These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Feedback for Hacking/Archaeology feature from 27/5/13 onward

First post First post
Author
Sugar Kyle
Middle Ground
#281 - 2013-05-30 14:36:18 UTC
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.


Its not a challenge to also have to chase your dinner after you hunted it down, prepared it, cooked it, and placed it on your plate to have it come back to life and run off again.

That is not the challenge that people who tend to be very patient and methodical, as explorers are, accepting bad drops for the possibility of good ones, are probably looking for.

They are not doing this in interceptors.

For people who want challenges, such as an interceptor pilot might want twisting and weaving through a fight keeping range and trying to tackle while not dying, there are challenges for that. Such as being an interceptor pilot in combat.

For people who want to soak in seeking and spend the time and effort and thought into getting their processes, a frantic sprawling click fest of can chasing isn't a 'challenge'. It is an irritating, annoying, punishment to finally get a bite of food to eat.

Member of CSM9 and CSM10.

Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#282 - 2013-05-30 14:50:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco
Sugar Kyle 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.


Its not a challenge to also have to chase your dinner after you hunted it down, prepared it, cooked it, and placed it on your plate to have it come back to life and run off again.

That is not the challenge that people who tend to be very patient and methodical, as explorers are, accepting bad drops for the possibility of good ones, are probably looking for.

They are not doing this in interceptors.

For people who want challenges, such as an interceptor pilot might want twisting and weaving through a fight keeping range and trying to tackle while not dying, there are challenges for that. Such as being an interceptor pilot in combat.

For people who want to soak in seeking and spend the time and effort and thought into getting their processes, a frantic sprawling click fest of can chasing isn't a 'challenge'. It is an irritating, annoying, punishment to finally get a bite of food to eat.


As someone who's not entirely a fan of the loot spew, let me say:

Stop with the over-exaggeration. Nobody's dinner is running away from them. Also, your analogy (as poor as it was) reminded me of Oregon Trail for some reason. Random thought but I figured I'd share it anyway.

Having some familiarity with flying interceptors myself, I can tell you that the loot spew would be far, far beyond terrible if we were using interceptors to try and catch cans. The acceleration on an Interceptor is enormously too high. They're pretty fun for other things though. Worth a try if you haven't yet.

This loot spew game though, if we want to call that part a game unto itself, it's not all that frantic if you stop panicking about making money or not. Just calmly click on them when they're green and use the time that they're yellow to hover your mouse over the other containers and pick the next one you want. Zooming out a bit helps, but don't zoom out too far. Knowing how your ship behaves and being able to effectively control it manually are enormous helps.

"A bite of food to eat". Please spare me your desire to wax melodramatic. You're not Shakespeare, this isn't MacBeth and nobody's dying of starvation on the Oregon Trail.
Omnathious Deninard
Ministry of Silly Walks.
Parasitic Legion.
#283 - 2013-05-30 15:09:18 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Sugar Kyle 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.


Its not a challenge to also have to chase your dinner after you hunted it down, prepared it, cooked it, and placed it on your plate to have it come back to life and run off again.

That is not the challenge that people who tend to be very patient and methodical, as explorers are, accepting bad drops for the possibility of good ones, are probably looking for.

They are not doing this in interceptors.

For people who want challenges, such as an interceptor pilot might want twisting and weaving through a fight keeping range and trying to tackle while not dying, there are challenges for that. Such as being an interceptor pilot in combat.

For people who want to soak in seeking and spend the time and effort and thought into getting their processes, a frantic sprawling click fest of can chasing isn't a 'challenge'. It is an irritating, annoying, punishment to finally get a bite of food to eat.


As someone who's not entirely a fan of the loot spew, let me say:

Stop with the over-exaggeration. Nobody's dinner is running away from them. Also, your analogy (as poor as it was) reminded me of Oregon Trail for some reason. Random thought but I figured I'd share it anyway.

Having some familiarity with flying interceptors myself, I can tell you that the loot spew would be far, far beyond terrible if we were using interceptors to try and catch cans. The acceleration on an Interceptor is enormously too high. They're pretty fun for other things though. Worth a try if you haven't yet.

