EVE Search - Revelations 2 devalues Astrometrics: Question to DEVs

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Revelations 2 devalues Astrometrics: Question to DEVs

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 3 post(s)
Eventy	Posted - 2007.07.03 17:39:00 - [1] Edited by: Eventy on 03/07/2007 17:43:49 Edited by: Eventy on 03/07/2007 17:41:45 Hmm. I'd like to share some observations the 'exploration' community has been mulling over with the recent patches. Generally it is been felt that although the DEVs intended to give Astrometrics some loving with the patches, the opposite has been achieved. This isn't meant to be a complaint as much as it is a request for the logic that has gone into the changes to Astrometrics in the last two patches and perhaps some player reaction. COST OF PROBING It use to be that you deployed a bunch of probes (which are relatively expensive even if you make them) to find hidden content. There were no negative comments to this effect from the Astrometric loyalists, other than that the expense made it hard for newbs to get into 'astrometrics' because of the cost. However, this expense was almost always seen as an investment because the hidden content sites rewarded the investment in probes and time relatively richly. REV 2 PATCH IMPACT on COST Recent patches which have greatly increased the number of static sites that are hidden have resulted in many more lower value sites to find. Sounds like a good thing right? Although you can use your ship's scanner to find these new sites (free), probes also find them. This means when you get a signal in a system you could waste all your time and probes looking for sites that are now of much lesser value. This devalues the investment in surveying with probes. ASTROMETRICS SKILL The REV 2.0.1 patch removes the requirement to need the astrometrics skill from using your ships scanner? Huh? You need Thermodynamics to overload your mods, but not astrometrics to scan? This logic is a bit hard to understand. Anyone can overheat a device in RL without understanding thermodynamic properties yet you require the skill to apparently do so safely in the game. How then can the argument be made that everyone innately interprets astrometric signals to triangulate hidden plexes using ships scanners without training a skill? I certainly don't see the logic here, and again, it results in the Astrometrics Skill being devalued. QUESTION Assuming I just don't see the big picture, or long term goal for astrometrics, my Question to the DEVs then is what is the long term goal here? Don't you agree that at least the last two patches have devalued the skill (which is tolerable if the long term effect results in something much greater)? Please, those in the rather small but loyal exploration community, pipe in here with your observations, as I've seen these same things and more discussed on the Exploration Chan. I believe the intent is to give this skill lov'n while making it easier for people to try this, but I don't believe that is the effect it is having. I don't believe Im the only one who believes this. RECOMMENDATIONS If I do have a recommendation it is: 1. Please give probes the ability to distinguish between the new static hidden sites, and the old dynamic sites, in some contextual way. 2. Restore the need to have astrometrics to use the ship scanner. Cheers
Rotten Hag	Posted - 2007.07.03 17:44:00 - [2] I actually thought this patch would give us a way to distinguish between static and exploration sites.... Probes are very expensive, why are they not throwaway money like ammo? I am a part time explorer and not very experience but I agree with the ops comments.
Bad Borris Caldari Serenity Prime Praesidium Libertatis	Posted - 2007.07.03 17:55:00 - [3] /signed Totally sums up all the issues very concisely. Sort it or it will end up being redundant.
Hachima	Posted - 2007.07.03 18:03:00 - [4] The cost of probes seems pretty cheap to me. I spend 2 minutes and kill one battleship and I can afford 40 probes. So I don't really understand the claim that it is too expensive? Maybe you should provide some numbers to support your claim. How many probes do you use in a day and how much do those probes cost. How long does it take you to earn that money? I could spend one hour killing stuff and have the money to buy 1000+ probes.
Eventy	Posted - 2007.07.03 18:07:00 - [5] Edited by: Eventy on 03/07/2007 18:07:22 The claim isn't that probes are generally too expensive. They are 'an expense' period, for those who survey anyway you look at it. The claim is that when you bear this expense to find a 'new static hidden site' the return is much less than previously when you found an 'old dynamic hidden site'. The old sites paid far better than the new, however there are now so many more of these new compared to the old. I don't need metrics to prove that the relative cost of surveying to find the old sites has gone up drastically. Anyone who has deployed a single probe to find a new site can tell you its a waste of a probe, especially when the ships scanner would have worked. Cheers
Sebastion Hawkings	Posted - 2007.07.03 18:13:00 - [6] I have to say I aggree. I was just getting into scanning, and am now wondering if i waisted my valuble training time. The ship scanner was a nice idea, and I'm sure an upgrade to future change with mining and the such, but it should be seperate from probing.
