These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Mutli-Use Analyzers Feedback Thread

First post First post
Author
Gospadin
Bastard Children of Poinen
#41 - 2016-04-25 16:08:34 UTC
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
I think you need to improve hacking game first then introduce new modules.


Agreed.

Collapse them into one system now, and when you're ready to roll out the diverse sites with new gameplay in the future, add your 2nd hacking module type then.
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
WiNGSPAN Delivery Network
#42 - 2016-04-25 16:21:32 UTC
A cool idea but honestly I'd still prefer to see the modules merged and or scripted.

You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT

Skyler Hawk
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#43 - 2016-04-25 16:24:41 UTC
Quote:
* I get the concerns with the lower strength, but I don't want to make the ‘Zeugma’ Integrated Analyzer (the stronger one) the 'always go-to' option. They have to have some limitations with their dual benefit. (I already see that players are skilled enough in the hacking game that the loss of a utility element slot might not be so detrimental on its own)


I think a better way to achieve the goal of making a useful combined module would be to give it equal strength/coherence to the specialized modules, but much higher fitting costs than two of them - you need 50 cpu and 2 pg to run a t2 relic and data analyzer, so the combined module could maybe take 70 cpu and 5 pg, so you're trading midslots for fitting space.
epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#44 - 2016-04-25 16:30:16 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
Skyler Hawk wrote:
Quote:
* I get the concerns with the lower strength, but I don't want to make the ‘Zeugma’ Integrated Analyzer (the stronger one) the 'always go-to' option. They have to have some limitations with their dual benefit. (I already see that players are skilled enough in the hacking game that the loss of a utility element slot might not be so detrimental on its own)


I think a better way to achieve the goal of making a useful combined module would be to give it equal strength/coherence to the specialized modules, but much higher fitting costs than two of them - you need 50 cpu and 2 pg to run a t2 relic and data analyzer, so the combined module could maybe take 70 cpu and 5 pg, so you're trading midslots for fitting space.


Yes that would be logical, one really cannot mess with the strengths of the module without making the new modules entirely useless, see post earlier.

Fitting is the most logical place to apply a penalty, provided it is still able to be fitted.

In my opinion It should have the same fitting requirements as both modules combined (data and relic analyser)
And absolutely No other changes from the core modules coherence, virus strength, slots, all as the base module.

And additionally give the higher spec module T2 skill requirements.

Then they would be nicely balanced, effective, desireable, and in no way overpowered.

There is absolutely no point in creating modules that are either not wanted or mislead new explorers into fitting a module that is worse in every practical way than T1

If you ABSOLUTELY need to add a penalty, I would suggest, the cycle has to end before warp can be engaged?
Nasty, but justifiable for the slot saving.

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE

Alundil
Rolled Out
#45 - 2016-04-25 16:35:23 UTC
Aiken Paru wrote:
‘Zeugma’ Integrated Analyzer

- virus strength of a T1 analyzer
- coherence between T1 and T2
- only 2 instead of 3 utility slots
- 5 more CPU compared to a single T2, 25 less than both modules

Hmmm... most exploration ships -- including some Interceptors -- have no issue fitting both analyzers.

I can't help feeling that these modules try to fill a niche that in reality isn't there.

With the reduced coherence/strength compared to a T2 module this new module is pretty much out of question for Interceptors. Those exploration hulls who don't have enough midslots for both 'traditional' analyzers have enough cargo for a mobile depot.

Personally I don't see the little bit of convenience that the Zeugma adds being worth the downsides. Less CPU is nice but exploration ships generally aren't very tight on CPU to begin with unless fitted with Expanded Probe Launchers.

Edited for clarity:

How about
- single scriptable module
- coherence and strength on par with existing T2 modules
- 2 utility slots
- between 60 or 70 CPU requirement to not be OP
end edit


‘Ligature’ Integrated Analyzer is so weak compared to a T1 I see no use whatsoever.


