These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

"Metacide"
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2013-12-13 21:34:44 UTC
Hesod Adee wrote:
Scatim Helicon wrote:
That would be one way of going about it, yes. But I don't claim to be a games designer so I leave the details to CCP.

My basic point is that every module in the database should have a reason to exist, and right now that simply isn't the case in a vast number of cases.

I agree with your point. But I'll go one step further: If CCP can't think of a good reason for players to use the module*, then they module should be removed from Eve.

Useless modules do nothing for those of us who know they are useless. We know not to use them, so out gameplay is the same as it would be if they didn't exist. All they do is confuse new players.

*Cost can be a good reason to justify a modules existence if the cost is high enough that established players consider it. But not if the difference is so small that only newer players care about it. I've never seen meta 0-4 costs different enough to matter.


For meta-modules this can be achieved by lowering the drop rate dynamically to ensure that demand is always (on average) higher than supply.

Aurguably, M3 drops should drop half as frequently as M2, M4 1/2 as frequently as M3.

There's no reason to drop M1 at all since they can be manufactured. Minerals then become more in demand, miners have an incentive to mine, manufacturers to manufacture. I think I'd be right in saying that at the moment, nearly all M1 (and mostM2 and M3) drops are instantly recycled into minerals anyway?

As for faction guns, I think the specialisation skill should affect them the same way it does for T2, they should be more overheatable, have longer range, better tracking and an even better rate of fire. Navy stuff is well, built for the Navy right? They're the experts in blowing up ships aren't they?

Then there would be some demand for them, and we'd see them fitted to pvp ships. The specialisation skill effect would mean that it's still to the user's advantage to train good skills.

There is a great deal of disparity in the advantage of navy gear. Fed navy webs are 40% better than T2 - this improvement is well worth the 100m or so premium. Navy guns are worse than properly trained T2. The 70 million price tag is about 69 million too much to make them desirable. There's a window of about 5 days where it's worth fitting them for a minuscule advantage - if you don't want to use T2 ammo (which you absolutely do!)

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#22 - 2013-12-13 21:35:52 UTC
Hesod Adee wrote:
Scatim Helicon wrote:
That would be one way of going about it, yes. But I don't claim to be a games designer so I leave the details to CCP.

My basic point is that every module in the database should have a reason to exist, and right now that simply isn't the case in a vast number of cases.

I agree with your point. But I'll go one step further: If CCP can't think of a good reason for players to use the module*, then they module should be removed from Eve.

Useless modules do nothing for those of us who know they are useless. We know not to use them, so out gameplay is the same as it would be if they didn't exist. All they do is confuse new players.

*Cost can be a good reason to justify a modules existence if the cost is high enough that established players consider it. But not if the difference is so small that only newer players care about it. I've never seen meta 0-4 costs different enough to matter.


I'm ok with excess modules that can't be suitably balanced being outright deleted if it comes down to it. There are many modules out there where there are more meta-variants than there are attributes to tweak, and if a few get dropped altogether I don't see this as a problem, necessarily. When the existing mid-meta items only exist as newbie-traps, a mineral faucet, and to clog up the Jita market with junk that nobody wants, we don't really gain very much from their continued existence.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#23 - 2013-12-13 21:44:39 UTC
Zvaarian the Red wrote:
Ship balancing is nothing compared to this. There are thousands upon thousands of modules in this game.

And a great many of them have only a small handful of attributes, and could be essentially fixed in five minutes.

I'm not particularly convinced by the argument that "there's lots of broken stuff, so CCP should just ignore it and hope that the problem goes away somehow". The fact that there are thousands upon thousands of modules in the game and, what, 75% of them are junk, is all the more reason for CCP to assign some brainpower to fixing them, starting yesterday.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Harlon Cordarii
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#24 - 2013-12-13 21:49:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Harlon Cordarii
This is a great idea and I think that it should be a natural progression from when the ship rebalancing is finished. This echoes a conversation I had the other day with a corp mate who bought T2 webs and was poking fun at the fact I didn't have the skill to use it despite having many million of skill points. "Why?" I asked, "the T2 module uses 3 times the capacitor than the meta 4 module and almost 10 more CPU. With the exact same stats!"

He had no answer, of course.

