These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Drone 16
Holy Horde
#361 - 2014-09-30 09:37:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Drone 16
Spugg Galdon wrote:
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"


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.


Idea of the year. This could be an entire expansion and I'm guessing would receive rave reviews

It puts the peanutbutter on itself or it leaves the bonus round... - E1's greatest Hits
Solecist Project
#362 - 2014-09-30 09:38:03 UTC
Unezka Turigahl wrote:
I think a middle ground can be reached. Keep cool names but apply them across all modules. Limos can apply to all weapons of all types that have extended magazines for example, not just missile launchers.

Limos = increased capacity
Arbalest = increased range
Scout = higher ROF
Malkuth = lower fitting

You could tack some numbers on that are relevant to the variant's characteristic. Give Limos an X designating an expanded/extended magazine, preceded by a number showing how many charges it can fit.

So you end up with:
Light Missile Launcher 'Limos 48X'
Light AutoCannon 150mm 'Limos 180X'
Medium Railgun 200mm 'Limos 90X'
Heavy Artillery 1400mm 'Limos 25X'
etc...

So you have a brand name that is associated with bigger magazines, no matter what type of weapon you are using, and you can see right off the bat how much the weapon will hold.

So for Malkuth maybe it gets an F for 'fitting', preceded by a number, and a C or a P designating the CPU or PG it requires, since that is the relevant attribute for Malkuth modules.

Light Missile Launcher 'Malkuth 16C-F'
Light AutoCannon 150mm 'Malkuth 4C-F'
Medium Railgun 200mm 'Malkuth 26C-F'
Heavy Artillery 1400mm 'Malkuth 36C-F'

Can extend to non-weapons modules...
Medium Energy Neutralizer 'Malkuth 170P-F'
Medium Capacitor Booster 'Malkuth 150P-F'

If you find a Malkuth module you know its going to be easier to fit than normal, and you can see the fitting requirement without even opening the info panel. If your ship is tight on fitting and you need easier to fit guns, shield modules, whatever... just type what you need in the market search followed by Malkuth.

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
Unezka Turigahl
Det Som Engang Var
#363 - 2014-09-30 09:54:06 UTC
Aww you missed my edit:

Quote:
Limos = increased capacity (think limousine, stretched car, stretched magazine)
Arbalest = increased range (an arbalest is a crossbow, a RANGED weapon. RANGE)
Scout = higher ROF (scouts make you think of quick movement. quick fire rate)
Malkuth = lower fitting (Malkuth doesn't have a memorization gimmick, sorry)


Existing brand names that even kind of make sense with regard to the attribute being modified.
Mike Whiite
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#364 - 2014-09-30 10:37:22 UTC
On a side note.

I'm told that weapon specialization skills only work on Tech 2 weapon systems.

so is it correct to assume that the fire rating difference between a Tech II and a Faction light missile launcher comes down to 0.3 seconds in favor of the Faction launcher when you take level 5 light missile specialization in account?

And with that that the Cosmos Launcher is lower on CPU but has a slower rof?

If so is this intended or can we see a revamp of those weapon specialization skills as well?
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#365 - 2014-09-30 10:46:49 UTC
Mike Whiite wrote:
On a side note.

I'm told that weapon specialization skills only work on Tech 2 weapon systems.

so is it correct to assume that the fire rating difference between a Tech II and a Faction light missile launcher comes down to 0.3 seconds in favor of the Faction launcher when you take level 5 light missile specialization in account?

And with that that the Cosmos Launcher is lower on CPU but has a slower rof?

If so is this intended or can we see a revamp of those weapon specialization skills as well?



This is something I've been advocating for a long time now.

If weapon specialization skills applied to all weapons (T1/Faction/Storyline/T2) then all weapons would be come relevant and more powerful the more SP you piled into them.

T2 guns would retain their special feature of using T2 Ammo but T1/Meta/Faction don't become irrelevent after training the specialisation skills.
Luscius Uta
#366 - 2014-09-30 11:54:25 UTC
Call me pedantic, but it hurts my eyes to see basic modules being given higher meta level than named or T2. It doesn't make the stuff less confusing Sad

Workarounds are not bugfixes.
Fu Qjoo
Pangalactic Frontline Supply Agency
#367 - 2014-09-30 12:20:39 UTC
This module is a bad example, as you would always use the cheapest variant required for your specific fitting. If T1 does the job with a 1.08 modifier, why should I use T2?




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?
AssandTits
Doomheim
#368 - 2014-09-30 14:21:58 UTC
Well, CCP stayed true to form and totally ignored customer feedback.

