These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Aliventi
Rattini Tribe
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#221 - 2015-01-10 19:11:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Aliventi
CCP Terminus wrote:
Just to clarify on the Survey Scanner issue. The reason I stated it was not part of the Module Tiericide, is that, as previously mentioned the Module Tiericide project has so far been a designer only effort.
In order to change Survey Scanners to read volume instead of ore count requires at least some coding, which means it falls outside of the Module Tiericide project. Not to say it won't get done, but it won't be done by the tiericide group.

I am curious as to what changes that people request a lot would require coding. For example there is a huge disparity between missile and gunnery training times. Something CCP Ytterbium said would be a good thing for module tiericide to look at. What about making meta/faction/officer turrets and missile launchers able use T2 ammo? T2 ammo requires its own skills so it doesn't makes sense that T2 ammo is restricted to only T2 weapons. Would either of those require coding and be outside of your scope? Are there things you would like to see done in the module tiericide process that you won't get done because it requires coding? If there are would there possibly be a new team formed to tackle these tasks?
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#222 - 2015-01-10 19:29:03 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:
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.

Yes, that is true and I am all for interesting choices. However, ships are balanced around the current weapons and modules. Balancing the modules is also balancing the ships and will need to be done carefully with a close eye kept on the module usage.

For example, let's say that an 'interesting choice' is introduced in which T2 blasters now have a tracking penalty so you can choose between either high tracking in the meta or high damage in the T2. The knock on effect is that blaster boats have now been seriously nerfed because they currently have both.

Better to limit the tiericide changes to fitting and existing stats I think.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#223 - 2015-01-10 19:51:11 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
Zappity wrote:
Dersen Lowery wrote:
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.

Yes, that is true and I am all for interesting choices. However, ships are balanced around the current weapons and modules. Balancing the modules is also balancing the ships and will need to be done carefully with a close eye kept on the module usage.

For example, let's say that an 'interesting choice' is introduced in which T2 blasters now have a tracking penalty so you can choose between either high tracking in the meta or high damage in the T2. The knock on effect is that blaster boats have now been seriously nerfed because they currently have both.

Better to limit the tiericide changes to fitting and existing stats I think.



Yes, quite right, when omnidirectional tracking enhancers were nerfed for example , it was a deliberate action, designed to change the overall balance of sentry drone boats. they were not accidental collateral damage. The module was used as the mechanism to achieve the desired rebalance.

All of the modules have equally wide ranging effects to one degree or another, and when comments are issued saying no one uses this version or this stat doesn't matter much to people then I hear loud alarm bells ringing. As this is seemingly not accounted for.

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
MuppetsSlayed
Angelus.Mortis
ISK.Net
#224 - 2015-01-11 10:01:54 UTC
I get most of my minerals from reprocessing and have a fairly big pile of modules to reprocess, I need a few weeks before my skills max for it so have been stockpiling.

Out of the tiericide'ed modules will I get more or less minerals if I reprocess them before the patch?
I have read through everything and I cant see any mention if the mineral content of the changed modules is more or less than the original mineral value.
MuppetsSlayed
Angelus.Mortis
ISK.Net
#225 - 2015-01-11 11:26:20 UTC
Dangeresque Too wrote:
.....

For a quick example... http://imgur.com/cuXSYN1, you tell me which one those are, and yes, they are all different modules/metas.

I can understand some people might be concerned about the "lore" of an item, then why not just put the "lore" into the description. If they really care about the lore they can read about it there, instead of cluttering up my interface with additional info that pushes out the info I actually need or am looking for.



He has a point here.

I am looking at my hanger now in icon view and the part of the name that makes a module unique must be at the beginning.

The search needs to be looked into so we can search for "compact itemtype" and find the item were looking for despite the lore name being in between compact and itemtype in the name.
MuppetsSlayed
Angelus.Mortis
ISK.Net
#226 - 2015-01-11 13:11:34 UTC  |  Edited by: MuppetsSlayed
I have just read every single post in this thread because I was interested in the new faction cargo expanders.

