Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 53 post(s) |
Sorcha Lothain
Vogon Galactic Construction
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 19:59:00 -
[211] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Sorcha Lothain wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Sorcha Lothain wrote:I think the idea of making "loot pinata" a punishment for a failed hacking/archaeology attempt is an excellent idea. Having something blow up in your face is usually a bad thing. It seems really, really, odd as a reward. If you successfully hack the site you get everything in the can. If you fail you get "loot pinata" AND everything else that comes with a failed attempt (e.g. rats, explosive traps).
I guess from a pvp or loot ninja's perspective having the can explode with every success is a good thing. Why should you have your cake and eat it too? Loot pi+¦ata as a failure mechinac defeats the purpose of the mini game and any player skill/luck in exploration and will only glorify blobing in even more areas of the game. It doesn't defeat the purpose of the mini game at all. If anything it would encourage you being successful at the mini game. If you've maxxed your skills and fitted your ship expressly for completing the mini game then why should my reward be the chance I don't get all my loot. It isn't that I want to "have my cake and eat it too", I just don't want it to blow up in my face. I wanted exploration to be my solo profession because it was much more satisfying than mining. Though sadly it's starting to seem more appealing. As a miner if you dedicate your skills to your trade and fit your ship you get 100% of your loot in your hold every single time. There's something to do in every single system and you don't really need to bring a friend or a second ship. Right now if you are successful you get loot, if you are not I will be destroyed with no loot at all. With what you are proposing if you are successful you get loot, if you fail you still get loot. How is that not having your cake and eating it too?
Loot pinata means you get LESS loot. I've always considered less loot a bad thing. Being successful means you get all the loot or minimally get to pick through the crappy stuff. I'm trying hard to justify a mechanic that seems more functional as punishment. Not to mention the fact that there's the chance you will end up with crap no matter what. The loot pinata greatly increases that chance. |
Yugo Reventlov
Hax. Game Over.
20
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 20:03:00 -
[212] - Quote
The hacking minigame UI seems to have issues with UI scaling.
I have my UI scaling set to 90% and the minigame UI overflows out of the window.
Screen: http://i.imgur.com/oPHegZ9.png |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
5274
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 20:16:00 -
[213] - Quote
CCP RedDawn wrote:Rengerel en Distel wrote:Should we be bug reporting the sites that still spawn rats on failed hacks, or are you guys just working down a list to remove them?
No need for bug reports for this right now. We are in the process of fixing all of these containers and it should be finished soon, but please hold off on the reports about the rats. Thanks! Some of the data sites seem to have even more rats than before, now not just as a fail mechanic. -áMy (mostly boring) Youtube channel. |
Von Keigai
9
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 20:18:00 -
[214] - Quote
I have read through all of both of these threads, with a mounting sense of horror about the loot spew feature. As soon as I read about the loot spew mechanic, I thought it was unrealistic, magical, and wrong for EVE. Kahns captures much of what I feel about it here, so I'll just quote his:
Kahns wrote:CCP Bayesian wrote:For the people saying the 'loot pinata sucks' and the like could you vocalise the problems you have with it? ...
- We do not have direct control of our ships, so don't expect it from us! Moving towards floating cans that you can't select in the overview highlights some of the worst parts of how Eve's ship control mechanics work. It was already frustrating to nimbly move our ships around in Eve, we just typically didn't have to do it. As you know, we don't have direct control of our ships, but in this case you're basically asking us to pretend we do.
...
- It's completely inconsistent with the metaphors you've used elsewhere in the game. Clicking on something doesn't bring something towards you anywhere but in this one single little mini-game. Worse yet, you've got the metaphor of tractoring using a module elsewhere in the game and it works completely differently. It's just bad design!
Let me add a few points about "realism". A game should be internally consistent, and also consistent with real reality with the exception of magical or scifi elements within the game's reality. The loot spew mechanic fails massively on both of these criteria.
Kahns points out some of the internal inconsistency. Let me add to that: in no other part of EVE is loot collection in any way a twitch game, or significantly time-limited. Loot just sits there, be it in a wreck or a can. Yes, wrecks eventually evaporate and cans eventually will be despawned. But these things are never time-sensitive on the scale of seconds, and they never involve fast mousing. Fast mousing is necessary in combat, to gain access to rewards. It is never required for the reward itself. I think it is this aspect of it that many player find feels wrong: they've just succeeded at the ostensible challenge, only to find an even harder challenge. Is "exploration" or "treasure finding" supposed to be a thinking game or a twitch game? In real reality, at least, it is a thinking game.
