These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Callic Veratar
#221 - 2014-09-26 17:00:48 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Hey guys, it's like 7:30pm and I'm about to go be on TV with CCP Guard and co so I can't do a lot right now, but it's safe to say there's some weirdness with the flux coils.

We may switch the restrained so it's actually LESS drawback rather than more, even though both potentially have applications. The way the attributes are titled and communicated in the dev blog is also kind of strange and I'll try to get that cleaned up tomorrow so it's a bit more clear.

All said and done, there's nothing broken going into the game so bear with me for a day while I get the post cleaned up and maybe the restrained attributes adjusted.


A flux coil with a greater drawback and more recharge is definitely useful. How about another Overclocked Capacitor Flux Coil (where overclocked is a greater drawback for even more effect).
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#222 - 2014-09-26 17:04:32 UTC
Medalyn Isis wrote:
As I've seen suggested, at least give meta 0 items one saving grace, and one reason why to choose them over the massive amount of rat spew which everyone has piles of as a consequence of missions and ratting.


This.

I can live with Vast Tracts of Launchers if this is fixed. The only reason to use any T1 item less than Meta 4 is a) cost, when that actually matters; b) availability, if you happen to not be near a trade hub, or c) really, really tight fits. I've used a non-Rolled Tungsten T1 plate exactly once because it was the only way to shoehorn a plate onto that particular ship.

And the fallback if Meta 4 isn't available is always the next lowest. There should be a reason to prefer meta 0 beside the mostly irrelevant fact that they're dirt cheap instead of merely cheap.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

profundus fossura
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#223 - 2014-09-26 17:05:01 UTC
Vesan Terakol wrote:
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!


Always wondered how Duel and Quad guns only use one charge at a time : )
Lexiana Del'Amore
Nouvelle Rouvenor
#224 - 2014-09-26 17:24:16 UTC
In other news, major car manufacturer such as Volkswagon, Ford and Renault are to rename their Golf, Focus and Clio to a unified " Hatchback I "... this in order to "help" confuzed consumers...
Wilhelm Ormand
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#225 - 2014-09-26 17:36:26 UTC
I think it's great that module tiericide is finally happening and I would like to provide some feedback upon the proposed changes.

  1. Some of the names seem badly chosen:
  2. Compact. Reduced fitting cost doesn't make a module more compact, why not just Reduced?
    Enduring should definitely be called Efficient as this refers to an improvement of dynamic resources.
    Ample should definitely be called Expanded as this is already in game for probe launchers and very descriptive.
    Scoped seems unfitting. Extended would semantically be the best choice but sounds a lot like Expanded.

  3. How far can it be called tiericide when the new named mudules have improvements other then the main specification? This means that choosing a named module is still always a better choice then meta 0 and T2 is only not preferred when fitting is tight. What about bringing meta 0 modules a little closer to T2 and having the named modules only improve on the named specification? The current proposition seems to just create new tiers instead of the un-tiering that is being promised and preached about.

  4. I think single quotation marks serve no purpose in names and should be done away with completely. If Khanid Navy Co-Processor is fine, why not Deuce Co-Processor (instead of 'Deuce' Co-Processor)?

  5. Also, what is up with the different writings of "Basic"? One with and one without single quotation marks: Basic Co-Processor vs. ‘Basic’ Capacitor Flux Coil.


To end this feedback I would like to say: keep up the good work and don't take all the (sometimes badly worded) critique the wrong way.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#226 - 2014-09-26 17:37:07 UTC
Krell Kroenen wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
Krell Kroenen wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
i find the T2 mods just being plain better at everything a little at odds with role based mods...

T2 lml is better at everything ... surely allowing the use of T2 ammo is enough of a buff in itself??
why use the ample version when T2 is better at it??



Maybe because of skill requirements and cost?

As for the new names, I am with a lot of other folks.. ditch them and keep some of the old ones. The new ones are a bit corny and over the top. Save the adjectives for the descriptions of the module not the name of them. You don't see GM selling the "Ample SUV" as a make and model.


the skill requirements are the only thing stopping people ignoring the metas entirely and just skipping too T2 ..

The purpose of the T2 is too allow specialization .. in this case T2 ammo ... but if its better at everything then its not really specializing is it??

bottom line is people will use only the compact and T2 .. lower fittings for tight fits and also whilst training skills up and then they will jump too the T2 cos its better and can use T2 ammo ... somehow i don't think this is what CCP had in mind here ...



Given that this thread is not in the Idea's and Features section and how all of this will become reality early next week. It appears that CCP is not interested in what we think. Even if we think different things. *shrugs*.


i am surprised they didn't ask for our help on this important project... they take 1 step forward ....

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

James Zimmer
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#227 - 2014-09-26 17:47:27 UTC  |  Edited by: James Zimmer
As a fairly new player, I can easily see that a lot of this is focused on helping out us newbs, so I'd like to give my opinion:

1. Simplifying naming conventions is generally a good thing. It's annoying to have to go to the compare tool every time I want to buy a module to figure out which one is best for my purposes. For example "Arbalest" doesn't tell me anything, and I would much prefer if I at least had a clue as to what distinguished the module by the name. That being said, if EVERYTHING in the game gets standardized, I think it will feel extremely dull. Maybe a better way to standardize it would be by module class. For example, long range artillery and autocannons could be called "extended barrel" modules while long range rockets and missiles could be called "long-burn" modules. You could also add a more stylized name to distinguish between T1 and T2 for each module class, as that would be easy to remember and make it feel a little less dull. For example you could have your long range T2 light missile launcher named something like this "Arbalest (tier) Long-Burn (specialty) Light Missile Launcher (module type)"

2. I like the idea of making modules specialized into different focus areas. It will give more variety to fits and allow players to specialize to what they want to do. It essentially allows you to enhance a trait without a stacking penalty. However, I think there are some weaknesses to how it is being implemented. The differences between the two Meta 1 missile launchers for example, is minuscule. I have to worry about it on the fitting screen, but after that, the first time it makes a difference is when the "Compact Light Missile Launcher" reloads, 9 minutes into the fight (assuming 0 skills and no overheat). My purchasing decision will be very simple: If I need the extra powergrid and CPU, I will go with the "Compact" version. If not, I will go with the cheapest available, because it really doesn't matter. More meaningful differences would be long-range with lower rate of fire vs. shorter range and higher rate of fire and maybe higher fitting requirements. I'm not talking about duplicating rockets, but I think it would be interesting to have to make the decision of whether you want a 20-25 km rapid fire light missile destroyer, or a 40+ km slow fire light missile destroyer (this may also require a buff to rocket launchers, so they remain a viable option).

3. I think it would be interesting to have these options continue into tier 2 modules rather than the single tier 2 module that's simply better at everything.
Krell Kroenen
The Devil's Shadow
#228 - 2014-09-26 18:36:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Krell Kroenen
Harvey James wrote:
Krell Kroenen wrote:

Given that this thread is not in the Idea's and Features section and how all of this will become reality early next week. It appears that CCP is not interested in what we think. Even if we think different things. *shrugs*.


i am surprised they didn't ask for our help on this important project... they take 1 step forward ....


The 6wk cycles does not grant much if any wiggle room for changes I suppose. I partly think they let us post on the forums to watch us get on our soap boxes and attack each other as we fight for our own ideas of how we think things should be. While they snicker and chuckle behind the scenes and carry out their plans as they see fit.

Which if that is the case then so be it. In theory they have more information than we do, especially about their long term plans that might make my point of view mute. While I feel there is no harm in stating our point of views, I am going to try to not bend myself out of shape defending it when it seems rather clear that the feature in question is rather set in stone.

Besides, Eve is just a game and if they change it to the point that I no longer find it worth my time and money I can always leave. Lame module names and less than idea stats for some mods in my opinion while disappointing, is not game breaking for me. Yet if things keep going down this path that day will come sooner rather than later, and it may have come for some.
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy
Caldari State
#229 - 2014-09-26 19:34:42 UTC
AssandTits wrote:
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.

Your so True ...


My next Games will be Elite and Star Citizen, i personally have enough from this ******** Game Downgrade Changes/Patches whatever Attention
Thror Ginkar
Flying Blacksmiths
#230 - 2014-09-26 19:44:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Thror Ginkar
Would it be possible to at least keep some of the "names" for the different "named" modules ? Some examples:

- Enduring 'Regard' Remote capacitor booster
- Scoped 'Scout' 250mm artillery canon
- Compact 'F-S9' Medium shield extender
- Restrained 'Type-D' Capacitor flux coil

I really think that all these technical names, sometimes even funny names (Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron Big smile) give some deepness to the game. It looks like something real, where researcher comes up with a name for its discovery. If you remove those, you will be taking away this realism.
I totally understand that naming conventions are helpful for the NPE. But I don't see any obstacle in combining both conventional and fantasy namings.

Give us a Scoped 'Pwnage' Target painter, bring back the old Catalyzed cold gas 'Arcjet' thrusters in the form of an Enduring 'Arcjet' 1mn Afterburner, and revive the good old 'V-M15' Braced Multispectral Shield Matrix...

EVE has an history, don't sacrifice everything on the altar of simplification when there is a possibility to mix the past and the future. I know it's now "EVE - The Second Decade", but please don't remove everything of the first decade, those were great times too Blink.
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy
Caldari State
#231 - 2014-09-26 19:57:28 UTC
Gray's Anatomist wrote:
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

+Like, +Like, +Like
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy
Caldari State
#232 - 2014-09-26 19:58:51 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Gray's Anatomist wrote:
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


That's all not of interest anymore to a game developer desperate to appeal to Angry Bird players.

Your Wrong, they all Play World of Whoolooloo Twisted
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy
Caldari State
#233 - 2014-09-26 20:06:00 UTC
Nalha Saldana wrote:
This is what a NPC corp based naming system could look like and would be 100x better than that crap

Amarrian modules
Upgraded/Ample - Amarr Constructions
Scoped - Imperial Armaments
Compact - Zoar and Sons
Enduring - Carthum
Restrained - Viziam

Caldarian modules
Upgraded/Ample - Caldari Constructions
Scoped - Caldari Steel
Restrained - Perkone
Enduring - Rapid Assembly
Compact - Top Down

Gallentean modules
Upgraded/Ample - Allotek
Compact - Chemal
Restrained - CreoDron
Enduring - Duvolle
Scoped - Roden

Minmatarian modules
Upgraded/Ample - Core Complexion
Enduring - Freedom Extension
Compact - Boundless Creation
Restrained - Eifyr
Scoped - Six Kin

The modules would get a name based on what race it belongs to (same as invention interfaces)

As example here are the devblog items:
Allotek Co-Processor
Zoar and Sons Reactor Control Unit
Zoar and Sons Micro Auxiliary Power Core
Top Down Light Missile Launcher
Caldari Constructions Light Missile Launcher
Freedom Extension Cargo Scanner
Six Kin Cargo Scanner

Best Example so far ...

+Like
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy
Caldari State
#234 - 2014-09-26 20:17:44 UTC
I have the Ultimate solution for the fastest ending of this Tiericidde whatever...

Simple: Change the name Meta into something else, Point and Finish.Big smile

And Please STOP this Downgrades...
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#235 - 2014-09-26 22:00:49 UTC
Translation: Change is scary. Hold me.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#236 - 2014-09-26 22:20:27 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
Krell Kroenen wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
i find the T2 mods just being plain better at everything a little at odds with role based mods...

T2 lml is better at everything ... surely allowing the use of T2 ammo is enough of a buff in itself??
why use the ample version when T2 is better at it??

Maybe because of skill requirements and cost?

the skill requirements are the only thing stopping people ignoring the metas entirely and just skipping too T2 ..

The purpose of the T2 is too allow specialization .. in this case T2 ammo ... but if its better at everything then its not really specializing is it??

bottom line is people will use only the compact and T2 .. lower fittings for tight fits and also whilst training skills up and then they will jump too the T2 cos its better and can use T2 ammo ... somehow i don't think this is what CCP had in mind here ...