This lack of consistency in all the modules, while not a HUGE issue, should be handled down the road for sure. Plus one!
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#25 - 2013-12-13 21:49:56 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:

There's no reason to drop M1 at all since they can be manufactured.


You mean meta0/t1. Meta0 mod drop rates have been adjusted several times over the years specifically to address the amount of minerals coming in from them. Because they reprocess for more than higher meta versions, they're often the bulk of the value of loot from a PVE encounter.

Quote:
As for faction guns, I think the specialisation skill should affect them the same way it does for T2, they should be more overheatable, have longer range, better tracking and an even better rate of fire. Navy stuff is well, built for the Navy right? They're the experts in blowing up ships aren't they?


All faction guns need is to be able to use t2 ammo. That's it. They've already got performance advantages, fittings advantages, overheat advantages, and I could swear a few of them do more damage than t2 as well (after counting specialization bonus). All they need to be (more) viable is t2 ammo, and maybe boost the damage mod slightly (equiv to lvl 3-4 weapon spec, currently they're about even at spec 2).

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2013-12-13 22:00:46 UTC
Batelle wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:

There's no reason to drop M1 at all since they can be manufactured.


You mean meta0/t1. Meta0 mod drop rates have been adjusted several times over the years specifically to address the amount of minerals coming in from them. Because they reprocess for more than higher meta versions, they're often the bulk of the value of loot from a PVE encounter.

Quote:
As for faction guns, I think the specialisation skill should affect them the same way it does for T2, they should be more overheatable, have longer range, better tracking and an even better rate of fire. Navy stuff is well, built for the Navy right? They're the experts in blowing up ships aren't they?


All faction guns need is to be able to use t2 ammo. That's it. They've already got performance advantages, fittings advantages, overheat advantages, and I could swear a few of them do more damage than t2 as well (after counting specialization bonus). All they need to be (more) viable is t2 ammo, and maybe boost the damage mod slightly (equiv to lvl 3-4 weapon spec, currently they're about even at spec 2).


I hear you, but I don't think this would be enough to justify the cost of 70m per gun.

I mean, we're talking half a billion to fit a battlecruiser with faction medium guns - it's not going to happen unless there's a *real* benefit.

It costs half a billion to put a caldari navy invulnerability on a tengu - that's worth it because it makes the ship a *lot* stronger. It also costs approximately half a billion to put faction missile launchers on it. The advantage in doing so would need to be tangible for anyone to consider it.

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#27 - 2013-12-13 22:06:43 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
I hear you, but I don't think this would be enough to justify the cost of 70m per gun.

I mean, we're talking half a billion to fit a battlecruiser with faction medium guns - it's not going to happen unless there's a *real* benefit.

It costs half a billion to put a caldari navy invulnerability on a tengu - that's worth it because it makes the ship a *lot* stronger. It also costs approximately half a billion to put faction missile launchers on it. The advantage in doing so would need to be tangible for anyone to consider it.


Cost is both subjective and in this case irrelevant. If the module is worth using at any cost, then people will use it. People pay 100m for a faction damage mod, why don't you think theyd shell out a few 100 mil for better guns with reduced fittings, reduced cap use, better damage, and better optimal? Its alot easier to spend isk to improve your tank than it is your damage. Giving these things a 5-10% damage boost would be a bit nuts on top of all the other advantages.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2013-12-13 22:23:06 UTC
Batelle wrote:
Cost is both subjective and in this case irrelevant. If the module is worth using at any cost, then people will use it.


I completely agree.

Let me put it another way, backed by numbers. Taking invulnerability fields as an example, the T2 gives 30% resistance bonus (i.e. reduces incoming dps by 30%). The navy version reduces damage by 37.5% which is a 25% uplift.

That is, for every 100dps that the invulnerability field 'keeps out', the navy version will 'keep out' 125.

This means you live a great deal longer, applying your own damage as you live (let's assume a buffer tank here).

So not only has the Navy IF kept you alive for longer, it's also increased the total amount of damage you deal before you die - a double benefit if you will.

How much damage uplift is a gunnery system going to have to deliver before I am indifferent as to whether I spend my 1/2 billion on an invulnerability field or navy weapons?

I would argue that it's quite a lot. The Invulnerability field is also helping my logistics team keep me alive, fits more easily, takes longer to overheat...

Before I switched my purchase I think I'd want to see navy guns delivering at least 15% more damage than T2, which I don't see happening.

