These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 Modules in EVE Online, Round Two

First post First post
Author
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
#201 - 2015-01-09 15:51:10 UTC
i love seeing all the bogey men creep out from under the forums floorboards when a nerf hits

it is the roulette of blame, but the wheel conspicuously never has an entry labeled "myself"
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
#202 - 2015-01-09 15:52:09 UTC
*wheel spins, needle passes by Hatred of Highsec, Goon Developers, and lands on "CSM"*
Oraac Ensor
#203 - 2015-01-09 16:27:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Oraac Ensor
CCP Terminus wrote:
Oraac Ensor wrote:
At present, the Meta 4 and T2 modules give the same 27.5% bonus while differing only slightly in price and penalties.

But you propose to reduce the Meta 4 module to 22.5%?

That is not right. That is not right in any way, CCP.

Existing Meta 4's should be merged with T2, not with other Meta items bought by players knowingly choosing lower bonus levels.


Currently Meta 4 Expanded Cargoholds are purely worse than T2 Cargoholds (In fact all meta 1-4 modules are). However when we do the merging it's certainly an option to turn Meta 4 Expanded Cargoholds into T2 Expanded Cargoholds because of the stats similarities.

If this is not implemented it will be grossly unfair to players who have bought Meta 4 modules purely on the basis of their 27.5% bonus and otherwise will have all of them downgraded to 22.5%.
Thales
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#204 - 2015-01-09 16:32:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Thales
Oraac Ensor wrote:
CCP Terminus wrote:
Oraac Ensor wrote:
At present, the Meta 4 and T2 modules give the same 27.5% bonus while differing only slightly in price and penalties.

But you propose to reduce the Meta 4 module to 22.5%?

That is not right. That is not right in any way, CCP.

Existing Meta 4's should be merged with T2, not with other Meta items bought by players knowingly choosing lower bonus levels.


Currently Meta 4 Expanded Cargoholds are purely worse than T2 Cargoholds (In fact all meta 1-4 modules are). However when we do the merging it's certainly an option to turn Meta 4 Expanded Cargoholds into T2 Expanded Cargoholds because of the stats similarities.

If this is not implemented it will be grossly unfair to players who have bought Meta 4 modules purely on the basis of their 27.5% bonus and otherwise will have all of them downgraded to 22.5%.


I don't think that anyone however would Appreciate ANYTHING turned into these new T2 Cargo expanders that remove your structure and have such massive speed penalties.

If any module deserved the "blighted" name these are them.

The only modules that ever had a real value below T2 were the meta 4 modules.
I fully understand the desire to reduce the sheer number and complexity of modules, but what we are actually getting is one of the worthless modules being retained (with minor juggling), and the T2 getting nerfed in one way or another!

What we should be getting is a decent meta 1 choice, the meta 4 retained, and the T2 boosted as required to make it a viable and reasonable choice to train for, with SLIGHTLY different fitting requirements.

What we are getting are modules that will require the ships rebalanced to undo the damage, and how long will THAT take?

I really hope they will learn this lesson before they move onto the other modules, or these forums will be a sheer bloodbath, and that will be nothing compared to the feelings felt beyond them.

There has been much good work recently, please do not undo all the good and goodwill that has been achieved.
If this is part of a wide ranging rebalance, that is being bravely undertaken, that is all well and good, we can all understand that and applaud the courage!

However if it is really a case where the impact of this is not being taken account of, -because every module has a role on a wide range of ships and fits, -then I am very, very, worried. People train long and hard for a few percent velocity, or to fit these modules, when that is brushed off, as not relevant and one loses the value of ALL ones training in an core skill with just a couple of modules, and when fully fitted become virtually immobile, then something is VERY wrong. 18% velocity hit with a single module when one normally fits 5 in an iteron V ??? You have got to be kidding! add a rig and It will be surprising it does not go backwards!LolShocked

Or are we aiming at instawarp industrials? That will be interesting?
epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#205 - 2015-01-09 17:18:30 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
I hope that there is a realisation that players spend a great deal of time, effort, and ISK. For a percent or two of difference.
It seems that absolutely massive changes to the statistics and specification of modules are being significantly underplayed.