Of the 3 ships I own that I was considering them for:

Nomad:
I think its worth spending the 600 to 900 mill on 3 of them.
I undock and jump to a cyno, would never go gate to gate anyways.

Rorqual:
I think its worth spending the 600 to 900 mill on 3 of them.
I undock and jump to a cyno, I would never go gate to gate anyways.

Prowler:
OMGWTFBBQ :: How much have you just nerfed my blockade runner?
I live deep out in 0.0 and spend time daily in one of my blockade runners moving items around.

Absolute max fit currently is 16,657 m3 :: 2 x T2 Expander Rigs, 3 x Expander Cargo Hold 2's, 4 x GSC's for extra 900k m3 each.
The largest single item I can carry is only 3,900 m3 and I cant move some things like mobile depots.

Travel fit when moving empty is 6,300 m3 :: I have 3 of the gsc's packaged and fit a couple warp stabs and inertia stabaliser. The 3 packaged GSC's exactly negate the 900 m3 gained from the expanded one.

Obviously as I load up at different stations I move towards the max fit from the travel fit.
Its scary how much of a nerf you have done to this ship and are only calling it a minor tweak???

This whole class of ship now needs to be rebalanced to undo your minor change.
Waylon Skorlin
Honest Guvnor Industries
#227 - 2015-01-11 14:28:57 UTC
MuppetsSlayed wrote:
I have just read every single post in this thread because I was interested in the new faction cargo expanders.

Prowler:
OMGWTFBBQ :: How much have you just nerfed my blockade runner?
I live deep out in 0.0 and spend time daily in one of my blockade runners moving items around.

Absolute max fit currently is 16,657 m3 :: 2 x T2 Expander Rigs, 3 x Expander Cargo Hold 2's, 4 x GSC's for extra 900k m3 each.
The largest single item I can carry is only 3,900 m3 and I cant move some things like mobile depots.

Travel fit when moving empty is 6,300 m3 :: I have 3 of the gsc's packaged and fit a couple warp stabs and inertia stabaliser. The 3 packaged GSC's exactly negate the 900 m3 gained from the expanded one.

Obviously as I load up at different stations I move towards the max fit from the travel fit.
Its scary how much of a nerf you have done to this ship and are only calling it a minor tweak???

This whole class of ship now needs to be rebalanced to undo your minor change.


I fly Blockade Runners as well, so I'm also interested in the Cargohold Expanders.

I'll happily admit that I haven't read all the posts in this thread, which means I may well be missing something, but having looked at the Patch Notes and the Dev Blog I don't understand where the nerf is. Everything you've stated is the way things are at the moment. The changes to T2 Cargohold Expanders only affect velocity and structre, not capacity, so as I understand it things will be exactly the same after the patch, except that the ORE Expander is being introduced, which gives the same structure and velocity nerfs as the current T2 expander, but with an cargohold bonus of 29% instead of 27.5%

Can you explain as I really don't want to be missing something!
Waylon Skorlin
Honest Guvnor Industries
#228 - 2015-01-11 14:33:45 UTC
Anyway, now that I've finished being distracted by the above, the question I really came here to ask!

The Patch Notes say that the Marked Modified SS Inertia Stabs are going to become Type-D Inertia Stabs. Is this correct as all the other Marked Modified modules are becoming Basic?
MuppetsSlayed
Angelus.Mortis
ISK.Net
#229 - 2015-01-11 14:48:02 UTC  |  Edited by: MuppetsSlayed
Waylon Skorlin wrote:

I fly Blockade Runners as well, so I'm also interested in the Cargohold Expanders.

I'll happily admit that I haven't read all the posts in this thread, which means I may well be missing something, but having looked at the Patch Notes and the Dev Blog I don't understand where the nerf is. Everything you've stated is the way things are at the moment. The changes to T2 Cargohold Expanders only affect velocity and structre, not capacity, so as I understand it things will be exactly the same after the patch, except that the ORE Expander is being introduced, which gives the same structure and velocity nerfs as the current T2 expander, but with an cargohold bonus of 29% instead of 27.5%

Can you explain as I really don't want to be missing something!


What I am expecting is that with the nerf to HP and most importantly velocity being so big it I am going to need to drop a cargo expander which will reduce my m3 to escape bubble camps as I currently can (an additional m3 nerf??).

Expanded Cargohold II
– Structure Hitpoint penalty increased from 20% to -23%,
– Velocity modifier increased from -10% to -18%

I may not have the maths right on this but for my max space fit I make it:
9.27% reduction in structure
25.97% reduction in my velocity (1.08 * 1.08 * 1.08)

The prowler was only changed in the Kronos expansion (6 months ago??) to be given the third low slot.
Waylon Skorlin
Honest Guvnor Industries
#230 - 2015-01-11 15:14:48 UTC
MuppetsSlayed wrote:

What I am expecting is that with the nerf to HP and most importantly velocity being so big it I am going to need to drop a cargo expander which will reduce my m3 to escape bubble camps as I currently can (an additional m3 nerf??).

Expanded Cargohold II
– Structure Hitpoint penalty increased from 20% to -23%,
– Velocity modifier increased from -10% to -18%

I may not have the maths right on this but for my max space fit I make it:
9.27% reduction in structure
25.97% reduction in my velocity (1.08 * 1.08 * 1.08)

The prowler was only changed in the Kronos expansion (6 months ago??) to be given the third low slot.


Thanks for explaining - I see what you mean now.

If you're interested, the current structure reduction is 20% per module, which works out as 0.8 * 0.8 * 0.8 = 0.512, which is a 49.8% drop in strusture HP. 23% works out as 0.77 * 0.77 * 0.77 - 0.4565, which is a 54.35% reduction in structure HP.

Similary, the current 10% reduction in velocity works out as 0.9 * 0.9 * 0.9 = 0.729, i.e. a 27.1% reduction, whereas 18% works out as 0.82 * 0.82 * 0.82 = 0.5514, i.e. s 45.84% reduction.

I suppose the only way round that is to upgrade to the Archiver or the ORE Expander, which are probably going to be mahoosively expensive, or to downgrade from T2 to Meta 1, which stills drops cargo capacity and increases velocity reduction.

Definitely less than good.
CCP Terminus
C C P
C C P Alliance
#231 - 2015-01-12 11:39:33 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Terminus
Waylon Skorlin wrote:
MuppetsSlayed wrote:

What I am expecting is that with the nerf to HP and most importantly velocity being so big it I am going to need to drop a cargo expander which will reduce my m3 to escape bubble camps as I currently can (an additional m3 nerf??).

Expanded Cargohold II
– Structure Hitpoint penalty increased from 20% to -23%,
– Velocity modifier increased from -10% to -18%

I may not have the maths right on this but for my max space fit I make it:
9.27% reduction in structure
25.97% reduction in my velocity (1.08 * 1.08 * 1.08)

The prowler was only changed in the Kronos expansion (6 months ago??) to be given the third low slot.


Thanks for explaining - I see what you mean now.

If you're interested, the current structure reduction is 20% per module, which works out as 0.8 * 0.8 * 0.8 = 0.512, which is a 49.8% drop in strusture HP. 23% works out as 0.77 * 0.77 * 0.77 - 0.4565, which is a 54.35% reduction in structure HP.

Similary, the current 10% reduction in velocity works out as 0.9 * 0.9 * 0.9 = 0.729, i.e. a 27.1% reduction, whereas 18% works out as 0.82 * 0.82 * 0.82 = 0.5514, i.e. s 45.84% reduction.

I suppose the only way round that is to upgrade to the Archiver or the ORE Expander, which are probably going to be mahoosively expensive, or to downgrade from T2 to Meta 1, which stills drops cargo capacity and increases velocity reduction.

Definitely less than good.

Your quoted numbers are true for structure penalties, however Expanded Cargohold velocity penalties are affected by stacking penalties. This means for each Additional Expanded Cargohold you add, the penalties that that Expanded Cargohold adds are reduced.

