Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

Thought I'd stop by and comment on this. I actually think Hilti is on to something. As far as i'm concerned you lost all credibility with your ignorant reply followed by your cheap shot, typically this occurs when a. you have no idea or b. the person wrote a reply that actually makes a lot of sense making your look stupid.

Back on topic though, making modules depend more on the size of the hull is a fantastic idea and might actually make this game more interesting to play. Just by the reply above it shows you how 1 track minded the game is and how horrible the game play actually is. Personally any idea that looks to promote more focus on people thinking about their role in a fleet the better, and anything that makes gate camping more strategic than sitting a bunch of t1 fit frigates on a gate the better.

For me Armor hardeners , membranes, shield hardeners are a "percentage increase" module, in my opinion when there is a percentage attribute, a sized module is not needed.

This idea actually has some wheels and i'll plus 1 it. Thanks Hilti.

I'd have to say "was" good game design but the game has changed and people are more savvy now meaning it's a lot harder to enjoy playing the game. I've often heard the argument that risk versus reward is what the game is built on but todays meta just make this argument completely redundant. Especially when you see things like retributions, griffins fleet gate camping low sec gates and having no trouble tanking the gate guns at the same time as t1 modules on griffins jam out t2 fit battleships.

I actually think all of the "no grouped" electronic warfare modules need to be redone. They should have the same diminishing returns as neuts and noses do. e.g. medium nos can be fit on frigs but makes the hull ceptable to the right counters.

I still say the progression should be 8250m->8650m->9000m. Players today already have been paying many times the cost of the J5b (I believe it can be over 40x the cost) just to get those extra 350m with the Faint Epsilon. Here is the list of nerfs to expect with this patch (because most fits require some meta items already):

-Expect to lose 400m-1500m of scram range
-Expect to lose 3%+ damage to gain a meager 5 CPU (the cpu on the compact damage modules should be 20 CPU)
-Expect to lose 2.5%-5% web strength (metas after the patch are 55% instead of today's 57.5%)
-Expect to lose 2.5% TP power (the new metas should have been 28.5% at the very least)

I could keep going on, but you get the idea.

Basically, I completely agree with the principle of choice and tradeoffs. These first pass numbers have gone beyond tradeoffs and choice into straight up nerfs where there is very little choice. Basically, new players are going to be nerfed and vets will just buy genos and keep their same power. Please bring up these first pass numbers to something reasonable. T2 can be the clear winner (i.e. PWNAGE and Faint Epsilon should now be 28.5% and 8650m respectively...not the same as T2 with better fitting), but not so much worse that it becomes nearly zero choice.

I really hope the citadels with the new clone (implant) swapping mechanic has no cooldown (since the cooldown is there to prevent teleporting around the universe continually). That way I can have a CPU clone and a PG clone. Either that or split the CPU and PG implants into different slots (also maybe reconsider having CPU missile implants in slot 6...I am finding the Nemesis is pretty much impossible to fit after these changes without an implant).

again fozzie - how much heat can stuff take?

can the hookbill get a CPU or PG buff? Its always been tight even before these module changes. Hookbills aren't out terrorizing the meta, and got a decent damage buff recently. But now they will struggle to fit rocket launchers, MSE and webs+scram. Unless you want them to only fit AB's, which negates roaming in null.

A few things that imidiatly stood out to me.

The ranges on the t1 compact and enduring scrams are all way too short. Id even say that the range on the t2 could be buffed up by 500m to make it match better with webs but that is more a personal observation about fitting styles.

The compact scram could be a little bit more compact, I know you want there to be competitive reasons between fitting modules but its a little too weak, even if it got a 1km buff to range. bring it down to 24 cpu might help a bit.

Just as a thought there could be some room for a point and scram that are very light on cpu but nerf the powergrid of the hull, in the same vein of thought as polarized weapons. T2 min max module style.

Hi Cartheron

If you want to bet which disruptors or webs will cost more in one year I would be happy to bet you. If this clear inequality is left The caladari and dread guristas will be cheaper.

When it comes to faction items it is going to be much more useful to have the range when fitting to cruiser or above than the cpu. For fitting to frigates maybe the cpu will be helpful but you will find that overall the demand for the faction items with better primary stats will be much more in demand. If the cpu ones actually go up to much in price no one flying a frigate will even want to fit them. So this is doomed to inequity.

But what we think is by and large irrelevant. CCP already reached the conclusion I did without even talking about more expensive faction mods. So it seems they are now doing a 180 on that.

"It’s important to note that none of the named modules specialize in stronger “primary” stats, as those modules would become the obvious best choice for most situations."
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/rebalancing-eve-one-module-at-a-time/?_ga=1.221320859.2033440685.1432326094

And here again the faction distruptors and webs with longer range (and in the case of webs greater reduction in speed) will "become the obvious best choice for most situations."

What is odd is they fully articulate this problem before they balance the modules but still leave it unbalanced. No explanation at all. I mean whether you agree or disagree with what they say I hope we can all at least recognize this is a change from their goals. The clearest example of this is the webs where caldari webs have both less range *and* less speed reduction in exchange for cpu.

I like most of these changes, but in the world of Interceptors, all I can say is that the Ares is about to get rekt.

Here's an example fit before I go into specifics:

[Ares, Fast Ares.]
Damage Control II
Overdrive Injector System II
Overdrive Injector System II
Type-D Attenuation Signal Augmentation

5MN Quad LiF Restrained Microwarpdrive
Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler I
Warp Disruptor II

125mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Iridium Charge S
125mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Iridium Charge S
125mm Railgun II, Caldari Navy Iridium Charge S

Small Polycarbon Engine Housing II
Small Polycarbon Engine Housing II


You have 4 CPU left after max skills. Typical Malediction fit is more agile, has smaller sig radius, better application with LML, and only slightly worse EHP. The signal amplifier change won't let you meet that mark with compact sig amplifier as you need to hit 8 CPU but will only get a total of 6.25 from that change. The other issue is that the GJ cost of t2 disruptors is being increased.

I feel that the Ares simply won't fit guns after this change. You will have to use either compact MWD (in which case you're only capstable with perfect skills and no guns) in which case other inty have significantly better sig, or remove your sig amp (which was being buffed to aid you against ECM) or downgrade DC to have almost no tank. Small shield extender Crow will have more EHP and similar sig.

What I propose is simple - let Ares have stronger capacitor than other interceptors. It won't break anything, it won't even change all of what I detailed above, but at least it will make it so that if you choose to fit a weapon, you can actually cycle it throughout a fight. If you feel the Ares could use more CPU - that's awesome, but I don't expect it. Alternatively, it also helps Ares run an armor repairer during a fight, which holds the theme of Amarr being buffer, Gallente being active tank.

It's just sad because it looks like a ship that was already an underdog is about to get thrown into the dumpster, even though I doubt it was intentional.

P.S. - Malediction has the same agility as Ares once MWD is cycling. Isn't Ares supposed to be the agile one?

EDIT: If you want to reduce the complaints about CPU cost for t2 scram, just make it 34 CPU. It's the same change from compact to scoped, only it's scoped to t2 (26 -> 30, then 30 -> 34). I feel it would still be a meaningful difference from scoped.

Great idea.

just anything to get away from the constant spurge of t1 frigate tying ships 20 times bigger down.

Yes, when you going to fix this? Also DON'T forget Venture the mining frigate!