Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 23 post(s) |
|
CCP Logibro
C C P C C P Alliance
724
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 14:42:19 -
[1] - Quote
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.
CCP Logibro // EVE Universe Community Team // Distributor of Nanites // Patron Saint of Logistics
@CCP_Logibro
|
|
|
CCP Terminus
C C P C C P Alliance
82
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 14:47:53 -
[2] - Quote
Reserved for clarifications |
|
Fonac
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
110
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 14:55:49 -
[3] - Quote
Looks good! - I like the fact you've made the faciton variants of capacitor power relays, and cap rechargers, slightly better than cap rechargers.
|
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire
13681
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 14:58:40 -
[4] - Quote
Mmmmmining!
Yummy new Cargo Expanders!! <3
GÿàGÿàGÿà Secure 3rd party service GÿàGÿàGÿà
Visit my in-game channel 'Holy Veldspar'
Twitter @Chribba
|
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
4599
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 14:59:27 -
[5] - Quote
Good job with the names
Woo! CSM 9!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Rapscallion Jones
Omnibus Solutions
63
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 15:01:12 -
[6] - Quote
Thank you, Thank You, THANK YOU! Saving the lore is good! |
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
843
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 15:02:54 -
[7] - Quote
The blog section referring to Capacitor Power Relays has a column heading "Shield Boost Bonus" and all the numbers are positive. Does this mean that CPRs are getting a significant buff or should that say "Shield Boost Penalty"?
Targeting, Sensors and ECM Overhaul
|
Ix Method
Shadows Legion High-Sec Tomfoolery
357
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 15:08:30 -
[8] - Quote
Putting the Compact, Restrained, etc. before the flavour text would make the market sidebar for example a hell of a lot easier to read. Having it sorted alphabetically by the flavour text will be just as headache inducing as currently.
Travelling at the speed of love.
|
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland The 99 Percent
973
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 15:13:47 -
[9] - Quote
Looks good. Maybe my Thukker Tribe LP will finally be worth something now.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Maennas Vaer
High Flyers The Kadeshi
19
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 15:13:51 -
[10] - Quote
So what happened to making all the faction variants equally as strong as one another as stated in CCP Fozzies first dev blog? With the new Bulkheads, Inertia Stabilizers and Power Diagnostic Systems you've gone back on what you stated was one of the goals with the module tiericide project in the first place and returned to the older 'faction tiers'.
Can we get some consistency and clarification on your approach here please?
EDIT: Good job on the names by the way. |
|
Aeril Malkyre
Knights of the Ouroboros
383
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 15:16:02 -
[11] - Quote
Ix Method wrote:Putting the Compact, Restrained, etc. before the flavour text would make the market sidebar for example a hell of a lot easier to read. Having it sorted alphabetically by the flavour text will be just as headache inducing as currently. Agreed. While I'm sssssuuuuuppppeeerrr happy that you're keeping the lore names, it might benefit from being spun around like this.
|
|
CCP Terminus
C C P C C P Alliance
83
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 15:20:12 -
[12] - Quote
Maennas Vaer wrote:So what happened to making all the faction variants equally as strong as one another as stated in CCP Fozzies first dev blog? With the new Bulkheads, Inertia Stabilizers and Power Diagnostic Systems you've gone back on what you stated was one of the goals with the module tiericide project in the first place and returned to the older 'faction tiers'.
Can we get some consistency and clarification on your approach here please?
EDIT: Good job on the names by the way.
For some of the new Faction modules we've tried to keep the overall power close to the same but make the modules better in different circumstances. For instance ORE Reinforced Bulkheads would probably be preferred on haulers due to the reduced cargo capacity penalty, whereas Syndicate Reinforced Bulkheads have a reduced Inertial Modifier which will be useful for ships that want to keep more mobility. |
|
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland The 99 Percent
973
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 15:20:43 -
[13] - Quote
Maennas Vaer wrote:So what happened to making all the faction variants equally as strong as one another as stated in CCP Fozzies first dev blog? With the new Bulkheads, Inertia Stabilizers and Power Diagnostic Systems you've gone back on what you stated was one of the goals with the module tiericide project in the first place and returned to the older 'faction tiers'.
Can we get some consistency and clarification on your approach here please?
EDIT: Good job on the names by the way.
Some variation in the stats based on factions is desirable. Otherwise, we may as well have just one faction. It puts value on the variant modules based on useful stats, rather than some arbitrary tier system. Of course, there are typically far more factions than stats on modules. So some duplication, which is what you seem to want, is inevitable. Ex: Caldari Navy and Thukker Tribe PDS, both of which favor shield amount and recharge over cap amount and recharge.
