Ships & Modules

Unless there is a need for a better ECM module is the logical answer to pick which ever module you want. It is a choice you have.

There is however no rule that says T2 has to be better than T1 or a particular meta level. It is only being produced differently and posses properties that makes it worthwhile for players to produce.

This comes up all the damn time. ECM is not the only place this is evident; most ewar works this way and many low slots do as well (sprs for example). For years plates were the same way.

CCP brought ECM modules in EVE to be used, that they then thus also will be produced is a consequence of that of course. CCP did not introduce a module just to be ´produced´. It is about the use of it in the first place, not the production itself. It is not the producers that make up the properties of modules, CCP does that. You can keep repeating that it is okay that T2 modules are not better then cheap T1 junk, because there are more modules like that. I say that it is a balancing imperfection from CCP, matter of tweaking the numbers to give T2 superiority over T1.

Well I am just pointing out that CCP might want to make some noticeable difference between Tech 1 and Tech 2 modules (which is the case with most modules), because why else are we skill training. We don´t skill train so that we can use stuff that is not better then the T1 stuff we already used from day 1. Part of the incentive to renew your sub is the skill tree and that you want to use better stuff. Training up for stuff that is not better is not logical and it looses the incentive to skill train certain skills.

Yes, but I still don´t see what supply and demand has to do with the properties of the modules itself. It is CCP that decides what the properties of a T1 or T2 module will be. You are talking about the prices of the modules.

I was simply replying you your comment about a noticeable difference as there is one, just not the one you think it should be. You are looking at the picture from a very narrow point of view. If you expand your point of view it is easier to understand why things are the way they are. That's why I pointed out the damps as an example. The properties of the module along with fitting requirements as well as supply and demand should drive your decision of what module to use not just the meta level, as that would make things boring and remove any need for more than one or two types of a module.

If you are deep in Null and have a BPO/BPC and materials to make techII ECM modules and you would have to go all the way back to hisec to get the Meta 4 modules at a good price, then which one is better?

I like how you ignored the part after your bolded text. It doesn't say any thing about how they "should be better" is says they are "usually more powerful or readily available".

How are we being elitish by trying to explain why things are the way they are?

I am not saying you are wrong, or even that the logic of your train of thought is wrong.

Your understanding of why they are the way they are is what is wrong.

Ok, lots of things to say to this.

First, asserting your logic is correct because a crowd-sourced knowledge base backs you up is the worst kind of appeal to authority. Seriously. Drop that and make an argument yourself; it will take you much further around here.

Second, even your links mention exactly the disparities you're, umm, disparaging:



The editor in me wants to choke whoever wrote that, but the message is more or less present if muddled: named equipment sometimes rivals T2. Which is a simple statement of fact.

Third, did you notice the other major discrepancy in the part you chose to quote? It's right there at the end. Where it talks about cost. Or more particularly, where it makes another sweeping generalization about the relative cost of meta 4 and T2. Or at least it's wrong if we assume the whole thing is referring to named version in the first place, and considering it throws in production differences that may be a false assumption and generally lacks nuance.

So let's try to rework it to be accurateish. I'm probably not going to try to include nuances that come with drop-only blueprints.



There. Now we have some accurateish statements to work from. I can even post them to the wiki if you prefer; the current stub on meta levels is lacking.

Where were we?

Ah yes. You seem to be arguing for either a nerf to meta 4 modules or a boost to meta 5s. You really ought to make a case for one or the other so we can have a proper discussion.

Maybe you could read one of the 50 or 60 other threads on this topic?

tl;dr: T2 is not always better than meta 4, not is there any "rule" that says it has to be. The advantage of T2 is that it can be made rather than having to be found.

Now that you've contradicted your OP, care to explain how they are worse?



Don't take it personal, its a forum, where people give their opinion. You gave yours, we gave ours. Just because we all understand this as something that is not illogical but something that knowledgeable players use to their advantage does not mean you are wrong and we are right, we just see it different than you and are trying to explain how we see it. No need to ragequit because of it.