These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

Dev Blog: Rebalancing Modules in EVE Online, Round Two

First post First post
Author
CCP Logibro
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1 - 2014-12-23 14:42:19 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Phantom
In the endless battle for balance in EVE Online, the march continues in the direction of module rebalance. In round two, CCP Terminus and the rest of the module taskforce sink their teeth into Harvesting Equipment, Hull Upgrades, Propulsion Upgrades and Engineering Equipment. To see all the upcoming changes, read this new dev blog.

CCP Logibro // EVE Universe Community Team // Distributor of Nanites // Patron Saint of Logistics

@CCP_Logibro

CCP Terminus
C C P
C C P Alliance
#2 - 2014-12-23 14:47:53 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Terminus
Reserved for clarifications



One thing which wasn't stated as clearly in the dev blog is how players will be able to aquire the new Faction modules.

ORE Expanded Cargoholds, ORE Reinforced Bulkheads and Syndicate Reinforced Bulkheads will be available from their respective LP stores.
Domination Inertial Stabilizers and Shadow Serpentis Inertial Stabilizers will be dropped from appropriate pirate NPCs.



Some additional changes have been made based on feedback and further tweaking. These changes are listed in greater detail as an update at the bottom of the dev blog.

Capacitor Power Relays
The Shield Boost Bonus error has been fixed. Type-D and Mark I modules had the value reversed.

Expanded Cargoholds
Expanded Cargohold I – Structure Hitpoint penalty reduced from -25% to -20%
Expanded Cargohold II – Structure Hitpoint penalty increased from 20% to -23%, Velocity modifier increased from -10% to -18%
These three changes should bring the T1 and T2 Expanded Cargoholds better in line with other module types, with the T2 version of a module giving the best performance but with higher drawbacks than T1.
'Basic' Expanded Cargohold – Structure Hitpoint penalty reduced from -10% to -5%. This should allow players who care more about keeping as much structure hitpoint as possible an attractive option, at the cost of cargo capacity.

Inertial Stabilizers
Inertial Stabilizers are now consistently named Inertial Stabilizers instead of some being Inertia Stabilizers and some inertial Stabilizers.
Type-D Restrained Inertial Stabilizers – Signature Radius penalty decreased from 9% to 8%

@CCP_Terminus // Game Designer // Team Size Matters

Fonac
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#3 - 2014-12-23 14:55:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Fonac
Looks good! - I like the fact you've made the faction variants of capacitor power relays, and cap rechargers, slightly better than tech 2 versions
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises
Otherworld Empire
#4 - 2014-12-23 14:58:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Chribba
Mmmmmining!

Yummy new Cargo Expanders!! <3

edit/'Basic' modules are higher meta than Tech2?

★★★ Secure 3rd party service ★★★

Visit my in-game channel 'Holy Veldspar'

Twitter @ChribbaVeldspar

Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#5 - 2014-12-23 14:59:27 UTC
Good job with the names Smile

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Rapscallion Jones
Omnibus Solutions
#6 - 2014-12-23 15:01:12 UTC
Thank you, Thank You, THANK YOU! Saving the lore is good!
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
#7 - 2014-12-23 15:02:54 UTC
The blog section referring to Capacitor Power Relays has a column heading "Shield Boost Bonus" and all the numbers are positive. Does this mean that CPRs are getting a significant buff or should that say "Shield Boost Penalty"?

Casual Incursion runner & Faction Warfare grunt, ex-Wormholer, ex-Nullbear.

Ix Method
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#8 - 2014-12-23 15:08:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Ix Method
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.

Travelling at the speed of love.

Soldarius
Brand Newbros
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#9 - 2014-12-23 15:13:47 UTC
Looks good. Maybe my Thukker Tribe LP will finally be worth something now.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

Maennas Vaer
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#10 - 2014-12-23 15:13:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Maennas Vaer
So what happened to making all the faction variants equally as strong as one another as stated in CCP Fozzies first dev blog? With the new Bulkheads, Inertia Stabilizers and Power Diagnostic Systems you've gone back on what you stated was one of the goals with the module tiericide project in the first place and returned to the older 'faction tiers'.

Can we get some consistency and clarification on your approach here please?

EDIT: Good job on the names by the way.
Aeril Malkyre
Knights of the Ouroboros
#11 - 2014-12-23 15:16:02 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.
Agreed. While I'm sssssuuuuuppppeeerrr happy that you're keeping the lore names, it might benefit from being spun around like this.
CCP Terminus
C C P
C C P Alliance
#12 - 2014-12-23 15:20:12 UTC
Maennas Vaer wrote:
So what happened to making all the faction variants equally as strong as one another as stated in CCP Fozzies first dev blog? With the new Bulkheads, Inertia Stabilizers and Power Diagnostic Systems you've gone back on what you stated was one of the goals with the module tiericide project in the first place and returned to the older 'faction tiers'.

Can we get some consistency and clarification on your approach here please?

EDIT: Good job on the names by the way.


For some of the new Faction modules we've tried to keep the overall power close to the same but make the modules better in different circumstances. For instance ORE Reinforced Bulkheads would probably be preferred on haulers due to the reduced cargo capacity penalty, whereas Syndicate Reinforced Bulkheads have a reduced Inertial Modifier which will be useful for ships that want to keep more mobility.