Hachima	Posted - 2007.07.03 18:18:00 - [7] I think you are just proving that the expense is irrelevant then. Of course there is a cost to exploration. There is a cost every time you fire a weapon if it uses ammo also. The cost to probe out a site is far less than the rewards from the site. The cost to scan stuff out is so low I think your complaint is pretty silly. There are much more important things to address than the cost of probing out sites. By bringing up such a silly complaint you really lower your credibility when mentioning anything else.
Eventy	Posted - 2007.07.03 18:27:00 - [8] You should read the original post more carefully here. The issue isn't expense. The claim I'm making is that the skill is being devalued. I encourage you to look at that claim and provide feedback. Cheers
Nybbas The Scope	Posted - 2007.07.03 18:42:00 - [9] not to mention the extra hours we will all be wasting searching systems only to find its one of these crap sites we dont even care about...
Hachima	Posted - 2007.07.03 18:44:00 - [10] Edited by: Hachima on 03/07/2007 18:43:57 I suggest you rework your argument then. You start with two paragraphs focusing on costs. Yet your recommendations have nothing to do with cost at all. You should use support that better fits your premise. I think you focus too much on the cost for your support. Devs have already mentioned they were looking into distinguishing the unknown sites some way. They are working towards making exploration for of the staple for all encounters. If in fact they do make it so exploration is the stable for all encounters/NPC combat, I don't think it would be fair to require astrometrics for new players just so they can fight stuff.
Tansit	Posted - 2007.07.03 18:45:00 - [11] The fact that the new unknown encounters, in a way, mask a possible older unknown complex or even perhaps one of the now mobile "static" complexes is very frustrating to me. Also the fact the some of the new unknown encounters STILL don't clear or despawn when completing is maddening. I've been trying to find one of the old 10/10 complexes and it's extremely annoying to not be able to tell the old unknowns from the new unknowns. As far as I'm concerned this is the worst nerf yet in Eve. Not being able to tell if there is an "old" unknown present vs. the new encounter unknowns is just the single most annoying aspect of any game I've ever played.
Eventy	Posted - 2007.07.03 18:48:00 - [12] Originally by: Hachima Edited by: Hachima on 03/07/2007 18:43:57 <Snip> Devs have already mentioned they were looking into distinguishing the unknown sites some way. <Snip> I'd be interested in seeing a link to their comments if this is true. This issue is a a bit of a nerve in the astrometrics community. A link would be most welcome. Cheers
Hachima	Posted - 2007.07.03 18:54:00 - [13] Edited by: Hachima on 03/07/2007 18:53:01 http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=525836&page=8#229 Basically all your concerns have been addressed by devs already.
Eventy	Posted - 2007.07.03 18:59:00 - [14] Originally by: Hachima Edited by: Hachima on 03/07/2007 18:53:01 http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=525836&page=8#229 Basically all your concerns have been addressed by devs already. Not quite, it misses the mark on many of the concerns. I am glad to see them respond to the problem of respawns. I hope CCP Zrakor chimes in here on where the skill is going. Clearly it has been hurt by these patches, and I agree with Transits comments that "this is the worst nerf yet in EVE". Cheers
Hachima	Posted - 2007.07.03 19:00:00 - [15] Did you read post 107 that also addresses your concerns? I suggest you read that entire thread and comment there. A lot is already being worked on.
Eventy	Posted - 2007.07.03 19:10:00 - [16] Edited by: Eventy on 03/07/2007 19:11:16 Originally by: Hachima Did you read post 107 that also addresses your concerns? I suggest you read that entire thread and comment there. A lot is already being worked on. I did. Even the posted solution (that is being looked at) and a possible fix to the respawn problem doesn't undo the damage that has been done and were really addressed to Commander Blackjack's questions on the first page. It only helps to partially correct the problem of wasting probes to find static sites. Referring back to the claim that the skill itself is being devalued, I'm not convinced that there is a long term strategy for this skill. Your posts certainly haven't provided any useful arguments to the contrary - though I am convinced by the above link that they are aware of the re-spawn problem and general state of unhappiness with the impact the patch has had. This discussion, then, should provide some useful debate between those who actually survey (with probes) and the DEV's who seem to be open to dialogue. Cheers
Sultry Wench Caldari Bombshell Cartel	Posted - 2007.07.03 19:20:00 - [17] I agree with this 100%. Please make the multi probes distinguish between the new static hidden sites and the old hidden complexs. Now the old 10/10's are almost impossible to find, they can be found anywhere, a 10/10 was recently found in Jita for crying out loud! This is making me want to take a break from Eve. I'm hoping Star Trek Online will be good. Originally by: Eventy RECOMMENDATIONS If I do have a recommendation it is: 1. Please give probes the ability to distinguish between the new static hidden sites, and the old dynamic sites, in some contextual way. Cheers