Congratulations Fozzie, you continue to destroy the foundations that make this game not another clone.
Radgette
EVE Irn Bru Distribution
#369 - 2014-09-30 14:51:30 UTC
these quick fire expansions are nice in that we get a constant stream of "content" and updates

BUT

they have a massive flaw in that by the time we can give feedback the decisions already made and patches module changes that are terrible get put straight onto TQ with given CCP's track record will never get fixed
Ynef
Skill Extraction Slavery
#370 - 2014-09-30 15:00:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Ynef
Way to go Fozzie!

Why nerf LML to the ground?!

Also,

This "Module Tiericide" thing sounded bad even at Fanfest.
It became even worse in the dev blog.
And now it's live and shitting all over the place.

I can't remember when was the last time you made a step in the right direction.

And now just how the fck should I undock with my "Traffic Light Missile Launchers"?


edit: wording
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy
Caldari State
#371 - 2014-09-30 18:23:38 UTC
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.

Absolutely THISAttentionAttention
ivona fly
Black Fox Marauders
Pen Is Out
#372 - 2014-09-30 18:25:32 UTC
Ynef wrote:
Way to go Fozzie!

Why nerf LML to the ground?!

Also,

This "Module Tiericide" thing sounded bad even at Fanfest.
It became even worse in the dev blog.
And now it's live and shitting all over the place.

I can't remember when was the last time you made a step in the right direction.

And now just how the fck should I undock with my "Traffic Light Missile Launchers"?


edit: wording


+1


The worst thing is missiles still semi op on cerb, and all the new pirate ships that were just introduced, but are becoming useless on nearly all other platforms.
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy
Caldari State
#373 - 2014-09-30 18:29:12 UTC
Kynric 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.


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.

Pretty much This
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy
Caldari State
#374 - 2014-09-30 18:44:32 UTC
Sizeof Void wrote:
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.

+1 Super good Idea
Daenika
Chambers of Shaolin
#375 - 2014-09-30 19:23:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Daenika
Spugg Galdon wrote:
1st. T1 modules need to retain usefulness over meta modules in some way.


Retain?! They don't have any usefulness over meta modules right now! There's nothing to retain! An argument can be made that they should have usefulness compared to the meta versions, but don't act that it's something CCP is removing.

Spugg Galdon wrote:
2nd. Naming convention of the modules is extremely important. Get it right and don't try to emulate WoW.


Wait, what? Last I checked, item names in WoW were still very fantasy-based. Even the enchants aren't "Enchant Weapon - Occasional Stat Boost", it's "Enchant Weapon - Dancing Steel".

Still, what so many gamers get wrong is that reducing barrier to entry does not devalue their gameplay. If the only reason you can feel good about playing a game is because most people can't because it's obfuscated as hell, you need to check your ego at the damn door.

Or, to cite GamerCat:

http://www.thegamercat.com/comic/real-talk/

Edit: honestly, the biggest thing for me is that I want some method of searching the market for all modules of a particular type. Unified naming schemes do that. Example, if you wanted to search for a small armor repairer, you have the following names:


  • Small Armor Repairer I
  • Small I-a Polarized Armor Regenerator
  • Small Inefficient Armor Repair Unit
  • Small Automated Carapace Restoration
  • Small 'Accommodation' Vestment Reconstructer I
  • Small Armor Repairer II


The only word in common amongst them is "small", which provides a list of approximately 1000 items, of which no more than 27 are small armor repairers (and that includes the Ancillary, plus the storyline, faction, and deadspace versions). The only real option is to search for one, then right click and go to that market folder.

Now, if you look at the deadspace versions, the have a unified naming scheme. They are either Coreli, Centii, or Corpii, plus either C-type, B-type, or A-type. The Corpii and Centii versions are functionally identical, while the Coreli version is lower repair rate, but also lower cap cost. They still stick to rather obfuscated names, but they are consistent, and if I want to search for them, all I have to search for is "-Type Small Armor Repairer" and I get all 9 deadspace reppers, with no extras included.

That's part of the benefit of a unified naming scheme. Deadspace modules prove it doesn't have to break from the sci-fi sounding names, but unifying the naming schemes such that they can be easily searched for is a powerful benefit.
Crynsos Cealion
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#376 - 2014-09-30 19:30:13 UTC
Quote:

1st. T1 modules need to retain usefulness over meta modules in some way.


I think the most simple and senseful way to make them useful would be to give the basic and currently buildable meta 0 modules the role of the "Compact" modules, the modules that are easier to fit than all others of the same time at the cost of performance.

Seeing as the renaming has been probably primarily done to help rookies recognize that even modules with long and complex names are essentially just the same as a "Co-Processor/Reactor Control Unit/etc I" but slightly better, this would give our newbies a good module to start out with in terms of recognizing what it does by name, as well as being very cheap and compensates for their lack of fitting skills.


And I have to heavily agree, removing all the unique, if sometimes overly complex names of modules reduces a lot of the Sci-Fi flair, which started as the good old ArcJet Thrusters and thelike were removed, later the unique missile names and now the whole rest of the modules stock - but it hasn't really improved and only made many vets more annoyed about it every time it was done.
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#377 - 2014-09-30 20:27:38 UTC
Crossposting myself from F&I because it seems like the Right Thing to Do™.

Alvatore Dimarco wrote:
Cold-Gas Arcjets. An afterburner named for technology that actually exists. To me, that was the most amazing thing.

Then CCP took that away. They've never stopped taking that away. Every time they touch a module, they take its name away because "the module names are too hard to understand". Maybe if the module names are too hard, that person is an idiot and should go play something more in line with their level of ... erm ... intelligence. Or perhaps they should finish kindergarten. Ever since that black day when someone came to power in CCP with the idea of "simplify everything", it's been nothing but "make it simple and easy to understand".

EVE shouldn't have any depth, require any thought or be the least bit interesting, right?

Piece by piece, CCP, you're cutting the soul out of this game. Maybe you're trying to attract MOBA simpletons who care nothing about lore and flavor and atmosphere and only want to shoot things as quickly as possible, but EVE isn't a MOBA and you need us MMO nerds too.

I cut CCP a whole lot of slack that others don't because I understand there are limitations and more than one side to things, but this is something I'll neither cut slack for or forgive.

To the very bowels of hell with this "make EVE easy" initiative. Stop renaming everything with preschoolers in mind.

Cold-Gas Arcjets. Never forget.
Portmanteau
Iron Krosz
#378 - 2014-09-30 21:23:40 UTC
Eve just became and will continue to become just a little more dull... Thanks Fozzie Sad
Gray's Anatomist
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#379 - 2014-09-30 21:49:53 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Crossposting myself from F&I because it seems like the Right Thing to Do™.

Alvatore Dimarco wrote:
Cold-Gas Arcjets. An afterburner named for technology that actually exists. To me, that was the most amazing thing.

Then CCP took that away. They've never stopped taking that away. Every time they touch a module, they take its name away because "the module names are too hard to understand". Maybe if the module names are too hard, that person is an idiot and should go play something more in line with their level of ... erm ... intelligence. Or perhaps they should finish kindergarten. Ever since that black day when someone came to power in CCP with the idea of "simplify everything", it's been nothing but "make it simple and easy to understand".

EVE shouldn't have any depth, require any thought or be the least bit interesting, right?

Piece by piece, CCP, you're cutting the soul out of this game. Maybe you're trying to attract MOBA simpletons who care nothing about lore and flavor and atmosphere and only want to shoot things as quickly as possible, but EVE isn't a MOBA and you need us MMO nerds too.

I cut CCP a whole lot of slack that others don't because I understand there are limitations and more than one side to things, but this is something I'll neither cut slack for or forgive.

To the very bowels of hell with this "make EVE easy" initiative. Stop renaming everything with preschoolers in mind.

Cold-Gas Arcjets. Never forget.

The very this.
Next time they'll take our PWNAGE away.
Medalyn Isis
Doomheim
#380 - 2014-09-30 23:28:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Medalyn Isis
Why don't we take a step back and just think for a second, what exactly is the role should a T1 manufactured item should fill.

In my opinion, meta 0 items should be the baseline, and then the meta 1-4 modules improve one aspect of the meta 0 item at the cost of another.

meta 0 : Reactor Control Unit I : 1.1x, CPU 15
meta 1-4 : "Compact" Rector Control Unit: 1.08x, CPU 10
meta 1-4 : "Overcharged" Rector Control Unit: 1.12x, CPU 20
meta 5 : Reactor Control Unit II : 1.15x, CPU 22

So in the case of the reactor control, the meta 0 is the base, compact offers reduced CPU cost but at the expense of giving less PG boost, and "overcharged" gives a larger PG boost than the meta 0, but at the cost of 5 extra CPU.

The T2 version is just a straight upgrade, although requires higher skills and more expensive components to build.

Again, the same idea could be applied to missile launchers.

meta 0 : Light Missile Launcher I : PG 6, CPU 16, ROF 14.4s, Capacity 40
meta 1-4 : "Compact" Light Missile Launcher : PG 5, CPU 12, ROF 16.0s, Capacity 40
meta 1-4 : "High Capacity" Light Missile Launcher : PG 6, CPU 21, ROF 14.4s, Capacity 48
meta 1-4 : "Rapid Fire" Light Missile Launcher : PG 6, CPU 21, ROF 13.6s, Capacity 40
meta 5 : Light Missile Launcher II : PG 7, CPU 24, ROF 12.8s, Capacity 53

So to put simply, Insert "" with descriptive names, with a Sci-Fi feel to them. Then you use the meta 0 version as the base line module. Then the meta 1-4 modules improve one aspect of the meta 0 item at the cost or additional aspects.