Hey guys, it's like 7:30pm and I'm about to go be on TV with CCP Guard and co so I can't do a lot right now, but it's safe to say there's some weirdness with the flux coils.

We may switch the restrained so it's actually LESS drawback rather than more, even though both potentially have applications. The way the attributes are titled and communicated in the dev blog is also kind of strange and I'll try to get that cleaned up tomorrow so it's a bit more clear.

All said and done, there's nothing broken going into the game so bear with me for a day while I get the post cleaned up and maybe the restrained attributes adjusted.

Maybe because of skill requirements and cost?

As for the new names, I am with a lot of other folks.. ditch them and keep some of the old ones. The new ones are a bit corny and over the top. Save the adjectives for the descriptions of the module not the name of them. You don't see GM selling the "Ample SUV" as a make and model.

Given that this thread is not in the Idea's and Features section and how all of this will become reality early next week. It appears that CCP is not interested in what we think. Even if we think different things. *shrugs*.

Well if LMLs are any indication we will have two choices. One will be a 'Compact' with better fitting, the other will be an other version (Ammo bin size, range, cap use,) and both will have a ROF between T1 and T2. Those will be your two choices so get used to it.

"Everything else is going to be droped, we are only going with two named items, so screw you. I'm not changing my mind." at least that seems to be the gist of what Fozzie,is saying.

Hey guys, it's like 7:30pm and I'm about to go be on TV with CCP Guard and co so I can't do a lot right now, but it's safe to say there's some weirdness with the flux coils.

We may switch the restrained so it's actually LESS drawback rather than more, even though both potentially have applications. The way the attributes are titled and communicated in the dev blog is also kind of strange and I'll try to get that cleaned up tomorrow so it's a bit more clear.

All said and done, there's nothing broken going into the game so bear with me for a day while I get the post cleaned up and maybe the restrained attributes adjusted.

Damn... what made you think that five days was going to be enough to talk about these proposed changes?

Hey guys. Thanks for the feedback so far.

We're doing some discussion internally about the concerns some people have expressed about the naming.
I will say that we absolutely reject any argument that attempts to claim that obscure name memorization should somehow be a requirement to play EVE. It's not "dumbing down the game" to make systems more easily understandable.
However some of the concerns about the lore and flavour have merit and we're talking about what we might change to better address those concerns. Nothing related to this will be changing for Oceanus, but everything can be iterated upon.

Also, if you've read the patch notes or dev blog today you'll have seen that we made an adjustment to the Restrained Cap Flux Coil stats. We had some wires crossed internally and thanks to your feedback we've cleared up the erroneous stats. The Restrained Cap Flux Coil will indeed have reduced drawback instead of increased drawback. It will have a capacitor pool penalty of -10% and a recharge speed bonus of 28%.

Thanks.

Rarity is a very poor balancing tool in Eve Online, it hardly ever works.

I think that the solution is to have named modules be fabricated by players. This is one of the stated long-term goals of CCP, to have everything be fabricated by players. I think that now is the time to actually do it.

In the current situation manufactures and mission runners are competing against each other and not working with each other. Have mission runners provide the components/materials and allow the industrialists to make the named modules.

You don't understand how flux coils interact with capacitor regen, apparently. The reduction in capacitor capacity provided by the flux coils reduces regen in addition to flat capacity. As a result, if you keep the same regen bonus, but reduce the capacity penalty, you increase the overall regen bonus considerably.

If we used your numbers, plus the penalties currently suggested (-20% capacitor capacity for all but Restrained, -10% for Restrained), we'd see a net capacitor regen per second of the following:

T1: (1 - 0.8) / (1 - 0.36) = 25.0% increase
Compact: (1 - 0.8) / (1 - 0.34) = 21.2% increase
Restrained: (1 - 0.9) / (1 - 0.34) = 36.4% increase
T2: (1 - 0.8) / (1 - 0.41) = 35.6% increase

Basically, your version of the Retrained is overwhelmingly better than even the T2 (slightly better bonus, reduced cap penalty for neut susceptibility). Your version of the Compact would literally only be used when the T1 won't fit, making its demand almost non-existent.

Honestly, I'm starting to feel like the "meta" modules need a slightly higher skill requirement (if the T1 requires skill X at 1, the metas require 3 or maybe 4). Excluding the meta module scale, power increases have always come with either higher skill requirements (T2) or significantly higher rarity/costs (faction, deadspace, officer). The meta modules fit neither of those. Without something providing either a barrier of entry or additional cost for using the meta modules, this change will do nothing to augment usage of the T1 (meta 0) modules.

One thing this change will do, however, is give ample options for playing with PG and CPU on modules by side-grading into the "Compact" version (or possibly even downgrading T2 modules to "Compact"). That is a change I strongly favor.

So you really did just nerf the missile launchers, i thought maybe the re-balance thing was going to add something a mid slot mod or something for them but nope just a nerf.


not sure i like anything about this patch.