|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 53 post(s) |
Sheena Tzash
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
24
|
Posted - 2013.05.28 14:37:00 -
[1] - Quote
I guess you guys should probably lock the old thread then to avoid duplication or redundancy of posts.
Since this is the new one I'll just re-post my comments from the other one:
Tried the hacking mini game yesterday and I all I can say at the moment is that when the expansion comes out I simply won't bother with exploration anymore because its just not fun!
I tried with a Probe with hacking rigs, and reasonably high hacking skills (4s) and found the sites to be frustrating and boring.
1) Its a MASSIVE click-fest with no clear goal or objective that I can see other than 'click on all the pretty dots'
2) When a firewall comes up it seems to disable the other 'helpful' modules (like the spanner) so I can't click them.
3) The strength values on a firewall don't seem to relate to anything - I have around 70 points available and if I click a firewall with say a value of 10 I sometimes lose more or less than 10 points? So how can I decide which firewall to click if I don't know what the results will be?
4) If I just click on anything and everything and run out of clickable nodes and all I'm left with are firewall nodes (say 3 for example) but not enough points to do all 3, which node do I click? I can't see an 'end' node I need to reach so I don't know which node is best to click on. So its either take a random chance, run out of points and not be able to do the next one, fail.
I was fairly happy that the rats that spawn after a failure were only small and I could easily run away from them and use some drones to take them out.
The loot spillage affect to me is also very annoying simply because you put the work into getting this far to only get 10% of what your after - and most people won't be glad of the loot they got, they'll concern themselves with the stuff that they MISSED and so it'll seem like whenever you do exploration you'll LOSE something (or not gain 100%)
Even if you bring a friend the chances are that they'll be bored out of their minds waiting for you to scan down a site and then hack it just so that maybe they can click on some boxes that spew out and run away with the good stuff.
Personally I think the whole thing needs to be re-designed; at the end of the day you're taking an activity that before required ZERO skill (ie, click a can and wait for the module to finish) to now require some skill, understanding and a LOT of luck to finish.
You're also making an activity that before was done automatically within a decent time frame (less than 1 min) and 100% chance of success into something that can now take MUCH longer with no guarantee of success.
Basically this means you're EXCLUDING all the players who are bad at mini games.
1) HALVE the size of the mini game so that is short and quick (less than 30 seconds from start to finish) 2) If the hack is successful then the loot is left in ONE container for the hacker to access. 3) If the hack FAILS then you get the 'loot spawn' as before with SOME loot (but not the best). 4) If the user exits the mini game or the module ends then its NOT considered a failure 5) A failure only occurs when the hacker loses all points their in the mini game
At the end of the day the player has put in the time, effort and skills to FIND the site in the first place and therefore deserve SOMETHING for their time; especially if they've risked going into dangerous space to do it.
Giving loot upon failure means that the hacker now has a choice of action to take:
1) Spend more time (and risk of exposure) in completing the mini game for the best loot and 100% chance to full retrieval. Even if this means that they go so far in the mini game, find they can't complete it and cancel and try again. The additional time it takes to re-try is the risk they take. 2) Run the site quick and dirty to get SOME loot thrown out all over the place but not the best. |
Sheena Tzash
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
25
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 07:57:00 -
[2] - Quote
So what is the plan CCP?
You've released a dev blog explaining about the exploration changes and two threads full of people saying that they don't like it.
Is anything being done or planned to be done with the feedback we've provided?
Has the CSM been made aware that this is a potential raging issue that needs to be looked at before its too late? |
Sheena Tzash
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 15:11:00 -
[3] - Quote
CCP Prime wrote:So for the scattering mechanism we've reduced the speed that the cans eject out at. It'll make chasing them almost unneeded. Crimewatch will now apply to the cans like as with any other loot. The mini container names will actually hint at what you can get from them (currently on SiSi it is a completely random association.) This will help deciding on what loot you are actually going for.
Also, a few bugs, like the one when the bracket disappears for a container that had started to blink, has been fixed.
We want to iterate on tying hacking success to the scattering, and hopefully we'll be able to do so in a point release.
1) If the speed is much slower now is it actually possible to get 100% of the ejected loot? 2) If the cans are now named will they show on the overview or will you have to spend time mousing over each can to find out whats in it before you click it?
|
Sheena Tzash
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 16:00:00 -
[4] - Quote
CCP Bayesian wrote:With respect to the Hacking strategy itself there are definite strategies that are not entirely obvious that allow you to be much more successful as it currently stands. Clicking randomly is provably less successful than applying some thought.
What thought can really be applied? What feedback do we get from the mini game that says any combination of nodes or lines is better than any other?
YOU know that its better because you've been involved in the development of the mini game, but we don't and without any feedback to tell us "that was good, keep doing it" or "this is a bad idea, try something else" the only thought we have left is "click nodes randomly"
My approach is generally keep clicking down a line until I hit a firewall and then try another path - but again I don't have a clear objective or node to activate to know HOW to win the mini game - so any prospect of thought or strategy is pretty much redundant when the success conditions are random and unknown. |
Sheena Tzash
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
27
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 09:01:00 -
[5] - Quote
I'm actually waiting for the hack troll to arrive.
Existing System:
Only the hacker really knows if its open or not and most likely will open the can and loot it straight away.
New System:
Everyone nearby knows when a hack was successful as loot is sprayed all over the place.
The troll:
Sit near a hacking site cloaked and wait for someone to hack the site for you. At the loot is released, uncloak and click away. Since you don't need to lock the container to loot it you don't need to worry about the lock delay.
Yeah they can shoot at you but I would guess that most exploration ships will be the tinfoil T1 frigs with very limited offensive abilities; you can turn up in pretty much anything and do better.
To be honest I can see what they are trying to do with the loot mechanic but I just don't think its just not fun interesting gameplay that would be interesting enough for groups to participate in. You don't even have rats in sites to deal with to require someone in a combat ship to help clear them out - so anyone you bring will be left sitting around doing nothing right until the loot spray occurs at which point you've pretty much done all the work and they will take some of the credit. |
Sheena Tzash
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
28
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 11:03:00 -
[6] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:However, a random thief can sit cloaked off the object someone's hacking and then immediately start scooping spew cans with no penalty - no aggression timer, nothing
I believe that they added Crimewatch to the cans themselves so that if someone took them they'd be marked as a suspect - but I doubt that's hardly a deterrent.
I agree with all of your points but I suspect that since we're so close to release the general opinion from the devs is that its too far gone to revise now, and everyone else will simply disregard it as being negative because we're all sore about potentially losing a bit of loot.
Personally I think this whole mechanic is going to go down like a fart in a space suit simply because this expansion is supposed to be all about exploration and while the scanning mechanic has been much improved the REASON for scanning (ie, running exploration sites) has been made more tedious and annoying with the addition of an uninteresting mini game and a forced in loot spewing mechanism because "it seemed like a good idea at the time" |
Sheena Tzash
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
30
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 08:14:00 -
[7] - Quote
Kahns wrote:Sheena Tzash wrote:The troll:
Sit near a hacking site cloaked and wait for someone to hack the site for you. At the loot is released, uncloak and click away. Since you don't need to lock the container to loot it you don't need to worry about the lock delay. . OK, maybe I was wrong and this new mechanic is so, so very much Eve like :D . Screw waiting for the loot to spew, kill the explorer... there's no NPC's to gum up the works.
Well; 'someone' has to hack the can for you - once the loot is released and you appear it gives them the choice, the loot or their ship.
The hacker then needs to decide if the potential loot is worth their ship and they can either click away and hope to have enough time to run away afterwards or just run first and leave the loot for you.
You've got to wait for the lock delay to pass so you might as well click on some containers while its running down ;) |
Sheena Tzash
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
30
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 08:23:00 -
[8] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:Sheena Tzash wrote,
"The loot spillage affect to me is also very annoying simply because you put the work into getting this far to only get 10% of what your after - and most people won't be glad of the loot they got, they'll concern themselves with the stuff that they MISSED and so it'll seem like whenever you do exploration you'll LOSE something (or not gain 100%)"
If CCP do not understand this, they should hire any psychologist for half an hour, who will explain it to them.
My concern exactly. Even if this is considered to be a 'fun' mechanic (by the developers) the average player running the site won't feel like it because they would have missed out on something.
Very similar to the 'JC Penny Effect' recently covered in Extra Creditz:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmCn-csZStA |
Sheena Tzash
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
30
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 09:18:00 -
[9] - Quote
Naomi Hale wrote: I'm curious if your (and others) concern is for the missed items being something you need for manufacturing/invention or if it's solely about a deminshed isk/hour as you recieve less to sell on the market?
The first I could see myself getting mad at if you've searched and searched, then finally found it only for it to drift away, the second I'd be a little annoyed by but would take in stride as part of EVE.
A little bit of everything actually.
- The old system you had 100% of the loot (even if this new system means you get roughly the same amount) - The hard work is finding the site in the first place; to have that 'reward' reduced because of some sort of 'cash grab' is annoying. - No other gameplay activity in EVE offers this 'partial' reward and so it feels like you'd be better off doing almost anything else where loot is 100% assured.
Its like finding a site now and from 4 cans available only 2 of them have any loot. Its annoying because you feel like you've done all the activities that would normally give a reward and then not getting any.
I will admit that its likely something that I will simply get used to and not think or care about as much; but my concern is more than a general reception of the idea is that you do 100% of the work and get 80% of the reward; it doesn't take a genius to find that is a bad deal..
|
Sheena Tzash
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
36
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 09:56:00 -
[10] - Quote
Naomi Hale wrote:But if a system (like CCP Bayesian described here) was added to let you chose the cans you want and so you knew the can you're letting get away is filled with carbon, datasheet or slavage you don't want, would you be more okay with the lose rather than getting 100% of the loot?
Yes I was actually in the process of saying that if what CCP Bayesian goes ahead and the floating cans have clear name associated with them then I would agree that it would be BETTER than the existing system as you can pick the loot you like and it becomes a little more exciting to pick out the good stuff and at the same time avoiding the trash.
