These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Edward Olmops
Gunboat Commando
#101 - 2014-12-24 10:42:01 UTC
Also, out of curiosity... while we are on the topic:

I noticed 3 or 4 years ago (much to my surprise) the the the drawbacks of Reinforced bulkheads were affected by stacking penalties at that time.
The use case was that I fitted a very odd bait Armageddon with 7 or 8 Reinforced Bulkheads (to give someone the impression of having ALMOST killed a battleship while it actually had >100k EHP on structure. Also, real l33t pilots love hull tanking).

Now, with all those drawbacks the Armageddon should have been basically immobile, but in fact it was much more agile than expected. It turned out that the drawback of the 2nd module was only 87% effective the third only 57% and so on as with other positive modules.

I can't even recall whether I actually used the ship, but...
Is that still in the game?
And is it intentional?
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#102 - 2014-12-24 11:28:49 UTC
It sure would've been nice if you'd included the previous values next to the new values for all the modules for ease of comparison. I'm not going to bother looking up every single module - so no feedback on your values... I'll just assume they're all broken and be bittervet about it. :)

Keeping the flavor of the names was a good move though, well done.

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.

Mixu Paatelainen
Eve Refinery
#103 - 2014-12-24 12:40:23 UTC
I'm a bit confused. I think you might be too.

From an outside perspective it appears to me that you haven't begun this process by asking some pretty fundamental questions.

1. How do most players search for modules?
2. Does your tiericide plan help, or hinder the answer to question 1?

For all the justified criticism of the choice of adjectives in this and previous exercises (why is the most useful cheap 1m microwarpdrive'Limited'?), I think you've mistakenly opted to address lore complaints and not crappy name complaints.

I like lore based names, but I like useful mods more. In a perfect world I'd get useful mods with sci-fi names.

Would it be so hard to throw the community a bone and crowd-source names for stuff? Make a devblog with the stats for as yet unnamed mods, lay out some basic rules (easy to search for, sci-fi themed) and invite suggestions, then give a nice reward to the winner. Maybe a plex and a line in the mod description acknowledging them.
McChicken Combo HalfMayo
The Happy Meal
#104 - 2014-12-24 13:07:57 UTC  |  Edited by: McChicken Combo HalfMayo
What happened to the meaningful choices we were promised? The nuking of the meta class is rather unsatisfying. There are some cases where this is understandable, like capacitor rechargers, but there isn't much excuse for other modules. The Power Diagnostic unit has how many stats, and there's ONE meta module?

I think the logic with these changes is all off. My recommendation is as follows:
- The Meta 0 module has base stats
- The Meta 1-4 modules each have one stat that is above the base stat, with the rest of the stats below the base stats.
- The T2 module has an all around increase to base stats, but still less than the specialized stat of a given Meta 1-4 module
- Storyline and faction modules each have one stat that is above the comparable specialized Meta 1-4 stat, with the rest of the stats the same as the T2.

There can be some variation on this, particularly when it comes to modules with reduced fitting stats, but generally I would like to see this as the theme.

And bring back my Local Hull Conversion.

There are all our dominion

Gate camps: "Its like the lowsec watercooler, just with explosions and boose" - Ralph King-Griffin

CCP Terminus
C C P
C C P Alliance
#105 - 2014-12-24 15:46:00 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Terminus
Lara Divinity wrote:
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

...

...
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 ?


T1 and T2 MLU's stats have not changed at all.

The reasoning behind increasing the power of the Storyline modules ('Carpo', 'Aoede', 'Anguis', 'Ingenii') was to make them a more attractive option to players who do have the capital to purchase one. They've also been given different roles, the 'Carpo and 'Anguis' modules are there for players who want to save CPU, while the 'Aoede' and 'Ingenii' modules offer a raw bonus to mining amount. All four of these modules provide that bonus at the cost of being very expensive modules.
We in no way expect them to be used by most miners, as the cost is just too prohibitive for the bonus provided. It is a choice every miner must make, in the same way it's a choice to fit MLU's vs more tank.

