These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 Modules in EVE Online, Round Two

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nakaara Adahsa
Deep Void Enterprises
#21 - 2014-12-23 15:58:11 UTC
I don't like any of these expanded cargohold changes; not sure about the other "rebalancing".

As a relatively new player still, I've appreciated the variety of choices that currently exist. It provides a range of levels for both features and affordability when fitting ships. In all of this "rebalancing", there seems to have been little to no thought given to how the market values the given options. Not everyone is buying massive amounts of ISK via PLEX, so having multiple options when fitting ships is a good thing.

Also, the range of choices is good when deciding how much to invest in a ship being built for a particular purpose. Balancing risk vs. reward is an inherent part of the EVE universe, and reducing choices makes it more difficult to balance these.

In general, I like what exists today, and don't like where things are going in all of these changes. You developers are going to negatively impact gameplay for new players, not the reverse.
Milla Goodpussy
Garoun Investment Bank
#22 - 2014-12-23 16:02:54 UTC
I really am getting sick and tired of Faction mess coming into play and ruining all tiers. its like the pvp elitest went faction crazy and now what all modules to be faction related all the while you're gimping T2 level modules which indy's craft together!

why not just give indy's the power to craft faction as promised a very long time ago?
Aurora Fatalis
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2014-12-23 16:10:48 UTC
The use of quotation and tech level marks is inconsistent.

Elara Restrained Mining Laser Upgrade
'Carpo' Mining Laser Upgrade
Single Diode Basic Mining Laser
'Basic' Expanded Cargohold
Limited Expanded 'Archiver' Cargo I
Mark I Compact Power Diagnostic System
'Cartel' Power Diagnostic System I
Caldari Navy Power Diagnostic System

If Chribba told you not to trust him, would you?
Anton Menges Saddat
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#24 - 2014-12-23 16:13:44 UTC
Not feeling the cargo changes nor the new names. stop dumbing down eve. and ample, restrained, scoped, compact.... wtf?
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#25 - 2014-12-23 16:14:03 UTC
Aurora Fatalis wrote:
The use of quotation and tech level marks is inconsistent.

Elara Restrained Mining Laser Upgrade
'Carpo' Mining Laser Upgrade
Single Diode Basic Mining Laser
'Basic' Expanded Cargohold
Limited Expanded 'Archiver' Cargo I
Mark I Compact Power Diagnostic System
'Cartel' Power Diagnostic System I
Caldari Navy Power Diagnostic System

The 'Basic' Expanded cargohold is the only one of those that really bucks the trend.

Elara = "meta" module (drops from rats), no quotes
'Carpo' = storyline, in quotes
Single Diode = basic module, no quotes
'Archive' = storyline, in quotes
Mark I Compact = meta module, no quotes
'Cartel' = storyline, in quotes
Caldary Navy PDS = faction, no quotes

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#26 - 2014-12-23 16:20:26 UTC
Ix Method wrote:
Putting the Compact, Restrained, etc. before the flavour text would make the market sidebar for example a hell of a lot easier to read. Having it sorted alphabetically by the flavour text will be just as headache inducing as currently.

EDIT: The Meta 1 Cap Power Relays seem to be the wrong way round. The Shield Boost modifier is a drawback meaning one is flat out better than the other, unless I'm being tired and stupid.

I disagree — having the fluff bit of the module first makes the market much more searchable. If I want the Compact Mining Laser, I can just type in "compact mining" into the search bar. Doing it your way would mean I would have to remember the "particle bore" part of the name to get the "compact particle bore mining laser."

On this note — does CCP have plans to amend the modules touched in the first pass of this balancing initiative to add the "lore name" back?

