These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

Shield Power relay
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Goose99
#21 - 2011-09-23 01:37:17 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Goose99 wrote:
Why can't they fit t2 into the existing hierarchy?
Because they're not in the same hierarchy.

Or, rather, there are two hierarchies: T1 – T3 (aka manufacturable stuff) and Meta 1–4, 6-14 (aka drops).

In a sense, you're right: they shouldn't be Meta 5. They shouldn't have any meta level at all because they're not in that class of items. T2 fit perfectly into the hierarchy they're actually in: more capable, more difficult to manufacture, cost more than T1, but less so than T3. They don't follow the same rules as Meta items because the meta items are not just subject to some (supposed… but not entirely consistent) increase in quality, but also to strict limitations (and completely different mechanics) of supply.

The market forces for the two are not the same, so there is pretty much no way to make the two categories follow the same “progression” when it comes to cost/benefit/performace.


Even if you put aside meta, the cost/performance for some t2s are simply too far out of line. 1 mil t2 guns outperform 100 mil faction guns, and even many officer guns costing 500 mil or more. Given LP shop cost and officer rat spawn/drop rate, there is no way the market can adjust for that kind of gap. Yes, there's skill/fitting, and in come cases, cap drawbacks, but is it really worth that much? You would not expect a t3 ship to cost 1/100th of a t1 ship, under any circumstances. Why is this acceptable for modules?
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#22 - 2011-09-23 01:44:27 UTC

Meta 4 modules that are better than Tech 2 (meta 5):

Electronic Warfare:
* Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron (-8 TF, -8 GJ)
* Phased Muon Sensor Disruptor I (-14 TF, -12 GJ)
* Balmer Series Tracking Disruptor I (-16 TF, -6 GJ)
* 'Cetus' ECM Shockwave I (-4 TF, -96 GJ)
* BZ-5 Neutralizing Spatial Destabilizer ECM (-16 TF, -19 GJ)
* 'Hypnos' Ion Field ECM I (-16 TF, -19 GJ)
* 'Hypnos' Multispectral ECM I (-15 TF, -22 GJ)
* Enfeebling Phase Inversion ECM I (-16 TF, -19 GJ)
* 'Umbra' I White Noise ECM I (-16 TF, -19 GJ)
* 'Hypnos' Signal Distortion Amplifier I (-1 TF)
* Conjunctive Gravimetric ECCM Scanning Array I (-8 TF, -4 GJ)
* Conjunctive Ladar ECCM Scanning Array I (-8 TF, -4 GJ)
* Conjunctive Magnetometric ECCM Scanning Array I (-8 TF, -4 GJ)
* Conjunctive Radar ECCM Scanning Array I (-8 TF, -4 GJ)
* Prototype ECCM I Omni Sensor Cluster (-8 TF, -4 GJ)

Engineering Equipment:
* Beta Reactor Control: Capacitor Power Relay I (-5 TF)

Hull & Armor:
* 50mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I (-3 TF, -5,000 kg)
* 100mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I (-3 TF, -1 MW, -10,000 kg)
* 200mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I (-4 TF, -2 MW, -50,000 kg)
* 400mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I (-5 TF, -5 MW, -100,000 kg)
* 800mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I (-5 TF, -30 MW, -500,000 kg)
* 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I (-5 TF, -75 MW, -1,000,000 kg)

Propulsion:
* Local Hull Conversion Inertial Stabilizers I (-3% signature bloom)

Shield:
* Beta Reactor Control: Shield Power Relay I (-6 TF)
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#23 - 2011-09-23 02:07:26 UTC
Goose99 wrote:
Even if you put aside meta, the cost/performance for some t2s are simply too far out of line.
How so?
Quote:
1 mil t2 guns outperform 100 mil faction guns, and even many officer guns costing 500 mil or more.
So what? If people are stupid enough to pay that much for less performance, that's their problem — you can't fix stupid. If people want to fall for the Estamel “brand”, then good for them (and even better for whomever trips over an Estamel spawn).

When you say that “the cost/performance for some t2s are simply too far out of line”, it sounds like you're suggesting that there is a connection between the two — that one has to follow the other. There isn't, and they don't. The two are almost completely elastic. Instead, that's just the market doing what the market does. Tbh, it's not even that strange — mid-price stuff is almost always vastly superior in terms of the bang for your buck.

Also, it rather sounds like you're banking on a singular definition of “performance”, when the fact of the matter is that no, T2 guns do not unconditionally “outperform” other guns.
Quote:
Yes, there's skill/fitting, and in come cases, cap drawbacks, but is it really worth that much?
Quite obviously, yes.
Quote:
You would not expect a t3 ship to cost 1/100th of a t1 ship, under any circumstances. Why is this acceptable for modules?
It doesn't happen for modules either, so that's a rather academic question…
Goose99
#24 - 2011-09-23 03:17:22 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Goose99 wrote:
Even if you put aside meta, the cost/performance for some t2s are simply too far out of line.
How so?
Quote:
1 mil t2 guns outperform 100 mil faction guns, and even many officer guns costing 500 mil or more.
So what? If people are stupid enough to pay that much for less performance, that's their problem — you can't fix stupid. If people want to fall for the Estamel “brand”, then good for them (and even better for whomever trips over an Estamel spawn).

When you say that “the cost/performance for some t2s are simply too far out of line”, it sounds like you're suggesting that there is a connection between the two — that one has to follow the other. There isn't, and they don't. The two are almost completely elastic. Instead, that's just the market doing what the market does. Tbh, it's not even that strange — mid-price stuff is almost always vastly superior in terms of the bang for your buck.

Also, it rather sounds like you're banking on a singular definition of “performance”, when the fact of the matter is that no, T2 guns do not unconditionally “outperform” other guns.
Quote:
Yes, there's skill/fitting, and in come cases, cap drawbacks, but is it really worth that much?
Quite obviously, yes.
Quote:
You would not expect a t3 ship to cost 1/100th of a t1 ship, under any circumstances. Why is this acceptable for modules?
It doesn't happen for modules either, so that's a rather academic question…


Mid range stuff normally don't outperform top of the line stuff.

There should be a connection between price and performance. They don't have to be always linear and proportional, but should always go in the same direction. It's okay for a mod costing 100 times as much as another to only slightly outperform it, but not the reverse.

As it is, many higher meta guns, especially in the AC category, has no reason to exist, given t2's performance. They should either be removed from the game, or fixed.
Ildryn
IDLE INTENTIONS
#25 - 2011-09-23 05:34:19 UTC
Goose99 wrote:
What they should fix is meta 5 t2 guns being better than meta 6+ faction/officer guns.P


Agreed...although how you would know this or even have a concern about this without ever having logged into eve is beyond me.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#26 - 2011-09-23 13:19:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Goose99 wrote:
Mid range stuff normally don't outperform top of the line stuff.
…and T2 modules don't outperform the top of the line modules either (in particular since, again, performance isn't a universal or general metric).
Quote:
There should be a connection between price and performance.
No, there shouldn't be. In fact, there can't be, because there is no set price. The market sets the price that people are willing to pay for the “performance” (in whatever form it comes) any one module offers, and that creates oddities where more expensive modules are “worse” from some given perspective. That doesn't in any way mean the price is wrong — it only means the market is doing its job.

That expensive module is obviously worth that much, regardless of what you think of (and how you define) its performance.
Quote:
It's okay for a mod costing 100 times as much as another to only slightly outperform it, but not the reverse.
Why not?

In fact, I have to go back and ask the fundamental question: what is the actual problem here? This whole idea seems to boil down to two common fallacies about EVE: first, that prices are determined by the hidden price-setting-cabal, and second, that bigger is better. Neither is true in EVE. This is a good thing.
Lady Go Diveher
Doomheim
#27 - 2011-09-23 13:35:38 UTC
CCP don't set the price of anything that drops, supply/demand does.

The fact that the demand for an item of near-equal operational value can drive it to be several times the value of the other, is a clear example of this in action.

If you don't understand this, I think you should just leave Eve.
Aamrr
#28 - 2011-09-23 13:52:03 UTC
And what influences the supply? The drop tables. And who writes the drop tables? CCP.

Certainly, the market plays a part, but it's well within CCP's power to manipulate it. Anyone asking for prices to be changed is ultimately just asking for the drop tables to be tweaked. If you want to argue semantics, that's fine, but the end result is the same.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#29 - 2011-09-23 13:57:53 UTC
Aamrr wrote:
And what influences the supply? The drop tables. And who writes the drop tables? CCP.
…and that is why you can't include T1/T2 in the mix: because they are not subject to the same supply rules. If you want to argue that the meta progression is wonky (never mind that, again, bigger isn't better around here) then that's ok…ish… but then you have to leave T2 out of the equation, because it's not part of that hierarchy.
Lady Go Diveher
Doomheim
#30 - 2011-09-23 14:03:09 UTC
Aamrr wrote:
Certainly, the market plays a part, but it's well within CCP's power to manipulate it


And they should do this and fundamentally break supply / demand why?
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#31 - 2011-09-23 14:29:59 UTC
In Eve, people don't buy $1000 jeans. They buy 800,000,000 ISK guns Blink


Anyway, if people are buying really expensive stuff, which does consistently less than something cheaper, that points to bad research on their part.

Nothing wrong with the drop frequency. Nothing wrong with the tech and meta levels.

Just something people need to check their numbers on. Like everything else. Or does the OP think that's too hard?

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Goose99
#32 - 2011-09-23 14:46:33 UTC
Officer guns drop rates are so low there's no way market rules can compensate for it.

More importantly, faction gun prices are determined by LP shop arbitrarily set by CCP. Even going by isk trade in + npc buy order tag prices, it's far higher than t2 gun material costs, which are plentiful and shared with other modules. You can't just call a fake mmo economy the "free market."
AFKCloaked AltSpy
Doomheim
#33 - 2011-09-23 15:05:14 UTC
Quote:
As it is, many higher meta guns, especially in the AC category, has no reason to exist, given t2's performance. They should either be removed from the game, or fixed.


WRONG.

They have a higher refire rate but less alpha.

You are at a point where the increase in alpha you can gain will not decrease the number of volleys it takes to destroy a ship. At that point, the higher ROF is worth every penny, because it will allow you to kill faster.

Just because EFT says something is 'better' does not make it so.
Goose99
#34 - 2011-09-23 15:15:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Goose99
AFKCloaked AltSpy wrote:
Quote:
As it is, many higher meta guns, especially in the AC category, has no reason to exist, given t2's performance. They should either be removed from the game, or fixed.


WRONG.

They have a higher refire rate but less alpha.

You are at a point where the increase in alpha you can gain will not decrease the number of volleys it takes to destroy a ship. At that point, the higher ROF is worth every penny, because it will allow you to kill faster.

Just because EFT says something is 'better' does not make it so.


There isn't one single rat where you can base this on. Another could have the ehp amount in such a way that t2 guns hit for fewer volleys, but faction guns hit for more volley, increasing kill time to above what raw dps figure would suggest. At that point, it's worthless. You can get lucky, just as you can get unlucky. Overall, the dps difference means unlucky more often than lucky. That's what an average is.

Btw, who says "WRONG?" It reminds me of my 6 years old nephew...Roll
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#35 - 2011-09-23 15:24:42 UTC
Goose99 wrote:
Officer guns drop rates are so low there's no way market rules can compensate for it.
Sure there is. If they're that rare (they aren't), they go straight into the “collector” segment and get the price they deserve.
Quote:
More importantly, faction gun prices are determined by LP shop arbitrarily set by CCP.
No, faction prices are determined by what kind of ISK/LP people want to get out of it, and by the fact that the buyers think these conversion rates are actually reasonable. Otherwise, people wouldn't buy them, so mission-runners wouldn't generate them, so they wouldn't even exist on the market.

Regardless, the price is set by the players, and if the buyers are willing to pay whatever price an item is at, then that price is the correct one. There is pretty much only two prices that can be wrong: when the price is 0 (because the item in question is literally useless) and when the price is NULL (because the item effectively doesn't exist).
Quote:
You can't just call a fake mmo economy the "free market."
Sure you can, especially when it's as intricate as EVE's economy. That's why all comparisons with other games (cf. the previous comparison about “loot rules”) fail: because they are entirely irrelevant to the way EVE works.

So the question remains: what is the problem here?
Goose99
#36 - 2011-09-23 15:43:21 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Goose99 wrote:
Officer guns drop rates are so low there's no way market rules can compensate for it.
Sure there is. If they're that rare (they aren't), they go straight into the “collector” segment and get the price they deserve.
Quote:
More importantly, faction gun prices are determined by LP shop arbitrarily set by CCP.
No, faction prices are determined by what kind of ISK/LP people want to get out of it, and by the fact that the buyers think these conversion rates are actually reasonable. Otherwise, people wouldn't buy them, so mission-runners wouldn't generate them, so they wouldn't even exist on the market.