In addition, currently 'Aoede and 'Ingenii' modules are already extremely expensive and better than T2 MLU's. This change will not alter these facts and is not meant to help gankers. It provides an option for players on whether they want to risk expensive modules for a bonus, in a similar way that it does right now.

@CCP_Terminus // Game Designer // Team Size Matters

CCP Terminus
C C P
C C P Alliance
#106 - 2014-12-24 15:51:51 UTC
Edward Olmops wrote:
Now, with all those drawbacks the Armageddon should have been basically immobile, but in fact it was much more agile than expected. It turned out that the drawback of the 2nd module was only 87% effective the third only 57% and so on as with other positive modules.

I can't even recall whether I actually used the ship, but...
Is that still in the game?And is it intentional?

As far as I am aware both bonuses and drawbacks are affected by stacking penalties in an equal manner.

@CCP_Terminus // Game Designer // Team Size Matters

TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#107 - 2014-12-24 18:25:31 UTC
aren't those high-end cap rechargers due for a nerf? it's a bit silly how they're better than cap relays by a mile, when they should probably be worse. **** makes no sense.
Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
#108 - 2014-12-24 18:32:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Chainsaw Plankton
CCP Terminus wrote:
Edward Olmops wrote:
Now, with all those drawbacks the Armageddon should have been basically immobile, but in fact it was much more agile than expected. It turned out that the drawback of the 2nd module was only 87% effective the third only 57% and so on as with other positive modules.

I can't even recall whether I actually used the ship, but...
Is that still in the game?And is it intentional?

As far as I am aware both bonuses and drawbacks are affected by stacking penalties in an equal manner.


it doesn't say anything about stacking penalties on the module. quick test in game shows the bonus is not stacking penalized, and the drawback does appear to be stacking penalized (plus or minus a tiny bit for rounding). which sounds the same as most other modules that involve drawbacks.


Hull HP    bonus    agility    Drawback
1000    base      1.8698    base
1250    0.2500    1.8884    0.009947588
1562    0.2496    1.9049    0.008737556
1953    0.2503    1.9157    0.005669589



what I am still curious about is the modules where meta levels somewhat matter (damage controls, webs, and scrams off the top of my head). Although even there it is a very strong meta 3/4/5 battle. and modules where having multiple branches in the same meta level is interesting (think guns). the changes so far seem to be destroying any choice in that regard. tech 1 remains completely uninteresting, the meta options are rather unattractive, and t2 is pretty much awesome. From what I've seen so far fitting meta is just a last resort save on cpu/pg option. and quite frankly that's poopy.

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter

Haplo Bartow
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#109 - 2014-12-24 18:53:36 UTC
You said in the announcement that Tier II Mining Upgrades will receive a 1% mining amount bonus to reflect their rarity and to counter the increased cost. However, Mining Laser Upgrade II is slated to change from 10% CPU penalty and 9% mining bonus to 12.5% CPU penalty and... 9% mining bonus. Where is the bump to 10%, or was that a typo?

Further, when will we see MLU IIIs?
Mr Grape Drink
Doomheim
#110 - 2014-12-24 20:01:36 UTC
Im seeing the ORE Miner as all around better than the T2. Should have higher fitting or activation. Or maybe this was incentive for people to put 400-500 mil worth of lasers on their ventures? :D
Mr Grape Drink
Doomheim
#111 - 2014-12-24 20:12:36 UTC
Haplo Bartow wrote:
You said in the announcement that Tier II Mining Upgrades will receive a 1% mining amount bonus to reflect their rarity and to counter the increased cost. However, Mining Laser Upgrade II is slated to change from 10% CPU penalty and 9% mining bonus to 12.5% CPU penalty and... 9% mining bonus. Where is the bump to 10%, or was that a typo?

Further, when will we see MLU IIIs?



The 1% increase was in reference to the two that will become storylines. The 'Carpo' and 'Aeode'. Not Tech II

As for the MLU CPU penalty, currently in game its a 12.5% CPU bonus base. The 10% you are seeing is probably on your mining ship with you having Mining Upgrades level 4. Which drops it to a 10% after skill value
Haplo Bartow
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#112 - 2014-12-24 20:14:55 UTC
Mr Grape Drink wrote:
Haplo Bartow wrote:
You said in the announcement that Tier II Mining Upgrades will receive a 1% mining amount bonus to reflect their rarity and to counter the increased cost. However, Mining Laser Upgrade II is slated to change from 10% CPU penalty and 9% mining bonus to 12.5% CPU penalty and... 9% mining bonus. Where is the bump to 10%, or was that a typo?

