|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 53 post(s) |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
178
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 11:09:00 -
[1] - 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". |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
179
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 14:31:00 -
[2] - 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. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
179
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 14:50:00 -
[3] - 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. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
179
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 15:11:00 -
[4] - 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? |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
181
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 08:50:00 -
[5] - Quote
Checking in as (possibly) the only pilot on Singularity who does not feel the way described in the two posts above me. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
190
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 12:07:00 -
[6] - 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. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
190
|
Posted - 2013.06.01 10:18:00 -
[7] - 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. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
190
|
Posted - 2013.06.01 10:40:00 -
[8] - 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. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
190
|
Posted - 2013.06.01 10:52:00 -
[9] - 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.
|
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
191
|
Posted - 2013.06.01 17:15:00 -
[10] - 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 |
|
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
192
|
Posted - 2013.06.01 19:35:00 -
[11] - 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. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
199
|
Posted - 2013.06.02 01:10:00 -
[12] - 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. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
220
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 11:42:00 -
[13] - 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. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
224
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 20:21:00 -
[14] - 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. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
224
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 20:38:00 -
[15] - 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. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
225
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 21:43:00 -
[16] - 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. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
225
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 21:54:00 -
[17] - Quote
Cans detonate when you leave the site. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
225
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 23:45:00 -
[18] - Quote
Canned meat.
You should all stock up on it and find a secure place to weather the storm. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
225
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 01:40:00 -
[19] - 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. |
|
|
|