Given that the tutorial doesn’t work, can we get some quick instructions on how to use this? I’m not sure what and how we’re supposed to evaluate these charts.
If we get a skin every level, and levelling costs more and more EXP, isn’t that prone to abuse by just making alts/alpha’s? Same goes for the fixed rank rewards. Also, is the max reward at 250? This will be completed extremely fast.
The green or red feedback bar takes to long to appear. One can easily click to the next screen without even being able to read it.
The tutorial does not work.
The EXP bar is quite small and in the submit screen there is no EXP bar incrementing, except for the ‘larger’ one. Please add the normal EXP bar to this screen as well.
No option to request a new sample
No option to notify researchers when a super strange light pattern is found.
I have encountered only a few control samples, how many are there and can the ‘spawn’ rate of the control samples be increased at accuracy levels under, say, 80%?
I doubt you get your EVE name on it, because finding exoplanets in the Discovery projects is a group effort. If x amount of players marked spots, because they think there is something, then the information gets passed to the scientists and they check it.
Edit: Not to mention some of the EVE player names are…not so great for naming an exoplanet.
Commenting on the reward system - it definitely feels like it’ll be easier to just make alphas and level up a few levels, on repeating accounts, until you have all the skins you want - it feels very open to abuse.
Moreover: I feel like the rewards could work just fine if they worked the same way the SoE analysis kredit rewards did, in a LP store - except these would be CONCORD AK, not SoE AK (like how LP is viewed in your journal).
Having, for example, “Gallente Cruiser Exoplanet SKIN Package”, “Strategic Cruiser Exoplanet SKIN Package”, etc. available for AK makes sense there, in place of getting x random “loot box” per level. Additionally, in the case of the CONCORD ships, it would make more sense to have them available as blueprint copies or whole ships for Analysis Kredits - and I’m seriously wondering how the awards/tiering/set level rewards are going to work if the Marshal (concord BS) is introduced months away, in winter.
The “Loot Box” mechanic just seems really out-of-place for EVE, I’m surprised it’s the direction this seems to have gone in - I don’t expect it to change, but I’d be much happier if it was more like the above or like the last iteration of project discovery.
I do want to say that the analysis itself is enjoyable though - I enjoy it already
Well i myself as an alpha trying to get omega due to the fact i currently cannot buy it (not due to money problems i shall point out) would not mind it. Plus. CCP makes no less money of plex being bought in game, actually more so seen as plex costs more than game time to buy. and it is players buying plex to sell for ISK so you see where i am coming from. i myself dont see the issue with it and also the ‘repeating account’ (what ever they are) are still limited by the ammout of accounts people can run and manage. If anything allowing alphas to get omega quicker will only grow eve. CCP still makes money from them signing up as well because the plex they buy is bought by players. this is my view and i cannot see many if any downsides would you have any thoughts on this?
It takes a lot more xp to level up as you advance, and leveling up is the only way to get the rewards for the project.
One strategy, if this remains the case, would be to simply make more and more alpha accounts/characters, level up early levels until you’ve gotten the SKINS you want, then stop doing Analysis altogether.
This obviously wouldn’t be too common to see, but I feel like it would make far more sense to keep things consistent and give Kredits in the same way as before, scaling with your level - that way the “cost” for anything you’ll get from the project is consistent, and you have choices to either get some skins, or save up and get a concord ship or labcoat etc. It’s about giving choice, instead of a railroaded, tiered reward system.
As I try to adjust the interval, I’ve noticed that I can I only adjust the interval between the first and second transits, which is not incredibly precise and leads to compounding errors as more lines are drawn for subsequent transits. By the time it gets to the last few transits, the line may be completely off the dip in signal strength. Like this:
Signal: |||__________________|
My Line: |||__________________|_____
Would it be possible to add a feature where you can grab a later line to more accurately line it up with the dip in signal strength? The workflow would go like this: Place first line on first transit, place second line on second transit, pull last line onto last transit which slightly tweaks the interval of all transits.
DRAT! i was actually in the process of writing a letter but not sure who to post it to about the possibility of introducing exoplanet explorer into eve as eve is such a game to do that and often does stuff like this… BLAST! xD ah well science is getting helped so no matter. Onto the actual project now. i see it is a lot more complicated than the actual project on exo planet explorers but that is to be expected as we dont want players getting something for nothing haha. but still, given the actual project perhaps it would be better to keep it the simple way for quick successions and only give rewards every 10 or maybe even 25 because if you check the actual project you can see this is the case. i see the need to make it more complex and such but i would also not like to see the results or speed of results compromised along the way.
Edit: Also, unlike the actual one as well im having problems spotting the actual planets ether because have yet to come across anyway or because i dont know what im looking for yet. in the exo planet explorer there was a clear view of when you found a planet.
I also noticed that if my analysis is successful (which I assume is a control sample), there is no visual indication that my solar activity classification was accurate. Could you highlight those in green or red if you get it right or wrong respectively?
I echo the concerns over the mini game and think it is important for any reward feature to exhibit the following:
The value of the rewards should match the effort required to avoid abuse. If leveling gets harder each successive reward should increase.
The rewards should increase substantially the further the progression in order to gain commitment. If the reward is just linear to the effort there is less incentive to progress further, as the newness factor will wear off and some other reward has to kick in to compensate.
The accuracy has to initially only be measured based on expert feedback and not group consensus, as the profit seeking player base will tend to generate an artificial consensus, such as always choosing one particular answer. As players progress and improve their scores, then they gradually start forming part of the consensus group with weights according to their most recent accuracy scores.
Gaining ranks and accuracy should be slow and loosing them should be faster, in order to keep players focused on accuracy and avoid abuse by seasoned players.
