Epitrope
The Citadel Manufacturing and Trade Corporation
   |
Posted - 2009.02.23 10:02:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Space Wanderer
I have noticed that the hybrid tuner data interface is destroyed by reverse engineering jobs. Is that intended?
Yes, I realise it is slightly confusing as we have kept the naming conventions the same as the mechanics are similar but also very different. I am probably going to change it such that the decryptors are consumed as well. I like consumption, creates demand :)
I feel the need to really, strongly object to this. To be clear, I'm not talking about the reverse engineering mechanic: that seems to be fine so far. But calling a consumed material an interface is a bad idea.
Reverse engineering is fairly closely related to invention. Invention has taught us some vocabulary. Datacores are consumed, decryptors are consumed when they're used, and interfaces are reusable. Now, the 4 racial RE "decryptors" do have a certain parallel to invention decryptors, in that they both affect the output. However, I would argue that the consumed/reusable aspect far outweighs this in importance. Naming them decryptors when they are reusable is needlessly confusing and inconsistent, and I don't see any advantage to doing so.
Now, if you make the RE "decryptors" a consumed material, I'm just fine with that. If you choose to leave them as they are now on the test server, I'm fine with that too: again, I'm flexible on the reverse engineering mechanic. But if you do keep them as-is, then please, please rename them. I suggest that, for example, "Gallente Hybrid Tech Decryptor" be renamed to "Incognito Hybrid Data Interface". Put it in the appropriate group, and it'll sit happy with the other interfaces.
That still leaves the "Hybrid Tuner Data Interface", which is always destroyed. Again, I strongly believe that the indestructibility implied by the word "interface" far overshadows anything else. Breaking that implied promise is user-hostile, and it's just not necessary. Since it's always required for a reverse engineering task, and since it's always consumed, I suggest that it be renamed to "Datacore - Hybrid Engineering". I know that there isn't a Hybrid Engineering skill, and that there aren't any Hybrid Engineering research agents, but a datacore seems to be the closest match in the existing system. (You could also make an argument that it should be a decryptor, because of its consumed status. I would say that the decryptors imply variability in output, and perhaps optionality, neither of which is true of this.)
There are a few other options. You could make the HTDI reusable. This would be in keeping with the other interfaces. It'd also be perfectly natural to require two interfaces for Tech 3 (one more than you need for Tech 2). Or you could create a new group for the HTDI and rename it something else entirely. This would reflect the fact that it doesn't have a direct parallel in invention. Finally, you could keep its name the same, and rename all the current interfaces to something else. This would incur a one-time term discrepancy, but that's still much better then the ongoing tension caused by using the same word to mean two opposite things.
Sorry for the wall of text, and the nit-pickiness of my objection, but this is a real user interface problem that can be solved relatively easily before it hits Tranquility.
tl;dr: Don't buck naming conventions.
|