This loot spew game though, if we want to call that part a game unto itself, it's not all that frantic if you stop panicking about making money or not. Just calmly click on them when they're green and use the time that they're yellow to hover your mouse over the other containers and pick the next one you want. Zooming out a bit helps, but don't zoom out too far. Knowing how your ship behaves and being able to effectively control it manually are enormous helps.

"A bite of food to eat". Please spare me your desire to wax melodramatic. You're not Shakespeare, this isn't MacBeth and nobody's dying of starvation on the Oregon Trail.

The new speed for the cans makes it manageable in a non-nanofiber fit tengu. All in all if the piƱata is here to stay, the current method is good.
It is right now like you hunted your food, cooked your food, put it in a plate and started walking to the table and tripped. How much food can you catch?

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#284 - 2013-05-30 15:11:13 UTC
To me, at least, it is not like food is involved at all.

You people and your questionable-at-best food analogies. Is it mealtime where you are?
Johan Toralen
IIIJIIIITIIII
#285 - 2013-05-30 15:18:14 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
This is probably the worst thing I've ever seen you post.

T3s should not have a superior-to-T2 bonus. Ignoring that it's boring and absolutely will make T3s even more of a go-to "optimal" ship, it's completely against the spirit of what a T3 is.

I love my T3s and I will do horrible, horrible things to the person who tries to take them away from me, but I do not agree with "T3 should be flat-out better than T2 at hacking" and the general idea that everyone should be forced to fly T3 for everything because they're the super-best.

T1 should be good at hacking because you chose a ship that has a limited capacity to defend itself. T2 should be amazing at hacking because you trained for the hull and sacrificed more defenses. T3 should be just as amazing as T2, but for entirely different reasons and in an entirely different way.


I respect your opinion. I said same tho. Like Emergent Locus gives same scan bonus as t2 frig. ok with the "if not better" i went overboard. Had on the back of my head tho how much more difficult the nullsec hacking sites are and that's where you want to use the T3.

Quote:
By the way, people will still fly cloaky T3s for lowsec hacking. They're still perfectly viable as all-in-one ships; even more so now that you don't need that blasted Salvager II taking up a weapon slot.


With the new sites you want instead rigs, cargo scanner, t2 tractors and sensor boosters to do it in an optimized way. All-in-one ships are gonna be even more jack-off-all-trades/good at nothing then before. If people want to fly that way more power to them. I think it's gonna be economical nonsense. And they'll be easier gank targets then ever due to the changes. I would think really really hard before risking a half billion or more ship for some decryptor and a few data cores.
CCP RedDawn
C C P
C C P Alliance
#286 - 2013-05-30 15:20:55 UTC
Hello again.

Here are some more changes which will be on Singularity within the next few updates:

Anti-Virus Suppressors now have a Coherency of 60. (Previously 80)
Anti-Virus Suppressors now have a Strength of 15. (Previously 20)
Anti-Virus Suppressors now have a suppression rate of 15. (Previously 20)
Anti-Virus Suppressors are no longer in the tier 3 difficulty. They only appear in tier 4 now.
Restoration Nodes can now be found in the tier 3 difficulty.
The Tech III Emergent Locus Analyzer electronic subsystems now have a +10 Virus Strength bonus.

Hack safe.
CCP RedDawn

Team Genesis

Sugar Kyle
Middle Ground
#287 - 2013-05-30 15:35:14 UTC
A nice bonus to covops and exploration frigates (maybe scanning T3 sub and recons) would be a + to the tractor speed of the can.

Member of CSM9 and CSM10.

Azurielle Silestris
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#288 - 2013-05-30 15:36:57 UTC
Manssell wrote:
mynnna wrote:
"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.