Actually, what this is telling me is that navy guns should have a much lower cost in the LP store than they do, assuming that the power level and cost of the navy invulnerability field is correct (I personally think it is).

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
#29 - 2013-12-13 22:35:53 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Zvaarian the Red wrote:
Ship balancing is nothing compared to this. There are thousands upon thousands of modules in this game.

And a great many of them have only a small handful of attributes, and could be essentially fixed in five minutes.

I'm not particularly convinced by the argument that "there's lots of broken stuff, so CCP should just ignore it and hope that the problem goes away somehow". The fact that there are thousands upon thousands of modules in the game and, what, 75% of them are junk, is all the more reason for CCP to assign some brainpower to fixing them, starting yesterday.


I'm not arguing for anything. I'm telling you why it's very, very unlikely to happen.
Hesod Adee
Perkone
Caldari State
#30 - 2013-12-14 04:01:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Hesod Adee
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Zvaarian the Red wrote:
Ship balancing is nothing compared to this. There are thousands upon thousands of modules in this game.

And a great many of them have only a small handful of attributes, and could be essentially fixed in five minutes.

The difficulty is figuring out what needs changing. Especially if there are only a few attributes to play with.


On a related note, when was the last time CCP introduced a new module with meta 1-4 variants ?

Thinking about the ship parts I can remember CCP adding:
- MJD
- Ancillary armor repair/shield boosters
- Reactive hardeners
- Rigs
- T3 subsystems

I'm not sure if T3 subsystems apply to this discussion. Rigs have T1 and T2 variants, with the T2 being so expensive that most fits treat T2 rigs as if they didn't exist. The rest don't even have a T2 version.

That makes me think that the items with so many meta levels have them because so many RPGs have items which are simply inferior to stuff you'll get later. So they copied that idea into Eve. Then, later, they realized that so many meta levels is not a good fit for Eve, so they stopped coping the idea for new modules. But have yet to do anything about the legacy of meta levels.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#31 - 2013-12-14 09:47:06 UTC
Hesod Adee wrote:
[quote=Scatim Helicon]

I'm not sure if T3 subsystems apply to this discussion. Rigs have T1 and T2 variants, with the T2 being so expensive that most fits treat T2 rigs as if they didn't exist. The rest don't even have a T2 version...


Once upon a time there were no tech2 modules in the game and the meta3 was like a super duper pimp fit to have..

Look at all the COSMOS items a little more closely,
they have the attributes of meta3 modules with kust a little better fitting option and a little performance drop.

Hey and the still is merit for all meta1-4 modules because
they all give you a tini, tiny increased chance by meta level to succefully invent a copy to tech2.

I am not completly against the idea.

Hell the reason everybody most likely wants that meta medium mwd is because the tech2 needs 15 more powergrid you most of the time don't even have left (squeeeeeeze..).

But I agree with most of the LP store items are too expensive for their use. And there are not that many people that want to do a load of level 2 and 3 mission to get the tags you need for them for hours and hours just to collect them.

As for the guns,
you may investigate that the next time you hit the 'compare' button on any gun, they all have the same tracking on them.
They only have increasing values of the damage modifier and range from tech one -> tech two -> faction -> officer.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#32 - 2013-12-14 15:23:54 UTC
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
And faction guns ought to be better than T2 guns. Otherwise, there is no use case for them.


This is not true. Faction gear has lower skill requirements and is easier to fit.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Rendiff
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2013-12-14 15:29:20 UTC
I'm all for this, but I think it's going to be a while before they'll be in a place where they can work on it effectively.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#34 - 2013-12-14 15:55:49 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
And faction guns ought to be better than T2 guns. Otherwise, there is no use case for them.


This is not true. Faction gear has lower skill requirements and is easier to fit.


You're right about this. They have similar fitting requirements to meta-4 guns while offering a very small uplift in dps - less than can be achieved by training one more level of gunnery/rapid fire etc.

So their window of usefulness is extremely small - once you have trained Advanced Weapon Upgrades there is no viable case for choosing navy guns, except where you have not yet trained T2, already have every damage implant (because these are a great deal cheaper for more dps gain) and you have already fitted navy damage mods (again, cheaper).

The tiny advantage over meta-4 lasts until you have trained the weapons system to V (no more than a month).

