Hmmmm....Can't think of much right now...next its time to ***** open the 'Casillero del diablo Riocha 2005' so I'm in no doubt more (sheeit...) will flow...
But for now, Thanks....And keep up the good work new boy, and don't be put off by any Hazing attempts! Its just coz they lub u! :)
Cheers, Vyk. (BAH - where's the drunken smiley?!?!)
*edit* - WOOOOOT - Good lad....'E's for the win *ahem*!!!
- Ideas are my business...maybe thats why I'm always skint!
Please read my ideas |
|
CCP Greyscale
|
Posted - 2007.04.27 21:47:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Aramendel
Useful post
Numbers are good :) A FRAPS of a really fast scan-down would be really useful if someone can provide it... And I take the point about the deadspace issue, I'm going to investigate this further.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |