These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Oraac Ensor
#141 - 2014-12-27 02:04:01 UTC
Somatic Neuron wrote:
Velocity and Structure HitPoints aren't ever looked at by people buying/fitting Cargoholds anyway.
Wrong.

If you had bothered to read this thread before posting you would know that this is incorrect.

Somatic Neuron wrote:
Structure and Velocity penalties are meaningless to 99.9% of people using cargoholds anyway....
Please supply details of the player survey that shows this.

Somatic Neuron wrote:
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....
A few %??? 20% is not "a few" - and even that, from one module, could be the difference between death and survival. Never escaped with less than 20% structure? I certainly have.

Slap on 5 of those and you lose about ⅔ of your structure, which is not "a few %" by any stretch of the imagination.

McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote:
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.
If you have never seen a player survey on the subject there is no way you can assert that "Few will use anything but T2 Cargoholds or above, unless it's a matter of skill requirements."


I am always amazed at the number of posters on these forums who think that their opinion/playstyle must automatically represent all but an insignificant minority.
CCP Terminus
C C P
C C P Alliance
#142 - 2014-12-27 02:30:26 UTC
Oraac Ensor wrote:
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.


Currently Meta 4 Expanded Cargoholds are purely worse than T2 Cargoholds (In fact all meta 1-4 modules are). However when we do the merging it's certainly an option to turn Meta 4 Expanded Cargoholds into T2 Expanded Cargoholds because of the stats similarities.

@CCP_Terminus // Game Designer // Team Size Matters

CCP Terminus
C C P
C C P Alliance
#143 - 2014-12-27 02:44:37 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Terminus
Somatic Neuron wrote:
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.

McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote:
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.

Changing the velocity penalty to an inertia modifier could be an option we could look in to before the release. The hitpoints penalty can certainly be a factor though currently and would be something we want to keep.
As for having different penalties for each module, this goes against the structure of all other module types and would be something we most likely would not do.

@CCP_Terminus // Game Designer // Team Size Matters

Oraac Ensor
#144 - 2014-12-27 03:39:02 UTC
CCP Terminus wrote:
Oraac Ensor wrote:
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.


Currently Meta 4 Expanded Cargoholds are purely worse than T2 Cargoholds (In fact all meta 1-4 modules are). However when we do the merging it's certainly an option to turn Meta 4 Expanded Cargoholds into T2 Expanded Cargoholds because of the stats similarities.

Please make it more than an option - the differences (1% on each penalty) are tiny.
Somatic Neuron
Masterwork Productions Inc
#145 - 2014-12-27 07:18:19 UTC
Oraac Ensor wrote:
I am always amazed at the number of posters on these forums who think that their opinion/playstyle must automatically represent all but an insignificant minority.


Odd statement considering you imply that your opinion is superior to anyone that disagrees with you.

My "opinions" are based on a significant amount of playtime since the game was released (I've been playing since 2003 on the majority of my characters), with a vast majority of it being nullsec/wormhole logistics, before Jump Freighters, Jump Bridges and all that nonsense...when the ONLY thing that saved you from getting ganked was the fleet you brought with you and/or long scout chain....and even then it wasn't a guarantee.

I can tell you with certainty that none of the logistics folks that I worked with EVER looked at max velocity or structure points when they fit their haulers. We always, ALWAYS, fit out with max cargo capacity in mind, regardless of cost. Time to warp would be a significant consideration, however, as that is the sole determining factor if you can get away from the gate in time. You would then have to take risk vs reward into consideration when fitting for a particular role.

And I said "normally" a few % doesn't matter, because in my line of work, if they lock onto you, you are dead regardless.
McChicken Combo HalfMayo
The Happy Meal
#146 - 2014-12-27 07:42:00 UTC  |  Edited by: McChicken Combo HalfMayo
CCP Terminus wrote:
Somatic Neuron wrote:
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.

McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote:
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.

Changing the velocity penalty to an inertia modifier could be an option we could look in to before the release. The hitpoints penalty can certainly be a factor though currently and would be something we want to keep.
As for having different penalties for each module, this goes against the structure of all other module types and would be something we most likely would not do.

Perhaps have all the attributes for each module but at differing rates, so based on the way you fit your ship a different module is preferred. So meta a-c in my examples would each have two drawbacks stronger than meta 0 but one drawback weaker. T2 would have weaker drawbacks than Meta 0 and more cargo but still more in each category than the specialized drawback of a given meta a-c module.