In actual fact, until you have trained the weapons system (and all other gunnery skills) to V, risking 500m in a rack of navy guns would offer you very poor odds of a favourable outcome. You're better off fielding (and losing) meta-4s 50 times in a row than fielding navies once.


Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
NEONOVUS
Mindstar Technology
Goonswarm Federation
#35 - 2013-12-14 21:29:43 UTC
Given how meta 1 is universally better than meta 0 save for manufacturing, roll meta 0 into 1.
Now meta 2 is hardier and allows longer overheat
Meta 3 is fittings saver but otherwise same as meta0-1
Meta 4 is best all around with straight upgrades on stats
T2 is excellent gives bonus and has less overheat more demand and so on.
Perhaps make it so they have less than the straight +5% for getting them and instead neccesitate t2 ammo and specialization to be better than 4 but truly are once that happens
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#36 - 2013-12-15 12:32:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Scatim Helicon
NEONOVUS wrote:
Given how meta 1 is universally better than meta 0 save for manufacturing, roll meta 0 into 1.
Now meta 2 is hardier and allows longer overheat
Meta 3 is fittings saver but otherwise same as meta0-1
Meta 4 is best all around with straight upgrades on stats
T2 is excellent gives bonus and has less overheat more demand and so on.
Perhaps make it so they have less than the straight +5% for getting them and instead neccesitate t2 ammo and specialization to be better than 4 but truly are once that happens

The idea of changing existing meta levels so that each module specialises in one area, rather than every level being outright superior to the last as is often the case, is certainly one approach that CCP could take. And some modules may well end up being merged if there's no available niche for them to occupy (the damage-specific passive armour hardeners being an obvious example)

Its a big job, either way, which is why I think CCP need to dedicate some resources specifically towards fixing it in a systematic way like they have done with ship balance.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Kate stark
#37 - 2013-12-15 12:48:49 UTC
I feel it'd be easiest to just scrap meta 1-3, keep 4 as a nice lower skill/fitting requirement option to t2, and ensure t2 is actually better than meta 4 in all cases.
It's also less for new players to digest than having to remember "meta 2 turrets have better tracking, meta 3 turrets have better rof" etc.

replace meta 1-3 loot drops with more metal scraps.

Yay, this account hasn't had its signature banned. or its account, if you're reading this.
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#38 - 2013-12-16 21:21:44 UTC
Kate stark wrote:
I feel it'd be easiest to just scrap meta 1-3, keep 4 as a nice lower skill/fitting requirement option to t2, and ensure t2 is actually better than meta 4 in all cases.

Where there are not enough attributes to allow meaningful differentiation between modules, merging 2 or more modules into one is fine, though I wouldn't like it to be done across the board. The 'holy crap look at all those modules' factor is something I actually like about Eve and wowed me back in the early days, the fact that 75% or more turn out to be useless once you get to know the game a little undermines that.

Quote:
replace meta 1-3 loot drops with more metal scraps.

Ideally, replace all meta loot drops with raw materials used for player-manufactured meta-modules. That's for another thread though.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Dorian Wylde
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#39 - 2013-12-16 21:40:07 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
The problem is that you cannot (should not) go partial with that. You re-balance that module, but leave that module be for the next patch/expansion. That's not going to work with modules.

Also, tiericide was about giving ships roles. Can you give modules roles; things that are in itself already has a role?



Not talking about modules, the idea is for meta levels. Yes, all modules of one type do a certain thing, but having a dozen where only 2-3 at best are actually used is just silly. Might as well delete them and speed up the servers. The idea is to give each meta level a niche, just like they gave each ship type a niche.
Hesod Adee
Perkone
Caldari State
#40 - 2013-12-17 03:45:18 UTC
One thing that annoys me more than useless modules are two modules with different names, but are identical in stats. For example, the following large armor repairers are identical in all stats: Ammatar, Dark Blood, Imperial Navy, Khanid, True Sansha

I do not like having to look up the prices of 5 different items every single time I fit a ship just to find out which is cheaper. Or to know what price to sell one for if I get one.
I shouldn't need to pull out the compare tool when I want to sell something.
I shouldn't have my saved fits not work just because I looted the wrong name from another players wreck.


Or lets take another example. Gallente and Caldari hybrid charges. Identical except for name. Which means, despite being identical in everything that counts, you can't mix them in your gun.