In truth, T2 modules are simply OP. As is stated in virutally every player blog and guide, if you are not fitting T2 modules, or skilling up to do so, then you are doing it wrong.

In pre-tiericide ship terms, T2 modules have been the FOTM, every month, practically since they were introduced, sort of like the old Hulk for mining. Metas are something you "fly" only until you have the skills to use T2 - again, just like the old Retriever. And, T1 modules are like the old Procurer - no reason to ever use them.

At least with the old mining ships, the jump in SP and ISK to go from T1 to T2 provided a significant barrier, which kept the use of Hulks somewhat reasonable. This isn't the case with T2 modules. Players have more ISK these days and T2 modules are not that expensive, relative to the hull cost - so, everyone uses them.

And, ship tiericide actually made this situation worse, since the CPU and PG were adjusted upwards to allow virtually all ships to fit 100% T2 modules. Prior to ship tiericide, you usually could not fit all T2 - you had to make compromises and use metas in some slots.

Seems like T2 modules are in dire need of a major hit from the nerf bat, if metas and T1 modules are to see much regular use, except as a brief step on the way to using T2 modules. T2 advantages need to be tweaked down, and CPU/PG reqs need to be tweaked up.
Mohingan Dark
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#237 - 2014-09-27 01:17:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Mohingan Dark
each meta 1 should just have one stat better than the meta 0, but also sacrifice another stat.......so meta 0 would still be worthwhile and/or preferred by some (ie: more range but less tracking....more tracking but less range.....less fitting requirement but lesser rof.....faster rof but less ammo....etc.)
Robert Parr
Iron Tiger T3 Industries
#238 - 2014-09-27 02:09:28 UTC
AssandTits wrote:
Uninspiring, bland and quite functionally pointless balance pass so far.

You are removing choice in the name of ... choice? And yet when your game is on the verge of having a fight to the death with TWO major competitors you dumb it down. Other games tried this, it cost them upwards of 50% of their subscriptions. Heed well the story of the NGE.

What is happening here is simple and easy to see, you ****** up invention making it too easy and accessible and you need to drive T2 sales to keep the invention monkeys happy. So you reduce the effectiveness of meta, you run faction/deadspace up in price by making modules that currently are useless usable (therefore making the nullbears on the CSM happy) and **** the newbie.

You also use balance on weapon systems to hide the complete **** up you are making of Interceptors. Like the Drake, you take the easy route instead of admitting your failure (another trait of a failing corporate structure by the way) and dealing with the problem.



(Fozzie says:)
No, no...trust me, you'll like that your Drake is worthless in the endRoll Wait till this guy gets to guns..you're really gonna love that!!!!
Arsine Mayhem
Doomheim
#239 - 2014-09-27 03:05:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Arsine Mayhem
Why not simply drop meta 1-3 and NOT screw up ship fittings by leaving meta4 in place.

Call them all upgraded. I mean really, upgraded, compact, enduring, ample, scoped, restrained, what did you steal that from wow jewelcrafting? You forgot a few, accurate, adept, bold, bracing...........
Arsine Mayhem
Doomheim
#240 - 2014-09-27 03:06:30 UTC
Robert Parr wrote:
AssandTits wrote:
Uninspiring, bland and quite functionally pointless balance pass so far.

You are removing choice in the name of ... choice? And yet when your game is on the verge of having a fight to the death with TWO major competitors you dumb it down. Other games tried this, it cost them upwards of 50% of their subscriptions. Heed well the story of the NGE.

What is happening here is simple and easy to see, you ****** up invention making it too easy and accessible and you need to drive T2 sales to keep the invention monkeys happy. So you reduce the effectiveness of meta, you run faction/deadspace up in price by making modules that currently are useless usable (therefore making the nullbears on the CSM happy) and **** the newbie.

You also use balance on weapon systems to hide the complete **** up you are making of Interceptors. Like the Drake, you take the easy route instead of admitting your failure (another trait of a failing corporate structure by the way) and dealing with the problem.



(Fozzie says:)
No, no...trust me, you'll like that your Drake is worthless in the endRoll Wait till this guy gets to guns..you're really gonna love that!!!!


Ahh, fozzie and drake, that explains a lot.