These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

First post First post
Nakaara Adahsa
Deep Void Enterprises
#41 - 2014-12-23 17:28:45 UTC
CCP Terminus wrote:
Nakaara Adahsa wrote:
I don't like any of these expanded cargohold changes; not sure about the other "rebalancing".

As a relatively new player still, I've appreciated the variety of choices that currently exist. It provides a range of levels for both features and affordability when fitting ships. In all of this "rebalancing", there seems to have been little to no thought given to how the market values the given options. Not everyone is buying massive amounts of ISK via PLEX, so having multiple options when fitting ships is a good thing.

Also, the range of choices is good when deciding how much to invest in a ship being built for a particular purpose. Balancing risk vs. reward is an inherent part of the EVE universe, and reducing choices makes it more difficult to balance these.

In general, I like what exists today, and don't like where things are going in all of these changes. You developers are going to negatively impact gameplay for new players, not the reverse.

Lets take Expanded Cargoholds as an example of the current market. In this specific modules case, the Cargo Capacity Bonus is the primary, if not only, stat players look at when purchasing the module. Coupling this with the low ISK cost and skill requirements of T2 Expanded Cargos, means that this module is basically the only option. Having the variety of 13 modules does not provide any tangible benefit to the player, it only provides clutter.

In reality there are only 2 things a player looks at when deciding to buy an Expanded cargohold: The price in ISK, and the Cargo Capacity Bonus.
This is why the 5 Meta 0 modules have been combined into 1. They are relics of years past which don't drop from NPCs anymore, but now can have a use as low penalty modules where cargo capacity is perhaps not quite as important (in those rare cases).
The named (Meta 1-4) module can fill the small cost gap between T1 Expanded Cargoholds (which cost roughly 1750 ISK) and T2 Expanded Cargoholds (costing roughly 275,000 ISK).
The much rarer Storyline and Faction modules can fill higher cost niches.

Are you saying that the named Meta 1-4 cargohold modules will still exist? None of them were included in the table posted in the blog, so it looked like all of them were being removed. If they are being kept, then I'm less concerned about the changes. I use the meta 1-4 modules a fair bit. However, the modules that are being collapsed have a different drawback profile: they sacrifice velocity more than structure. The meta 1-4 modules sacrifice structure more than velocity. I prefer the latter, but some players might prefer to sacrifice velocity over structure in some cases.

There is an unusually high price for some of the modules being eliminated, but maybe that's just because they are rare now if they are no longer being dropped by NPCs.
Dangeresque Too
Pistols for Pandas
#42 - 2014-12-23 17:29:31 UTC
One of the things I'm not quite liking with this trend, and was hoping would be corrected after the first set of module changes:

Why do all these modules have to have short sentences for names? Really what is the point of that mouthfull? Especially when the interface only really has space to show us 2-3 (maybe 4 if they are really short) of the words in the name. When I have a bunch of modules in my hangar I really don't want to have to mouse over each one to see what the heck it is.

For a quick example..., 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.
Aurora Fatalis
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2014-12-23 17:30:27 UTC
Grunschlck wrote:
Overall, I like the module tiericide changes. However, one thing I've found annoying in the past and which seems to be continued now, is the inconsistency in naming of the inertia stabilizers. You'd think that having them in one table, the inconsistency would be noticeable by you too, but alas, apparently not.

This is what I'm talking about:

Inertia Stabilizers I
Type-D Restrained Inertial Stabilizers <-- inconsistent
Inertia Stabilizers II
'Basic' Inertia Stabilizers
Synthetic Hull Conversion Inertia Stabilizers
Domination Inertial Stabilizers <-- inconsistent
Shadow Serpentis Inertial Stabilizers <-- inconsistent

Please make up your minds and go for either "inertia" or "inertial", but not both. As it is now, searching in the market for "inertia stabilizer" will get me a partial list and searching for "inertial stabilizer" will get me another partial list. That I'm always searching for "inertia" in the market and thus circumvent this inconsistency, is besides the point.

As there are already gyro-stabilizers in the game with "inertial" in their names (consistently, I might add), I would like to take it one step further: either rename the inertia stabilizers to "inertial stabilizers" or rename the inertia stabilizers to "inertia stabilizers" and rename the gyro-stabilizers with "inertial" in their names to "inertia".

You must be dying for when they get to shield extenders, which are currently named

Supplemental Barrier Emitter I
Subordinate Screen Stabilizer I
Azeotropic Ward Salubrity I
F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction (no I)

They really need to be consistently denoted as what they are, namely Forcefield Embigerators.

If Chribba told you not to trust him, would you?

Dangeresque Too
Pistols for Pandas
#44 - 2014-12-23 17:33:41 UTC
And if you are fixing the names, one thing I've noticed in general is that all of the Officer modules have "modified" as part of their name, every, single, one. Are you worried we won't be able to tell that is is an Officer module if it doesn't say "modified"?

Unless you really feel that "modified" is so completely core to the lore of the item, which in that case you would need to put "modified" as part of the name for any of the other faction and deadspace mods.
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#45 - 2014-12-23 17:40:44 UTC
Didn't do the math yet, but I suppose travel fit ships will die to camps when Proteus hit the server due to the nerf of 'meta 4' inertia stabs and nanofibers ... you better put a warning in the patch notes.

Also I think there will be no actual use of meta modules for those two agility mods, everybody will use T2 now as the quality of the drawbacks does not force a choice in my opinion unless you don't need the boost to cross a full second boundary. Maybe you can balance it by shifting the stats towards the old meta 4 and make T2 slightly better than today.

I'm my own NPC alt.

Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#46 - 2014-12-23 17:42:55 UTC
Why do you keep the names "Miner I" and "Miner II"? ... They should be named "Mining Laser I/II" to keep the naming consistent.

I'm my own NPC alt.

Masao Kurata
Caldari State
#47 - 2014-12-23 18:00:51 UTC
I'm not feeling any compelling reason to ever use meta nanofiber or inertia stabs with these stats, tech II is just the better choice every time. Otherwise this seems fairly good.
Mouth Trumpet Cavalry.
Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
#48 - 2014-12-23 18:07:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Aliventi
I have a question. The Devblog didn't say anything about the no longer dropping meta versions (Such as Type-E and Partial Power Plant:) of cap rechargers and capacitor power relays. What is happening to those? Are they being rebalanced into Storyline modules?

Edit: Also perhaps to compensate for meta I-stabs and nanos not bring as good as T2 could you move the skill required for the T2 to Hull Upgrades 4? Right now it is at Hull Upgrades 2. Most T2 mods require a skill to 4 to use. That way Meta versions of nanos and I-stabs could fill the "I don't have hull upgrades 4 yet" niche.
Midnight Hope
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#49 - 2014-12-23 18:21:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Midnight Hope
CCP Terminus wrote:
Querns wrote:
On this note — does CCP have plans to amend the modules touched in the first pass of this balancing initiative to add the "lore name" back?

Yep, as stated in the blog post, we'll be retroactively giving names back to the modules of the first pass.

Good job with the new naming convention! Big smile

How about bringing back some of the names that were dropped when the propulsion modules went under the knife?
Any chance we can add flavor/lore back to the bland 1mn,10mn, 100mn ABs and MWDs?
How hard can it be? Blink
Unchained Alliance
#50 - 2014-12-23 18:25:28 UTC
Thank you for the naming change - good solution. And please do bring back some flavour to the prop mods when you get around to them. Y-S8 Hydrocarbon ftw!

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

Insane's Asylum
Evil Monkies Incorporated
#51 - 2014-12-23 18:34:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Janeway84
Yo CCP Logibro!

Where's the frigate size ice mining lasers?
So we can ninja mine with ventures or prospects in the shattered wh's? Big smile
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#52 - 2014-12-23 18:51:24 UTC
can't wait till you guys are cleaning up pop mods :)

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Cloon McCloon
Space Fukery
#53 - 2014-12-23 18:53:04 UTC
Thing I
Good Thing
Gooder Thing
Goodest Thing
Thing II
Alain Colcer
Agiolet Security and Logistics
#54 - 2014-12-23 18:55:36 UTC
@CCP terminus

You sure about the Shadow Serpentis Power Diagnostic System? not sure if it fits racial/faction designs...

Serps are = gallente + minmatar...none of those are good at PDS....which fit more with the Amarr/Ammatar/Sansha/Blood Raider lineup.

Shadow serps could be good with cap boosters though.
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
WiNGSPAN Delivery Network
#55 - 2014-12-23 18:56:45 UTC
Abla Tive wrote:
There is a distinct lack of meta 1 modules.

This reduces the richness of gameplay for us mere mortals who can't afford faction and haven't trained up the skills for tech II modules.

in the past, at least I had the interesting choice of "is it worth the extra 200k isk for the meta 3 module, or go with the meta 2"?

Now it is a purely mechanical "stick on the meta 1 module and roll".

Can't you think up *some* variation?

Or u could train t2 considering it wouldn't take u that long and u have PLENTY of warning....So it's not like they are just springing this on us.

As far as the changes go - I like it. Can't really complain at all yet.
Galdron Enderas
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#56 - 2014-12-23 19:33:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Galdron Enderas
please ignor this post ... had missread the values for MLU2
CCP Terminus
C C P Alliance
#57 - 2014-12-23 19:40:49 UTC
For those bothered by the inconsistency in the names, if it's easy enough and doesn't affect too many things (tutorial/mission text, etc.) I'll look into unifying the base naming of everything.

As for Nanofiber Internal Structures and Inertial Stabilizers, we think the reduced drawback should be valuable enough for players to use them in certain situations. If this turns out not to be the case some rebalancing will probably occur.

@CCP_Terminus // Game Designer // Team Size Matters

Descendant Command
#58 - 2014-12-23 19:57:37 UTC
Looks nice, now please remove the meta modules from hisec mission loot tables.

Abla Tive
#59 - 2014-12-23 20:00:11 UTC
St'oto wrote:
Abla Tive wrote:
There is a distinct lack of meta 1 modules.

This reduces the richness of gameplay for us mere mortals who can't afford faction and haven't trained up the skills for tech II modules.

in the past, at least I had the interesting choice of "is it worth the extra 200k isk for the meta 3 module, or go with the meta 2"?

Now it is a purely mechanical "stick on the meta 1 module and roll".

Can't you think up *some* variation?

Or u could train t2 considering it wouldn't take u that long and u have PLENTY of warning....So it's not like they are just springing this on us.

I already have a prioritized training queue that stretches out into the future.
All that is happening is that the richness of my game experience is being reduced.

Why would anyone ever choose a meta 0 item (you know, the kind you can manufacture?!)
Meta 1 will be absolutely better and because they will drop at the same rate as meta 1-4 combined,
the market will price them competitively.

What I am looking for is interesting module variations at a level *below* faction level items.

As it stands now, mere mortals will either choose meta 1 modules or meta 5 (if they have the skills and the CPU/Power to spare)

Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#60 - 2014-12-23 20:01:17 UTC
Only on the phone here: Do T2 mods stay the same as they are now or is this another nerf to freighters?

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.