Some very peculiar goings on with that not so Epic Arc.
Couldn’t get past the 2nd mission despite mining every single asteroid there was and taking it back to Kisogo.
No more to mine, nowhere else to deliver it to but apparently “objectives have not been met”
Maybe some testing might have revealed that it’s borked?
When targeting a rock we should not need to use the scanner to see its hit points. You do not need to scan a ship you target.
New arc design feedback(known bugs skipped)
Location is suboptimal. If it is assumed that arc is intended for very new players, starting location should either close to Arnon(ease of access from all 4 empires, proximity to SoE arc beginning and ending systems), or at each and every AIR station (ease of access)
Arc is, let’s face it’, boring and dull; there is nothing in it to keep player ‘hooked up’ and there no incentives to complete it after getting a ‘Pioneer’
It makes more sense to have Pioneer hull and a BPC as a rewards for final mission
Forcing player to use Pioneer for missions #2 and #3 is simply artificial and not justified, because Pioneer does not offer any advantage over the Venture in context of getting this arc finished, while has significantly worse mobility on grid. Please let players use of Venture for all 3 missions
Mission grids (2nd room for missions #1 and #2) are excessively large without obvious reasons, unless it was an intent to waste player’s time
Hacking difficulty could be too high for new guy who just started playing and only had finished career agents; especially valid for mission #3. It needs to be consistent with career agent explo missions and SoE Arc, e.g. doable with civilian data analyzer (which needs to be provided by agent) by unexperienced player with day 0 character without expert systems
Mission #2- confusing inconsistency of wording in ‘dialog’ pop-ups. NPCs are mentioning ‘Density’, while survey scanner readout provides ‘Quantity’. Density =/= Quantity!!! This might require some elaboration: player can compare rock volume vs quantity only by opening survey scan results window, and that is not self-evident. Simple clicking the asteroid after running the scan just gives quantity, range and value read-outs.
Mission #3. Sorry, but what is the purpose of mining ‘Rubble’ rocks? They do not obstruct path to cans, unlike mines, and whole thing looks like a bit of a trolling attempt aiming to make player waste his/her time on pointless activity
Restrictions on using of camera zoom and overlays- very annoying overcomplication.
‘Show all brackets in space’ does not reveal asteroids (all missions) and mines (mission #3). Because of this and (9) user is forced to rely solely on overview, which is suboptimal, especially with excessive grid size and spacial separation of objects in mind.
Scripted camera motion in beginning of mission #2- too fast, too abrupt. Sorry, but it looks really sloppy
You need to drop it in the Odysseus in that dungeon, not take it back to Kisogo
You need to be able to sort the columns in the Mining Survey Results Window however you want. Right now, the Distance column is all the way in the back, I want to be able to bring that forward and make it the second or third column in the Results Window. Or make it so that I can turn off colums that I am not interested in.
Great feedback but something tells me the devs have moved on to other things.
Have CCP seeded the new ships somewhere?
I’m asking as the BP’s were only released yesterday but I can already buy a Pioneer Consortium Issue ship.
Since mining is in focus now, one question:
Why are mining barges and exhumers smaller in repackaged state than the mining destroyers?
It makes no sense that barges and exhumers, which are cruisers or battlecruisers in terms of size and mass, have a smaller packaged size than destroyers.
And speaking of which: Why is the Prospect/Endurance in assembled state 50,000 m³ while other frigates, the Venture included, only have a volume of ~28k m³ and T2 frigs like AF less than 20k m³ even.
Please don’t bring that to CCP’s attention, they might ‘fix’ it by increasing barge sizes. I love the tiny packaged barges.
I didn’t like it yesterday when I wanted to DST-transport a Prospect and Anathema in my fleet hangar but got smacked by the “too big for the hold” warning because it never occurred to me that frigs could be as voluminous as cruisers.
I don’t think you can fit assembled ships in any type of hold besides ship maintenance bays.
You ran into a different error. Not even 5k m3 shuttles would have fit in the DST without repackaging.
Edit: this was wrong, I have been corrected. Assembled ships do fit in a fleet hangar.
Suggest just saying what the asteroid name is with grade instead asteroid and the bracketed name next to it.
ship and item m3 sizes are used for game balance, and are not actually lore related.
Does all asteroids have “Asteroid” in the name now? Or is that the type column
Its in the name column the type column has the way I would prefer it in the name column. Here’s a better image. Now that I look at the image. I think is a small error the names in the name column should be in the type column and vice versa
I have one niche use of the (former) mining survey scanners that is now “broken”: I have a barge with strip miners with a 15km range. In my home system, I have several bookmarks each covering one “half” of an asteroid belt with that range. I can warp to those bookmarks, release the scout drones, and mine away without needing to move.
I equipped a Survey Scanner I with this, even though I could equip T2, simply because the range was exactly 15km. So I land on the bookmark, scan, and sort by volume. Everything in the survey results window is in reach, and everything outside of reach does not show up. Then I choose my favorite asteroid flavor and work my way up from the fattest rocks to the thinnest.
With the new results window, this 15km range is gone. I’m still not gonna move, just have to sort by volume and then mentally filter out those which are too far. That’s just less convenience.
How to fix this? “When a player says your game has a problem, they’re almost always right. When they tell you how to fix it, they’re almost always wrong”. In fact, you might not care about this type of gameplay and are fine with this; that’s ok. Just wanted you to know, and let you know that an option to filter the results by range would be noticed by one player at least 
Fleet Hangars can carry assembled ships. “Too big for the hold” was meant as that the fleet hangar did not have enough space for the Prospect after I stashed the Anathema. Only then I noticed that Prospects/Endurances have a much, much larger volume than any other frigate in existence.
The ship volume or ship classes have nothing to do with lore. I would be really interested in the balancing rationale that explains why packaged barges are smaller than packaged destroyers, or why assembled expedition frigates have larger ship volumes than assembled destroyers.
When are Mining Destroyers going to become part of the Prequ Tree for Mining Barges? Now that this ship progression is getting more and more like the standard ship trees, it makes no sense to keep the MD out of the Barge and Exhumer skill tree.
