These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Cledus Snowman Snow
Doomheim
#161 - 2014-12-30 22:11:01 UTC
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/rebalancing-modules-round-two

Gallente Mining Laser: why is this even in the game at all?
Now stats:
Gallente Mining Laser CPU 59 Mining Amount 40m3 Meta 8
Miner 1 CPU 60 Mining Amount 40m3 Meta 0
After patch:
Gallente Mining Laser CPU 60 Mining Amount 45m3 Meta 8
Miner I CPU 60 Mining Amount 40m3 Meta 0
Again why is this garbage meta 8?

In addition to the module tiericide, new faction modules are being added?
So with the reduction of Meta 1 -4 you are adding more Faction to take their place?
How many 10's of millions are these new Faction Inertial Stabilizers and Reinforced Bulkheads
and all the other new mods going to cost to get the same fit as we had with cheap Meta mods?
If one of the main goals is to reduce the clutter and of having a dozen or more mods of the
same type yet you are making as many new ones as you are reducing from the old?

Is this "you want the same fit you have to use Faction or better?" And yes it is very salesmanship
of you to not have the old/ current mods and stats in the Dev blog to compare with 'balanced' mods.

Please be honest with us about this Diminution of Fitting Options that seems to be the over arching trend of
module tiericide.
Quintessen
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#162 - 2014-12-30 22:41:16 UTC
Cledus Snowman Snow wrote:
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/rebalancing-modules-round-two

Gallente Mining Laser: why is this even in the game at all?
Now stats:
Gallente Mining Laser CPU 59 Mining Amount 40m3 Meta 8
Miner 1 CPU 60 Mining Amount 40m3 Meta 0
After patch:
Gallente Mining Laser CPU 60 Mining Amount 45m3 Meta 8
Miner I CPU 60 Mining Amount 40m3 Meta 0
Again why is this garbage meta 8?

In addition to the module tiericide, new faction modules are being added?
So with the reduction of Meta 1 -4 you are adding more Faction to take their place?
How many 10's of millions are these new Faction Inertial Stabilizers and Reinforced Bulkheads
and all the other new mods going to cost to get the same fit as we had with cheap Meta mods?
If one of the main goals is to reduce the clutter and of having a dozen or more mods of the
same type yet you are making as many new ones as you are reducing from the old?

Is this "you want the same fit you have to use Faction or better?" And yes it is very salesmanship
of you to not have the old/ current mods and stats in the Dev blog to compare with 'balanced' mods.

Please be honest with us about this Diminution of Fitting Options that seems to be the over arching trend of
module tiericide.



While not speaking to any other points here, it would make sense to remove some of the more meaningless modules in the game. I'm not sure what benefit it is to have the statistically few Gallente mining modules out there, but they don't really have a place. Please use this time to remove the rare, but useless for cost modules.
Gensis Macav
Doomheim
#163 - 2014-12-31 03:59:11 UTC
Will the Ammatar Navy Power Diagnostic actually be available in game?

It is not available in any of the LP stores or on the market.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=70445

https://eve-central.com/home/quicklook.html?typeid=17524
Steppa Musana
Doomheim
#164 - 2014-12-31 12:42:33 UTC
I have to support those who are upset that the overall number of modules is being reduced considerably. I want more choices not easier amd obvious choices. There are a lot of stats to work with for most modules fluctuation of those for different purposes woukld be the way to go about this rebalancing.
Iris Bravemount
Golden Grinding Gears
#165 - 2014-12-31 12:45:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Iris Bravemount
While I welcome the overall initiative, and and really appreciate the fluff being put back in the names, I have one major gripe with the module tiericide so far :

It tends to gravitate towards:

Tech 1: Average
Meta 1: Good
Tech 2: Better in all stats but fitting
Faction: Plain better
Storyline: Meh
Officer: Better than faction but harder to fit

While I would have expected (and liked) it to be:

Tech 1: Average
Meta 1: Better in stat A, worse in stat B, equal in other stats if any, number of variations based on number of stats
Tech 2: Better in all stats but fitting
Faction: Plain better, with various factions focusing on various stats (one stat having an even larger advantage on t2 than the other factions' stuff)
Storyline: Like faction, but not as good.
Officer: Better than faction but harder to fit, various officers specializing in various stats

Basically: Meta 1 should offer specialization, but not plain improvement when compared to Tech 1, Factions, storyline and Officer should specialize instead of all (or most) being the same.


Example:

Mining lasers (Fitting,CapUsage,Range,Yield)

Tech1(D,D,D,D)

MetaA(C,E,D,D)
MetaB(E,C,D,D)
MetaC(D,C,E,D)
and so on...

Tech2(E,E,C,C)

FactionA(C,C,C,C)
FactionB(C,D,B,C)
and so on...

StorylineA(C,C,D,C)
SotrylineB(C,C,C,D)
and so on...

OfficerA(E,F,B,B)
OffiicerB(F,E,C,A)
OfficerC(E,F,A,C)
and so on...

This way, we could have more purpuseful variety, and less linear progression.

"I will not hesitate when the test of Faith finds me, for only the strongest conviction will open the gates of paradise. My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity." - Paladin's Creed
Alex PROTOSS
Turbo miners inc
#166 - 2014-12-31 18:14:27 UTC
Iris Bravemount wrote:
While I welcome the overall initiative, and and really appreciate the fluff being put back in the names, I have one major gripe with the module tiericide so far :

example

This way, we could have more purpuseful variety, and less linear progression.

This way creates tonnes of useless modules, but in fact as first step, this way is right. Next step must filter useless modules or out from game or boosting their stats.
Crumplecorn
Eve Cluster Explorations
#167 - 2014-12-31 23:54:01 UTC
RESTRAINED OVERDRIVE
RESTRAINED OVERDRIVE
RESTRAINED OVERDRIVE
RESTRAINED OVERDRIVE
RESTRAINED OVERDRIVE
RESTRAINED OVERDRIVE
RESTRAINED OVERDRIVE
RESTRAINED OVERDRIVE
RESTRAINED OVERDRIVE
RESTRAINED OVERDRIVE

Happy New Year

Witty Image - Stream

Not Liking this post hurts my RL feelings and will be considered harassment
Juan Mileghere
Mackies Raiders
Wild Geese.
#168 - 2015-01-01 18:43:35 UTC
The T2 Mining laser's activation cost will be 70 now? seems a bit high compared to the Variants, then again, that's just me.

Blobbing Explained
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#169 - 2015-01-02 12:17:50 UTC
Ravcharas wrote:
"Restrained" makes them sound worse than meta 0.



The entire new naming system is a complete failure in my eyes. I simply don't get why we need to dumb down the manes into a set of four names for everything.

The argument is that you it means you don't need to learn a strange name means this module does this best but you have to learn that a ship class name and remember that a Thorax for example is a Hybrid Gun gun Attack Cruiser. Or a Raven is a missile Attack BS. Even though Raven has no link to the word shields or missiles.

I want modules that are named correctly. Not modules that are all given the same 4 prefixes just so I know what they do at a glance. Roll And those "Ample" armour plates are gonna look sexy on my Thorpenisrax Roll
Mac Chicovski
Capts Deranged Cavaliers
#170 - 2015-01-03 17:53:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Mac Chicovski
CCP Terminus wrote:
For those bothered by the inconsistency in the names, if it's easy enough and doesn't affect too many things (tutorial/mission text, etc.) I'll look into unifying the base naming of everything.


It's not mere OCD that 'bothers' people: the thing is that I can't search for one name in the marketplace or in my inventory, and get all the variants.

Consider:

Civilian Miner
MinerI
EP-S Gaussian Scoped Mining Laser
...etc

If you'd pick one of 'miner' or 'mining laser', then it's consistent.

If you pick the latter, then the elision would be in 'mining laser upgrades', since you couldn't get all mining lasers without getting their upgrades. But, at least at that point, you could make an actual decision: explicitly tie the 'upgrade' to the base module. If you decide to do that, all the Gyrostabilizer might become 'Projectile Gyrostabilizer', similarly 'Laser Heat Sink', 'Hybrid Field Stabilizer', and 'Missile Control System', etc.

Another example:

Nanofiber Internal Structure
Type-D Restrained Nanofiber Structure
...etc

Similarly, here: pick 'nanofiber structure' or 'nanofiber internal structure'.

And the inconsistencies in 'cap' and 'capacitor' has always driven me wild,but this is a one-off:

Cap Recharger
Eutectic Compact Cap Recharger
Cap Recharger II
'Basic' Capacitor Recharger
'Palisade' Cap Recharger
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
#171 - 2015-01-04 16:40:20 UTC
Trinkets friend wrote:
I am an habitual hull tanking addict, and I approve of these tiercide changes on the bulkheads.

I was concerned that a few of my more outre fittings would be made impossible if the 11 tech 1 metalevel bulkheads got merged into three, but at least the Compact keeps low CPU (32 tf) and the Restrained is still useable by a few of the fits, which can get very tight on CPU indeed.

Regarding the naming conventions, I am also in favour, as Sizeof Void says, of removing the quotation marks from the storyline and metalevel modules, because it's a pain to search these.

However, as Dangerous Too points out, module metalevels are not visible in your hangar and you have to show info or at least mousover when you display them as icons. You can get around this with displaying your items in a list, but then you feel like an accountant.

I think that some thought needs to be put to these nomenclature conventions in general, to fix these problems so that the metalevel of the modules is more apparent when browsing your hangar in ocon mode (like most people do), and to assist in text searching in the search bar.

The problem is twofold - display, and searching.
eg; lets take the 1600mm plates. If you renamed the modules from 1600mm reinforced nanofiber armour plating to 1600mm nanofiber reinforced armour plating, it would display the metalevel in the icon display mode, and also in list searches the metalevels would be sorted better.

eg, right now a list of 1600mm plates of all metalevels are sorted by '1600mm', then by 'reinforced' (useless, since all share that name) and thirdly by metalevel.

moving to the bulkheads, cargo expanders, nanofibres, for instance, a name sorted list of modules will put all the metalevels together. eg, Type-D's of all module types will be sorted together, separate from Mark I's.

i also think you should make a decision whether to adopt US spelling conventions or English. Nanofiber is wrong, and should be nanofibre. No one in the history of the world has contracted myelofiberosis as a disease, is my point; they all contract myelofibrosis. Therefore, logically, nanofibre is correct and fibre is the correct spelling, end of story. Please change your nanofibres to reflect the correct placement of the r in these words. That's my 5c.


Iceland has a strong historical connection with the United States hence the usage of Americanised English within New Eden. I can live with that. Not sure I can live with the generic terminologies for modules that are being implemented across the board. As others have pointed out words like 'ample' etc are fairly poor names for modules. I would much rather stick with the original names for modules as they 'fit' with the background of New Eden. We are losing too much of our storyline and political background as it is. I have no problem with 'name' type names either within names of modules. We are adults mostly and can handle longer words.

" They're gonna feel pretty stupid when they find out. " Rick. " Find out what ? " Abraham. " They're screwing with the wrong people. " Rick. Season four.   ' The Walking Dead. ' .
Arcos Vandymion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#172 - 2015-01-04 19:11:50 UTC
Morihei Akachi wrote:


1. The generic terms “ample” and “restrained”, with their connotations of bosoms and BDSM respectively, and “scoped”, continue to be inappropriate to technological equipment and implausible for a highly developed and variegated future technological market.

Now that you mention it -
though thinking about it that's more of a reason to put it on your ship together with a pink-hued paintjob and red floor lights (spinners optional). Would explain all the exotic dancers and slaves in the cargohold...
Brainless Bimbo
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#173 - 2015-01-05 20:44:49 UTC
WTF.. Meta 3 and 4 items getting a boost to Meta 6, honestly you gotta be joking or are you sitting just too close to the noxious vapors from the nearest volcano resulting in your brains resulting in a mass resembling rotting shark meat and providing the same utility to critical thought...

Give it a bit more thought, make every thing follow the tiericide template as is for existing modules so no one is advantaged, IF you want Meta 6 items make them from scratch, if you have too many types/names remove them and replace with the new lower meta value or refund the scrap value like other things that have been removed..



already dead, just haven´t fallen over yet....
Cledus Snowman Snow
Doomheim
#174 - 2015-01-06 04:24:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Cledus Snowman Snow
Hello CCP Devs

Can I please get a response here as to the why T2 are not getting buffed to the same stats as the (better) Meta4s your removing from the game? This is going to be clear fitting issue. Why so silent about it?

Lets skip for the moment all these wonderful side effects of your efforts to date.
The re-naming, re-re-naming, and on and on.
The crap Faction/SL/COSMOS mods not making any sense, Faction mods with the same stats as T2 of the same type (Gallente Mining Laser being total crap compared to Miner2).
Adding even more faction mods to make up for the meta mods getting the axe.
The fact that T2 Invention and production is a complete mess unless you own a T2 BPO.
And an ORE SCANNER that is useless with out doing your own math equation just so see how much ore will fit in your holds.