Now let me turn to real reality. This is another way in which loot spew fails, at least for me. It just makes no sense because there is no real world analog at all. In the real world, loot (like pretty much all other physical objects) just sits there, just like all current EVE loot. Certainly the only thing likely to spew loot out in the real world would be an explosion. But since you don't do loot-spew for loot on exploding ships (and please don't get any ideas), it is inconsistent to do it to loot coming out of much-less-explodey computer systems and ancient relics. Furthermore, there is almost nothing in the real world that is analogous to radically time-sensitive moving loot. Perhaps a fiery explosion?
And this is doubly true in computers. A file is either there, or not; it never self-erases, it does not burn up if you copy it. Nor, especially, does a file copy itself onto a physical object, erase itself, then light itself on fire and shoot out of the computer into nearby space. It's just ludicrous. And yet that is what is evidently supposed to be happening in EVE.
You are ruining my fictional-world immersion on every loot-spew. Suddenly I am not in new Eden, grabbing hard-won loot. I am staring a screen watching something stupid and nonsensical.
Look, I grasp the idea behind the mechanic. It is to reward small group play because you believe only social groups stay in EVE long term. Social group == long term == subscriptions == money. I realize why you want the mechanic. It's a perfectly good reason. It's just a bad mechanic.
Why is it bad? Human irrationality: we feel differently about things lost (which connote wrongdoing) and bonuses (which connote success). It is functionally equivalent to either give 2x loot and then take away half from the soloer, as to give 1x loot but then double it for non-soloers. But the two things feel entirely different: in the first, the soloer is punished, in the second, the group is rewarded. It's the same reason why stores have sales, but never surcharges, even though economically the two are equivalent.
Loot spew comes across to the solo player (which, currently at least, I guess that almost all explorers are) as a hose. I feel you ought to balance the desirability of rewarding small groups against the undesirability of putting in a mechanic that 98% of the players feel as a punishment. Find a way to increase loot for groups, not decrease it for soloers.
If it is not too late, I'd suggest that you put off rewarding groups for a later iteration, where it should be done via cooperative play within the minigame. (I.e.: if two+ players click on the same node at the same time (within, say, 1 second of each other), they get better results.) Lower the loot amounts back to current levels, and get rid of the spew. |
Heinel Coventina
University of Caille Gallente Federation
26
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 20:35:00 -
[215] - Quote
Rob Crowley wrote: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. .
I'd rather they re-vamp deep space transport completely into an exploration vessel class instead. Especially if they're going to make exploration into an industrial activity, rather than combat. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
5274
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 20:38:00 -
[216] - Quote
http://i.imgur.com/pQ94uKh.jpg Holy **** CCP, are you serious? What's all this ridiculous particulate crap? It's killing my graphics and it's here for no reason. I also have GPU particles turned off, but it seems you're just ignoring that setting with every new little cloud and smoke, etc. -áMy (mostly boring) Youtube channel. |
Ali Aras
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
288
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 21:44:00 -
[217] - Quote
So I understand why the loot speed was changed, but I think you guys went too far-- on sisi today, I was able to collect 9/12 and usually 10/12 cans all by my lonesome. Even when loot went out in two completely opposite directions I rarely saw a can turn white.
Prior to the change, I got closer to 5/12 or 6/12, up to 8/12 on one good run. I'm an interceptor pilot (read: not bad at manual piloting) and like a challenge, so I may not be the Typical EVE Player here, but the advantage is back to soloing with the loot speed change. With the new mechanic, if it's going to benefit you to bring a friend people are always going to miss out on some cans if it's working as intended.