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Martin Peterson
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2014-12-23 16:21:42 UTC
At the Capacitor Power Relays there is no real benefit in picking the Type-D Restrained Capacitor Power Relay over the Mark I Compact Capacitor Power Relay. The compact version got a lower malus on the shield-boost amound and also uses less CPU than the the restained version

For quick reference:
(name, meta, cpu, shield-boost-"bonus", cap-recharge-bonus)

Type-D Restrained Capacitor Power Relay , 1 , 4 , -10 , 22
Mark I Compact Capacitor Power Relay , 1 , 2 , -8 , 22
Faren Shalni
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#28 - 2014-12-23 16:33:58 UTC
CCP Terminus wrote:
Faren Shalni wrote:
just noticed that Power Diagnostic System II on the blog has 22tf cpu whereas in game it is 20tf cpu is this a mistake on your part or are you actually nerfing the fitting?


The CPU fitting it 2 higher (20 to 22) but the Powergrid bonus is also 1% better (5% to 6%).


:(

So Much Space
Nelly Uanos
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#29 - 2014-12-23 16:35:03 UTC
Love the change! Big smile

Only grip I got is the Ore cargo expander... why not 30% COME ON!

I need one with 30% bonus on my Impel, so I can get a damn 4000m3 cargo to scoop big thing in space without sacrificing another low slot of my tank.... X

Otherwise give me scoop to fleet hangar Cool
CCP Terminus
C C P
C C P Alliance
#30 - 2014-12-23 16:36:56 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Terminus
Nakaara Adahsa wrote:
I don't like any of these expanded cargohold changes; not sure about the other "rebalancing".

As a relatively new player still, I've appreciated the variety of choices that currently exist. It provides a range of levels for both features and affordability when fitting ships. In all of this "rebalancing", there seems to have been little to no thought given to how the market values the given options. Not everyone is buying massive amounts of ISK via PLEX, so having multiple options when fitting ships is a good thing.

Also, the range of choices is good when deciding how much to invest in a ship being built for a particular purpose. Balancing risk vs. reward is an inherent part of the EVE universe, and reducing choices makes it more difficult to balance these.

In general, I like what exists today, and don't like where things are going in all of these changes. You developers are going to negatively impact gameplay for new players, not the reverse.


Lets take Expanded Cargoholds as an example of the current market. In this specific modules case, the Cargo Capacity Bonus is the primary, if not only, stat players look at when purchasing the module. Coupling this with the low ISK cost and skill requirements of T2 Expanded Cargos, means that this module is basically the only option. Having the variety of 13 modules does not provide any tangible benefit to the player, it only provides clutter.

In reality there are only 2 things a player looks at when deciding to buy an Expanded cargohold: The price in ISK, and the Cargo Capacity Bonus.
This is why the 5 Meta 0 modules have been combined into 1. They are relics of years past which don't drop from NPCs anymore, but now can have a use as low penalty modules where cargo capacity is perhaps not quite as important (in those rare cases).
The named module (consolidated meta 1-4) can fill the small cost gap between T1 Expanded Cargoholds (which cost roughly 1750 ISK) and T2 Expanded Cargoholds (costing roughly 275,000 ISK).
The much rarer Storyline and Faction modules can fill higher cost niches.

@CCP_Terminus // Game Designer // Team Size Matters
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#31 - 2014-12-23 16:38:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Altrue
The name part adds unneeded complexity of the fitting process and is a step backward in improving EVE by removing that kind of stuff.

If you had 4 variants for the 4 meta version maybe, and I mean, MAYBE, this would be understandable.

But as it stands, you give one arbitrary nickname to an arbitrary type (e.g restrained), which doesn't actually benefits anyone.

I play since 2008, I'm in the middle of the target audience you mean to please with keeping the meta nicknames, and yet it doesn't feel needed even to me, so...

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart
CCP Terminus
C C P
C C P Alliance
#32 - 2014-12-23 16:39:27 UTC
Martin Peterson wrote:
At the Capacitor Power Relays there is no real benefit in picking the Type-D Restrained Capacitor Power Relay over the Mark I Compact Capacitor Power Relay. The compact version got a lower malus on the shield-boost amound and also uses less CPU than the the restained version

For quick reference:
(name, meta, cpu, shield-boost-"bonus", cap-recharge-bonus)

Type-D Restrained Capacitor Power Relay , 1 , 4 , -10 , 22
Mark I Compact Capacitor Power Relay , 1 , 2 , -8 , 22

Yeah that's probably an error. I would expect the restrained to have the -8. I'll look into it.

