These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Schmata Bastanold
In Boobiez We Trust
#101 - 2014-09-25 19:56:09 UTC
Wake me up when you move to something actually useful like tackle, tank, propulsion and gank. Which one of 50 shades of fuse to use is not exactly most exciting part of fitting my ship.

Invalid signature format

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#102 - 2014-09-25 19:57:10 UTC
multiplies instead of percentages on the cpu/RC doesnt help either

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

KIller Wabbit
MEME Thoughts
#103 - 2014-09-25 20:07:07 UTC
Updating fits every 6 weeks for months on end .... who's not going to love that?
Summer Isle
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
#104 - 2014-09-25 20:22:40 UTC
Change the Meta levels, as well, getting rid of the to-be-empty groups. Tech 2 would then be Meta 2.

...Halflife 2 confirmed?

 Talk is cheap, but Void S and Quake L are cheaper.

Summer Isle
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
#105 - 2014-09-25 20:29:00 UTC
Schmata Bastanold wrote:
Wake me up when you move to something actually useful like tackle, tank, propulsion and gank. Which one of 50 shades of fuse to use is not exactly most exciting part of fitting my ship.

Oh, god, everyone, Schmata isn't interested in the current modules. We need to fix this, stat! Burn the bridges and get rid of any module she doesn't use, we need to focus only on her boring-ass tackle ship! Go! Go! Go! Go! Let's move, people!

 Talk is cheap, but Void S and Quake L are cheaper.

Leyete Wulf
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#106 - 2014-09-25 20:30:13 UTC
Restrained Cap Flux is still wacky and out of line with the other mods in its category. If the point is to scale the 'main stat(s)' along the meta then its regen stat is way to high (higher than all the others). And the penalty still doesn't correlate since fitting multiple restrained units would yield better performance than multiple tech two units.

Also, I think you just murdered my arbalest LML fit frigs as they will now take a hit in ROF (~6.66) reduce damage modifier (brought to par with meta 1) and reduced comparative bay size vs former limos and TE series launchers (also reducing sustained dps). I love the module tiericide but can I at least have my arbalests converted to the large bay versions?
Ponder Yonder
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc.
Illusion of Solitude
#107 - 2014-09-25 20:37:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Ponder Yonder
Hi CCP,

Looking at the LML changes,this strikes me as odd:

Meta 0 should be the baseline. It should define the balance between PG/CPU and damage application. Meta 1+ modules should be harder to fit, with corresponding increases in damage application. This is very important for ships where PG/CPU is tight, providing players with decisions and trade-offs. It is also very important for new chars to be able to increase their damage application as their fitting skills improve.

Now look at the new LML's:

'Light' Meta 0: PG/CPU: 6/21, ROF: 16s, Capacity: 40
'Compact' Meta 1: PG/CPU: 6/16, ROF: 13.6s, Capacity: 40
'Ample' Meta 1: PG/CPU: 6/21, ROF: 13.6s, Capacity 48

That's it for the Tech 1 launchers!

Both Compact and Ample are the same or easier(!) to fit than meta 0, and provide better damage application. There is therefore no reason to fit meta 0 ever.

What makes this worse, is that there is no progression available for a character as their fitting skills increase. They are stuck with Compact or Ample until they hit Light Missiles V, when Meta 5 becomes an option. All the fitting skills will make absolutely no difference because there is no choice.

My suggestion would be that:
a) Meta 1+ should be harder to fit than meta 0, with corresponding benefits.
b) There should be a ladder of meta modules, with corresponding increases in benefits, that players can progress to as their skills improve.

It should be turned around as follows:

'Light' Meta 0: PG/CPU: 6/16, ROF: 16s, Capacity: 40
'Compact' Meta 1: PG/CPU: 6/21, ROF: 13.6s, Capacity: 40
'Ample' Meta 1: PG/CPU: 6/21, ROF: 16s, Capacity 48

Now there is a trade-off between fitting and damage application.

Absolutely make the benefits clear in the descriptions, but don't remove player choice. This is Eve. Players should make decisions. And decisions should have consequences.
Tsukinosuke
Id Est
RAZOR Alliance
#108 - 2014-09-25 20:47:27 UTC
better idea than current, so it seems an improvement..

anti-antagonist "not a friend of enemy of antagonist"

Mequen Wheeler
Maximum EQualizers
#109 - 2014-09-25 20:50:14 UTC
Great. How will merging all the Meta 'Named' modules into 1 'Meta 1' category affect those of us who buy and sell in these modules? If I'd know this was to happen I'd have cancelled a LOT of buy orders. Oh ... right, that's not PvP so doesn't matter?