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. http://warp-to-sun.tumblr.com -- my blog |
|
CCP Bayesian
820
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 22:26:00 -
[218] - Quote
Yugo Reventlov wrote:The hacking minigame UI seems to have issues with UI scaling. I have my UI scaling set to 90% and the minigame UI overflows out of the window. Screen: http://i.imgur.com/oPHegZ9.png
Will defect it when I get in tomorrow morning. EVE Software Engineer Team Prototyping Rocks |
|
|
CCP Bayesian
820
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 22:35:00 -
[219] - Quote
With regards the previous strategy posts the things to look for to judge your success is the kind of object you hacked as this indicates difficulty, how regularly you win and how much coherence you have left when you do win. Fewer clicks is also a good metric for being better but somewhat at the mercy of the layout that is generated. Obviously as its EVE, skills and your fit play a part in how easy any difficulty tier is. There is also an updated tutorial and we intend to put together a small explanation video. All of that is on top of the information displayed in the lower right of the modules UI window which updates when hovering over nodes. EVE Software Engineer Team Prototyping Rocks |
|
Salpun
Paramount Commerce
503
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 23:26:00 -
[220] - Quote
CCP Bayesian wrote:Yugo Reventlov wrote:The hacking minigame UI seems to have issues with UI scaling. I have my UI scaling set to 90% and the minigame UI overflows out of the window. Screen: http://i.imgur.com/oPHegZ9.png Will defect it when I get in tomorrow morning. Might want to check the Tutorial also. The scaling code also gets forgotten there allot. |
|
Nicola Arman
Saiph Industries Upholders
27
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 23:32:00 -
[221] - Quote
It feels a lot better right now. It's so easy to gank people in Odyssey that this will actually be a pretty thrilling profession. I have good skills. Most of the cans are scooped. I'm able to watch Local and D-Scan with the slower cans. It's fun! I'm gonna make a killing at something I'm good at while the rest keep crying about the growing pains. This will be a fun expansion. |
Nicola Arman
Saiph Industries Upholders
27
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 00:08:00 -
[222] - Quote
Though....
Seriously....
What's the difference between Relic and Data Sites?? It's the same thing! Whyyy??
They're exactly the same process. Different module... |
Omnathious Deninard
The Scope Gallente Federation
1077
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 00:14:00 -
[223] - Quote
Did a Null Sec Relic site, collected 9 cans with a Tengu. I did a cargo scan of it first to have something to compare my results with. http://i.imgur.com/DopUWcs.jpg?1 Ideas For Drone Improvement Repourpose Deep Space Scanner Probes |
Naomi Hale
Children of New Eden
110
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 00:53:00 -
[224] - Quote
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. Not trolling, Genuinely curious. Aren't you, as a CSM, supposed to represent the people? That statement seems counterintuitive.
I choose to believe what I was PROGRAMMED to believe! |
Omnathious Deninard
The Scope Gallente Federation
1078
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 00:56:00 -
[225] - Quote
The Virus Suppressors are still to strong, hitting one is pretty much end hacking in null sec. Either there coherence needs lowered or there suppression needs to be adjusted so it doesn't reduce you to 10. As it stands they have a strength of 20 and a coherence of 80 whilst crippling you to 10 strength. Ideas For Drone Improvement Repourpose Deep Space Scanner Probes |
Nicola Arman
Saiph Industries Upholders
27
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 01:17:00 -
[226] - Quote
I don't think you're guaranteed to win. |
Johan Toralen
Clockwork X3
74
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 01:17:00 -
[227] - Quote
Here is a common issue that i have with the loot spew. It's one of the things that makes it so clunky and rage inducing for me:
http://i.imgur.com/SMe1Iu1.jpg
I want to see what the can at the red arrow is. But the mouse doesn't register it. I actualy have to move the mouse into the yellow area to see the name or to select the can. This happens a lot when cans are close together. It wastes precious time and is frustrating. Hence i wrote earlier that the slower cans, while making one issue better make another one worse.
Another problem that now starts to go on my nerves more and more is cans flying behind ui elements which makes for some hectic camera adjustments to grab them. I already freed up as much space as possible in the center of the screen. It's still an issue and i have a big screen. This is gonna infuriate people with small screens. Therefore among other reasons please reconsider to put the cans in the overview.
Naomi Hale 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. Not trolling, Genuinely curious. Aren't you, as a CSM, supposed to represent the people? That statement seems counterintuitive.
