These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Vartan Sarkisian
Nobody in Local
Of Sound Mind
#181 - 2014-09-26 10:12:28 UTC
I am confused, you say for example...

"For instance all of the named Light Missile Launchers have the same rate of fire"

And then the light missiles chart shows a different "time between shots" which is rate of fire.

Onslaughtor
Phoenix Naval Operations
Phoenix Naval Systems
#182 - 2014-09-26 10:13:55 UTC
So I think you missing a good opportunity with two of the proposed meta types.

So with the missiles. It would make sense to add a third meta type for ROF like at 13.2 with a 21 to 23 cpu requirement and a 36 to 40 missile bay. The upgraded lml would be a nice damage focused meta mod that would be good for adding more complex but logical fitting decisions.

add

Upgraded Light Missile Launcher 6 PWG 21 to 23 CPU 13.2s ROF 40 or less CPR


The second was with the Reactor Controls. There is a large gap between the 1.2 and 1.5 of the meta to t2 and that can make all the difference in fitting. It would make sense to add a second upgraded type that has 20 or 21 cpu cost but give a 1.3 or 1.4 . That way we can fill out that gap in choices when fitting ships.

add

Upgraded Reactor Control Unit 1.13 or 1.14 pwg% 20 or 21 CPU


Basically, try to seriously fill every one of these specializations. They make the game logically complex (which is really good) but only if there are enough choices to make it interesting.
Nalha Saldana
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#183 - 2014-09-26 10:32:09 UTC
Vartan Sarkisian wrote:
I am confused, you say for example...

"For instance all of the named Light Missile Launchers have the same rate of fire"

And then the light missiles chart shows a different "time between shots" which is rate of fire.



They mean all launchers of same meta level, there will be power scaling between t1, named, t2, faction and officer.
Gosti Kahanid
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#184 - 2014-09-26 10:35:42 UTC
Onslaughtor wrote:
So with the missiles. It would make sense to add a third meta type for ROF like at 13.2 with a 21 to 23 cpu requirement and a 36 to 40 missile bay. The upgraded lml would be a nice damage focused meta mod that would be good for adding more complex but logical fitting decisions.


That, I think, would be a bad Idea. Everyone would then fit for more damage. Why should I use a module with more ammocapacity when I can get more DPS out of it?
With Turrets there will probably be more options for application (hopefully nothing which provides more DPS than another), but missile launchers don´t have anything which would provide better application, for this they could offer different missiles, but for the launchers this is enough
Emiko Rowna
Keys To The Stars
#185 - 2014-09-26 10:52:04 UTC
So how will this impact my saved fittings? Will the modules names in my saved fittings be changed to the new modules names?
Eessi
Kenshin.
Initiative Mercenaries
#186 - 2014-09-26 11:29:22 UTC
"We are lowering the number of named variations to two, one fitting variation and a second that has a reduced capacitor capacity drawback amount (but similar overall cap recharge). " - CCP Fozzie



Compact Capacitor Flux Coil

Capacitor Recharge Time: 37%
CPU Requirement: 8
Capacitor Capacity Multiplier: -20%


Restrained Capacitor Flux Coil

Capacitor Recharge Time: 41%
CPU Requirement: 10
Capacitor Capacity Multiplier: -25%


The fitting variant has better fitting and less drawback. Is this an error?
Ikonia
Royal Amarr Expeditions
#187 - 2014-09-26 11:33:44 UTC
I see the idea behind that changes, but the solution is not very wise.

It just focuses to solve a problem, based on a false decision made years ago and therefor only solves something, that is more or less a cosmetical issue with no further effect. Why? Simply because nobody cares about T1 equipment after 3 month in game and mostly uses t2 whereever possible or takes faction and plex stuff, easily available now. And for reprocessing material, i dont really need a changed name or rebalnced values, it is junk, not more, not less.

Another point is Cosmos items. The problem on them is not residing in its technical values, but by its availability (1 time per player), the effort to make them available (stoneold faction based access to superhard missions) causing a horrible high price for an item, that i can lose exactly one time and then have to buy for costs higher than officer stuff but with values worse than actual tech2. You can also just take them out of game, wouldnt disturb anyone at all.

Instead of that "rebalancing" some kind of toon based "slicing" would be of sense. T1 - sliceable by pilots to a certain direction (restrained scoped whatever) - can be used for producing pre-sliced T2 for further improvement. THIS would have been worth an announcement.

The rebalance as it is now just solves, as i said, a stoneold problem that just covers the first 3 month in a player-life and then only is of sense in certain niches, which then are gone anyway when players start using tech2, what everyone goes for anyway. Instead of that change some improvements on new tech2 additional would have been a true benefit.

As of now: Exploration is a game-wide folks sport done by almost everyone, faction and plex type stuff is easily in reach for everyone older than 5 days making stuff available for which you dont need skills higher than 4 to use it, and it is stuff thats much better than tech 2 but has nearly at same price level as tech 2 and is already available in massive amounts everywhere - and you rebalance .. tech 1? Seriously?

As you mean.
System Analytics skill is obviously not on skill V.
Systems Balancing should at least be III before you start doing it in a life game.
AssandTits
Doomheim
#188 - 2014-09-26 11:50:03 UTC  |  Edited by: AssandTits
So it appears Fozzie has gone into "**** the customer, I'm hiding in a box under my desk" mode. TL;DR for any dev who has the misfortune to have to try and DCU this mess.

1) Rebalance - meh whatever

2) Naming convention - What did you suddenly employ an ex Blizzard idiot and give him the ability to name ****? Seriously this is a SPACE game, not ******* PANDALAND.

3) No we do not want Panda suits available in the "Fund Fozzie's eventual move to Riot" Fund
Vesan Terakol
Trollgrin Sadface
Dark Taboo
#189 - 2014-09-26 11:50:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Vesan Terakol
OK, now that I've slept over that matter, have some thought about it...

Lets talk names! I see why some modules bear such ridiculous names.

For instance, "limited" adaptive invulnerability field. Through my 3 years of playing EVE, that name has always puzzled me, as it...

MADE NO SENSE!

What is limited about that module? Even as i looked into the statistics, over and over again, i never came to associate "limited" with the actual difference in the module. Neither "limited" and "upgraded" helps me differentiate the MWD and afterburner variations. You know what does? Estimated price!

Now, I figured it! You tried to pull this same maneuver! And you know what? It didn't quite work, because such module name prefixes ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH! They make your team look like bloody illiterates and your management as completely ignorant of your doings, as, FFS, even a kid for whom English is not the native language will at least try and pull out words that give a bad-ass vibe to what he is naming.

Those proposed name prefixes are LAME (in any meaning you can put to this word, slang and literal), and I don't say that in blind rage, i say it in the shades of mournful regret that will overcome me if you are to push that nonsense out. It will achieve nothing.

On page 5 i believe there is a post by Moraguth that suggested some synonyms of your proposed name changes. Please, do take a careful look at this post. THAT is how you should name modules if you want clarity.

Long story short:

- DO NOT use Google translate, please!
- DO NOT embarrass the entire team by making the entire player base look upon you as ignorant illiterates!
- DO use this opportunity to fix old mistakes in naming!

P.S. I also believe that you owe the player community an official apology about even considering your list of name prefixes.

Lets talk statistics!

I do like the general direction of what you're doing. The statistics make more sense. Yet, you shouldn't have delayed releasing that information that much. You did this with the RLML rework last year to a major outcry from the public and yet you do it again!

There are changes that need to be pushed regardless of whether the community likes them, as they are healthy for the game. This one kind of is, yet you should have posted your draft in the F&I forums long time ago, as it needs a lot of polish. It can be done a lot better!

Mentioned above i saw a lot of really good ideas about the modules you could use and it will be for the better of the game. I, personally, see a lot of other possible numbers you can play with when it comes to variation.

What about "charges used per cycle" ? Can we have variations that would use/shoot twice as much per cycle but twice as slower? (I don't dare to think how you would name one of those... i better start digging a hole in which to hide).

Long story short:

- DO allow players more time to think about changes and provide feedback instead of pushing them without warning! It helps no one!
Snape Dieboldmotor
Minotaur Congress
#190 - 2014-09-26 11:53:11 UTC
I would love to see a named overload option (ie. propulsion). There has got to be a way to do it and still keep it balanced.Big smile
ra n
Nanoware Labs
#191 - 2014-09-26 11:59:19 UTC
It would be better to eliminate all the meta 1-4 items and convert existing inventory to T1 meta 0 than this awful change! That would have the advantage of making T1 manufacturing useful again once the massive inventory was worked off.

Keeping the named modules has some small benefit to very new players. They will have access to very cheap modules with better stats than meta 0. Of course they will not have a progression of more powerful modules costing more ISK with meta 2, 3 & 4. They will be stuck with these lame modules until they get T2 skills or the ISK to buy faction/deadspace modules.

As for the names, they may make it easier for the new player to figure out what's what. What is lost though is the edgy, techie feel of Eve. The new names seem so slapdash, one size fits all. The new player imagination will not be engaged.

The meta 4 modules are useful for experienced players. This change trashes preferred fittings and reduces the value of meta 4 modules to their scrap metal value. Most meta 1-2 modules are already worth no more than scrap metal except to the new player to whom they're great WITHOUT change.

In 5 years of playing Eve, I have never posted on forums before today. Usually change is good, stagnation bad. But this change is TRULY AWFUL!
Yongtau Naskingar
Yongtau Naskingar Corporation
#192 - 2014-09-26 12:07:49 UTC
Eessi wrote:
The fitting variant has better fitting and less drawback. Is this an error?

Has to be. Patch notes say "Capacitor Capacity Multiplier – 25% (was 10%)" which is pretty huge. I guess even CCP can't really keep straight which number is better when it's bigger.
Ssieth
The Lunatic Collective
#193 - 2014-09-26 12:29:13 UTC
RenoIdo wrote:
Are small balance and graphics patches all we can expect from now on?

I have been playing since 2010 and all that's been added is just a little fluff on top of the same exact game I've been playing this whole time, and... some balancing.

The facts:

1) No real expansion since 2010

2) Game has lost subs and average concurrent players every year since 2010

3) CCP is being so poorly managed they can't see the correlation between facts 1 and 2.


*tutts* Correlation does not imply causation.

W-Spacer.  Bittervet. 75% PvP, 25% assorted other stuff.

Medalyn Isis
Doomheim
#194 - 2014-09-26 12:41:07 UTC
This seems to have been rushed through. I don't like the proposed changes for two main reasons.

1. Meta 0 modules are worse it every stat. This goes against tiericide, and does not help the T1 manufacturer when most of the rat loot can be bought for a fraction of the price. Meta 0 should also have an advantage also over the other meta items, perhaps they should have the lowest fitting requirement to accentuate their property as a good module for new pilots. At the moment there is no reason for anyone to use them for anything other than manufacturing T2 items.

2. The new naming convention is awful.

Please think again and subject this proposal to a little more Q&A and testing from the community before releasing it. I was expecting a thread in F&I.
Leyete Wulf
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#195 - 2014-09-26 12:50:18 UTC
Medalyn Isis wrote:
I was expecting a thread in F&I.


This, about a month ago...