Hello, worlds!

Zappity
Kurved Trading
#110 - 2014-09-25 20:52:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Zappity
Great dev blog and good direction. But I really don't like the naming conventions. Just re-purpose the existing named varieties for each group rather than generic 'scoped', 'restrained' etc. It removes too much depth.

RIP Arbalest, PWNAGE, J5b, Scout, 5W, Infectious... Seriously, don't convert these to generics. Add the new descriptors to these names.

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

Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#111 - 2014-09-25 20:53:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
yes... meta 0 needs too have some function/role .. otherwise people will skip it entirely and go too the next meta up
- lower fittings or better performance ... and then T2 it seems as T2 seems too be even better in performance than the best performing meta... some rethink is needed i think

also the T2 mods should be bumped up to lv5 skills everytime .. there are too many that are lv4 then some with lv5

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

Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#112 - 2014-09-25 20:55:45 UTC
TigerXtrm wrote:
scimichar wrote:
Still no reason to use T1 over scoped, ample, or T2.

Try cost. Supply and demand will sort it out.

Actually, no, it won't.

In most cases, the NPC drop rate and current supply of metas is so high that the market price of low metas is as low, or lower than, the build cost of T1.

Low meta module price, when the market supply is saturated, is roughly based on its reprocessing value. When the reprocessing numbers were cut by 50%, the price of most of the metas also dropped, but the cost of building T1 modules remained the same, which made the situation worse.

So, since most T1 modules always have (1) worse stats and (2) comparable or higher cost , when compared to low metas, they simply do not get used (when was the last time you saw someone post a T1 fit?) Which also means, ofc, no reason to build them, except as an ingredient in building T2 modules. This has also been one of the reasons that there isn't much noob manufacturing, outside of T1 ammo and rigs.

Combining the low and high metas into a single meta should further degrade the situation, since, effectively, all of those over-abundant low metas are becoming high metas, flooding the market.

CCP - any plan to address this issue?
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#113 - 2014-09-25 20:55:45 UTC
Aquila Sagitta wrote:
Could we get some numbers on the new cap flux coil vs cap power relays?

You nearly doubled the regen but you also doubled the penalties which makes me think they will still be useless or even worse then before.


The only time I've ever been interesting in using Cap Flux coils was when nos got rebalanced. Cap Flux coils reduce total cap but increase cap regen, allowing for some interesting niche fits. Those fits might be worth another look.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

snorkle25
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#114 - 2014-09-25 20:58:13 UTC
Glad your cleaning up all these modules, there really is no need to have multiple varieties that no one uses (inertia stabs, I'm looking at you...).

That said, WTF?! When are you going to finish up fixing ships?! You go and buff the F out of the marauders but how about the black ops?! I'd really like to be able to have a Redeemer, Panther or sin that is actually worth the isk and SP I've invested into it instead of having a mini mobile bomber bridge.

Please finish up what you started and balance out the rest of the ships, up through Titans, thanks.

Yours truely, a customer.
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#115 - 2014-09-25 21:09:12 UTC
Retar Aveymone wrote:
Rook Mallard wrote:

We went down this road when you messed up the AB and MWD names a while back. It seems that the feedback you got back then was quickly forgotten.

You are now getting rid of trademark names like 'Arbalest', 'Limos', 'Malkuth'. Moreover, the "standarized" names you chose are hideous. Use the description tab for each module to explain what they do and stop screwing up names and killing immersion. What type of dark hard-code sci-fi setting are you turning EVE into when you start naming everything using just 4 words??

Also, Ample? Really?

I'm going to clue you in on something: the people who get very, very mad when you change a name are a loud, tiny minority. I'm glad CCP remembers that.

The name change is great. Name changes seem to be one of those things that really triggers some hard sperging but they're solidly good: I hate having to look up which one of four random names is the 'good' meta module.



I couldn't agree more. There's nothing worse than having to go to the comparison tool and select meta level to find out which item is the meta 4 one. Even after 5 years I still don't have them all memorized.

