|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 32 post(s) |
Garresh
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
128
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 05:24:00 -
[1] - Quote
Anyone got a video for this? As someone who explores I am interested. This Space Intentionally Left Blank |
Garresh
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
128
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 06:06:00 -
[2] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote:This sounds completely out of place in EVE.
It really does. I'll check out this vid in a sec though. TBH I've been trying to get my friends into lowsec and a game like this could actually help with that. This Space Intentionally Left Blank |
Garresh
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
128
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 06:10:00 -
[3] - Quote
Drunken Bum wrote:Mini-games. I ******* knew they'd turn to mini games. I hate mini games.
Scanning is a minigame. It's just one in which the "terrain" affects it, along with player fittings. This Space Intentionally Left Blank |
Garresh
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
128
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 06:34:00 -
[4] - Quote
As long as they make it feel like a logical extension of existing gameplay mechanics, or at least a fairly "sci fi" minigame, I'm okay with it. Sounds like they're not going to do that though. This Space Intentionally Left Blank |
Garresh
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
128
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 09:33:00 -
[5] - Quote
Alright I've looked for info on these new hacking/salvaging/archaeology minigames and I can't find the video. This thread desperately needs a video for those of us too stupid/busy/ignorant/drunk to have watched the original video.(for the record I was busy being drunk) Anyone willing to provide? This Space Intentionally Left Blank |
Garresh
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
128
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 10:02:00 -
[6] - Quote
Arin Archer wrote:Garresh wrote:Alright I've looked for info on these new hacking/salvaging/archaeology minigames and I can't find the video. This thread desperately needs a video for those of us too stupid/busy/ignorant/drunk to have watched the original video.(for the record I was busy being drunk) Anyone willing to provide? Hacking starts about 1:13:00 into the video http://www.twitch.tv/ccp/c/2208288
Much Obliged. I'll make a point not to shoot you next time I'm getting drunk and shooting people. This Space Intentionally Left Blank |
Garresh
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
129
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 11:27:00 -
[7] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:If CCP has made it so that you need a second person to scoop all the loot, then this probably means (if it's done properly) that it's designed to be decently profitable for two people (since they'd have to share it). Which means that while you won't get all the loot on your own, what you will be able to pick up should still be pretty profitable. In addition the twitch game really makes it so that you do need two people to grab everything. I kind of doubt there are many people who will be able to dual box and still do a decent job of grabbing stuff.
^ This essentially. Like I said, the execution is clunky, but from an overarching design perspective it's actually kind of elegant. It supports a pretty wide spread of different playstyles, from solo to small group, without being exploitable by multiboxing, and encourages socialization in a formerly antisocial activity. All without stepping on the foot of those kooky antisocial explorers(like me). Clunky or not, it's good from a design perspective. I'm actually really excited for Odyssey now. This Space Intentionally Left Blank |
Garresh
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
130
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 19:35:00 -
[8] - Quote
For Bobs Sake people...the new jettison mechanic doesn't kill solo play. Look can we think in terms of opportunity cost for a second? 1 player gets 6 cans per site. Let's say that comes out to 20 mil a site. 2 players get 12 cans per site. That's 40 mil in stuff...split both ways. Or 20 million isk per person. Now step back and think for a second. Exploration has never been an "optimal" isk source. For that you go to mission running. Or, if multi boxing, mining. Exploration requires going to null or lowsec for money. All this change does is allow you to bring friends IF YOU WANT. Exploration was the only profession that didn't become faster/more profitable with friends, like missions or mining. And you know what? People still do those things solo. I don't see what the fuss is about. This Space Intentionally Left Blank |
Garresh
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
133
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 22:57:00 -
[9] - Quote
Tank Talbot wrote:Some good points and some bad points
I somewhat agree, but you have to consider things from the other perspective as well. ATM to be profitable in lowsec and time-effective requires at LEAST a Cloaky recon. It also requires a decent amount of tank and firepower to clear through the rats and not get pushed out of sites. I used a pilgrim for a while, but I've upgraded to a Loki in the last few months, having finally decided it was worth the risk.
Highsec exploration is kind of worthless due to the sheer number of people doing it, and is also incredibly easy(with the exception of plexes). Lowsec exploration requires a massive investment of resources, in the range of several hundred million and months of training to really become a viable income source. There's a HUGE barrier of entry for those newer explorers to make the jump from high to low. And on top of that, MOST of the barrier here has nothing to do with exploration, or scanning, or even gankers. It's the difficulty in fitting a competent ship that has the damage and tank to deal with the rats in radar and mag sites.
