|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 53 post(s) |
Rob Crowley
State War Academy
60
|
Posted - 2013.05.28 15:06:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Bayesian wrote:- The 'bad loot' is far too bulky so it is excessively penalising as you have to stop and sort it out. The biggest troublemaker in regards to bulky loot is part of the "good" loot AFAICS. As I noted in the old thread interface parts (e.g. for Guristas: Spare Parts, Power Couplings, Electronic Links, Armor Blocks, Computer Chips) drop as "good" loot in data sites often in stacks of 50-100 and are 1m-¦ per unit. This can fill up a cargo hold really quickly.
IMO there should be no loot bigger than a couple m-¦ at most in those surprise cans, neither good nor bad. |
Rob Crowley
State War Academy
60
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 17:38:00 -
[2] - Quote
CCP RedDawn wrote:Lowered the Virus Strength stat bonus on all the Tech I exploration frigates from +10 to + 5. Given all the the Tech II exploration frigates a +10 Virus Strength stat bonus. That's excellent, I still think a certain cruiser class linked closely to exploration should get some strength bonus too, but the above is already a good start towards a working ship progression and risk/reward balancing.
Manssell wrote:Just need to ask, since I've seen it asked dozens of times and have yet to see it answered (if it has been I'm sorry), but what the bloody ell are you guys referring to when you say "tier"? I assume it's the hierarchy of difficulty to the games but what are they, how many? Everyone seems to be assuming it's a reference to Hi-sec, Low-sec, and 0.0 but as I far as I know this is just an assumption. This describes the difficulty of the cans and their minigame. It is not linked exclusively to system sec as for example in some lowsec sites you could have cans from tier 1, 2 and 3. At least where I have tested tier 1 cans are called debris, tier 2 rubble and tier 3 remains. The higher the tier the bigger the minigame grid and the more coherence the defences have and at tier 3 you get those nasty Suppressors too. I'm not sure if there are more than 3 tiers, I haven't tested in nullsec yet. |
Rob Crowley
State War Academy
60
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 08:14:00 -
[3] - Quote
In my opinion the discussion is moving in a rather unconstructive direction here. Could we please get back to the part where can spewing is bad not because you don't get enough loot (which already has been fixed mostly) but because Eve's space view is rather terrible for twitchy gameplay and nobody in their right mind would actually enjoy sitting around waiting for someone else to do the actual hacking gameplay just to take part in that rather annoying catch-the-can game (and possibly spamming dscan before which is even less enjoyable)?
mynnna wrote:"It's always been this way, so it always should be that way" makes things pretty boring. Well, let me answer in the roughly translated and shortened words of a comedian: 'You all know this sentence: "Everything was better in the past." That's bollocks! Nothing was better in the past! But some things were good in the past and they would still be good today if people had kept their damn fingers off them.' And just so I don't get misunderstood here, I'm not saying exploration didn't need some work, I'm simply trying to counter your notion that change as such is positive.
Quote:Also, every single one of the ways you suggested to make it "multiplayer" just makes it "multi-account". Any of them could be multiboxed. The unique thing about the spray is that multiboxing it and being better off than having a genuine second person would be rather difficult. That's a good thing, because cooperation isn't cooperation when it involves your alts. I'm about as anti-alt as it gets, but you can't tell me that it's not possible to design a hacking minigame in a way that it prohibits alt play. I already mentioned in the other thread that some part of the gameplay needs to be twitchy and real-time to some degree to achieve the anti-alt goal, but in case of the hacking game it would at least be in a seperate window and hopefully without moving parts that are floating on top of each other.
Telrei wrote:Why do you feel that all hacking and Arch sites should require multiple players no matter what the difficulty of the challenge is. Nobody said that and they don't require multiple players. There is no god-given right to get all loot solo, even though I agree that loot collecting is the worst possible part of an activity to encourage group play from a game design perspective. |
Rob Crowley
State War Academy
64
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 17:04:00 -
[4] - Quote
While I generally agree with T2 being stronger than T3 in this special case I think the +10 T3 bonus is okay for 2 reasons: 1. Covert Ops frigs are very cheap for T2 ships. If there were a T2 exploration cruiser or BC with a price tag of 100+m I would absolutely agree that it should be stronger than T3, but as it is using a T3 is massively more risky than a T2 frig because of the price difference, so making the T3 equally strong is okay in my book. 2. I don't really see a good way to make the T3 bonus more all-round than the T2 bonus with the current simple form of the minigame. This might very well change when it gets fleshed out a bit more in the future. |
Rob Crowley
State War Academy
65
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 14:46:00 -
[5] - Quote
Raven Solaris wrote:And I just realised something, will the Gnosis get a +5 to Virus Strength?
Edit - What about the Echelon? The Echelon doesn't really need a bonus cause its Sansha codebreaker has much stronger stats than even a T2 analyzer. |
Rob Crowley
State War Academy
65
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 19:54:00 -
[6] - Quote
Odyssey patch notes wrote:The Echelon now has +10 bonus to your Data and Relic Analyzer Strength I find this slightly confusing. The Echelon can't use any Relic Analyzers and since the only Data Analyzer it can use is the Sansha Purloined Data Analyzer (which can't be fitted to any other ship) why would you give a ship bonus to the Echelon instead of just altering the stats of the Sansha Analyzer? |
|
|
|