These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: Rebalancing EVE, One Module At A Time

First post First post First post
Author
Benedictus de Suede
Norsewing Naval Command
#401 - 2014-10-03 00:10:49 UTC
Being a Caldari guy what do you think my opinion is about the CCP balancing work so far?

Some objective stats from zkillboard which hopefully illustrates how good the battleship balancing turned out to be:

Combat efficiency (PVP):
95,2 Armageddon Navy Issue
93,8 Typhoon Fleet Issue
93,6 Temepest Fleet Issue
92,2 Apocalypse Navy Issue
91,5 Megathron Navy Issue
83,7 Dominix Navy Issue
76,4 Scorpion Navy Issue
65,7 Raven Navy Issue

Well the top 5 seems pretty balanced don't they. Fun if you like armour tanking but sad reading if you like Caldari ships as I do.
I´ve tried to be creative when it comes to fitting but the differences in fundamentals are just too great.

Here´s and comparison between a Typhoon Fleet Issue and a Raven Navy Issue (who supposedly should be a specialized missile ship..hmm I guess not). All skills at lvl 5. Both ships have basic equipment of 3 Ballistic controls II, 1 Damage control II, 100 MWD, 1 Warp disruptor II

Typhoon FI uses 3 low slots and rigs for armour tanking and the Raven NI 3 Med slots and rigs for shield tanking. Both ships are equipped with Heavy Rapid launchers. What´s left to play with?

The Typhoon does more DPS with it´s 6 launchers than the Raven do with it's 8 launchers and have 2 high slots over (for 2 energy neuts, guns or smart bombs). In addition it can have 5 Heavy Drones. Ok the Raven compensates this by using it´s remaining low slot for a drone dmg applifier. Typhoon total DPS=1273 and the Raven total DPS=1173. To sum up even if the Raven had 10 high slots and 8 medium slots it still would be inferior to the Typhoon wouldn´t it?

So......Since CCP ship balancing (from a caldari stand point) is crap we can always hope that they buff the shield modules A LOT...
Steluna de Chasteux
Acme Entropy
#402 - 2014-10-04 03:59:39 UTC
I was reorganizing the hangars and noticed that my stack of Arbalest LMLs is now a stack of Compact LMLs. I knew that this was coming, but didn't expect the market value to fall to less than a 10th the original price.

Any chance of a refund for the balance? Or, should I get busy unloading my other pricey meta variants before they're similarly mutilated?
Skyler Hawk
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#403 - 2014-10-05 08:30:47 UTC
Fozzie, can you fix the size of T1, T2, and navy MAPCs? As frigate-sized modules, they should presumably have volumes of 5m3 (like the compact and Thukker ones do), but instead they take up 20m3, which is annoyingly large when compared to a frigate's cargo space.
Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#404 - 2014-10-05 09:25:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Kusum Fawn
Its sad that the majority of issues with modules are not going to be addressed, its almost like CCP doesnt know what the actual problems even are.

1. Inconsistent grouping names
- the module has several different attributes that are used for sorting, In order these are name, group, catagory, size, slot, volume, meta and tech. Odd choices have been made in how these are displayed, and what things are called/grouped.
EX -"50mm Reinforced Nanofiber Plates I" are group named "Armor reinforcer" while "Energized EM membrane" are "Armor Plating Energized" . "Magnetic Field Stabilizer I" has a blueprint under the name "Fast Loader" while the group name is Magnetic Field Stabilizer, Gyrostabilizers also have this problem. Ballistic control units and Heat sinks are under their respective named categories.

2. unfinished module and ammunition sizing
-Tracking computers, sensor disruptors sensor boosters are all small sized, why? they fit on every size ship, stasis webs , armor plates, cargo scanners are unsized completely. its a half built system but you arent fixing that. why?

3. inconsistent module m/3
Limited light ion blaster I is 25m/3 , Limited light Neutron Blaster I is 20 m/3
Limited Ion Blaster (medium) is 10m/3 , Limited Neutron Blaster is 10 m/3
Heavy Ion blaster I (medium) is 10 m/3 , Heavy Neutron Blaster I is 25m/3
This is wildly inconsistent.

4. inconsistent meta changes for all weapon/module types.
in many cases there is a clear meta progression 0 is worst in all respects, and 4 is best in all respects, matching or better then t2. this also means that there is never any reason to fit meta 0-3 if 4 is available. in many cases there is a fitting choice between 3 and 4 that caused 3 to get fit instead of 4. and similar choices for meta 4 and tech 2 items. However the changes proposed and the ones implemented (as noted by another poster in this thread) there are now fewer fitting choices and far less variation of fitting options. Makuth light missile launchers (meta 3) had a lower cpu then the 'arbolast' meta 4 launcher and thus some fits used makuth and some used arbolast.

actual fixes to your system would work better then dumbing down parts of it that you don't understand because it isn't completed to begin with.

Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.

Adaahh Gee
Trust Doesn't Rust
Sev3rance
#405 - 2014-10-09 11:31:25 UTC
Kusum Fawn wrote:
Its sad that the majority of issues with modules are not going to be addressed, its almost like CCP doesnt know what the actual problems even are.


That would involve either playing the game, or listening the people that do, something that CCP and the CSM seems to do less and less often.
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp
Chao3 Alliance
#406 - 2014-10-10 05:27:16 UTC
Tara Vorkosigan wrote:
IMO the theory is fine, but the execution is bad. The word Ample should only be used to describe bosoms, and harvests. It just sounds out of place in a Sci-fi game.

Agreed, and I also think some of the existing names should be kept, like "Arbalest" or "Malkuth" but simply as flavor content added to the updated name classification...

Vote Borat Guereen for CSM XII

Check out the Minarchist Space Project

Kyshonuba
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#407 - 2014-10-15 14:10:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Kyshonuba
Steluna de Chasteux wrote:
I was reorganizing the hangars and noticed that my stack of Arbalest LMLs is now a stack of Compact LMLs. I knew that this was coming, but didn't expect the market value to fall to less than a 10th the original price.

Any chance of a refund for the balance? Or, should I get busy unloading my other pricey meta variants before they're similarly mutilated?


I for myself earned my money in eve with buying/selling meta 4 itmes in hek. Dealing with modules like "150 & 200 mm light scout auto cannon" or a "small unstable power fluctuator" (meta 4 energy neut) earned me some high sec money.
You can install buying alts at different market hubs and transport the "cheaper bought" items to hek for more profit. By doing this I learned about gate travelling, eve geography, the danger of low- and null sec travelling , transporting, ship fitting ...and of cause a lot about the evil plans of gate campers and market tricksters.

Although i dont play that much these days, I worry that this plan will destroy that kind of misson hub trading. With T2 looking like the new allaround "top item" and the variation amoung meta items reduced there are no fitting options left that traders can use for dealing.

....... and lets dont forget that misson income will be nerfed yet another time just after the refining value of the misson loot have been reduced. ( the dropping market value of light missle launcher illustrates this).
BraiZure Harloon
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#408 - 2014-11-05 18:20:27 UTC
In addition to the price tank on meta mods that got "balanced" I ran the numbers on the old meta 4 missile launcher. Looks like it lost about 13% in RoF and a 12% capacity nerf and now takes 13% more heat damage while over heating. Only gains one more CPU savings in fitting. Doesn't seem like the advertised 6.6%. Were they really 15% better than every other weapon system?
When they continue with the module changes I'm torn between hoping that other mods get that sort of treatment and hoping others don't get nerfed out of use like these have.
MBizon Osis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#409 - 2014-11-16 09:03:31 UTC
module balancing, "Tiericide",

Hello all made it to the end of 20 pages of "I don't like the name". I don't care about names and pairing down some of the many not used named mods. But the ship Tiericide made them better in most cases.

The Survey Scanner could be improved to display units and volume (m3), just to simplify the process and remove the math equation. My mining lasers, ore hold, cargo holds, and station hanger all read m3. I know this is a humble module and this will get not get the time of day. But here was a year long thread about them and a Dev urging players to post.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=237199

Lots of crazy in it but a lot of folks just think that reading in m3 would be a nice improvement and make it more useful.


I am not a bright guy on these flux mods shields or cap EFT shows me they are bad for every fit I try so how can they be good or in the game at all? what fits would anyone use them for? I would like any advice on this.


And the whole we have to change the names of every thing every 2 years? http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/whats-in-a-name/ Feb 2012

https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Module_changes

Like I said I don't care but it seams like a waste of time and money you could be making more content or real improvements.

Can't wait to see the fur fly when you get to mods most players really care about.


Zappity
Kurved Trading
#410 - 2014-11-16 20:25:03 UTC
Any idea when the next round of balancing is?

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#411 - 2014-11-26 20:53:30 UTC
Is anyone at CCP still working on Module Tiericide, or is this considered to be a failed project?
Cledus Snowman Snow
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#412 - 2014-11-28 12:16:59 UTC
MBizon Osis wrote:
module balancing, "Tiericide",

Hello all made it to the end of 20 pages of "I don't like the name". I don't care about names and pairing down some of the many not used named mods. But the ship Tiericide made them better in most cases.

The Survey Scanner could be improved to display units and volume (m3), just to simplify the process and remove the math equation. My mining lasers, ore hold, cargo holds, and station hanger all read m3. I know this is a humble module and this will get not get the time of day. But here was a year long thread about them and a Dev urging players to post.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=237199

Lots of crazy in it but a lot of folks just think that reading in m3 would be a nice improvement and make it more useful.