First off, so this doesn't come off wrong I want to say I'm a big supporter of you guys on the CSM, you've volunteered for a thankless terrible job. Now here's why I think your view of this is completely wrong Big smile

I don't multi-box, but since when does Eve discourage multi-boxers? Where else in game does the game design try to eliminate the use of two accounts? Why is it perfectly fine for some poor guy to loose his shiny ship in a 1v1 that turns into a 3v1 when a multi-boxer jumps his two alts through a gate, but that same poor guy can't run two accounts to make back the isk for that ship if he happens to do exploration?! Are you going to support a new fleet window that is designed to discourage multi-acounts from coming to fleet fights now?

As someone wonderfully pointed out to you on the original thread, how big a supporter of this would you be if the loot spew mechanic was added to moon mining, something a person can pick up solo right now. You know to encourage group play. Have the POS spew out the moon goo in cans that drift away and disappear so you need to bring a friend to grab it all before it's gone? Are you pushing for that to go into the game once exploration is done? Should market orders now require one to be present in two stations to place a region order to encourage people to trade with a friend? Should research now require two people to start a job or then get less of a chance to invent? Why are we singling out exploration for special encouragement mechanics?

The simple fact is CCP is playing social engineering with the exploration profession, something that is extremely unsandboxy. I honestly feel the only reason this is getting CSM support is because we are not a political block ourselves. And what's really annoying here, All this is just a few weeks after CCP Seagull stood up in front of everyone at Fanfest and said that solo play was a play stye they support when designing the game. Yet the very first expansion since then the major feature is a mechanic design specifically to make a solo play style a pain in the ass! I guess the nod to solo at Fanfest was just a way for Seagull to buy some cover?

But here's the big problem "bringing a friend" has always been a more efficient more rewarding way to do exploration! The way the system works on TQ now, it is much faster for one person to scan in a scanning ship, and another person to run the site with a combat ship while the scanner grabs the loot. The incentive has always been there to do this as a team. Two people scanning is faster and makes more isk than one, and that's the way every other activity in Eve scales with group play. You are more efficient, have more firepower or both. This loot spew was never needed, encouragement was already there just like it is everywhere else.

The simple fact is exploration has always been kinda a solo activity with the types of players it attracts. Why are we now suddenly making their play style more frustrating for the sake of the mythical gang of explores? If CCP looked at exploration and wondered why so many do it solo, then perhaps they should have oh I don't know, asked the exploration community first why that is and then worked out a better way to encourage more groups from that (hint: dungeon design!) rather than throw together this awful mechanic that is not fun, is an awful clickfest, makes you feel as though you loose even if you win and is generally just a bad game design.


Look I get that this is happening, it is far too late in the process for this amount of work to be scraped, but the people against this are not "whining", they are trying to limit the impact of this terrible gameplay that is being thrust on them for social engineering reasons in a supposed sandbox game.


I'm beginning to sound like Scuzzy here, but it honestly IS social engineering.

The again, if it discourages multiboxing it's kind of good.

On the other hand, having the moon goo machine loot spew would be fun as hell...
Omnathious Deninard
Ministry of Silly Walks.
Parasitic Legion.
#289 - 2013-05-30 15:47:53 UTC
CCP RedDawn wrote:
Hello again.

Here are some more changes which will be on Singularity within the next few updates:

Anti-Virus Suppressors now have a Coherency of 60. (Previously 80)
Anti-Virus Suppressors now have a Strength of 15. (Previously 20)
Anti-Virus Suppressors now have a suppression rate of 15. (Previously 20)
Anti-Virus Suppressors are no longer in the tier 3 difficulty. They only appear in tier 4 now.
Restoration Nodes can now be found in the tier 3 difficulty.
The Tech III Emergent Locus Analyzer electronic subsystems now have a +10 Virus Strength bonus.

Hack safe.
CCP RedDawn

Thank youBig smile

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

BlakPhoenix
Load Up Blast Everything
DARKNESS.
#290 - 2013-05-30 16:02:06 UTC
Tested this out a bit tonight and have to say that in general I like it HOWEVER, there are some issues that I had.

The biggest issue I kept having was what felt like punishment for bad RNG. What I mean by this is, I get too many firewalls twice in a row and then I lose all the potential goodies. This just feels unfair and while I tried my best to make smart decisions I was forced into losing good drops due to bad luck. This gave me anticipation about every hack I had and made me worry if I failed the first attempt that the last 15+ minutes of scanning and hacking would be in vain.