In that way the feeling you get from looting changes from only getting 80% of the overall loot (even if that loot is 30% trash) to 80% of the stuff you WANT :D
+1 to that idea CCP Bayesian!
|
|
Sheena Tzash
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
36
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 13:00:00 -
[11] - Quote
CCP Bayesian wrote:Quote:It is bad because it feels like losing loot after playing having to play two minigames to access that loot! Giving more info on the cans will, in my opinion, increase the rage when a 'blueprint can' vanishes before your eyes.
It is bad because it does not invite more team play. I imagine it working in this way for some people:
- A player approaches a site object and cargo scan it to find out the contents. They continue until they find a site object with contents that they like. They identify what kind of cans they want to go for.
- They complete the hacking attempt, there is tension here because of the knowledge about what it contains.
- They identify the correct can types and begin to collect one.
- They see the can type is correct but the contents of it are not what they really, really want to get so they cancel the tractoring.
- They find and tractor in another can of the same type.
- Get Bacon of the kind you are interested in.
This invites play between players in a couple of ways, firstly the sites themselves can be tackled optimally by groups working together. There was a Twitter conversation linked earlier that outlined one way people have tried this on a bigger scale. You can for example wait to destroy the system core and give people a chance to come to you. This lets groups clear out sites by tackling low value site objects individually that they don't mind losing some items from and clustering to deal with a site that contains excellent items. The players then also get to make choices about what kinds of stuff they want to take to maximise weight to value. Solo players can now still go out and make a decent living (perhaps even better than before given the additional loot) by being selective about what they take. Taking a friend with you is more viable to deal with any other people who might steal your stuff and also to optimise the filtering and collection of cans. Then we have all the opportunities for PVP and stealing of cans that create conflict and pull in everything from Crimewatch to the Bounty System.
I think this is a best case situation.
What is more likely to happen is:
1) You have one person scanning. Even with multiple people chances are you'd end up stepping on each others toes and scanning down sites that others have either already scanned or in the process of scanning resulting in a waste of time.
Since you've only got a single person scanning the rest are either sitting around getting bored or belt ratting for more immediate fun.
2) Once you've found a site you'll again only really have one person hacking as the others won't want to waste mid slots on a utlitiy item. Since there are no longer any rats they will sit around getting bored (when they should be checking Dscan :P)
3) No one has a cargo scanner as they want to loot all the cans regardless and it takes up a valuable mid slot.
4) Once the loot is thrown out they'll all scramble for the good stuff and leave the hacker / scanner person short
5) If anyone shows up all your mates run away leaving the hacker mid - hack and an easy target :P
Although I do agree with what your saying Baesian; overall it would allow for some form of co-operation to be able to hack sites quickly and clean up the majority of the loot and good effective teams will do well.
CCP Bayesian wrote:Quote:It is bad because it does not make sense! Could you expand as to why it does not make sense please?
To me I feel that if your being some master hacker who is trying to get the goodies from inside an encrypted vault you wouldn't want the results to be splashed all over space.
You wouldn't see someone hack into a bank and set it up so that all the money inside the bank vault would be blasted into the sky - yeah its done the job of getting the loot but its in such an ineffective method and most likely means that you lose a good amount of the loot you've worked hard to get. |
Sheena Tzash
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
36
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 13:38:00 -
[12] - Quote
Freighdee Katt wrote:Sheena Tzash wrote:CCP Bayesian wrote:Quote:It is bad because it does not make sense! Could you expand as to why it does not make sense please? To me I feel that if your being some master hacker who is trying to get the goodies from inside an encrypted vault you wouldn't want the results to be splashed all over space. You wouldn't see someone hack into a bank and set it up so that all the money inside the bank vault would be blasted into the sky - yeah its done the job of getting the loot but its in such an ineffective method and most likely means that you lose a good amount of the loot you've worked hard to get. This. Bayes, you keep asking for people to 'splain it to you like you're five years old, as if it's some big mystery while people find the loot spew mechaninc annoying and stupid. Andreus said all that needs to be said about it in his earlier post. Others have repeated his same points in different words. It's all been said, and people have been saying it all since this mechanic was first proposed, over and over and over.
That being said I think it would be fairly reasonable to allocate this kind of mechanic on Relic sites over data sites.
The difference being is that a data site your hacking into a network node for valuable information in the form of datacores and blueprints etc. Any half decent hacker would make every attempt to ensure that the information was obtained in the most efficient fashion.
A relic site on the other hand are old broken and rusty wrecks that are already falling apart.
You coming along to the site and getting all 'Lara Croft' on those wrecks are likely to cause many of them to fall apart and the loot spilling out into space because they are fragile enough to break in this fashion and would make perfect sense that items are strewn about space. |
Sheena Tzash
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
36
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 14:11:00 -
[13] - Quote
Raven Solaris wrote: Edit - What about the Echelon?
Yeah, I've been meaning to wipe the dust of that old thing...
Well.. when it actually becomes USEFUL ;)
|
|
|
|