These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Could you please make Tech 2 Modules better then meta...
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
mutuu
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1 - 2014-02-25 14:57:56 UTC
Could you please make Tech 2 Modules better then meta or atleast bring some consistency in the game.

Especially for newer players it is not easy to destinguish what is better, Tech 2 or Meta 4 modules.

As example:

Warp Disruptor II 24 Km point range
Faint Warp Disruptor 20 Km point range

Warp Scrambler II 9 Km point range
Faint Warp Scrambler 9 km point range

Stasis Webifier II 10 Km range (60% web)
Fleeting Stasis Webifier 10 Km range (60% web)

There are many more examples as ecm, sensor dampening and tracking disruption.

As you can see its the same stats but Tech 2 modules use more fitting cost and arent cheaper as
Meta 4 modules especially with the change (from May 2012) that you can't find Meta 0 modules
(http://community.eveonline.com/news/patch-notes/patch-notes-for-escalation-to-inferno/).

So i would like to see Tech 2 modules get a buff for their effectivness (and leave the fitting cost).

Or is CCP working on a possible fix?

best regards,

mutuu
Seliah
Red Cloud Vigil
#2 - 2014-02-25 15:09:22 UTC
+1
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#3 - 2014-02-25 15:27:56 UTC
Can I add afterburners and microwarpdrives to the list?

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Leyete Wulf
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#4 - 2014-02-25 16:10:35 UTC
I advocated some time ago for a consistency pass on meta for modules so best of luck with this.

General idea posted at the time was to make the effectiveness and fitting requirements of module directly scalar.
ie. a meta 0 would have the least fitting requirements for modules of that type and size, a meta 1 slightly more fitting and slightly better performance, and a meta 5 (tech II) having the highest fitting requirements and best performance (ignoring the 'meta' of faction, deadspace, and officers which are their own can of worms in terms of consistency).
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#5 - 2014-02-25 16:14:52 UTC
While the logic of the request is completely solid, the implementation would be a disaster.
What I mean by that is there are SO MANY items that would have to be looked at, there is no way it can happen in a timely manner.

I would daresay CCP could assign a person to do nothing but try to mess with the meta 4/ T2 issue for a year, and they would still not get done.
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#6 - 2014-02-25 17:28:37 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
While the logic of the request is completely solid, the implementation would be a disaster.
What I mean by that is there are SO MANY items that would have to be looked at, there is no way it can happen in a timely manner.

I would daresay CCP could assign a person to do nothing but try to mess with the meta 4/ T2 issue for a year, and they would still not get done.

lets face it, how long have they sat around rebalancing ships? eventually they will have to look at the modules, as no matter how much you fix the ships, if the mods are broke theyre broke.
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#7 - 2014-02-25 17:37:14 UTC
Actually, there aren't that many modules that would require this. There was a thread with a list. But I can't find it anymore.

+1

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Zepheros Naeonis
TinklePee
#8 - 2014-02-25 17:39:41 UTC
Add tracking disruptors to that list
WarFireV
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2014-02-25 17:45:01 UTC
No, force those lazy people to learn how to read.

-20
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#10 - 2014-02-25 17:53:20 UTC
I am not fond of this idea. Meta 4 items should stay as is, because they are usually connected to a hefty price tag for a T1 module. You have to pay for your lack of skills or for your extravagant fitting dreams.

-1

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#11 - 2014-02-25 18:12:04 UTC
+1, even if it's a slight advantage in the primary stat. m4 can take more heat (apparently)

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#12 - 2014-02-25 18:31:42 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
I am not fond of this idea. Meta 4 items should stay as is, because they are usually connected to a hefty price tag for a T1 module. You have to pay for your lack of skills or for your extravagant fitting dreams.

-1

but its not paying for a lack of skills if the meta 4 is actually preferable over the T2 in ALL INSTANCES, there are several meta 4 out there that are either equal to or better than T2 in BOTH fitting AND stats.

so its not "fitting to make up for skills", its "fitting because T2 is useless"
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#13 - 2014-02-25 18:36:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Alvatore DiMarco
Meta 0 through Meta 4 each should have a unique purpose that the other metas don't fill. Meta 5 should be better in every way than the previous four metas. Meta 6 and up ... who knows?
Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#14 - 2014-02-25 19:56:10 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Meta 0 through Meta 4 each should have a unique purpose that the other metas don't fill. Meta 5 should be better in every way than the previous four metas. Meta 6 and up ... who knows?


Well if this happens then those who own null basically gain. They control the goop to make t2 mods.

It does not break the game, it's exceedingly low on the list of balance. Sometimes you can't make the shinys ultimately better than what's available to the entire public.

Besides you can use that blue loot instead if your that concerned.

Yaay!!!!
Damien White
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#15 - 2014-02-25 19:58:33 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
Actually, there aren't that many modules that would require this. There was a thread with a list. But I can't find it anymore.

+1


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=306344&find=unread

In short, rebalance all the E-War stuff.

97% of girls would die if Justin Bieber were about to jump off a cliff. Post this in your sig if you`re part of the 3% yelling,

"DO A BARREL ROLL!"
Rendiff
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2014-02-25 19:59:32 UTC
Definitely needs to be some work in this department.
Oblivion King
Doomheim
#17 - 2014-02-25 20:11:12 UTC
target painters 2 absolutely suck in every aspect compared to meta 4.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#18 - 2014-02-25 20:12:35 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
Actually, there aren't that many modules that would require this. There was a thread with a list. But I can't find it anymore.

+1


It's stickied in 'ships and modules'

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#19 - 2014-02-25 20:56:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Zan Shiro
WarFireV wrote:
No, force those lazy people to learn how to read.

-20



+1.

Compare tool in eve.

EFT/pyfa/etc....

Takes all of a few seconds to minutes to see what is up with this stuff. Plus I find away from game theory crafting to be a nice diversion. Meta gear games adds some fun twists to that.

Not every game has to follow the linear progression of gear picked up at level 20 has to be better than gear at level 4. edit: had the numbers backwards, doh.

Don't see people's hang up with this. Gear you run at low sp can get reused at higher sp. And given isk warring on the markets you can get it cheap most times.
Rowells
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#20 - 2014-02-25 21:46:21 UTC
heres an ongoing list (sticky) in the ships and modules forum that catalogs quite a few of them:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=306344&find=unread
12Next page