These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#121 - 2014-12-25 06:28:05 UTC
One other thing: when I look at the relative difference in numbers between the T1, meta, T2, and faction versions, I get the feeling that these numbers are always being adjusted as if each module operated completely independent of any other module, or rig, on a ship, and without regards for skill bonuses.

Essentially, I feel that the differences in the numbers are too large, when aggregated on a ship fit, and when skill bonuses are taken into account (ie. difference between players with level 4 skills and level 5 skills). Small percentages multiply into large amounts very quickly.

And, I'm always concerned when the overall combat stat difference between a T2/faction-fit ship vs. a T1/meta-fit ship is too great. Esp. since the former is likely to be flown by a high-SP older player, with a larger wallet, and the latter is likely to be flown by a low-SP younger player, with a smaller wallet.

If the aggregated combat stat difference for two ship/pilot combinations is 5-10% (20% at most), ok - the older, richer player has a reasonable, but not overwhelming, advantage over the younger, poorer player.

But, when the difference exceeds 100%, this is ridiculous - it becomes a "gold ammo" problem and a "level 1 vs level 100" problem. This sort of thing tends to discourage new players, particularly those who are interested in solo and small gang PvP.

Module tiericide should look at reducing the differences between the numbers, of different versions of a module - and certainly not increasing the low-to-high range. And, the differences should probably all be in tenths of a percent, not full percent values - ie. 0.1% between a T1 and meta module, and maybe 0.5% difference between a T1 and T2 module.

Note: i'm a (very) high-SP older player, with a (very) fat wallet, so I'm arguing on behalf of a more level playing field for the benefit of new players.
Malou Hashur
Enterprise Holdings
#122 - 2014-12-25 08:11:13 UTC
All of this really makes no difference......

Instead, you could use the time you are wasting on this to actually FINISH something.


6 months ago you promised to provide separate sliders for tooltips.........still waiting

finish the new UI, there are numerous issues outstanding which, going by the total silence of devs on the subject, are going to be left as they are


For the love of God, actually COMPLETE something for a change before moving on to break something else.

CCP Philosophy ==>>

  1. If it works, break it. If it’s broken, leave it and break something else.

  2. Ignore all Forum comments that raise issues and concerns about our "features", and bring said "features" in anyway.

Cledus Snowman Snow
Doomheim
#123 - 2014-12-25 11:29:09 UTC
edited for clarity
"#1 - 2014-12-23 14:42:19 UTC |
4
In the needless battle for the Biennial name changes in EVE Online, the farce continues in the direction of module in-balance. In round two, CCP Terminus and the rest of the module taskfarce sink their teeth into Harvesting Equipment, Hull Upgrades, Propulsion Upgrades and Engineering Equipment. To see all the upcoming nerfs, read this new dev blog."



How about fixing what was ignored form the first pass?

" Call it whatever you want this year and change it two years from now Again.
How bout the CCP balancing specialists take the time to even try to make some of these mods better for the users in this game? If your mining laser, strip mining laser, modulated deep core mining laser, ore hold, cargo hold, station hanger, fleet hanger, cans, POS, SILOS, and every thing in the ENTIRE GAME reads in m3 why would the Ore Scanner read in Units of Ore? And not m3 amount?

Just how hard would it be to make it read both? Or just m3? "
Alex PROTOSS
The First Foundation
Legion of xXDEATHXx
#124 - 2014-12-25 13:04:14 UTC
CCP Terminus, fix meta PDS and Capacitor Power Relays. With this update, you kill flexibility in Scythe fitting.
It was used meta CPR and PDS because of CPU lack.
Fearghus Mikakka
Achangel Holdings And Mining
#125 - 2014-12-25 15:02:10 UTC
CCP Logibro wrote:
In the endless battle for balance in EVE Online, the march continues in the direction of module rebalance. In round two, CCP Terminus and the rest of the module taskforce sink their teeth into Harvesting Equipment, Hull Upgrades, Propulsion Upgrades and Engineering Equipment. To see all the upcoming changes, read this new dev blog.


Question are Strip Miner I and II being removed or changed? i don't see them talked about in the post?
CCP Terminus
C C P
C C P Alliance
#126 - 2014-12-25 17:52:22 UTC
Fearghus Mikakka wrote:
Question are Strip Miner I and II being removed or changed? i don't see them talked about in the post?

Any mining laser (deep cores, etc.) or strip miner not mentioned in the blog post went untouched. We may revisit Strip Miners at a later date.

@CCP_Terminus // Game Designer // Team Size Matters

Conventia Underking
Underking Family
Khimi Harar
#127 - 2014-12-25 19:44:52 UTC
For the record, I prefer the names without flavor text. I'm not sure if my view is the minority or majority, but I didn't feel the need to comment before. I suppose it doesn't matter that much though.

