I’d bet that a leader board would be filled with 24/7 ISK farmers and suchlike. Hmmm. Apart from them being productive for a change (they actually do a real job working on real life data, after all) the whole Project Discovery may just have the secondary objective to act as a honey pot for goldfarmers…?
And if that’s the case, a leaderboard would be doubly counterproductive.
So…now we are looking for increases in luminosity? (the transit in the center portion of the image):
I really hope they plan to revisit their evaluation slides, because there are so many missed transits in them (some more obvious than the ones they found) that I really have to wonder what they were looking at when they did them.
Suggestion: Add an “Analysis incomplete” (yellow) result if you get some of it right!
e.g. 57 out of 58 transitions shouldn’t be a “fail”.
I’ve made it to level 100 and 99% - with a lot of swearing. A series of “fails” is often enough for me to call it a night; beginners may just give up entirely.
Is Project Discovery about finding exoplanets, or recognising evaluation slides?
Is there any review of evaluation slide results to determine why capsuleers are failing to get a successful analysis, and ideally weed out bad slides? (See the Reddit sticky.)
Got a sample that shows a transit that is slowing, thus with the time period changing i’m unable to mark it properly.
Is there a way this can be submitted?
I’m feeling really cautious with these as i’ve submitted results after putting a good 5 or so minutes of analysis in and been given a fail.
Here is the screen cap of the sample in question.
Because you a) incorrectly marked transits that were not actually there (red dots) and b) failed to mark the actual transit signals (the yellow dots). Don’t worry, you will continue to improve the more you do. After a bit, your brain just clicks and you can just start to see at a glance if any pattern exists about 95% of the time, although it takes a bit longer to actually find the actual transits. Remember, there IS a pattern; marking asymmetrically (some in dips,some out of dips)will guarantee a failure. The most prominent dip/signal is not always part of the pattern; after marking the most likely signal, move the cursor to the nearest likely candidate and see if the other vertical marking lines fall within other prominent dips. If they do not, you are in error and it means that you need to rethink your initial opinion. You also have to avoid getting bored/careless when you have been doing hundreds of these in a row.
And i would say there are 2 objects but they always just want one, and it wasnt the one they wanted.
So question since the phase one retirement and the retirement of AK… How the heck do acquire points to get the sisters combat suits now? They are still in the LP Store but I can no longer earn credits towards them.
They can these please be moved to an LP or Isk reward level along with the rest of the items obtainable via AK?
Having read through a fair few of the posts here, I’d have to say that my experience with the Project Discovery thing is fairly similar to others who’ve posted here.
This is to say okay’ish but with frequent WTF moments, like when it throws up some kind of pattern that you (literally) cannot see on the sample, or where you get your line markers as bang on as is humanly possible (after folding) and then it announces that ‘analysis has failed’ because apparently, one marker (after unfolding) is off center by 1/10mm.
However here’s my question: At the head of the post it mentions that " … you can also get nice rewards in EVE such as exclusive Project Discovery SKINs and CONCORD ships.". Has anyone here actually had a CONCORD ship?
So far I’ve analyzed a whole bunch of samples (I currently have 36,262 experience points) but I’ve yet to get anything other than a whole bunch of skins (that I’ll probably never use - about as much use as the Christmas junk that CCP throws our way).
Uhm, you mean the rewards that are BIGLY SHOWN after each sample is what you oversaw?
Yes, i got concord ships. All 2 of them.
You can also earn ISK!
Unfortunately, the reward canister only contained 3 (!) isk, but at least it was something new/different. I’m still slogging toward the magical level 300.
Id like to offer my feedback after ive painfully reached lvl 250:
the tutorial is incomplete and not enough specific on how the mini-game works. No where it was clearly stated what we were looking for. you had to do tries / errors to find out how the stupid game works. It would have been easy, imo, to add some specific instructions like this somewhere in the tutorial:
" look for:
1- noticeble pitch / dip in the luminosity graph
2- "V" or "U" shaped dip
3- recognisable pitch / dip pattern
4- same pithc deep and width
5- do not get confuse between a real "dip" and the natural cycle of the graph"
the reward are not super incentive to play the game to be honest. I know that if im not pleased by the reward, im not forced to play the game. But there is no point for CCP to create a game a small numbers of players will play. If you add the scientific goal of that projet, it would be nice if a greater numbers of player participate. Hence en better reward tree seem the way to go.
the mechanic of the game itself is broken as it is way more productive to simply mark a sample as “no transist” and only focus ont the very obvisous one rather than actually really playing the game. May be some ideas could be looked at:
1- remove the ISK payout on failiurs
2- push up by a fair amount the payouts on success (maybe 1-2-3-5M ISK or what ever)
3- remove accuracy score
4- base payout only on “community consensus” or on “reference sample”
also, please could you fix your reward tooltip? its should be super easy for the most amazing devteam on earth that you guys are, to fix those tooltips to informe the player of what will really be his reward. A BPC isnt a BPO and it tricked many playing into playing the game while they judge that it wasnt really worth it. They find themself disappointed when they find out they were recieving a BPC instead of a BPO. Also, how is a player should know that he must absolutly dig in all the forums and internet externals info sources to make sure he has the correct info? anyway the fact that a player must rely on external information source to play EVE is an aberration itself.
my 2 cents.
It would be better if we agreed to receive data from the Kepler telescope! These data, without our help, will be analyzed for years.
