These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Daenika
Chambers of Shaolin
#341 - 2014-09-29 20:41:56 UTC
Quote:
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.


It always confused me why the 'Solace' version was the meta 4 remote armor rep, and the 'Regard' version was the meta 4 remote cap transfer, but the 'Atonement' was not the meta 4 remote shield transfer (instead its the S95a, the similarly named version of which is meta 3 for cap transfers and meta 1 for remote armor reps).

Honestly, looking through the naming schemes for turrets and other high slots, they need a simplification. In fact, most modules fall into that category. Wanting there to be some sort of superiority or experience barrier to memorizing which module names, for every single class in the game, are the meta 4 module you want, is simply BS. There's no game benefit to that. It doesn't reward "skill". It simply turns off new players to the game. Obfuscation for no other purpose than "flavor" and forcing memorization of information that is irrelevant outside of the obfuscation itself is nothing but harmful to the game overall.

I mean, seriously, if you guys are playing this game because your gun is called a "280mm Gallium Cannon" instead of a "200mm Scoped Cannon", you're not appreciating the depth that EVE has.
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#342 - 2014-09-29 21:18:24 UTC
Apologies if this has already been suggested:

Why not just adapt the naming convention from the skill hardwiring impants and add a 2-letter or 3-letter code to each existing name, which indicates which stat is improved for that particular module?

For example: 200mm Gallium Cannon ER, where ER would indicate "extended range", or 200mm Gallium Cannon TS, where TS would indicate "tracking speed" has been improved.

Then, you can both keep the existing "immersive" names, while still have the benefit of being able to easily identify a module's advantage by just looking at the name's new code suffix.

An additional code could even be used to indicate the primary disadvantage. For example: 200mm Gallium Cannon ER-PG, where PG indicates a higher "power grid" requirement.
ivona fly
Black Fox Marauders
Pen Is Out
#343 - 2014-09-29 21:32:15 UTC
So you really did just nerf the missile launchers, i thought maybe the re-balance thing was going to add something a mid slot mod or something for them but nope just a nerf.


not sure i like anything about this patch.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#344 - 2014-09-29 21:38:50 UTC
ivona fly wrote:
So you really did just nerf the missile launchers, i thought maybe the re-balance thing was going to add something a mid slot mod or something for them but nope just a nerf.


not sure i like anything about this patch.


it does seem too be a little light on overall content ... i mean what happened too the ship rebalancing .. it used too come out like a river now its more like an occasional drip

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

Robart Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
#345 - 2014-09-29 21:53:32 UTC
I feel that this is the wrong course to take. this is a personal opinion, based on a limited time screwing with meta modules. Complexity for the sake of complexity is wrong. but simplicity for the sake of simplicity is also wrong. most players don't use meta 1-3 stuff? most players in anything large than a cruiser use primarily T2 or better. frigates and destroyers, even cruisers, is where those meta modules shine. there's even a tool which already allows players to compare EVERY attribute of EVERY module in a market group, from having found any of them. the compare window is a better tool to deal with it. it sits there, on the variations tab, hardly used. I've dealt with veteran players (not saying anything about their quality, just they've been here a while), who had no idea it existed.

Please, for the love of Bob, don't do this. Let us keep what fragments of the lore we have. Let us keep this meaningless variety, but make it meaningful. As it is, I remember fondly the idiocy i got into with meta 3 launchers, and the beautifully tight fits that only worked because the meta 2 module had one less PG of draw. it's most important for the new-bros. Cruisers, battlecruisers, and battleships all have enough space on them that in almost every application, T2 mods live in every slot. the price differences as well make for interesting choices. do you go for cheap, or effective?

and that little bit of flavour that each of those silly names adds?

It makes the game fun. Target painters are a beautiful example of what CCP in years past did.

EvE is a complex game. I respect that you need to get new players into the game. I respect that you are frustrated that it seems like no one uses those modules. but if you look at the database closely, find me a module which isn't fit to a ship.

Don't get rid of complexity, please. Don't take our names. Instead, make the differences meaningful.

Fozzie, this isn't WoW, or WoT. A great many of us like our meta levels, and our other legacy ****. take those balance ideas of yours, and put them under the old names. but don't take flavor from the game. It's bitter enough already.
Morihei Akachi
Doomheim
#346 - 2014-09-29 22:58:13 UTC
Hiply Rustic wrote:
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.


That's true, as far as it goes. Nevertheless, isn't there a sense in which the complexity of the technology and all the stuff you have to figure out in order to fit a ship quickly and effectively is also a field on which we as players acquire skill and mastery? And isn't that acquisition of (an admittedly fairly arcane) competence a central part of what gives Eve-players a very special sense of accomplishment? I have to work hard, at the moment, to come to a clear understanding of the fitting requirements of every new ship I decide to fly. Having worked hard at it, I have a very real feeling of having mastered something when I can head for a fitting bay and just know the modules I need. The less I need to work at that, the less it will mean to me. And isn't that meant to be one of Eve's major selling points, that achievements there mean more than in some "easy" MMO?

"Enduring", "restrained" and "ample" as designations for starship components are foreign to the genre of high-tech science fiction and don’t belong in Eve Online. (And as for “scoped” …)

Money Makin Mitch
Paid in Full
#347 - 2014-09-29 23:07:13 UTC
Robart Baboli wrote:
I feel that this is the wrong course to take. this is a personal opinion, based on a limited time screwing with meta modules. Complexity for the sake of complexity is wrong. but simplicity for the sake of simplicity is also wrong. most players don't use meta 1-3 stuff? most players in anything large than a cruiser use primarily T2 or better. frigates and destroyers, even cruisers, is where those meta modules shine. there's even a tool which already allows players to compare EVERY attribute of EVERY module in a market group, from having found any of them. the compare window is a better tool to deal with it. it sits there, on the variations tab, hardly used. I've dealt with veteran players (not saying anything about their quality, just they've been here a while), who had no idea it existed.

Please, for the love of Bob, don't do this. Let us keep what fragments of the lore we have. Let us keep this meaningless variety, but make it meaningful. As it is, I remember fondly the idiocy i got into with meta 3 launchers, and the beautifully tight fits that only worked because the meta 2 module had one less PG of draw. it's most important for the new-bros. Cruisers, battlecruisers, and battleships all have enough space on them that in almost every application, T2 mods live in every slot. the price differences as well make for interesting choices. do you go for cheap, or effective?

and that little bit of flavour that each of those silly names adds?

It makes the game fun. Target painters are a beautiful example of what CCP in years past did.

EvE is a complex game. I respect that you need to get new players into the game. I respect that you are frustrated that it seems like no one uses those modules. but if you look at the database closely, find me a module which isn't fit to a ship.

Don't get rid of complexity, please. Don't take our names. Instead, make the differences meaningful.

Fozzie, this isn't WoW, or WoT. A great many of us like our meta levels, and our other legacy ****. take those balance ideas of yours, and put them under the old names. but don't take flavor from the game. It's bitter enough already.
This

hell, I've been playing and skilling for 3 years now, and my Loki has the most ridiculous hodge-podge of mods to make the fit work.... literally uses up all the CPU and powergrid even after faction/meta stuff... you're basically now taking away my ability to create such fits. Now my Loki will probably no longer work, and even if it does, I don't want to fly some 'ample' bullshit
Medalyn Isis
Doomheim
#348 - 2014-09-29 23:20:43 UTC
Money Makin Mitch wrote:
I don't want to fly some 'ample' bullshit

Agreed. Add to that list restrained, who thought naming a module with a name like that is a good idea.

Give us some names with a little more pshhh

Overcharged, extended, plated, layered, honeycombed, optimised. Any of those are a lot more descriptive and sounds a lot better than ample, restrained, enduring. The only one I semi like out of the list you posted is Scoped, all of the rest are terrible.

None are as good as the current names we have though, so seems like this is change just for the sake of change when it comes to completely revamping the module names.
Ransu Asanari
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#349 - 2014-09-29 23:37:51 UTC
Fozzie can you please comment on the Light Missile Launcher changes - was reducing the number of meta launchers, and keeping the fitting the same as the Meta0 intentional? The Light Missile Launcher I will have the same fitting as the Ample Light Missile Launcher, so there will be absolutely no reason to use the Meta0 other than cost.

This is a fairly significant nerf to ship fitting for Light Missiles, because currently you can scale your fitting with what your ship can spare, since Malkuth -> Limos -> Arbalest -> T2 all scale with CPU usage, and only T2 launchers have additional powergrid.
Krell Kroenen
The Devil's Shadow
#350 - 2014-09-29 23:39:57 UTC
Morihei Akachi wrote:

That's true, as far as it goes. Nevertheless, isn't there a sense in which the complexity of the technology and all the stuff you have to figure out in order to fit a ship quickly and effectively is also a field on which we as players acquire skill and mastery? And isn't that acquisition of (an admittedly fairly arcane) competence a central part of what gives Eve-players a very special sense of accomplishment? I have to work hard, at the moment, to come to a clear understanding of the fitting requirements of every new ship I decide to fly. Having worked hard at it, I have a very real feeling of having mastered something when I can head for a fitting bay and just know the modules I need. The less I need to work at that, the less it will mean to me. And isn't that meant to be one of Eve's major selling points, that achievements there mean more than in some "easy" MMO?


Very well said.
Primaxin
30plus
Goonswarm Federation
#351 - 2014-09-30 00:24:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Primaxin
Most everyone is focusing on the admittedly dumb names but I think that is the least important problem with this change.

Most players do some ratting. Believe it or not, many even pick up the loot. One of the few excitements to ratting and running missions is finding a valuable item, usually meta 4. From what I'm reading, all that will go away. All rats will drop exactly the same generic stuff, no chance of ever finding anything especially valuable or interesting. Probably most mods will be worth about 10-15K ISK.

What a way to ruin that aspect of gameplay. Honestly they haven't done much with PvE for a long time, in fact I was running some of the same missions in high-sec 6 years ago as I've been doing since I returned to high sec 6 months ago. No variety, no randomness, every mission with the same name plays exactly the same. Anomalies are usually the same also (very small chance of something interesting happening). Instead of doing something to make PvE more interesting for those who enjoy that aspect of the game, they're taking away one of the few parts that added some excitement.

To me this is a much much bigger problem than the names.
Emiko Rowna
Keys To The Stars
#352 - 2014-09-30 03:26:16 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. ...

Thanks.


So how long before you apply this thought process to the ship names? I can't wait to see what the new names might look like.


Scoped Frigate, anyone?




Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#353 - 2014-09-30 04:04:29 UTC
Hmm.... looking at co-processors....

After rebalancing:
T1 co-processors -> 1.08x CPU
Upgraded co-processor -> 1.09x CPU
T2 co-processors -> 1.10x CPU

They all require 1MW of PG. Clearly, T2 is always better than Upgraded, which is always better than T1.

So, exactly when would I want to use a T1 or even an Upgraded co-processor, instead of a T2 co-processor?

Because of cost or availability, you say?

In Rens:
T1 co-processors cost about 50K ISK.
T2 co-processors cost about 800K ISK.
Meta co-processors before recent speculation were actually cheaper than T1 - now, they cost more than T1, but still substantially less than T2 (except for the ones which no longer drop - let's ignore them, since they are generally just collector's items). Let's say 150K ISK for Upgraded.

Supply isn't an issue - there are plenty of co-processors available.

Is there really anyone, say at least one month old, who cannot always afford 800K ISK for the T2 version?

Ok, now assume that 800K ISK really is too much for some players.

If the Upgraded price drops again below the T1 price, then it is a no-brainer - every poor player will always buy the Upgraded rather than T1.

