These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Erin Oswell
Cyno Enforcement Agency
#101 - 2016-05-13 23:05:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Erin Oswell
I really like the idea of a scripted analyzer. Something like this might work (based on some of the suggestions) as the player will be able to choose what they want to gain and what they're willing to trade-off; making the hacking game can be more dynamic as opposed to just clicking.

Signal Amplifier;
Applies a 20% range bonus to the range of your analyzer.

Utility Buffer;
Adds an extra utility slot when turned on.

Brute Force Kernel;
Increases the effectiveness of offensive utilities at the cost of increased capacitor & CPU usage.

Rules of Acquisition #13: "Anything worth doing is worth doing for money"
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#102 - 2016-05-18 17:50:25 UTC
CCP RedDawn wrote:
Looking through this thread, I'm going to up the Virus Strength of these modules to match their Tech I & II counterparts whilst keeping the other stats the same.

So now the:

‘Ligature’ Integrated Analyzer will have a Virus Strength of 20 (from 15)

&

‘Zeugma’ Integrated Analyzer will have a Virus Strength of 30 (from 20)


So both still have a slightly lower Coherence (10 for each) and 1 less Utility slot, but the same Strength.
(All other stats remain the same as the Tech I & II variants)

Do these look slightly more desirable to you now? Smile


I was just going to suggest keeping the virus strength and lowering the coherence instead. I'm not so bothered about coherence but strength is very important. Now they just need to be affordable enough to actually use in PvP as I expect a lot of the situations in which an extra mid slot would be useful would be in combat situations.
Ransu Asanari
Perkone
Caldari State
#103 - 2016-05-18 19:58:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Ransu Asanari
Screenshots from Singularity: http://imgur.com/7731wqU

Reddit Thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/4jwj4o/new_dual_purpose_hacking_modules_on_sisi/

I'm still rather dubious on this item. I personally don't see the value, and won't be using it.

Changing the amount of utility slots is a clever way of distinguishing it from the T2 ones. That would be enough, but the less coherence is still disappointing. I have run into way too many hacking games, where I end up with exactly 30 points left to finish a red core, and only having 20 coherence left would mean I'd fail the hack. I suppose it's not that bad since you can increase coherence with implants.

Edit:

I'll have to take a look at it on SiSi and see how the fitting works out. I find it odd that most tiercided Storyline items have a reduced fitting cost - usually similar to the fitting on a Compact module, but with slightly better stats. This seems to be going a different way by having increased CPU cost. That seems rather confusing from a consistency standpoint.
Risingson
#104 - 2016-05-18 20:55:39 UTC
i would prefer content
Saile Litestrider
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#105 - 2016-05-18 23:25:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Saile Litestrider
I think most numbers tweaks will just push this module back and forth between "redundant" and "must-have" for most people. What I personally think would be a more interesting drawback would be to drastically lower the optimal range, such that you have to be too close to the can while hacking to be able to immediately cloak up. This would inject a little more risk in the act of hacking, rather than the minigame itself.
Jurius Doctor
Iron.Guard
Fraternity.
#106 - 2016-05-18 23:46:57 UTC
If these aren't out of Test and in game by next patch, I will be very, very cross.

Just sayin'.

Cheers,
Jurius Doctor

P.S. BPOs

P.P.S. It's Bait. It's always Bait.
Luscius Uta
#107 - 2016-05-19 06:33:51 UTC
Are emission scope sharpeners and memetic algorithm banks going to affect those mdules?

Workarounds are not bugfixes.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#108 - 2016-05-19 09:53:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Herzog Wolfhammer
This idea would have been great before the SoE ships, when we were fitting regular T1 hulls for exploration and back when exploration sites were also combat sites and shield-tanked ships took a hit on tank from having to fit two modules.


Now? I don't know.

I'd say, go for broke and have a single module that takes a script governing data and arch sites, but with the same costs.