Make a statement regarding your decision not to buff the T2 mods to the better meta4 stats in those cases. I can not believe this is an oversight on your part. Show us you at lest know this is going to be major fitting Nerf to the game. Or you either just don't care or think we are to stupid to see what's going on here.
Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
#175 - 2015-01-06 09:10:23 UTC
Cledus Snowman Snow wrote:
(Gallente Mining Laser being total crap compared to Miner2).



afaik gallente mining lasers are a fluff item and should not be treated as a faction item in terms of balancing. they are quite easy to farm, I would have 100s if they were worth anything.

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
#176 - 2015-01-06 12:31:29 UTC
Cledus Snowman Snow wrote:
Hello CCP Devs

Can I please get a response here as to the why T2 are not getting buffed to the same stats as the (better) Meta4s your removing from the game? This is going to be clear fitting issue. Why so silent about it?

Lets skip for the moment all these wonderful side effects of your efforts to date.
The re-naming, re-re-naming, and on and on.
The crap Faction/SL/COSMOS mods not making any sense, Faction mods with the same stats as T2 of the same type (Gallente Mining Laser being total crap compared to Miner2).
Adding even more faction mods to make up for the meta mods getting the axe.
The fact that T2 Invention and production is a complete mess unless you own a T2 BPO.
And an ORE SCANNER that is useless with out doing your own math equation just so see how much ore will fit in your holds.

Make a statement regarding your decision not to buff the T2 mods to the better meta4 stats in those cases. I can not believe this is an oversight on your part. Show us you at lest know this is going to be major fitting Nerf to the game. Or you either just don't care or think we are to stupid to see what's going on here.


I'm not in favour of the current renaming policy or removing/collating the lower meta modules into smaller numbers of module lines either. I will speculate as to what is being planned though and comment on your comments:

a) I personally think the ore scanners are fine as they are.
b) T2 BPOs. Too much forum arguing on those already.
c) Adding more faction mod types gives an improvement to LP stores and missioning which is a good thing given mission loot generally was kicked in the teeth after the reprocessing nerf. +1.
d) Miners aren't going to use mining lasers for longer than it takes to skill up to strip miners. I agree the CPU req seems a bit much but if you are skilling up its a minor problem.
e) Regarding comparisons between the stats of T2 modules vs Storyline/COSMOS I think the latter will end up having same capability or higher than T2 but with lower fitting cost. This makes sense given the rarity of Storyline/COSMOS modules vs inexhaustible supply of T2 modules. BPCs for Storyline/COSMOS have been added to drops at the new exploration sites and building materials are dropping at existing sites now. This will increase supply somewhat but still keep an element of rarity. +1.

" They're gonna feel pretty stupid when they find out. " Rick. " Find out what ? " Abraham. " They're screwing with the wrong people. " Rick. Season four.   ' The Walking Dead. ' .
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#177 - 2015-01-06 18:54:02 UTC
Arcos Vandymion wrote:
Morihei Akachi wrote:


1. The generic terms “ample” and “restrained”, with their connotations of bosoms and BDSM respectively, and “scoped”, continue to be inappropriate to technological equipment and implausible for a highly developed and variegated future technological market.

Now that you mention it -
though thinking about it that's more of a reason to put it on your ship together with a pink-hued paintjob and red floor lights (spinners optional). Would explain all the exotic dancers and slaves in the cargohold...


inb4 Zor's Opus Luxury Yacht.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#178 - 2015-01-07 11:54:06 UTC
Personally looking through the numbers I'm quite happy with most of what I see. The faction Overdrive injectors however just don't appeal to me. I would rather have the Cargo Capacity penalty at -15%-20% and get 0.5 more velocity on either the republic or domination to give us a reason to pick one or the other.

The Republic and Domination Nanofibers are also the exact same mod with a different name. Changing one to -15.75 Inertia Modifier and 10.0 Velocity Modifier would give us a choice between the two.
CCP Terminus
C C P
C C P Alliance
#179 - 2015-01-07 13:17:33 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Terminus
We've made a few changes and clarifications.

You can find the information on the dev blog or on the first page of the comment reserved for clarifications.

Module Tiericide Dev Blog

Comments First Page

@CCP_Terminus // Game Designer // Team Size Matters
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#180 - 2015-01-07 13:31:00 UTC
the 'basic' power diagnostic is pretty useless btw .. 2.5% pg aswell as the other really low stats, its not worth using.

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using