These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Primaxin
30plus
Goonswarm Federation
#81 - 2014-12-24 01:50:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Primaxin
Again, the naming, while some may quibble about it is not the real problem and gets far too much discussion.

The real problem is for those who do ratting who actually also collect the "loot". Ratting is already a totally repetitive activity with virtually no variation. Every specific type of anomaly is the same each time (there may be 2 variations but you know what I mean).

About the only thing that provides a tiny bit of variety is the value of the loot for a given anomaly. It can vary quite a bit by finding certain rare and desirable meta 4 modules. Apparently that tiny bit of randomness in this otherwise extremely dull activity is too much for the Eve developers. Now we will get the same generic stuff every single time. No chance to have a little excitement by finding something good.

This seems to me to be a step in the wrong direction because it makes an aspect of gameplay that many players use even less interesting than it already is.
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#82 - 2014-12-24 02:15:50 UTC
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.
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#83 - 2014-12-24 02:21:20 UTC
any chance to add in ORE versions of the Mining and Ice upgrades?
Morihei Akachi
Doomheim
#84 - 2014-12-24 02:40:37 UTC
Trinkets friend wrote:
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. Big smile

"Enduring", "restrained" and "ample" as designations for starship components are foreign to the genre of high-tech science fiction and don’t belong in Eve Online. (And as for “scoped” …)

Zappity
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#85 - 2014-12-24 02:54:40 UTC
It would be much easier if we could just right-click, Show Group like we can in PYFA or EFT.

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

Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#86 - 2014-12-24 02:57:03 UTC
Really like the proposed changes. Faction modules finally get the bonuses they should've always had.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Lara Divinity
Pidgeon Cartel
#87 - 2014-12-24 03:33:32 UTC
Terminator 2 wrote:
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?



didnt u know ccp always nerfs in favor for code or gankers i wonder when they gonna do som good for the mining community .
ah wait they did they intoduced the prospect lol
Lara Divinity
Pidgeon Cartel
#88 - 2014-12-24 03:46:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Lara Divinity
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
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#89 - 2014-12-24 04:11:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Mara Rinn
Rather than "restrained" how about "stoic"?

It's fewer letters, and less likely to be made fun of (*chuckle* restrained overdrive *snort*)

There is one conflict, and that is with the 'stoic' core equalizer (a WCS), which could be dropped or renamed 'Restrained' since that term is appropriate for a tackle module! Especially if you have a Stoic 'Restrained' Warp Scrambler: the 'stoic' adjective meaning fewer drawbacks, so lower penalties to scan resolution and targeting range.

If you could make that change, I promise to not snigger any time I see an "ample" module. Well, not out loud at any rate.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#90 - 2014-12-24 04:29:39 UTC
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?
Ambrosia Grande
Star Frontiers
Brotherhood of Spacers
#91 - 2014-12-24 04:31:38 UTC
Really not a fan of the current module naming scheme as pointed out by others.

I also do not understand what you mean by all the other "meta 0" modules, especially if you're referring to Meta 1-4 type modules. It might just be my OCD personality, but one thing I feel is that the Meta level should definitely directly relate to how useful the item is.

Why is the Basic Cargo expander meta 6 while having worse expansion stats when compared to a T2 Cargo Expander? A lot of logic seems to escape me when I read through this list and it angered me enough to make a post.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#92 - 2014-12-24 04:54:41 UTC
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.

Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#93 - 2014-12-24 05:25:03 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
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.

And, here I thought the point of "tiericide" was to get rid of tiers, not create more of them... ;)
Valterra Craven
#94 - 2014-12-24 05:58:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
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.
Dark Drifter
Sardaukar Merc Guild
General Tso's Alliance
#95 - 2014-12-24 06:25:01 UTC
Morihei Akachi wrote:
I have two criticisms of the revised naming conventions, and one observation which is linked to a question.

1. The generic terms “ample” and “restrained”, with their connotations of bosoms and BDSM respectively, and “scoped”, continue to be inappropriate to technological equipment and implausible for a highly developed and variegated future technological market. (“Scoped” is not a word. It looks like it ought to be the past participle of a verb, “to scope”, meaning, if we are to believe your use of it here, “to make reach further”. This is gibberish. The designation you are looking for is “long-range”.) These terms, as they stand, feel stupid, and they make me feel stupid fitting modules named with them to my ships. I feel like I am being talked down to by my game. I notice that since their release I have been avoiding using them, solely for that reason.

2. You are attempting to introduce a very rigid consistency into an area where it is inappropriate, and where we do not suffer from its lack IRL. This is nowhere more obvious than in the decision to call an overdrive, a module intended to be the quintessence of extra power and speed, “restrained”. This is absurd: the marketing genius of the future who came up with this would be fired instantly. A kind of cookie-cutter sameness is being applied across the board to items regardless of what those items actually are. I don’t feel you are taking your own fictional world seriously any more. I have no idea, in that case, why I should continue to.

Observation: Travelling round New Eden in recent days I’ve tried to keep an eye out for the relative prices of the generic modules from the last round of tiericide, and my sense is that there are massive price differences between the new named modules. On the assumption that, for example, “compact” LMLs are not dropping significantly less frequently than “ample” ones, I assume that in many cases one of them is much more popular and being used more widely than the other(s), and is being priced accordingly. Is this right in terms of actual usage? If it is, is it the result you were expecting when you decided to remove modules you felt were being under-used? How are you evaluating the success of module tiericide in general?


prety much what this guy said.

i will add 2 things

1 the civilian mining laser has worse fitting and yeld than T1 ...

2= adding new faction mods to the game is all well and good. but when those items are assumed to come from thair respective LP stores. it makes thair addition to the game null and void. as in my 7-8 years of eve i have never met a single player who has run missions for or had/has LP with ORE or SYNDICATE corperations. on top of that (for ORE) all the missions are null sec mining missions that are not worth the time or risk to run for such low LP payouts
Iomi Alabosa
Zero Gee Removal Enterprises
#96 - 2014-12-24 06:40:18 UTC
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.
epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#97 - 2014-12-24 08:03:40 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
A simple point on the naming of the historic modules, that originally were caused basic and are no longer dropped.

There is a real issue that retaining that name will cause significant confusion as a meta 6 item.

That is simply contradictory to your goals, which are to be encouraged and praised.

I suggest these basic items are all renamed heirloom to reflect their historic value and remove confusion.

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

Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#98 - 2014-12-24 08:20:13 UTC
CCP Terminus wrote:
Reserved for clarifications

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.
Sturmwolke
#99 - 2014-12-24 09:11:52 UTC
Overcomplication where none was needed. Solution is downright silly.

Therefore, I hereby propose an initiative to rename ships so that they can be easily identified by dummies:

Rapier -> Rapier Longtooth
Lachesis -> Lachesis Shadoweaver
Apocaypse Navy Issue -> Apocalypse Navy Issue Goldenrod
Moros Interbus Edition -> Moros Interbus Edition Killerbee
... etc.

Yes, please make it happen. This will help new players for sure. It'll knock the confusion off those players having difficulties differentiating the different ships.
Guaranteed. Trust me.
Edward Olmops
Gunboat Commando
#100 - 2014-12-24 10:28:25 UTC
CCP Terminus wrote:
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.


Except that it breaks killboards all the time... Roll