Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Systems Online
Systems Online Corporation
3
|
Posted - 2013.07.11 23:54:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP has gone through and to the best of their ability, removed 'levels' from t1 ships and provides roles for each ship to play. I don't have the exact metrics, but many ships have seen a debut or at least a resurgence since the rebalancing. Most of all, there is actual variety in small gang warfare again.
I think this great success with the tiericide initiative should be continued on to the arbitrary power levels of 'meta' modules. The current levels 1-4 should be stripped, and each module should recieve a role to fill (which would be explicitly described in the module's description).
The following metrics can be used to differentiate modules: heat damage, rate of fire (cycle time), range/optimal/falloff, damage mod, activation cost, powergrid usage, cpu usage, shield/armor bonus amount, resistance amount, speed/sig/capacitor/etc penalty, and so forth.
Examples
Tech 1 will always be the baseline from which changes are made. Tech 2 will always be some percentage better than t1 in all metrics except for fitting, heat damage, activation cost, and penalties.
Meta 1: Could become 'light' versions. Receive lighter fitting, reduced efficiency/dps from t1, and use less capacitor. Meta 2: Could become 'tactical' versions. Same fitting as T1, shorter cycle time, or on plates/extenders, give less sig/speed penalty. Meta 3: Could be 'combat' versions. Same fitting as t1, higher damage modifier, higher shield/armor bonus, slightly increased penalty. Meta 4: Could be 'optimized' versions. Reduced fitting from t1, slightly increased efficiency, and slightly reduced penalties.
---
These bonuses should be pronounced enough to make a difference. Let's demonstrate this on 200mm armor plates. CPU / PG / Armor / Mass T1: 15 / 10 / 375 / 150k kg T2: 17 / 12 / 600 / 150k kg M1: 11 / 9 / 375 / 150k kg M2: 15 / 10 / 375 / 0k kg M3: 15 / 10 / 550 / 200k kg M4: 13 / 10 / 450 / 100k kg
Plates with no speed impact? Those might actually get used. Nearly t2 armor bonus with t1 fitting reqs? maybe. t1 armor amount for that extra 1 powergrid? some fits may just need it.
And on a 250mm Railgun CPU / PG / ROF / DM / Act T1: 38 / 198 / 6.38 / 3.025 / 7 T2: 42 / 208 / 6.25* / 3.63 / 7.2* M1: 34 / 186 / 6.42 / 2.95 / 6.5 M2: 38 / 198 / 6.15 / 3.025 / 7 M3: 38 / 198 / 6.38 / 3.63 / 7.2 M4 36 / 195 / 6.25 / 3.5 / 6.75
Dedicated gun with super high rate of fire, one with a higher than normal volley, one with easier fitting reqs, and a baseline. Each gun has its own use. |
Systems Online
Systems Online Corporation
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 14:38:00 -
[2] - Quote
Edited to more clearly describe my idea. |
Daugar Draaken
Aliastra Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 14:57:00 -
[3] - Quote
I like your analysis. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
222
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 17:12:00 -
[4] - Quote
+1 i would also like a reason to use anything other than meta 4 or T2 i have very rarely needed to use the other 3/6variations.
It would also help if they made all T2 modules need the relevant lv5 skill to use.. thus encouraging T1 mods/faction if they were a lot cheaper that is.... no need for faction stuff to cost so much. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
965
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 17:20:00 -
[5] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:+1 i would also like a reason to use anything other than meta 4 or T2 i have very rarely needed to use the other 3/6variations.
It would also help if they made all T2 modules need the relevant lv5 skill to use.. thus encouraging T1 mods/faction if they were a lot cheaper that is.... no need for faction stuff to cost so much.
I'm all for it.
I'm actually all for to make it so T2 items to be the best items in the game because :player made: but requiring related skills to 5 so those skills have a meaning.
Training for lvl5's would bring real advantages over DED NPC modules requiring half of the skills to be used and are exponentially better than player made ones requiring on top specializations and lvl5's
Maybe leave Officer modules better fittings and activation costs but not better performances overall than player made ones. Skills training effort does not bring the all benefits it should at this point. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
223
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 17:36:00 -
[6] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Harvey James wrote:+1 i would also like a reason to use anything other than meta 4 or T2 i have very rarely needed to use the other 3/6variations.