I would also note that those things we picked up in the sites, the little "wrenches" and other such things, I recall a mention that we would be able to keep those from hack to hack, like a consumable. So where it up to me™ it would have been more interesting to have a scripted module that can do either, but "consumes" Self Repair, Kernel Rot, etc. and has to be loaded like ammo. Exploration would have a side market in these items as well. And it could be an open door to highly advanced hacking where these items don't drop at all and a player then has a limited supply of measures to take (always leave room for an open door to more difficulty instead of having to reinvent one - I say).

Still nice to see a mid slot get free'd up.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#109 - 2016-05-20 08:34:28 UTC
Ransu Asanari wrote:

Changing the amount of utility slots is a clever way of distinguishing it from the T2 ones. That would be enough, but the less coherence is still disappointing. I have run into way too many hacking games, where I end up with exactly 30 points left to finish a red core, and only having 20 coherence left would mean I'd fail the hack. I suppose it's not that bad since you can increase coherence with implants.

It's intentional. Why anybody would use T2 modules if merged has same stats?

Ransu Asanari wrote:
I'll have to take a look at it on SiSi and see how the fitting works out. I find it odd that most tiercided Storyline items have a reduced fitting cost - usually similar to the fitting on a Compact module, but with slightly better stats. This seems to be going a different way by having increased CPU cost. That seems rather confusing from a consistency standpoint.

Comparison would make sense if we have merged T2 modules. It's completely new modules, you can't compare them to T2 fittings costs.
Luscius Uta wrote:
Are emission scope sharpeners and memetic algorithm banks going to affect those mdules?

That's a good question. We already have nulli ceptors cancer. I don't think we need buff them more.

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
Excellent CEO
Doomheim
#110 - 2016-05-20 10:58:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Excellent CEO
Jeremiah Saken wrote:

It's intentional. Why anybody would use T2 modules if merged has same stats?



Because of cost????

Why shouldn't the cost be prohibitive as to make them an end-game explo module while making the stats great over T2?
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#111 - 2016-05-20 11:06:17 UTC
Excellent CEO wrote:
Quote:
It's intentional. Why anybody would use T2 modules if merged has same stats?

Because of cost????

and how much should they cost to be "proper balanced by cost?"? Please tell how balanced is Rattlesnake compared to SNI? Cost can't be taken solely when balancing items.

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#112 - 2016-05-20 11:21:52 UTC
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Excellent CEO wrote:
Quote:
It's intentional. Why anybody would use T2 modules if merged has same stats?

Because of cost????

and how much should they cost to be "proper balanced by cost?"? Please tell how balanced is Rattlesnake compared to SNI? Cost can't be taken solely when balancing items.

Why would you keep the individual hackers if you could just combine them into one module? CCP is not willing to differentiate the hacking minigame anyways, so we do not need 2 different hackers in the first place.

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.
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
#113 - 2016-05-20 11:29:50 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Why would you keep the individual hackers if you could just combine them into one module? CCP is not willing to differentiate the hacking minigame anyways, so we do not need 2 different hackers in the first place.

That's why:
CCP RedDawn wrote:
* In regards to the overall combination of both data and relic sites, I'd much rather introduce a higher level of variance to both of the hacking variations overall than combine them together. The hacking game itself has so much more depth potential which I wish to revisit in the future

"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
Owen Levanth
Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration
#114 - 2016-05-20 14:44:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Owen Levanth
Personally, as neat as this idea at first sounded, I'll probably only use those special snowflake modules on some special snowflake HighSec ship. Maybe even in LowSec, I dunno.

Most of the time however I'd prefer the specialized T2-modules and a mobile depot. As long as mobile depots exists, dual hacking modules are kind of redundant, I think.

I'm also kind of torn on the reduction to a single utility-slot. On the one hand, going from 3 to just 1 slot seems stifling, but on the other hand nothing forces you from picking up a special thing from your hacking-map, it's not like they will just disappear after a while, right? In most cases, you can just let useful stuff lying around until needed.
Arsine Mayhem
Doomheim
#115 - 2016-05-20 17:13:27 UTC
Pretty sure losing 20 Virus Coherence comparatively, T1 vs Ligature, and T2 vs Zeugma isn't worth the extra slot.