Seriously
Althalus Stenory
Flying Blacksmiths
#196 - 2014-09-26 12:55:41 UTC
I stopped reading here:
Lelira Cirim wrote:
/starts singing Paul Simon's "Please don't take my Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron away...."

we'll need to make a petition and get as much people as we can to only our PWNAGE ! :'(

Well I really like the fact module tiericide finally begins ! My only though now is that Capacitor Flux Coil, as it's going to be, will probably weaken active shield tanking as such fits usually use these modules (bigger drawback, but bigger regen). But... as I don't have EFT to check it, we'll see :]

EsiPy - Python 2.7 / 3.3+ Swagger Client based on pyswagger for ESI

Medalyn Isis
Doomheim
#197 - 2014-09-26 13:31:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Medalyn Isis
nvm
AssandTits
Doomheim
#198 - 2014-09-26 13:32:43 UTC
Althalus Stenory wrote:
I stopped reading here:
Lelira Cirim wrote:
/starts singing Paul Simon's "Please don't take my Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron away...."

we'll need to make a petition and get as much people as we can to only our PWNAGE ! :'(

Well I really like the fact module tiericide finally begins ! My only though now is that Capacitor Flux Coil, as it's going to be, will probably weaken active shield tanking as such fits usually use these modules (bigger drawback, but bigger regen). But... as I don't have EFT to check it, we'll see :]


No

That has been done before and fail basically because CCP are so arrogant they think they have a unique product in the market and can do whatever the hell they want. The fact it is a Dev Blog and not an F+I post basically means CCP are saying "**** you players, this is what will happen."

The CSM once more shows its complete uselessness at defending the Game from interference from Devs who are basically the #%$@ that is left at the bottom of the bowl after those who have the capability and drive to succeed left.

This is just the tip of the iceberg people, unless the message is sent loud and clear that persistent dumbfuckication of the game has to stop.

Burn Jita, burn it to the ground.
Ponder Yonder
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc.
Illusion of Solitude
#199 - 2014-09-26 13:33:11 UTC
Dear CCP,

Meta 4 drops is currently a significant source of ISK, especially in null-sec. If memory serves, about half my ratting income used to come from meta 4 drops.

With the pattern laid down in this change you will effectively kill this source of ISK.

How is this being addressed? How will the loot tables be adjusted, or are null-sec spawns going to drop the same, lame, modules as high sec?

The meta 4 market is also very active, since large meta 4 modules are highly sought after. Not every one has large turrets trained to V, and until they do, meta 4 is the logical middle ground. With these changes, you are killing this completely, effectively telling the playerbase that there is no more choice in the damage that a module does.

And the names? Did you have a contest to see who could come up with the least imaginative names? For Bob's sake! 'Ample'? Is that the best you could come up with? Honestly, has anyone ever unsubscribed because they couldn't figure out the difference between Malkuth and Limos?

This has all the makings of a poorly designed, rushed implementation that will break a lot of things for the sake of very little benefit indeed.
Gray's Anatomist
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#200 - 2014-09-26 13:33:57 UTC
I have two issues with the impending doom^W tiericide:

  1. Current tiers had several useful properties for tight fits. For example, some modules used less CPU for less effect, which came in 4 steps (not 1, not 2, 4 steps), some modules increased in value linearly, but their price was prohibitively high for throwaway fits (meta 4 damage controls anyone?). Overall this provided for interesting jigsaw puzzle solving while fitting, and even created a mini-profession of fitting specialist. This "update" not only removes this fun part of the game, but also invalidates real, working fits across the game. And if, by chance or luck, the ships will still fly - they'll lose their value against less craftily fit opponents. Is this what you want? "My ship is AMPLER than yours?"

  2. The names, indeed, are part of EVE lore. Why won't you call Titans "Ample Very Big Ships"? Why Sansha, Guristas, Serpentis and Blood, when you can call them "blaster terrorists", "laser terrorists", "missile terrorists" and "ewar terrorists"? Rename "Shadow Serpentis" into "scoped blaster terrorists" and see how much fun the players have. Evil


Bottom line is: this change devalues player skills and experience. This might initially make for a lower learning curve for new players, but it won't help retain the older players, quite the opposite.

Blah-blah, it's 3 days before the update, too late to change anything. Ugh