EVE Information Portal

I am an habitual hull tanking addict, and I approve of these tiercide changes on the bulkheads.

I was concerned that a few of my more outre fittings would be made impossible if the 11 tech 1 metalevel bulkheads got merged into three, but at least the Compact keeps low CPU (32 tf) and the Restrained is still useable by a few of the fits, which can get very tight on CPU indeed.

Regarding the naming conventions, I am also in favour, as Sizeof Void says, of removing the quotation marks from the storyline and metalevel modules, because it's a pain to search these.

However, as Dangerous Too points out, module metalevels are not visible in your hangar and you have to show info or at least mousover when you display them as icons. You can get around this with displaying your items in a list, but then you feel like an accountant.

I think that some thought needs to be put to these nomenclature conventions in general, to fix these problems so that the metalevel of the modules is more apparent when browsing your hangar in ocon mode (like most people do), and to assist in text searching in the search bar.

The problem is twofold - display, and searching.
eg; lets take the 1600mm plates. If you renamed the modules from 1600mm reinforced nanofiber armour plating to 1600mm nanofiber reinforced armour plating, it would display the metalevel in the icon display mode, and also in list searches the metalevels would be sorted better.

eg, right now a list of 1600mm plates of all metalevels are sorted by '1600mm', then by 'reinforced' (useless, since all share that name) and thirdly by metalevel.

moving to the bulkheads, cargo expanders, nanofibres, for instance, a name sorted list of modules will put all the metalevels together. eg, Type-D's of all module types will be sorted together, separate from Mark I's.

i also think you should make a decision whether to adopt US spelling conventions or English. Nanofiber is wrong, and should be nanofibre. No one in the history of the world has contracted myelofiberosis as a disease, is my point; they all contract myelofibrosis. Therefore, logically, nanofibre is correct and fibre is the correct spelling, end of story. Please change your nanofibres to reflect the correct placement of the r in these words. That's my 5c.

+1 in favour of European spelling.

Really like the proposed changes. Faction modules finally get the bonuses they should've always had.

by the way wheres the bonus in this ccp?
Ice Harvester Upgrade II 5 1 40 12.5 -9
cpu penalty went up by 2.5% compared to what we have now a 10%cpu penalty the cycle time bonus stays the same.
like we do need extra cpu penalty ?
when is somthing good goin to happen i just wonder could atleast have raised cycle time with 1% to
so a skiff now has 30% cpu penalty and after ur update with 3 t2 ice harvester upgrades it will have 37.5% cpu penalty.
were already short on cpu to keep everything online, hence why ppl fit medium cpu processor overclocking units...
i really dont c the improvement here
granted theres a faction one that has 10% cycle time but it will just make us again bigger targets for gankers n who knows how much it will cost fit 3 of them at xxx millions just raising up the value of the target u guys are making no sense at all id like to c nerfs made to catalysts n there mods for once

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?

And further, with regards to officer modules especially, would it be possible to combine officer names with adjectives, so that rather than "Estamels Modified…" we'd have "Estamel's Enduring…"

This would open up possibilities for more/better items, such as a power diagnostic systems from various pirate commanders, one specialising in endurance (higher cap and shield regen), another in ample (higher shield/cap bonuses), another in scoped (higher PG bonus). At present those cap rechargers are looking like a linear progression of "good, better, best" over 12 modules. There's room for four tiers of three variants, or three tiers of four variants if one of the commander's variants keeps the "modified" adjective.

I'm starting to think you guys are really just bad at auditing things, because when it comes right down to it, this is what the module rebalance is: an audit.

I don't think you guys are being holistic enough in your approach to this and at the end of the day it looks like you are basically just telling a program to change a bunch of values without thinking through the changes. (Yes, I know that this is an exaggeration)

I think your spreadsheets need to incorporate vastly more data than what it seems they do and someone that's better at auditing and quality control should be going over these values than a dev team. I can accept that you guys are human and mistakes happen, but it seems like you guys are just repeating the same mistakes over and over again.

You guys still haven't addressed this basic question: (from the previous thread)
1. The meta layout of your rebalance 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...

Names: While A lot of people complained in the previous rebalance thread about the "lore" of names, I think you guys took that feedback a little too far. What I saw from that thread was that the names you chose for some of your "specializations" weren't "sci-fi" enough. I wish you would have listened more to that feedback rather than the "lore" feedback. I think the first plan to sterilize module names made a lot more sense than your current one does. The lore names are just too much extra jargon that literally means absolutely nothing and just mess with the sort order of the mods for no apparent reason other than just because. Module names should sort in the market by their meta level in my opinion.

Penalties: I think you guys need to completely redo these on every module. Its not real clear why modules like mining upgrades need penalties while things like dps upgrades (mag stabs) don't. Either every module has a penalty or every module has no penalty. This picking and choosing and clearly favoring PVP mods over PVE modules seems like favoritism and is just plain silly. (Tank mods are neutral in that they are needed by both pvpers and pvers)

Loot tables: I think these need to be vastly rethought as well. I think that you should just remove mods from all NPC loot period (with the exception of the special faction mods) Instead NPCs should drop parts to make special meta mods and some NPCs should drop blueprints. This means that missions have a purpose and value, and further contributes to the goal that everything in eve is manufactured by players. This also solves the whole "refine" problem that you have currently with a lot of modules that are worth nothing but their mins and are sold as such.

In some of the cases you've made the naming more confusing again, especially for beginners, whereas the initial tiericide effort actually made quite a bit of sense, in terms of the renaming. Your references to "lore" and "history" make no sense to me -- I don't see how "Type-D" have any relationship to EVE lore (EvE has lore? I thought EvE was just kill-thy-neighbour, or if you can't kill thy neighbour, then at least scam him, especially if he's noob, but I digress....)

In any case, my one big beef is your use of the term "Basic" in a number of these modules, where the "Basic" module is generally Meta 6, and at least third in the list of weakest to strongest alternative. The English word "Basic" literally means "starting point" -- if you insist on using it for a name of a module, then it should be the most BASIC of the module alternatives, i.e. the one that is weakest, having the least skill requirements, and the heaviest CPU and PWG requirements. In other words, BASIC modules should be Meta 0, not Meta 6.

As one who originally posted about removing the flavor and lore from names, I approve of this cycle's crop of module names. Anyone who complains that they're still too complicated needs to engage their higher thought processes and notice the descriptor word in each name.

With that out of the way...

Since you're going back and renaming previously-rebalanced modules, maybe you could strip the "Ample" off of things and give them a descriptor that applies better to weapons than to breasts? "High-Capacity" would be pretty good. "Extended" is good too and is only one word.

Final point: Along with the other people who've mentioned it, I also find it curious that "Basic" mods, while having worse stats than T2, are meta 6 rather than meta 2 or 3 or 4. Perhaps this should be looked at? It should definitely not persist into the actual release.

Except that it breaks killboards all the time...