Player Features and Ideas Discussion

CCP has gone through and to the best of their ability, removed 'levels' from t1 ships and provides roles for each ship to play. I don't have the exact metrics, but many ships have seen a debut or at least a resurgence since the rebalancing. Most of all, there is actual variety in small gang warfare again.

I think this great success with the tiericide initiative should be continued on to the arbitrary power levels of 'meta' modules. The current levels 1-4 should be stripped, and each module should recieve a role to fill (which would be explicitly described in the module's description).

The following metrics can be used to differentiate modules: heat damage, rate of fire (cycle time), range/optimal/falloff, damage mod, activation cost, powergrid usage, cpu usage, shield/armor bonus amount, resistance amount, speed/sig/capacitor/etc penalty, and so forth.

Examples

*SNIP* Editing to remove specific numbers, as those are all able to change I'll just continue on with some ideas.


There are already T1 and T2, then Meta 1, 2, 3, and 4 which are all consecutively better than t1 in all metrics.

I won't go into faction and meta >5, as those are meant to be better than t2, but I could see role-based 'flavor' being added to faction modules as well, such as the damage modifier on a republic fleet 720mm howitzer giving greater alpha strike with RF fusion than a T2 720mm with quake. Or a domination warp disruptor having a higher heat tolerance than t1 or t2.

Some suggestions to roles:
Meta 1 modules could be 'light' versions, with reduced fitting requirements, and activation cost and the same effectiveness as t1.
Meta 2 modules could be 'tactical' versions, with t1 fitting, better tracking, rate of fire, and reduced penalties (if any).
Meta 3 modules could be 'combat' versions, with t1 fitting, better damage modifier or armor amount, less heat damage, increased penalties, and activation.
Meta 4 modules could be 'optimized' versions, which have slightly reduced fitting, and are marginally better than t1 in every metric.

I would like for these roles to be "pronounced", or very noticeable.

For instance, a 'tactical' armor plate could have no impact on your ships mass or maneuverability.
A 'combat' warp disruptor would have greater activation cost, but similar range to t2 and greater heat resistance.
'optimized' guns would be very similar to current meta4, with a couple changes to tracking and heat damage.
For things like hardeners and invulnerability fields, metrics like fitting, heat, cycle time, activation cost, and resistance amount can be used to differentiate them.

This would give all modules a shot at being used.


Added from 2nd page:

That should be the difference between a meta item and t2 item. Many t2 items don't have additional sp investment, and are simply a 'bonus' for maxing out a particular skill (or in many cases, getting to level IV).

I like your analysis.

I'm all for it.

I'm actually all for to make it so T2 items to be the best items in the game because :player made: but requiring related skills to 5 so those skills have a meaning.

Training for lvl5's would bring real advantages over DED NPC modules requiring half of the skills to be used and are exponentially better than player made ones requiring on top specializations and lvl5's

Maybe leave Officer modules better fittings and activation costs but not better performances overall than player made ones.
Skills training effort does not bring the all benefits it should at this point.

i support the idea, i hope it also means the end of mission loot reprocessing.....

You should consider how this will effect invention.

+1

Systems Online, the market is not supposed to be "even" for all modules of similar type, if combat modules are cheapest or tactical modules are, does not matter. Lets just see what the prices would be without "balancing".

^THIS

I just want to point out that dead space and faction mods are balanced around cost.

Sure you can shortcut around using tech II but you pay out the nose for it. The other option is to train for the tech II stuff and pay a lot less for acceptable performance. Or if you have the ISK and want to min/max, then that stuff is there and it should stay like that.


My opinion is that personally I would like to see Meta 4 offer the same performance of tech II all around (as a consequence CCP should reduce the drop rate by a meaningful margin) . The catch is it would have tech I fitting requirements. Right now M4 is generally more powerful AND has lower fitting requirements, making it a no brainer. This is the real issue, looking at the meta level shouldn't be the deciding factor on what to buy. You need to know whether that new mod will fit in with your other choices and make a ship fit that works. People should have to check these things and not just buy M4 because they know "it will work". Meta 1-3 could have variance around fitting/performance but it should never be a "clear choice".

Future Tech II should have reduced fitting cost (and in some cases activation cost - I'm looking at you Tech II target painter) compared to current Tech II/Meta mods to make it something attractive to train for and to make it something people want to train for.

I meant those 5% chances of a modifier ON TOP of any decryptor used. And do people use decryptors on modules much? I thought they were mainly used for ships which dont get the meta modifier.

Anyway, I concede this point. I'm not an industry guy, I was just providing options.

No, no, no. Back under your bridge, you.

We're not introducing 'different' modules of the same type.

All modules with one name need to remain identical to other modules, and when repackaged they can be stacked.

The only 'unique' modules I could agree to introducing are officer modules, which could be in limited quantity.