These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Destitute Tehol Beddict
Binary Trading
#261 - 2014-09-27 22:10:51 UTC
Whats going to happen to the drop rates of the modules?

Will they be combined together if say x1 drop + x2 drop + x3 drop + x4 drop = X

or will there be a overall gain/reduction?

Thanks

Loot Buying service: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4529397#post4529397

Rain6637
NulzSec
#262 - 2014-09-27 22:13:05 UTC
Susan Black
Ice Fire Warriors
#263 - 2014-09-27 22:18:44 UTC
How will this impact the drop rate of different modules? Now that everything is 'the same' with specializations, and all the named will be meta 1, are you also balancing out the drop rate of these modules so that some specializations aren't for some reason more 'rare' then others?




Prior to these changes, one aspect of 'choice' in choosing modules was cost. This was a pretty big determining factor for many people in what items to fit on their ship --meta 4 was better, but meta 3 was cheaper enough to be worth it, and etc.

It sounds like while choices for 'functionality' is being introduced, the aspect of choice based on rarity and cost is almost being eliminated completely, as far as meta modules are concerned.

www.gamerchick.net @gamerchick42

Krell Kroenen
The Devil's Shadow
#264 - 2014-09-27 22:25:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Krell Kroenen
Primary This Rifter wrote:
Damn... what made you think that five days was going to be enough to talk about these proposed changes?


That's the point they don't want to talk about it. Fozzie in the o7 video more or less stated that we will grow to love the changes. Which sounds something that a kidnapper would say to his victim, which might explain the grinning and chuckles given when they talked about using the word ample as a mod name in the video. *shudders*

If they wanted to talk about the changes this thread would be in Ideas and Features a couple weeks ago. Not here.
Kirsanth
The Pioneers
#265 - 2014-09-27 23:25:30 UTC
Naming conventions aside, which i do think are important; I also think there must be a better way of implementing tiericide.

The big problems as I see them are A) making player made mods worth the effort and B) making npcs drops situational improvements.

Lena Lazair ...

There are at least two better approaches I expected to see, neither of which is happening.

The first of these two options is what I [b wrote:
thought[/b] tiericide was going to do (and I think others felt this way too); provide variations around the tech 1 base point. Not across the board better, PLUS variation, as has been proposed.

Let's take the reactor control example as a simple demonstration of what I expected (and what I think many people expected):

meta 0 : Reactor Control Unit I : 1.1x, CPU 20
meta 1 : Compact Reactor Control Unit: 1.08x, CPU 16
meta 4 : Upgraded Rector Control Unit: 1.12x, CPU 21
meta 5 : Reactor Control Unit II : 1.15x, CPU 22

This has the benefit of promoting the use of tech 1 items as a balance between fitting and benefit. This of course assumes unlimited and cheap supply of the named items (e.g. no external restriction on their use), which is not necessarily a good assumption to build into the system but does seem to be borne out by current market realities.

The graph ends up like this. By contrast your graph is trying too hard to look like your ship graph, which makes no sense since T2 modules are not specialized at all and ignores the direct balance between fitting and power in using modules.

The second of the two options is also viable; provide improvements to individual tech 1 stats without being fundamentally better than the tech 1 variant for certain key stats in all cases. Again with reactor control, that would look like:

meta 0 : Reactor Control Unit I : 1.1x, CPU 20
meta 1 : Compact Reactor Control Unit: 1.1x, CPU 16
meta 4 : Upgraded Rector Control Unit: 1.12x, CPU 20
meta 5 : Reactor Control Unit II : 1.15x, CPU 22

...


This is the best set of improvements posted yet. I for one would like to see Meta 0 mods improved over what they are now maybe meta 2 and becoming the base non specialised units. The other npc dropped sub meta 5 modules then being better in some ways but noticably worse worse in others.

my personal suggestion for Reactor Control Unit would look something like this:

meta 2 : Reactor Control Unit I : 1.125x, CPU 20 (player made)
meta 1 : Compact Reactor Control Unit: 1.10x, CPU 16 (less bonus, better fit)
meta 3 : Upgraded Rector Control Unit: 1.135x, CPU 24 (more bonus , worse fit)
meta 5 : Reactor Control Unit II : 1.15x, CPU 22 (player made)

This would encourage diversity and give players a reason to go make and fit T1 stuff. Though the making part would have to wait until our huge stocks of sub meta 5 mods are depleted. I am no economist but i would hope this might actually make pvp slightly more affordable in the long run.

Also since CCP is now on a 6 week cycle, this can and should be rolled back till november to sort out what the player base has to feedback. This is a MASSIVE change to the game's dynamic and the way this is being handled at the moment feels like Incarna all over again.
Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#266 - 2014-09-27 23:31:37 UTC
I agree that this should be pushed back. You don't have nearly enough time to gather any meaningful feedback and implement changes from it.
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#267 - 2014-09-27 23:34:58 UTC
Kirsanth wrote:
Naming conventions aside, which i do think are important; I also think there must be a better way of implementing tiericide.

The big problems as I see them are A) making player made mods worth the effort and B) making npcs drops situational improvements.

Lena Lazair ...

There are at least two better approaches I expected to see, neither of which is happening.

The first of these two options is what I [b wrote:
thought[/b] tiericide was going to do (and I think others felt this way too); provide variations around the tech 1 base point. Not across the board better, PLUS variation, as has been proposed.

Let's take the reactor control example as a simple demonstration of what I expected (and what I think many people expected):

meta 0 : Reactor Control Unit I : 1.1x, CPU 20
meta 1 : Compact Reactor Control Unit: 1.08x, CPU 16
meta 4 : Upgraded Rector Control Unit: 1.12x, CPU 21
meta 5 : Reactor Control Unit II : 1.15x, CPU 22

This has the benefit of promoting the use of tech 1 items as a balance between fitting and benefit. This of course assumes unlimited and cheap supply of the named items (e.g. no external restriction on their use), which is not necessarily a good assumption to build into the system but does seem to be borne out by current market realities.

The graph ends up like this. By contrast your graph is trying too hard to look like your ship graph, which makes no sense since T2 modules are not specialized at all and ignores the direct balance between fitting and power in using modules.

The second of the two options is also viable; provide improvements to individual tech 1 stats without being fundamentally better than the tech 1 variant for certain key stats in all cases. Again with reactor control, that would look like:

meta 0 : Reactor Control Unit I : 1.1x, CPU 20
meta 1 : Compact Reactor Control Unit: 1.1x, CPU 16
meta 4 : Upgraded Rector Control Unit: 1.12x, CPU 20
meta 5 : Reactor Control Unit II : 1.15x, CPU 22

...


This is the best set of improvements posted yet. I for one would like to see Meta 0 mods improved over what they are now maybe meta 2 and becoming the base non specialised units. The other npc dropped sub meta 5 modules then being better in some ways but noticably worse worse in others.

my personal suggestion for Reactor Control Unit would look something like this:

meta 2 : Reactor Control Unit I : 1.125x, CPU 20 (player made)
meta 1 : Compact Reactor Control Unit: 1.10x, CPU 16 (less bonus, better fit)
meta 3 : Upgraded Rector Control Unit: 1.135x, CPU 24 (more bonus , worse fit)
meta 5 : Reactor Control Unit II : 1.15x, CPU 22 (player made)

This would encourage diversity and give players a reason to go make and fit T1 stuff. Though the making part would have to wait until our huge stocks of sub meta 5 mods are depleted. I am no economist but i would hope this might actually make pvp slightly more affordable in the long run.

Also since CCP is now on a 6 week cycle, this can and should be rolled back till november to sort out what the player base has to feedback. This is a MASSIVE change to the game's dynamic and the way this is being handled at the moment feels like Incarna all over again.

I agree that this is a good suggestion for the overall direction for module tiericide.

