These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Updated] [June] Module Tiericide - Armor Plates and Shield Extenders

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Daemun Khanid
Corbeau de sang
#161 - 2015-05-28 20:08:53 UTC
Med shield extenders like 400 plates are really frigate modules anyway. The name is just decieving since we associate med turrents and modules as cruiser items. Imo either the names should be upshifted (since micro-extenders are getting removed) or just do a complete rename.

Daemun of Khanid
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#162 - 2015-05-29 06:42:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Spugg Galdon
Daemun Khanid wrote:
Med shield extenders like 400 plates are really frigate modules anyway. The name is just decieving since we associate med turrents and modules as cruiser items. Imo either the names should be upshifted (since micro-extenders are getting removed) or just do a complete rename.



Which is why I think all modules that have a "sized name" should be changed.

For example, small shield extenders should be called something like 500 GW Shield Extenders. Mediums 1000 GW Shield extenders and large called 2000 GW Shield Extenders.

We don't have small medium and large prop mods or small medium and large armour plates. The sizing names are misleading and make people think that they should be fit to certain sized ships.


EDIT: Excluding weapons because of reasons
Anthar Thebess
#163 - 2015-05-29 08:23:52 UTC
Spugg Galdon wrote:
Daemun Khanid wrote:
Med shield extenders like 400 plates are really frigate modules anyway. The name is just decieving since we associate med turrents and modules as cruiser items. Imo either the names should be upshifted (since micro-extenders are getting removed) or just do a complete rename.



Which is why I think all modules that have a "sized name" should be changed.

For example, small shield extenders should be called something like 500 GW Shield Extenders. Mediums 1000 GW Shield extenders and large called 2000 GW Shield Extenders.

We don't have small medium and large prop mods or small medium and large armour plates. The sizing names are misleading and make people think that they should be fit to certain sized ships.


EDIT: Excluding weapons because of reasons

Lol.
Why?
No need to change names again.

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#164 - 2015-05-29 19:25:43 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Spugg Galdon wrote:
Daemun Khanid wrote:
Med shield extenders like 400 plates are really frigate modules anyway. The name is just decieving since we associate med turrents and modules as cruiser items. Imo either the names should be upshifted (since micro-extenders are getting removed) or just do a complete rename.



Which is why I think all modules that have a "sized name" should be changed.

For example, small shield extenders should be called something like 500 GW Shield Extenders. Mediums 1000 GW Shield extenders and large called 2000 GW Shield Extenders.

We don't have small medium and large prop mods or small medium and large armour plates. The sizing names are misleading and make people think that they should be fit to certain sized ships.


EDIT: Excluding weapons because of reasons

Lol.
Why?
No need to change names again.



You clearly don't "get it".

If the modules didn't have the pre-fix "Small/Medium/Large" people wouldn't associate them to specific sized ships so much. "Oversizing" modules to ship type wouldn't exist as it would simply be a case of "that ship has the fitting room for that particular module in this setup".
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#165 - 2015-06-01 17:50:29 UTC
Spugg Galdon wrote:
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Spugg Galdon wrote:
Daemun Khanid wrote:
Med shield extenders like 400 plates are really frigate modules anyway. The name is just decieving since we associate med turrents and modules as cruiser items. Imo either the names should be upshifted (since micro-extenders are getting removed) or just do a complete rename.



Which is why I think all modules that have a "sized name" should be changed.

For example, small shield extenders should be called something like 500 GW Shield Extenders. Mediums 1000 GW Shield extenders and large called 2000 GW Shield Extenders.

We don't have small medium and large prop mods or small medium and large armour plates. The sizing names are misleading and make people think that they should be fit to certain sized ships.


EDIT: Excluding weapons because of reasons

Lol.
Why?
No need to change names again.



You clearly don't "get it".

If the modules didn't have the pre-fix "Small/Medium/Large" people wouldn't associate them to specific sized ships so much. "Oversizing" modules to ship type wouldn't exist as it would simply be a case of "that ship has the fitting room for that particular module in this setup".



and people still call putting a 100mn afterburner on a cruiser over sizing the prop mod.
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
#166 - 2015-06-01 23:02:21 UTC
probag Bear wrote:
Please reconsider the unsurpassable nerf to " 'Bailey' 1600mm Steel Plates ".

They are currently a sub-par, ~600mil, version of normal 1600mm Steel Plates. As killmail data shows, they are nearly completely unused; the number of ships lost using this particular module is on the order of magnitude of a dozen a year.

What killmail data does not show is the one single fit that fuels nearly 100% of the demand for 'Bailey' 1600mm Steel Plates: the dual-plated, dual-ENAM, dual-trimarked, full slave linked Rapier. The reason it does not show up on killboards is because it is not used by people who engage into fights they would lose; only smart people use this fit, so there are close to no losses.

The dual-plated, dual-ENAM, dual-trimarked, full slave Rapier is literally the only ship fitting that makes use of this module. With your proposed PWG change to the module, you are making impossible roughly all of the ships flown with this module fit. And given the extremely high price of the module, there will be no fit to step up to the plate and make this module worth using again.


tl;dr:
Looking at historical market and kill-mail data, by nerfing 'Bailey' 1600mm Steel Plates, you are making the one and only common fit that uses this module impossible, and thus eliminating ~98.5% of the total demand for the module.
Given its enormous price and mediocre new stats, there will be no fit on any ship at all that this module will be worth using on. It will go from one of the very few Storyline modules to have a dominant niche to another Storyline module that is never, ever, used.


At one time the 'Bailey' 1600mm Steel Plates used to a popular choice for those doing Incursions with armour tanked ships. I'm not sure if that is the case now.

" 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. ' .
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
#167 - 2015-06-01 23:18:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Suitonia wrote:
I have a question in regards to COSMOS/Storyline Faction Plates and Extenders, why are the fitting requirements for these being increased and in several instances being harder to fit than the 'compact' meta variants. I thought that Storyline/Cosmos was supposed to have the best fitting requirements?


When the MLUs were 'iterated' recently the storyline ones were given better stats in terms of performance and not just better fitting stats. To my mind this is how it should be with all COSMOS and 'storyline' modules. For the most part COSMOS and 'storyline' modules are very hard to build due to the rarity factor of materials and BPCs and the perilous nature of the locations where the materials are sourced.

T2 modules are, to coin a phrase, as common as muck to acquire so it would seem logical to place COSMOS & Storyline modules in between T2 and Faction in terms of performance AND fittings stats. This would also make the COSMOS system and modules part of the game again whereas at the moment they are largely ignored.

" 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. ' .
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
#168 - 2015-06-01 23:56:47 UTC
That 1600 Rolled Tungsten mass addition... Shocked




Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?
Anthar Thebess
#169 - 2015-06-02 09:39:17 UTC
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:
That 1600 Rolled Tungsten mass addition... Shocked


Wormhole gangs will need to rethink their setups.
I guess it will be Faction Plates + med grade slave sets.

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#170 - 2015-06-02 18:00:46 UTC
i like the options now, even if you lose a sizeable chunk when you add in rigs for HP, maybe a little too much, but also brings up other issues of the sig radius of shield ships and the extra sig rigs add on top can make the restrained option not as strong as it ought too be, and cbc's badly need a sig reduction, shield fit drakes and brutix's, vultures etc having battleship sig when fitted is just plain wrong.

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
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#171 - 2015-06-02 21:21:56 UTC
Removed an off topic post.

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode

Senior Lead

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department
Iyacia Cyric'ai
Lai Dai Counterintelligence
#172 - 2015-06-03 02:42:53 UTC
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:
That 1600 Rolled Tungsten mass addition... Shocked




I guess you could say, it got rolled. YEAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!




I'll see myself out.
Elwha Lynx
The Icarus Expedition
Solyaris Chtonium
#173 - 2015-06-03 20:54:19 UTC
Respectfully I'm rather disappointed that in April they modified mods using an improved naming convention, only to completely disregard the improvement by June.

For example, if you market search for say "large shield extender" you entirely miss several flavors because of the inconsistent naming convention.

It's a missed opportunity to simplify the game that I hope gets reconsidered in the future. TY.
Xequecal
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#174 - 2015-06-04 11:23:10 UTC
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn wrote:
probag Bear wrote:
Please reconsider the unsurpassable nerf to " 'Bailey' 1600mm Steel Plates ".

They are currently a sub-par, ~600mil, version of normal 1600mm Steel Plates. As killmail data shows, they are nearly completely unused; the number of ships lost using this particular module is on the order of magnitude of a dozen a year.

What killmail data does not show is the one single fit that fuels nearly 100% of the demand for 'Bailey' 1600mm Steel Plates: the dual-plated, dual-ENAM, dual-trimarked, full slave linked Rapier. The reason it does not show up on killboards is because it is not used by people who engage into fights they would lose; only smart people use this fit, so there are close to no losses.

The dual-plated, dual-ENAM, dual-trimarked, full slave Rapier is literally the only ship fitting that makes use of this module. With your proposed PWG change to the module, you are making impossible roughly all of the ships flown with this module fit. And given the extremely high price of the module, there will be no fit to step up to the plate and make this module worth using again.


tl;dr:
Looking at historical market and kill-mail data, by nerfing 'Bailey' 1600mm Steel Plates, you are making the one and only common fit that uses this module impossible, and thus eliminating ~98.5% of the total demand for the module.
Given its enormous price and mediocre new stats, there will be no fit on any ship at all that this module will be worth using on. It will go from one of the very few Storyline modules to have a dominant niche to another Storyline module that is never, ever, used.


At one time the 'Bailey' 1600mm Steel Plates used to a popular choice for those doing Incursions with armour tanked ships. I'm not sure if that is the case now.


His entire complaint is baseless as well, using one of each of the new Bailey plates and Imperial Navy plates results in more armor HP with 1x trimark 1x ACR II than 2x Bailey plates currently give with 2x trimarks.