CCP Greyscale	Posted - 2007.07.04 10:22:00 - [18] As mentioned by others here, we're already working on a way to distinguish encounter-type sites from exploration-type sites The reason the Onboard Scanner doesn't have skill requirements is that it's designed to be usable by new players without any skill barriers. Obviously they'll have to take some time to learn how to use it, but they won't have to spend any training time to experiment. Note that this change ONLY applies to the Onboard Scanner - you still need Astrometrics to use scan probes of any kind. I don't see how this change constitutes any kind of gameplay devaluation for people who have trained the skill, as you still need it to find exploration-type content. (All the change actually did was ensure that if you have Astrometrics trained but not all the way to level 1, the Onboard Scanner didn't break - it's always worked if you didn't have Astrometrics trained, it just threw a fit if your skill level was greater than zero but less than one.)

Bart Roberts	Posted - 2007.07.04 15:37:00 - [19] I think it is unacceptable that the onboard scanner has any chance, even a miniscule one, of finding content that is intended to be located with probes. This goes directly to the OP's concern about the devaluation of Astrometrics. My 2 cents.
Steini OFSI Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2007.07.04 16:25:00 - [20] Originally by: Bart Roberts I think it is unacceptable that the onboard scanner has any chance, even a miniscule one, of finding content that is intended to be located with probes. This goes directly to the OP's concern about the devaluation of Astrometrics. My 2 cents. So even I'm the dumbest pod pilot ever, wich would mean that I'd still be on par with Niels Bohr, since pod pilots are the ELITE (out of 30000 players logged on as pod pilots and let's say 50000 as NPC's as an average of 80000 pod pilots of numerous billions of terralovers). I should not be able to use my ships scanner wich is more sophisticated than anything we have witnessed so far here on Earth to find a change in gravitational shifting (that's how pluto was discovered)? My 2 quarks, although the OP has a point, however I'd wonder that exploration should tend more to the jackpot rewards whereas the normal life would be more mundane than usual.
Reggie Stoneloader Teikoku Trade Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.07.04 16:34:00 - [21] I think the onboard ship scanner should be a safespot-busting, cloaker-spotting, time-consuming gameplay feature, and scan probes should serve a dual role as a hyper-fast/pinpoint accurate variant on that role and as a carebear-flavored moneymaking device.

CCP Greyscale	Posted - 2007.07.05 00:39:00 - [22] Originally by: Bart Roberts I think it is unacceptable that the onboard scanner has any chance, even a miniscule one, of finding content that is intended to be located with probes. This goes directly to the OP's concern about the devaluation of Astrometrics. My 2 cents. If the proposed encounter/unknown fix goes through, this will by necessity become impossible, as the onboard scanner will need to be changed to scan for the new group instead of the current one. This outcome isn't considered a requirement of the fix for this particular problem, but it looks like it's going to happen as a side-effect