I really feel like the destroyed loot is an unfair mechanic that makes players feel betrayed when they tried their best multiple times in an event. I don't want it given to me on a platter but only having 2 attempts really isn't very many especially with what feels like such high RNG mechanics. I would rather struggle for an hour knowing the reward is worth it than struggle for 15 minutes and not know if I will get anything or if it will disappear in front of my eyes because of a lousy firewall.

The speed of the can's feels good now (I don't have to manoeuvre my ship any more) and while I feel like every click should open up more than 1 node (maybe between 2-4 nodes in a random direction) so make it less clicky, it's on a good track. Please keep working on this system CCP, it's fun and definitely the right direction however I do feel like I've been punished sometimes in its current state.
Destoya
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#291 - 2013-05-30 16:02:32 UTC
Please please reserve the +10 bonus for the specialized T2 ships. It should be +5 or +7.5. This theme of making T3 as good or better than specialized T2 ships does not fit with the original vision or promise of the ships and is counterproductive to balance.

Other than that, I like these changes a lot
Maximus Andendare
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#292 - 2013-05-30 16:09:14 UTC
Destoya wrote:
Please please reserve the +10 bonus for the specialized T2 ships. It should be +5 or +7.5. This theme of making T3 as good or better than specialized T2 ships does not fit with the original vision or promise of the ships and is counterproductive to balance.

Other than that, I like these changes a lot
You're making an assumption that T2 ships won't have better bonuses to this without any information on T2 rebalancing. Probably better to wait to make statements like this.

Enter grid and you're already dead, destined to be reborn and fight another day.

>> Play Eve Online FREE! Join today for exclusive bonuses! <<

Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
#293 - 2013-05-30 16:13:02 UTC
Destoya wrote:
Please please reserve the +10 bonus for the specialized T2 ships. It should be +5 or +7.5. This theme of making T3 as good or better than specialized T2 ships does not fit with the original vision or promise of the ships and is counterproductive to balance.t
This. Woulda thought you guys learned your lesson with Warfare Links. Apparently not.

When released T3 was stressed as being about adaptability and jack-of-all-trades, while specialized ships would do a better job. But once again, T3 does as good a job if not better.

(Note - I do 90% of my exploration on TQ in a Tengu.)
Mr Morita
Xtreme Role Players
#294 - 2013-05-30 16:17:16 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Sugar Kyle 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.


Its not a challenge to also have to chase your dinner after you hunted it down, prepared it, cooked it, and placed it on your plate to have it come back to life and run off again.

That is not the challenge that people who tend to be very patient and methodical, as explorers are, accepting bad drops for the possibility of good ones, are probably looking for.

They are not doing this in interceptors.

For people who want challenges, such as an interceptor pilot might want twisting and weaving through a fight keeping range and trying to tackle while not dying, there are challenges for that. Such as being an interceptor pilot in combat.

For people who want to soak in seeking and spend the time and effort and thought into getting their processes, a frantic sprawling click fest of can chasing isn't a 'challenge'. It is an irritating, annoying, punishment to finally get a bite of food to eat.


As someone who's not entirely a fan of the loot spew, let me say:

Stop with the over-exaggeration. Nobody's dinner is running away from them. Also, your analogy (as poor as it was) reminded me of Oregon Trail for some reason. Random thought but I figured I'd share it anyway.

Having some familiarity with flying interceptors myself, I can tell you that the loot spew would be far, far beyond terrible if we were using interceptors to try and catch cans. The acceleration on an Interceptor is enormously too high. They're pretty fun for other things though. Worth a try if you haven't yet.

This loot spew game though, if we want to call that part a game unto itself, it's not all that frantic if you stop panicking about making money or not. Just calmly click on them when they're green and use the time that they're yellow to hover your mouse over the other containers and pick the next one you want. Zooming out a bit helps, but don't zoom out too far. Knowing how your ship behaves and being able to effectively control it manually are enormous helps.