Yea i don't get it. Among the very few positive voices two CSM members. Looks like brown nosing to me. If anything CSM should be even mnore mad then regular players since they wern't consulted on the exploration changes. The conduct is noted and taken into consideration for the next election. |
Suicidal Blonde
Alchemical Aquisitions
36
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 01:39:00 -
[228] - Quote
Ive been watching this for a while. The concern with loot spew being too slow as I see it is that it defeats the whole purpose of its introduction. Whilst I'm not a fan I'd rather it existed for a reason. Specifically the stated intention to promote multi player.
|
Omnathious Deninard
The Scope Gallente Federation
1078
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 01:50:00 -
[229] - Quote
My final test for tonight. http://i.imgur.com/FykOGd3.jpg http://i.imgur.com/rdR2TzH.jpg http://i.imgur.com/UusZKJr.jpg http://i.imgur.com/4x2427E.jpg http://i.imgur.com/8fJzic3.jpg http://i.imgur.com/HvDdkfn.jpg
The system now is something that is manageable for a single person, but will work best still with a team mate. Ideas For Drone Improvement Repourpose Deep Space Scanner Probes |
Ali Aras
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
290
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 02:48:00 -
[230] - Quote
Naomi Hale 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. Not trolling, Genuinely curious. Aren't you, as a CSM, supposed to represent the people? That statement seems counterintuitive. It is mathematically impossible for me to represent all the players, and the people who have issues with the spew are so effectively representing yourselves in this thread Given that, I must state my honest and genuine perspective for which I was elected, having marked it with my prior relevant history in similar tasks and disclaimed any representation of the majority (and yes, I realize most of my campaign was run on NPE-- I've given *that* feedback on this feature too, and not all of it was nice). I've spent hours testing this, partly on the urging of the players, and I've given feedback other places than this.
Johan Toralen wrote: Yea i don't get it. Among the very few positive voices two CSM members. Looks like brown nosing to me. If anything CSM should be even mnore mad then regular players since they wern't consulted on the exploration changes. The conduct is noted and taken into consideration for the next election.
Not all feedback I've given has been in this and the previous thread. Notably, the following:
CCP RedDawn wrote:In related news we've made the following changes: ... Lowered the Coherence of the Anti-Virus Suppressors in difficulty tier 3. Lowered the Virus Strength stat bonus on all the Tech I exploration frigates from +10 to + 5. Given all the Tech II exploration frigates a +10 Virus Strength stat bonus. ... CCP RedDawn was brought to you at least in part by the feedback from myself and mynnna (with testing assist from CCP Affinity, thanks!). The words I used w.r.t playing without the +10 bonus were "frustrating", "feels random and senseless" and "Based on solely the covops test, I would not use this feature on TQ". Please explain how this constitutes brown-nosing. http://warp-to-sun.tumblr.com -- my blog |
|
Panhead4411
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge
316
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 02:55:00 -
[231] - Quote
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.
CCP RedDawn wrote:In response to the above questions since my post.
When "tier" is used it means the difficulty level of the loot containers and it ranges from 1 to 4. (Easy to Hard) Also, we're going to be looking at the Tech III bonuses soon. (but not soonGäó) I'll post more when things change.
So, how does that actually answer the question? Yes we all figured the higher "tier" level is harder...but what is that rating tied to? System Sec status? Random Number Generator? CCP Tuxfords whim?
We asked a simple 'what is this rating tied to?" question, and you responded with something along the lines of, "yes, it is a rating."
http://blog.beyondreality.se/shift-click-does-nothing -á-á < Unified Inventory is NOT ready... |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1222
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 02:55:00 -
[232] - Quote
Naomi Hale 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. Not trolling, Genuinely curious. Aren't you, as a CSM, supposed to represent the people? That statement seems counterintuitive. Yes, I'm here to represent the players. Of course, I'm allowed to think for myself as well, and I rather liked the notion of things that you actually have to cooperate with others to leverage to their fullest potential. So, if (as in this case) I believe people are being spoiled little whiners, stamping their feet and demanding ALL THE THINGS, I'm going to tell them as much.
I sincerely hope that CCP doesn't abandon the original intent of the can spray and that future iterations on this feature bring back sites that really do require cooperation. Multiplayer hacking to release multiple can sprays and the like, perhaps.
Johan Toralen wrote:Yea i don't get it. Among the very few positive voices two CSM members. Looks like brown nosing to me. If anything CSM should be even mnore mad then regular players since they wern't consulted on the exploration changes. The conduct is noted and taken into consideration for the next election.
There is no big enough for this post. Practically every part of it is wrong. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Flamespar
Woof Club
602
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 02:58:00 -
[233] - Quote
I'm enjoying the exploration a lot more. I think the difficulty of the sites could be increased though.
The only thing I would suggest is adding the following.
It would be great if each time you destroyed a system core, you were given the choice to go a level deeper into the system, or to jettison the accessed cargo. Each time you enter a deeper level it becomes more complex and difficult, yet the potential rewards become greater. Of course the risk of failure should also escalate with every additional level. I can post on a forum, therefore I represent everyone. |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1223
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 03:03:00 -
[234] - Quote
Flamespar wrote:It would be great if each time you destroyed a system core, you were given the choice to go a level deeper into the system, or to jettison the accessed cargo. Each time you enter a deeper level it becomes more complex and difficult, yet the potential rewards become greater. Of course the risk of failure should also escalate with every additional level.
Now this, I like. This seems like a Good IdeaGäó. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Ali Aras
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
290
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 03:04:00 -
[235] - Quote
Flamespar wrote:I'm enjoying the exploration a lot more. I think the difficulty of the sites could be increased though.
The only thing I would suggest is adding the following.
It would be great if each time you destroyed a system core, you were given the choice to go a level deeper into the system, or to jettison the accessed cargo. Each time you enter a deeper level it becomes more complex and difficult, yet the potential rewards become greater. Of course the risk of failure should also escalate with every additional level. I'm going to represent the player base a little and +1 the hell out of this
Bonus points if the double-or-nothing mechanic is easier with a friend, maintaining the intent of more multiplayer PvE. http://warp-to-sun.tumblr.com -- my blog |
Flamespar
Woof Club
602
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 03:07:00 -
[236] - Quote
OMG. CSM agreeing with my post.
Body shutting down .. can't cope with positivity on EVE forums I can post on a forum, therefore I represent everyone. |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1226
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 03:08:00 -
[237] - Quote
Flamespar wrote:OMG. CSM agreeing with my post.
Body shutting down .. can't cope with positivity on EVE forums
Obviously, we're brownnosing.
I mean I don't know how that actually works here, but it's obvious. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
5275
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 03:13:00 -
[238] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:http://i.imgur.com/pQ94uKh.jpg Holy **** CCP, are you serious? What's all this ridiculous particulate crap? It's killing my graphics and it's here for no reason. I also have GPU particles turned off, but it seems you're just ignoring that setting with every new little cloud and smoke, etc.
-áMy (mostly boring) Youtube channel. |
Telrei
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
13
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 03:15:00 -
[239] - Quote
mynnna wrote:
I sincerely hope that CCP doesn't abandon the original intent of the can spray and that future iterations on this feature bring back sites that really do require cooperation. Multiplayer hacking to release multiple can sprays and the like, perhaps.
And in the meantime, since the loot is currently (in theory?) tuned to be rewarding for two players working to get all the cans, I hope they dial it back, since after all, one player getting loot meant for two would be a bit too good, right? [;)
They should abandon the can spew because it solves a problem in the complete opposite way of EvE...
As many have stated before NOWHERE ELSE from mining, running plexes, missioning, PvE, PvP, High Sec, Low Sec, Null Sec, does the end goal involve a time sensitive reward factor.
The punishment is never AFTER you trigger the reward it is always before.
If I bring a Battleship into a 10/10 complex I get obliterated.... I am not able to kill all mobs and then suddenly as soon as I kill the overseer I need to grab six cargo containers before they despawn. Soo I might get the tag or I might get that shield booster but not both....
No it is I bring at least a group of people to provide logistical support as well as added DPS and we see what goodies we have uncovered when the overseer is destroyed ..
That is what hacking and the arch sides need to be as I and many others have stated...
Have multi-tiered levels that require multiple people to hack at once.. Have the better sites constantly spew out NPCs so that a fleet is constantly needed to shield the hacker at every turn while hes trying to hack the system. Have it so that to even begin the hack you need a fleet to kill off the mobs. There are a lot of different ways to do it that don't focus on making Hacking and Arch into a group tablet game clickfest..... |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1226
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 03:36:00 -
[240] - Quote
"It's always been this way, so it always should be that way" makes things pretty boring.
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. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |