These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Arsine Mayhem
Doomheim
#241 - 2014-09-27 03:37:25 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



This is the whole thing laid out in a table.

http://www.wow-gem.com/gems.aspx
Drone 16
Holy Horde
#242 - 2014-09-27 04:41:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Drone 16
Drone 16 wrote:
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


Adopt these names then put a "traits" tab in the item description for these new terms like "ample". Also add a mouse over on the item that gives a pop up of the trait and what it means

It puts the peanutbutter on itself or it leaves the bonus round... - E1's greatest Hits
Falkor1984
The Love Dragons
#243 - 2014-09-27 07:11:56 UTC
Ransu Asanari wrote:
Not very happy with the Light Missile Launcher adjustments. It seems like the reduction in named modules is reducing choice and dumbing down missiles in general.

1. The "Ample" Launcher has the same fitting requirements as the Meta0 (6PG, 21CPU) , which is pretty poor. The previous version of the Limos, TE-2100, and Arbalest all had much better fitting than Meta0, and gave an actual tier that you could use to fit based on what your ship could spare. Compacting this seems like a nerf. If anything, reduce the CPU fitting on the "Ample" launcher to somewhere between 17-20 so it is equivalent to where the Arbalest was, while still having it be better than the Meta0.

2. I am happy that the "Compact" Launcher kept the same fitting as the Malkuth, as that was necessary for a lot of fittings, such as the Talwar.

3. The devblog mentions specializations for Range, Tracking, Fitting, and Cap Use. Why not have variant Missile modules that vary range, explosion radius/velocity or other values as an equivalent, to give more ship design choices? A "Scoped" version with extra flight time, as an example.


This basically goes for the whole tierciding of modules and ships. CCP thinks it is expanding choices while the players think they are losing choices. Meanwhile CCP is ironically trying to use tierciding to keep players happy in order to buy time to fix or develop major things. Declining subscription numbers is the result. And that is what we are seeing now for a long time.
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#244 - 2014-09-27 09:48:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Lena Lazair
Hmm... so much noise over the details of the naming, so little over the basic premise itself which is not what I expected and still has some critical holes. The most obvious and most frequently mentioned hole is that this balancing does NOTHING to promote the use of tech 1 items. At all.

In fact, it's the third in a series of changes likely to do the opposite; making named items even cheaper and more widely used than now. With the reprocessing change dropping out the floor on named items, the upcoming invention changes dropping out non-fit-related demand, and this proposed change of condensing variations likely to increase supply, there is now more than ever going to be absolutely no reason to use tech 1 items. This is bad and the exact opposite of what a module tiericide should accomplish.

There are at least two better approaches I expected to see, neither of which is happening.

The first of these two options is what I thought tiericide was going to do (and I think others felt this way too); provide variations around the tech 1 base point. Not across the board better, PLUS variation, as has been proposed.

Let's take the reactor control example as a simple demonstration of what I expected (and what I think many people expected):

meta 0 : Reactor Control Unit I : 1.1x, CPU 20
meta 1 : Compact Reactor Control Unit: 1.08x, CPU 16
meta 4 : Upgraded Rector Control Unit: 1.12x, CPU 21
meta 5 : Reactor Control Unit II : 1.15x, CPU 22

This has the benefit of promoting the use of tech 1 items as a balance between fitting and benefit. This of course assumes unlimited and cheap supply of the named items (e.g. no external restriction on their use), which is not necessarily a good assumption to build into the system but does seem to be borne out by current market realities.

The graph ends up like this. By contrast your graph is trying too hard to look like your ship graph, which makes no sense since T2 modules are not specialized at all and ignores the direct balance between fitting and power in using modules.

The second of the two options is also viable; provide improvements to individual tech 1 stats without being fundamentally better than the tech 1 variant for certain key stats in all cases. Again with reactor control, that would look like:

meta 0 : Reactor Control Unit I : 1.1x, CPU 20
meta 1 : Compact Reactor Control Unit: 1.1x, CPU 16
meta 4 : Upgraded Rector Control Unit: 1.12x, CPU 20
meta 5 : Reactor Control Unit II : 1.15x, CPU 22

While in this case the use of anything but named items is still something of a no-brainer (again, assuming unlimited cheap supply, an assumption which is practical truth even if it shouldn't be), at least the gap is not nearly so far as what is being proposed. It ALSO neatly fixes the cases where you have an item with only one named variant, "Upgraded", since "Upgraded" now always implies that the single key stat for the item is better with no increased drawbacks/fitting requirements (if there are any). Basically, "Upgraded" could just be called "Tech 1.5" and affect a single key stat for each module type (this would generally be pretty obvious; the ONLY case I could see some dissent would be on weapons; is base damage or range the more "key" stat? I vote damage).

Compact still works across the board as a prefix for variants that reduce fitting costs while leaving all other tech 1 stats the same. You then have meta2/3 to play with for variants affecting other secondary stats that are more situational to each module type. Even better, to allay some of the naming outcries, I suggest leaving some of the more unique module names in those meta 2/3 names since whichever secondary stat it affects (whether it be ammo capacity, reload time, cycle time, range, tracking, etc.), it's going to be non-obvious no matter what seemingly global-sounding name you guys pick. Looking at the actual stats there for comparison will typically still be necessary, so this is a way to leave some flavor in the game and keep more people happy.

The important caveat here, though, is that I think the only way for this second option to work is to provide a REAL limitation to the use of named items. You cannot depend on market forces here without drastically affecting the drop rates and current stockpiles (good luck if you choose that route). No, instead I propose a more meaningful limitation... skill training. Skill level 1 allows for tech 1, skill level 3 allows for named items, and skill level 4/5 allows for tech 2.

I think this would also go a long way to giving new players fast, meaningful rewards in their choices based on training. For any veteran player the gap to get to level 3 to use any named items in their current fits will be practically meaningless (assuming they, for whatever reason, only have a skill at 1/2 as it is; fairly unlikely anyway). But for new players it's still sufficient commitment in training time -- on the order of several weeks to get all relevant skills to at least level 3 to use named modules across the board for most common fitting things -- that it provides for some interesting up-front choices for new players and immediate feedback/gratification of "higher skills can give more choices".

While this second approach and skill based gate would still leave for an unfortunate wasteland of tech 1 items in the long run and is not a perfect module tiericide, it won't be nearly as bad as the current CCP proposed solution or even the current situation with meta 4. It will still at least produce SOME demand for tech 1 among new players/new alts as a forced game mechanic, rather than the current scenario where there is literally NO demand for tech 1 outside of tech 2 production. There are no meaningful reasons at ALL not to use named items now, being that cost/availability is simply not an issue (maybe not always meta 4, but certainly never tech 1 base).
Francisco Vazquez Garcia
Medical Leeches First Come First Served
#245 - 2014-09-27 11:03:39 UTC
Krodes Thara wrote:
For sure having 5 faction modules with same stats is not confusing and it is good game design...
What about the lore with each faction excelling in something? Are you going to trow all that away?
I'm okay with the rest somehow, but faction modules should have different qualities and uses.


I second that.

Would be very nice if faction that excel in 1 field (like amarr - armor, gallente - drones, thukkers - navigation) would offer the more powerful faction items, while the other ones would focus on reduced fitting requirements or have a less powerful version, simmilar to the very rare storyline items.

It makes me sad that 5 factions have exactly the same item. It makes choosing the faction to rat or do missions for, much less important.
Pecora Nera
Perkone
Caldari State
#246 - 2014-09-27 11:22:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Pecora Nera
Its good that ccp are finally making the effort to clean up the state of the modules.
A number of issues with their approach (and possible solutions) have been raised and described quite eloquently in the comments above, I won't dwell on those other than I do agree with the general discussion so far.

Instead, i wish to discuss two other issues that have been lightly touched on:
A) user-manufactured T1 modules are basically useless/valueless compared to higher metas, and will become even more-so.
B) if all rat-dropped modules are now to be "useful", the rarity and therefore value of them will go through the floor.

My proposed solution:
1) All user manufactured T1 modules to be re-graded to meta 2 by default

2) most rat-drops to be meta 1 and tagged something like "Limited" or "Basic", which will have ~10% less fitting requirements, but ~15% less "oomph" and perhaps a little more cap use. (Mineral content and ratios to be balanced as required to suit CCP's desired hull-mining activity level)

3) meta 3/4 to be used for the much rarer 'upgraded' and 'compact' etc drops, which will protect the market value of these items.

4) 'civilian' stuff such as afterburners/scanners/scramblers can be rolled in as meta 0, and have the appropriate reduced skill/fitting requirements.


Rationale:
This will put player manufactured stuff at a higher quality level and value than (say 95% of) rat-drops.
The 'good' modules will still be rarer, and thereby hold their market value and be worth looting.
This also has a good lore basis, since player stuff made in empire should be of better quality than most stuff made in the hidden corners of the universe.
(Might also explain why all those hi-sec belt and mission rats keep losing to players most of the time - they have to keep churning out lo-grade modules to re-fit the rat-ships Blink )
Even the rat-junk-loot (the new Meta 1) would have fitting value in some cases, if supply of 'compact' stuff is not available and you need to fit a ship now from what's lying around the hangar floor.
If CCP is re-ordering the meta levels of rat-loot, now is probably the best (and only!) time to re-order the manufacturing meta levels too.

Bad side:
CCP might actually want to increase the drop rate and recognition of 'upgraded' modules, to make fitting pvp ships cheaper (and easier for lo-skill players). (e.g. faint epsilons, phased muons etc) In which case, loot values, market effects and 'dumbing down' are of lesser importance to CCP.
The T1 manufacturing becoming meta 2 change would probably have to be done "all in one go", causing issues with a staged rollout of module changes. (unless M2 is kept blank going forward,M1 used for new junk-loot and M0 globally swapped into M2 later)
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
#247 - 2014-09-27 14:30:24 UTC
Probably pointed out before but the Restrained (reduced penalties) Cap Flux is borked - having the same penalties but significantly better bonus.


However...
The naming convention thing is annoying. We've already lost so many really cool names for no real gain and now more are going by the wayside - Cold-Gas Arcjet Thrusters, Bloodclaws, Widowmakers; needless complexity or cool point-of-interest/point of specialisation?
Personally I think the latter.

I also feel that the implied goal of the changes (making EVE more friendly/less intimidating to new players) is at odds with the method - because the granularity which is important as a newer player is being lost.

Consider LMLs:
As a new player you probably begin with T1 because they're cheap, and if you check the market out, look at the variations or otherwise do a little research you move to Malkuth launchers very quickly, the price difference is minimal (they're incredibly cheap considering how much new players earn these days), they're really easy to fit which means that your low skills don't have much of a bearing - and they hold a couple more missiles and shoot just a little faster...
They're a very newbie friendly but gentle upgrade. A progression from the starting gear... Malkuths are exactly where I think they should be right now.
Limos are close to where they ought to be and TE- are probably not too far off - the problem with launcher progression is Arbalests.
If I were writing the changes I would build a steady progression through the launcher types; Malkuth would stay where they are, Limos would retain their current capacity and RoF but their fittings would be tweaked a little, slightly more difficult to fit than Malkuths. TE-s similarly, a slight improvement over Limos in capacity and RoF but slightly harder to fit. And Arbalests would be almost as "good" as T2 and almost as hard to fit (I'd actually make them a little more difficult to fit that T1).
This means that newer players, in the months during which their fitting skills are climbing, have a nice granular progression which is mirrored at higher meta levels. It also means meaningful choices (when the choice isn't T2 or nothing) for older characters - rather than Arbalests all the way (the Meta 4 problem mentioned in the blog), have I got the fitting to do that? With the current stats, if you don't have the fitting for Arbalests then it's all the way down to Malkuth (IIRC), with a more linear progression then perhaps the added DPS and increased clip makes TE-s a viable fitting option.


And finally, I fit Nanomechanical Co-Processors sometimes... If I need CPU enough to dedicate a slot to gaining it I want to a) use the cheapest I can and b) I don't want to have much CPU left over when I'm done. I don't want to fit a Dyad or a Dread Gurista Co-Pro if I only need 7%.
Robert Parr
Iron Tiger T3 Industries
#248 - 2014-09-27 16:19:26 UTC
Lena Lazair wrote:
Hmm... so much noise over the details of the naming, so little over the basic premise itself which is not what I expected and still has some critical holes. The most obvious and most frequently mentioned hole is that this balancing does NOTHING to promote the use of tech 1 items. At all.

In fact, it's the third in a series of changes likely to do the opposite; making named items even cheaper and more widely used than now. With the reprocessing change dropping out the floor on named items, the upcoming invention changes dropping out non-fit-related demand, and this proposed change of condensing variations likely to increase supply, there is now more than ever going to be absolutely no reason to use tech 1 items. This is bad and the exact opposite of what a module tiericide should accomplish.

There are at least two better approaches I expected to see, neither of which is happening.

The first of these two options is what I thought tiericide was going to do (and I think others felt this way too); provide variations around the tech 1 base point. Not across the board better, PLUS variation, as has been proposed.

Let's take the reactor control example as a simple demonstration of what I expected (and what I think many people expected):

meta 0 : Reactor Control Unit I : 1.1x, CPU 20
meta 1 : Compact Reactor Control Unit: 1.08x, CPU 16
meta 4 : Upgraded Rector Control Unit: 1.12x, CPU 21
meta 5 : Reactor Control Unit II : 1.15x, CPU 22

This has the benefit of promoting the use of tech 1 items as a balance between fitting and benefit. This of course assumes unlimited and cheap supply of the named items (e.g. no external restriction on their use), which is not necessarily a good assumption to build into the system but does seem to be borne out by current market realities.


While in this case the use of anything but named items is still something of a no-brainer (again, assuming unlimited cheap supply, an assumption which is practical truth even if it shouldn't be), at least the gap is not nearly so far as what is being proposed. It ALSO neatly fixes the cases where you have an item with only one named variant, "Upgraded", since "Upgraded" now always implies that the single key stat for the item is better with no increased drawbacks/fitting requirements (if there are any). Basically, "Upgraded" could just be called "Tech 1.5" and affect a single key stat for each module type (this would generally be pretty obvious; the ONLY case I could see some dissent would be on weapons; is base damage or range the more "key" stat? I vote damage).

Compact still works across the board as a prefix for variants that reduce fitting costs while leaving all other tech 1 stats the same. You then have meta2/3 to play with for variants affecting other secondary stats that are more situational to each module type. Even better, to allay some of the naming outcries, I suggest leaving some of the more unique module names in those meta 2/3 names since whichever secondary stat it affects (whether it be ammo capacity, reload time, cycle time, range, tracking, etc.), it's going to be non-obvious no matter what seemingly global-sounding name you guys pick. Looking at the actual stats there for comparison will typically still be necessary, so this is a way to leave some flavor in the game and keep more people happy.

The important caveat here, though, is that I think the only way for this second option to work is to provide a REAL limitation to the use of named items. You cannot depend on market forces here without drastically affecting the drop rates and current stockpiles (good luck if you choose that route). No, instead I propose a more meaningful limitation... skill training. Skill level 1 allows for tech 1, skill level 3 allows for named items, and skill level 4/5 allows for tech 2.

I think this would also go a long way to giving new players fast, meaningful rewards in their choices based on training. For any veteran player the gap to get to level 3 to use any named items in their current fits will be practically meaningless (assuming they, for whatever reason, only have a skill at 1/2 as it is; fairly unlikely anyway). But for new players it's still sufficient commitment in training time -- on the order of several weeks to get all relevant skills to at least level 3 to use named modules across the board for most common fitting things -- that it provides for some interesting up-front choices for new players and immediate feedback/gratification of "higher skills can give more choices".

While this second approach and skill based gate would still leave for an unfortunate wasteland of tech 1 items in the long run and is not a perfect module tiericide, it won't be nearly as bad as the current CCP proposed solution or even the current situation with meta 4. It will still at least produce SOME demand for tech 1 among new players/new alts as a forced game mechanic, rather than the current scenario where there is literally NO demand for tech 1 outside of tech 2 production. There are no meaningful reasons at ALL not to use named items now, being that cost/availability is simply not an issue (maybe not always meta 4, but certainly never tech 1 base).

**** ME....Fozzie, are you paying any attention?????ShockedShockedShocked VERY MUCH THIS^^^^ WOW a good idea on paper and in practice...YOU should have been doing this all along...instead we got half-assed sausage making homogenization WTF OVER??? Get a clue please, you are ruining the game....stop what you are doing and start doing THIS^^^^^^^^^^^ Please pull your head out!!!!!!
C IO1011
Nanoware Labs
#249 - 2014-09-27 16:31:19 UTC
There is a problem with ships, drones, BPOs and modules just accumulating and it needs to be addressed.