@CCP_Terminus // Game Designer // Team Size Matters
ergherhdfgh
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#33 - 2014-12-23 16:41:31 UTC
You guys just love breaking stuff don't you?

I don't understand why you guys hate freight haulers so much. You messed up freighters when you gave them low slots and nerf all of their stats so you needed to fit mods just to get to where you were before now when we try to get reasonable hit points it takes 10 years to align and you want to make that 11 years?

I'll admit that the naming of the mods was a bit confusing but I don't really see how you've changed that all that much and now we have to learn them all over again but not only that but the one's that you have already changed are going to get renamed again? I mean as it is I just go to the compare all tool and pick the one with the stats that I'm looking for so why not just leave well enough alone?

The only good thing that I can see coming out of this is that finally the faction cap rechargers will be a better recharge rate than meta 5. That never made sense to me. Other than that I see everything you are doing here as counter-productive.

Want to talk? Join Cara's channel in game: House Forelli
SpaceSaft
Almost Dangerous
Wolves Amongst Strangers
#34 - 2014-12-23 16:49:51 UTC  |  Edited by: SpaceSaft
I'm not sure why we need 9 modules with 3 each being exactly the same. Couldn't they have been renamed to some special name?

"Type something something science modified Cap Recharger" instead of "name Cap Recharger"?

Ideally even referencing what's special to this one?

I mean, I can see that it's nice to have "Racial navy" stuff but if it's all the same, can't it be put together?

In the end it's just meta levels anyway, do you have to obfuscate that so much?

I'm happy about everything that simplifies stuff that was unused anyway though, please continue this.
Qual
Knights of a Once Square Table INC.
#35 - 2014-12-23 17:02:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Qual
Looks good.

I like the idea of keeping flavor, though I would not go with the one to one model. Being able to find specific meta modules by thier nick name only is one of the perks of being a veteran... Cool That said, I understand the reasoning for going with a one to one model.

I do think you could have tried to keep more than one modules in the meta 1-4 range, just to give more options when choosing sub T2 modules, though that is more of a nice to haev than a need.
Jean Luc Lemmont
Carebears on Fire
#36 - 2014-12-23 17:02:21 UTC
Querns wrote:
Ix Method wrote:
Putting the Compact, Restrained, etc. before the flavour text would make the market sidebar for example a hell of a lot easier to read. Having it sorted alphabetically by the flavour text will be just as headache inducing as currently.

EDIT: The Meta 1 Cap Power Relays seem to be the wrong way round. The Shield Boost modifier is a drawback meaning one is flat out better than the other, unless I'm being tired and stupid.

I disagree — having the fluff bit of the module first makes the market much more searchable. If I want the Compact Mining Laser, I can just type in "compact mining" into the search bar. Doing it your way would mean I would have to remember the "particle bore" part of the name to get the "compact particle bore mining laser."

On this note — does CCP have plans to amend the modules touched in the first pass of this balancing initiative to add the "lore name" back?


I believe they mentioned in the dev blog they would be revising those, yes.

Will I get banned for boxing!?!?!

This thread has degenerated to the point it's become like two bald men fighting over a comb. -- Doc Fury

It's bonuses, not boni, you cretins.
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#37 - 2014-12-23 17:03:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Indahmawar Fazmarai
CCP Terminus wrote:
Nakaara Adahsa wrote:
I don't like any of these expanded cargohold changes; not sure about the other "rebalancing".

As a relatively new player still, I've appreciated the variety of choices that currently exist. It provides a range of levels for both features and affordability when fitting ships. In all of this "rebalancing", there seems to have been little to no thought given to how the market values the given options. Not everyone is buying massive amounts of ISK via PLEX, so having multiple options when fitting ships is a good thing.

Also, the range of choices is good when deciding how much to invest in a ship being built for a particular purpose. Balancing risk vs. reward is an inherent part of the EVE universe, and reducing choices makes it more difficult to balance these.

In general, I like what exists today, and don't like where things are going in all of these changes. You developers are going to negatively impact gameplay for new players, not the reverse.