Further, when will we see MLU IIIs?



The 1% increase was in reference to the two that will become storylines. The 'Carpo' and 'Aeode'. Not Tech II

As for the MLU CPU penalty, currently in game its a 12.5% CPU bonus base. The 10% you are seeing is probably on your mining ship with you having Mining Upgrades level 4. Which drops it to a 10% after skill value

Ah, I see. Thanks
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#113 - 2014-12-24 21:07:08 UTC
Sizeof Void wrote:
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... ;)


Yarp.

Three or four tiers is better than 12 tiers of "good, better, best" IMHO.
NorthCrossroad
EVE University
Ivy League
#114 - 2014-12-24 21:40:03 UTC  |  Edited by: NorthCrossroad
Pretty good overall, but faction Overdrive Injectors really require a bit more juice. Reduced penalty won't really help make them useful (specifically for PvP). Give them a slight speed boost (compared to T2) - like 12.75 or even 13%. That will make them useful for those who are ready to pay more for each m/s.

North
Quintessen
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#115 - 2014-12-24 23:52:32 UTC
I was really a fan of the simpler names from Tier-icide, Part 1. If you want better lore, create better lore. But Type-D doesn't really tell me anything -- it's just familiar. And that familiarity will have less and less meaning.

I do agree with many other posters about 'Basic' being a bad name. How about 'Simple', 'Simplified', or 'Streamlined' to indicate that they are less complex components with less pros and less cons.

How about instead of a meaningless descriptor you add lore/description tab to modules that describes the module's purpose in lore, the inventor corporation or some other piece of content that really does place the class of module in context. A single person updating them at the same time the modules are going through tiericide should be manageable. It shouldn't require a team of writers to do it.

Also, please be very clear on delineating 'Basic' and Restrained modules. Please don't make them a mess of reduced drawbacks, skills, fitting. Please make sure they are consistent otherwise the false information will make the current situation even worse.
Milla Goodpussy
Garoun Investment Bank
#116 - 2014-12-25 00:57:59 UTC
this guy has an incredible sense of detachment for miners.. assuming they are going to go grind out and use ORE MLU's just to make their ships even more gank targets but will not for one second think to even begin nerf'ing cloaky campers, unlimited power cloaks, catalyst and his friends "blighted weapons" idea's.

you guys need some outside help really.. its pretty obvious you're concentrated on causing players to lose expensive ships just so it makes the "news" about how eve online is full of players who enjoy losing expensive ships to pvp.

then you sit there and scratch your head wondering why new players do not stick around.. you resort to using monkey surveys get feedback just to distort the truth in the feedback and implement YOUR OWN idea's instead..

what does ccp want?? short term players who get ganked just so it can do their marketing..

or does ccp want a good mmo with a good community with some win on both sides of the table?

I shouldn't ask you cause of course you'll run back to your data pull's and spreadsheets believing your formula spells out fun.

tiercide is nothing but breaking things in order to serve a purpose for demographic and continue to force future changes .. once your data doesn't add up.. i'll be sitting and waiting for you pretty pie charts indicating how your mod changes is used..

you remember what happened to Teams do you?? yeah.. and back then "this will encourage more use of teams".. now.. well teams are not used so they're being removed.. afterall this time the community was telling you so up front and center.. but you denied it.

you guys have denial syndrome and backwards logic.

Merry Xmas to all and to new sci-fi mmo's.. I cant wait to spend my money elsewhere.

what about the rorqual?? ***CRICKETS********
Lara Divinity
Pidgeon Cartel
#117 - 2014-12-25 03:34:08 UTC
Haplo Bartow wrote:
You said in the announcement that Tier II Mining Upgrades will receive a 1% mining amount bonus to reflect their rarity and to counter the increased cost. However, Mining Laser Upgrade II is slated to change from 10% CPU penalty and 9% mining bonus to 12.5% CPU penalty and... 9% mining bonus. Where is the bump to 10%, or was that a typo?

