How would you know?
When have you ever demonstrated any skill or talent?
1 Like
For me, personally, the tedium of d-scan was an issue and I’m not saying I think it’s great. If there’s a better way that satisfies both the hunter by giving them the means to engage in a skillful hunt and the hunted by giving them a means to evade the hunter then I’d be all for it.
Too far in either direction and nothing happens. Auto d-scan might have gotten me out in space more, but if it gives me so much advantage that I can’t be caught hunters won’t show up for what they don’t think they can catch. The current system provides the variability that makes it seem plausible that you can catch someone and plausible that you can get away from somebody. If taken away, it should be replaced with something, but I know not what and would not even be able to evaluate effectively what satisfies the condition for the hunters.
I’m looking at things mostly from a prey point of view so I know there’s a flip side to this that I don’t really understand, and also there is that I don’t really care about this issue a whole lot. Io asked for something like how automated d-scan might affect active gameplay and I thought I’d deliver something in that vein to discuss, if people wanted to. Io and I have clashed before, but he’s generally earnest with me so if he decides to take counterpoint I can imagine it being informative because his experience and use of the feature is completely different from mine.
2 Likes
I would appreciate a system like a radar/sonar. Operators for those do not have to press a button to make it work everytime. It just does.
Sensorstrenght seems like a nice number to base the sensors range on. The higher the strenght (which can be modified by modules and rigs) the longer the range. The more directed the sensor (smaller angle) , the longer the range and smaller the scan interval.
I would like an audio warning as well. Not so much for the first wave, but for the rest. As soon as the shooting starts, I forget about everything not directly involving blowing someone up (or trying to anyway). Reinforcements tend to ruin my day.
2 Likes
… one croissant, café au lait and a tall glass of orange juice.
Thanks
1 Like
Which is precisely why so many develop a false sense of security when nothing happens. And to me that is a key function of the game. The balance between absurd over-attentiveness and lack of any attention at all. And that balance varies according to situation. If you are mining totally on your own in some God forsaken system in the middle of nowhere…you can afford to let down your guard a bit. If you decide to mine in Eudama…you probably need to pay constant attention. As with everything in Eve…the choice is yours.
You almost couldn’t have literally picked a worse example. Dscan is absolutely exactly how active sonar works. Your on-grid overview is passive radar, your dscan is active sonar. Amazing! Exactly what you want is already present in game! Big win.
2 Likes
Except that it automatically repeats, which I’m guessing is Yarda’s point.
I’m reminded of something Hilmar said in an interview last year, that they wanted to find ways to introduce energy into the time = resource dynamic. Because when time = resource, you incentivize your players to automate (bot) and multibox.
I personally favor minigames as a way to deal with this, though there are ways to blend the game into the rest of the experience to make it more visceral, which make it feel less like a mini game and more a part of the overall experience.
Minigames are a lot easier to develop though, so that’s why I suggest them. (Less development time, suggests CCP would be more likely to do it.)
As far as mining is concerned, I would favor an optional minigame. So it doesn’t remove current gameplay, but if someone is actively mining, they could be rewarded for it.
Example: mining rock: make use of skinning hacking minigame: successful hack: mining laser cycle completes.
Something like that would both make it difficult for both bots and multiboxers to take advantage of.
The net effect of this, is solo mining (and individuals mining in a fleet) efficacy would be brought up, while botters and multiboxers would remain the same, in terms of output. Granted, if the minigames suck, it would just seem tedious, so the developers would need to be careful there.
As for minigames overall, I’ve not heard a lot of disparaging remarks leveled at the hacking minigame. It’s relatively simple, but has enough variety in it to keep people entertained. The worst complaints about it, are when the rng screws you to the point of making the hack impossible.
Perhaps my lack of perception on the matter is just reflective of my bubble though.
Most good ideas start off as bad ideas (at least in respect to their incompleteness.) I think it’s pretty terrible when people just jump on an idea because they think it’s bad without trying to sift out the positive aspects of it (assuming there are any.)
If I were to take the stance of most people on this forum when responding to ideas, the slew of disparaging remarks for this would certainly be large.
However, I do see what you’re going for there, and there’s some potential benefit.
The challenges you’d have you address is how would people get around in highsec? Jita would almost certainly become useless, and having to jump 10 jumps would be taxing.
One potential solution to dealing with the bubbles, is if players could create / develop their own warp paths, using 3d splines on the system map. Probably also has it’s own complications, but there’s something there.