"A bite of food to eat". Please spare me your desire to wax melodramatic. You're not Shakespeare, this isn't MacBeth and nobody's dying of starvation on the Oregon Trail.


To be fair, there's already enough loot pinatas flying around in-game as it is.
Raven Solaris
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#295 - 2013-05-30 16:20:12 UTC
Eh, I'll just leave this here:

https://twitter.com/Harkconnan/status/340083565041684480

Think I'm done talking about the loot pinata, just about everything's already been stated and restated.

Do we have any ETA on the latest hacking changes hitting SiSi?
Omnathious Deninard
Ministry of Silly Walks.
Parasitic Legion.
#296 - 2013-05-30 16:20:53 UTC
Destoya wrote:
Please please reserve the +10 bonus for the specialized T2 ships. It should be +5 or +7.5. This theme of making T3 as good or better than specialized T2 ships does not fit with the original vision or promise of the ships and is counterproductive to balance.

Other than that, I like these changes a lot

Lets not for get that covert ops frigates are much more nimble than a t3 and will be able to escape much faster.
I don't want to say cost is balancing factor because it is not, but covert ops frigates are disposable.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

Ali Aras
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#297 - 2013-05-30 16:31:50 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Destoya wrote:
Please please reserve the +10 bonus for the specialized T2 ships. It should be +5 or +7.5. This theme of making T3 as good or better than specialized T2 ships does not fit with the original vision or promise of the ships and is counterproductive to balance.

Other than that, I like these changes a lot

Lets not for get that covert ops frigates are much more nimble than a t3 and will be able to escape much faster.
I don't want to say cost is balancing factor because it is not, but covert ops frigates are disposable.

Tech 3s have nullification, which makes them impossible to catch at your standard gatecamp, even with highly skilled decloakers. When we see a tech3 jumping into the infamous 9-F0B2 permacamp, we often grumble about cloaky nulli being a thing that exists, spread out to 12km around the gate, and then watch it as it warps off into the distance. Cost balancing or not, flying a t3 is lower risk, and I agree with the thought that the +10s should be specialized ships only. +7 or +8 is a reasonable midpoint.

http://warp-to-sun.tumblr.com -- my blog

Omnathious Deninard
Ministry of Silly Walks.
Parasitic Legion.
#298 - 2013-05-30 16:49:21 UTC
Ali Aras wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Destoya wrote:
Please please reserve the +10 bonus for the specialized T2 ships. It should be +5 or +7.5. This theme of making T3 as good or better than specialized T2 ships does not fit with the original vision or promise of the ships and is counterproductive to balance.

Other than that, I like these changes a lot

Lets not for get that covert ops frigates are much more nimble than a t3 and will be able to escape much faster.
I don't want to say cost is balancing factor because it is not, but covert ops frigates are disposable.

Tech 3s have nullification, which makes them impossible to catch at your standard gatecamp, even with highly skilled decloakers. When we see a tech3 jumping into the infamous 9-F0B2 permacamp, we often grumble about cloaky nulli being a thing that exists, spread out to 12km around the gate, and then watch it as it warps off into the distance. Cost balancing or not, flying a t3 is lower risk, and I agree with the thought that the +10s should be specialized ships only. +7 or +8 is a reasonable midpoint.

What does the interdiction nullified have to do with catching someone in and escaping from a exploration site?
Are they going to repurpose covert ops ships from dedicated scanning ships to dedicated exploration ships? Because scanning is =/= to exploration.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

CCP Bayesian
#299 - 2013-05-30 16:49:33 UTC
Andreus Ixiris wrote:
CCP Bayesian wrote:
For the people saying the 'loot pinata sucks' and the like could you vocalise the problems you have with it?

So far I've collated:
- It's not the way EVE has previously worked.
- Collision is a pain, both with the size of the Data Sites and the positioning of some containers.
- Picking can be difficult if you're not using a mouse.
- Picking can be difficult if you're blinded by the site contents.
- Loot haul seems low in comparison with how it was before.
- Losing cans feels bad, particular after the effort of having to hack the container. This makes it feel like a penalty.
- Not knowing what is any particular can so it feels bad not being able to make good choices.
- The 'bad loot' is far too bulky so it is excessively penalising as you have to stop and sort it out.