Further, when will we see MLU IIIs?


the bump has been made into 400million isk Mlu's but as ccp told me its the miners choice to invest in that or in more tank o.O basicly the same as sayin who cares really
ur just a miner u want more yield fit 3 400mill mlu's on ur already expensive exhumer then u get that 1% extra.
awesome change aint it

if u read back on the thread u would have seen my posts about it to its just another nerf imo under the disguise of we renaming modules to make things easyer

Masao Kurata
Perkone
Caldari State
#118 - 2014-12-25 03:36:51 UTC
CCP Terminus wrote:
In addition, currently 'Aoede and 'Ingenii' modules are already extremely expensive and better than T2 MLU's. This change will not alter these facts and is not meant to help gankers. It provides an option for players on whether they want to risk expensive modules for a bonus, in a similar way that it does right now.


FWIW as a ganker I consider it a buff to gankers but it's the miner's own silly fault if he uses these without taking precautions Big smile.

This is getting a bit ahead of ourselves, but would you consider giving the ORE strip miners and ice harvesters a yield buff to at least equal T2 strip miners with crystals? Despite the immense expense a lot of miners use them briefly then realise that their primary stat is worse than T2 (and I'm sure many more realise this before buying them).
Lara Divinity
Pidgeon Cartel
#119 - 2014-12-25 03:41:40 UTC
Milla Goodpussy wrote:
this guy has an incredible sense of detachment for miners.. assuming they are going to go grind out and use ORE MLU's just to make their ships even more gank targets but will not for one second think to even begin nerf'ing cloaky campers, unlimited power cloaks, catalyst and his friends "blighted weapons" idea's.

you guys need some outside help really.. its pretty obvious you're concentrated on causing players to lose expensive ships just so it makes the "news" about how eve online is full of players who enjoy losing expensive ships to pvp.

then you sit there and scratch your head wondering why new players do not stick around.. you resort to using monkey surveys get feedback just to distort the truth in the feedback and implement YOUR OWN idea's instead..

what does ccp want?? short term players who get ganked just so it can do their marketing..

or does ccp want a good mmo with a good community with some win on both sides of the table?

I shouldn't ask you cause of course you'll run back to your data pull's and spreadsheets believing your formula spells out fun.

tiercide is nothing but breaking things in order to serve a purpose for demographic and continue to force future changes .. once your data doesn't add up.. i'll be sitting and waiting for you pretty pie charts indicating how your mod changes is used..

you remember what happened to Teams do you?? yeah.. and back then "this will encourage more use of teams".. now.. well teams are not used so they're being removed.. afterall this time the community was telling you so up front and center.. but you denied it.

you guys have denial syndrome and backwards logic.

Merry Xmas to all and to new sci-fi mmo's.. I cant wait to spend my money elsewhere.

what about the rorqual?? ***CRICKETS********


i hear Elite Dangerous is ready to play and Looks Awesome, might try that one out to prolly has better content at this point since its new and has to compete with older games like umm...Eve Online
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#120 - 2014-12-25 05:29:41 UTC
I took a second look at the devblog tonight, and I think that adding new faction modules, which are better in every way over T2, is the wrong way to go, esp. for modules which can be purchased from LP stores.

Officer modules, which drop rarely and from high-risk sites, are ok. They have very little impact on game balance due to their scarcity. Faction modules, which can be acquired in quantity via LP, however, imbalance the game too much in favor of those with larger wallets (ie. a gold ammo problem). They also contribute to another serious imbalance in the game, which is LP farming.

All of which, you might not care much about, but the fact that the faction modules are OP compared to T2 versions means that you are adding power creep, which will affect the overall ship balance, as well. Keep in mind that the ship rebalancing was done with respect to T2 fits - not to faction fits.

Easily obtainable faction modules should have some advantage over T2, but they also need to have drawbacks, as well. And, not merely cost - expensive is not much of a barrier (although prohibitively expensive, ex 1B ISK per module, would probably be ok).