But I will genuinely miss the Arbalest launchers and meta 4 ECM when that one happens. Speaking of which... can I assume that this set of rebalances and renaming will include fixes to meta 4 items like ECM that are strictly better than T2? I want to know what to buy on the market.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

Daimus Daranius
Warcrows
Shattered Foundations
#116 - 2014-09-25 21:13:54 UTC
Hey CCP, I was hoping to see Shield Flux Coils fixed as part of module rebalance, since they are currently the most useless modules in EVE (I can't think of a single application where they would be useful). My suggestion - replace the shield recharge bonus with a reduction to either duration or cap use of shield boosters.

Amarr Victor!

Rain6637
NulzSec
#117 - 2014-09-25 21:15:18 UTC
+1 for this new balancing philosophy, that preserves preceding ship balancing philosophies.
Falin Whalen
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#118 - 2014-09-25 21:24:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Falin Whalen
Ponder Yonder wrote:
Hi CCP,

Looking at the LML changes,this strikes me as odd:

Meta 0 should be the baseline. It should define the balance between PG/CPU and damage application. Meta 1+ modules should be harder to fit, with corresponding increases in damage application. This is very important for ships where PG/CPU is tight, providing players with decisions and trade-offs. It is also very important for new chars to be able to increase their damage application as their fitting skills improve.

Now look at the new LML's:

'Light' Meta 0: PG/CPU: 6/21, ROF: 16s, Capacity: 40
'Compact' Meta 1: PG/CPU: 6/16, ROF: 13.6s, Capacity: 40
'Ample' Meta 1: PG/CPU: 6/21, ROF: 13.6s, Capacity 48

That's it for the Tech 1 launchers!

Both Compact and Ample are the same or easier(!) to fit than meta 0, and provide better damage application. There is therefore no reason to fit meta 0 ever.

What makes this worse, is that there is no progression available for a character as their fitting skills increase. They are stuck with Compact or Ample until they hit Light Missiles V, when Meta 5 becomes an option. All the fitting skills will make absolutely no difference because there is no choice.

My suggestion would be that:
a) Meta 1+ should be harder to fit than meta 0, with corresponding benefits.
b) There should be a ladder of meta modules, with corresponding increases in benefits, that players can progress to as their skills improve.

It should be turned around as follows:

'Light' Meta 0: PG/CPU: 6/16, ROF: 16s, Capacity: 40
'Compact' Meta 1: PG/CPU: 6/21, ROF: 13.6s, Capacity: 40
'Ample' Meta 1: PG/CPU: 6/21, ROF: 16s, Capacity 48

Now there is a trade-off between fitting and damage application.

Absolutely make the benefits clear in the descriptions, but don't remove player choice. This is Eve. Players should make decisions. And decisions should have consequences.
While I somewhat agree with you. It looks like there realy isn't a choice, go 'Ample' or go home, with the numbers as presented by CCP.

The numbers you put out realy even things out as far as balance and choice, but I would say that there is room for a third meta item in that list.

'Light' Meta 0: PG/CPU: 6/21, ROF: 16s, Capacity: 40
'Compact' Meta 1: PG/CPU: 6/16, ROF: 16s, Capacity: 40
'Ample' Meta 1: PG/CPU: 6/21, ROF: 16s, Capacity 48
'Augmented' Meta 1: PG/CPU: 6/21, ROF 13.6s, Capacity 40

There you go, a choice between fitting, capacity, or ROF.

EDIT: While I apreciate CCP Fozzie, paring down the meta items to just two for most items. When it comes to things that shoot, it seems like two just won't cut it, as there are a few atributes that can be 'enhanced'. Range ( optimal / falloff ), cap use, ROF, tracking, fitting, that is five atributes to balance the four meta items around. ( Except projectiles don't use cap, and missiles don't use cap and have no tracking. )

"it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka 

Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#119 - 2014-09-25 21:35:35 UTC
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.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#120 - 2014-09-25 21:39:13 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
Aquila Sagitta wrote:
Could we get some numbers on the new cap flux coil vs cap power relays?

You nearly doubled the regen but you also doubled the penalties which makes me think they will still be useless or even worse then before.


The only time I've ever been interesting in using Cap Flux coils was when nos got rebalanced. Cap Flux coils reduce total cap but increase cap regen, allowing for some interesting niche fits. Those fits might be worth another look.

Indeed, my thoughts exactly... especially on larger vessels.

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