Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Corporation RONA Directorate
958
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 06:22:00 -
[361] - Quote
Going along with Drone 16's statement. The naming convention takes away from depth and immersion and makes it more theme parkish. When you simplify a name you simplify the player looking for that item. Just dont touch guns and any more weapons. If you are going to simplify module naming keep it to new player stuff. Or make a set of new player items to get them hooked then give them the cliff of other names. I learned really fast when i joined "malkuth" meant easiest to fit and "arbelast" meant expensive as hell you may as well go t2.
Also with tiericide you Nuke the weapons market in general. I sell weapons as loot but with tiericide here's what im going to do. Toss it all in the reprocessor because with out distinction there is no reason to sell it. Everyone will go for one type and ignore the rest. So pretty much im saying.
Tiericide only good for new players. Bad for vets and market traders and anyone that actually likes to think. All those modules i have now are better off as minerals than a module.
|
Daenika
MMO-Mechanics.com
143
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 07:10:00 -
[362] - Quote
Quote:So, exactly when would I want to use a T1 or even an Upgraded co-processor, instead of a T2 co-processor?
Skill is generally the barrier to entry for T2 modules. I know it may be hard for you to believe, but there are people playing this game that can't fit every T2 module in the game yet...
Anyway, I agree with you on the T1 side. After this change, there literally won't ever be a point to using a meta0 module over an Upgraded/etc module. Then again, there really isn't a point to using a meta0 instead of a meta4 currently either, so that's not really a change, it's just trimming out the other 3 modules that generally get ignored beside the meta0, and in theory giving us some more options for the ones we want to use. I know it'll be a bit of a balancing act for me on the LML side between Ample and Compact versions for a few of my fits (since several are already tight on fitting with Arbalest, which are at 17 CPU each, while the Ample require 21 to the Compact's 16) |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
467
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 07:50:00 -
[363] - Quote
Daenika wrote:Quote:So, exactly when would I want to use a T1 or even an Upgraded co-processor, instead of a T2 co-processor? Skill is generally the barrier to entry for T2 modules. I know it may be hard for you to believe, but there are people playing this game that can't fit every T2 module in the game yet... Ah, a good point, which I did indeed forget to consider.
However, for a T2 co-processor, it looks like the only requirements are Electronics Upgrades IV, CPU Management II, and Power Grid Management II - which probably takes about 1.5 days to train up. Not much of a barrier.
Side question: Has CCP been lowering the skill requirements for most T2 modules? I haven't paid much attention. |
Dwissi
Miners Delight
7
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 08:45:00 -
[364] - Quote
I would like to chop my piece of opinion into the T1 vs T2 part that has been heavily discussed further up.
When i know i am a crappy pilot or while i still train i wouldnt dream of putting expensive T2 stuff into my fittings as i have a pretty high percentage of losing that ship anyways. So there is and should always be a need for non-T2 modules for that.
Besides the fitting area there should be a usage for T1 as it is the entry level for every industrialist as well. To have any kind of production chain in T2 modules requires quite a bit of understanding and effort - so T1 modules shouldnt be devalued any further. The latest update wanted an easier entry into industry for everyone which will always be something on T1 level and not the high end stuff veterans like to reduce the game to.
Many of your arguments across the board are fine and valid - i dont question them as a single one. But i do have my concerns when lore is used as a defense. I am role-playing a lot and can only say: there arnt many others who really do that. So using that as an argument against changes that might have an impact on market segments and prices is kind of too easy to look through.
Eve has and will always have the famous 'steep' learning curve - but not because a single modules name has changed etc. Its simply the mass of things where modules are just one part. Generalizing those names and making things clearer is a help but not a elimination of any kind of challenge. The sheer mass of modules, ships, roles, bonuses etc is what makes that a challenge - not that i call module xy instead yx. Should i do anything when all 3 things on my ship are fully red? |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION The Obsidian Front
493
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 09:01:00 -
[365] - Quote
Emiko Rowna wrote:Harvey James wrote:Shin Dari wrote:DireNecessity wrote: Will drop rates be adjusted to make named modules rare enough to be more valuable/expensive than player produced meta 0 modules or is the thinking that Tech II manufacturing provides sufficient demand for player produced meta 0 modules and thus thereGÇÖs no need to create even more demand for them by making them sensible options in their own right?