I am not a bright guy on these flux mods shields or cap EFT shows me they are bad for every fit I try so how can they be good or in the game at all? what fits would anyone use them for? I would like any advice on this.


And the whole we have to change the names of every thing every 2 years? http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/whats-in-a-name/ Feb 2012

https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Module_changes

Like I said I don't care but it seams like a waste of time and money you could be making more content or real improvements.

Can't wait to see the fur fly when you get to mods most players really care about.




I understand you and agree. It is the oll 'Order, counterorder, disorder.'. on the name changes. And the ore scanner changed to read in M3 like eveything else in the Game would make too much Sense.
IBISWARS
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#413 - 2014-12-02 22:06:13 UTC
I do not think tier 3 bcers should be able to snipe pos structures outside of range of the guns. If your attacking a pos you should be under fire of the pos weapons not safely out of it's range. Reward vs risk.
Bolimbe
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#414 - 2014-12-07 20:42:05 UTC
CCP Gargant wrote:
Oceanus is released next week and with it starts the advertised module rebalancing. To start out with the team decided to target eight specific groups of modules and CCP Fozzie has written a dev blog to explain the reasoning, method, and the groups.

Head on over here to check it out.

Oceanus is released on Tuesday, September 30th. These changes are looking very good. What do you think?


I think the module rebalancing looks like a good idea. However, I do not agree that the name changes were needed. As a matter of fact, changing the names and the unique descriptors is another step toward making Eve "just another mmo". You are removing the challenge and limiting the sandbox in order to favor the carebear and those who are too lazy, scared or just wrong in the head to grasp the fun in a dangerous world where, at any time, one can find oneself waking in a new clone or short a billion isk due to a scam or any of the other things that make Eve a unique and fun experience.

CCP should go ahead and create a "carebear server", like every other mmo out there. A server on which pvp is super limited and the only way to engage another pilot is through duel request or if they have pvp turned on. Then, when people cry about the game being too hard or getting blown up or whatever, we can just tell them to go to the carebear server. Many would just cry about pvp on the pvp server but when they get over their pride and moveto the carebear server they will be able to mine away in low and null sec with no fear of loss. (Sounds like fun, rightRoll)

BTW, the unique item names and descriptions were one of the biggest reasons I continued to play Eve. I loved reading the cool descriptions and names. They really were quite awesome.
Paynus Maiassus
Capital Munitions
Capital Interstellar Group
#415 - 2014-12-08 18:07:06 UTC
I didn't see any rebalanced modules in the Rhea patch notes. Are there any? Or is this something that CCP started in on and gave up on?

ECM, remote rappers, energy neutralizers are still hopelessly jacked up.
Dangeresque Too
Pistols for Pandas
#416 - 2014-12-09 16:11:22 UTC
Bolimbe wrote:
BTW, the unique item names and descriptions were one of the biggest reasons I continued to play Eve. I loved reading the cool descriptions and names. They really were quite awesome.

Oh you mean like:

Partial Weapon Navigation
Peripheral Weapon Navigation Diameter
Parallel Weapon Navigation Transmitter
Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron

And then shortened:
PWN
PWND
PWNT
PWNAGE

But seriously, what the heck is a navigation array generation extron?

And I'm pretty sure the module rebalance thing has probably died as there has been not a peep from CCP about it since the first one.
Akemon Numon
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#417 - 2014-12-16 10:15:35 UTC
WHO cares about the names? Call it whatever you want this year and change it two years from now again.
How bout the CCP balancing specialists take the time to even try to make some of these mods better for the users in this game? If your mining laser, strip mining laser, modulated deep core mining laser, ore hold, cargo hold, station hanger, fleet hanger, cans, POS, SILOS, and every thing in the ENTIRE GAME reads in m3 why would the Ore Scanner read in Units of Ore? And not m3 amount?

Just how hard would it be to make it read both? Or just m3?
Blastil
Aideron Robotics
#418 - 2014-12-19 18:05:05 UTC
The word 'Restrained' has a bit of a negative connotation (unless you're into that sort of thing). I would suggest the world 'Optimized' or 'Efficient' Since you're reducing a drawback instead of restraining something good.
Zappity
Kurved Trading
#419 - 2014-12-19 19:35:08 UTC
Ooh, another ten module categories! I never doubted you guys... Good stuff.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

Esceem
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#420 - 2014-12-19 23:03:02 UTC
Bolimbe wrote:
BTW, the unique item names and descriptions were one of the biggest reasons I continued to play Eve. I loved reading the cool descriptions and names. They really were quite awesome.


Agreed. And yes, I already miss e.g. the old AB names.