These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#61 - 2014-12-23 20:02:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Sizeof Void
Overall, this round looks better than the first round of module tiericide.

I would like to point out, however, that there wil still be no reason to use T1 modules, in cases where the meta 1 version is abundantly available and cheaper than the T1 version.

So, are you going to adjust the T1 module build cost (ie. BPO) and the reprocessing value of the meta 1 modules? Ideally, the T1 build cost should always be lower than the meta 1 reprocessing value (don't forget to figure in the 50-55% reprocessing efficiency).

You may want to adjust the T2 module build cost, as well - to make sure that the cost ratio between T2 and T1 is still reasonably high. Remember that most of these numbers have not been tweaked, since the modules were first introduced into the game. Mineral prices - and the sizes of players' wallets - have changed a bit over the years.

Also, are you going to take a look at the current supply of the old metas, which will be aggregated into the new meta 1? And, adjust the NPC drop rate accordingly, as well?
Amber Solaire
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#62 - 2014-12-23 20:25:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Amber Solaire
Why are you turning Meta 4 modules into Meta 1 modules?

Also, by changing named modules, like the Erin MLU, you are automatically nerfing their collector value,
as well as their rarity

Renaming anything that reduces the value of an item is just not fair
(the named MLUs should not be changed at all)

And I see you plan to reduce the Partial Hull Conversion Expanded Cargohold from 24.2% and the Alpha Hull Mod (21.9%)
to just 17.5%?
You really need to research the modules properly before you start messing with them
VonKolroth
Anarchist's Anonymous
#63 - 2014-12-23 20:35:58 UTC
Dangeresque Too wrote:
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... 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.


This is how I feel about it. Though if we do insist on keeping flavor text, I would like to see changes made to the market window that makes the sorting of modules clearer for those of us that are fitting ships quickly because our fleet buddies are waiting for us to pitch something together for impromptu roams and the like. Maybe let us have a "Meta Mode" or "Sort by Meta" of some type instead of items always being alphabetically sorted in the left side of the market window.

I'm all about EvE remaining a rich immersive universe, but there are more then a few of us in the game who are more business minded... Almost always finding ourselves in time critical situations and/or just purchasing and fitting a ton of things for newbros who have no idea where to even start when it comes to fitting ships. Putting the flavor at the beginning of the module name does not simplify things in any way, which was my prymary hope for the module tiericide in the first place.

Sent from my Gallente Erabus Titan on -FA- SRP

Alexis Nightwish
#64 - 2014-12-23 20:59:45 UTC
No "Enduring" mining lasers? Sad

Shouldn't the velocity penalty of the Restrained Expanded Cargo (-13%) and the T2 Expanded Cargo (-10%) be swapped so that it is in keeping with the theme of Tech II modules having the most power outside of faction and storyline modules, but with the largest drawbacks?

Why do "Basic" modules have the same or lower penalties than "Restrained" modules? Examples:
Expanded Cargos:
________Restrained: -15% structure
________Basic: -10% structure
Nanos:
________Restrained: -10% structure
________Basic: -5% structure
Reinforced Bulkheads:
________Restrained: -5% cargo
________Basic: -5% cargo
Istabs:
________Restrained: +9% sig radius
________Basic: +5% sig radius
Overdrives:
________Restrained: -10% cargo
________Basic: -1% cargo
Capacitor Power Relays:
________Restrained: -10% shield boost
________Basic: -5% shield boost

Why does the "Restrained" Cap Power Relay have the same penalty as the T1? Shouldn't it be less, or shouldn't the penalty be swapped with the "Compact" version's?

Why are "Basic" modules Meta 6? Is this a mistake or is it for invention purposes?

CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers

Masao Kurata
Perkone
Caldari State
#65 - 2014-12-23 21:11:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Masao Kurata
Amber Solaire wrote:
Also, by changing named modules, like the Erin MLU, you are automatically nerfing their collector value,
as well as their rarity

Renaming anything that reduces the value of an item is just not fair
(the named MLUs should not be changed at all)


I think you must be very confused on this point, the Erin and Elara MLUs are getting merged to a single module with better stats than either, except for a slightly increased fitting cost but the reduced CPU penalty should compensate for that, while Carpo and Aoede MLUs are getting very clear buffs. If anything their prices should go up, they're much better for actual use (as is fitting for their rarity).
Lara Divinity
Pidgeon Cartel
#66 - 2014-12-23 22:02:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Lara Divinity
u guys must be really bored there at ccp always changin things just fix existing issues instead of changin mods n ships non stop will c how this stuff affects alll the setups n loadouts once more
Aryth
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#67 - 2014-12-23 22:15:27 UTC
Are the faction expander or other modules going to come in BPC form that requires a T2 version maybe?

If not, I do not see why players do not just continue to look at M3 expansion ability and continue to buy the best. Faction. That seems an awful nerf to those T2 markets.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.

CCP Terminus
C C P
C C P Alliance
#68 - 2014-12-23 22:37:31 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Terminus
Alexis Nightwish wrote:
Shouldn't the velocity penalty of the Restrained Expanded Cargo (-13%) and the T2 Expanded Cargo (-10%) be swapped so that it is in keeping with the theme of Tech II modules having the most power outside of faction and storyline modules, but with the largest drawbacks?

Why do "Basic" modules have the same or lower penalties than "Restrained" modules? ...

We felt that the T2 Expanded Cargohold was already in a good place, although if we were to follow the trends you'd be correct. In fact it would be even higher unless the T1 module had thepenalty reduced. It's still something we could change before Proteus is released.