Whilst a single percent change to a ship creates threadnaughts and very upset players, changes of an order of magnitude more are being seemingly ignored when modules are discussed.

What is going to be the effect if this thinking also applies to modules that affect combat more? Will it only be when they go live that players react? And will it end well?

I also like the idea of valid and interesting fitting choices, but on this round, I am only seeing the opportunity to try to fit the least bad choice, they are all a bad choice.

Looks like it is too late to correct this now.


I hope it does not end too badly.

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE

Valterra Craven
#206 - 2015-01-09 17:32:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
CCP Terminus wrote:

We don't want obvious fitting options, we want player to have to think about what they're going to use depending on the situation they expect to be in. Everything should have a tradeoff, be it in fitting, raw power, ISK cost, or other variables. If Structure Hitpoints and/or Velocity are a big concern to your fit, consider using the meta 1 version of the module.


Oh? So does that mean when you get to DPS mods like mag stabs that you are going to add penalties to them? Or do you guys just enjoy screwing over people who do indy, one of the least fun activities of the game? I love how consistently inconsistent you guys are with your "goals"
EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#207 - 2015-01-09 17:34:46 UTC
given that meta 4 cargo expanders cost nothing, there seems to be no real reason to do any sort of change because anyone affected is out like two million isk max, and you're going to be stuck with a bad precedent when you make some other nerf or change and every wretched highseccer comes out with their begging bowl ranting that they deserve a handout

everyone knows things can shift, the rest of usdeal with it
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#208 - 2015-01-09 17:49:39 UTC
I'm concerned about the direction this is taking and imo this is against the proposals made by Fozzie on Fanfest. The simple linear progression of better primary stats vs. higher drawbacks we now have for some modules does not give us choices but may even reduce the number of options. The rule of thumb to follow now is, fit T2 if you have the skills and can digest the drawbacks, or else fit meta 1 and suffer from a big nerf. Where is the choice? At least I would expect two meta 1 modules with interesting stats to match certain situations ... If this requires coding, then it requires coding!

Also by mapping meta 4 -> meta 1 you nerf a significant amount of existing ship fits, be prepared for the reactions of the unaware players Ugh

I'm my own NPC alt.

Ms Grape Drink
Doomheim
#209 - 2015-01-09 17:53:16 UTC
I see the ORE Miner is still better or equal to the T2 version in every way. Not very consistent with your goals! All hail ORE Miner..and buy some from me please :)
JanSVK
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#210 - 2015-01-09 17:59:29 UTC
CCP Terminus wrote:
JanSVK wrote:
Expaded Cargohold II
Structure Hitpoint Bonus (%) Cargo Capacity Bonus (%) Velocity Modifier (%)
Old: -20 27.5 -10
New: -23 27.5 -18

Why the nerf ?! Do suicide gankers really need so much help?

This was done in order to keep them in line with other T2 modules. T2 should offer the most power (in this case Cargo Capacity) but with the highest fitting and drawbacks. The velocity penalty was increased the most because it's the least relevant stat on the module. Before this change T2 Expanded Cargoholds were better in every way than the T1 and meta variants.

We don't want obvious fitting options, we want player to have to think about what they're going to use depending on the situation they expect to be in. Everything should have a tradeoff, be it in fitting, raw power, ISK cost, or other variables. If Structure Hitpoints and/or Velocity are a big concern to your fit, consider using the meta 1 version of the module.


My proble is the following. If this gets implemented after the patch I need to spend alot more isk on my hauler/freighter to perform the way it is now. The more expensive the fitting the higher chance of suicide ganking. Also it is well know that PVE modules are alot more expensive and more rare by choice of CCP (Limited Expanded 'Archiver' Cargo I is average around 150 mil !!!). What is the planned price for ORE expander?

There is another solution. Keep t2 expanders as they are now and modify all the other modules to be in line.
Ms Grape Drink
Doomheim
#211 - 2015-01-09 18:07:17 UTC
JanSVK wrote:
CCP Terminus wrote:
JanSVK wrote:
Expaded Cargohold II
Structure Hitpoint Bonus (%) Cargo Capacity Bonus (%) Velocity Modifier (%)
Old: -20 27.5 -10
New: -23 27.5 -18

Why the nerf ?! Do suicide gankers really need so much help?

