These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
#321 - 2014-09-29 16:29:09 UTC
DireNecessity wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey guys. Thanks for the feedback so far.

We're doing some discussion internally about the concerns some people have expressed about the naming.
I will say that we absolutely reject any argument that attempts to claim that obscure name memorization should somehow be a requirement to play EVE. It's not "dumbing down the game" to make systems more easily understandable.
However some of the concerns about the lore and flavour have merit and we're talking about what we might change to better address those concerns. Nothing related to this will be changing for Oceanus, but everything can be iterated upon.

Also, if you've read the patch notes or dev blog today you'll have seen that we made an adjustment to the Restrained Cap Flux Coil stats. We had some wires crossed internally and thanks to your feedback we've cleared up the erroneous stats. The Restrained Cap Flux Coil will indeed have reduced drawback instead of increased drawback. It will have a capacitor pool penalty of -10% and a recharge speed bonus of 28%.

Thanks.


Fozzie,

I agree that obscure naming is a red herring argument and, sadly, it may drown out a different, possibly more fruitful line of exploration. As best I can see, this first pass module rebalancing does nothing to make fitting player produced tech 1 (meta 0) modules sensible in any case since even the compact versions not only use less resources (powergrid/cpu etc.) but also produce better results (rate of fire/powergrid increase, ect.).

This, of course, matches the current situation where generally the player manufactured tech one (meta 0) is the worst of all possible options including from a cost perspective (low meta being so numerous and reprocessing so poorly, it generally sells on the market for less than the meta 0 option).

Will drop rates be adjusted to make named modules rare enough to be more valuable/expensive than player produced meta 0 modules or is the thinking that Tech II manufacturing provides sufficient demand for player produced meta 0 modules and thus there’s no need to create even more demand for them by making them sensible options in their own right?

DireNecessity


This!
Valterra Craven
#322 - 2014-09-29 16:59:59 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey guys. Thanks for the feedback so far.

Talking about names.

Also, if you've read the patch notes or dev blog today you'll have seen that we made an adjustment to the Restrained Cap Flux Coil stats. We had some wires crossed internally and thanks to your feedback we've cleared up the erroneous stats. The Restrained Cap Flux Coil will indeed have reduced drawback instead of increased drawback. It will have a capacitor pool penalty of -10% and a recharge speed bonus of 28%.

Thanks.


So 17 pages of comments and all you address is two things?

1. Why wasn't this first put on features and ideas boards where players could have hashed out some feedback on this before it went live? Did you even really want Feedback?
2. Why are the new meta numbers so poorly laid out? (Gaps, and basic being meta 6)
3. No comments on the refine efficiency at all of modules since Cruis launched.
4. No comments on how the stated goal of this project is to create choice but how this new systems doesn't create choice and only serves as a clean up to reduce the number of items in the DB.

5. And finally why you guys are being so sloppy with the stats. You still haven't addressed why the basic flux capacitor has the same stats as the t1 with less cpu needed.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#323 - 2014-09-29 17:06:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey guys. Thanks for the feedback so far.

We're doing some discussion internally about the concerns some people have expressed about the naming.
I will say that we absolutely reject any argument that attempts to claim that obscure name memorization should somehow be a requirement to play EVE. It's not "dumbing down the game" to make systems more easily understandable.
However some of the concerns about the lore and flavour have merit and we're talking about what we might change to better address those concerns. Nothing related to this will be changing for Oceanus, but everything can be iterated upon.

Also, if you've read the patch notes or dev blog today you'll have seen that we made an adjustment to the Restrained Cap Flux Coil stats. We had some wires crossed internally and thanks to your feedback we've cleared up the erroneous stats. The Restrained Cap Flux Coil will indeed have reduced drawback instead of increased drawback. It will have a capacitor pool penalty of -10% and a recharge speed bonus of 28%.

Thanks.


the lower drawback is surely countered by the lower recharge bonus???
the inconsistency is a big problem here

it should be the same base as the other meta .. and then its specialization on top of that..
and then the drawback for each meta specializing should be added and made clear .. so the base meta would end up being better at something .. here being the stronger recharge rate..

meta 0 (base model) 36%
compact 34%
restrained 34%
T2 41%

you're current strategy just makes the base model useless ... essentially keeping the tiers .. as you have too move too the named mods as they are better and just as easy access in terms of isk/skills.
all you have really done is remove some of the fluff modules which has opened up space for more variation within the metas ..
and then T2 is still head and shoulders above the rest .. sadly .. so in reality nothing has really changed ..

current
base model - useless
meta 3 - reduced fitting
meta 4 - best performing .. often better than T2
T2 - usually the best and always fitted if the fitting allows

new
base model - useless
compact - reduced fitting
named - best performing/ most useful stat to the module
T2 - always the best and always fitted if the fitting allows

also shouldn't all T2 mods require lv5 skills?

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

Ned Black
Driders
#324 - 2014-09-29 17:07:28 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey guys. Thanks for the feedback so far.

We're doing some discussion internally about the concerns some people have expressed about the naming.
I will say that we absolutely reject any argument that attempts to claim that obscure name memorization should somehow be a requirement to play EVE. It's not "dumbing down the game" to make systems more easily understandable.
However some of the concerns about the lore and flavour have merit and we're talking about what we might change to better address those concerns. Nothing related to this will be changing for Oceanus, but everything can be iterated upon.

Also, if you've read the patch notes or dev blog today you'll have seen that we made an adjustment to the Restrained Cap Flux Coil stats. We had some wires crossed internally and thanks to your feedback we've cleared up the erroneous stats. The Restrained Cap Flux Coil will indeed have reduced drawback instead of increased drawback. It will have a capacitor pool penalty of -10% and a recharge speed bonus of 28%.

Thanks.


But it does FEEL as if you are dumbing down EvE with all these tieracides, easier to use interfaces and so on. Be it weapons, mods or ships or you name it.

In the beginning every ships was like a swizz pocket knife. You never knew what you faced and the number of fits were probably as wide as the number of players. With steamlining you remove a lot of that vibrancy simply because fitting a ship outside of the streamline will make it suck so bad that its not even funny.

Look at other things as well. Scanning used to be HARD... I mean seriously hard and it was only very few that could actually do it at all. Not only did it take a lot of time, but it required a lot of skill and know how to do... today anyone and their ******** dog can scan while being semi comatose without breaking a sweat.

So sorry, but to me who have been around for a long time it really does feel as if you are dumbing down EvE one step at a time... and all those names actually give things a lot more flavour than having generic "easy to recognize" names... removing things does not add to the game... it removes them, it removes something that made eve special.
Kynric
Sky Fighters
Rote Kapelle
#325 - 2014-09-29 17:12:52 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey guys. Thanks for the feedback so far.

We're doing some discussion internally about the concerns some people have expressed about the naming.
I will say that we absolutely reject any argument that attempts to claim that obscure name memorization should somehow be a requirement to play EVE. It's not "dumbing down the game" to make systems more easily understandable.
However some of the concerns about the lore and flavour have merit and we're talking about what we might change to better address those concerns. Nothing related to this will be changing for Oceanus, but everything can be iterated upon.


Why not rename the hurricane and cyclone to be "minmatar projectile battlecruiser" and "minmatar missle battlecruiser. " The names are more discriptive and really have no bearing on how the game plays. However, it would on the other hand strip a layer of nonfunctional information which fuels the imagination away. For me "arbelest" and "malkuth" like the old afterburner names just made the world richer and more interesting although it did nothing to how the game actually played. I would greatly prefer that the old names soldier on.
Aquila Sagitta
Blue-Fire
Great Blue Balls of Fire
#326 - 2014-09-29 17:42:42 UTC
I still see problems with flux coils. Now the only useful one is the restrained because it actually gives you more cap then it takes away. The others don't have high enough recharge bonus to justify the loss of capacity.

As other have pointed out this whole rebalance is fundementally flawed since you're keeping the same meta as before. The new meta 4 modules are still better to use then t2 and meta 0 is still worthless.
AssandTits
Doomheim
#327 - 2014-09-29 17:53:12 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey guys. Thanks for the feedback so far.

We're doing some discussion internally about the concerns some people have expressed about the naming.
I will say that we absolutely reject any argument that attempts to claim that obscure name memorization should somehow be a requirement to play EVE. It's not "dumbing down the game" to make systems more easily understandable.
However some of the concerns about the lore and flavour have merit and we're talking about what we might change to better address those concerns. Nothing related to this will be changing for Oceanus, but everything can be iterated upon.