I will suggest, though, that the T2 fitting stats might still need to be bumped up further. Only a 2 CPU difference between T1 and T2 is not typically significant. And, as long as everyone can still easily fit all T2 modules on their ships, metas and T1s will not see increased use, even with this proposed direction.
Kirsanth
The Pioneers
#268 - 2014-09-27 23:43:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Kirsanth
I see the point about t2 fitting. I think though with the items like basic fitting modules that need to go on all classes of ship; the gap between t1 and 2 could remain small, otherwise you'd never be able to fit t2 to frigs. however when it comes to some of the more specialised modules like turrets and launchers the gap between player made T1 and T2 should be appropriately bigger, and ought to scale with class of ship
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
Brave Collective
#269 - 2014-09-28 01:52:52 UTC
Destitute Tehol Beddict wrote:
Whats going to happen to the drop rates of the modules?

Will they be combined together if say x1 drop + x2 drop + x3 drop + x4 drop = X

or will there be a overall gain/reduction?

Thanks



This sounds more like yet another nerf to highsec and ratting in general. Not that the module balance is a bad thing but in case CCP didn't notice, loot drops contains all kinds of stuff meta 1-4.

Commander and Major 'named' NPCs even faction or 'blue' modules and Officer the 'purple' ones.

With the upcoming 'rebalance' there will be less stuff to drop.

Are you planning to increase the loot tables in return?

I mean, you taketh away and you should give something in return.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever

Rain6637
NulzSec
#270 - 2014-09-28 02:18:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Rain6637
I don't have the will to keep the post. disregard, nothing of value was lost.
Destitute Tehol Beddict
Binary Trading
#271 - 2014-09-28 05:09:48 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
Destitute Tehol Beddict wrote:
Whats going to happen to the drop rates of the modules?

Will they be combined together if say x1 drop + x2 drop + x3 drop + x4 drop = X

or will there be a overall gain/reduction?

Thanks



This sounds more like yet another nerf to highsec and ratting in general. Not that the module balance is a bad thing but in case CCP didn't notice, loot drops contains all kinds of stuff meta 1-4.

Commander and Major 'named' NPCs even faction or 'blue' modules and Officer the 'purple' ones.

With the upcoming 'rebalance' there will be less stuff to drop.

Are you planning to increase the loot tables in return?

I mean, you taketh away and you should give something in return.


If drop rates are combined I don't see an issue (if anything more stuff might get picked up), but if the module is only going get x4 drop then thats a general 1/4-3/4 drop of stuff being dropped... I mean I know nerfing missions/killing npcs is cool and everything but.... why?

Loot Buying service: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4529397#post4529397

Rain6637
NulzSec
#272 - 2014-09-28 06:04:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Rain6637
sorry about that, Tehol. I think the simple answer is if it's not mentioned in the dev blog specifically, it's not going to receive attention aside from the change to the item's stats.
Rayvenous
Die Geistig Gestuerzten
#273 - 2014-09-28 07:56:37 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
I'll join the chorus asking CCP, don't take my fancy names away from me!

With clear differences between models, it should be easy to see that the "Malkuth" range of missile launchers of all sizes is optimised for CPU (or general fitting) while the "Arbalest" is optimised for DPS (i.e.: larger ammunition magazine).

Encouraging players to actually read the "Show Info" details will help them understand the mechanics of the game better. If you simplify the space too much you enter the realm of "dumbing down". This might make the game "more accessible" to people who are less interested in exploring fittings and running calculators or simulators, but makes the game more boring to people who care about names, details, and the joy of learning.

In the name of the Limos, the Malkuth, and the Arbalest, so help me pod.


+1

Yes, I am an old grunt... but I am fine with the module changes in general.
It will take a few days to adopt the changes and maybe will force some fitting tool action...

But please, for heavens sake: DON´T change the names!!

I love EVE, but I don´t want to see generic names all over the place. This will be an absolute immersion killer Cry
Falkor1984
The Love Dragons
#274 - 2014-09-28 08:24:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Falkor1984
Gray's Anatomist wrote:
I have two issues with the impending doom^W tiericide:


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


This ^^.

How come players see it but CCP does not? They truely believe they are creating a better game, whilst they are actually destroying it. The same thing happened with tiers on ships, that screwed up a lot of crazy fits and choices out there.
uziel99
Multiplex Gaming
The Bastion
#275 - 2014-09-28 08:35:15 UTC
Mara Tessidar wrote:
Capacitor flux coils are still useless. Color me surprised.


There are many modules in the game, that at first glace inspire a scratch to the head. It's just a matter of finding that special snowflake situation to use them.

From the formless void's gaping maw, there springs an entity.  Not an entity such as any you can conceive of, nor I; an entity more primordial than the elements themselves. In its wake there will follow a storm, as the appetite of nothing expands over the world. The Prophecy is true. Grayscale has come.

Spugg Galdon
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#276 - 2014-09-28 10:50:08 UTC
Falkor1984 wrote:
Gray's Anatomist wrote:
I have two issues with the impending doom^W tiericide:


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


This ^^.

How come players see it but CCP does not? They truely believe they are creating a better game, whilst they are actually destroying it. The same thing happened with tiers on ships, that screwed up a lot of crazy fits and choices out there.


Tiercide of the ships was necessary and succesful.

Tiercide of the modules is necessary, however, I do feel that the devs are oversimplifying this whole thing.

The naming system is very "immature".
The number of options is becoming few.
The differentiation between the faction equipment is becoming non existant.

I think these three points above need to be addressed and this whole thing needs to go through the features and ideas system first.
Rain6637
NulzSec
#277 - 2014-09-28 11:29:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Rain6637
I slept on my posts. never mind, it was the end of the day and I was in no shape to be communicating. at all.
TheLostPenguin
Surreal Departure
#278 - 2014-09-28 12:50:19 UTC
Great, another case of taking a small point that needed fixing and blowing it into a huge needless CHANGE EVERYTHING FOR THE SAKE OF IT.

If this was just rebalancing the handfull of oddities where meta 4 is better than t2 it'd make perfect sense as that situation has existed for a mystifying length of time, but instead we get this...

The names have been discussed aplenty, if you're so set on the whole package of screwup then yes names have to change, but why not re-use the existing ones, so for instance when looking for launchers I know the good fitting launcher is still an arbalest (because chances are if I'm not fitting t2 it's because fittings so in the absence of any good reason to do otherwise I'll use best fitting alternative), we still get to have flavoured names, and it's also possible to quickly find the module you want.

The general concept of this seems flawed to me though and I think we'll just end up with 1 or maybe 2 named versions of a module that are ever used in place of t2 due to skills/budget, and the rest will fall into the same oblivion meta 1/2 currently reside in, where they cannot compete on either price or stats. To use the comparision with the lml, I *might* use the ammo variant if it gave me the freedom to do everything else on the fit, but chances are I'll take the slightly lower dps over a long fight for the much greater freedom of the lowest fittings option. Meta 1/2 may be 'broken' in that they see next to no use but 3/4 are not (other than the odd cases with being better than t2), why do this when it seems all you'll do is replace some under-used modules with other under-used modules.

Rather than spend time on this (and from the small number of things covered here, it looks like this is going to take years to cover all modules) why not work on changing something for the better, like removing all module drops from npcs and instead dropping components used to invent named bpcs? That's a system change that could keep a few people out of trouble for a while and is vastly overdue to happen, and should upset fewer people too whilst moving EVE closer to the long-claimed "everything made by players" game.
AssandTits
Doomheim
#279 - 2014-09-28 15:08:29 UTC
Primary This Rifter wrote:
Damn... what made you think that five days was going to be enough to talk about these proposed changes?


This is not a discussion. If it was this post would have been in the F+I section and made at least the week before thesuper dooper video of what we are doing is awesome that CCP released for the gaming industry monkeys.

This is basically the way CCP does business now, nothing we have said in this thread will make the damndest difference to their approach.
AssandTits
Doomheim
#280 - 2014-09-28 15:09:52 UTC
Krell Kroenen wrote:
Primary This Rifter wrote:
Damn... what made you think that five days was going to be enough to talk about these proposed changes?


That's the point they don't want to talk about it. Fozzie in the o7 video more or less stated that we will grow to love the changes. Which sounds something that a kidnapper would say to his victim, which might explain the grinning and chuckles given when they talked about using the word ample as a mod name in the video. *shudders*

If they wanted to talk about the changes this thread would be in Ideas and Features a couple weeks ago. Not here.


Greed is Good!!!!!

They tried this, it failed due to REAL player action.