This was done in order to keep them in line with other T2 modules. T2 should offer the most power (in this case Cargo Capacity) but with the highest fitting and drawbacks. The velocity penalty was increased the most because it's the least relevant stat on the module. Before this change T2 Expanded Cargoholds were better in every way than the T1 and meta variants.

We don't want obvious fitting options, we want player to have to think about what they're going to use depending on the situation they expect to be in. Everything should have a tradeoff, be it in fitting, raw power, ISK cost, or other variables. If Structure Hitpoints and/or Velocity are a big concern to your fit, consider using the meta 1 version of the module.


My proble is the following. If this gets implemented after the patch I need to spend alot more isk on my hauler/freighter to perform the way it is now. The more expensive the fitting the higher chance of suicide ganking. Also it is well know that PVE modules are alot more expensive and more rare by choice of CCP (Limited Expanded 'Archiver' Cargo I is average around 150 mil !!!). What is the planned price for ORE expander?

There is another solution. Keep t2 expanders as they are now and modify all the other modules to be in line.



The planned prices are quite high unfortunately. They are way too much LP and ISK as I've made note of in the Proteus Test Server Feedback thread. Even at an almost insanely low ISK/LP ratio, you're still looking at around 200 mil for each Cargohold. And I think 150 for the bulkheads. Not going to be worth it unfortunately. I would know, I'm one of the few people out there doing missions XD But I guess it's not a big deal as I've gotten no reply on the topic :(
Zappity
Exit-Strategy
Unchained Alliance
#212 - 2015-01-09 19:33:02 UTC
This doesn't look like tiericide. It looks like rebalancing. There is a difference - tiericide keeps the power bracket identical and changes what is inside. This rebalance has changed the balance of the upper option (T2). If this is carried through to PvP modules then it will affect the balance of the ships too.

I'm not sure that was the goal of the original tiericide initiative.

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

Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#213 - 2015-01-09 20:04:13 UTC
Zappity wrote:
This doesn't look like tiericide. It looks like rebalancing. There is a difference - tiericide keeps the power bracket identical and changes what is inside. This rebalance has changed the balance of the upper option (T2). If this is carried through to PvP modules then it will affect the balance of the ships too.

I'm not sure that was the goal of the original tiericide initiative.


It was a goal of the ship tiericide initiative. There are still Rifter, Drake and Hurricane pilots who are sore from that.

The goal is that nothing is unambiguously better than anything else. Cost, performance, fitting, availability: pick any two.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Cledus Snowman Snow
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#214 - 2015-01-09 22:04:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Cledus Snowman Snow
CCP Terminus wrote:
JanSVK wrote:
Expaded Cargohold II
Structure Hitpoint Bonus (%) Cargo Capacity Bonus (%) Velocity Modifier (%)
Old: -20 27.5 -10
New: -23 27.5 -18

Why the nerf ?! Do suicide gankers really need so much help?

This was done in order to keep them in line with other T2 modules. T2 should offer the most power (in this case Cargo Capacity) but with the highest fitting and drawbacks. The velocity penalty was increased the most because it's the least relevant stat on the module. Before this change T2 Expanded Cargoholds were better in every way than the T1 and meta variants.

We don't want obvious fitting options, we want player to have to think about what they're going to use depending on the situation they expect to be in. Everything should have a tradeoff, be it in fitting, raw power, ISK cost, or other variables. If Structure Hitpoints and/or Velocity are a big concern to your fit, consider using the meta 1 version of the module.



So not only is T2 not getting buffed to the better meta4 where that is the case. You are making them worse than pre-patch when they do not suck enough for you as is? You are making the T2 mods you don't like WORSE? How many ways is ccp going to to stick it to haulers? I do not understand the 'Haulers are the new Step headed red childs of EVE'? WTH did they ever do to any one? How do you exploit moving cargo? Or it's just CCP bowing to the make ganking easier Lobby.

The new and future of T2 mods not only will they not be getting rolled into the better meta4 stats as is the case, we will be lucky if you don't add more negative effects? Once again T2 already has built in drawbacks (cost, higher skills, take more DAMAGE from Over Heating even the passive mods take more passive damage from rack Heat, and are hard to make cause of the MESSED UP T2 Invention and Production). Do you think by making all mods below faction suck so much we will be forced to use Faction or higher?
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#215 - 2015-01-09 22:17:48 UTC
Just skimmed the patch notes...

So, apparently no changes to the T1 BPO's, nor to the reprocessing of the metas, nor to the NPC drop rates? And, by aggregating most of the metas, in most cases, you just created a massive pool of cheap meta 1 modules? Which will be further aggravated by the fact that they drop from NPCs at meta 1 rates (ie. very frequently)?

Thus, still no reason to build or use most T1 modules - meta 1's will be better, cheaper and always available.

If you are not going to fix the situation with T1 modules, why don't you just remove them from the game?

A second round of failure for module tiericide... :P
MBizon Osis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#216 - 2015-01-09 22:31:03 UTC
Try this Make dropped mods meta0 (former meta1-4) in the different fitting flavors
Ample
Scoped
Restrained
Enduring

And make Tech1 the new meta1 with a slightly better over all stats or just a combo of 2 of the lower mods enhanced stats.
That would have the advantage of making T1 manufacturing useful again once the massive inventory was worked off.

Not perfect, but better

And crown T2 with the same stats as now or best M4 current stats.
How is this for a re-alignment?

Meta 0 : is dropped mods in the different fitting flavors (Names provided by CCP)
Ample
Scoped
Restrained
Enduring
Each one has an edge over the others in one stat (CPU,PG,CAP,or CYCLE TIME).

Meta 1 is also Tech 1 player made. Have a combo of 2 of the lower mods enhanced stats.

Meta2 is Tech2 with the same stats as now or best M4 current stats. Or all 4 of the meta 0 enhanced stats.

Then Story Line/COSMOS mods take Meta 3. Faction Meta4 on up the chain no gaps and no BS, simple easy to understand.
That's why this is the last direction CCP will go.

Fine tuning would of course be required in some cases But for 15 min of work makes more sense that what ccp has been doing for the last year in Mod Re balance and these stupid biennial name changes.

Every Mod would have some value to the fitting needs of all the players. Low skilled and High SP vets alike. Make it worth the time for new players to MAKE T1 mods and not take a loss. and the flexibility in fitting needed for tight fits.
Take a look ccp.

PS:
When ccp changed the refine efficiency they cut the value on the market in HALF of a lot of modules. Seriously, go look at the market and see how many things dropped 50% in value over night because of that change. You need to stop pretending we are in a pre-crius EVE. Of the few mods still worth much are usually meta 4. 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.
Making Tech1 meta1 with better stats over low meta dropped mods is that shot in the arm low lvl manufacturing has needed for ever. Players want to BUILD modules for a profit. Not every one wants to have to skill in to T2 lvl indi skills to make a profit. If you even can competing with T2 BPOs.
Akemon Numon
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#217 - 2015-01-10 10:02:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Akemon Numon
CCP Terminus wrote:
JanSVK wrote:
Expaded Cargohold II
Structure Hitpoint Bonus (%) Cargo Capacity Bonus (%) Velocity Modifier (%)
Old: -20 27.5 -10
New: -23 27.5 -18

Why the nerf ?! Do suicide gankers really need so much help?

This was done in order to keep them in line with other T2 modules. T2 should offer the most power (in this case Cargo Capacity) but with the highest fitting and drawbacks. The velocity penalty was increased the most because it's the least relevant stat on the module. Before this change T2 Expanded Cargoholds were better in every way than the T1 and meta variants.

We don't want obvious fitting options, we want player to have to think about what they're going to use depending on the situation they expect to be in. Everything should have a tradeoff, be it in fitting, raw power, ISK cost, or other variables. If Structure Hitpoints and/or Velocity are a big concern to your fit, consider using the meta 1 version of the module.




To get the same amount of cargohold on my freighter I now must fit 3 expanded cargoholds, which will lower structure HP by -60%. Thanks for the Low slots....