If you bother to explore at all I wouldn't waste time on a failure.

But then I quit exploring with the invent of the "MINIGAME". I'll keep my wrist thank you.
Arsine Mayhem
Doomheim
#116 - 2016-05-20 17:19:08 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Excellent CEO wrote:
Quote:
It's intentional. Why anybody would use T2 modules if merged has same stats?

Because of cost????

and how much should they cost to be "proper balanced by cost?"? Please tell how balanced is Rattlesnake compared to SNI? Cost can't be taken solely when balancing items.

Why would you keep the individual hackers if you could just combine them into one module? CCP is not willing to differentiate the hacking minigame anyways, so we do not need 2 different hackers in the first place.


It's only to give you more skills to spend sp on.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#117 - 2016-05-20 17:44:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Why would you keep the individual hackers if you could just combine them into one module? CCP is not willing to differentiate the hacking minigame anyways, so we do not need 2 different hackers in the first place.

That's why:
CCP RedDawn wrote:
* In regards to the overall combination of both data and relic sites, I'd much rather introduce a higher level of variance to both of the hacking variations overall than combine them together. The hacking game itself has so much more depth potential which I wish to revisit in the future

I believe that only when I see it. However, if more variety is on the horizon, the combination of the hacker makes no sense either. Or in other words: If there are 2 highly different hacking minigames but they can still be accessed with the combined hacker, 2 individual modules still do not make sense. So, get rid of the module clutter and be done with it.
Arsine Mayhem wrote:
It's only to give you more skills to spend sp on.

I argue with unnecessary complexity, the thought-terminating cliché heavily employed by CCP these days. However, even with the combined module, you can keep both skills for the different coherence kinds.

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.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#118 - 2016-05-20 17:55:32 UTC
Jeremiah Saken wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Why would you keep the individual hackers if you could just combine them into one module? CCP is not willing to differentiate the hacking minigame anyways, so we do not need 2 different hackers in the first place.

That's why:
CCP RedDawn wrote:
* In regards to the overall combination of both data and relic sites, I'd much rather introduce a higher level of variance to both of the hacking variations overall than combine them together. The hacking game itself has so much more depth potential which I wish to revisit in the future



What module interact with the can has no meaning to what the actual "hack" will be tho so they could make both hacking method different while also having just 1 type of module to trigger the minigame no matter which one it is. I'm pretty sure the depth won't come from module having different stats and all the module does anyway is cycle and provide base stats for the hack.
Tsukino Stareine
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#119 - 2016-05-24 10:04:15 UTC
I don't understand the need for two different kinds of container in the first place. Can't we just remove archaeology as a whole and have only data containers/hackables? Obviously keep the loot separate (buff data sites though!)

It's not like they provide any different kind of gameplay apart from forcing an exploration ship to give up 1 mid or having to refit off a depot.

Art of Explosions
Tzar Sinak
Mythic Heights
#120 - 2016-05-24 18:03:43 UTC
Tsukino Stareine wrote:
I don't understand the need for two different kinds of container in the first place. Can't we just remove archaeology as a whole and have only data containers/hackables? Obviously keep the loot separate (buff data sites though!)

It's not like they provide any different kind of gameplay apart from forcing an exploration ship to give up 1 mid or having to refit off a depot.


Once upon a time you needed different scan probes base of the type of signature you were interested in. Since Odyssey the entire profession has been streamlined and simplified. This has been both good and bad. The barrier for entry is now time (training) and practice (experience to scan and hack). Unfortunately what was once a lucrative dedicated career has become a noobie profession that has crashed the market. Unfortunately ghost sites, besieged sites and sleeper cache sites simply have not made up for the changes.

Hydrostatic Podcast First class listening of all things EVE

Check out the Eve-Prosper show for your market updates!