I'm good with it.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
TheSmokingHertog
TALIBAN EXPRESS
274
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 15:21:10 -
[14] - Quote
Pictures would say much more as the current tables. |
Faren Shalni
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
104
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 15:26:58 -
[15] - Quote
just noticed that Power Diagnostic System II on the blog has 22tf cpu whereas in game it is 20tf cpu is this a mistake on your part or are you actually nerfing the fitting?
So Much Space
|
|
CCP Terminus
C C P C C P Alliance
83
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 15:32:32 -
[16] - Quote
Faren Shalni wrote:just noticed that Power Diagnostic System II on the blog has 22tf cpu whereas in game it is 20tf cpu is this a mistake on your part or are you actually nerfing the fitting?
The CPU fitting it 2 higher (20 to 22) but the Powergrid bonus is also 1% better (5% to 6%). |
|
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1672
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 15:34:32 -
[17] - Quote
CCP Terminus wrote:Maennas Vaer wrote:So what happened to making all the faction variants equally as strong as one another as stated in CCP Fozzies first dev blog? With the new Bulkheads, Inertia Stabilizers and Power Diagnostic Systems you've gone back on what you stated was one of the goals with the module tiericide project in the first place and returned to the older 'faction tiers'.
Can we get some consistency and clarification on your approach here please?
EDIT: Good job on the names by the way. For some of the new Faction modules we've tried to keep the overall power close to the same but make the modules better in different circumstances. For instance ORE Reinforced Bulkheads would probably be preferred on haulers due to the reduced cargo capacity penalty, whereas Syndicate Reinforced Bulkheads have a reduced Inertial Modifier which will be useful for ships that want to keep more mobility.
The issue is more you have made faction the default and only choice for several of these modules for all cases where the ships rarely die.
Before, the primary stat was equivalent to T2 and you had fitting advantages in general. Now they are superior to T2 and so no one will use expanded cargo II that can possibly afford/not lose faction. Not that faction is going to be some great expense anyway. Not for freighters for example.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
Sam Spock
The Scope Gallente Federation
35
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 15:39:59 -
[18] - Quote
I like that you have added a few faction modules here. During a future round could you give some concideration on expanding the list of Gurista's deadspace modules? Specifically the Pithi and Pithum ones?
There are only 2 each of the Pithi ones but there are many for the frigate sized modules for the other pirate factions. Also, Angels have pretty much the same shield modules (though not quite as good) as the Guristas but also have other things like an afterburner and mwd. Perhaps a Pithum (a,b,c)-type ECM?
Giving you Inconsistent grammar, speilling and Punct-uation since 1974!
|
Abla Tive
76
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 15:40:01 -
[19] - Quote
There is a distinct lack of meta 1 modules.
This reduces the richness of gameplay for us mere mortals who can't afford faction and haven't trained up the skills for tech II modules.
in the past, at least I had the interesting choice of "is it worth the extra 200k isk for the meta 3 module, or go with the meta 2"?
Now it is a purely mechanical "stick on the meta 1 module and roll".
Can't you think up *some* variation? |
Morihei Akachi
Nishida Corporation
132
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 15:50:24 -
[20] - Quote
I have two criticisms of the revised naming conventions, and one observation which is linked to a question.
1. The generic terms GÇ£ampleGÇ¥ and GÇ£restrainedGÇ¥, with their connotations of bosoms and BDSM respectively, and GÇ£scopedGÇ¥, continue to be inappropriate to technological equipment and implausible for a highly developed and variegated future technological market. (GÇ£ScopedGÇ¥ is not a word. It looks like it ought to be the past participle of a verb, GÇ£to scopeGÇ¥, meaning, if we are to believe your use of it here, GÇ£to make reach furtherGÇ¥. This is gibberish. The designation you are looking for is GÇ£long-rangeGÇ¥.) These terms, as they stand, feel stupid, and they make me feel stupid fitting modules named with them to my ships. I feel like I am being talked down to by my game. I notice that since their release I have been avoiding using them, solely for that reason.
2. You are attempting to introduce a very rigid consistency into an area where it is inappropriate, and where we do not suffer from its lack IRL. This is nowhere more obvious than in the decision to call an overdrive, a module intended to be the quintessence of extra power and speed, GÇ£restrainedGÇ¥. This is absurd: the marketing genius of the future who came up with this would be fired instantly. A kind of cookie-cutter sameness is being applied across the board to items regardless of what those items actually are. I donGÇÖt feel you are taking your own fictional world seriously any more. I have no idea, in that case, why I should continue to.
Observation: Travelling round New Eden in recent days IGÇÖve tried to keep an eye out for the relative prices of the generic modules from the last round of tiericide, and my sense is that there are massive price differences between the new named modules. On the assumption that, for example, GÇ£compactGÇ¥ LMLs are not dropping significantly less frequently than GÇ£ampleGÇ¥ ones, I assume that in many cases one of them is much more popular and being used more widely than the other(s), and is being priced accordingly. Is this right in terms of actual usage? If it is, is it the result you were expecting when you decided to remove modules you felt were being under-used? How are you evaluating the success of module tiericide in general?
Your spirit is the true shield.
|
|
Nakaara Adahsa
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 15:58:11 -
[21] - Quote
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. |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
127
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 16:02:54 -
[22] - Quote
I really am getting sick and tired of Faction mess coming into play and ruining all tiers. its like the pvp elitest went faction crazy and now what all modules to be faction related all the while you're gimping T2 level modules which indy's craft together!
why not just give indy's the power to craft faction as promised a very long time ago? |
Aurora Fatalis
Stillwater Corporation That Escalated Quickly.
89
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 16:10:48 -
[23] - Quote
The use of quotation and tech level marks is inconsistent.
Elara Restrained Mining Laser Upgrade 'Carpo' Mining Laser Upgrade Single Diode Basic Mining Laser 'Basic' Expanded Cargohold Limited Expanded 'Archiver' Cargo I Mark I Compact Power Diagnostic System 'Cartel' Power Diagnostic System I Caldari Navy Power Diagnostic System
If Chribba told you not to trust him, would you?
|
Anton Menges Saddat
Minion Revolution SpaceMonkey's Alliance
68
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 16:13:44 -
[24] - Quote
Not feeling the cargo changes nor the new names. stop dumbing down eve. and ample, restrained, scoped, compact.... wtf? |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1314
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 16:14:03 -
[25] - Quote
Aurora Fatalis wrote:The use of quotation and tech level marks is inconsistent.
Elara Restrained Mining Laser Upgrade 'Carpo' Mining Laser Upgrade Single Diode Basic Mining Laser 'Basic' Expanded Cargohold Limited Expanded 'Archiver' Cargo I Mark I Compact Power Diagnostic System 'Cartel' Power Diagnostic System I Caldari Navy Power Diagnostic System The 'Basic' Expanded cargohold is the only one of those that really bucks the trend.
Elara = "meta" module (drops from rats), no quotes 'Carpo' = storyline, in quotes Single Diode = basic module, no quotes 'Archive' = storyline, in quotes Mark I Compact = meta module, no quotes 'Cartel' = storyline, in quotes Caldary Navy PDS = faction, no quotes
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1314
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 16:20:26 -
[26] - Quote
Ix Method wrote:Putting the Compact, Restrained, etc. before the flavour text would make the market sidebar for example a hell of a lot easier to read. Having it sorted alphabetically by the flavour text will be just as headache inducing as currently.
EDIT: The Meta 1 Cap Power Relays seem to be the wrong way round. The Shield Boost modifier is a drawback meaning one is flat out better than the other, unless I'm being tired and stupid. I disagree GÇö-áhaving the fluff bit of the module first makes the market much more searchable. If I want the Compact Mining Laser, I can just type in "compact mining" into the search bar. Doing it your way would mean I would have to remember the "particle bore" part of the name to get the "compact particle bore mining laser."
On this note GÇö-ádoes CCP have plans to amend the modules touched in the first pass of this balancing initiative to add the "lore name" back?
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Martin Peterson
NUCULAR Enterprises Circle-Of-Two
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 16:21:42 -
[27] - Quote
At the Capacitor Power Relays there is no real benefit in picking the Type-D Restrained Capacitor Power Relay over the Mark I Compact Capacitor Power Relay. The compact version got a lower malus on the shield-boost amound and also uses less CPU than the the restained version
For quick reference: (name, meta, cpu, shield-boost-"bonus", cap-recharge-bonus)
Type-D Restrained Capacitor Power Relay , 1 , 4 , -10 , 22 Mark I Compact Capacitor Power Relay , 1 ,2 , -8 , 22 |
Faren Shalni
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
104
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 16:33:58 -
[28] - Quote
CCP Terminus wrote:Faren Shalni wrote:just noticed that Power Diagnostic System II on the blog has 22tf cpu whereas in game it is 20tf cpu is this a mistake on your part or are you actually nerfing the fitting? The CPU fitting it 2 higher (20 to 22) but the Powergrid bonus is also 1% better (5% to 6%).
:(
So Much Space
|
Nelly Uanos
Spirit Unlimited La Division Bleue
24
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 16:35:03 -
[29] - Quote
Love the change!
Only grip I got is the Ore cargo expander... why not 30% COME ON!
I need one with 30% bonus on my Impel, so I can get a damn 4000m3 cargo to scoop big thing in space without sacrificing another low slot of my tank....
Otherwise give me scoop to fleet hangar |
|
CCP Terminus
C C P C C P Alliance
83
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 16:36:56 -
[30] - Quote
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 (Meta 1-4) module 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |