EVE Information Portal

Wrong.

If you had bothered to read this thread before posting you would know that this is incorrect.

Please supply details of the player survey that shows this.

A few %??? 20% is not "a few" - and even that, from one module, could be the difference between death and survival. Never escaped with less than 20% structure? I certainly have.

Slap on 5 of those and you lose about ⅔ of your structure, which is not "a few %" by any stretch of the imagination.

If you have never seen a player survey on the subject there is no way you can assert that "Few will use anything but T2 Cargoholds or above, unless it's a matter of skill requirements."


I am always amazed at the number of posters on these forums who think that their opinion/playstyle must automatically represent all but an insignificant minority.

Changing the velocity penalty to an inertia modifier could be an option we could look in to before the release. The hitpoints penalty can certainly be a factor though currently and would be something we want to keep.
As for having different penalties for each module, this goes against the structure of all other module types and would be something we most likely would not do.

Odd statement considering you imply that your opinion is superior to anyone that disagrees with you.

My "opinions" are based on a significant amount of playtime since the game was released (I've been playing since 2003 on the majority of my characters), with a vast majority of it being nullsec/wormhole logistics, before Jump Freighters, Jump Bridges and all that nonsense...when the ONLY thing that saved you from getting ganked was the fleet you brought with you and/or long scout chain....and even then it wasn't a guarantee.

I can tell you with certainty that none of the logistics folks that I worked with EVER looked at max velocity or structure points when they fit their haulers. We always, ALWAYS, fit out with max cargo capacity in mind, regardless of cost. Time to warp would be a significant consideration, however, as that is the sole determining factor if you can get away from the gate in time. You would then have to take risk vs reward into consideration when fitting for a particular role.

And I said "normally" a few % doesn't matter, because in my line of work, if they lock onto you, you are dead regardless.

Please consider merging meta-4 into T2 also for inert stabs and nanofibers as the primary stats are the same. It will still be a nerf compared to current fit options because of the stronger drawbacks but not that breaking as merging into the new much worse meta-1.

I'm curious: why use different naming methods for some of the modules within a single group?

Example:

Inertia Stabilizer I
Type-D Restrained Inertial Stabilizer

Why the extra "L" in the meta module's name? Why not just name all of them in one way or the other? The current implementation idea would seem to me to be counter-intuitive in terms of module name unification.

.d

The thing with Module Tiericide is that it's a thing that can be done purely by designers, so this doesn't cut into programming hours towards the sorts of things you describe. So in this case we can have both.

Happy New Year to you too

Returning player here. My sentiments pretty much fall in line with Valterra Craven (post #94) and MBizon Osis (Post #152).

I will miss the meta 1-4 modules. In the old days you could find a sweet spot mixing modules for your fit. You work around limitations in the hull and the best module was not always the higher meta for that hull. I still see some of that in the new system.
I understand with the re-balancing a lot of modules were not really relevant and were not being used but now we have nothing between 0-5 and a series of shinies above. I would say the naming /database needed some cleaning but throwing something out does not equal fixing it. Change is good went its done for a reason to improve play or to solve a problem...not so good when its done for its own sake or just to make something old new again. The whole 5+ metas simply form the new 0-5 metas

I remember when a eccm was a must have module for any pirate to counter the ecm defense of the prey but but warfare was different then, bloodlines meant something etc. Variety can be good too.

While you are rebalancing the stats, consider whether or not it really makes sense to have modules which cost less than 10K ISK, and/or reprocess for less than 1K. Some modules can even be bought for 1 ISK, because they drop so frequently and aren't even worth the effort of picking up and reprocessing.

Back before ship tiericide, when several frigates had sub-100K - even sub-50K - prices, these sorts of prices made sense, but not so much today, esp. since players also have a lot more ISK in pocket. I remember when 1M ISK was a lot for a new player, but it is just chump change now.

Anyways, something to think about, since these high-quantity, low-value modules are the ones which also tend to be infrequently used, bought or sold - yet contribute to cluttering up the database.

CCP,
I have a possible solution that would cater to both the players who are upset by this change, and your need to simplify the naming scheme. With all due respect, I think you are making a big mistake by taking complexity (choice) out of the last MMO that offers an abundance of intellectual and challenging game-play that gamers like myself have come to expect from you.

Possible solution: Add an additional name to the soon to be deleted /consolidated modules as to give them a designation for your naming scheme consistency, while retaining the freedom and choice to fit a ship to your personal/affordable standards.
bad example - Meta0=substandard, Meta 1=used, Meta 2=upgraded ... and so on.
Choice should = fun and not confusion and on this note I agree with you CCP, but if you take away the choice, you take away the fun.

Having to use faction or better to obtain a meta4 fit (that you as an intellectual gamer took the time to research) is indeed the wrong solution. With the additional name, those who are min/maxers can still take pride in their fits while those who don't care...won't care, and CCP you can have your naming consistency changed = EVERYBODY wins.

Go with what Akemon Numon described in the post above me, or discus my idea...please do not take complexity out of this game. Complexity and intelligent decision processes when deciding how to fit your ship are, in my opinion, a huge selling point for the players.

while I agree that it doesn't really make sense to introduce other penalties, I do agree that the concept of trade offs is being completely ignored and that I would like to see some option presented rather than the more or less non-option of t1/meta/t2. back when I first started the cost/benefit choice was present on most modules, now the price of t2 is so low on most items, and meta is in such supply that for most items cost/benefit is rarely a consideration, and it mostly comes down to cap use and/or fitting issues. Also with the ship teiricide I feel that most ships have a ton of fitting room.

so for say cargo expanders I would expect
meta 0 -25% Hull hp +20% cargo -10% velocity (reasonable base stats, that aren't the worst in every way)
meta 1 -15% Hull hp +25% cargo -15% velocity (reduce one penalty, increase bonus, increase other penalty)
meta 2 -17.5% hull HP +22.50% cargo -9% velocity (smaller reduced penalty, smaller increase bonus, reduced other penalty)
meta 4 -35% hull HP +30% cargo -20% velocity (big bonus, big penalties)
meta 5 -20% hull HP +27.5% cargo -10% velocity (in general pretty good all around)

I'll admit I'm mostly just thinking out loud here, but its cargo expanders I'm having trouble thinking about them too much. but in my mind meta 0 needs to be useful in some respect other than it is super easy to make, as these days even t2 seems easy to make. I feel like I would expect meta 4 to provide a larger bonus than t2, but also a much larger draw back. then again they are cargo expanders, if we just got rid of every variant and only had t2 I probably wouldn't care. but I'm more thinking about other mods where I do care, and/or think some choice is important. There are a ton of just useless mods out there that I really wouldn't mind seeing gone.

what I am really curious is how you plan to balance something like damage controls, or warp scramblers, where meta 4 is valuable and still has some cost/benefit associated, where meta 3 pretty much suffices for fitting reasons, although meta 1/2 aren't very desirable. Although with a damage control the benefits from tech 2 greater than with meta 4. but with the warp scrambler I think the meta 4 is the same or better on each stat compared to tech 2.