DireNecessity
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. hmmm.. named mods instead of dropping in missions being made instead by manufacturers makes sense ... so combat missions could just be compensated with bigger bounties .. which makes sense .. it should be about the combat rather than salvaging and looting and then having too move the stuff too sell it.. They could drop parts to build the named mod with.
"From the mouths of babes"
This is probably the best idea I've heard in this thread.
CCP. You really need to take a step back here. Your direction here is confused as to what you think your playerbase wants. You're trying to tell us what we want and not listening to what we actually want. Remember what happened last time? It was called "Incarna".
So, what has actually been said?
1st. T1 modules need to retain usefulness over meta modules in some way. 2nd. Naming convention of the modules is extremely important. Get it right and don't try to emulate WoW. 3rd. Players want to BUILD meta modules.
This 3rd point is what I've quoted above. If npc rats dropped "parts" that would make meta modules (like sentient drones drop parts for faction drones) you could combine these parts with T1 modules to build meta modules. This would buff industry as a little bonus on the side!
An example would be that a rat would drop some "Gun Optics". These "Gun Optics" could be combined with a T1 rail gun to produce a "Scoped Railgun" (however, consider the naming system from my earlier post). It would take more parts to make larger guns meaning it can be scaled easily with module sizing. Potentially include salvage to make it more of an isk sink and increase the value of salvage too. |
Drone 16
Law Dogz
251
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 09:37:00 -
[366] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote:Emiko Rowna wrote:Harvey James wrote:Shin Dari wrote:DireNecessity wrote: Will drop rates be adjusted to make named modules rare enough to be more valuable/expensive than player produced meta 0 modules or is the thinking that Tech II manufacturing provides sufficient demand for player produced meta 0 modules and thus thereGÇÖs no need to create even more demand for them by making them sensible options in their own right?
DireNecessity
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. hmmm.. named mods instead of dropping in missions being made instead by manufacturers makes sense ... so combat missions could just be compensated with bigger bounties .. which makes sense .. it should be about the combat rather than salvaging and looting and then having too move the stuff too sell it.. They could drop parts to build the named mod with. "From the mouths of babes" CCP. You really need to take a step back here. Your direction here is confused as to what you think your playerbase wants. You're trying to tell us what we want and not listening to what we actually want. Remember what happened last time? It was called "Incarna". So, what has actually been said? 1st. T1 modules need to retain usefulness over meta modules in some way. 2nd. Naming convention of the modules is extremely important. Get it right and don't try to emulate WoW. 3rd. Players want to BUILD meta modules. This 3rd point is what I've quoted above. If npc rats dropped "parts" that would make meta modules (like sentient drones drop parts for faction drones) you could combine these parts with T1 modules to build meta modules. This would buff industry as a little bonus on the side! An example would be that a rat would drop some "Gun Optics". These "Gun Optics" could be combined with a T1 rail gun to produce a "Scoped Railgun" (however, consider the naming system from my earlier post). It would take more parts to make larger guns meaning it can be scaled easily with module sizing. Potentially include salvage to make it more of an isk sink and increase the value of salvage too.
Idea of the year. This could be an entire expansion and I'm guessing would receive rave reviews It puts the peanutbutter on itself or it leaves the bonus round... - E1's greatest Hits |
Solecist Project
I'm So Meta Even This Acronym
10202
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 09:38:00 -
[367] - Quote
Unezka Turigahl wrote:I think a middle ground can be reached. Keep cool names but apply them across all modules. Limos can apply to all weapons of all types that have extended magazines for example, not just missile launchers.
Limos = increased capacity Arbalest = increased range Scout = higher ROF Malkuth = lower fitting
You could tack some numbers on that are relevant to the variant's characteristic. Give Limos an X designating an expanded/extended magazine, preceded by a number showing how many charges it can fit.
So you end up with: Light Missile Launcher 'Limos 48X' Light AutoCannon 150mm 'Limos 180X' Medium Railgun 200mm 'Limos 90X' Heavy Artillery 1400mm 'Limos 25X' etc...
So you have a brand name that is associated with bigger magazines, no matter what type of weapon you are using, and you can see right off the bat how much the weapon will hold.
So for Malkuth maybe it gets an F for 'fitting', preceded by a number, and a C or a P designating the CPU or PG it requires, since that is the relevant attribute for Malkuth modules.
Light Missile Launcher 'Malkuth 16C-F' Light AutoCannon 150mm 'Malkuth 4C-F' Medium Railgun 200mm 'Malkuth 26C-F' Heavy Artillery 1400mm 'Malkuth 36C-F'
Can extend to non-weapons modules... Medium Energy Neutralizer 'Malkuth 170P-F' Medium Capacitor Booster 'Malkuth 150P-F'
If you find a Malkuth module you know its going to be easier to fit than normal, and you can see the fitting requirement without even opening the info panel. If your ship is tight on fitting and you need easier to fit guns, shield modules, whatever... just type what you need in the market search followed by Malkuth. Not empty quoting. I am Sol. I cook my bacon naked, you sissies. Check out the newest and sexiest in New Eden Fashion today! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=374461&find=unread |
Unezka Turigahl
Det Som Engang Var
302
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 09:54:00 -
[368] - Quote
Aww you missed my edit:
Quote:Limos = increased capacity (think limousine, stretched car, stretched magazine) Arbalest = increased range (an arbalest is a crossbow, a RANGED weapon. RANGE) Scout = higher ROF (scouts make you think of quick movement. quick fire rate) Malkuth = lower fitting (Malkuth doesn't have a memorization gimmick, sorry)
Existing brand names that even kind of make sense with regard to the attribute being modified.
|
Mike Whiite
Space Mutts Extended Downtime.
356
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 10:37:00 -
[369] - Quote
On a side note.
I'm told that weapon specialization skills only work on Tech 2 weapon systems.
so is it correct to assume that the fire rating difference between a Tech II and a Faction light missile launcher comes down to 0.3 seconds in favor of the Faction launcher when you take level 5 light missile specialization in account?
And with that that the Cosmos Launcher is lower on CPU but has a slower rof?
If so is this intended or can we see a revamp of those weapon specialization skills as well?
|
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION The Obsidian Front
493
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 10:46:00 -
[370] - Quote
Mike Whiite wrote:On a side note.
I'm told that weapon specialization skills only work on Tech 2 weapon systems.
so is it correct to assume that the fire rating difference between a Tech II and a Faction light missile launcher comes down to 0.3 seconds in favor of the Faction launcher when you take level 5 light missile specialization in account?
And with that that the Cosmos Launcher is lower on CPU but has a slower rof?
If so is this intended or can we see a revamp of those weapon specialization skills as well?
This is something I've been advocating for a long time now.
If weapon specialization skills applied to all weapons (T1/Faction/Storyline/T2) then all weapons would be come relevant and more powerful the more SP you piled into them.
T2 guns would retain their special feature of using T2 Ammo but T1/Meta/Faction don't become irrelevent after training the specialisation skills. |
|
Luscius Uta
101
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 11:54:00 -
[371] - Quote
Call me pedantic, but it hurts my eyes to see basic modules being given higher meta level than named or T2. It doesn't make the stuff less confusing People hate highsec for various reasons. Mine is the terrible metallic music that plays on and on. |
Fu Qjoo
Pangalactic Frontline Supply Agency
8
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 12:20:00 -
[372] - Quote
This module is a bad example, as you would always use the cheapest variant required for your specific fitting. If T1 does the job with a 1.08 modifier, why should I use T2?
Sizeof Void wrote:Hmm.... looking at co-processors....
After rebalancing: T1 co-processors -> 1.08x CPU Upgraded co-processor -> 1.09x CPU T2 co-processors -> 1.10x CPU
They all require 1MW of PG. Clearly, T2 is always better than Upgraded, which is always better than T1.
So, exactly when would I want to use a T1 or even an Upgraded co-processor, instead of a T2 co-processor?
Because of cost or availability, you say?
In Rens: T1 co-processors cost about 50K ISK. T2 co-processors cost about 800K ISK. Meta co-processors before recent speculation were actually cheaper than T1 - now, they cost more than T1, but still substantially less than T2 (except for the ones which no longer drop - let's ignore them, since they are generally just collector's items). Let's say 150K ISK for Upgraded.
Supply isn't an issue - there are plenty of co-processors available.
Is there really anyone, say at least one month old, who cannot always afford 800K ISK for the T2 version?
Ok, now assume that 800K ISK really is too much for some players.
If the Upgraded price drops again below the T1 price, then it is a no-brainer - every poor player will always buy the Upgraded rather than T1.
How about if it is 150K for the Upgraded vs. 50K for the T1? How many poor players still can't afford the extra 100K ISK to get the Upgraded version? Somehow, I just don't think there are many players who are that space poor.
So, when exactly would anyone use the T1 version?
|
AssandTits
University of Caille Gallente Federation
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 14:21:00 -
[373] - Quote
Well, CCP stayed true to form and totally ignored customer feedback.
Congratulations Fozzie, you continue to destroy the foundations that make this game not another clone. |
Radgette
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
82
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 14:51:00 -
[374] - Quote
these quick fire expansions are nice in that we get a constant stream of "content" and updates
BUT
they have a massive flaw in that by the time we can give feedback the decisions already made and patches module changes that are terrible get put straight onto TQ with given CCP's track record will never get fixed |
Ynef
Tesseract Industries
12
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 15:00:00 -
[375] - Quote
Way to go Fozzie!
Why nerf LML to the ground?!
Also,
This "Module Tiericide" thing sounded bad even at Fanfest. It became even worse in the dev blog. And now it's live and shitting all over the place.
I can't remember the last time you made a step in the right direction.
And now just how the fck should I undock with my "Traffic Light Missile Launchers"?
|
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 18:23:00 -
[376] - Quote
Ned Black wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: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. But it does FEEL as if you are dumbing down EvE with all these tieracides, easier to use interfaces and so on. Be it weapons, mods or ships or you name it. In the beginning every ships was like a swizz pocket knife. You never knew what you faced and the number of fits were probably as wide as the number of players. With steamlining you remove a lot of that vibrancy simply because fitting a ship outside of the streamline will make it suck so bad that its not even funny. Look at other things as well. Scanning used to be HARD... I mean seriously hard and it was only very few that could actually do it at all. Not only did it take a lot of time, but it required a lot of skill and know how to do... today anyone and their ******** dog can scan while being semi comatose without breaking a sweat. So sorry, but to me who have been around for a long time it really does feel as if you are dumbing down EvE one step at a time... and all those names actually give things a lot more flavour than having generic "easy to recognize" names... removing things does not add to the game... it removes them, it removes something that made eve special. Absolutely THIS |
ivona fly
Aideron Robotics
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 18:25:00 -
[377] - Quote
Ynef wrote:Way to go Fozzie! Why nerf LML to the ground?! Also, This "Module Tiericide" thing sounded bad even at Fanfest. It became even worse in the dev blog. And now it's live and shitting all over the place. I can't remember when was the last time you made a step in the right direction. And now just how the fck should I undock with my " Traffic Light Missile Launchers"? edit: wording
+1
The worst thing is missiles still semi op on cerb, and all the new pirate ships that were just introduced, but are becoming useless on nearly all other platforms.
|
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 18:29:00 -
[378] - Quote
Kynric wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: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. Why not rename the hurricane and cyclone to be "minmatar projectile battlecruiser" and "minmatar missle battlecruiser. " The names are more discriptive and really have no bearing on how the game plays. However, it would on the other hand strip a layer of nonfunctional information which fuels the imagination away. For me "arbelest" and "malkuth" like the old afterburner names just made the world richer and more interesting although it did nothing to how the game actually played. I would greatly prefer that the old names soldier on. Pretty much This |
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 18:44:00 -
[379] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:Apologies if this has already been suggested:
Why not just adapt the naming convention from the skill hardwiring impants and add a 2-letter or 3-letter code to each existing name, which indicates which stat is improved for that particular module?
For example: 200mm Gallium Cannon ER, where ER would indicate "extended range", or 200mm Gallium Cannon TS, where TS would indicate "tracking speed" has been improved.
Then, you can both keep the existing "immersive" names, while still have the benefit of being able to easily identify a module's advantage by just looking at the name's new code suffix.
An additional code could even be used to indicate the primary disadvantage. For example: 200mm Gallium Cannon ER-PG, where PG indicates a higher "power grid" requirement. +1 Super good Idea
|
Daenika
MMO-Mechanics.com
145
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 19:23:00 -
[380] - Quote
Spugg Galdon wrote:1st. T1 modules need to retain usefulness over meta modules in some way.
Retain?! They don't have any usefulness over meta modules right now! There's nothing to retain! An argument can be made that they should have usefulness compared to the meta versions, but don't act that it's something CCP is removing.
Spugg Galdon wrote:2nd. Naming convention of the modules is extremely important. Get it right and don't try to emulate WoW.
Wait, what? Last I checked, item names in WoW were still very fantasy-based. Even the enchants aren't "Enchant Weapon - Occasional Stat Boost", it's "Enchant Weapon - Dancing Steel".
Still, what so many gamers get wrong is that reducing barrier to entry does not devalue their gameplay. If the only reason you can feel good about playing a game is because most people can't because it's obfuscated as hell, you need to check your ego at the damn door.
Or, to cite GamerCat:
http://www.thegamercat.com/comic/real-talk/ |
|
Crynsos Cealion
Matari Munitions The Obsidian Front
15
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 19:30:00 -
[381] - Quote
Quote: 1st. T1 modules need to retain usefulness over meta modules in some way.
I think the most simple and senseful way to make them useful would be to give the basic and currently buildable meta 0 modules the role of the "Compact" modules, the modules that are easier to fit than all others of the same time at the cost of performance.
Seeing as the renaming has been probably primarily done to help rookies recognize that even modules with long and complex names are essentially just the same as a "Co-Processor/Reactor Control Unit/etc I" but slightly better, this would give our newbies a good module to start out with in terms of recognizing what it does by name, as well as being very cheap and compensates for their lack of fitting skills.
And I have to heavily agree, removing all the unique, if sometimes overly complex names of modules reduces a lot of the Sci-Fi flair, which started as the good old ArcJet Thrusters and thelike were removed, later the unique missile names and now the whole rest of the modules stock - but it hasn't really improved and only made many vets more annoyed about it every time it was done. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
2814
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 20:27:00 -
[382] - Quote
Crossposting myself from F&I because it seems like the Right Thing to DoGäó.
Alvatore Dimarco wrote:Cold-Gas Arcjets. An afterburner named for technology that actually exists. To me, that was the most amazing thing.
Then CCP took that away. They've never stopped taking that away. Every time they touch a module, they take its name away because "the module names are too hard to understand". Maybe if the module names are too hard, that person is an idiot and should go play something more in line with their level of ... erm ... intelligence. Or perhaps they should finish kindergarten. Ever since that black day when someone came to power in CCP with the idea of "simplify everything", it's been nothing but "make it simple and easy to understand".
EVE shouldn't have any depth, require any thought or be the least bit interesting, right?
Piece by piece, CCP, you're cutting the soul out of this game. Maybe you're trying to attract MOBA simpletons who care nothing about lore and flavor and atmosphere and only want to shoot things as quickly as possible, but EVE isn't a MOBA and you need us MMO nerds too.
I cut CCP a whole lot of slack that others don't because I understand there are limitations and more than one side to things, but this is something I'll neither cut slack for or forgive.
To the very bowels of hell with this "make EVE easy" initiative. Stop renaming everything with preschoolers in mind.
Cold-Gas Arcjets. Never forget. |
Portmanteau
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 21:23:00 -
[383] - Quote
Eve just became and will continue to become just a little more dull... Thanks Fozzie |
Gray's Anatomist
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 21:49:00 -
[384] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:Crossposting myself from F&I because it seems like the Right Thing to DoGäó. Alvatore Dimarco wrote:Cold-Gas Arcjets. An afterburner named for technology that actually exists. To me, that was the most amazing thing.
Then CCP took that away. They've never stopped taking that away. Every time they touch a module, they take its name away because "the module names are too hard to understand". Maybe if the module names are too hard, that person is an idiot and should go play something more in line with their level of ... erm ... intelligence. Or perhaps they should finish kindergarten. Ever since that black day when someone came to power in CCP with the idea of "simplify everything", it's been nothing but "make it simple and easy to understand".