For God; Salvation is Imperative, but not at the cost of our Humanity!

The Vitoc Problem - Conventia Underking

beakerax
Pator Tech School
#128 - 2014-12-25 21:58:16 UTC
Thank you for the naming compromise. This is a good change.

To commemorate this devblog, Is there any chance CCP itself could be renamed to We Agree We May Have Gone Too Far Productions?
Fabada Asturiana23
Mistic power
#129 - 2014-12-25 23:20:32 UTC
Like hull tanker lover i think that the new "balance" bullkheads will be the end of this kind of tank sistem. I deisagre whith the new penalities, cpu ....etc, and why not meta 4 modules ?

Like gallente i think that the new balance is unbalance.

its a pain cause when i drive a hull tanked ship in a fight,the excitament is superior its a true combat, kill or die, no alternatives.

Thanks ccp........ (its pure irony)
Alex PROTOSS
The First Foundation
Legion of xXDEATHXx
#130 - 2014-12-25 23:31:51 UTC
CCP Terminus, say, why fraction stasis webifiers are all the different, and new, CPR, CR - are just big list of same modules? Why only 3 types for 4 fraction PDS modules? (Thukker and ammatar are to relic so they can go to officer class)
Sh'iriin
Perkone
Caldari State
#131 - 2014-12-26 02:43:15 UTC
Dev I : next patch is close and we haven't finished more than 20% of the content....
Dev II: we could reduce the announcements of stuff we have no time to really fix, tune the release cycle and stop to change things that didn't need any change!
Producer: you are fired
Dev I: we still only have 1mb of new fluffy textures and some minor ship changes?
Producer: just inflate what you have into a "release"
Dev I: we could take a change we made recently, change it again and back and ....
Dev III: and we could rename a shitload of modules, change numbers slightly and....
Producer: you guys actually propose to make modules even less easy to understand for new players and less easy to manage for old vets by complicating names and stuff - instead of deleting 30% useless modules and make the rest really different from each other?
Dev I: uhm...ahhhh....yes?
Dev III: we could post something about lore and diversity and even add some new modules?
Producer: BRILLIANT - you are promoted!


whats next? 16 new ammo items with 'lore' names and +/- 1 more/less falloff then the current ones? hyper 'basic' muffin antimatter shells incoming?
Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
#132 - 2014-12-26 05:54:11 UTC
Sizeof Void wrote:
One other thing: when I look at the relative difference in numbers between the T1, meta, T2, and faction versions, I get the feeling that these numbers are always being adjusted as if each module operated completely independent of any other module, or rig, on a ship, and without regards for skill bonuses.

Essentially, I feel that the differences in the numbers are too large, when aggregated on a ship fit, and when skill bonuses are taken into account (ie. difference between players with level 4 skills and level 5 skills). Small percentages multiply into large amounts very quickly.

And, I'm always concerned when the overall combat stat difference between a T2/faction-fit ship vs. a T1/meta-fit ship is too great. Esp. since the former is likely to be flown by a high-SP older player, with a larger wallet, and the latter is likely to be flown by a low-SP younger player, with a smaller wallet.

If the aggregated combat stat difference for two ship/pilot combinations is 5-10% (20% at most), ok - the older, richer player has a reasonable, but not overwhelming, advantage over the younger, poorer player.

But, when the difference exceeds 100%, this is ridiculous - it becomes a "gold ammo" problem and a "level 1 vs level 100" problem. This sort of thing tends to discourage new players, particularly those who are interested in solo and small gang PvP.

Module tiericide should look at reducing the differences between the numbers, of different versions of a module - and certainly not increasing the low-to-high range. And, the differences should probably all be in tenths of a percent, not full percent values - ie. 0.1% between a T1 and meta module, and maybe 0.5% difference between a T1 and T2 module.

Note: i'm a (very) high-SP older player, with a (very) fat wallet, so I'm arguing on behalf of a more level playing field for the benefit of new players.


I kinda feel like that is how it is now, for a cheap fit it is mostly meta 3 fittings, where the vet can fit t2 stuff and the expensive meta 4 mods. I don't think the difference is quite that bad though. that said with the way this is going the t1 and meta versions could be a bit stronger.

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter

Madbuster73
State War Academy
Caldari State
#133 - 2014-12-26 14:52:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Madbuster73
Really CCP???

You are now going back from your decision of making things EASIER to giving items complicated names again???
I really liked the short easy names for modules.
Now its back to the same way it was because some people cant adapt??

Please dont bend over for every whiner on the forum that is stuck in the past.
EvE should be moving forwards and not backwards.

-1 from me for going back to the old names.
Oraac Ensor
#134 - 2014-12-26 15:22:04 UTC
CCP Terminus wrote:

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.

Not quite true, as mentioned by at least one previous poster, but probably accurate in most cases.