It would also help if they made all T2 modules need the relevant lv5 skill to use.. thus encouraging T1 mods/faction if they were a lot cheaper that is.... no need for faction stuff to cost so much. I'm all for it. I'm actually all for to make it so T2 items to be the best items in the game because :player made: but requiring related skills to 5 so those skills have a meaning. Training for lvl5's would bring real advantages over DED NPC modules requiring half of the skills to be used and are exponentially better than player made ones requiring on top specializations and lvl5's Maybe leave Officer modules better fittings and activation costs but not better performances overall than player made ones. Skills training effort does not bring the all benefits it should at this point.
Well i'd be against T2 just being plain better.. that would be kind of defeating the point, T2 much like the metas should have its own role generally i think it would be the best at whatever is the most pertinent stat on a mod e.g. web strength on webs but should be worse at other things to compensate and make the other metas worth using for a particular purpose ,, e.g. web range/ cap usage / easier fittings.
Also meta 0 needs a role beyond the base stats of a mod otherwise who would use it? i would go for the best all round base stats. Then the others would be better at certain things but have worse base stats in other areas Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Silivar Karkun
Imperium Aeternam Phantom Armada
83
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 17:38:00 -
[7] - Quote
i support the idea, i hope it also means the end of mission loot reprocessing..... |
Systems Online
Systems Online Corporation
6
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 18:35:00 -
[8] - Quote
Silivar Karkun wrote:i support the idea, i hope it also means the end of mission loot reprocessing.....
That's an industry discussion. There is a fixed demand for modules in direct correlation to the number of ships that go boom.
mission/ratting/plexing drops will always exceed reasonable demand, which results in massive refining and mission drops account for most minerals on the market iirc.
This would simply shift the demand for non-refined m1-3 items and give variety to fits. |
Blastil
The Reblier Alliance
79
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 18:43:00 -
[9] - Quote
You should consider how this will effect invention. |
Systems Online
Systems Online Corporation
6
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 19:02:00 -
[10] - Quote
Blastil wrote:You should consider how this will effect invention.
Again, that's an industry discussion. Now, I'm not exactly an industry wiz, but if we're trying to redistribute demand for meta-levels, we could either give chance-based bonuses to ME/PE for various meta levels, make all meta items equal, or simply leave that element as-is.
For instance:
'light' modules could give: 25% invention chance bonus. 5% chance of -1 ME modifier, 5% chance of +1 PE modifier. 'tactical' modules could give: 25% invention chance bonus. 5% chance of +1 ME modifier, 5% chance of -1 PE modifier. 'combat' modules could give: 40% invention chance bonus. 5% chance of -1 ME modifier, 5% chance of -1 PE modifier. 'optimized' modules could give: 30% invention chance bonus, 5% chance of +1 ME or PE modifier.
Or so on. |
|
Ronny Hugo
Dark Fusion Industries Limitless Inc.
5
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 20:51:00 -
[11] - Quote
+1
Systems Online, the market is not supposed to be "even" for all modules of similar type, if combat modules are cheapest or tactical modules are, does not matter. Lets just see what the prices would be without "balancing". |
Falin Whalen
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
363
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 21:47:00 -
[12] - Quote
The original concept is sound, but there should be some drawbacks, or it will devolve into everybody going, "Meta 4 is the best the rest can just get melted down." That is what we have already. In my opinion, Meta 4 should have the same fitting as T2. It is pretty darn close to T2 in effect. The advantage is you don't have to train to T2 to get the effect, the disadvantage It cost the same to fit, and it won't take T2 charges (if applicable.)
There should be a distinct advantage for using a meta item, but also a distinct drawback for using it also. You should be able to say something to the effect: "Yes, this item will save me on CPU, which I am short on with this fit, but at the cost of PG which I have plenty of." or
"This item has the best effect, but the activation cost is more than regular T1, and will screw up my cap even with injectors."