@CCP_Terminus // Game Designer // Team Size Matters

Soldarius
Brand Newbros
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#13 - 2014-12-23 15:20:43 UTC
Maennas Vaer wrote:
So what happened to making all the faction variants equally as strong as one another as stated in CCP Fozzies first dev blog? With the new Bulkheads, Inertia Stabilizers and Power Diagnostic Systems you've gone back on what you stated was one of the goals with the module tiericide project in the first place and returned to the older 'faction tiers'.

Can we get some consistency and clarification on your approach here please?

EDIT: Good job on the names by the way.


Some variation in the stats based on factions is desirable. Otherwise, we may as well have just one faction. It puts value on the variant modules based on useful stats, rather than some arbitrary tier system. Of course, there are typically far more factions than stats on modules. So some duplication, which is what you seem to want, is inevitable. Ex: Caldari Navy and Thukker Tribe PDS, both of which favor shield amount and recharge over cap amount and recharge.

I'm good with it.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

TheSmokingHertog
Julia's Interstellar Trade Emperium
#14 - 2014-12-23 15:21:10 UTC
Pictures would say much more as the current tables.

"Dogma is kind of like quantum physics, observing the dogma state will change it." ~ CCP Prism X

"Schrödinger's Missile. I dig it." ~ Makari Aeron

-= "Brain in a Box on Singularity" - April 2015 =-

Faren Shalni
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#15 - 2014-12-23 15:26:58 UTC
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?

So Much Space

CCP Terminus
C C P
C C P Alliance
#16 - 2014-12-23 15:32:32 UTC
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%).

@CCP_Terminus // Game Designer // Team Size Matters

Aryth
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#17 - 2014-12-23 15:34:32 UTC
CCP Terminus wrote:
Maennas Vaer wrote:
So what happened to making all the faction variants equally as strong as one another as stated in CCP Fozzies first dev blog? With the new Bulkheads, Inertia Stabilizers and Power Diagnostic Systems you've gone back on what you stated was one of the goals with the module tiericide project in the first place and returned to the older 'faction tiers'.

Can we get some consistency and clarification on your approach here please?

EDIT: Good job on the names by the way.


For some of the new Faction modules we've tried to keep the overall power close to the same but make the modules better in different circumstances. For instance ORE Reinforced Bulkheads would probably be preferred on haulers due to the reduced cargo capacity penalty, whereas Syndicate Reinforced Bulkheads have a reduced Inertial Modifier which will be useful for ships that want to keep more mobility.


The issue is more you have made faction the default and only choice for several of these modules for all cases where the ships rarely die.

Before, the primary stat was equivalent to T2 and you had fitting advantages in general. Now they are superior to T2 and so no one will use expanded cargo II that can possibly afford/not lose faction. Not that faction is going to be some great expense anyway. Not for freighters for example.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.

Sam Spock
The Arnold Connection
#18 - 2014-12-23 15:39:59 UTC
I like that you have added a few faction modules here. During a future round could you give some concideration on expanding the list of Gurista's deadspace modules? Specifically the Pithi and Pithum ones?

There are only 2 each of the Pithi ones but there are many for the frigate sized modules for the other pirate factions. Also, Angels have pretty much the same shield modules (though not quite as good) as the Guristas but also have other things like an afterburner and mwd. Perhaps a Pithum (a,b,c)-type ECM?

Giving you Inconsistent grammar, speilling and Punct-uation since 1974!

Abla Tive
#19 - 2014-12-23 15:40:01 UTC
There is a distinct lack of meta 1 modules.

This reduces the richness of gameplay for us mere mortals who can't afford faction and haven't trained up the skills for tech II modules.

in the past, at least I had the interesting choice of "is it worth the extra 200k isk for the meta 3 module, or go with the meta 2"?

Now it is a purely mechanical "stick on the meta 1 module and roll".

Can't you think up *some* variation?
Morihei Akachi
Doomheim
#20 - 2014-12-23 15:50:24 UTC
I have two criticisms of the revised naming conventions, and one observation which is linked to a question.

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. (“Scoped” is not a word. It looks like it ought to be the past participle of a verb, “to scope”, meaning, if we are to believe your use of it here, “to make reach further”. This is gibberish. The designation you are looking for is “long-range”.) These terms, as they stand, feel stupid, and they make me feel stupid fitting modules named with them to my ships. I feel like I am being talked down to by my game. I notice that since their release I have been avoiding using them, solely for that reason.

2. You are attempting to introduce a very rigid consistency into an area where it is inappropriate, and where we do not suffer from its lack IRL. This is nowhere more obvious than in the decision to call an overdrive, a module intended to be the quintessence of extra power and speed, “restrained”. This is absurd: the marketing genius of the future who came up with this would be fired instantly. A kind of cookie-cutter sameness is being applied across the board to items regardless of what those items actually are. I don’t feel you are taking your own fictional world seriously any more. I have no idea, in that case, why I should continue to.

Observation: Travelling round New Eden in recent days I’ve tried to keep an eye out for the relative prices of the generic modules from the last round of tiericide, and my sense is that there are massive price differences between the new named modules. On the assumption that, for example, “compact” LMLs are not dropping significantly less frequently than “ample” ones, I assume that in many cases one of them is much more popular and being used more widely than the other(s), and is being priced accordingly. Is this right in terms of actual usage? If it is, is it the result you were expecting when you decided to remove modules you felt were being under-used? How are you evaluating the success of module tiericide in general?

"Enduring", "restrained" and "ample" as designations for starship components are foreign to the genre of high-tech science fiction and don’t belong in Eve Online. (And as for “scoped” …)

123Next pageLast page