I find this post disappointing given that players have been vocalising their problems with this system in depth for over 40 pages across two threads for nearly a month at this point.

In summary:

1. The loot pinata system is not fun. This is the most important and most essential issue with the mechanic. It's not fun. It's not enjoyable. After having expended the effort to play the minigame (which is fun but somewhat limited), having the loot that we worked for scatter everywhere and vanish after far too short a time feels... disappointing. It doesn't feel rewarding, it doesn't feel like you've accomplished something. It is irritating to chase after the cans, it's irritating to have to click on all of them individually, it's irritating to have them disappear, it's irritating to have little to no idea what you're picking up until you have it. The entire system is irritating, and irritating isn't fun. You've made a mechanic in your game that does not serve the player's enjoyment of it, and this is a bad thing that game developers should not do, because one of the core principles of good video game design is that each and every element of a game should further the player's engagement with and enjoyment of it.

2. The loot pinata system feels arbitrary. The fact that we have a magical tractor beam that can only move these specific types of cans and nothing else feels incongrous. The fact that you can't add the cans to overview and that they don't "stack" when you mouse over multiple items at a time feels incongrous. The fact that I'm apparently a masterful enough hacker to get past super-powerful Guristas mainframe security but not skilled enough to simply stop it from spewing everything everywhere feels incongrous. The fact that there's very little way to tell what's in the cans you're trying to pick up makes the system feel random and deeply unpredictable, like I'm playing Magic: The Gathering with someone else's deck. Please don't think that removing the arbitrary nature will actually make the spew itself fun, but it most certainly does make a bad idea worse.

3. The loot pinata system does not encourage teamwork, but will encourage theft. There is literally nothing else a fleet member can do while someone's hacking other than keep watch on D-scan and shoot any rats that appear (which, if the hacker is good, will not happen). The only useful thing a fleet member can do is pick up the cans after the hack is finished, which means that in terms of exploration you're only able to bring fleet members along for help with the least interesting parts of the experience. However, a random thief can sit cloaked off the object someone's hacking and then immediately start scooping spew cans with no penalty - no aggression timer, nothing. I'm not in any way against thievery, but when you make it easier (or at the very least no more difficult) for the thieves than the other members of a team, it doesn't send the right message.

4. The loot pinata system disrupts the flow of the exploration profession. You have to spend a fair amount of time sitting relatively immobile in space doing the minigame. This isn't a problem. The hacking minigame is fun. But then you have to spend another minute or two randomly flailing around trying to get the cans before moving onto the next minigame. This seriously breaks the flow of the experience. This might seem a weak point in comparison to the other three but it's yet another irritation.

Bayesian, most of the things you're addressing in your post are symptoms of the loot pinata mechanic. The problem is the mechanic itself.


Thanks for the lengthy feedback. I was making a list to make sure we had all the feedback points covered. These are things we're well aware of as we've been gathering feedback from you guys, as you've noticed, over several weeks and several threads.

With the theft stuff explicitly CCP Prime has tied the system into Crimewatch now so the person that steals your stuff will be open for retribution.

EVE Software Engineer Team Space Glitter

James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#300 - 2013-05-30 16:56:26 UTC
CCP RedDawn wrote:
Hello again.

Here are some more changes which will be on Singularity within the next few updates:

Anti-Virus Suppressors now have a Coherency of 60. (Previously 80)
Anti-Virus Suppressors now have a Strength of 15. (Previously 20)
Anti-Virus Suppressors now have a suppression rate of 15. (Previously 20)
Anti-Virus Suppressors are no longer in the tier 3 difficulty. They only appear in tier 4 now.
Restoration Nodes can now be found in the tier 3 difficulty.
The Tech III Emergent Locus Analyzer electronic subsystems now have a +10 Virus Strength bonus.

Hack safe.
CCP RedDawn

Excellent.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)