Meta 0 has base drawbacks (s, v, i, c)
Meta a has s - 2, v + 2, i + 2, c
Meta b has s + 2, v - 2, i + 2, c
Meta c has s + 2, v + 2, i - 2, c
Meta 5 has s - 1, v - 1, i - 1, c + 1

This gives the meta modules their own niche purpose and makes the T2 module simply an upgraded version of the base T1.

There are all our dominion

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

Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#147 - 2014-12-27 09:00:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Tipa Riot
CCP Terminus wrote:
Oraac Ensor wrote:
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.


Currently Meta 4 Expanded Cargoholds are purely worse than T2 Cargoholds (In fact all meta 1-4 modules are). However when we do the merging it's certainly an option to turn Meta 4 Expanded Cargoholds into T2 Expanded Cargoholds because of the stats similarities.

Please consider merging meta-4 into T2 also for inert stabs and nanofibers as the primary stats are the same. It will still be a nerf compared to current fit options because of the stronger drawbacks but not that breaking as merging into the new much worse meta-1.

I'm my own NPC alt.

Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#148 - 2014-12-27 11:20:02 UTC
CCP Terminus wrote:
Oraac Ensor wrote:
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.


Currently Meta 4 Expanded Cargoholds are purely worse than T2 Cargoholds (In fact all meta 1-4 modules are). However when we do the merging it's certainly an option to turn Meta 4 Expanded Cargoholds into T2 Expanded Cargoholds because of the stats similarities.

You have surely seen this list? https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=306344

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

Dynamiittiukko
Fistful of Finns
#149 - 2014-12-27 13:41:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Dynamiittiukko
I'm curious: why use different naming methods for some of the modules within a single group?

Example:

Inertia Stabilizer I
Type-D Restrained Inertial Stabilizer

Why the extra "L" in the meta module's name? Why not just name all of them in one way or the other? The current implementation idea would seem to me to be counter-intuitive in terms of module name unification.

.d
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
#150 - 2014-12-27 15:06:53 UTC
I think I will reiterate my standard reply.

Please use valuable Dev work hours to fix parts of the game client that are actually broken. The names of the modules are not broken. I have no problem with adding more module types though such as more modules for Thukker Tribe for example. Smile

The time would be better spent fixing broken stuff like the corp roles & permissions, making multiple user POS stuff secure, or further fixes to Null-sec sovereignty.

Say hi to the Yule Boys for me and have a Happy New Year. Big smile

" They're gonna feel pretty stupid when they find out. " Rick. " Find out what ? " Abraham. " They're screwing with the wrong people. " Rick. Season four.   ' The Walking Dead. ' .

CCP Terminus
C C P
C C P Alliance
#151 - 2014-12-27 16:55:54 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Terminus
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn wrote:
I think I will reiterate my standard reply.

Please use valuable Dev work hours to fix parts of the game client that are actually broken. The names of the modules are not broken. I have no problem with adding more module types though such as more modules for Thukker Tribe for example. Smile

The time would be better spent fixing broken stuff like the corp roles & permissions, making multiple user POS stuff secure, or further fixes to Null-sec sovereignty.

Say hi to the Yule Boys for me and have a Happy New Year. Big smile

The thing with Module Tiericide is that it's a thing that can be done purely by designers, so this doesn't cut into programming hours towards the sorts of things you describe. So in this case we can have both.

Happy New Year to you too Smile

@CCP_Terminus // Game Designer // Team Size Matters

MBizon Osis
Doomheim
#152 - 2014-12-27 18:04:44 UTC
CCP Terminus I am not a bright guy on these flux mods shields or cap EFT shows me they are bad for every fit I try so how can they be good or in the game at all? what fits would anyone use them for? I would like any advice on this.


And the whole we have to change the names of every thing every 2 years? http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/whats-in-a-name/ Feb 2012 "I'm CCP Gnauton, one of EVE's Senior Writers. I'm currently spearheading an initiative to rename those of EVE's modules and implants whose names have been deemed too confusing by a fearless cross-departmental cadre of game designers, UI designers & content developers."

https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Module_changes this is a long list.

Why again? Is this just a new thing? Every 2 years ccp changes the names of every thing cause? And if you could please
Have the Ore Scanner read in M3. You don't need to make a conversion for any other mod in the game to use. Even the Dscanner got a easy to use interface. Can you please look into this mod from the 1st pass of Module Tiericide/rebalance.
TY Happy New Years
Kiran Korr
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#153 - 2014-12-28 10:14:00 UTC
Returning player here. My sentiments pretty much fall in line with Valterra Craven (post #94) and MBizon Osis (Post #152).

I will miss the meta 1-4 modules. In the old days you could find a sweet spot mixing modules for your fit. You work around limitations in the hull and the best module was not always the higher meta for that hull. I still see some of that in the new system.
I understand with the re-balancing a lot of modules were not really relevant and were not being used but now we have nothing between 0-5 and a series of shinies above. I would say the naming /database needed some cleaning but throwing something out does not equal fixing it. Change is good went its done for a reason to improve play or to solve a problem...not so good when its done for its own sake or just to make something old new again. The whole 5+ metas simply form the new 0-5 metas

I remember when a eccm was a must have module for any pirate to counter the ecm defense of the prey but but warfare was different then, bloodlines meant something etc. Variety can be good too.
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
#154 - 2014-12-28 14:17:03 UTC
CCP Terminus wrote:
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn wrote:
I think I will reiterate my standard reply.

Please use valuable Dev work hours to fix parts of the game client that are actually broken. The names of the modules are not broken. I have no problem with adding more module types though such as more modules for Thukker Tribe for example. Smile

The time would be better spent fixing broken stuff like the corp roles & permissions, making multiple user POS stuff secure, or further fixes to Null-sec sovereignty.

Say hi to the Yule Boys for me and have a Happy New Year. Big smile

The thing with Module Tiericide is that it's a thing that can be done purely by designers, so this doesn't cut into programming hours towards the sorts of things you describe. So in this case we can have both.

Happy New Year to you too Smile


I stand corrected. Happy New Year!

" They're gonna feel pretty stupid when they find out. " Rick. " Find out what ? " Abraham. " They're screwing with the wrong people. " Rick. Season four.   ' The Walking Dead. ' .

Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#155 - 2014-12-28 20:50:40 UTC
While you are rebalancing the stats, consider whether or not it really makes sense to have modules which cost less than 10K ISK, and/or reprocess for less than 1K. Some modules can even be bought for 1 ISK, because they drop so frequently and aren't even worth the effort of picking up and reprocessing.

Back before ship tiericide, when several frigates had sub-100K - even sub-50K - prices, these sorts of prices made sense, but not so much today, esp. since players also have a lot more ISK in pocket. I remember when 1M ISK was a lot for a new player, but it is just chump change now.

Anyways, something to think about, since these high-quantity, low-value modules are the ones which also tend to be infrequently used, bought or sold - yet contribute to cluttering up the database.
Akemon Numon
Doomheim
#156 - 2014-12-28 21:50:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Akemon Numon
So when the meta 4 mod is better than the T2 either in fitting or just better stats what is the replacement? All the meta4s are being deleted. So the T2s are not from what I can see getting buffed accordingly. So fits that were maximized are gone. How is this making the game better? Taking away good fitting options and leaving us with worse ones? Example the Power Relays: the Beta Reactor Control: Capacitor Power Relay I uses less CPU than the T2, 3 TF and the T2 8TF and has the same cap recharge bonus. And the T2 is staying at 8 TF after the changes? This is a clear fitting Nerf.

How is that a good balance? Were all the "BETTER" meta 4 mods un-balancing the game? Or is it to un-balancing to make the T2 mods as good as the better Meta 4s you are killing were/are? I don't see how any of this is making a better game, forget about all the name changes(they will change in 2 years any how). This is wild stuff. For the ISK/SP cost and skills needed for them the T2 mods should have the better stats of the SAME meta4s you are deleting from the game forever.

I understand trying to add some "consistency" to the mods as in (why meta 4 could even be better than T2 in the first place). But why not make the T2 as good as the better M4s? What is the idea behind the ' Tech 2 has to suck as badly as it does' in some cases (it already takes more damage from Over Heating, cost more ISK and SP, and is much harder to make)?

How about this for Mod re-balance in each case where the meta4 is better in some way, those become the new T2 stats? The stats are in game and you have stated this is a low modding work load" "The thing with Module Tiericide is that it's a thing that can be done purely by designers, so this doesn't cut into programming hours" CCP Terminus ).

So just let us skill into the better stats we have been using all along with the improved T2 mods as the meta4s will be a thing of the past. And having to use Faction or better to have the same fit as we had with Meta4 mods is a BS answer.
Seito Shoki
Armaggedon Inc.
Stay Feral
#157 - 2014-12-29 06:07:17 UTC
CCP,
I have a possible solution that would cater to both the players who are upset by this change, and your need to simplify the naming scheme. With all due respect, I think you are making a big mistake by taking complexity (choice) out of the last MMO that offers an abundance of intellectual and challenging game-play that gamers like myself have come to expect from you.

Possible solution: Add an additional name to the soon to be deleted /consolidated modules as to give them a designation for your naming scheme consistency, while retaining the freedom and choice to fit a ship to your personal/affordable standards.
bad example - Meta0=substandard, Meta 1=used, Meta 2=upgraded ... and so on.
Choice should = fun and not confusion and on this note I agree with you CCP, but if you take away the choice, you take away the fun.

Having to use faction or better to obtain a meta4 fit (that you as an intellectual gamer took the time to research) is indeed the wrong solution. With the additional name, those who are min/maxers can still take pride in their fits while those who don't care...won't care, and CCP you can have your naming consistency changed = EVERYBODY wins.

Go with what Akemon Numon described in the post above me, or discus my idea...please do not take complexity out of this game. Complexity and intelligent decision processes when deciding how to fit your ship are, in my opinion, a huge selling point for the players.
Vyktor Abyss
The Abyss Corporation
#158 - 2014-12-29 21:57:54 UTC
I'm very confused. 8 years playing and now feeling like I don't know a thing. Thanks.
Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
#159 - 2014-12-30 09:44:53 UTC
CCP Terminus wrote:
Somatic Neuron wrote:
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.

McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote:
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.

Changing the velocity penalty to an inertia modifier could be an option we could look in to before the release. The hitpoints penalty can certainly be a factor though currently and would be something we want to keep.
As for having different penalties for each module, this goes against the structure of all other module types and would be something we most likely would not do.


while I agree that it doesn't really make sense to introduce other penalties, I do agree that the concept of trade offs is being completely ignored and that I would like to see some option presented rather than the more or less non-option of t1/meta/t2. back when I first started the cost/benefit choice was present on most modules, now the price of t2 is so low on most items, and meta is in such supply that for most items cost/benefit is rarely a consideration, and it mostly comes down to cap use and/or fitting issues. Also with the ship teiricide I feel that most ships have a ton of fitting room.

so for say cargo expanders I would expect
meta 0 -25% Hull hp +20% cargo -10% velocity (reasonable base stats, that aren't the worst in every way)
meta 1 -15% Hull hp +25% cargo -15% velocity (reduce one penalty, increase bonus, increase other penalty)
meta 2 -17.5% hull HP +22.50% cargo -9% velocity (smaller reduced penalty, smaller increase bonus, reduced other penalty)
meta 4 -35% hull HP +30% cargo -20% velocity (big bonus, big penalties)
meta 5 -20% hull HP +27.5% cargo -10% velocity (in general pretty good all around)

I'll admit I'm mostly just thinking out loud here, but its cargo expanders I'm having trouble thinking about them too much. but in my mind meta 0 needs to be useful in some respect other than it is super easy to make, as these days even t2 seems easy to make. I feel like I would expect meta 4 to provide a larger bonus than t2, but also a much larger draw back. then again they are cargo expanders, if we just got rid of every variant and only had t2 I probably wouldn't care. but I'm more thinking about other mods where I do care, and/or think some choice is important. There are a ton of just useless mods out there that I really wouldn't mind seeing gone.

what I am really curious is how you plan to balance something like damage controls, or warp scramblers, where meta 4 is valuable and still has some cost/benefit associated, where meta 3 pretty much suffices for fitting reasons, although meta 1/2 aren't very desirable. Although with a damage control the benefits from tech 2 greater than with meta 4. but with the warp scrambler I think the meta 4 is the same or better on each stat compared to tech 2.

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter

Ravcharas
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#160 - 2014-12-30 16:36:17 UTC
"Restrained" makes them sound worse than meta 0.