I don't think it's as tedious as all that. I think for non-hackers it's often better to simply attach-ID and risk it, while if you do use Scanalyzers to identify things it's actually quite a high chance to succeed. The base chance per attempt is 80%! And it doesn't even scale depending on the part in question, only the level of the Scanalyzer as with all other hacks, so even without any hackware you should generally get at least one ID out of a Scanalyzer, if not more. (Remember this is different from actually getting the schematic.)
I was only trying to id, not get schematics, and still failed. Maybe I had the bad luck to get 2 level 3 scanalyzers at -6, I don't remember.
That's pretty accessible, even easier than fabricating stuff, which non-hackers can do as well.
For attach-ID: Sure you can drop things you want to protect, although that doesn't work for processors and has an associated matter cost, plus a cost of still potentially losing something else that you didn't remove (since you're certainly not removing everything). One of the goals of that system is to create risk-reward scenarios with some optional ways to circumvent it but requiring more effort on your part. The effort in this case isn't really tedium, though.
If you do it consistently to protect key parts it is rather repetitive. I find myself saving up prototypes to id them all at once because of this, for example, which is a change in how I would otherwise use inventory. The matter cost may act to discourage tedious behavior but unless it actually does it just makes it more annoying (just have to carry around a matter pod or compressor to avoid running out). Note that because I'm typically preparing for extended (and I'm not very good at it xD) the goal is not typically to survive the current situation, but to prepare for the late and extended game by finding certain important parts (Exp. Targeting Computer, etc.)
(e.g. I broke a Vortex Chain Reactor by use-id, and recalibrators won't repair them).
Well something that valuable probably should've been removed first xD
Mass id can at least give you an idea, especially if you're constrained on support and might not even be able to support an item even if it was good.
Of course, it could also have any other number of qualities that simply wouldn't work with your build, either--that just potentially eliminates one of many.
True, but most of them could be made to work with some build on low mass support - the notable troll prototypes I can think of are the Exp. Reclamation Unit (light) and Exp. Field Recycling Unit (heavy). Most things weighing 1-2 are pretty good. Propulsion is a pretty big commitment build-wise though, as is melee vs ranged since they use different suites of processors and utilities.
I think the talk of ID'ing things is sorta tangential to the idea of whether mass is shown or not, because it leads to meta gaming that suggests you should use a wiki for optimal play, even more so once you're experienced, which is kinda the opposite of what Cogmind wants to be (even though some players do enjoy using outside info to make important decisions, if it's avoidable in a case like this why not remove it?).
I think the connection is that I find mass ID and context ID (e.g. learning loadouts of prototype bots or cross-referencing hauler manifests or caches or layouts in particular branches) to be the fun part of the ID game, losing a build by attaching a random faulty utility off the floor not so fun. If it didn't risk so much damage to other parts (e.g. 200+ damage to storage units, which I experienced in my current run) or completely breaking important parts it might be more fun. As it is, I tend to avoid it most of the time when I have a build I care about, typically after the first half of the game.
Processors are a category where mass id doesn't work at all and I typically wait until I either have a Component Analysis Suite or a Scanalyzer to id them instead of risking attaching them. (Also partly because you can still use a scanalyzer on a faulty processor to get the schematic, but only if it's not attached.) That's different and I suppose it proves you don't entirely need mass id, but I find it less fun to wait sometimes for floors before finding out it wasn't something you needed anyway.
I see a bit of tension between enjoying the main game as it's designed (taking risks, experimenting, rebuilding when things go wrong) and being able to win ++ which requires -- in my experience -- minimizing risks of a certain kind, like attaching potentially faulty prototypes, and other tedious preparation. In the context of the first play style I think I can even agree with removing mass id as tedious, even if I want those last bits of lore from ++.