Now understand I'm not saying lowsec exploration is hard. It's actually pretty goddamn easy. But I ran a solo w-space operation for a year and a half before I 'retired' to lowsec. Most of the lowsec explorers are older players. Maybe not vets, but you look at us and you see a pretty old group. We've earned our place as explorers, but how much of that was our own skill, and how much of it is simply waiting for our character skills to climb up?
This new system lowers the barrier of entry for lowsec to be sure, but it ALSO moves the focus of exploration sites away from combat. If I wanted to shoot things I'd be missioning, not exploring. And on top of all this, the removal of rats makes dives to null for us lowsec dwellers not only viable, but potentially very lucrative. In the current system null dives require fitting up a T3 with interdiction nullifiers, warp stabs, covert reconfiguration, and the "usual" subsystems. But the null radar sites put out mission level dps in many cases, which requires a full refit to a mission running setup. It simply doesn't feel like exploration anymore.
As you go "deeper" into null and w-space, exploration sites, ratting, and missions all blur together. You need a heavily capable combat ship either way. In w-space it makes sense, and the nature of sleepers actually makes it rather fun. But null has no excuse. It's boring, and I quickly stopped my null dives to explore in lowsec instead. This new change means that as a solo player I can start looking back to null dives for exploration. It means greater risks and greater rewards.
It also means that when I want to teach my friends to explore, I can do so without seeing my profits fall through the floor. This is the beginning of a new era for explorers, solo or otherwise. You can cower in fear, or you can start looking to the future. This Space Intentionally Left Blank |
Garresh
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
134
|
Posted - 2013.04.28 04:28:00 -
[10] - Quote
Georgina Parmala wrote:Aria Ning wrote:I think you're over exaggerating. What if originally 5 items were to jettison out and you were able to collect all 5 before the 5th one expired into space? So you essentially received 5/5 and I would assume you be happy. But in reality CCP jettisons 10 items but you still can only get 5 before they all expire into space, however, now that you know there were a total of 10 you were unhappy because you couldn't get the other 5 items but you still managed to get 5 out of 10. So you still got the same amount in both situations. But in the 2nd situation since you know that there were 10 items you feel you should be entitled to get the other 5 you missed out. Where as, I honestly just see it as "hey there are more items available, you could bring a friend if you want to get the rest but it's not necessarily needed." The player just used his skill to succeed at a solo activity. He then watches 50% of the resulting loot disappear, giving the impression of a failure. It's not about entitlement to the other half. It makes you feel bad for doing the site when no friends were around. Making a player feel bad for succeeding = bad game design. For that matter, it IS a failure. He should bookmark the site and wait for a friend to become available to come with him.
You're misreading this pretty badly. It becomes painfully obvious for anyone who isn't new that you're not supposed to get all the loot. Stop thinking of it as failure and think of it as degree of success. A player succeeds, but a better player succeeds better. This Space Intentionally Left Blank |
|
Garresh
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
144
|
Posted - 2013.04.28 18:44:00 -
[11] - Quote
What part of opportunity cost do these people not understand? If you're waiting for your corp mate 12 jumps out to fly to you, you're both losing money because of wasted time. This Space Intentionally Left Blank |
Garresh
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
144
|
Posted - 2013.04.28 20:55:00 -
[12] - Quote
Ginger Barbarella wrote:Garresh wrote:What part of opportunity cost do these people not understand? If you're waiting for your corp mate 12 jumps out to fly to you, you're both losing money because of wasted time. I love reading people talk about "opportunity costs" as related to making isk WHILE SITTING ON THEIR ARSE PLAYING A COMPUTER GAME!!!
Lol I'm just saying people are acting like they're gonna lose a whole ton of money flying solo. Its like saying mining solo is useless cause other people will steal your rocks. You can always fly to another system. Same with exploration. Sites don't despawn. They respawn elsewhere. This Space Intentionally Left Blank |
Garresh
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
145
|
Posted - 2013.04.28 23:34:00 -
[13] - Quote
Cause of your friend can't hack he's useless right? I can list off the top of my head a bunch of ways a friend can be useful without hacking.
1. Watch gates for hostiles in lowsec. 2. Bring ecm to bail you out if you get ganked. 3. Cooperative scanning. Before you laugh it IS a thing. There's many ways. You can divide a system by planets or quadrants and cover more ground faster. 4.Chasing off other explorers. 5.General purpose recon.
You guys need to try harder. This Space Intentionally Left Blank |
Garresh
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
151
|
Posted - 2013.04.29 20:40:00 -
[14] - Quote
Lucas Irvam wrote:I've skimmed the thread but haven't read every post, so forgive me if it's already been covered, but how would 'bringing a friend' to help gather in the containers lead to more profit? If hacking a site flings 10 containers out into space, and I can only grab 5 by myself, I get half of what the full site was worth. If I bring a friend and we both grab 5, we've gathered the full worth of the site, but then I have to split the ISK with my friend, bringing me back to half of the site's total worth.
And that's best case scenario for the math, no? If hacking a site flings 6 containers, I grab 5 and my friend grabs the 6th, I've basically cost myself 2 containers worth of ISK by bringing along a buddy.
Again, apologies if it's been covered already, but I read a few replies that mention 'bringing a friend to get the most out of the site', and I feel like I'm missing something.
(Also, while I'm here: hacking interface is interesting, the gathering minigame seems like a weird Space Fruit Ninja addition totally out of place with the rest of the game, and no rats in profession sites is a head-scratcher.)
That's what I've been saying about opportunity cost since like page 3. Everyone is approaching this from a completionist perspective instead of an economic one, so they feel like alts or friends are necessary. This Space Intentionally Left Blank |
Garresh
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
152
|
Posted - 2013.04.30 06:36:00 -
[15] - Quote
DSpite Culhach wrote:I'm sifting through 15 pages. I want to say some things before I lose my thoughts.
* Did not like the "exploding loot mechanic" as I saw it. If the point was to make it impossible for single players to just "snatch it all up with one ship or "slow them down dramatically" then :
- Make it that cans fly out and spread out in space, needing lots of tractor beaming back to the ship, this would allow ninja looters to come and scoop it up, they'd get flags and even more pew-pew'ing MIGHT occur.
- Scramble Lock a bunch of the more important cans, requiring an ACTUAL hacking minigame back at a station. This minigame might even be so hard that it required attempts over multiple days in order to crack, with player skills points also playing an effect. You would even have players giving cans to other people to hack, and for the REALLY tough ones, you might even have people that are good at puzzles charging for unlocks as a business model.
I don't give a **** about the loot pinata but the idea of locked ultra-value containers that might need to be cracked later on sounds kind of awesome...maybe not as part of this iteration but a nice idea for down the road. This Space Intentionally Left Blank |
Garresh
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
159
|
Posted - 2013.05.02 07:25:00 -
[16] - Quote
I really don't get the argument that this mechanic is twitchy. Have you guys ever PvP'd in anything smaller than a battleship? When you guys have flown a frig, or ninja salvaged with mission aggro, or bit off more than you can chew and had to escape a 1v3(and succeeded), then you can talk about twitchy gameplay. As is, this mechanic isn't even remotely twitchy.
The only people this new mechanic discriminates against are those who play drunk, but that's what mining is for. This Space Intentionally Left Blank |
Garresh
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
160
|
Posted - 2013.05.02 07:54:00 -
[17] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Sorry about your bad internet, but that puts you at a disadvantage for a lot more things in this game than just exploration. The game shouldn't be balanced around shoddy connections.
I hate to agree with this, because some allowance for lag is necessary in game design, but really, it's like 4 seconds. You've got time to react even if it lags. just click 2-3 times instead of once every 4 seconds. Seriously, depending on how a game is coded, packet loss is like the one thing in computing where clicking more actually *does* make it go faster. Well, sort of. This Space Intentionally Left Blank |
Garresh
Team Chicken and Waffles
270
|
Posted - 2013.06.13 06:44:00 -
[18] - Quote
CCP Bayesian wrote:The first thing we'll be doing is getting setup to make Utilities something that can be taken out of the systems you are hacking and fitted into the module in advance of going off hacking. Without doing that hackers are really still at the mercy of the board generation when it comes to making choices. It also adds a secondary income for explorers that is linked to exploring and ties the hacking more into EVE. This is really the first thing that has to happen to add more depth to hacking and isn't an insignificant amount of work.
Following on from that initially it's a case of adding more Defense Subsystems and Utilities to support more interesting things happening.
We also want to let players be able to influence the result of the hack more. For example in the exploration sites, heading off and tackling certain nodes would let you influence how the scattering of cans occurs. Further we'd like to increase the granularity in failure as well. This creates more options for any new systems that get introduced using the same mechanics.
If you guys build a full blown roguelike inside of Eve, I will love you forever.
...I might even use tongue. This Space Intentionally Left Blank |
|
|
|