For example, using a Basic Expanded Cargohold (-20% Velocity currently and after patch) on an Iteron V (no skills):

Values if there were no stacking penalties:
Velocity - Base: 110 m/s
Velocity - 1 Mod: 88
Velocity - 2 Mod: 70 (70.4)
Velocity - 3 Mod: 56 (56.32)
Velocity - 4 Mod: 45 (45.056)
Velocity - 5 Mod: 36 (36.0448)

Actual velocity values in game:
Velocity - Base: 110 m/s
Velocity - 1 Mod: 88
Velocity - 2 Mod: 73
Velocity - 3 Mod: 65
Velocity - 4 Mod: 61
Velocity - 5 Mod: 60

@CCP_Terminus // Game Designer // Team Size Matters
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#232 - 2015-01-12 11:54:29 UTC
Perhaps penalties shouldn't stack like bonuses do.

Would make the restrained modules even better of a choice
epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#233 - 2015-01-12 15:11:53 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
CCP Terminus wrote:
Waylon Skorlin wrote:
MuppetsSlayed wrote:

What I am expecting is that with the nerf to HP and most importantly velocity being so big it I am going to need to drop a cargo expander which will reduce my m3 to escape bubble camps as I currently can (an additional m3 nerf??).

Expanded Cargohold II
– Structure Hitpoint penalty increased from 20% to -23%,
– Velocity modifier increased from -10% to -18%

I may not have the maths right on this but for my max space fit I make it:
9.27% reduction in structure
25.97% reduction in my velocity (1.08 * 1.08 * 1.08)

The prowler was only changed in the Kronos expansion (6 months ago??) to be given the third low slot.


Thanks for explaining - I see what you mean now.

If you're interested, the current structure reduction is 20% per module, which works out as 0.8 * 0.8 * 0.8 = 0.512, which is a 49.8% drop in strusture HP. 23% works out as 0.77 * 0.77 * 0.77 - 0.4565, which is a 54.35% reduction in structure HP.

Similary, the current 10% reduction in velocity works out as 0.9 * 0.9 * 0.9 = 0.729, i.e. a 27.1% reduction, whereas 18% works out as 0.82 * 0.82 * 0.82 = 0.5514, i.e. s 45.84% reduction.

I suppose the only way round that is to upgrade to the Archiver or the ORE Expander, which are probably going to be mahoosively expensive, or to downgrade from T2 to Meta 1, which stills drops cargo capacity and increases velocity reduction.

Definitely less than good.

Your quoted numbers are true for structure penalties, however Expanded Cargohold velocity penalties are affected by stacking penalties. This means for each Additional Expanded Cargohold you add, the penalties that that Expanded Cargohold adds are reduced.

For example, using a Basic Expanded Cargohold (-20% Velocity currently and after patch) on an Iteron V (no skills):

Values if there were no stacking penalties:
Velocity - Base: 110 m/s
Velocity - 1 Mod: 88
Velocity - 2 Mod: 70 (70.4)
Velocity - 3 Mod: 56 (56.32)
Velocity - 4 Mod: 45 (45.056)
Velocity - 5 Mod: 36 (36.0448)

Actual velocity values in game:
Velocity - Base: 110 m/s
Velocity - 1 Mod: 88
Velocity - 2 Mod: 73
Velocity - 3 Mod: 65
Velocity - 4 Mod: 61
Velocity - 5 Mod: 60


Would you like to plug your figures in a blockade runner before and after and then you will see why we consider it a significant rebalance?

The first three in any ship has the biggest effect, and whilst additional only reduce by a small amount the final speed is very very heavily reduced overall.

You have stated we are not concerned by Velocity.
When one is burning out of a bubble or burning back to a gate or a wormhole we are VERY concerned by velocity!

So you may now realise that we respectfully disagree with that assumption.

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
Valterra Craven
#234 - 2015-01-12 15:51:10 UTC
epicurus ataraxia wrote:

You have stated we are not concerned by Velocity.
When one is burning out of a bubble or burning back to a gate or a wormhole we are VERY concerned by velocity!


Whats ironic about this whole thing is that if they don't think velocity is a big deal to modify, then why do they see it as such a big deal to use as a balancing mechanic?
epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#235 - 2015-01-12 15:58:19 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
Valterra Craven wrote:
epicurus ataraxia wrote:

You have stated we are not concerned by Velocity.
When one is burning out of a bubble or burning back to a gate or a wormhole we are VERY concerned by velocity!


Whats ironic about this whole thing is that if they don't think velocity is a big deal to modify, then why do they see it as such a big deal to use as a balancing mechanic?



It will be interesting to hear the response, I believe the effect of the penalties in some cases have been seriously underestimated.
Whilst in many circumstances they are not much of a problem, in others they are effectively rebalancing ships.

Module rebalancing is not a low impact excercise, When one changes primary stats and penalties.

Removing duplicate modules is one thing, this is something quite different.

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
Alex PROTOSS
Turbo miners inc
#236 - 2015-01-13 12:56:52 UTC
CCP Terminus, give a scythe +10 cpu. It can't fit t2 CPR so it was normal with m4 analog, and now it's nerfed.
Nomago Cealey Garlinger
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#237 - 2015-01-13 15:14:40 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
Also, is there anything preventing you readjusting the meta levels so that we have meta 0 for plain T1, then meta 1 for the "better" T1 modules, then meta 2 for T2, with 3 for cosmos, 4 for faction, and headspace/officer starting at 5 and up?


THIS PLS
CCP Terminus
C C P
C C P Alliance
#238 - 2015-01-13 17:23:53 UTC
Nomago Cealey Garlinger wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:
Also, is there anything preventing you readjusting the meta levels so that we have meta 0 for plain T1, then meta 1 for the "better" T1 modules, then meta 2 for T2, with 3 for cosmos, 4 for faction, and headspace/officer starting at 5 and up?


THIS PLS

When the Module Tiericide project is complete I suspect we will do something very similar to this.

@CCP_Terminus // Game Designer // Team Size Matters
Waylon Skorlin
Honest Guvnor Industries
#239 - 2015-01-13 17:59:05 UTC
CCP Terminus wrote:

Your quoted numbers are true for structure penalties, however Expanded Cargohold velocity penalties are affected by stacking penalties. This means for each Additional Expanded Cargohold you add, the penalties that that Expanded Cargohold adds are reduced.

I wasn't aware of this - thank you for pointing it out.

Even taking that in to account, though, in the Rhea expansion a Viator with full L5 skills and a 10MN AB II had a max velocity of 537 with three Exp Cargo IIs. Now, in Proteus, the same Viator has a max velocity of 430 m/s, which is a 20% reduction.

That's still quite a nerf when trying to escape a bubble. Sad
Waylon Skorlin
Honest Guvnor Industries
#240 - 2015-01-13 18:16:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Waylon Skorlin
I'm also confused now as to the point of T2 modules. In all of these changes, Meta 1 has resulted in greater boosts with reduced penalty whereas Tech 2, for which more skills are required, result in even greater boosts with greater penalties.

Taking Expanded Cargoholds as an example, the difference between Meta 1 and Meta 0 is a 28.61% increase in the boost percentage and a 25% and 13.33% reduction in penalty percentages (structure and velocity respectively).

Comparing Tech 2 with Meta 0, there is a 57.1% increase in the boost percentage but a 15% and 20% increase in the penalty percentages as well.

So, comparing Tech 2 with Meta 1, there is a 22.22% increase in the boost percentage but a massive 53.33% and 38.46% increase in penalty percentages!

So what's the point of training for Tech 2 when the relative differences in boost and penalty are so out of kilter? Shouldn't the concept of Meta 1 and Tech 2 be swapped over (i.e. Meta 1 => greater boost for greater penalty and Tech 2 => greater boost for less or same penalty) to compensate for the extra time required in training for them in the first place?

I'm all for module tiericide as I agree that the previous Meta 1 - Meta 4 modules were, for the large part, unnecessary, but the way it's been implemented just doesn't seem to make sense to me.