These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123
 

Shield Power relay
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#41 - 2011-09-23 20:50:19 UTC
Goose99 wrote:
The fact that certain faction guns are in less demand than nonfunctional mines proves it's unbalanced compared to cheaply available t2 variants.
Not really, no, since you're not comparing the class of items.
Collection items are not a useful point of comparison to stuff people actually use. My cheese grater offers an insanely high price/performance ratio compared to the Mona Lisa…

So the questions remain: what balance? How is it broken? And why is it a problem that people choose to pay more for what you consider less function? What, in short, is the problem?
Quote:
If they're balanced, people would be using them.
…and obviously, people are using them, so by your undisclosed definition of balance, they're fine.
Goose99
#42 - 2011-09-23 20:57:24 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Goose99 wrote:
The fact that certain faction guns are in less demand than nonfunctional mines proves it's unbalanced compared to cheaply available t2 variants.
Not really, no, since you're not comparing the class of items.
Collection items are not a useful point of comparison to stuff people actually use. My cheese grater offers an insanely high price/performance ratio compared to the Mona Lisa…

So the questions remain: what balance? How is it broken? And why is it a problem that people choose to pay more for what you consider less function? What, in short, is the problem?
Quote:
If they're balanced, people would be using them.
…and obviously, people are using them, so by your undisclosed definition of balance, they're fine.


Of course they're not. When was the last time you saw people using lower tier small and medium faction ACs. Their trade volume is even less than nonfunctional mines. Thus, they're unbalanced.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#43 - 2011-09-23 21:04:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Goose99 wrote:
Of course they're not.
So they're a collector's item then? Then what's the problem? Are you saying that they should be even rarer so they get a proper collection price?
Quote:
Their trade volume is even less than nonfunctional mines.
Irrelevant.
Quote:
Thus, they're unbalanced.
Non sequitur.

The more you post, the more the questions remain: what balance? How is it broken? And why is it a problem that people choose to pay more for what you consider less function? What, in short, is the problem? The mere fact that you are seemingly unable to answer these rather simple questions increasingly suggest that there is no problem whatsoever beyond (maybe) your expectations…
Goose99
#44 - 2011-09-23 21:07:33 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Goose99 wrote:
Of course they're not.
So they're a collector's item then? Then what's the problem? Are you saying that they should be even rarer so they get a proper collection price?
Quote:
Their trade volume is even less than nonfunctional mines.
Irrelevant.
Quote:
Thus, they're unbalanced.
Non sequitur. In what way are they unbalanced?


In your words, t2 meta 5 guns made meta 6+ faction guns collectors' items. Thus, they're unbalanced.Cool
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#45 - 2011-09-23 21:13:40 UTC
Goose99 wrote:
In your words,
No.
Quote:
t2 meta 5 guns made meta 6+ faction guns collectors' items.
Are they? If so, what's the problem?
Quote:
Thus,
No, it does not follow.
Quote:
they're unbalanced.
The questions remain: what balance? How is it broken? And why is it a problem that people choose to pay more for what you consider less function? What, in short, is the problem?
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#46 - 2011-09-23 22:49:59 UTC
Just one small difference with the faction guns vs tech IIs. They're easier to use. When you get to large guns, about 90 days easier to use.

For some people, that's worth the money.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Col Arran
Doomheim
#47 - 2011-09-23 23:03:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Col Arran
I wasn't going to post in this again but it was just killing me how off-topic this had gotten.



Ok to get this back on track from what my OP was. This post wasn't about other modules like T2 guns vs meta 13s or any T2 mod vs its meta 13 for that matter.

The original concern was about a Meta 4 mod giving a better, or the same, bonus than a T2 (Meta 5) one while the T2 mod requires far more training.

The OP wasn't about the cost of a mod at all. If people want to pay more for a module like a Meta 13 that costs 100Mil that gives a good bonus then they're more than welcome to it.

My problem is with a Meta 4 being better than a meta 5 that requires more training. I could care less about the cost of the item what I'm concerned with is the training. How exactly can a pilot use a module with 6 hours of training that's better than a module that requires 2 days or training, you see my point?

I hammered on the training time because that is my main problem. I will restate, Cost can be whatever players decide is worth it for that module, but training time is a system set by CCP and it appears they are not following that model.
Goose99
#48 - 2011-09-24 00:45:07 UTC
Col Arran wrote:
I wasn't going to post in this again but it was just killing me how off-topic this had gotten.



Ok to get this back on track from what my OP was. This post wasn't about other modules like T2 guns vs meta 13s or any T2 mod vs its meta 13 for that matter.

The original concern was about a Meta 4 mod giving a better, or the same, bonus than a T2 (Meta 5) one while the T2 mod requires far more training.

The OP wasn't about the cost of a mod at all. If people want to pay more for a module like a Meta 13 that costs 100Mil that gives a good bonus then they're more than welcome to it.

My problem is with a Meta 4 being better than a meta 5 that requires more training. I could care less about the cost of the item what I'm concerned with is the training. How exactly can a pilot use a module with 6 hours of training that's better than a module that requires 2 days or training, you see my point?

I hammered on the training time because that is my main problem. I will restate, Cost can be whatever players decide is worth it for that module, but training time is a system set by CCP and it appears they are not following that model.


So, you're going to be a hypocrite, and only care about unbalancing when it affects you? Right...
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
#49 - 2011-09-24 00:56:56 UTC
Col Arran wrote:
I wasn't going to post in this again but it was just killing me how off-topic this had gotten.


Welcome to Ships and Modules.

Col Arran wrote:
The original concern was about a Meta 4 mod giving a better, or the same, bonus than a T2 (Meta 5) one while the T2 mod requires far more training.

The OP wasn't about the cost of a mod at all. If people want to pay more for a module like a Meta 13 that costs 100Mil that gives a good bonus then they're more than welcome to it.

My problem is with a Meta 4 being better than a meta 5 that requires more training. I could care less about the cost of the item what I'm concerned with is the training. How exactly can a pilot use a module with 6 hours of training that's better than a module that requires 2 days or training, you see my point?

I hammered on the training time because that is my main problem. I will restate, Cost can be whatever players decide is worth it for that module, but training time is a system set by CCP and it appears they are not following that model.


I'll play Tippia then: what is the nature of the problem you've identified? More training opens up an option for a module that is widely, if not universally, available (and yes, the availability drives down the price, but that's a secondary effect). Beta SPRs drop from, what, BR and Sansha rats? Occasionally? Whereas T2s can be invented/manufactured anywhere, anytime. You're still training for convenience.

Which may not be worth much to you as an individual. Maybe you have all the Beta SPRs you'll ever need stashed away already. In which case, access to T2 SPRs is not an incentive to train EGU 4. However, it's far from the only incentive to train EGU 4; it's a core fitting skill for a reason. (We can debate whether RCU IIs are, in fact, the only real incentive to get EGU 5 another time.)

So.... You get convenience. You can skip out on training, but training is a benefit in and of itself to start with. What's the issue?
Col Arran
Doomheim
#50 - 2011-09-24 01:21:08 UTC
Goose99 wrote:
Col Arran wrote:
I wasn't going to post in this again but it was just killing me how off-topic this had gotten.



Ok to get this back on track from what my OP was. This post wasn't about other modules like T2 guns vs meta 13s or any T2 mod vs its meta 13 for that matter.

The original concern was about a Meta 4 mod giving a better, or the same, bonus than a T2 (Meta 5) one while the T2 mod requires far more training.

The OP wasn't about the cost of a mod at all. If people want to pay more for a module like a Meta 13 that costs 100Mil that gives a good bonus then they're more than welcome to it.

My problem is with a Meta 4 being better than a meta 5 that requires more training. I could care less about the cost of the item what I'm concerned with is the training. How exactly can a pilot use a module with 6 hours of training that's better than a module that requires 2 days or training, you see my point?

I hammered on the training time because that is my main problem. I will restate, Cost can be whatever players decide is worth it for that module, but training time is a system set by CCP and it appears they are not following that model.


So, you're going to be a hypocrite, and only care about unbalancing when it affects you? Right...



Hmm I'd like you to expand on that statement a bit, I don't see how I'm being hypocritical.

Hypocrite, noun: a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

Obviously I'm assuming that instead of the aforementioned traits you mean to say that I want what benefits me and me only.

Let me show you another definition.

Selfish, adjective: devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.

That sounds a lot more like what you wanted to say, but who am I to think what's in your mind I can only read what you type.

But anyway back to your statement, I'd be a hypocrite if I was calling for the buff of a Tech 2 mod I was using but denouncing the buff of another Tech 2 buff someone else was using. If you will notice I've focused on the module I happened to notice and I'm not really bringing any other modules at all. So please explain to me how that is hypocrisy in your mind.

Zhilia Mann wrote:
I'll play Tippia then: what is the nature of the problem you've identified? More training opens up an option for a module that is widely, if not universally, available (and yes, the availability drives down the price, but that's a secondary effect). Beta SPRs drop from, what, BR and Sansha rats? Occasionally? Whereas T2s can be invented/manufactured anywhere, anytime. You're still training for convenience.

Which may not be worth much to you as an individual. Maybe you have all the Beta SPRs you'll ever need stashed away already. In which case, access to T2 SPRs is not an incentive to train EGU 4. However, it's far from the only incentive to train EGU 4; it's a core fitting skill for a reason. (We can debate whether RCU IIs are, in fact, the only real incentive to get EGU 5 another time.)

So.... You get convenience. You can skip out on training, but training is a benefit in and of itself to start with. What's the issue?


This is the first good clear statement I've seen in this thread.

While one mod in itself may not be that big of an incentive to train to Tech2 there are other mods that fill the gap. I can easily see that, but, what I don't see is why it uses more CPU than the Meta 4 mod with no added bonus. You see what I'm saying? Why does it have to use more CPU? Why not make it use the same CPU as of right now there is NO incentive to use the Tech 2 at all and the Meta 4 price has become massively inflated from what it "should be" based on its performance (I put that in quotes because what should be is very subjective).

So in summary why does the Tech 2 use more CPU than the meta 4 with no added bonus.

(forget training, forget ISK cost, forget everything and just answer me that question)
Goose99
#51 - 2011-09-24 01:27:56 UTC
Col Arran wrote:

Selfish, adjective: devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.

If you will notice I've focused on the module I happened to notice and I'm not really bringing any other modules at all. So please explain to me how that is hypocrisy in your mind.


That is exactly the hypocrisy. You only want to fix imbalance when it affects you, but don't care about bigger imbalances which doesn't harm you.
DarkAegix
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#52 - 2011-09-24 01:29:35 UTC
I wish there were some kind of use for T2 armour plates.
Instead of being worse in nearly every respect, they could offer a tiny bit more hp at the cost of more mass and fitting.
Col Arran
Doomheim
#53 - 2011-09-24 01:37:03 UTC
Goose99 wrote:
Col Arran wrote:

Selfish, adjective: devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.

If you will notice I've focused on the module I happened to notice and I'm not really bringing any other modules at all. So please explain to me how that is hypocrisy in your mind.


That is exactly the hypocrisy. You only want to fix imbalance when it affects you, but don't care about bigger imbalances which doesn't harm you.


Who says I don't care about them? I'm just trying to keep this thread on track with what it was originally intended to be about. I didn't intend for this thread to be an every module imbalance thread. If I wanted to talk about that I'd make a thread called that.

I do want all the imbalances fixed in the game and you have no right to tell me what I want, what I think or what I care about. To have such an attitude is pretentious, shallow and frankly, idiotic.

FYI I've been playing EvE for about a month and I don't play the game like its my profession. I don't know about all the other imbalances, changes etc. Perhaps you could have thought about that before posting?
Goose99
#54 - 2011-09-24 02:12:10 UTC
Col Arran wrote:
Goose99 wrote:
Col Arran wrote:

Selfish, adjective: devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.

If you will notice I've focused on the module I happened to notice and I'm not really bringing any other modules at all. So please explain to me how that is hypocrisy in your mind.


That is exactly the hypocrisy. You only want to fix imbalance when it affects you, but don't care about bigger imbalances which doesn't harm you.


Who says I don't care about them? I'm just trying to keep this thread on track with what it was originally intended to be about. I didn't intend for this thread to be an every module imbalance thread. If I wanted to talk about that I'd make a thread called that.

I do want all the imbalances fixed in the game and you have no right to tell me what I want, what I think or what I care about. To have such an attitude is pretentious, shallow and frankly, idiotic.

FYI I've been playing EvE for about a month and I don't play the game like its my profession. I don't know about all the other imbalances, changes etc. Perhaps you could have thought about that before posting?


Have you noticed that last guy citing armor plates? Have you noticed that since you weren't willing to support fixing other T2 related imbalances others cited, you've in turn gotten no support from them? T2 module performance is one big imbalance, that goes in both directions. T2 sprs are obscure enough that, unless you stop being selfish and hypocritical, no one else is going to care.Roll

Btw, not supported. SPR's are fine. T2 versions are essentially no worse than meta 4, the slight fitting increase is insignificant.

Supporting t2 1600mm plate fix. The grid usage difference on this particular mod is much more significant.
Col Arran
Doomheim
#55 - 2011-09-24 02:20:36 UTC
Goose99 wrote:
Col Arran wrote:
Goose99 wrote:
Col Arran wrote:

Selfish, adjective: devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.

If you will notice I've focused on the module I happened to notice and I'm not really bringing any other modules at all. So please explain to me how that is hypocrisy in your mind.


That is exactly the hypocrisy. You only want to fix imbalance when it affects you, but don't care about bigger imbalances which doesn't harm you.


Who says I don't care about them? I'm just trying to keep this thread on track with what it was originally intended to be about. I didn't intend for this thread to be an every module imbalance thread. If I wanted to talk about that I'd make a thread called that.

I do want all the imbalances fixed in the game and you have no right to tell me what I want, what I think or what I care about. To have such an attitude is pretentious, shallow and frankly, idiotic.

FYI I've been playing EvE for about a month and I don't play the game like its my profession. I don't know about all the other imbalances, changes etc. Perhaps you could have thought about that before posting?


Have you noticed that last guy citing armor plates? Have you noticed that since you weren't willing to support fixing other T2 related imbalances others cited, you've in turn gotten no support from them? T2 module performance is one big imbalance, that goes in both directions. T2 sprs are obscure enough that, unless you stop being selfish and hypocritical, no one else is going to care.Roll

Btw, not supported. SPR's are fine. T2 versions are essentially no worse than meta 4, the slight fitting increase is insignificant.

Supporting t2 1600mm plate fix. The grid usage difference on this particular mod is much more significant.


Who says I need support? I'm discussing a perceived imbalance in a game through the means of a logical discussion. I've already accepted most of the points brought forward all except one, why it costs more CPU to fit. If the answer is in turn that it costs more because it does and there is no other reason I'll accept that.

This isn't a thread meant to debate all the fitting imbalances as I've stated. If someone wants to make a thread about that they are free to do so and I'm free to state what I want my thread to be about.

Off Topic, are you a democrat/liberal?
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
#56 - 2011-09-24 02:25:37 UTC
Col Arran wrote:
If the answer is in turn that it costs more because it does and there is no other reason I'll accept that.


That's... pretty much it. I can't think of a single example (off the top of my head, mind) of a T2 item that is easier to fit than meta 4. In fact, I can't think of one that even matches meta 4. T2 is harder to fit because... T2 is harder to fit.
Goose99
#57 - 2011-09-24 02:35:45 UTC
Col Arran wrote:
Goose99 wrote:
Col Arran wrote:
Goose99 wrote:
Col Arran wrote:

Selfish, adjective: devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.

If you will notice I've focused on the module I happened to notice and I'm not really bringing any other modules at all. So please explain to me how that is hypocrisy in your mind.


That is exactly the hypocrisy. You only want to fix imbalance when it affects you, but don't care about bigger imbalances which doesn't harm you.


Who says I don't care about them? I'm just trying to keep this thread on track with what it was originally intended to be about. I didn't intend for this thread to be an every module imbalance thread. If I wanted to talk about that I'd make a thread called that.

I do want all the imbalances fixed in the game and you have no right to tell me what I want, what I think or what I care about. To have such an attitude is pretentious, shallow and frankly, idiotic.

FYI I've been playing EvE for about a month and I don't play the game like its my profession. I don't know about all the other imbalances, changes etc. Perhaps you could have thought about that before posting?


Have you noticed that last guy citing armor plates? Have you noticed that since you weren't willing to support fixing other T2 related imbalances others cited, you've in turn gotten no support from them? T2 module performance is one big imbalance, that goes in both directions. T2 sprs are obscure enough that, unless you stop being selfish and hypocritical, no one else is going to care.Roll

Btw, not supported. SPR's are fine. T2 versions are essentially no worse than meta 4, the slight fitting increase is insignificant.

Supporting t2 1600mm plate fix. The grid usage difference on this particular mod is much more significant.


Who says I need support? I'm discussing a perceived imbalance in a game through the means of a logical discussion. I've already accepted most of the points brought forward all except one, why it costs more CPU to fit. If the answer is in turn that it costs more because it does and there is no other reason I'll accept that.

This isn't a thread meant to debate all the fitting imbalances as I've stated. If someone wants to make a thread about that they are free to do so and I'm free to state what I want my thread to be about.

Off Topic, are you a democrat/liberal?


You've had a logical discussion. And no one agrees with you. The main reason happens to be that there are so many other bigger T2 related unbalances that sprs hardly matters. It performs the same as meta 4 and cost only slightly more fittings. Things like T2 1600mm plate's fitting requirement matters more. People keep citing other mods because the one you're on about is already almost balanced. So back of the line.Lol

btw, I don't care about politics. Political forums are already too rife to troll properly.
Col Arran
Doomheim
#58 - 2011-09-24 03:03:18 UTC
Funny that this thread has received more attention than 22 of the 30 threads on the first page? Back of the line? I think not.

But anyway this is the last time I'm posting here for real my questions have been answered.

In THIS thread I don't care if the T2 1600mm plate's fitting requirement maters more. Of course overall I do care about it but it has no place in this thread so go make a new thread about it and discuss it there.

I don't know if mods read these but if you do please lock this, It's served it purpose the concern has been confronted and from this line on


All posts are off-topic.
Feyrin
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#59 - 2011-09-24 16:09:50 UTC
Another aspect of tech 2 not yet noted is that the active tech 2 take more heat damage when overloaded. There is a clear design emphasis here for tech 2 to be worse than meta 4. As this is the case it is easy to see why passive modules like plates have much worse fitting requirements as they cannot be penalized in the same way as active modules. The benefit of tech 2 is that they are player manufactured and therefore always available. Comparing tech 2 and meta 4 is like comparing chalk and cheese.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#60 - 2011-09-24 16:09:51 UTC
Col Arran wrote:
So in summary why does the Tech 2 use more CPU than the meta 4 with no added bonus.
Because it has one huge added bonus: universal availability, and because bigger isn't better.
Previous page123