In the rebalance, 'Basic' modules are meant to have the lowest restrictions and fitting requirements of all modules, but also the weakest effects. This was the general trend before the rebalance, which has been reinforced through the rebalancing. These modules are a legacy from years ago and are no longer seeded in the game, but the low drawbacks may work for niche fits.

@CCP_Terminus // Game Designer // Team Size Matters

Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#69 - 2014-12-23 22:38:49 UTC

  • Miner I
  • Miner II
  • Blah blah blah mining laser


I would change "mining laser" to "miner" to enhance discoverability in the market UI.


  • Nanofiber Internal Structure I
  • Nanofiber Internal Structure II
  • Blah blah blah Nanofiber Structure


Ignoring the US spelling, I'd change all of these to use the shorter "Nanofiber structure" to enhance discoverability.



  • Type-D Restrained Overdrive Injector


Lol Speaks for itself
Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#70 - 2014-12-23 22:42:25 UTC
We, too, use a dartboard to choose names on various items
Dan Hour
Greater Order Of Destruction
The Good Christian Society
#71 - 2014-12-23 22:47:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Dan Hour
I'm not sure if its a type-o or if someone else has brought this up already, but why is the
Quote:
'Motte' Capacitor Power Relay I
straight up better than the faction ones,

  • same recharge bonus
  • less shield boost penalty
  • less fitting


Should that shield boost penalty be higher, or at the least the same as faction?

Edit: for example the second meta item for the cap flux coils has the same bonuses as tech 2 with just less fitting, this should be the same yes?
Jen Takhesis
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#72 - 2014-12-23 22:47:15 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:

    [list]
  • Type-D Restrained Overdrive Injector


Lol Speaks for itself


Maybe Type-D Increased Mediocredrive Injector instead?
Terminator 2
Omega Boost
#73 - 2014-12-24 00:19:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Terminator 2
Well i would expect another round of Mining Barges tank buff is needed when you expect players to fit Ingenii MLUs?

Or is this just a planned buff for the ganker income?

Any mining barge - including skiffs - that uses a fitting worth more than 300m isk is a sitting duck waiting to explode by gank action. So you expect us to fit 400m isk Ingenii MLUs? 3 of them? for 1.2b isk? On ships you can't tank up enough to survive in highsec?
Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
#74 - 2014-12-24 00:39:14 UTC
I was really annoyed when I first read the blog, but after looking a bit more it isn't all that bad. Probably due to the dropping of the Local Hull naming line. I mean seriously who used whatever-D mods? Local hull and beta hull ftw, type d, and Mark I blow!

I will say I am excited to see faction cap mods be better than t2, I think that is the first truly useful thing module tericide has done for the game.

I hope going forward we see some meaningful differentiation between modules. because so far it really seems like unused module cleanup. and well most of the differentiation is meaningless for nearly all applications What?

also fingers crossed all my local hull i-stabs turn into t2 i-stabs. According to jEveAssets I have 27 of them fit vs 1 t2 version.

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter

Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
#75 - 2014-12-24 00:42:55 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:

  • Miner I
  • Miner II
  • Blah blah blah mining laser


I would change "mining laser" to "miner" to enhance discoverability in the market UI.


  • Nanofiber Internal Structure I
  • Nanofiber Internal Structure II
  • Blah blah blah Nanofiber Structure


Ignoring the US spelling, I'd change all of these to use the shorter "Nanofiber structure" to enhance discoverability.



  • Type-D Restrained Overdrive Injector


Lol Speaks for itself



that's the other thing, a lot of the renaming is in parts other than the ones being addressed. webs and neuts being my main gripes (at least the ones I can think of)

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter

Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#76 - 2014-12-24 00:43:39 UTC
Minor suggestion: I would recommned losing the single quotes on names. It does not add anything to the game lore, and it makes for possible confusion and search-by-name irritation.

Example 1: 'Basic' Capacitor Recharger should just be Basic Capacitor Recharger.
Example 2: 'Aoede' Mining Laser Upgrade should just be Aoede Mining Laser Upgrade.
sytaqe violacea
Circus of midnight
#77 - 2014-12-24 00:57:05 UTC
GOOD

  • lore name backBig smileBig smileBig smileBig smileBig smile
  • new faction modules(especially ORE Expanded Cargohold)


BAD

  • why no rebalance to WCS? Did you forget those existence?
  • Thukker Power Diagnostic System and Caldari Navy Power Diagnostic System have same property while their LP value have huge gap.
  • Domination Overdrive Injector has advantage on the Cargo Capacity Penalty, what lore reason make it?
Dinta Zembo
Tea. Earl Grey. Cold.
#78 - 2014-12-24 00:59:30 UTC
+1 for more cargo and +100 for actually making faction cap rechargers worth buying, nice one Big smile
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#79 - 2014-12-24 01:27:43 UTC
sytaqe violacea wrote:

Thukker Power Diagnostic System and Caldari Navy Power Diagnostic System have same property while their LP value have huge gap.

LP Value is set by the players, not by CCP.
sytaqe violacea
Circus of midnight
#80 - 2014-12-24 01:46:11 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
sytaqe violacea wrote:

Thukker Power Diagnostic System and Caldari Navy Power Diagnostic System have same property while their LP value have huge gap.

LP Value is set by the players, not by CCP.


Hint: Factinal Warfare

1x Caldari Navy Power Diagnostic System needs
10,000 Militia LP
4,000,000 ISK
1 Power Diagnostic System I
2 Federation Navy Fleet Colonel Insignia I
4 Federation Navy Fleet Colonel Insignia II

1x Thukker Power Diagnostic System needs
45,000 Thukker LP
30,000,000 ISK
1 Power Diagnostic System I

So...if Calmil LP were worth 5~6 times as much as Thukker LP or tag's values were skyrocketed, it will be reasonable to build Thukker one.