Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I like this openness about a bunch of the process.

I also like how you are sounding out a revolutionary pass after this evolutionary pass for balance.

Which is good, as faction would otherwise eliminate much of the use of t2 and meta modules. While cost as an absolute isn't a balancing factor, price efficiency is. If you get x value for y isk, or you get x+5% value for 35y isk, there are reasons to choose both for different applications. Like if y is a small enough number relative to your isk and you need that ship to do better, then 35y for better performance is a no brainer. On the other hand, if fit q with module p that costs y for x performance is slated to die by the dozens daily, then faction for mod p is almost out of the question for most people/groups.

Hopefully, you can understand player frustration here.

CCP as a company quite often flip-flops between "we don't want to just kick the can down the road" (the POS revamp being a recent example) and "we'll get back to this later" (constantly pushing supercap rebalance into the future being a recurring example). The first is the occasional recognition from devs that -- as a company -- your record on follow-up isn't the greatest. The second -- which you as a company pull out more often, including this time -- obviously perpetuates this belief.

Thus, the frustration and skepticism players feel.

I really appreciate the responsiveness to the player base. I'm fairly certain no other gaming company would plan changes, show them to the players and then tweak them almost instantly based off of player input.

It's nice to say "Once all the modules go through a tiericide we can come back and take a look." Unfortunately, that is a long way off. Ship tiericide and rebalancing started years ago and we still have 8+ ship groups that need still need to be redone and many others that are still waiting a second pass. How many years until module tiericide is done? How many years before any modules are revisited? I have no idea. Could you possibly give us a date at which a these modules might be revisited by?

When CCP sold players the vision of 5-6 week expansions they made it clear that if something took more time that expected to do right then it could very easily be pushed off until the next expansion. Take the time and do it right. Push these changes off until you get the best solution in place. Spend that extra design time and effort to do the radical redesign. It will be much easier to sell the leadership on giving you the time to do a second look that is merely tweaking modules than it will be to sell a second look that redoes all of the modules again. You have these 5-6 week expansions so you can do things right, and do them right the first time. Take advantage of it. Please take advantage of it.

Non sense look at the Ishtar, they refuse to fix the issue and just make it where it is the only viable ship for sentries more so than an Armageddon which is a drone boat BATTLESHIP no less. Instead they rather make pretty little stations and new ship models (still good but not important) instead of fix what actually pissed people off more.

They acknowledge it is a problem, and that sentries on ishtars and other drone boats, particularly 125 bandwidth cruisers (vexor, navy vexor, ishtar) are both a problem, and are iterating on it in just about every release, and seem intent on doing so until it is fixed by making more, smaller but faster and more precisely targeted balance changes, just like the change from biannual releases to 6 week releases with a smaller 1.1 patch to most 6 week patches at the end of the 2nd week of deployment of the 6 week patches was intended to do.

First off I wanted to say, at least there will finally be a module tiericide that won't force me to sell all of my used to be meta 4's to buy what used to be meta 2's because CCP felt that the less fitting requirement that the old meta 4's used to have was better swapped with the meta 2's. So at least this time I can keep all my F-S9 Regolith extenders for their fitting benefits.

Second... what is with the war on screen space by making module names even longer than they were before? I understand the desire to add flavor and lore, but isn't there a description tab in the info window that would be a better place to flesh out the lore of a particular flavor of item instead of in the name? For example the new "400mm Rolled Tungsten Compact Plates" compared to the old "400mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates". Seeing how all plates were called "XXmm Reinforced", the only unique part of the name we ever needed was "Rolled Tungsten". So now you feel that its not enough that we know the Rolled Tungsten plates are the best for fitting, you have to throw "Compact" into the name as added redundancy to address confusion that isn't even there. Yeah, when CCP first started doing these module changes and were nerfing the old meta 4's and replacing them with buffed meta 2's nobody used they must have felt the need to make sure we knew what was best about the "new" modules. But as long as they keep the module's use and practicality the same they wouldn't need to fluff the name with all the extra screen clutter. I can only make the left side of the market window so big...

It makes far more sense to keep the compact/restrained part of the name and get rid of the old flavor names. Also, they need to get rid of the quotes around the storyline item names. This naming scheme below makes more sense to me.

1600mm Armor Plates I
1600mm Compact Armor Plates
1600mm Restrained Armor Plates
1600mm Armor Plates II
1600mm Bailey Armor Plates
1600mm Syndicate Armor Plates
1600mm Federation Navy Armor Plates
1600mm Imperial Navy Armor Plates

Maybe there are better reasons to keep the order the same, but I would prefer to see simpler and shorter names.

I kind of agree, but also was one of many who missed the old flavor names. Perhaps they could be buried in description text. Still, I like many of the flavor names. They help with market searches, due to their uniqueness.