How about if it is 150K for the Upgraded vs. 50K for the T1? How many poor players still can't afford the extra 100K ISK to get the Upgraded version? Somehow, I just don't think there are many players who are that space poor.

So, when exactly would anyone use the T1 version?
Emiko Rowna
Keys To The Stars
#354 - 2014-09-30 04:08:22 UTC
Sizeof Void wrote:
Hmm.... looking at co-processors....

After rebalancing:
T1 co-processors -> 1.08x CPU
Upgraded co-processor -> 1.09x CPU
T2 co-processors -> 1.10x CPU

They all require 1MW of PG. Clearly, T2 is always better than Upgraded, which is always better than T1.

So, exactly when would I want to use a T1 or even an Upgraded co-processor, instead of a T2 co-processor?

Because of cost or availability, you say?

In Rens:
T1 co-processors cost about 50K ISK.
T2 co-processors cost about 800K ISK.
Meta co-processors before recent speculation were actually cheaper than T1 - now, they cost more than T1, but still substantially less than T2 (except for the ones which no longer drop - let's ignore them, since they are generally just collector's items). Let's say 150K ISK for Upgraded.

Supply isn't an issue - there are plenty of co-processors available.

Is there really anyone, say at least one month old, who cannot always afford 800K ISK for the T2 version?

Ok, now assume that 800K ISK really is too much for some players.

If the Upgraded price drops again below the T1 price, then it is a no-brainer - every poor player will always buy the Upgraded rather than T1.

How about if it is 150K for the Upgraded vs. 50K for the T1? How many poor players still can't afford the extra 100K ISK to get the Upgraded version? Somehow, I just don't think there are many players who are that space poor.

So, when exactly would anyone use the T1 version?


Never and I'm starting to think that is the idea. Making one think this are options but there are none. Fitting get real easy then.
Drone 16
Holy Horde
#355 - 2014-09-30 05:23:32 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.


Hello Fozzie,

I want to say this as respectfully as possible as I know that you love the game and are trying very hard to make a positive difference to it ( and you have many times). However, your statement that we are trying to make everyone memorize obscure names just because we had to is pretty far off.

From what I have read I feel that many here are trying to preserve the depth and immersion that hooked us in the beginning and kept us coming back. These new names takes a lot of that depth away. Maybe you don't see it that way but almost every post in this thread echoes the same idea, don't lessen the immersion.

I have seen may good ideas, from simple mouse overs that show the trait eg. Ample to adding npc corp names to items. There isn't much difference in memorizing what a Creodrone item does compared to its opposite number in your naming convention.

There are a lot of good intentioned people trying to help in this thread please give them their due when making your decisions in the near future.

Thanks

It puts the peanutbutter on itself or it leaves the bonus round... - E1's greatest Hits

Obsidian Hawk
RONA Midgard Academy
RONA Directorate
#356 - 2014-09-30 06:22:21 UTC
Going along with Drone 16's statement. The naming convention takes away from depth and immersion and makes it more theme parkish. When you simplify a name you simplify the player looking for that item. Just dont touch guns and any more weapons. If you are going to simplify module naming keep it to new player stuff. Or make a set of new player items to get them hooked then give them the cliff of other names. I learned really fast when i joined "malkuth" meant easiest to fit and "arbelast" meant expensive as hell you may as well go t2.

Also with tiericide you Nuke the weapons market in general. I sell weapons as loot but with tiericide here's what im going to do. Toss it all in the reprocessor because with out distinction there is no reason to sell it. Everyone will go for one type and ignore the rest. So pretty much im saying.

Tiericide only good for new players. Bad for vets and market traders and anyone that actually likes to think. All those modules i have now are better off as minerals than a module.

Why Can't I have a picture signature.

Also please support graphical immersion, bring back the art that brought people to EvE online originaly.

Daenika
Chambers of Shaolin
#357 - 2014-09-30 07:10:31 UTC
Quote:
So, exactly when would I want to use a T1 or even an Upgraded co-processor, instead of a T2 co-processor?


Skill is generally the barrier to entry for T2 modules. I know it may be hard for you to believe, but there are people playing this game that can't fit every T2 module in the game yet...

Anyway, I agree with you on the T1 side. After this change, there literally won't ever be a point to using a meta0 module over an Upgraded/etc module. Then again, there really isn't a point to using a meta0 instead of a meta4 currently either, so that's not really a change, it's just trimming out the other 3 modules that generally get ignored beside the meta0, and in theory giving us some more options for the ones we want to use. I know it'll be a bit of a balancing act for me on the LML side between Ample and Compact versions for a few of my fits (since several are already tight on fitting with Arbalest, which are at 17 CPU each, while the Ample require 21 to the Compact's 16)
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#358 - 2014-09-30 07:50:20 UTC
Daenika wrote:
Quote:
So, exactly when would I want to use a T1 or even an Upgraded co-processor, instead of a T2 co-processor?

Skill is generally the barrier to entry for T2 modules. I know it may be hard for you to believe, but there are people playing this game that can't fit every T2 module in the game yet...

Ah, a good point, which I did indeed forget to consider.

However, for a T2 co-processor, it looks like the only requirements are Electronics Upgrades IV, CPU Management II, and Power Grid Management II - which probably takes about 1.5 days to train up. Not much of a barrier.

Side question: Has CCP been lowering the skill requirements for most T2 modules? I haven't paid much attention.
Dwissi
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#359 - 2014-09-30 08:45:12 UTC
I would like to chop my piece of opinion into the T1 vs T2 part that has been heavily discussed further up.

When i know i am a crappy pilot or while i still train i wouldnt dream of putting expensive T2 stuff into my fittings as i have a pretty high percentage of losing that ship anyways. So there is and should always be a need for non-T2 modules for that.

Besides the fitting area there should be a usage for T1 as it is the entry level for every industrialist as well. To have any kind of production chain in T2 modules requires quite a bit of understanding and effort - so T1 modules shouldnt be devalued any further. The latest update wanted an easier entry into industry for everyone which will always be something on T1 level and not the high end stuff veterans like to reduce the game to.

Many of your arguments across the board are fine and valid - i dont question them as a single one. But i do have my concerns when lore is used as a defense. I am role-playing a lot and can only say: there arnt many others who really do that. So using that as an argument against changes that might have an impact on market segments and prices is kind of too easy to look through.

Eve has and will always have the famous 'steep' learning curve - but not because a single modules name has changed etc. Its simply the mass of things where modules are just one part. Generalizing those names and making things clearer is a help but not a elimination of any kind of challenge. The sheer mass of modules, ships, roles, bonuses etc is what makes that a challenge - not that i call module xy instead yx.

Proud designer of glasses for geeky dovakins

Before someone complains again: grr everyone

Greed is the death of loyalty

Spugg Galdon
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#360 - 2014-09-30 09:01:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Spugg Galdon
Emiko Rowna wrote:
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.



"From the mouths of babes"

This is probably the best idea I've heard in this thread.

CCP. You really need to take a step back here. Your direction here is confused as to what you think your playerbase wants. You're trying to tell us what we want and not listening to what we actually want. Remember what happened last time? It was called "Incarna".

So, what has actually been said?

1st. T1 modules need to retain usefulness over meta modules in some way.
2nd. Naming convention of the modules is extremely important. Get it right and don't try to emulate WoW.
3rd. Players want to BUILD meta modules.

This 3rd point is what I've quoted above. If npc rats dropped "parts" that would make meta modules (like sentient drones drop parts for faction drones) you could combine these parts with T1 modules to build meta modules. This would buff industry as a little bonus on the side!

An example would be that a rat would drop some "Gun Optics". These "Gun Optics" could be combined with a T1 rail gun to produce a "Scoped Railgun" (however, consider the naming system from my earlier post). It would take more parts to make larger guns meaning it can be scaled easily with module sizing. Potentially include salvage to make it more of an isk sink and increase the value of salvage too.