The core of this, seems to be to allow modules to take over core ship functions. Not a terrible concept, though I think this would require further ship balance.
The conceptual idea behind this, seems to be similar to my racing shuttle idea. However, instead of using the module system, what if we’re able to tear into the hull itself in the way you can in the various mechanic games. That could open up new possibilities without needing to be overly concerned with module balance.
Granted, that could open up a whole new can of worms. but the design aspect of it would likely be engaging to a number of people.
What’s the idea behind this? and how would be be balanced for concord?
In general, I like the thematic idea behind mines, but in practice I recognize they have a lot of gameplay issues. Even in non-highsec areas of space.
What ship classes are you thinking for this?
Half baked, as they may be, all in all, I can see some promise with those ideas.
I’m not entirely sure how they solve the op’s concern about the game wasting their time though. I guess with the highsec bubbles or mines, the people laying them at least are engaging in an activity that isn’t totally mind numbing. The people traveling though… eh. I can see there being issues unless there were alternative travel methods available.
Not to start the Dscan argument back up again, but the idea of having the audible alert and automatic dscan would literally allow the player to not have to "stare at the little window for hours at a time." Even if we skipped out on the automatiic dscan, but just had the audible alert for new contacts, that would greatly improve the situation.
Oh I agree, and the vigilance isn’t the issue we were having issues with. making use of dscan to avoid gate camps is quite engaging, which also requires vigilance. It’s the required repetition that makes the gameplay mind numbing.
As I’ve said previously, open world mmo’s will always have an element of time wasting. Just the mere fact there’s travel time instead of instant teleport causes time to pass. But elements around design can be done intelligently, so the activities presented in the game are generally more enjoyable, so the investment of time can feel like time well spent.
1 Like
Seems like OP has made his choice.
Ultimately, if CCP doesn’t have a game that’s engaging for people, those people will just go somewhere else.
Personally, I find that a bit sad, because I like the feel and theme of EVE. To have it go under, would be unfortunate.
2 Likes
Some people seem to think that the players who leave were not going to make it in the EvE Elite git-gud Club in the first place anyway and it also seems that CCP doesn’t care just as long as the dough keeps coming in.
EvE is a punishing “game” that doesn’t respect the player’s time and the whole thing, every little parts of it, are set up for maximum profit and matching punishment. But they call it “steep learning curve”.
It’s funny and I have no problem with people deluding themselves. But I won’t take part in the delusion.
I have a scoop for the Git-Gud Club: Not every player enjoys punishment during gameplay it is not a substitute for engaging mechanics. Taking something away from the player doesn’t make him want to play, it makes him want to go look for a “better” game.
PS: Another scoop: EvE isn’t a game.
3 Likes
Yeah, pretty much. There’s a wide variety out there to choose from.
I’d say the balance is somewhere in the middle. Personally, I like open world games that have an aspect of hunting to them. There’s just something fun about tracking someone and bringing them down. (Better tools for this in EVE that lead to a more visceral experience would be appreciated - especially if it facilitated bounty hunting.)
It seems like a lot of the hunter crowd are more interested in shooting fish in barrels though, as their main objection to making systems less clunky seems to be that it’ll be harder to get kills.
I guess my main message to the elite git-gud crowd, that can’t get kills unless the game is catered to them, is to… git gud.
Ultimately, the devs are probably best developing this balance based off real world examples of hunters and prey; the wolf and deer dichotomy.
If there are too many hunters, the prey die off, and then the wolves starve.
If there’s not enough hunters, the deer become overcrowded, and disease spreads.
I forget where it was, I think it was in North America, when wolves were reintroduced to the area, the population of deer actually rose.
2 Likes
I was naive when I started playing online “games”. I thought online “games” were real games, like the games I had become accustomed to playing, I mean games, not vehicles for ever-expanding business profits.
I thought online games were catering to players but I have come to the conclusion that, after playing half a dozen online “games”, it’s more like the players catering to the “games” with time, money, efforts and frustrations, all to then see yet another fun part of the “game” taken away because __________ ( <------ insert convenient excuse )
The gaming industry has been taking players for granted and fleecing them through various psychological, peer-pressure and barely legal means all the while swearing up and down that players’ health is a priority. It is not. The only priority for online “games” is profit.
I’m just waiting to see if players will wake up and realize the con. I doubt it though.
4 Likes
I am not a masochist. From my experience dscan was designed by a sadist. 
@Count_of_MonteCylon
Let me attempt to even understand this technology. We are suppose to be more than 21,000 years in the future, and yet the “radar” system cannot operate without a manual button press. I have been very tempted to place my novelty Drinking Bird at the keyboard. But then I would get banned for botting.
Worse yet the ship’s navigation system can map all the planets, moons, and belts, however cannot detect anything beyond a range of 14.3 AU no matter the design, fit, or type of ship. This handicapped system has actually worked to my benefit when I am out mining. Not that use it, but when others warp into the system from gates over 14.3 AU away, I know they can’t see me. Most assume I am in a dock and whizz through to the other gate without a second glance… yes trust your dscan gankers! 
I dropped dscan long ago. When I am out mining in my venture, I set my phone alarm and flip over to Netflix for a show or movie. The alarm goes off and I am either done mining or dead. Most of the time, I am full up and ready to hit the market. Dscan doesn’t deserve your respect or attention. Whenever I do get blown up and someone leaves the message, “Learn to use dscan!”. I just fit another venture and head back out to make more ISK. Why spend billions on anything bigger than a venture? 
4 Likes
It’s not always the case, Rail. I have heard/read people stating that because they’ve ‘invested’ so much money in EVE over the years (and grown addicted), it would irk them to just up and leave.
To be honest, I wish they would depart instead of whining about stuff, but it’s clear that some of them are quite unable to do the decent, mature thing.
This seems like somewhat of a dilemma for CCP to resolve. It also depends on what you think of as “the community”. Mini-games tend to be focused on the engagement and reward of solo/few-box players, simply due to the attention required. Despite the fact that multi-boxing appears to be on the rise for years now, there are likely more solo players in the game (and potential new incoming solo players) than there are heavy multi-boxers. But the multi-boxers are likely a more reliable income source for CCP.
If CCP uses mini-games to shift the energy/attention/reward balance towards more reward on fewer accounts, they might gain more ‘potential’ solo player activity against losing more multi-boxed accounts, which is current guaranteed, fairly reliable income.
I personally favor the idea that putting more direct attentive effort into the game should be more rewarding, and that low-attention, long-wait, multi-boxing activities to increase rewards was a bad direction for CCP to take. But I can certainly see that CCP might not want to rock the boat too much given how dependent they’ve become on fewer players with more accounts.
1 Like
I agree that making mini-games an optional, reward enhancer; without reducing the payout from current low-attention methods, would be a more palatable approach and wouldn’t interfere with multi-boxers. (Although it would slightly reduce their competitive wealth generation.)
I’m not sure I’d go so far as to say the hacking mini-game “keeps people entertained”. To prevent “minigame suckage” there should be both variety and some relevance to the task at hand. Hacking has relevance to container unlocks, but nothing to do with mining, for instance.
Mining could use a hotspot/focus type mini-game, where you scan the asteroid for hotspots and then do a focus mini-game to increase mining efficiency. After you focus the efficiency would drift downward until you do the mini-game again. Or it might only apply for X seconds. It might require an extra high module to enable it.
Other than mining though I’m not sure what other areas of EVE could be enhanced by a mini-game. It doesn’t seem to fit trade, production, or PvP very well. Could probably make some new PvE activities that use new minigames but not sure that would really help EVE overmuch.
1 Like
True, people fall prey to the sunk cost fallacy all the time, but it’s not like people have to throw EVE in the trash entirely. I took a fairly long hiatus from the game myself, and then came back later. As long as the servers are still up, your characters will be waiting for you if you decide to return.
Even if it was an overall financial benefit for CCP in the end, they’d be hurting for quite a while if they went straight for the neck on this. It’s probably better to ease into it, rather than just doing something crazy like banning multi-boxing. Not that you suggested that, but it seems like something that needs to be said.
I think shift is an important word here. If the effort is done gradually, then there’s less resistance. Frog in a boiling pot and all that.
True. Though it should be, as you said, slight. If you look at the mining graphs, most of the minerals are mined by high end ships, who are exactly the sort of people who would be able to have multiple accounts for their mining operation.
It would be interesting to find out what the break down is, for solo, vs multiboxer, vs botting miners.
I agree with that. The more variety the better.
This is why I always suggest a “skinned” or “themed” hacking minigame. The general idea is to use the code and the functionality of the current hacking game, and skinning it to be thematically relevant to whatever you’re using it for.
For mining, you’d have little nodes you’d have to find in order to complete your cycle faster, or maybe it would give you extra ore, or w/e. the point is that it’s possible to make the tech that exists, work for other parts of the game, with a bit of thought and some window dressing.
Yeah, ideally we could make the experience as visceral as possible, but whenever I have these conversations I always talk about the hacking minigame, because it’s code that already exists in the game, which means the barrier to have CCP implement changes is much lower.
Personally, I’m a big fan of the thumper game play from Firefall (it’s basically an EVE crab beacon)…
… but it probably wouldn’t work for EVE mining, unless you dropped it on a planet, moon, or REALLY big asteroid (like those rocks in the rookie systems that are part of the career agent missions.) Could work for Vanguard though… and I hope they do something like that.
Well, you also have to consider why you’re implementing the minigame. Trade and production are already interesting enough as it is that you don’t need to do it for the purpose of relieving boredom. So the main reason for that would be to hamper the efforts of bots.
I don’t think it’s worth annoying your player base with market minigames in order to make the life of botters more difficult. The first priority should be to make a compelling product.
As for pvp, I’ve long thought incorporating hacking into pvp would be thematically fun. being able to give people temporary debuffs or turn off modules, kick the enemy pod out of their ship when it’s in low structure, ect. could be interesting gameplay. Obviously all that needs to be balanced, but it’s a potential option.
Likewise, modules could have an efficiency rating… and running related minigames successfully could increase their efficiency. So that’s a way to increase damage output, tank, speed, ect. Is it a good idea? Shrug, I haven’t really thought through all the implications of it yet, so it might have some unforeseen consequences. (Especially if the minigame is too simple to the point where it’s most efficient to let a bot do it.)
Even warp travel could be a “minigame” … though in that case I’d suggest it be a more visceral experience, not some separate thing going on in some other window.
The main thing I can think of here, is to have interactable pois around various objects in space, gates and stations mostly. Hack the object, get reward item. fail the hack, police show up and scram you. That’s pve related to being part of the underworld.
Another option, is to be able to hack a station to be able to give you docking rights when you’re normally not allowed. Or maybe you could hack a stargate, to turn it off for a minute. These aren’t really related to pve, but it’s just more examples of how minigame design could be worked into the game.
In any case, it seems like the main take away from this thread is people recognize EVE has a problem, and quite a few people have put forward ideas to help solve that problem. Would any of them work? who knows. Hopefully the devs recognize the issue at least.
1 Like
I think D-scan works fine, those of you who want it automated sound like you are cowards who just obsessively live in fear and want automated Safety. If you don’t enjoy using D-scan, you can always stop, I’ll still be using it though.
Not that I desire it to change, it works for me when others depend too much on it.
I just find it amazing, how this tech has gone backwards, from basic underwater passive sonar we have use for over a century, and still use to this day. This operates more like the “ping” in a sub sonar array without the danger. We don’t want to use the “ping” because it gives away our position to the current threats.
If dscan worked more like ping, it would make sense. You don’t want to give away your position to the enemy unless you are ready to warp to a new position or launch your attack. If dscan was broken into the 2 classes (passive and active) then it would also make sense why you would manually activate a ping.
I find a system where gate A and B are well beyond the 14.3 AU of my farm belt or ratting site. Also it helps to have little to no traffic in the area. Obviously I don’t set up in common flight paths. In the rare cases where I am active at the keyboard, I watch the local chat for anyone who enters the system. If they remain more than enough time to jump to the next gate, I might give a ping (dscan) to see the sonar buoys (combat probes). This game remind anyone else of Red Storm Rising yet?
2 Likes
Ok, I see you need an ingame roleplay explanation.
So SONAR can operate automatically, sure, however the D-Scan module uses a highgrade multipass tachynometer which consumes the Ic-Beta max current flow coming out of the tertiary plasmoid inverter array, so automatic operation would basically shut the ship down. It has to be pulsed manually in order to avoid this.
8 Likes
In addition: The ship already has multiple autoscanners running.
- the Shortrange Object Scanner (thats the one providing the Overview details) is working automatically and instantly - up to many thousand kilometers
- the Local Transponder Network Scanner is updating instantly - system-wide, except in WH/Pochven
- the Anomaly & Signature Detector is updating automatically in certain intervals - system-wide
The directional scanner is an additional tool in for gathering long-range object informations to use on special occasions, for example to confirm range to a target or a hunter in case of a suspected hostile presence. Explained in the tutorial video below:
3 Likes