Also, if you've read the patch notes or dev blog today you'll have seen that we made an adjustment to the Restrained Cap Flux Coil stats. We had some wires crossed internally and thanks to your feedback we've cleared up the erroneous stats. The Restrained Cap Flux Coil will indeed have reduced drawback instead of increased drawback. It will have a capacitor pool penalty of -10% and a recharge speed bonus of 28%.

Thanks.


Fine we get it. You will NOT change direction with the tiericide. Okay that one is on you.

However FOR THE LOVE OF ANY DEITY YOU CHOOSE, look at what you wrote, step back to 2003 and ask yourself does it fit. Restrained, Impaired, .... whats next changing pirate implants to " Crippled Implant of Speed" (Low Grade Snake) or "Very Good Implant of Shield Boosting" (High Grade Crystal).

This is where this naming convention is going, you are going to rip the heart out of EVE and turn it into yet another WoW in space clone. If new players find actual intelligence requirements and being able to READ an issue perhaps this is not the game for them.

Money Makin Mitch
Paid in Full
#328 - 2014-09-29 18:18:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Money Makin Mitch
Ned Black wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey guys. Thanks for the feedback so far.

We're doing some discussion internally about the concerns some people have expressed about the naming.
I will say that we absolutely reject any argument that attempts to claim that obscure name memorization should somehow be a requirement to play EVE. It's not "dumbing down the game" to make systems more easily understandable.
However some of the concerns about the lore and flavour have merit and we're talking about what we might change to better address those concerns. Nothing related to this will be changing for Oceanus, but everything can be iterated upon.

Also, if you've read the patch notes or dev blog today you'll have seen that we made an adjustment to the Restrained Cap Flux Coil stats. We had some wires crossed internally and thanks to your feedback we've cleared up the erroneous stats. The Restrained Cap Flux Coil will indeed have reduced drawback instead of increased drawback. It will have a capacitor pool penalty of -10% and a recharge speed bonus of 28%.

Thanks.


But it does FEEL as if you are dumbing down EvE with all these tieracides, easier to use interfaces and so on. Be it weapons, mods or ships or you name it.

In the beginning every ships was like a swizz pocket knife. You never knew what you faced and the number of fits were probably as wide as the number of players. With steamlining you remove a lot of that vibrancy simply because fitting a ship outside of the streamline will make it suck so bad that its not even funny.

Look at other things as well. Scanning used to be HARD... I mean seriously hard and it was only very few that could actually do it at all. Not only did it take a lot of time, but it required a lot of skill and know how to do... today anyone and their ******** dog can scan while being semi comatose without breaking a sweat.


So sorry, but to me who have been around for a long time it really does feel as if you are dumbing down EvE one step at a time... and all those names actually give things a lot more flavour than having generic "easy to recognize" names... removing things does not add to the game... it removes them, it removes something that made eve special.

THIS! I can already tell what I'm going to be fighting in terms of fit 90% just from seeing the ship on scan or overview because this role bonuses stuff got taken way overboard to the point where it feels like there is only one 'correct' way to fit each type of ship, and not only that, but ships overlap, ie. I almost feel like I'm using the same ship when I choose between my Vagabond or Deimos.

This tiericide with the modules feels like yet another step in limiting my fitting options. Removing and renaming stuff seemingly just to do it. And why even bother with mods at all at this point if every ship is going to be fitted the same anyways? Why not just be done with it and make standard ships that can only switch utility slots, prop mods, and ammo/drone type?
Medalyn Isis
Doomheim
#329 - 2014-09-29 18:34:55 UTC
Marcel Devereux wrote:
DireNecessity wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey guys. Thanks for the feedback so far.

We're doing some discussion internally about the concerns some people have expressed about the naming.
I will say that we absolutely reject any argument that attempts to claim that obscure name memorization should somehow be a requirement to play EVE. It's not "dumbing down the game" to make systems more easily understandable.
However some of the concerns about the lore and flavour have merit and we're talking about what we might change to better address those concerns. Nothing related to this will be changing for Oceanus, but everything can be iterated upon.

Also, if you've read the patch notes or dev blog today you'll have seen that we made an adjustment to the Restrained Cap Flux Coil stats. We had some wires crossed internally and thanks to your feedback we've cleared up the erroneous stats. The Restrained Cap Flux Coil will indeed have reduced drawback instead of increased drawback. It will have a capacitor pool penalty of -10% and a recharge speed bonus of 28%.

Thanks.


Fozzie,

I agree that obscure naming is a red herring argument and, sadly, it may drown out a different, possibly more fruitful line of exploration. As best I can see, this first pass module rebalancing does nothing to make fitting player produced tech 1 (meta 0) modules sensible in any case since even the compact versions not only use less resources (powergrid/cpu etc.) but also produce better results (rate of fire/powergrid increase, ect.).

This, of course, matches the current situation where generally the player manufactured tech one (meta 0) is the worst of all possible options including from a cost perspective (low meta being so numerous and reprocessing so poorly, it generally sells on the market for less than the meta 0 option).

Will drop rates be adjusted to make named modules rare enough to be more valuable/expensive than player produced meta 0 modules or is the thinking that Tech II manufacturing provides sufficient demand for player produced meta 0 modules and thus there’s no need to create even more demand for them by making them sensible options in their own right?

DireNecessity


This!

This +2. I don't like the names personally, but it is the uselessness of meta 0 items that really makes this change bad. Is there any chance of this concern being taken on board and reiterated on also.
Shin Dari
Covert Brigade
#330 - 2014-09-29 18:41:17 UTC
DireNecessity wrote:

Will drop rates be adjusted to make named modules rare enough to be more valuable/expensive than player produced meta 0 modules or is the thinking that Tech II manufacturing provides sufficient demand for player produced meta 0 modules and thus there’s no need to create even more demand for them by making them sensible options in their own right?

DireNecessity
Rarity is a very poor balancing tool in Eve Online, it hardly ever works.

I think that the solution is to have named modules be fabricated by players. This is one of the stated long-term goals of CCP, to have everything be fabricated by players. I think that now is the time to actually do it.

In the current situation manufactures and mission runners are competing against each other and not working with each other. Have mission runners provide the components/materials and allow the industrialists to make the named modules.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#331 - 2014-09-29 18:53:39 UTC
Shin Dari wrote:
DireNecessity wrote:

Will drop rates be adjusted to make named modules rare enough to be more valuable/expensive than player produced meta 0 modules or is the thinking that Tech II manufacturing provides sufficient demand for player produced meta 0 modules and thus there’s no need to create even more demand for them by making them sensible options in their own right?

DireNecessity
Rarity is a very poor balancing tool in Eve Online, it hardly ever works.

I think that the solution is to have named modules be fabricated by players. This is one of the stated long-term goals of CCP, to have everything be fabricated by players. I think that now is the time to actually do it.

In the current situation manufactures and mission runners are competing against each other and not working with each other. Have mission runners provide the components/materials and allow the industrialists to make the named modules.


hmmm.. named mods instead of dropping in missions being made instead by manufacturers makes sense ...
so combat missions could just be compensated with bigger bounties .. which makes sense .. it should be about the combat rather than salvaging and looting and then having too move the stuff too sell it..

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

Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#332 - 2014-09-29 18:55:14 UTC
One thing about variable names: in reality, there is a huge variation in naming conventions, but you don't have to search for the brand or model to get your choices. If I could type 'stasis webifier' into the Market UI and get back everything that's a stasis webifier, that would moot the problem considerably.

If that's too hard to do for whatever reason, standardizing the names to some degree is fine. Count me in as preferring lore-based or sci-fi-sounding adjectives.

The major problem, which is still unaddressed by CCP, is that this round of changes affirms that meta is always better than vanilla T1. You're missing out on a chance to change something that would represent more good complexity. It might also be a nice buff to new industrialists, although it's a bit tough to see how that would actually shake out.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Emiko Rowna
Keys To The Stars
#333 - 2014-09-29 18:55:18 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
Shin Dari wrote:
DireNecessity wrote:

Will drop rates be adjusted to make named modules rare enough to be more valuable/expensive than player produced meta 0 modules or is the thinking that Tech II manufacturing provides sufficient demand for player produced meta 0 modules and thus there’s no need to create even more demand for them by making them sensible options in their own right?

DireNecessity
Rarity is a very poor balancing tool in Eve Online, it hardly ever works.

I think that the solution is to have named modules be fabricated by players. This is one of the stated long-term goals of CCP, to have everything be fabricated by players. I think that now is the time to actually do it.

In the current situation manufactures and mission runners are competing against each other and not working with each other. Have mission runners provide the components/materials and allow the industrialists to make the named modules.


hmmm.. named mods instead of dropping in missions being made instead by manufacturers makes sense ...
so combat missions could just be compensated with bigger bounties .. which makes sense .. it should be about the combat rather than salvaging and looting and then having too move the stuff too sell it..



They could drop parts to build the named mod with.
Daenika
Chambers of Shaolin
#334 - 2014-09-29 19:08:37 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
the lower drawback is surely countered by the lower recharge bonus???
the inconsistency is a big problem here

it should be the same base as the other meta .. and then its specialization on top of that..
and then the drawback for each meta specializing should be added and made clear .. so the base meta would end up being better at something .. here being the stronger recharge rate..

meta 0 (base model) 36%
compact 34%
restrained 34%
T2 41%


You don't understand how flux coils interact with capacitor regen, apparently. The reduction in capacitor capacity provided by the flux coils reduces regen in addition to flat capacity. As a result, if you keep the same regen bonus, but reduce the capacity penalty, you increase the overall regen bonus considerably.

If we used your numbers, plus the penalties currently suggested (-20% capacitor capacity for all but Restrained, -10% for Restrained), we'd see a net capacitor regen per second of the following:

T1: (1 - 0.8) / (1 - 0.36) = 25.0% increase
Compact: (1 - 0.8) / (1 - 0.34) = 21.2% increase
Restrained: (1 - 0.9) / (1 - 0.34) = 36.4% increase
T2: (1 - 0.8) / (1 - 0.41) = 35.6% increase

Basically, your version of the Retrained is overwhelmingly better than even the T2 (slightly better bonus, reduced cap penalty for neut susceptibility). Your version of the Compact would literally only be used when the T1 won't fit, making its demand almost non-existent.

Honestly, I'm starting to feel like the "meta" modules need a slightly higher skill requirement (if the T1 requires skill X at 1, the metas require 3 or maybe 4). Excluding the meta module scale, power increases have always come with either higher skill requirements (T2) or significantly higher rarity/costs (faction, deadspace, officer). The meta modules fit neither of those. Without something providing either a barrier of entry or additional cost for using the meta modules, this change will do nothing to augment usage of the T1 (meta 0) modules.

One thing this change will do, however, is give ample options for playing with PG and CPU on modules by side-grading into the "Compact" version (or possibly even downgrading T2 modules to "Compact"). That is a change I strongly favor.
Callic Veratar
#335 - 2014-09-29 19:11:14 UTC
The T1 modules should be worse than the Meta/T2/Faction mods because T1 modules are used to make T2 and some faction mods and in the future could be used to make Meta modules as well. (Drop meta drops from NPCs for parts that are used to upgrade T1 modules to meta parts and add a new process to convert BPCs into Meta prints).

The argument that removing 'Scout' from a 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon I is removing flavour is quite fallacious. 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon I is the flavour and the difference between a Carbine Repeating Cannon or a Gallium Machine Gun is trivial. Suggesting that a Hurricane or Snake implant will change is silly because we have a Hurricane Fleet Issue, not a Monsoon and Snake High-Grade and Low-Grade not Snake and Serpent implants.

Don't use a logical fallacy to argue your point (slippery slope in this instance). It won't get you very far.
Solecist Project
#336 - 2014-09-29 19:18:59 UTC
Morihei Akachi wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
CCP disagrees with you.

And quite apart from all the polemics, that is an interesting observation. Because they clearly didn't always. At some point in the past, when these modules were first being rolled out, some dev or devs clearly put considerable time and creativity into making up names for modules that sounded realistic and plausible for an advanced future technological civilization. And I imagine it was probably really fun. So somewhere along the line all that work that someone did has gone from being "a contribution to the richness and flavour of New Eden" to being "a barrier to getting into the game." I think that's an interesting change of perspective, and I'd be curious to know what precipitated it.


Not empty quoting.

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#337 - 2014-09-29 19:19:45 UTC
Daenika wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
the lower drawback is surely countered by the lower recharge bonus???
the inconsistency is a big problem here

it should be the same base as the other meta .. and then its specialization on top of that..
and then the drawback for each meta specializing should be added and made clear .. so the base meta would end up being better at something .. here being the stronger recharge rate..

meta 0 (base model) 36%
compact 34%
restrained 34%
T2 41%


You don't understand how flux coils interact with capacitor regen, apparently. The reduction in capacitor capacity provided by the flux coils reduces regen in addition to flat capacity. As a result, if you keep the same regen bonus, but reduce the capacity penalty, you increase the overall regen bonus considerably.

If we used your numbers, plus the penalties currently suggested (-20% capacitor capacity for all but Restrained, -10% for Restrained), we'd see a net capacitor regen per second of the following:

T1: (1 - 0.8) / (1 - 0.36) = 25.0% increase
Compact: (1 - 0.8) / (1 - 0.34) = 21.2% increase
Restrained: (1 - 0.9) / (1 - 0.34) = 36.4% increase
T2: (1 - 0.8) / (1 - 0.41) = 35.6% increase

Basically, your version of the Retrained is overwhelmingly better than even the T2 (slightly better bonus, reduced cap penalty for neut susceptibility). Your version of the Compact would literally only be used when the T1 won't fit, making its demand almost non-existent.

Honestly, I'm starting to feel like the "meta" modules need a slightly higher skill requirement (if the T1 requires skill X at 1, the metas require 3 or maybe 4). Excluding the meta module scale, power increases have always come with either higher skill requirements (T2) or significantly higher rarity/costs (faction, deadspace, officer). The meta modules fit neither of those. Without something providing either a barrier of entry or additional cost for using the meta modules, this change will do nothing to augment usage of the T1 (meta 0) modules.

One thing this change will do, however, is give ample options for playing with PG and CPU on modules by side-grading into the "Compact" version (or possibly even downgrading T2 modules to "Compact"). That is a change I strongly favor.


the exact bonus is not the point here .. its the concept thats the point .. which the rest of my post explains

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

Zappity
Exit-Strategy
Unchained Alliance
#338 - 2014-09-29 20:21:55 UTC
Just keep the flavour names but add usability descriptors. Except 'ample' of course which sounds ridiculous.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.

Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
#339 - 2014-09-29 20:26:52 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey guys. Thanks for the feedback so far.

We're doing some discussion internally about the concerns some people have expressed about the naming.
I will say that we absolutely reject any argument that attempts to claim that obscure name memorization should somehow be a requirement to play EVE. It's not "dumbing down the game" to make systems more easily understandable.
However some of the concerns about the lore and flavour have merit and we're talking about what we might change to better address those concerns. Nothing related to this will be changing for Oceanus, but everything can be iterated upon.

Also, if you've read the patch notes or dev blog today you'll have seen that we made an adjustment to the Restrained Cap Flux Coil stats. We had some wires crossed internally and thanks to your feedback we've cleared up the erroneous stats. The Restrained Cap Flux Coil will indeed have reduced drawback instead of increased drawback. It will have a capacitor pool penalty of -10% and a recharge speed bonus of 28%.

Thanks.


my only fear is with the missile launcher category, in that when "next time" does come around the decision is made that the 2 meta variants offered don't provide meaningful gameplay and you want to add a third or even fourth variant back in. I mean slightly less cpu, and extra capacity are pretty lame tbh... I mean unless the plan was to add awesome versions later and completely mess with supply/demand What?

The name changes I don't like mostly out of convenience once you know them, very easy to just do a search for arbalest and bam! all off the missile launchers you want to see are right there. for some mods this doesn't work as well, and some mods just have confusing names. and also the convention of names is just strange even in the same module line.

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter

Hiply Rustic
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#340 - 2014-09-29 20:33:08 UTC
This line, Fozzie, is pretty meaningless:

"I will say that we absolutely reject any argument that attempts to claim that obscure name memorization should somehow be a requirement to play EVE."

No one's suggesting that players should memorize all of the module names, I venture to say that the number of people who have currently done so is astonishingly small. So, that point's moot. I suspect we can all read, and that most of us do lookups with the compare tool you guys so thoughtfully gave us to, you know, actually compare stats and requirements of the variously name modules.

This isn't about that.

Ralph King-Griffin wrote: "Eve deliberately excludes the stupid and the weak willied." EvE: Only the strong-willied need apply.