Module Merge : Cargo Scanner / Ship scanner, Additional Utility : fuel level scan

Proposal 1 : Merge ship scanner and cargo scanner into a single module, merge the content display into the same window.

Conceptually , they do nearly the same thing - display content of a container-like object. Same skill requirements etc.,.

Proposal 2 : Allow it to scan contents of upwell structures and traditional control towers for fuel levels.

Currently, we lack a good way to determine fuel level of a structure you don’t own. Allowing this feature would unlock strategic PvP value for scanners.

Hard no on Proposal 1; forcing players to pick and choose between options is part of balancing offensive capabilities - and scanning the fit or cargo of a ship is an offensive action with no real defenses - unlike hacking modules, there aren’t any defensive stats that determine efficacy of the scan. Same reason a hybrid version with lower stats doesn’t work as a tradeoff - there aren’t any stats to meaningfully lower in the first place. And unlike combat probes, the target doesn’t have access to a meaningful warning about the scans (since players can already get targeting setups that allow silent target locks, and the scan itself has only a super hard to pick out bit of visual activity).

Proposal 2 I can see being added to ship scanners to disclose loaded fuel status; that makes sense for scouting potential structure bashing targets.

1 Like

Definitely not.

Simulation is always, always, always secondary to gameplay and these being separate means that fitting choices need to be made, or additional ships/players involved in some activities.

I don’t care how conceptually similar they are, justification needs to examine the ramifications and not some notion of logical aesthetics.

1 Like

Mkika nailed it better than I would have as to why Proposal 1 is a hard no. “Opportunity cost” is an important concept in EVE: you cannot have your cake and eat it too. And when you can have it both ways, you should get anus performance - if applicable (eg. faction analyzers, ship fittings that true to do many things at once and do them all poorly, etc).

I consider proposal 2 to be potentially problematic:

  • It does not address a concern or obviously enhance the game or diversify gameplay
  • It would refocus PVP away from meaningful collaborative combat against active foes to only hunting and bashing idle groups, which is ‘weak gameplay’ and on verge of enabling ‘free griefing’ of casual/newbie corps. Players should collaborate to take on a foe, not lone-wolf on idle player groups.
  • As an extension to the above, this is redundant with both the Low Power and Abandoned structure states.
  • The idea isn’t much better than when someone proposed an anchored structure to drain fuel from another structure. A lot of the concerns that arose there are also relevant to simply monitoring fuel levels even if they aren’t drained. I’m not going to link that thread because I don’t want to ping the owner and have them necro it. That idea thread needs to die in a life.

I can see where opinions against proposal 1 is made for fitting sacrifices. In practice this is a non-issue as similar hulls have plenty of mid slots. This would bring similar hulls but differing in mid slot count to be on par. So that an amarr trained pilot would enjoy similar benefit as a caldari mid slot heavy pilot. Cake should be available to all, or denied to all at the same level of sp regardless of what empire you start in.

If you disagree and think pilots should be penalized for their starting choices instead of being on equal footing, well that’s a fundamental difference of opinion.

Lastly, CCP already made precedence with faction data/relicc analyzer combined module. So combined function modules isn’t exactly brand new.

At the end of the day this is a QoL convenience concept.

For arguments against proposal two, I deliberately used the adjective “no good way” instead of “no way at all”.

  • It addresses the concern of having better data to plan strategic ops around. The idea of reinforcement timers has been consistently supported. This is more clarity along the same lines.

  • It doesn’t refocus PvP away from collaborative combat, It is the opposite, by allowing groups to plan to get together at certain time and place. The point about bashing casual idle group is fairly moot since pretty much ALL of them have been cleared out at this point . (I agree that this was bad but the horse is already out of the barn at this point since abandonment mechanic went live.)

  • Vulnerable, low, and abandoned are vague descriptors. These are nowhere close to the usefulness of having precise fuel counts. Especially for the vulnerable state.

  • If one party knows 90 days worth of fuel is left on a structure, a collaborate effort can be scheduled for content. The structure owner can conversely change that number ANYTIME via refueling.

  • Additionally, fuel level itself provides a new and extremely useful appraisal value for the structure. Since fuel itself costs isk.

In the case where 100 bil worth of fuel is left in a structure, the opposite scenario of waiting for abandoned state would happen. A structure may be immediately reinforced to retrieve as much of the fuel as possible.

This is just fuel. I’m not even proposing allowing players to scan inside stations for docked ships or player hangars. THAT would be a pvp magnet.

No it shouldn’t.

You’re also misrepresenting mid slot trade off. Armour vessels get fewer mid slots, shield vessels have to fill theirs with tank. Just having a lot of mid slots does not mean you can happily fill them all with utility modules.

Cake is available to all in that anyone can fly whatever ship they want. Not all ships should have the same access to utility slots.

They aren’t supposed to be on par. They don’t need to be on par. Their not being on par is actually important.

No it’s a lack of understanding. Nobody is being penalised. Each racial ship line is different. Gallente aren’t being penalised because they don’t have missile boats. This is a really twisted way of viewing the differences between the racial ship lines. Homogeneity is not a fix. This is not broken, nor is it unfair, and players have the option at any time to branch out into ships that achieve specialist goals. That always needs to be a deliberate choice.

You want the best neut/vamp ships you pick Amarr (and by extension Blood Raiders). You don’t get to whine that Caldari aren’t as good. Ship lines have pros and cons. A con is not a penalty.

No but they’re also not comparable. What skills and mods improve the function of a cargo scanner?

It does not. This is not a concern. You can field both scanners either by making a fitting sacrifice or by having friends. Both are better solutions both in gameplay and metagameplay.

If a group has done this planning, they can plan to have two whole entire modules fit between them.

Vulnerable state has nothing to do with fuel.

This is not intel. It doesn’t tell you anything. You can’t judge the fuel in a station by what is in the fuel bay of the station anyway. Fuel can also be in player and corporate hangars. In fact because of asset safety being a thing, it’s more likely that the bulk of the fuel supply is not in the fuel bay. Why have all your fuel drop on destruction when you can have the majority safely teleported to an NPC station? So your idea isn’t even fit for purpose.

Except it doesn’t, because anyone with any sense has ensured it gets asset safetied.

Not how it’s gonna work.

And it’s just not right.

2 Likes

The opportunity cost for using a cargo/ship scanner on a mid slot is STUPIDLY high. So no, this is not a non-issue in practice, even on ships with plenty of mid slots (they have many mid slots for a reason - no ship in EVE has “slots to spare”, not even a Praxis)

This has no basis in reality

Wrong game

This has no relevance to the conversation

You missed my point: I explicitly stated that the hybrid analyzers have ANUS performance. They are HORRIBLE. There is are two specific use cases in which they are tolerable, and even then I personally I wouldn’t consider using them. The T1 analyzers perform better individually than the faction analyzers do as a hybrid unit.

No it is not, at the end of the day it is a gameplay meta changing concept

What? Ops against inactive corps? Really?

So you ONLY collaborate efforts around inactive groups, right?

Additional granularity is not required

…or they can refuel the structure in-between and mess up your 90-days-in-advance calendar planning. Seriously, find a different structure to bash.

So now everyone is going to wardec and bash a structure because it has a lot of fuel? That doesn’t sound like healthy player behavior. Extra hard no.

If it can be changed, it should be changed

1 Like

Hard no to Proposal 1 for the reasons listed above.

I’m not going to say no to Proposal 2, but I will point out that it’s not going to be nearly as useful as you think. Ship and cargo scanners each provide incomplete scans on each activation; you never know how much of the ship’s entire fit or cargo space you’re getting on each scan. If you apply the same mechanics to a structure scanner, you could build up an estimate with enough scans of how much fuel a structure has, but you’d never really know. The only definite answer would be “no fuel” (i.e. repeated empty scans) and you’d already know that because the structure would be offline.

No to #1

#2 could be a new module.

It’s official: @Salt_Foambreaker is regressing back toward becoming an ignorant carebear all over again. I think he is suffering from dEVEmentia :crazy_face:

Naw idea two isn’t horrible, I’m as surprised that you’d like it as I am that Scoots liked the new PVP Arenas.

I want to hunt soon to be abandoned structures :slight_smile:

1 Like

I hope you know I got the phrase “weak gameplay” from you. You were an inspiration to me… once.

Now you’re off to hunt abandoned structures because you can’t face the big boys head on. How the mighty have fallen! For shame! For shame!!!

You’d make a terrible pirate!! Piracy is about PROFIT, the “Big Boys” have Asset Safety :sob:

You are out of line, young… plebe! Pay me a penalty fee of 1bn or I’m going to have to revoke your ‘man card’ :scissors::credit_card: :no_entry_sign: :man:

(I don’t sell mining permits but maybe I should get in the man card repo business… lord knows if I repo the delinquent manliness accounts of forum regulars I’d be the richest man in all of New Eden…)

No, it is not an offensive action.

  1. It does not create a flag given for offensive action.
  2. It is a completely passive thing, not affecting the other ship at all.
  3. As most targets will be afk, it doesn’t matter if they can’t see it.
  4. The scanning beam is obvious enough.

When you know you are worth being ganked and still don’t look out for it, then that’s on you. Let’s not pretend that people, worthy of being ganked, aren’t responsible for when they’re getting ganked.

Furthermore is there no frigate which can not be used as a scanning ship. All the ships, which are being used for scanning targets, have enough midslots. It does not matter to them if there is one more spare midslot, at all, because there’s plenty of room. Worst case one picks a frigate with one more midslot.

That is not what Mkikaden meant by “offensive action”. She meant “offensive” as in “intel gathering for the purpose of using that information against the scanned target”.

2 Likes