#216 - 2014-05-13 21:53:31 UTC |
9
After some thinking over the feedback in this thread and discussion with the CSM, we've decided to switch the penalty for the hull hp rigs to cargo capacity.

We are also going to swap the speed penalty on all reinforced bulkhead modules to an equal percentage cargo capacity penalty. The agility penalty will remain intact at this time." Thanks a lot CCP Fozzie

Jump fatigue...thank you soo much.


And now This? Will the beat down of haulers ever stop? Ganksters you win gratz! I give up. CCP you can re-name it Gankers Online. You know sense you are renaming everything too.
epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#218 - 2015-01-10 10:37:47 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
I suggest that this thread is immidiately moved to features and ideas so that players can actually find it!

Although probably waiting until it is all "discovered" on the live server after proteus is the plan!

After all, what could possibly go wrong when players discover that because of massive last minute changes their industrials are only of use for directly warping from gate to gate if they are carrying cargo AS cargo HAULERS ARE MEANT TO. They now have no role if they actually have to move in space.

Blockade runners will no longer be able to have any chance to burn out of bubbles, no industrial unless stripped of expanders will be able to burn back to a gate or wormhole ( mass spawn changes just keep on giving! Evil) , landing short of a station will be a death sentence, and those misguided people who auto pilot will simply be made extinct (after dying of boredom.)

I wonder if the devs have realised just how long a 18% +18% +18% +18% +18% actually adds up to on an iteron V?
Fitting the new T2 cargo expanders is Significantly worse than being webbed!

Whilst we have long Joked and ridiculed those BAD PvP players and failed gankers who have Demanded CCP Nail their targets to the ground as they are incapable of killing anything otherwise, we never actually expected CCP to do it!

So our options for fitting are Die like a sacrificial goat, fly near empty multiple times, or Black Frog to replace blockade runners, or red frog for HS. Wormholers are just expected to die.

Thanks a bundle. These were not the fitting choices we were looking for!

Just rename the deep space transport to the "Useful transport", and completely remove all the other transport ships that need cargo expanders to carry a useful load, that will simplify the number of ships in the game! Job done! Off to the Pub!Roll

I do not know what worries me more, the possibility that you have not thought this through, or that you have and have decided that this is desireable.

Cargo expanders on this class of ships are not a nice to have Option, they are an essential part of the design. By such a massive change to their core functionality you have completely rebalanced the class in such a way as to make them disfunctional.

This will not end well.

EDIT: tested on SISI, the new changes are showing there. Whilst the stacking formula effects the total impact, and is only around almost a single web, it does ensure that an iteron 5 now has Zero chance of burning back to a gate, even if he is lucky enough not to be webbed or scrambled, and a covert ops or blockade runner fitted with three T2 cargo expanders likewise will not realistically have any chance of burning out of a bubble.


Is this really acceptable? Exciting choices is one thing, removing all options? Quite another.

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE

Nalha Saldana
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#219 - 2015-01-10 10:47:18 UTC
To make cargo fit interesting we dont need more different cargo expanders, what we need is a buff to base cargo hold and stacking penalty to cargo expanders so we can fit other things in our lows (Like armor tank?) and still carry a lot.
Dangeresque Too
Pistols for Pandas
#220 - 2015-01-10 14:49:36 UTC
epicurus ataraxia wrote:
Just rename the deep space transport to the "Useful transport", and completely remove all the other transport ships that need cargo expanders to carry a useful load, that will simplify the number of ships in the game! Job done! Off to the Pub!Roll

I do not know what worries me more, the possibility that you have not thought this through, or that you have and have decided that this is desireable.
The thing that most people are passing by is that they always had a penalty, but just not quite as high. So it isn't changing terribly much from before the patch.

Regardless you are right, with those penalties in place, there really only is one option for safe-highsec transport of non-freighter sized runs, the transport ships. They hold way more than a hauler ever could and tank better than most (though you can get a pretty beast buffer on a badger atm, but with that tank comes only 4.5k cargo).

Pretty much they are further encouraging the few intelligent pilots out there into the only 2 options for safest hauling, a triple web hyena escorted freighter... or a massive tanked transport ship. Why fly T1 haulers anymore if not to bait tank and troll the gankers with?