Nybbas The Scope	Posted - 2007.07.05 05:41:00 - [23] Edited by: Nybbas on 05/07/2007 05:43:52 greyscale.... awesome to hear a reply... Will the old combat plexes be considered exploration type finds, or these new ship scanner type?
Random Caldari	Posted - 2007.07.05 10:14:00 - [24] Try using the killed cap method. warp to distant object then <CTRL><SPACE> to stop the warp. Do this several times till your cap is empty. Wait a few moments then perform the warp to target. With practice you can perform short warps no problem.
Seiji Hannah	Posted - 2007.07.06 01:24:00 - [25] New players do not need alot to try out astronometrics as all races T1 frigs are able to fit a scan probe launcher and find hidden system elements at lvl1 skill - the onboard scanner has indeed devalued Exploration as a miniprofession. However if it was to replace the regular scanner interface with higher delay when doing a 360 degree sweep and lower as you narrow things down to 5 degrees - this would make things interesting perhaps ;)
Nybbas Imperium Forces	Posted - 2007.07.09 09:48:00 - [26] when do you think we will see a change?
Grey Area Caldari	Posted - 2007.07.11 12:30:00 - [27] Edited by: Grey Area on 11/07/2007 12:30:24 Originally by: CCP Greyscale If the proposed encounter/unknown fix goes through, this will by necessity become impossible, as the onboard scanner will need to be changed to scan for the new group instead of the current one. This outcome isn't considered a requirement of the fix for this particular problem, but it looks like it's going to happen as a side-effect I think you'rethrowing to much thought at this problem...try this instead. Step 1: The OBS is a "dumb" tool, looking for big signatures. Give it a HARD lower limit of a sig strength of 1...anything less than that it simply has no chance to find (cannot pick it out from background noise) Step 2: Conversely multispectral probes (and for that matter all the other launched probes) are finely tuned instruments designed to look for extremely low strength signals. So why are they giving "hits" for signals that are the size of a small moon? It's like using a microscope glass to find an elephant. Make it so that the probes ignore any signal strength greater than 5. Step 3: Make all encounter sites have a signal strength greater than 5, all escalation sites have a signal strength less than 1. Problem solved. Yes, it means you CANNOT find the encounter sites with probes. I don't think ANY dedicated explorer will complain. Edit: I'm okay with the onboard scanner not using astrometrics, as long as this hard lower limit to the detection ability is introduced. --- I don't mind you disagreeing with me. Just don't say I don't have the SKILLS to comment.

CCP Greyscale	Posted - 2007.07.11 13:43:00 - [28] "Signal strength" is generated by your scanning - it's not authored on the site anywhere. There are authoring distinctions that could be used to impose "hard limits", but doing so seems arbitrary and could cause problems down the line. In any event this is being resolved as a side-effect of another, necessary change, so there's little value in someone hard-coding limits to prevent something that will be impossible anyway.

Eventy	Posted - 2007.07.11 17:45:00 - [29] Edited by: Eventy on 11/07/2007 17:47:12 CALL FOR SUPPORT Ok the Devs had weighed in. Here's some additional thoughts. In my initial post I suggested that the skill was being devalued though I suspected the Devs were actually trying to give the skill some loving. The replies we've seen suggests, as I stated earlier that the Devs are indeed trying to give the skill some loving, so lets bear with them a bit. (Come on admit it Devs - you like this skill as much as we like it!) REASONS If not having a skill requirement on the ship's scanner makes it easier for new players to play around with scanning (surveying) it has my blessing for two reasons: 1. There will likely be more players surveying ships, sites or moons in the long run. (This benefits my characters directly as I run EVE's first astrometrics corps) 2. More importantly however, more players scanning means there will be more incentive for the Devs to continue to giving loving to this really amazing aspect to the game. Its hard to justify changes in their inter-dev discussions about whats gets patched or fixed and what doesn't get patched if the number of players using the skill is minuscule. More people scanning can only benefit the skill. And the proposed fix to the ship scanner seems like a good one too. FURTHER QUESTIONS & SUGGESTIONS I still have a question and some further suggestions. What is the long term goal for this skill then? Will hidden content be another way to introduce tech II or tech III items into the game (or will lottery continue to be the primary method)? With recent discussions about role playing in EVE, can Astrometrics become a favoured way to reveal content (such as the path to Jove space, if it is ever revealed). Will there ever be a chance we can have hidden connections or jump gates connecting existing systems in the game (so if you can find them short cuts exists?) Or how about the idea of having entire systems hidden (high sec, low sec and no sec)? Can you tell us about the discussions guiding this skill? Cheers

Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.