EVE Information Portal

I am confused, you say for example...

"For instance all of the named Light Missile Launchers have the same rate of fire"

And then the light missiles chart shows a different "time between shots" which is rate of fire.

They mean all launchers of same meta level, there will be power scaling between t1, named, t2, faction and officer.

So how will this impact my saved fittings? Will the modules names in my saved fittings be changed to the new modules names?

I see the idea behind that changes, but the solution is not very wise.

It just focuses to solve a problem, based on a false decision made years ago and therefor only solves something, that is more or less a cosmetical issue with no further effect. Why? Simply because nobody cares about T1 equipment after 3 month in game and mostly uses t2 whereever possible or takes faction and plex stuff, easily available now. And for reprocessing material, i dont really need a changed name or rebalnced values, it is junk, not more, not less.

Another point is Cosmos items. The problem on them is not residing in its technical values, but by its availability (1 time per player), the effort to make them available (stoneold faction based access to superhard missions) causing a horrible high price for an item, that i can lose exactly one time and then have to buy for costs higher than officer stuff but with values worse than actual tech2. You can also just take them out of game, wouldnt disturb anyone at all.

Instead of that "rebalancing" some kind of toon based "slicing" would be of sense. T1 - sliceable by pilots to a certain direction (restrained scoped whatever) - can be used for producing pre-sliced T2 for further improvement. THIS would have been worth an announcement.

The rebalance as it is now just solves, as i said, a stoneold problem that just covers the first 3 month in a player-life and then only is of sense in certain niches, which then are gone anyway when players start using tech2, what everyone goes for anyway. Instead of that change some improvements on new tech2 additional would have been a true benefit.

As of now: Exploration is a game-wide folks sport done by almost everyone, faction and plex type stuff is easily in reach for everyone older than 5 days making stuff available for which you dont need skills higher than 4 to use it, and it is stuff thats much better than tech 2 but has nearly at same price level as tech 2 and is already available in massive amounts everywhere - and you rebalance .. tech 1? Seriously?

As you mean.
System Analytics skill is obviously not on skill V.
Systems Balancing should at least be III before you start doing it in a life game.

OK, now that I've slept over that matter, have some thought about it...

Lets talk names! I see why some modules bear such ridiculous names.

For instance, "limited" adaptive invulnerability field. Through my 3 years of playing EVE, that name has always puzzled me, as it...

MADE NO SENSE!

What is limited about that module? Even as i looked into the statistics, over and over again, i never came to associate "limited" with the actual difference in the module. Neither "limited" and "upgraded" helps me differentiate the MWD and afterburner variations. You know what does? Estimated price!

Now, I figured it! You tried to pull this same maneuver! And you know what? It didn't quite work, because such module name prefixes ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH! They make your team look like bloody illiterates and your management as completely ignorant of your doings, as, FFS, even a kid for whom English is not the native language will at least try and pull out words that give a bad-ass vibe to what he is naming.

Those proposed name prefixes are LAME (in any meaning you can put to this word, slang and literal), and I don't say that in blind rage, i say it in the shades of mournful regret that will overcome me if you are to push that nonsense out. It will achieve nothing.

On page 5 i believe there is a post by Moraguth that suggested some synonyms of your proposed name changes. Please, do take a careful look at this post. THAT is how you should name modules if you want clarity.

Long story short:

- DO NOT use Google translate, please!
- DO NOT embarrass the entire team by making the entire player base look upon you as ignorant illiterates!
- DO use this opportunity to fix old mistakes in naming!

P.S. I also believe that you owe the player community an official apology about even considering your list of name prefixes.

Lets talk statistics!

I do like the general direction of what you're doing. The statistics make more sense. Yet, you shouldn't have delayed releasing that information that much. You did this with the RLML rework last year to a major outcry from the public and yet you do it again!

There are changes that need to be pushed regardless of whether the community likes them, as they are healthy for the game. This one kind of is, yet you should have posted your draft in the F&I forums long time ago, as it needs a lot of polish. It can be done a lot better!

Mentioned above i saw a lot of really good ideas about the modules you could use and it will be for the better of the game. I, personally, see a lot of other possible numbers you can play with when it comes to variation.

What about "charges used per cycle" ? Can we have variations that would use/shoot twice as much per cycle but twice as slower? (I don't dare to think how you would name one of those... i better start digging a hole in which to hide).

Long story short:

- DO allow players more time to think about changes and provide feedback instead of pushing them without warning! It helps no one!

It would be better to eliminate all the meta 1-4 items and convert existing inventory to T1 meta 0 than this awful change! That would have the advantage of making T1 manufacturing useful again once the massive inventory was worked off.

Keeping the named modules has some small benefit to very new players. They will have access to very cheap modules with better stats than meta 0. Of course they will not have a progression of more powerful modules costing more ISK with meta 2, 3 & 4. They will be stuck with these lame modules until they get T2 skills or the ISK to buy faction/deadspace modules.

As for the names, they may make it easier for the new player to figure out what's what. What is lost though is the edgy, techie feel of Eve. The new names seem so slapdash, one size fits all. The new player imagination will not be engaged.

The meta 4 modules are useful for experienced players. This change trashes preferred fittings and reduces the value of meta 4 modules to their scrap metal value. Most meta 1-2 modules are already worth no more than scrap metal except to the new player to whom they're great WITHOUT change.

In 5 years of playing Eve, I have never posted on forums before today. Usually change is good, stagnation bad. But this change is TRULY AWFUL!

*tutts* Correlation does not imply causation.

This, about a month ago...

Seriously

nvm

Dear CCP,

Meta 4 drops is currently a significant source of ISK, especially in null-sec. If memory serves, about half my ratting income used to come from meta 4 drops.

With the pattern laid down in this change you will effectively kill this source of ISK.

How is this being addressed? How will the loot tables be adjusted, or are null-sec spawns going to drop the same, lame, modules as high sec?

The meta 4 market is also very active, since large meta 4 modules are highly sought after. Not every one has large turrets trained to V, and until they do, meta 4 is the logical middle ground. With these changes, you are killing this completely, effectively telling the playerbase that there is no more choice in the damage that a module does.

And the names? Did you have a contest to see who could come up with the least imaginative names? For Bob's sake! 'Ample'? Is that the best you could come up with? Honestly, has anyone ever unsubscribed because they couldn't figure out the difference between Malkuth and Limos?

This has all the makings of a poorly designed, rushed implementation that will break a lot of things for the sake of very little benefit indeed.