If there is no percieved drawback, to using an item, it clearly will be the best one. That is why meta 4 is currently the "best". There is no downside to using it at present. It has the best fitting, and matches T2 for effect. (or comes darn close to it) Everything else, just stick it in the furnace and sell the minerals, because the disadvantages mount the closer to meta 0 you get. You've got to remember that these are just simple miners. These are people of the land. The common clay of New Eden. You know... morons. |
Silivar Karkun
Imperium Aeternam Phantom Armada
83
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 22:12:00 -
[13] - Quote
Falin Whalen wrote:The original concept is sound, but there should be some drawbacks, or it will devolve into everybody going, "Meta 4 is the best the rest can just get melted down." That is what we have already. In my opinion, Meta 4 should have the same fitting as T2. It is pretty darn close to T2 in effect. The advantage is you don't have to train to T2 to get the effect, the disadvantage It cost the same to fit, and it won't take T2 charges (if applicable.)
There should be a distinct advantage for using a meta item, but also a distinct drawback for using it also. You should be able to say something to the effect: "Yes, this item will save me on CPU, which I am short on with this fit, but at the cost of PG which I have plenty of." or
"This item has the best effect, but the activation cost is more than regular T1, and will screw up my cap even with injectors."
If there is no percieved drawback, to using an item, it clearly will be the best one. That is why meta 4 is currently the "best". There is no downside to using it at present. It has the best fitting, and matches T2 for effect. (or comes darn close to it) Everything else, just stick it in the furnace and sell the minerals, because the disadvantages mount the closer to meta 0 you get.
^THIS |
Blastil
The Reblier Alliance
79
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 22:18:00 -
[14] - Quote
Systems Online wrote:Blastil wrote:You should consider how this will effect invention. Again, that's an industry discussion. Now, I'm not exactly an industry wiz, but if we're trying to redistribute demand for meta-levels, we could either give chance-based bonuses to ME/PE for various meta levels, make all meta items equal, or simply leave that element as-is. For instance: 'light' modules could give: 25% invention chance bonus. 5% chance of -1 ME modifier, 5% chance of +1 PE modifier. 'tactical' modules could give: 25% invention chance bonus. 5% chance of +1 ME modifier, 5% chance of -1 PE modifier. 'combat' modules could give: 40% invention chance bonus. 5% chance of -1 ME modifier, 5% chance of -1 PE modifier. 'optimized' modules could give: 30% invention chance bonus, 5% chance of +1 ME or PE modifier. Or so on.
that basically changes them into cheep decryptors which drop from missions. That's not the best solution. Your idea has merit, but all angles of this should be considered. |
Jasmine Assasin
State War Academy Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 22:32:00 -
[15] - Quote
I just want to point out that dead space and faction mods are balanced around cost.
Sure you can shortcut around using tech II but you pay out the nose for it. The other option is to train for the tech II stuff and pay a lot less for acceptable performance. Or if you have the ISK and want to min/max, then that stuff is there and it should stay like that.
My opinion is that personally I would like to see Meta 4 offer the same performance of tech II all around (as a consequence CCP should reduce the drop rate by a meaningful margin) . The catch is it would have tech I fitting requirements. Right now M4 is generally more powerful AND has lower fitting requirements, making it a no brainer. This is the real issue, looking at the meta level shouldn't be the deciding factor on what to buy. You need to know whether that new mod will fit in with your other choices and make a ship fit that works. People should have to check these things and not just buy M4 because they know "it will work". Meta 1-3 could have variance around fitting/performance but it should never be a "clear choice".
Future Tech II should have reduced fitting cost (and in some cases activation cost - I'm lloking at you Mr. Tech Icompared to current Tech II/Meta mods to make it something attractive to train for and to make it something people want to train for. |
Mortimer Civeri
Aliastra Gallente Federation
449
|
Posted - 2013.07.12 22:49:00 -
[16] - Quote
Systems Online wrote:Blastil wrote:You should consider how this will effect invention. Again, that's an industry discussion. You should have stoped here.
Quote:Now, I'm not exactly an industry wiz, but if we're trying to redistribute demand for meta-levels, we could either give chance-based bonuses to ME/PE for various meta levels, make all meta items equal, or simply leave that element as-is.