This trashing of meta modules is not a solution. The huge inventory of modules will still exist keeping prices at scrap value but the modules are nerfed to where only a player with < a year experience or some lightly trained alts would use them. T1 meta 0 modules are still useless except for invention.

Perhaps adding the year of manufacturing to each module, ship, drone, BPO and some advance components could help. If 10 years are allowed that would multiply the number of items by 10 in the market and eventually more than 10 in inventories as obsolete items accumulated. Manufacturing could only make the current year's model.

Also older items and more heavily used items require maintenance. The older and more heavily used the more maintenance. It would probably be very difficult to keep track of maintenance fees so how about items taking random damage everytime it is assembled, docked in a station, entering a force field, fitted. I prefer not to have random damage taken while using an item or traveling. It would be realistic but incredibly annoying. The frequency and severity of the random damage would increase with the age of an item.

Items >10 years old cannot be used or traded in the market (per some Concord safety regulation?). They may be scrapped, kept or sold (via contract or trade) as collectors items. Consider a small expense for maintaining obsolete items or random damage (rats or insects in the upholstery?). Keeping a vintage 1960 Corvette Stingray or a classic Mercedes Benz does have some expenses.

Ten years is just a suggestion and exceptions could be made for tournament prizes (which don't accumulate) and other specials.
I think a similar schedule could be applied to BPOs. Blueprints and manufacturing documents for a 1975 Ford Maverick may be a collectors item but have no commercial value. Even with durable goods, a 1984 Whirlpool clothes washer design has little value. Environmental compliance, new features, cost reductions, reliability, material and efficiency improvements would render it obsolete. This would eventually solve the T2 BPO problem. BPOs that take a long time to improve (capitals) should have a longer life expectancy.

The big corps and alliances are well represented on the CSM and influential. They may object to their capital fleet being scrap metal in 10 years and paying for repairs over those 10 years. They are also the most invested in keeping Eve a viable game so their input SHOULD be considered.

It gives entry level players a chance to buy a less inexpensive old beater battleship (perhaps even with older faction/deadspace modules) to play with rather than an expensive new battleship. I could see Brave Newbies, Red and Blue members being good customers of older items.

Intended consequences and limitations

1. This would take years to have any significant impact on oversupply.
A. New NPC drops could be for older items. A 2008 meta 2 TP, a 2007 220mm Vulcan AC, a 2009 Pith A Large Shield Booster
B. Items with the most oversupply could be converted randomly into 0-5 year old items during the update. May be player rage with this but you could ask them first?
C. If this were applied to all BPOs, the date of the last T2 BPO awarded is well known and could be appended to all T2 BPOs.

2. Manufacturing would go down drastically near the end of the year. No one wants to make an item that will be a year old next month.
A. Perhaps the year and month could be added to the item? This seems far too complex.
B. Let manufacturing be seasonal. Make dated items in the beginning of the year, ammo at the end.

3. Heavily used items would have to be new to avoid the random damage. Lightly used or likely to be destroyed items could be older models.
Falin Whalen
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#250 - 2014-09-27 16:49:41 UTC
Lena Lazair wrote:
:SNIP:

what I thought tiericide was going to do (and I think others felt this way too); provide variations around the tech 1 base point. Not across the board better, PLUS variation, as has been proposed.

Let's take the reactor control example as a simple demonstration of what I expected (and what I think many people expected):

meta 0 : Reactor Control Unit I : 1.1x, CPU 20
meta 1 : Compact Reactor Control Unit: 1.08x, CPU 16
meta 4 : Upgraded Rector Control Unit: 1.12x, CPU 21
meta 5 : Reactor Control Unit II : 1.15x, CPU 22

This has the benefit of promoting the use of tech 1 items as a balance between fitting and benefit. This of course assumes unlimited and cheap supply of the named items (e.g. no external restriction on their use), which is not necessarily a good assumption to build into the system but does seem to be borne out by current market realities.

The graph ends up like this. :SNIP:

This^^^ Oh, so much this.

Realy there is no incentive, with Fozzies plan for module teiracide, for regular tech one items to have any place in fitting choices on ships. There is no tradeoff for using the 'Compact' item. Its simply better fitting wise with no compromises to effect, and in the case of the LML is a straight up DPS boost on top of the better fiting. ( It unfortunately is outclassed by the 'Ample' as it has the same ROF increase plus a larger ammunition cappacity. )

Fozzie, should have put this up on F&I a few weeks ago, so that these concerns about the direction he's taking with this feature could be brought to light. Instead we have the Dev blog come out five days before release, and over a weekend as well, so nothing can be tweeked before actual launch of the feature.

The complaining of the names getting changed is obfuscating real fedback into how Fozzie is screwing up module tiericide, and will have to redo it all again later. This "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead." style of feature release is going to bite Fozzie in the butt, when he has to redo everything again.

"it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka 
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#251 - 2014-09-27 17:04:15 UTC
so how is this going to work for turrets? with the different sizes within each size.
Falin Whalen
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#252 - 2014-09-27 17:33:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Falin Whalen
TrouserDeagle wrote:
so how is this going to work for turrets? with the different sizes within each size.

Well if LMLs are any indication we will have two choices. One will be a 'Compact' with better fitting, the other will be an other version (Ammo bin size, range, cap use,) and both will have a ROF between T1 and T2. Those will be your two choices so get used to it.

"Everything else is going to be droped, we are only going with two named items, so screw you. I'm not changing my mind." at least that seems to be the gist of what Fozzie,is saying.

EDIT: Re read your comment, the different sizes will still be different sizes, you still will have 75mm, 125mm, and 150mm, small railguns for example.

"it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka 
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#253 - 2014-09-27 17:46:52 UTC
Falin Whalen wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:
so how is this going to work for turrets? with the different sizes within each size.

Well if LMLs are any indication we will have two choices. One will be a 'Compact' with better fitting, the other will be an other version (Ammo bin size, range, cap use,) and both will have a ROF between T1 and T2. Those will be your two choices so get used to it.

"Everything else is going to be droped, we are only going with two named items, so screw you. I'm not changing my mind." at least that seems to be the gist of what Fozzie,is saying.



something like

electrons - lower fitting
ions - tracking
neutrons - cap usage

then add some for
- range
- damage

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
Kirsanth
The Pioneers
#254 - 2014-09-27 17:52:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Kirsanth
Eve Online has always been presented as one of the most the most capitalist dystopian universes in Science Fiction to date. Even a cursory glance at backdrops of films like Blade Runner reveal mile high ads extolling the virtues of weird and everyday products (like the unforgettable geisha eating candy on the Blade Runner blimp).

This is supposed to be a universe where Joint Harvesting are bombing worlds flat so their customers half a galaxy away can enjoy Wheaty Flakes as a part of their daily nutritional balanced diet.

The new trend for naming conventions breaks this so hard its difficult to see how the corporate competition implicit in the back story can be upheld. IRL marketing companies spend billions of dollars every day making their products sound unique and desirable. Why would far future capitalists be any different.

There is a wealth of player and dev written material in Eve universe and I am confused as to why you did not jump at the chance to use it. Naming the modules after the Corporations in the Empires will be relatively simple. You could add monikers as well for added desirability. Brutor 'Havok' 200mm auto cannon anyone??

To give a helping hand, here I shall attempt to sum up, with some keywords and phrases, the main corps in the Minmatar Republic and what I believe their production interests should be. I will add also some suggestions as to what Corps I think should be associated with which modules. I'll refrain from actually naming individual items, as I don't have time. But I am sure players and devs can rise to the challenge.

For the sake of brevity (haha) I am ONLY going to do Minmatar here. I or others can do a similar exercise for the other empires too if there is interest.

This list is not exhaustive I am sure variations and crossovers could be implemented between the Empire Factions. But, initially, the idea here is to cement associations in lore for the new meta 1 items with players, new and old alike.

Minmatar: Naming convention most often associated with Viking/Norse mythology, melee weapons and Natural Disasters.

Brutor Tribe: Miltiaristic, beligerent, martial, no nonsence, hit and fade, speed, tactical

Offensive mods: 200mm, 425mm and 800mm Auto Cannon, 280mm, 720mm and 1400mm artillery, Gang Link skirmish mods
Defensive mods: Armour Plates, Armour Resistant Plating
Propulsion mods: Micro Warp Drives, Overdrive Injectors
Ewar mods: Target Painter, Warp Scrambler/Disruptors, Interdiction Spheres
Fitting mods: Reactor Controls. Auxillery-Micro Power Plant

Sebestior Tribe: Innovative, technical, precision, over engineered, lots of flashy lights, re-invention

Offensive: 125mm, dual 180mm and dual 425mm Auto Cannon, 250mm, 650mm and 1200mm Artillery, Compact Missiles Launchers,
Defensive mods: Shield Booster, Shield Amps, Remote Shield Repair, Ancillary Shield Booster
Populsion mods: Inertia Modules, Micro Jump Drive
Ewar mods: Local ECM and ECCM ladar, Stasis Webifier
Fitting mods: Diagnostic Units, Flux Capacitors, CPU upgrades.

Vherokior Tribe: Endurance, efficiency, exploration, reliable, longevity

Offensive: 150mm, 220mm and dual 650mm Auto Cannon, High Capacity Missile Launchers, Harvesting Equipment
Defensive: Shield Extenders, Shield Hardeners, Shield Re-charger, Passive Shield Hardener, Shield Relays.
Propulsion mods: After Burners, Warp Core Stabs
Ewar mods: Sensor Boosters, Passive Lock mods, Sensor Backup Arrays, Scan Probe Launchers/Probes, Scanning Upgrades.
Fitting mods: Capacitor Re-chargers, Capacitor Batteries, Cargo Expanders

Krusal Tribe: Intelligence and counter, sly, cunning, propaganda, secrecy, espionage

Offensive: Gang Links info warfare
Defensive: Cloaking Device
Propulsion mods: n/a
Ewar mods: Projected ECCM ladar, ECCM ladar Burst, Target Breaker, Cargo/Ship Scanners,
Fitting mods: n/a

Boundless Creation: New talent, niche markets, specialists, unusual tech, stolen/borrowed tech, nanite technology.

Offensive mods: Explosive damage Drones, Nuclear Smart Bombs
Defensive mods: Damage Control Units, Local and Remote Armour Repairers, Active Armour Hardeners, Nanite Paste, Energized Armour Plating, Ancillary Armour Repairer
Propulsion mods: Warp Accelerators, Jump Drive Economisers
Ewar mods: Tracking Enhancers/Disruptor
Fitting: Cap Power Relay, Cap Boosters

Six Kin: Construction, builders, rugged, tough, usually associated with large scale construction like POS and Gates.

Offensive mods: Deployable Turrets all projectile types, Salvagers, Tractor Beam units
Defensive mods: Deployable Shield Explosive Resistance Units, Reinforced Bulkheads
Propulsion mods: Minmatar Gate Technology, Nanofiber Bulkheads, Deployable Micro Jump Drive
Ewar: Deployable Ladar Jamming Array
Fitting mods: n/a (they are more interested in building big stuff like ship interiors and stations)

Eifier and Co: Bio engineering, narcotics, clone technolgy

Generally they have a niche market already with implants. SO no need to expand with modules, but boosters could be expanded upon with associations with this corp.

There are other corps in the Republic but I can imagine they will be making cheap knockoffs , sub-contracting to the main corps or being interested in other stuff that's more PI oriented or some other industry or undertaking.

p.s. +1 and my thanks if you actually read to the end of this post

{edit} If modules are cross overs between empires like missile launchers, they could have the same stats but different names eg:
Sebestior Compact Light Missile Launcher and Ishukone Compact Light Missile Launcher would be identicle in all respects except they will appear in different loot tablesdepending on where the NPCs are.

Taken further we could even have random billboard ads on gates for various corps and thier products.
Nike Andedare
Diamond Command
#255 - 2014-09-27 18:29:07 UTC
Adding my two cents to the pot.

The idea at fanfest is needed, but after reviewing the blog there is clearly some community concern. The names don't feel right; I agree with the approach, but I believe you can do better; Restrained is a poor naming word. Yes you want to have differences IE Enduring may be too similar sounding to Efficient, not to mention being Compact can be taken as Efficient, but I know your team can do better!

