EVE Information Portal

Hey Fozzie
Overall these are great first changes to module rebalancing and I am really excited about how radically they are going to change standard fits. There is a ship-level meta and I hope this will create a better module-level meta as well. Probably the thing that will have the biggest impact is the name changes and standardization—it is going to help new players a lot since currently figuring out the differences between meta items is a huge hassle.

The fact that bitter vets here are largely complaining about the name choices is probably a good sign the plan is solid...

There are a few things I am confused about though, and a few questions I have about the project going forward:

1) The main thing I am confused about is the lack of meta 1 options available to light missile launchers, compared with the large amount of meta 1 options for the (proposed) future beam laser changes. Beam lasers (and similar weapons?) might get 4 or so different meta 1 options, while light missiles (and similar weapons?) are going to be limited to two—fitting, and extra capacity. This seems like a fairly large nerf to the general LML meta, given that the fitting options are going to be much more predictable for LMLs than they are for other systems like beam lasers et al. Why not try to maintain consistency across all weapon systems and have 4 or so meta 1 options? For missiles, why not add LML range and LML overheating capacity for instance?

2) Are all meta 1 items going to have the same heat properties? Why not have some meta 1 items that have better ability to overheat? (e.g., a “Hardened” light missile launcher variant.)

3) Going forward, can we expect that T2 modules will be uniformly better than the T1 meta 1 modules, or will some T2 modules remain terrible? For instance, T2 Microwarp drives are pretty much useless, the T2 Stasis Web is worse than the current meta 4, etc.

4) On the chart for the rebalance plan, you have faction items as having “more power” than T2 items. Will this be uniformly implemented as well? For instance, I am thinking of modules such as the terrible line of faction turrets (e.g., faction railguns and that crap). Are these going to have a greater “power level” than the respective T2 modules? In other words, will we finally see daredevils with blinged-out turrets as well?

why are the meta 1 items all around better than the meta 0?

i thought the point was to make it where meta 1 was better in ONE STAT but had A DRAWBACK

example:

meta 0:
light missile launcher 1 - BASE MODULE

meta 1:
compact missile launcher - less cpu BUT worse range than meta 0
scoped (awful word choice) missile launcher - more range but worse rof than meta 0
ample missile launcher - more ammo but less explosion radius than meta 0

all meta 1 = same in every stat other than the bonus/drawbacks

in that case there would actually be a CHOICE in what module to take....do i need more range or do i need less cpu cause of my fit?

what this would also make happen is having t2 always better than the meta in that there would be no drawback....plus it would be easier to balance the faction/officer mods then too....

PS....some of the naming choices need a tweak....

The game gets massively over balanced.

All the ship balancing, now the module balancing, "Tiericide", name standardisation etc. kills variety and thus immersion. Initially, I thought, you guys would just tweak a bit here and a bit there, where necessary - not iron everything flat just for the sake of change itself.

For some time now, EVE loses the feel of being a vital living world - just like a sandbox that contains, well, just lots of sand... Yawn.

with their roadmap it appears they intend to have different factions specialize in different bonuses. I think shield boosters are probably one of the best examples of that currently. Pith boosters boost more at the cost of cap where gist boosters use way less cap but don't boost as much. That said Gist boosters also seem to use way less CPU. so I'm not quite sure what the plan will be when they get there. imo the guristas line could probably use a slight boost somewhere, as people seem to be preferring ASBs to Pith boosters, at least on the large side. I would guess in the medium and small versions people are using undersized boosters so it smooths out the differences.

MWDs seem like another example, Serpentis (core) MWDs use more cap, have a smaller sig radius penalty, use more CPU, and Use less PG as compared to the Angel (gist) versions.

With both examples it isn't the simple A or B that seem to be presented in the current versions, but then again when buying top of the line fittings a few more complexities shouldn't really be a draw back?

CPU/PG upgrades are well, pretty boring. Maybe have one group boost a step down in power but also drop cpu use by a point or two? I'm not sure that is a meaningful enough change to really care about though.

Maybe because of skill requirements and cost?

As for the new names, I am with a lot of other folks.. ditch them and keep some of the old ones. The new ones are a bit corny and over the top. Save the adjectives for the descriptions of the module not the name of them. You don't see GM selling the "Ample SUV" as a make and model.

Droping the names of meta modules is a bad idea. Dumbing down the choice in meta modules is worse.

But, by cancelling every order of meta item all over New Eden, you're sending us to a cluster-wide market crash. And announcing it only 5 days before the release makes it impossible to even try to mitigate that.

You should seriously not include these changes in Oceanus, get back to work on the module tiericide, and ask the players months before making any changes.

agree, the choices are almost meaningless in the proposed example. I think the t2 version of the LML really just outshines by a ton. that said I've mostly considered light missiles to be like nipples on a breast plate. (side effect of being a newbie in the nano days?) Maybe when they get to larger weapons the differences will feel meaningful? Also the T2 version still gets bonuses from the spec skills, dunno why named versions have the odd ROF

Highest-upvoted comment on the reddit thread is worth repeating here:

spazturtle said:
Ample and Enduring don't really sound right for EVE.
Instead of Ample it should be High Capacity and instead of Enduring it should be Efficient.
Those names sound like things you would put on a space ship.

I'd guess it only costs that much due to the extremely limited supply, also that shows it has a use somewhere.


several years ago I would agree with you, these days eve players have way more SP and way more isk than they know what to do with. When I started I was buying xr-3200 heavy missile launchers for ~5mil a pop, arbalests were going for ~15mil. I traded modulated tachyons for ~6mil. Cost on most items just isn't even relevant as a balancing factor.

newbs will use meta items, almost everyone else will use t2, and a few people will use meta when fitting is an issue. Like now some people are using arby launchers on their crows and worms as the dps change is minimal and the fittings are relaxed.

now there are a bunch of variables that will affect cost
how many newbs are joining
how much ccp has made it easier to train for t2 versions of various items
Removal of learning skills
how much players realize specialization is important
lower costs of t2 items
tiericide making fitting various ships easier
balance between the various races and ships meaning players are buying different things

as far as I'm concerned nearly everything is damn cheap these days. Mineral costs seem to be the only thing up, tbh I wouldn't be surprised if overall they are down and I just haven't been paying attention, and well that is because they have been messed with by CCP pretty heavily over the last few years. Oh and most t2 ships seem a bit more expensive than I remember, and over the last year they seem way more stable than I would have thought (although there seems to be a lot of short term ups and downs)

the first BCU II I remember buying was 9mil or so, back in the BPO cartel days my friend said he was buying at 20mil each. now I don't even count the cost of t2 gear on ships I fly.

the new meta items are just underwhelming

Love the changes and look forward to more interesting variations on the modules but the names aren't great any chance of retaining some of the names and doing something similar to implants eg

Eifyur andf co 'gunslinger' Small projectile Turret SP-601

sounds cool and still clearly identifies what it is - although could do with shortening a bit so name fits properly in market window also the standardized names run the risk of not being relevant or clear for all modules and as has been said earlier runs the risk of reducing immersion and making Eve less distinct from other MMOs that use standard naming or colour coding whatever for item quality.

Can you not for keep some of the great names and add a suffix eg

'Limos' Light Missile Launcher - ECO
'Arbalest' Light Missile Launcher - XMG

Where - XMG stands for Xpanded Magazine and ECO for Economical - I know thats not the best but it's late here but this could apply to all weapon systems with TR - tracking etc for turrets

Alternatively could you use some other aspect of lore such as NPC corp names with each corp having a particular focus such as Hyasyoda specializing in reduced fitting caldari mods and Nugoeihuvi in expanded capacity ones so that players can quickly learn to associate a particular brand with their specialty

Re faction mods is it necessary to have four named mods that are the same why not consolidate these to a neutral NPC faction like Sisters of Eve or Interbus where there is no room for four distinct mods and where there is enough scope for four types at faction level make them specialty in one area

e.g Tracking computer
Angels Increased Tracking
Sanshas Increased Optimal
Guristas Increased falloff
Serpentis signature resolution

With similar boosts for ammunition and guns so players can mix factions to achieve a balance or specialize all the way in say Angels kit for best possible tracking