For instance:
'light' modules could give: 25% invention chance bonus. 5% chance of -1 ME modifier, 5% chance of +1 PE modifier. 'tactical' modules could give: 25% invention chance bonus. 5% chance of +1 ME modifier, 5% chance of -1 PE modifier. 'combat' modules could give: 40% invention chance bonus. 5% chance of -1 ME modifier, 5% chance of -1 PE modifier. 'optimized' modules could give: 30% invention chance bonus, 5% chance of +1 ME or PE modifier.
Or so on. No, just, no. Back under your bridge you. All this does is make meta items cheap decryptors. Single handedly you have put a hole in exploration, and made invention worthless. "I don't know which is worse, ...that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low." Calvin
|
Systems Online
Systems Online Corporation
6
|
Posted - 2013.07.13 00:00:00 -
[17] - Quote
Mortimer Civeri wrote: No, just, no. Back under your bridge you. All this does is make meta items cheap decryptors. Single handedly you have put a hole in exploration, and made invention worthless.
I meant those 5% chances of a modifier ON TOP of any decryptor used. And do people use decryptors on modules much? I thought they were mainly used for ships which dont get the meta modifier.
Anyway, I concede this point. I'm not an industry guy, I was just providing options. |
Blastil
The Reblier Alliance
79
|
Posted - 2013.07.13 14:34:00 -
[18] - Quote
Systems Online wrote:Mortimer Civeri wrote: No, just, no. Back under your bridge you. All this does is make meta items cheap decryptors. Single handedly you have put a hole in exploration, and made invention worthless.
I meant those 5% chances of a modifier ON TOP of any decryptor used. And do people use decryptors on modules much? I thought they were mainly used for ships which dont get the meta modifier. Anyway, I concede this point. I'm not an industry guy, I was just providing options.
decryptors are used on plenty of items in game, especially t2 mods with high build costs (turrets, large drones, and others) since the cost of a 1 mil isk decryptor spread out over 10-15 modules is kind of low.
What might be neat is if you could modify the stats of the T2 item by sacraficing a meta module to the invention gods. So you could make a t2 turret that does more damage than the meta component, less than the base t2 gun has, but easier fitting requirements... |
Systems Online
Systems Online Corporation
6
|
Posted - 2013.07.13 23:58:00 -
[19] - Quote
Blastil wrote:Systems Online wrote:Mortimer Civeri wrote: No, just, no. Back under your bridge you. All this does is make meta items cheap decryptors. Single handedly you have put a hole in exploration, and made invention worthless.
I meant those 5% chances of a modifier ON TOP of any decryptor used. And do people use decryptors on modules much? I thought they were mainly used for ships which dont get the meta modifier. Anyway, I concede this point. I'm not an industry guy, I was just providing options. decryptors are used on plenty of items in game, especially t2 mods with high build costs (turrets, large drones, and others) since the cost of a 1 mil isk decryptor spread out over 10-15 modules is kind of low. What might be neat is if you could modify the stats of the T2 item by sacraficing a meta module to the invention gods. So you could make a t2 turret that does more damage than the meta component, less than the base t2 gun has, but easier fitting requirements...
No, no, no. Back under your bridge, you.
We're not introducing 'different' modules of the same type.
All modules with one name need to remain identical to other modules, and when repackaged they can be stacked.
The only 'unique' modules I could agree to introducing are officer modules, which could be in limited quantity. |
Shereza
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
160
|
Posted - 2013.07.14 00:53:00 -
[20] - Quote
Unfortunately unless you significantly alter the drop rates of named items there will still be enough on the market that even if they were only comparable to and not better than T1 their availability combined with lower mineral value would result in them constantly being cheaper than T1 modules, especially for the lower meta level items. On top of that because T1 items are bottom of the rung, worst in the game, there's little reason to pick them as long as even M1 items are marginally cheaper.
It would be nice if somewhere along the way the stats for T1 modules were bumped up to make them halfway between M0 and M5 making them a base/average performer while bumping down the M1 and M2 items to "make room" for T1 modules' boost. This would allow for a couple "cheap pirate knockoffs" and a couple "quality pirate clones" of T1 and, in the current market environment, make T1 modules more worth their mineral value than they currently are.