Chopping out the scaling meta system is nice and all, but remember they are used as a sorting tool when you changed the inventory, I hope you will be putting in the option to make filters via variant, and don't leave out the idea of just putting a code letter or two in front of the module name and having the variant under the attributes tab (keeps names shorter and maybe not break the original sense of immersion). Back to the meta numbering, its just a cop-out to leave empty "meta slots." Since there is no scale anymore, you should not have spaces left. You want things to be compared on the same levels of T1, T2 and T3 power then just have those 3 levels! Then you can sort by the variances. The major problem I see some arguing is you'd have to put Faction/Navy along side T2 and Dead space/officer modules in the T3 level, but that would feel smoother overall. COSMOS, needs to know what it is before I can give an opinion of where it falls in... or maybe there can be COSMOS in each Tech level since they can be such snowflakes.

Its great you are removing redundancy and useless modules, streamlining module categories across all types, but I am not sure it will make less work for the players in the end, especially if you want us to have the ability to make them all in the future.

There are so many ways to go about implementing how and where a researcher or producer could add or modify the basic blueprint or module to be a variant, just keep simplicity in mind (along with # of clicks) when going through this process. I know this is foresight, but just looking out for the whole road map Fozzie.
Guttripper
State War Academy
Caldari State
#256 - 2014-09-27 19:15:24 UTC
*reads the various replies...

CCP knows what they are doing - just ask them. Twisted
Shin Dari
Covert Brigade
#257 - 2014-09-27 19:43:47 UTC

This module teiracide doesn't really help the market problem, here is my suggestion to improve that part of the concept:


[Meta Salvage]
Remove named module drops from NPC wrecks and replace their value with additional salvage: meta salvage.

How I think it should be: Light Missile Launcher Blueprint + Minerals + Meta Salvage* = Named Light Missile Launcher
* The amount of Meta Salvage needed for production is determined by the module size class.

Example:
System type - Meta effect - Meta Salvage Item - Salvaged from
Missile Launcher - reduced fitting - Malkuth Bay Regulator - Guristas Pirates
Missile Launcher - extra capacity - Limos Launcher Bay - Caldari State
Missile Launcher - longer range - Arbalest Missile FCS - Mordu's Legion


Right now there aren't any real big differences in the salvage drop tables. But this gives us the opportunity to give each NPC faction their own unique salvage drops. Also this will allow us to keep some of the old names.
This will reduce the excess quantity modules on the market and will make sure that named modules will cost more then meta 0 counterparts. The market will then be a lot healthier and now the players will really make nearly all the modules on the market.

AssandTits
Doomheim
#258 - 2014-09-27 20:15:21 UTC
DEVS still in hiding? Yup time to start the account consolidation and start putting asside the sub fees for other games.
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#259 - 2014-09-27 20:30:20 UTC
Francisco Vazquez Garcia wrote:
Krodes Thara wrote:
For sure having 5 faction modules with same stats is not confusing and it is good game design...
What about the lore with each faction excelling in something? Are you going to trow all that away?
I'm okay with the rest somehow, but faction modules should have different qualities and uses.


I second that.

Would be very nice if faction that excel in 1 field (like amarr - armor, gallente - drones, thukkers - navigation) would offer the more powerful faction items, while the other ones would focus on reduced fitting requirements or have a less powerful version, simmilar to the very rare storyline items.


I'd honestly be perfectly happy if they just condensed all identical faction items into single items with unique but more generic names. Instead of Domination, True Sansha, and Republic Fleet Light Missile Launchers that are all identical, just condense that into a single item called "Engineered Light Missile Launcher" or something and have all 3 LP stores provide the same item. This would be another place where CCP could keep flavor in names in the game while still fixing the current super-confusing state of having multiple faction modules that are all identical.

I really think that CCP trying to find a unique niche for every single faction variant currently out there alongside tech 1, named, tech 2, deadspace, and officer variations is perhaps "trying too hard". The current variety/balance in faction/deadspace/officer modules seems to be working quite well and is balanced cleanly around the scarcity/cost of those items. We don't need to niche those faction items further; just condense the naming to something slightly more generic and unify the itemIDs.
Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#260 - 2014-09-27 21:14:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Primary This Rifter
Damn... what made you think that five days was going to be enough to talk about these proposed changes?