So why are you victimising many players who have opted for maximum Capacity Bonus?

At present, the Meta 4 and T2 modules give the same 27.5% bonus while differing only slightly in price and penalties.

But you propose to reduce the Meta 4 module to 22.5%?

That is not right. That is not right in any way, CCP.

Existing Meta 4's should be merged with T2, not with other Meta items bought by players knowingly choosing lower bonus levels.
Oovarvu
C.O.L.D.
#135 - 2014-12-26 16:14:05 UTC
whilst not against the rebalancing of mods i am saddened somewhat by the loss of some of the quirkier side of this great game.

and i must say that when damage controls get 'balanced' i for one will badly miss the meta 4 variant and the fits it allows, it will be a real shame to lose that mod.
JanSVK
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#136 - 2014-12-26 19:50:59 UTC
The changes look good.

I would like to ask and point out:
Caldari Navy Power Diagnostic System, Thukker Power Diagnostic System, ....
Ammatar Navy Capacitor Power Relay Dark Blood Capacitor Power Relay, ...
Ammatar Navy Cap Recharger, Dark Blood Cap Recharger,...

These modules have identical attributes. I would suggest to colapse them into a single module to reduce duplicity.

Somatic Neuron
Masterwork Productions Inc
#137 - 2014-12-26 20:00:58 UTC
CCP Terminus wrote:
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 module (consolidated meta 1-4) 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.


If you know the Expanded Cargohold modules are "broken", and yet still do nothing about it, then what is the point of making any changes?

It would be a far more intelligent decision to keep the cargo bonus similar, but give them different abilities that are actually useful...to give us choices in what we use. I would suggest to use Inertia modifiers as the penalty for the various modules, as Velocity and Structure HitPoints aren't ever looked at by people buying/fitting Cargoholds anyway.

Example:
Expanded CargoHold I - Cargo Capacity Bonus: 17.50%, Inertia Modifier: +5%
'Basic' Expanded CargoHold - Cargo Capacity Bonus: 20.00%, Inertia Modifier: +8%
Type-D Restrained Expanded Cargo - Cargo Capacity Bonus: 22.50%, Inertia Modifier: +10%
Limited Expanded 'Archiver' Cargo I - Cargo Capacity Bonus: 25.00%, Inertia Modifier: +13%
Expanded CargoHold II - Cargo Capacity Bonus: 27.50%, Inertia Modifier: +15%
ORE Expanded CargoHold - Cargo Capacity Bonus: 30.00%, Inertia Modifier: +18%

I'm not sure that this is balanced, but it gives you an idea at what I am suggesting. Basically, penalties should make up for the bonuses, and make us decide for ourselves where our happy point is in relation to Penalty/Reward. Structure and Velocity penalties are meaningless to 99.9% of people using cargoholds anyway....if we get attacked, we die...a few % of structure isn't going to make enough of a difference, normally, to allow you to survive....and your velocity isn't going to make the difference in very many instances either....however, affecting how quickly we can get to warp...that's HUGE....

Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#138 - 2014-12-26 22:28:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Tipa Riot
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:


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.

Huh? Christmas is over ... so far all meta-4 was nerfed down to meta-1 in previous tiericide rounds ... though I would be happy to avoid a probably expensive mass exchange on my ships ...

I'm my own NPC alt.

McChicken Combo HalfMayo
The Happy Meal
#139 - 2014-12-26 23:28:49 UTC  |  Edited by: McChicken Combo HalfMayo
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 module (consolidated meta 1-4) 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.

This is just not correct, sorry.

Few will use anything but T2 Cargoholds or above, unless it's a matter of skill requirements. 275,000 ISK isn't going to matter. This rebalance has not provided more choices.

I also don't think players only look at "ISK" and "cargo" when deciding to buy these modules. Where are you getting this data from? I never saw such a survey handed out to players Blink.

The past (and current) balance of the modules has "cargo" as the only determining factor. In reality players do care about the structure hitpoint bonus but the modules were never balanced properly for it to matter. Players would also care about other drawbacks, and this is where you should have started with the mentality behind the rebalance.

Meta 0 has base cargo boost with no drawbacks
Meta a has base cargo + x with structure hitpoint drawback
Meta b has base cargo + x with inertial modifier drawback
Meta c has base cargo + x with velocity drawback
Meta 5 has base cargo + x with structure hitpoint drawback - y, but takes longer to train for and costs significantly more
The faction/storyline modules are just super meta a-c modules.

Maybe it's not perfect but these are real choices. This rebalance is just homogenizing the game further.

There are all our dominion

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

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#140 - 2014-12-27 01:58:12 UTC
While cargo expanders are in the spotlight could they be given a stacking penalty?
This would allow for a larger variety of fits and higher base figures on industrials rather than basically requiring them to fit extenders to carry a single cruiser.