These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at

EVE Information Portal

  • Topic is locked indefinitely.

Dev blog: Rebalancing EVE, One Module At A Time

First post First post First post
Sven Viko VIkolander
#121 - 2014-09-25 21:54:31 UTC
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? Big smile
Falin Whalen
Goonswarm Federation
#122 - 2014-09-25 22:21:38 UTC
Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:

We have pointed out, that the things that shoot stuff have many atributes that can be enhanced. Just two for LMLs is a travesty. I do not think that heat damage should be one of them tho. There is already range, cap use, tracking, fitting, ROF, and ammunition load, that is six atributes that have to be crammed into four meta items. Which ones do you leave out? Projectiles don't have to worry about cap use, so it is a little better off with having to cram five atributes into four meta items, and missiles only have three off of that list, so they would be a snap.

Heat shouldn't be one of the things to fidle with in meta items, they are for all intents and purposes T1 items, just with 'enhanced' atributes.

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

Mohingan Dark
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#123 - 2014-09-25 22:24:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Mohingan Dark
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


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 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 it would be easier to balance the faction/officer mods then too....

PS....some of the naming choices need a tweak....
Schmata Bastanold
In Boobiez We Trust
#124 - 2014-09-25 22:27:54 UTC
Summer Isle wrote:
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!

Oh I'm sure you spend hours agonizing over flux coils and RCUs so I'm happy that first stage of tiercide will help you make right choices. It has to start somewhere after all.

But you have to admit that contrary to ship tiercide they chose not exactly the most popular groups to rebalance.

And next time try harder, less words more sarcasm and maybe I will even feel hurt :)

Invalid signature format

The Scope
Gallente Federation
#125 - 2014-09-25 22:29:09 UTC
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.

handige harrie
Vereenigde Handels Compagnie
#126 - 2014-09-25 23:02:03 UTC
Nice changes in general,

but the names are bland and sound really unsci-fi -y. They are terrible really.

You can get much better and more fitting names if you use a different prefix and/or suffix for every itemgroup.

like with weapons:

+Optimal Range Railguns could be called 'Charged'
+Optimal Range Artillery could be called 'Propelled' or 'extra propelled'
+Optimal Range Ship Scanner could be called 'Long Range'
+Reduced drawback Bulkheads could be called 'Big Boned'

You can make better fitting names that way and everything will remain pretty recognizable without getting too generic.

Baddest poster ever

Chainsaw Plankton
#127 - 2014-09-25 23:02:04 UTC
Krodes Thara wrote:
For sure having 5 faction modules with same stats is not confusing and it is good game design...
What about the lore with each faction excelling in something? Are you going to trow all that away?
I'm okay with the rest somehow, but faction modules should have different qualities and uses.

When you get to shields Pithi and Gisti shields will have the same attributes?

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.

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter

The Scope
Gallente Federation
#128 - 2014-09-25 23:03:00 UTC
Sizeof Void wrote:
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?

1. NPC drop rate is not equal to the amount of modules that make it to the market. Most missioners don't bother looting and in the past the vast majority of those useless meta modules ended up in the shredder (might still be the case).

2. The price for those modules is currently so low because no-one wants them unless they're sold under reprocessing value. Once they get a purpose and there is a demand for them, their price will go up to more reasonable levels for their purpose. Their T1 counterpart will become the baseline for the price with an extra markup on top to account for possible rarity or scarcity, depending on how much the modules are going to be used.

My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!

My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums

Krell Kroenen
The Devil's Shadow
#129 - 2014-09-25 23:04:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Krell Kroenen
Harvey James wrote:
i find the T2 mods just being plain better at everything a little at odds with role based mods...

T2 lml is better at everything ... surely allowing the use of T2 ammo is enough of a buff in itself??
why use the ample version when T2 is better at it??

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.
Chainsaw Plankton
#130 - 2014-09-25 23:17:25 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.

Valterra Craven wrote:
Man, the market sure reacts quickly to changes... oh well not fast enough for this one :(

I do see a couple problems.

1. The meta layout of your re balance makes no sense.
a. Why have meta gaps? (shouldn't the number increase like power does and not skip numbers)
b. Why are basic modules meta 6 and t1 mods are meta 0... basic should be meta 0 and t1 should be meta 1...

Because Legacy Code. Dun dun dun!!!

Good balance pass overall, will be interesting to see how modules are going to be used. What I don't get is two things:

1. Who possibly uses 'Civilian' type modules and why are they even in the game (and why haven't they been taken out during this pass?)

2. The hell are basic modules? Something from the 2003 era? Again, why not just take them out of the game completely if no-one ever uses them?

cost has sorted it out, meta 1-3 items are more often reprocessed for minerals than used on ships, I'm pretty sure there are a few meta 4s that you are better off just reprocessing too. I don't even want to know what the unused supply in hangars all over EVE is.... and god knows how many are generated each day by the NPC killers. I mean Meta loot is so worthless I don't even bother dropping a mobile tractor unit in most missions.