Regardless, the price is set by the players, and if the buyers are willing to pay whatever price an item is at, then that price is the correct one. There is pretty much only two prices that can be wrong: when the price is 0 (because the item in question is literally useless) and when the price is NULL (because the item effectively doesn't exist).
Quote:
You can't just call a fake mmo economy the "free market."
Sure you can, especially when it's as intricate as EVE's economy. That's why all comparisons with other games (cf. the previous comparison about “loot rules”) fail: because they are entirely irrelevant to the way EVE works.

So the question remains: what is the problem here?


Read again. It has nothing to do with LP/isk ratio. I never mentioned it. I worked under the assumption that LP is free, only isk trade in and npc tag buy order prices factored in, as absolute bottom price possible set by CCP, which is far higher than t2 material prices. The material prices cannot and should not rise by artificially bottlenecking supply, as it's linked with other modules that aren't OP.

Until CCP removes isk trade in and npc tag buy orders, there is no free market for faction mods.

You're right on point for saying the item at that combination of price/performance point should not exist. Either remove it or fix it.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#37 - 2011-09-23 19:43:54 UTC
Goose99 wrote:
Until CCP removes isk trade in and npc tag buy orders, there is no free market for faction mods.
Yes there is, or the stuff wouldn't ever see the light of day on the market (or, alternatively, everyone and their dog would have a few thousands of them each, cluttering their hangars). Since they're there, and are being traded, people are obviously creating and buying them at prices that satisfy them, and your feelings about — and your definition of — their performance is utterly irrelevant.
Quote:
You're right on point for saying the item at that combination of price/performance point should not exist.
…but since they do exist on the market, the price/performance point is where it should be. There is nothing to “fix”.

So the question still remains: what is the problem here?
Goose99
#38 - 2011-09-23 20:07:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Goose99
Tippia wrote:
Goose99 wrote:
Until CCP removes isk trade in and npc tag buy orders, there is no free market for faction mods.
Yes there is, or the stuff wouldn't ever see the light of day on the market (or, alternatively, everyone and their dog would have a few thousands of them each, cluttering their hangars). Since they're there, and are being traded, people are obviously creating and buying them at prices that satisfy them, and your feelings about — and your definition of — their performance is utterly irrelevant.
Quote:
You're right on point for saying the item at that combination of price/performance point should not exist.
…but since they do exist on the market, the price/performance point is where it should be. There is nothing to “fix”.

So the question still remains: what is the problem here?


Mines are also being traded in the market, even though they're non-functional. If it exists, it will be traded. That in itself proves nothing. Many faction ACs, especially med and small ones, indeed do not see light of the day.

Our problem is mods 1/100th of the price of another outperforming it, thus breaking balance. The fact that trade rates of many types of medium and small faction ACs are lower than mines, a nonfunctional item, illustrates this break of balance.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#39 - 2011-09-23 20:30:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Goose99 wrote:
Mines are also being traded in the market, even though they're non-functional. If it exists, it will be traded. That in itself proves nothing.
Yes it does: it proves that price and functionality are not connected.
Quote:
Our problem is mods 1/100th of the price of another outperforming it, thus breaking balance.
What balance, and how is it broken? It rather seems like the problem here is that you assume that “more pricey” must mean “better”. Why not fix that instead?

Why is it a problem that people choose to buy what you consider less worthy stuff for more money?
Quote:
The fact that trade rates of many types of medium and small faction ACs are lower than mines, a nonfunctional item, illustrates this break of balance.
No, it illustrates that there is no point in having pricey equipment on expendable ships and that item collectors like to trade collection items.
Goose99
#40 - 2011-09-23 20:37:47 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Goose99 wrote:
Mines are also being traded in the market, even though they're non-functional. If it exists, it will be traded. That in itself proves nothing.
Yes it does: it proves that price and functionality are not connected.
Quote:
Our problem is mods 1/100th of the price of another outperforming it, thus breaking balance.
What balance, and how is it broken? It rather seems like the problem here is that you assume that “more pricey” must mean “better”. Why not fix that instead?

Why is it a problem that people choose to buy what you consider less worthy stuff for more money?
Quote:
The fact that trade rates of many types of medium and small faction ACs are lower than mines, a nonfunctional item, illustrates this break of balance.
No, it illustrates that there is no point in having pricey equipment on expendable ships and that item collectors like to trade collection items.


The fact that certain faction guns are in less demand than nonfunctional mines proves it's unbalanced compared to cheaply available t2 variants. If they're balanced, people would be using them. Simple.
Previous page123Next page