Options are good (for those that want them). Though I think for the dedicated explorers, they'll tend to stick with the T2 versions for maximum effectiveness.

I'm right behind you

Damjan Fox
Fox Industries and Exploration
#46 - 2016-04-25 17:13:12 UTC
With these current stats, nobody will ever use the ‘Ligature’ Integrated Analyzer.
It is worse than even the Tech1 variants.

CCP RedDawn wrote:
I get the concerns with the lower strength, but I don't want to make the ‘Zeugma’ Integrated Analyzer (the stronger one) the 'always go-to' option. They have to have some limitations with their dual benefit.

The limitation would be the price tag.

CCP RedDawn wrote:
Small Arms just don't make enough contextual sense to be included in the building materials
In conjunction with these new modules, the Small Arms will be removed completely from the data site loot tables

So, do you plan to remove "High-TechSmall Arms" completely from the game?

epicurus ataraxia wrote:
Losing a little coherence is disappointing but bearable.
Losing virus strength is however a game breaker for these modules ...
Reducing the virus strength by 4,5,8, or 10 doesn't matter, it is a failed kill. So you haven't reduced the ligature by 5 at all, you have reduced it to/by an effective 10.

^This is very important. A slight decrease in strength is making a huge difference.
Tristan Agion
10.K
#47 - 2016-04-25 17:18:54 UTC
Tethys Luxor wrote:
Interceptors with T2 analyser and no coherence rigs have more than 95% success rate on highest difficulty minigames

It's not just about the success rate for optimal play, but also about the speed with which one can hack and the attention one has to pay to the process. Or in other words, just how sub-optimal can play be and still result in a successful hack? If the combined module doesn't have as good stats as my Tech II separate ones, then I'm likely to stick with those.

I think nobody has noted yet the proposed loss of a virus utility slot? That makes matters somewhat worse still.

Increasing the fitting requirements makes sense concerning game play, but it is a bit illogical. Given the similarities between both kinds of hacks, I would expect a combined module to draw slightly more PG&CPU than the separated ones - certainly not twice as much plus overhead. That's not how tech works...

The best idea is still to abandon the separated modules outright and simply offer several tiers of combined modules, at roughly the old stats. The extra mid slot (for those who now fly both modules) is really not such a significant buff for this class of ship doing this kind of job.

The one place where I could see a trade-off happening is in Optimal Range. So if there must be both, let the combined module have less range than the separated ones (because it needs to detect the type of site), but otherwise be equivalent.
Tethys Luxor
Beyond Frontier
Pandemic Horde
#48 - 2016-04-25 17:38:16 UTC
Tristan Agion wrote:
Tethys Luxor wrote:
Interceptors with T2 analyser and no coherence rigs have more than 95% success rate on highest difficulty minigames

It's not just about the success rate for optimal play, but also about the speed with which one can hack and the attention one has to pay to the process. Or in other words, just how sub-optimal can play be and still result in a successful hack? If the combined module doesn't have as good stats as my Tech II separate ones, then I'm likely to stick with those.



Exactly : it's comfort (speed) vs a midslot. That's an interesting choice, especially because different ships may choose different solutions. If the combined module has the same stat as T2, it's a no brainer.

Quote:


I think nobody has noted yet the proposed loss of a virus utility slot? That makes matters somewhat worse still.

The one place where I could see a trade-off happening is in Optimal Range. So if there must be both, let the combined module have less range than the separated ones (because it needs to detect the type of site), but otherwise be equivalent.


The loss a utility virus slot is an interesting thing and is a way for subtle script tuning. I doubt that 1 missing matters but 2 would make people think. The range below 6k is not that much of a change, even if you go beyond the cloak range.
Circumstantial Evidence
#49 - 2016-04-25 17:47:57 UTC
Players that haven't skilled up for T2 might like to try them. Once you have skilled up to use T2, and that strength, there's no turning back. I have no interest in using the modules as described. Mobile depot makes switching too easy. Consider adding more drawbacks. Less coherence. One utility slot? I see many other good suggestions here about new drawbacks.
Damjan Fox
Fox Industries and Exploration
#50 - 2016-04-25 17:51:20 UTC
Tethys Luxor wrote:
Exactly : it's comfort (speed) vs a midslot. That's an interesting choice, especially because different ships may choose different solutions. If the combined module has the same stat as T2, it's a no brainer.

And if the combined module would cost 100 mil ISK? Or 200? Or 500? Would it still be a no-brainer?? Blink
Rain6637
Simulacra and Simulation
Goonswarm Federation
#51 - 2016-04-25 17:53:12 UTC
yeah sure make them less powerful but really the two modules for similar activities is confusing.
Yadaryon Vondawn
Vicanthya
#52 - 2016-04-25 18:08:29 UTC
CCP RedDawn wrote:

* Small Arms just don't make enough contextual sense to be included in the building materials
In conjunction with these new modules, the Small Arms will be removed completely from the data site loot tables

Please keep the feedback coming.


Interesting! Since they will be removed from the data sites, where will they be obtained from? And on that same page, what will they be used for :)?
Tethys Luxor
Beyond Frontier
Pandemic Horde
#53 - 2016-04-25 18:13:37 UTC
Damjan Fox wrote:
Tethys Luxor wrote:
Exactly : it's comfort (speed) vs a midslot. That's an interesting choice, especially because different ships may choose different solutions. If the combined module has the same stat as T2, it's a no brainer.

And if the combined module would cost 100 mil ISK? Or 200? Or 500? Would it still be a no-brainer?? Blink


Agreed. I'm not fitting sisters launcher on most of my ships. But if it's too expensive there's just no incentive.
Beta Maoye
#54 - 2016-04-25 20:13:14 UTC
Speculators have responded to the call. Price of components has been jacked up hugely. May be vague about the exact amount of ingredients next time to reduce the degree of speculation is not a bad idea.

'Ligature' Integrated Analyzer

Relic Analyzer I x1= 55,000
Data Analyzer I x1= 47,000
High-Tech Data Chip 70,000x500= 35,000,000
High-Tech Manufacturing Tools 8,500x500= 4,250,000
High-Tech Scanner 80,000X500= 40,000,000
Total: 79,352,000 isk

'Zeugma' Integrated Analyzer

Relic Analyzer II x1= 1,500,000
Data Analyzer II x1= 1,370,000
High-Tech Data Chip 70,000x1000= 70,000,000
High-Tech Manufacturing Tools 8,500x1000= 8,500,000
High-Tech Scanner 80,000x1000= 80,000,000
Total: 161,370,000 isk
Damjan Fox
Fox Industries and Exploration
#55 - 2016-04-25 20:39:50 UTC
@Beta Maoye
The market is too volatile at the moment, because of this very anouncement, to take current prices for your math.
For example, you priced "High-Tech Manufacturing Tools" at 8,500 ISK. But there aren't even 1,000 units on market in Jita right now.
Calculations like these are pointless right now.

@CCP RedDawn, please consider the idea of adding a third integrated analyzer, combining the stats of the current Tech2 variants. Make the BPC drop chance really low or the manufacturing cost really high (or both), but it would be really cool to see such a module ingame.

I'll just quote a comment from reddit here:
Quote:
Don't see a big demand for it. A new faction analyzer with the stats of both current tech2 analyzers on the other hand....
Quote:
I'd pay good fu**ing money for that. In a heart beat.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#56 - 2016-04-25 21:01:11 UTC
Damjan Fox wrote:
@Beta Maoye
The market is too volatile at the moment, because of this very anouncement, to take current prices for your math.
For example, you priced "High-Tech Manufacturing Tools" at 8,500 ISK. But there aren't even 1,000 units on market in Jita right now.
Calculations like these are pointless right now.

Not that pointless after all:
Citadel Patch Notes wrote:
Exploration:

The drop rates of all High-Tech goods in exploration Data sites have been greatly reduced.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Aya Nova
Bearded BattleBears
#57 - 2016-04-25 22:14:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Aya Nova
I like the idea of these, but they need to be tweaked.

Merging Relic and Data mechanics into one skill, one module - No, just no. Just because things are similar, doesn't mean we should eliminate the choices. If we go down that path let's kill off ammo variants, asteroid variants, PI planet variants, moon goo variants, etc. Don't give in to over-simpliftying the game. Please keep them separate and work on ways to add further complexity and distinctiveness in the future.

Virus strength as others said, it needs to be equal to their T1/T2 counterparts or they will be useless

Drawbacks - A -10 coherence vs their equivalent is a reasonable loss partial drawback. Price should be another as it ups the gamble on field and adds to the value of hunting explorers. Ideal prices would aim at 20M T1 / 100M T2. It's easier to lower prices later than raise them if these are underused.

Another path to drawbacks could be a penalty to probe scan strength.

I also see these as an opportunity to add more desirability to the Anathema and Cheetah. What about giving them lower CPU use than the sum of equivalent modules, but higher power use (5MW or so) and pair it with a matching boost to the power grid on the 4 mid-slot CovOps-es. Thus on Anathema and Cheetah they will serve as an usability equalizer, while on the Buzzard and Helios they will offer a trade of PG for the extra slot
Tristan Agion
10.K
#58 - 2016-04-25 22:28:22 UTC
Tethys Luxor wrote:
Exactly : it's comfort (speed) vs a midslot. That's an interesting choice, especially because different ships may choose different solutions. If the combined module has the same stat as T2, it's a no brainer.

Sorry, but I just don't think that this is an interesting choice. In my typical ships (Magnate for high sec, Anathema for the rest) I would always opt for the separate modules (if I intend to hack both). There's nothing I can think of that I would rather have in the mid slot. It's not just about "comfort", and speed is not just about "ISK/hour" (unless in a binary sense). In high sec, often enough you have a "contested" situation with two or more explorers in system. Well, I can often blitz through multiple sites while the competition is still scanning. A big part of that is Tech II vs. high sec cans, where it's literally a mini-game clickfest while in parallel scanning down the next site. In low/null/wh I basically work against a countdown to my death (the longer in site, the more likely splat) while dividing my attention to dscan.

If there was some super-cool mid slot module I was itching to bring, then maybe. But what would that be for the frigates I'm flying? If this freed up a low slot instead, then maybe I would think about this harder.
Dark Drifter
Sons of Seyllin
Pirate Lords of War
#59 - 2016-04-25 23:11:41 UTC
Valence Benedetto wrote:
I think you guys should just ask yourselves whether having separate modules for data and relic makes EVE a better or more interesting game. Personally, I don't see it.

Related - exploration is considered one of the beginner-friendly ways to play EVE. So there is some further argument for streamlining.


this guy has a point. streem line the whole process.
have 1 analizer

T1 on par with current T1 modules
compact. better fitting at expense of loss of a utility slot
T2 comparable to current T2 modules

now your new mods.
1 with better coherance
1 with better virus strength
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#60 - 2016-04-26 06:15:26 UTC
CCP RedDawn wrote:
Thanks for all the thoughts so far. Couple of things:

* I get the concerns with the lower strength, but I don't want to make the ‘Zeugma’ Integrated Analyzer (the stronger one) the 'always go-to' option. They have to have some limitations with their dual benefit. (I already see that players are skilled enough in the hacking game that the loss of a utility element slot might not be so detrimental on its own)



You can address this by rarity (and hence price).

High-grade Slave Alpha is strictly better than a +4 learning implant. If both are available to you, you would always use the Slave.

But the Slave costs a lot to lose.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com