Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
|
CCP RedDawn
C C P C C P Alliance
767
|
Posted - 2016.05.12 12:03:45 -
[91] - Quote
Hi all
After increasing the Strength of both of these multi analyzer to match their tech I & II variants, (which is a large buff), I'm lowering their utility element slots down to 1 on each. (decreased from 2) This means that for choosing dual functionality with the same strength, you'll have to be a bit more tactile when it comes to your element usage. The multi analyzers still retain an increased CPU requirement and 10 points less in Coherence. (And obviously the building costs)
As for module scripts, they have been talked about a lot internally and this is not however how we want to go with exploration at this very time.
In addition, both of these multi analyzers will be available for you to play around with next week on Singularity.
Team Astro Sparkle
|
|
Circumstantial Evidence
309
|
Posted - 2016.05.12 12:44:34 -
[92] - Quote
CCP RedDawn wrote:After increasing the Strength of both of these multi analyzer to match their tech I & II variants, (which is a large buff), I'm lowering their utility element slots down to 1 on each. (decreased from 2) Ouch, from 2 slots to 1. OK. Since strength is the key stat most aim for, making the T2 matched variant the go-to part for skilled players, what about giving the T1 variant 2 utility slots? Then the difference between the two is not just virus strength and ease of fitting. Someone able to fit the T2 variant, might choose the T1 variant for less complex site types, in order to have a bit more flexibility when activating utilities.
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
568
|
Posted - 2016.05.12 14:31:49 -
[93] - Quote
CCP RedDawn wrote:Hi all
After increasing the Strength of both of these multi analyzer to match their tech I & II variants, (which is a large buff), I'm lowering their utility element slots down to 1 on each. (decreased from 2) This means that for choosing dual functionality with the same strength, you'll have to be a bit more tactile when it comes to your element usage. The multi analyzers still retain an increased CPU requirement and 10 points less in Coherence. (And obviously the building costs)
As for module scripts, they have been talked about a lot internally and this is not however how we want to go with exploration at this very time.
In addition, both of these multi analyzers will be available for you to play around with next week on Singularity. 10 point less in coherence is not enough I think. It may be easily replaced by hardwire implants (worth 60 mil total). If such module will hit TQ I will never use T2s. Reducing utility slots to 1 is interesting change, it will be fun module to use.
So -15 coherence and we done here.
The manufacturing materiales amount stays the same? 1000 of each for better version?
I am the 85%
|
|
CCP RedDawn
C C P C C P Alliance
773
|
Posted - 2016.05.12 14:40:41 -
[94] - Quote
Jeremiah Saken wrote:CCP RedDawn wrote:Hi all
After increasing the Strength of both of these multi analyzer to match their tech I & II variants, (which is a large buff), I'm lowering their utility element slots down to 1 on each. (decreased from 2) This means that for choosing dual functionality with the same strength, you'll have to be a bit more tactile when it comes to your element usage. The multi analyzers still retain an increased CPU requirement and 10 points less in Coherence. (And obviously the building costs)
As for module scripts, they have been talked about a lot internally and this is not however how we want to go with exploration at this very time.
In addition, both of these multi analyzers will be available for you to play around with next week on Singularity. 10 point less in coherence is not enough I think. It may be easily replaced by hardwire implants (worth 60 mil total). If such module will hit TQ I will never use T2s. Reducing utility slots to 1 is interesting change, it will be fun module to use. So -15 coherence and we done here. The manufacturing materiales amount stays the same? 1000 of each for better version?
Yeah I'm going to keep the materials the same for now. Let's see what the additional feedback from Singularity is before updating the Coherence, and/or the materials.
Team Astro Sparkle
|
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions O.U.Z.O. Alliance
1195
|
Posted - 2016.05.12 14:41:41 -
[95] - Quote
I hope there are some signatures to probe somewhere and maybe you can poke someone to remove a "few" citadels while you are at it?
Eve Minions is recruiting. Learn from about pvp, learn about ships and how to fly them correctly. Small gang and solo action in high, low and nullsec and w-space alike.
We will teach you everything you need and want to know.
|
Circumstantial Evidence
309
|
Posted - 2016.05.12 15:21:34 -
[96] - Quote
Another reason I would advocate giving the T1 version 2 utility slots, even though it may still be less desirable than T2 for those who are skilled for that version, is to give the T1 variant something like a role, a goal of the ongoing tier-a-cide.
Another idea: what if the utility slots could only hold a utility "in memory" for a certain number of moves? That way you could keep two or three slots, but what they hold would decay at different rates, depending on the module. T1 might expire the last loaded utility after 3 moves, T2 might permit 4 moves before forgetting a utility. |
|
CCP RedDawn
C C P C C P Alliance
773
|
Posted - 2016.05.12 16:28:04 -
[97] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Another reason I would advocate giving the T1 version 2 utility slots, even though it may still be less desirable than T2 for those who are skilled for that version, is to give the T1 variant something like a role, a goal of the ongoing tier-a-cide.
Another idea: what if the utility slots could only hold a utility "in memory" for a certain number of moves? That way you could keep two or three slots, but what they hold would decay at different rates, depending on the module. T1 might expire the last loaded utility after 3 moves, T2 might permit 4 moves before forgetting a utility.
During the initial designs of the hacking game, we created a defensive subsystem that when left alone for a certain amount of turns, would negate all of your collected and non collected elements.
Sounds like it's in the similar vein as what you're saying and this is something I'd still like to do.
Team Astro Sparkle
|
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
3522
|
Posted - 2016.05.12 19:43:48 -
[98] - Quote
unrelated to the OP but i always thought it would be a cool idea to be able to overheat hacking mods. That would increase the hacking dps (or whatever the name of that is).
back on topic: i never understood why there where different mods for data and relic sites, game mechanics wise they are identical, the only difference are assets and loot drop. (i already said that in the feedback thread back when the hacking was redesigned)
the only argument for that is fitting space, you have to decide what you take with you or refit with a depot or fit both and lose some other mod. Not sure if it is a good enough argument however.
how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
|
David Tellier
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
0
|
Posted - 2016.05.12 20:11:26 -
[99] - Quote
To be honest, I have a profound dislike over the minigame itself. There is nothing more frustrating than hitting 3 Supressors nodes in a row with T1 modules. I usually just cancel the attempt altogether.
I would definitely revisit the 13 days training time for T2 analyzers. The fact that exploration is something that is often suggested to newbies as a starting way to make ISK is also kind of silly. If the first thing I had done in EVE was hacking, I don't think I would still be playing today. |
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
2459
|
Posted - 2016.05.13 14:06:43 -
[100] - Quote
Interesting tweak with the slots, still think it will be a niche product. I don't want to sacrifice efficiency on relic sites just to be able to also run data sites.
I'm my own NPC alt.
|
|
Erin Oswell
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
37
|
Posted - 2016.05.13 23:05:55 -
[101] - Quote
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 Stain Confederation
525
|
Posted - 2016.05.18 17:50:25 -
[102] - Quote
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: GÇÿLigatureGÇÖ Integrated Analyzer will have a Virus Strength of 20 (from 15) & GÇÿZeugmaGÇÖ 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? 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.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
Ransu Asanari
V0LTA WE FORM V0LTA
501
|
Posted - 2016.05.18 19:58:29 -
[103] - Quote
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 a dealbreaker for me. 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. |
Risingson
99
|
Posted - 2016.05.18 20:55:39 -
[104] - Quote
i would prefer content |
Saile Litestrider
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
60
|
Posted - 2016.05.18 23:25:53 -
[105] - Quote
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 better 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
EVE University Ivy League
2
|
Posted - 2016.05.18 23:46:57 -
[106] - Quote
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
Anomalous Existence Low-Class
213
|
Posted - 2016.05.19 06:33:51 -
[107] - Quote
Are emission scope sharpeners and memetic algorithm banks going to affect those mdules?
Workarounds are not bugfixes.
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
7702
|
Posted - 2016.05.19 09:53:47 -
[108] - Quote
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 meGäó 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.
Still nice to see a mid slot get free'd up.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
583
|
Posted - 2016.05.20 08:34:28 -
[109] - Quote
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 the 85%
|
Excellent CEO
Bold and Beautiful
0
|
Posted - 2016.05.20 10:58:58 -
[110] - Quote
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
583
|
Posted - 2016.05.20 11:06:17 -
[111] - Quote
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 the 85%
|
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
2511
|
Posted - 2016.05.20 11:21:52 -
[112] - Quote
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
583
|
Posted - 2016.05.20 11:29:50 -
[113] - Quote
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 the 85%
|
Owen Levanth
Sagittarius Unlimited Exploration
454
|
Posted - 2016.05.20 14:44:05 -
[114] - Quote
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
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
406
|
Posted - 2016.05.20 17:13:27 -
[115] - Quote
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
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
406
|
Posted - 2016.05.20 17:19:08 -
[116] - Quote
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
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
2511
|
Posted - 2016.05.20 17:44:05 -
[117] - Quote
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.
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
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2836
|
Posted - 2016.05.20 17:55:32 -
[118] - Quote
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
Art Of Explosions 404 Hole Not Found
1459
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 10:04:15 -
[119] - Quote
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. |
Tzar Sinak
Mythic Heights
223
|
Posted - 2016.05.24 18:03:43 -
[120] - Quote
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!
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |