These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: Rebalancing EVE, One Module At A Time

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#201 - 2014-09-26 13:37:59 UTC
Gray's Anatomist wrote:
I have two issues with the impending doom^W tiericide:

  1. Current tiers had several useful properties for tight fits. For example, some modules used less CPU for less effect, which came in 4 steps (not 1, not 2, 4 steps), some modules increased in value linearly, but their price was prohibitively high for throwaway fits (meta 4 damage controls anyone?). Overall this provided for interesting jigsaw puzzle solving while fitting, and even created a mini-profession of fitting specialist. This "update" not only removes this fun part of the game, but also invalidates real, working fits across the game. And if, by chance or luck, the ships will still fly - they'll lose their value against less craftily fit opponents. Is this what you want? "My ship is AMPLER than yours?"

  2. The names, indeed, are part of EVE lore. Why won't you call Titans "Ample Very Big Ships"? Why Sansha, Guristas, Serpentis and Blood, when you can call them "blaster terrorists", "laser terrorists", "missile terrorists" and "ewar terrorists"? Rename "Shadow Serpentis" into "scoped blaster terrorists" and see how much fun the players have. Evil


Bottom line is: this change devalues player skills and experience. This might initially make for a lower learning curve for new players, but it won't help retain the older players, quite the opposite.

Blah-blah, it's 3 days before the update, too late to change anything. Ugh


That's all not of interest anymore to a game developer desperate to appeal to Angry Bird players.

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.
Croc Evil
Croc's Family Business
#202 - 2014-09-26 13:41:54 UTC
I generally likes whole rebalance idea. Keep it coming. It would be good to see more meta 1 variants.

As some other I also feel new naming conventions are kinda "flat" and not very cool. Would be great to keep eg 'Albarest' name as prefix to Compact Light Missile Launcher as someone suggested.

I also think that especially offensive new meta 1 modules should be closer to their tech II variants. For example light missile launchers. Tech II variant is already significantly stronger than all other variants (storyline/faction/deadspace etc included) because of possibility to use tech II ammunition. So I think meta 1 variants should be only little bit worse in damage output with tech I ammunition. LML Storyline/faction/deadspace seems ok to me in this regard.

I would also like to see lower NPC drop rate for meta 1 variants. Right now EVE is flooded with many meta 1-4 modules (with some exceptions). For start lower drop by eg 30%, replaced partially with meta 0 variant drops. At least it would be a bit simpler to go through junk after mission/signature cleaning :-)
Drone 16
Holy Horde
#203 - 2014-09-26 13:56:06 UTC
In other news, Raytheon in a bid to attract more customers has decided to rename its next generation TTWCS-Tactical Tomahawk Weapon Control System (which has an increased missile bay) Ample Cruise Missile Launchers; sales are expected to sky rocket....Shocked

It puts the peanutbutter on itself or it leaves the bonus round... - E1's greatest Hits
Drone 16
Holy Horde
#204 - 2014-09-26 14:03:51 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Gray's Anatomist wrote:
I have two issues with the impending doom^W tiericide:

  1. Current tiers had several useful properties for tight fits. For example, some modules used less CPU for less effect, which came in 4 steps (not 1, not 2, 4 steps), some modules increased in value linearly, but their price was prohibitively high for throwaway fits (meta 4 damage controls anyone?). Overall this provided for interesting jigsaw puzzle solving while fitting, and even created a mini-profession of fitting specialist. This "update" not only removes this fun part of the game, but also invalidates real, working fits across the game. And if, by chance or luck, the ships will still fly - they'll lose their value against less craftily fit opponents. Is this what you want? "My ship is AMPLER than yours?"

  2. The names, indeed, are part of EVE lore. Why won't you call Titans "Ample Very Big Ships"? Why Sansha, Guristas, Serpentis and Blood, when you can call them "blaster terrorists", "laser terrorists", "missile terrorists" and "ewar terrorists"? Rename "Shadow Serpentis" into "scoped blaster terrorists" and see how much fun the players have. Evil


Bottom line is: this change devalues player skills and experience. This might initially make for a lower learning curve for new players, but it won't help retain the older players, quite the opposite.

Blah-blah, it's 3 days before the update, too late to change anything. Ugh


That's all not of interest anymore to a game developer desperate to appeal to Angry Bird players.


I wish I could give this more than one like.

I can't even look at these silly names

It puts the peanutbutter on itself or it leaves the bonus round... - E1's greatest Hits
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
#205 - 2014-09-26 14:16:33 UTC
In the second image the 'COSMOS' modules are not given a position in the bar to state where you think they currently reside in terms of strengths & weaknesses.

In the second image, post any/all module tiercide changes, you place them straddling the T2 and Faction 1/2 columns but not really having their own space within the chart.

At present a small number of the 'COSMOS' modules do have slightly better stats in terms of effects/damage/ROF etc than their T2 counterparts but the majority have worse effects/damage/ROF etc . The 'COSMOS' modules do I think all have better fittings though atm.

Given the rarity of the 'COSMOS' BPCs due to the missions only being completable once per character along with the difficulty in acquiring the materials to make them some of which are VERY hard to source I propose the following:

In the second image place the 'COSMOS' modules between Faction 1/2 and the Officer module categories in their own column. Give ALL the 'COSMOS' modules the same OR BETTER effects/damage/ROF as their T2 equivalents along with the current reduced fitting requirements.

Given that it is far easier to source Faction modules than 'COSMOS' modules this seems to make perfect sense to me. This will increase the demand for 'COSMOS' BPCs and materials and act as an additional conflict driver. Keep the availability of 'COSMOS' BPCs and materials as they are currently and watch the blood spill. Evil

" They're gonna feel pretty stupid when they find out. " Rick. " Find out what ? " Abraham. " They're screwing with the wrong people. " Rick. Season four.   ' The Walking Dead. ' .
Red Deck
The Tebo Corp
#206 - 2014-09-26 14:16:45 UTC
Gray's Anatomist wrote:
I have two issues with the impending doom^W tiericide:

  1. Current tiers had several useful properties for tight fits. For example, some modules used less CPU for less effect, which came in 4 steps (not 1, not 2, 4 steps), some modules increased in value linearly, but their price was prohibitively high for throwaway fits (meta 4 damage controls anyone?). Overall this provided for interesting jigsaw puzzle solving while fitting, and even created a mini-profession of fitting specialist. This "update" not only removes this fun part of the game, but also invalidates real, working fits across the game. And if, by chance or luck, the ships will still fly - they'll lose their value against less craftily fit opponents. Is this what you want? "My ship is AMPLER than yours?"

  2. The names, indeed, are part of EVE lore. Why won't you call Titans "Ample Very Big Ships"? Why Sansha, Guristas, Serpentis and Blood, when you can call them "blaster terrorists", "laser terrorists", "missile terrorists" and "ewar terrorists"? Rename "Shadow Serpentis" into "scoped blaster terrorists" and see how much fun the players have. Evil


Bottom line is: this change devalues player skills and experience. This might initially make for a lower learning curve for new players, but it won't help retain the older players, quite the opposite.

Blah-blah, it's 3 days before the update, too late to change anything. Ugh

I am afraid I have to very much agree with this post.

I have been plaing EVE for less than two years, so I am not a newbie anymore, but I suppose I can't be called a 'bittervet' yet either...

Some of the changes proposed just make me shake my head in disbelief. The naming scheme, as stated in dozens of earlier posts, is so bland and uninspired it's painful. The idea of merging e.g. Malkuth and Arbalest LMLs (one of them currently selling for like ten times more than the other) into a single mod illustrates how detached the dev(s) engineering this change are from the game.

The whole idea of having just one "Easier to Fit" version of any given mod is just unbelievable... what on Earth is wrong with having several versions of a mod, each being progressively more rare / expensive, but easier to fit? Why do you want to cram everything into a single uniform scheme? Having quirks and exceptions and irregularities is what makes EVE so interesting and unique... that's what makes me toy with fits for hours.

I am all for dropping rubbish meta mods (and there is a ton of them) - either by removing them from the rat drops or by changing their stats to make them actually useful. I am all for renaming some of the currently confusingly named mods. But the proposed changes seem to be largely just for the sake of a change to me, taking away both flavour and gameplay options.

There are several ideas in this thread that I believe are very much worth considering (I liked the cryptic suffixes hinting at the changed stat of a meta mod akin to the current implant naming convention - and I would like to keep 'Malkuth'/'Arbalest'/'Limos' names if for nothing else then just for flavour reasons).

Alas, as with almost all recent changes, it's too late to have any meaningful discussion now... all we can do now is rant.
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
#207 - 2014-09-26 14:21:15 UTC
I also don't like the current regime of renaming items and processes to make them simpler to understand. We are not idiots and in addition the current names of items are just better pure & simple. Some of the recent changes such as renaming refining & calling it reprocessing was just plain illogical. Roll

" They're gonna feel pretty stupid when they find out. " Rick. " Find out what ? " Abraham. " They're screwing with the wrong people. " Rick. Season four.   ' The Walking Dead. ' .
Nalha Saldana
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#208 - 2014-09-26 14:25:32 UTC
This is what a NPC corp based naming system could look like and would be 100x better than that crap

Amarrian modules
Upgraded/Ample - Amarr Constructions
Scoped - Imperial Armaments
Compact - Zoar and Sons
Enduring - Carthum
Restrained - Viziam

Caldarian modules
Upgraded/Ample - Caldari Constructions
Scoped - Caldari Steel
Restrained - Perkone
Enduring - Rapid Assembly
Compact - Top Down

Gallentean modules
Upgraded/Ample - Allotek
Compact - Chemal
Restrained - CreoDron
Enduring - Duvolle
Scoped - Roden

Minmatarian modules
Upgraded/Ample - Core Complexion
Enduring - Freedom Extension
Compact - Boundless Creation
Restrained - Eifyr
Scoped - Six Kin

The modules would get a name based on what race it belongs to (same as invention interfaces)

As example here are the devblog items:
Allotek Co-Processor
Zoar and Sons Reactor Control Unit
Zoar and Sons Micro Auxiliary Power Core
Top Down Light Missile Launcher
Caldari Constructions Light Missile Launcher
Freedom Extension Cargo Scanner
Six Kin Cargo Scanner
AssandTits
Doomheim
#209 - 2014-09-26 14:28:53 UTC
Nalha Saldana wrote:
This is what a NPC corp based naming system could look like and would be 100x better than that crap

Amarrian modules
Upgraded/Ample - Amarr Constructions
Scoped - Imperial Armaments
Compact - Zoar and Sons
Enduring - Carthum
Restrained - Viziam

Caldarian modules
Upgraded/Ample - Caldari Constructions
Scoped - Caldari Steel
Restrained - Perkone
Enduring - Rapid Assembly
Compact - Top Down

Gallentean modules
Upgraded/Ample - Allotek
Compact - Chemal
Restrained - CreoDron
Enduring - Duvolle
Scoped - Roden

Minmatarian modules
Upgraded/Ample - Core Complexion
Enduring - Freedom Extension
Compact - Boundless Creation
Restrained - Eifyr
Scoped - Six Kin

The modules would get a name based on what race it belongs to (same as invention interfaces)

As example here are the devblog items:
Allotek Co-Processor
Zoar and Sons Reactor Control Unit
Zoar and Sons Micro Auxiliary Power Core
Top Down Light Missile Launcher
Caldari Constructions Light Missile Launcher
Freedom Extension Cargo Scanner
Six Kin Cargo Scanner


Unfortunately that naming convention will confuse all those spoon fed WoW kiddies CCP seems to think will actually have the attention span to play EVE.

Stop pandering to might be's, pay attention to just barley have.

Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#210 - 2014-09-26 14:33:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Spugg Galdon
Copper Khai wrote:
thanks for all that you do. one small criticism.

Some named modules are not EVE-like. they sound like magic items. Maybe you are doing it for beginners or cross over MMO players. But it stuck out to my ears.

Ample?
Enduring?

not very scientific...


  • Upgraded- ok
  • Compact- ok (nanu, spun, )
  • Enduring- no (efficient, stable, streamlined, normalized, eco, rewired, )
  • Ample- no (flushed, distended, augmented) or Expanded / Extended
  • Scoped- ok
  • Restrained- (insulated, confined)



Although I've been looking forward to this (and I've also posted in the features and ideas forum pretty much these exact changes!) the naming of the modules is very dull.

I have to go with Copper Khai on this and her suggestions are so much better. As an engineer by trade, the names I've highlighted in the quote above make so much more sense to me.
Drone 16
Holy Horde
#211 - 2014-09-26 15:01:43 UTC
Nalha Saldana wrote:
This is what a NPC corp based naming system could look like and would be 100x better than that crap

Amarrian modules
Upgraded/Ample - Amarr Constructions
Scoped - Imperial Armaments
Compact - Zoar and Sons
Enduring - Carthum
Restrained - Viziam

Caldarian modules
Upgraded/Ample - Caldari Constructions
Scoped - Caldari Steel
Restrained - Perkone
Enduring - Rapid Assembly
Compact - Top Down

Gallentean modules
Upgraded/Ample - Allotek
Compact - Chemal
Restrained - CreoDron
Enduring - Duvolle
Scoped - Roden

Minmatarian modules
Upgraded/Ample - Core Complexion
Enduring - Freedom Extension
Compact - Boundless Creation
Restrained - Eifyr
Scoped - Six Kin

The modules would get a name based on what race it belongs to (same as invention interfaces)

As example here are the devblog items:
Allotek Co-Processor
Zoar and Sons Reactor Control Unit
Zoar and Sons Micro Auxiliary Power Core
Top Down Light Missile Launcher
Caldari Constructions Light Missile Launcher
Freedom Extension Cargo Scanner
Six Kin Cargo Scanner


Love this idea

It puts the peanutbutter on itself or it leaves the bonus round... - E1's greatest Hits
June Blindbird
Flying Blacksmiths
#212 - 2014-09-26 15:08:49 UTC
The module Tiericide on its "make better stats and add usefulness for everything" part is a very good news, however it seems that you also decided like for Afterburners & co to rename and put generic and spirit-less prefixes on the names.

I understand that the purpose is to help people (in particular newbies) because the prefix will tell immediately the purpose of the variant, but as a player which thinks that immersion is important in any game, the impact is sensible to me. Eve online may become easier to learn but that also drives it away from a deep game, with a lore, a spirit and history. If possible I'd really appreciate if you could find at least qualifiers which sounds more Eve-ish, like the ones proposed further posts above.
Arcos Vandymion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#213 - 2014-09-26 15:17:09 UTC
Just gonna go ahead and point out that even after that, noone in their right mind will use anything but T2 turrets/launchers if they can. Certainly not while you gain up to 10% to their performance via skill making them better than any meta above 5 even when you use the same ammo.

That's not considering T2 ammo because there is literally no reason to spend 50m a pop on True Sansha Mega Pulse Lasers if you can't burninate them bad guys to crisp with a Scorch crystal with them. A T2 Mega Pulse can and only costs a fraction for better performance.
Madeleine Lemmont
Ars Vivendi
#214 - 2014-09-26 15:26:22 UTC
1st I think, this could be a step into the right direction. Of curse some guys will hate it, due to have additional work to redesign their fittings. But these players are visible always. So far...

In association to the new ship database solution you should try to create a more dynamic item database.
As long as you have each item with an own database entry including all item properties, this won't work, due to a lag of individualization possibilities.

If this would happen, we have a chance to realize "module research" or "module engineering". This for instance would result in a larger amount of "corpnamed" modules with corp-colors.
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#215 - 2014-09-26 15:52:44 UTC
Daimus Daranius wrote:
Hey CCP, I was hoping to see Shield Flux Coils fixed as part of module rebalance, since they are currently the most useless modules in EVE (I can't think of a single application where they would be useful). My suggestion - replace the shield recharge bonus with a reduction to either duration or cap use of shield boosters.


Cap Power Relays already reduce shield boost amount.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#216 - 2014-09-26 16:12:48 UTC
Nalha Saldana wrote:
This is what a NPC corp based naming system could look like and would be 100x better than that crap

this naming system is 100% terrible

however I am heartened by that there are only a small group of people talking loudly at each other here: the angry about names brigade is even smaller than I had thought
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#217 - 2014-09-26 16:14:03 UTC
Krell Kroenen wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
i find the T2 mods just being plain better at everything a little at odds with role based mods...

T2 lml is better at everything ... surely allowing the use of T2 ammo is enough of a buff in itself??
why use the ample version when T2 is better at it??



Maybe because of skill requirements and cost?

As for the new names, I am with a lot of other folks.. ditch them and keep some of the old ones. The new ones are a bit corny and over the top. Save the adjectives for the descriptions of the module not the name of them. You don't see GM selling the "Ample SUV" as a make and model.


the skill requirements are the only thing stopping people ignoring the metas entirely and just skipping too T2 ..

The purpose of the T2 is too allow specialization .. in this case T2 ammo ... but if its better at everything then its not really specializing is it??

bottom line is people will use only the compact and T2 .. lower fittings for tight fits and also whilst training skills up and then they will jump too the T2 cos its better and can use T2 ammo ... somehow i don't think this is what CCP had in mind here ...

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
Medalyn Isis
Doomheim
#218 - 2014-09-26 16:44:51 UTC
The real issue is the uselessness of the T1 modules. That is something which manufacturers have been complaining about for aeons.

Is the drop rate going to be substantially reduced for the meta items so that their price doesn't simply drop below the inferior T1 meta 0 modules as is the current case?

Having nice names is great, and the names suggested now are pretty bad. But this is small fry compared to the actual gameplay issue of meta 0 being useless still and probably more expensive than the meta 1-4 stuff.

As I've seen suggested, at least give meta 0 items one saving grace, and one reason why to choose them over the massive amount of rat spew which everyone has piles of as a consequence of missions and ratting.
profundus fossura
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#219 - 2014-09-26 16:57:22 UTC
Gosti Kahanid wrote:
Onslaughtor wrote:
So with the missiles. It would make sense to add a third meta type for ROF like at 13.2 with a 21 to 23 cpu requirement and a 36 to 40 missile bay. The upgraded lml would be a nice damage focused meta mod that would be good for adding more complex but logical fitting decisions.


That, I think, would be a bad Idea. Everyone would then fit for more damage. Why should I use a module with more ammocapacity when I can get more DPS out of it?
With Turrets there will probably be more options for application (hopefully nothing which provides more DPS than another), but missile launchers don´t have anything which would provide better application, for this they could offer different missiles, but for the launchers this is enough



Could vary other stats for missile launchers like explosion radius which would impact damage and give a more interesting fitting choice.
Krell Kroenen
The Devil's Shadow
#220 - 2014-09-26 16:58:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Krell Kroenen
Harvey James wrote:
Krell Kroenen wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
i find the T2 mods just being plain better at everything a little at odds with role based mods...

T2 lml is better at everything ... surely allowing the use of T2 ammo is enough of a buff in itself??
why use the ample version when T2 is better at it??



Maybe because of skill requirements and cost?

As for the new names, I am with a lot of other folks.. ditch them and keep some of the old ones. The new ones are a bit corny and over the top. Save the adjectives for the descriptions of the module not the name of them. You don't see GM selling the "Ample SUV" as a make and model.


the skill requirements are the only thing stopping people ignoring the metas entirely and just skipping too T2 ..

The purpose of the T2 is too allow specialization .. in this case T2 ammo ... but if its better at everything then its not really specializing is it??

bottom line is people will use only the compact and T2 .. lower fittings for tight fits and also whilst training skills up and then they will jump too the T2 cos its better and can use T2 ammo ... somehow i don't think this is what CCP had in mind here ...



Given that this thread is not in the Idea's and Features section and how all of this will become reality early next week. It appears that CCP is not interested in what we think. Even if we think different things. *shrugs*.