Civvy mods are used in tutorials and such. that said getting rid of them probably isn't the worst idea.

and I'd say bring basic mods back, if they truly are used in niche fits not having them ever entering the game is worst off. Same thing with Micro cap boosters. that said I just looked at the basic damage control line, and well as far as I'm concerned they can just get rid of them or sweep them under a rug somewhere, they just clutter up the damage control section.

the Supplemental EM ward amplifier is a 25% EM resist for 6 cpu, where the meta version is 32.5% but for 20 cpu and 1 pg, and tech 1 is 25 cpu. It isn't a great mod but the very low fitting cost might find a use somewhere.

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter

Azahar Ortenegro
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#131 - 2014-09-25 23:38:10 UTC
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.
Adaahh Gee
Trust Doesn't Rust
#132 - 2014-09-25 23:38:50 UTC
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:

the Supplemental EM ward amplifier is a 25% EM resist for 6 cpu, where the meta version is 32.5% but for 20 cpu and 1 pg, and tech 1 is 25 cpu. It isn't a great mod but the very low fitting cost might find a use somewhere.

That is a very expensive module though (current sell order in Jita is 94mil)
It is one of the older module groups that still seem to be around, they have pretty much zero skill need and very low fitting spec, I do not believe they even drop anymore from NPC's
Chainsaw Plankton
#133 - 2014-09-25 23:42:18 UTC
Ponder Yonder wrote:
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.

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

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter

Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#134 - 2014-09-25 23:48:10 UTC
Please, please, please, do not name all the "new modules" in a boring vanillia manner.

Someone above made an excellent suggestion regarding Scoped Intaki railguns: Associating the meta one varieties by corporate lore name instead is a great idea.

It encourages us to make associations with Eve's corporate names and identies. So just as we have in today's automotive industry IRL. if you want reliable and affordable you look to a particular set of companies, if you want fast and or luxurious you automatically check the brand names you have known about since childhood.

Some other suggestions for you to think about before release day.

Ishukone Compact Light Missile launcher
Sebestior Extended Mag Light Missile Launcher

These two alone convey more meaning, desire and pride than Compact Light Missile Launcher.

You could even go a step further and have Caldari corp ones drop in Caldari space and Minmatar/Amarr ones drop in their space, albeit with same stats as Compact and Extended (please don't use's just somewhat ...wrong for a missile launcher).

I could go on.

Making all of the modules in Eve sound bland and un-interesting for the sake of ease of use for new players is a bad move.
I do agree that the naming convention has not been always nice to use, but also I do remember actually feeling excited about discovering Cold Arc Jet Thruster in my cargo hold the first time I found one in a loot drop all those years ago. The module names added to the flavour of the game and set it apart from its competitors.

Combine the new naming convention with the existing Corp lore names and you will have a richer universe.
Caldari State
#135 - 2014-09-25 23:57:51 UTC
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.
Sephira Galamore
Inner Beard Society
#136 - 2014-09-26 00:21:31 UTC
Please keep the immersive names!
Thank you.
Chainsaw Plankton
#137 - 2014-09-26 00:25:43 UTC
Adaahh Gee wrote:
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:

the Supplemental EM ward amplifier is a 25% EM resist for 6 cpu, where the meta version is 32.5% but for 20 cpu and 1 pg, and tech 1 is 25 cpu. It isn't a great mod but the very low fitting cost might find a use somewhere.

That is a very expensive module though (current sell order in Jita is 94mil)
It is one of the older module groups that still seem to be around, they have pretty much zero skill need and very low fitting spec, I do not believe they even drop anymore from NPC's

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

Krell Kroenen wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
i find the T2 mods just being plain better at everything a little at odds with role based mods...

T2 lml is better at everything ... surely allowing the use of T2 ammo is enough of a buff in itself??
why use the ample version when T2 is better at it??

Maybe because of skill requirements and cost?

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

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter

Falin Whalen
Goonswarm Federation
#138 - 2014-09-26 00:56:05 UTC
Not only are the modules underwhelming, but in the case of the LML, there is only one choice. The 'Ample' meta 1 LML module is the new meta 4 module, unless you have a gimicky tight fit, it is the clear choice.

So congrats on reballancing the modules and making only one worth it to get CCP.

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

profundus fossura
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#139 - 2014-09-26 00:56:22 UTC

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
Goonswarm Federation
#140 - 2014-09-26 01:15:29 UTC
Anzomi Inkunen wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:
What will happen with invention where you could "sacrifice" a meta 4 module to augment your success rate if all the mods are dropping to meta 1 ?

As stated in the devblog about invention, that's being removed.

Yes but that invention change isn't supposed to happen for a bit (or at least for this release). What will happen in the meantime to the invention of those modules?

This. Would be nice to get an official response. My guess is that we're just stuck with Meta 1 until they get around to changing the invention formula, no telling when that's going to happen, but probably at least into 2015.