I'd rather see T1 modules get a buff in performance than see NPC drop mechanics altered simply because of the chance of setting up inconsistencies in game logic/realism and the potentially wide-ranging changes it would cause in the game depending on how severe the changes are. |
|
Swiftstrike1
Interfector INC. Fade 2 Black
101
|
Posted - 2013.07.14 08:04:00 -
[21] - Quote
Sounds like the way it should have been designed in the first place.
Just don't marginalise T2!! I like the idea of all the options within tech 1, but T2 needs to be better than T1 given its skill requirements. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
245
|
Posted - 2013.07.14 13:59:00 -
[22] - Quote
Swiftstrike1 wrote:Sounds like the way it should have been designed in the first place.
Just don't marginalise T2!! I like the idea of all the options within tech 1, but T2 needs to be better than T1 given its skill requirements.
No not really just a more accentuated bonus with a more accentuated drawback Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Systems Online
Systems Online Corporation
12
|
Posted - 2013.07.14 14:24:00 -
[23] - Quote
Swiftstrike1 wrote:Sounds like the way it should have been designed in the first place.
Just don't marginalise T2!! I like the idea of all the options within tech 1, but T2 needs to be better than T1 given its skill requirements.
The job of T2 should be to allow further SP investment into a ship or module.
Ships get a t2 spaceship command skill, which gives an entirely separate, additional set of bonuses.
Guns and Missiles get a specialization skill, which gives a further 2% per level to damage for that specialization.
Things like warp disruptors, shield extenders, armor plates, armor hardeners, shield hardeners, weapon upgrades, etc. do not have specialization skills, which makes their tech 2 counterparts nothing more than harder to fit, stronger versions.
I wouldn't necessarily disagree with these modules getting their own specialization skills to bring them in line with the rest of the t2 model, but that's a different discussion.
Here, we're talking about meta levels 0-4, and the needless, anti-content that is the arbitrary power level of modules.
I believe that it would be more interesting if players could choose a module to fill a role. Maybe you need a lighter-fitting gun that does less damage, maybe you need a higher tracking gun, maybe you need an armor plate with less speed penalty, or a shield extender with less signature penalty. Modules have roles, but currently they are all best filled by meta 4. |
darmwand
Repo.
160
|
Posted - 2013.07.14 15:19:00 -
[24] - Quote
Lots of good ideas in here, I would definitely like to see (low) meta modules become more useful. "Imagine it is war and everybody cloaks." -- Bienator II |
Lola Munijugs
Hedion University Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.15 14:44:00 -
[25] - Quote
Munijugs approves. Give value to all the meta items instead of just the 4 ones being so much better than the rest. |
Bishop Xsi
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
2
|
Posted - 2013.07.15 16:16:00 -
[26] - Quote
I like this idea very much. +1 OP. |
Systems Online
Systems Online Corporation
13
|
Posted - 2013.07.15 16:28:00 -
[27] - Quote
Ronny Hugo wrote:Systems Online, the market is not supposed to be "even" for all modules of similar type, if combat modules are cheapest or tactical modules are, does not matter. Lets just see what the prices would be without "balancing".
Shereza wrote:Unfortunately unless you significantly alter the drop rates of named items...
I think that's exactly what they should do. T1 items should be the 'refine' things, and comprise about 80% of dropped loot. M1-M4 should be spread evenly among the remaining 20%. They should be 'sought after' to create their value.
T1's value will be determined by their mineral content.
Metas shouldn't be completely worthless when it comes from minerals, to prevent artificial surplus, so give them only marginally less refineability than t1.
But I'll add in another disclaimer, like I always do, I'm not an industry/market thinktank, I'm a grunt. I shoot things, tell people to shoot things, and very often fail at shooting things and get blown up. I'm just thinking of more ways to shoot things. |
Aquila Sagitta
Blue-Fire Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
76
|
Posted - 2013.07.15 20:40:00 -
[28] - Quote
came expecting a whiney thread about how CCP is ******* up balancing with tiericide. Left supporting this idea
+1 |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2041
|
Posted - 2013.07.15 21:47:00 -
[29] - Quote
Somebody get the balance team in here and reading this stuff. Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
278
|
Posted - 2013.07.15 21:52:00 -
[30] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Somebody get the balance team in here and reading this stuff.
If only they would bother too they might learn something Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |