These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

meta-level-icide!
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
#1 - 2013-07-05 16:52:10 UTC
I am NOT suggesting removal of meta levels. I just wanted a title that would encourage people to read the post, even if just to flame me.

Dear CCP,

Before you rebalance T2 and pirate faction ships please fix the widespread inconsistencies in price/performance/fitting ratios between modules of meta levels 4 and 5 (aka the best 'named' T1 and T2). There are too many instances of the meta 4 module being cheaper and easier to fit than the meta 5 variant, while having exactly the same or better performance level. T2 should be worth fitting, don't you think?

The following examples are of a few meta 4 modules which are just as good or better than their meta 5 equivalent, are cheaper and easier to fit. There are many more examples out there:


  • ECM - Multispectral Jammer II (meta 5) vs 'Hypnos' Multispectral ECM I (meta 4)
  • ECCM - Omni II (meta 5) vs Prototype ECCM Omni Sensor Cluster (meta 4)
  • Target Painter II (meta 5) vs Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron (meta 4)
  • Sensor Booster II (meta 5) vs F-90 Positional Sensor Subroutines (meta 4)
  • Heavy Energy Neutralizer II (meta 5) vs Heavy Unstable Power Fluctuator I (meta 4)


Hull and armour modules are in a good shape, so are shield tanking modules. T2 armour plates got fixed as recently as Eve Online: Retribution, but there are many more modules out there in need of some serious balancing!

Casual Incursion runner & Faction Warfare grunt, ex-Wormholer, ex-Nullbear.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#2 - 2013-07-05 17:05:21 UTC
your title is a little misleading it should say make T2 modules better than meta 4 please.

I would have to agree and disagree .. on one hand yes T2 should be better than meta 4 BUT only in some respects not all and vice versa .. as to say meta 4 should have some advantages besides lower fittings.

A proper tiercide of mods would look be more role based much like the ships now are.
Also T2 mods need their skill requirements changed they should all require lv5 skill e.g. T2 webs only need lv3 prop mod jamming instead of lv5 as it should need.

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
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
#3 - 2013-07-05 17:18:43 UTC
I won't be replying to every post, but I want to do this right just the once...

Harvey James wrote:
your title is a little misleading it should say make T2 modules better than meta 4 please.

"Make T2 modules better" has been done before and ignored before, hence please re-read the 1st line of my OP for an explanation of why the title is what it is.

Harvey James wrote:
T2 should be better than meta 4 BUT only in some respects not all and vice versa .. as to say meta 4 should have some advantages besides lower fittings.

In the examples I have listed and the other cases I have alluded to, the meta 4 module is better - in every single way - than T2. I think that should be fixed :)

Harvey James wrote:
A proper tiercide of mods would look be more role based much like the ships now are.
Also T2 mods need their skill requirements changed they should all require lv5 skill e.g. T2 webs only need lv3 prop mod jamming instead of lv5 as it should need.

I'm not proposing "tiericide of mods". This was the very first thing I said in the OP. I hadn't even thought of balancing skill requirements though. That should indeed be looked at if T2 mods are to be improved. However, I am not necessarily asking for T2 to be made better. I would be happy for meta 4 to be made worse hehehe XD. I just want meta 5 to be better than meta 4 so that if you can squeeze it onto your ship there is some benefit to doing so!

Casual Incursion runner & Faction Warfare grunt, ex-Wormholer, ex-Nullbear.
Pic'n dor
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#4 - 2013-07-05 19:16:26 UTC
meta level should represent "efficiency" of the module.
meta 4 should have stats slightly lower than T2 but with these CPU/PG requirements lower just like most of the modules behave.

On the other way, meta 8 of some modules should have better stats than meta 5 :
Why a Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II and it' shadow serpentis version are only different by 16,7% of CPU requirements ?
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Energized_Adaptive_Nano_Membrane_II (36CPU 1PG)
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Shadow_Serpentis_Energized_Adaptive_Nano_Membrane (30CPU 1PG)

or worse :

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Caldari_Navy_Heat_Dissipation_Field meta 9
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Heat_Dissipation_Field_II meta 5
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Ditrigonal_Thermal_Barrier_Crystallization_I meta 2
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Domination_Heat_Dissipation_Field meta 8

meta 2 = meta 8 in stats AND fittings (even overheat stats !)
meta 8 has 13% less fittings req than T2 and 10% less stats
meta 9 has same stats than T2 but 31% less fittings req and some overheat bonus (less heat damage).

If you put them in order : T1 < meta 8 = meta 2 < meta 5 < meta 9

for neebies and older player it's just confusing..

COUCOU TOUCHE TOUCHE
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
#5 - 2013-07-05 23:01:33 UTC
Swiftstrike1 wrote:
I won't be replying to every post, but I want to do this right just the once...

Harvey James wrote:
your title is a little misleading it should say make T2 modules better than meta 4 please.

"Make T2 modules better" has been done before and ignored before, hence please re-read the 1st line of my OP for an explanation of why the title is what it is.


You've just announced that you're too much of an ass to title the post correctly and that you're not invested enough to reply to the responses you get. You're off to a stellar start.

Swiftstrike1 wrote:
In the examples I have listed and the other cases I have alluded to, the meta 4 module is better - in every single way - than T2. I think that should be fixed :)


No they aren't. Stat-wise, meta 4 on the items you listed are either equal to or better than T2. That isn't "better - in eery single way".

Regardless, T2 have an advantage you seem to keep missing. It has to do with where they come from. Can you think of what it is?
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#6 - 2013-07-05 23:19:11 UTC
Both Rise and Fozzie have stated that some form of metacide work is on the cards. They're aware.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Endeavour Starfleet
#7 - 2013-07-06 08:24:07 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Both Rise and Fozzie have stated that some form of metacide work is on the cards. They're aware.


I hope this is true. Especially with the reprocessing nerf meta level items that are not 4 and up are pretty much useless.

In my opinion the modules need to be different not better or worse. A remote rep ought to be chosen if you need more rep or cap control. Not just Meta 4 or Tech 2 every time.
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#8 - 2013-07-06 08:35:15 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:


I hope this is true. Especially with the reprocessing nerf meta level items that are not 4 and up are pretty much useless.

In my opinion the modules need to be different not better or worse. A remote rep ought to be chosen if you need more rep or cap control. Not just Meta 4 or Tech 2 every time.


Would also help if the fitting would progress from meta 0 (easiest to fit) to meta 4 (hardest to fit amongst those low-meta-variations) to meta V (big bump) over to meta 7 and beyond (they are sometimes working great).

Right now, by choosing a meta-4 instead of a meta-2, you are awarded with BOTH easier fittings (lots of cases) and better performance. The progression for those two traits should be looked at imo. Afterall, the performance, and not the fitting, should be the thing a user is paying for on that end of the scale.
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
#9 - 2013-07-06 09:18:43 UTC
Swiftstrike1 wrote:

The following examples are of a few meta 4 modules which are just as good or better than their meta 5 equivalent, are cheaper and easier to fit. There are many more examples out there:


  • ECM - Multispectral Jammer II (meta 5) vs 'Hypnos' Multispectral ECM I (meta 4)
  • ECCM - Omni II (meta 5) vs Prototype ECCM Omni Sensor Cluster (meta 4)
  • Target Painter II (meta 5) vs Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron (meta 4)
  • Sensor Booster II (meta 5) vs F-90 Positional Sensor Subroutines (meta 4)
  • Heavy Energy Neutralizer II (meta 5) vs Heavy Unstable Power Fluctuator I (meta 4)


ECM/ECCM not only omni, but every racial too.
add the following to the list:

  • Stasis Webifier
  • Warp Scrambler
  • Shield Power Relay
  • Capacitor Power Relay
  • Tracking Disruptor
  • Sensor Dampener


Also ANP II being better than meta4 EANM is strange.

Opinions are like assholes. Everybody got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks.
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
#10 - 2013-07-09 04:21:09 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Both Rise and Fozzie have stated that some form of metacide work is on the cards. They're aware.

I'm glad someone posted a response worth reading instead of just vitriol...

@Zhilia Mann, Everything you Exhale is.... Try not to be so rude and people will respond to your posts more positively. Another pro tip is make sure you are correct before you click post. Certain meta 4 items are indeed better than their meta 5 variant in terms of performance, price and fitting. i.e. those select few modules are better than meta 5 in every single way as I said in my OP.

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