Lets take Expanded Cargoholds as an example of the current market. In this specific modules case, the Cargo Capacity Bonus is the primary, if not only, stat players look at when purchasing the module. Coupling this with the low ISK cost and skill requirements of T2 Expanded Cargos, means that this module is basically the only option. Having the variety of 13 modules does not provide any tangible benefit to the player, it only provides clutter.

In reality there are only 2 things a player looks at when deciding to buy an Expanded cargohold: The price in ISK, and the Cargo Capacity Bonus.
This is why the 5 Meta 0 modules have been combined into 1. They are relics of years past which don't drop from NPCs anymore, but now can have a use as low penalty modules where cargo capacity is perhaps not quite as important (in those rare cases).
The named (Meta 1-4) module can fill the small cost gap between T1 Expanded Cargoholds (which cost roughly 1750 ISK) and T2 Expanded Cargoholds (costing roughly 275,000 ISK).
The much rarer Storyline and Faction modules can fill higher cost niches.



Oh really? Do you think that a freighter pilot does not look for HITPOINT and VELOCITY penalties? How cute! Lol

Since your buddies forced every freighter pilot to fit cargohold expanders to retain a fraction of their former usability, the favorite modules are:

Partial Hull Conversion Expanded Cargo (~30 milion ISK a piece)
Synthetic Hull Conversion Reinforced Bulkheads I (~60 million a piece)

For the modest price of 150 million ISK, those modules give you a net speed, cargo and hitpoint bonus. Which is gone now that you plan to "consolidate" the Partial Hull into the "Basic". Free tip: when players pay 30 million ISK for a Meta 4 module, it must be doing something right!

I'd suggest to give to the "Basic" module the same cargo bonus as the new Type-D (+22.5%). Or just add a new module that is suit to freighter needs of high velocity penalty, high cargo bonus and low hull penalty.
Vukae Dhoul
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#38 - 2014-12-23 17:08:42 UTC
Personally, the problem I see with this list is that it fails the most obvious simplification: making sure that all variants of a given type of module have the type name unmodified somewhere in them (regardless of extra flavor and descriptive text).

For example, with regard to the mining laser, could you at least decide whether it is a 'miner' or a 'mining laser'? Similarly, decide whether nanofibers should be internal, cargo vs cargohold, inertia or inertial stabilzers, ...
CCP Terminus
C C P
C C P Alliance
#39 - 2014-12-23 17:20:33 UTC
Querns wrote:
On this note — does CCP have plans to amend the modules touched in the first pass of this balancing initiative to add the "lore name" back?


Yep, as stated in the blog post, we'll be retroactively giving names back to the modules of the first pass.

@CCP_Terminus // Game Designer // Team Size Matters
Grunschlck
Stupid Tax Evasion Corporation
#40 - 2014-12-23 17:25:49 UTC
Overall, I like the module tiericide changes. However, one thing I've found annoying in the past and which seems to be continued now, is the inconsistency in naming of the inertia stabilizers. You'd think that having them in one table, the inconsistency would be noticeable by you too, but alas, apparently not.

This is what I'm talking about:

Inertia Stabilizers I
Type-D Restrained Inertial Stabilizers <-- inconsistent
Inertia Stabilizers II
'Basic' Inertia Stabilizers
Synthetic Hull Conversion Inertia Stabilizers
Domination Inertial Stabilizers <-- inconsistent
Shadow Serpentis Inertial Stabilizers <-- inconsistent

Please make up your minds and go for either "inertia" or "inertial", but not both. As it is now, searching in the market for "inertia stabilizer" will get me a partial list and searching for "inertial stabilizer" will get me another partial list. That I'm always searching for "inertia" in the market and thus circumvent this inconsistency, is besides the point.

As there are already gyro-stabilizers in the game with "inertial" in their names (consistently, I might add), I would like to take it one step further: either rename the inertia stabilizers to "inertial stabilizers" or rename the inertia stabilizers to "inertia stabilizers" and rename the gyro-stabilizers with "inertial" in their names to "inertia".