EVE shouldn't have any depth, require any thought or be the least bit interesting, right?
Piece by piece, CCP, you're cutting the soul out of this game. Maybe you're trying to attract MOBA simpletons who care nothing about lore and flavor and atmosphere and only want to shoot things as quickly as possible, but EVE isn't a MOBA and you need us MMO nerds too.
I cut CCP a whole lot of slack that others don't because I understand there are limitations and more than one side to things, but this is something I'll neither cut slack for or forgive.
To the very bowels of hell with this "make EVE easy" initiative. Stop renaming everything with preschoolers in mind.
Cold-Gas Arcjets. Never forget. The very this. Next time they'll take our PWNAGE away. |
Medalyn Isis
Rosewood Productions Stain Confederation
325
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 23:28:00 -
[385] - Quote
Why don't we take a step back and just think for a second, what exactly is the role should a T1 manufactured item should fill.
In my opinion, meta 0 items should be the baseline, and then the meta 1-4 modules improve one aspect of the meta 0 item at the cost of another.
meta 0 : Reactor Control Unit I : 1.1x, CPU 15 meta 1-4 : "Compact" Rector Control Unit: 1.08x, CPU 12 meta 1-4 : "Overcharged" Rector Control Unit: 1.12x, CPU 20 meta 5 : Reactor Control Unit II : 1.15x, CPU 22
So in the case of the reactor control, the meta 0 is the base, compact offers reduced CPU cost but at the expense of giving less PG boost, and "overcharged" gives a larger PG boost than the meta 0, but at the cost of 5 extra CPU.
The T2 version is just a straight upgrade, although requires higher skills and more expensive components to build.
Again, the same idea could be applied to missile launchers.
meta 0 : Light Missile Launcher I : PG 6, CPU 16, ROF 14.4s, Capacity 40 meta 1-4 : "Compact" Light Missile Launcher : PG 5, CPU 14, ROF 16.0s, Capacity 40 meta 1-4 : "High Capacity" Light Missile Launcher : PG 6, CPU 21, ROF 14.4s, Capacity 48 meta 1-4 : "Rapid Fire" Light Missile Launcher : PG 6, CPU 21, ROF 13.6s, Capacity 40 meta 5 : Light Missile Launcher II : PG 7, CPU 24, ROF 12.8s, Capacity 53
So to put simply, Insert "" with descriptive names, with a Sci-Fi feel to them. Then you use the meta 0 version as the base line module. Then the meta 1-4 modules improve one aspect of the meta 0 item at the cost or additional aspects. |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon Cynosural Field Theory.
1058
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 23:56:00 -
[386] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: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.
This could be fixed in the way that every module has a "Part name", or a sort of "complex manufacturer name", which is simplified for easy discussion between capsuleers, into the names you have proposed. So, the Experimental 10mn Microwarpdrive could be referred to by it's manufacturer as the Y-T8 Hydrocarbon Overcharged 10MN Microwarpdrive. This could be a field similar to the item name, simply the "part name". This makes sense in terms of lore, because the manufacturers of the part probably would not call their part a "Upgraded 10mn Microwarpdrive". If they engineered an upgraded part, they would likely describe the type of upgrade they did in the part name. These part names, typically being complex, would be simplified in conversation between consumers. (Like the brand name or generic name of medecine)
Then, to satisfy people, you could search the market based on part name as well as standard name. Make this part name prominent in the item description. This sort of thing (in my opinion) adds to deepness of lore in the game.
If you were really nice, you could specify in the items panel to view part names for modules rather than standard names...
In that respect, bring back Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon Microwarpdrive. That was the best name... |
Krystyn
Serenity Rising LLC Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
186
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 01:37:00 -
[387] - Quote
Ponder Yonder wrote:Cristl wrote:Hawkin Shadowblade wrote:As much as I do actually like the direction of the changes, you need to seriously reconsider the naming dynamic you have adopted; it's absolutely horrid in that it is reminiscent of the naming policy of other traditional MMOs: Leather Jerkin of the Monkey? Okay, it has an agility bonus... Yes, this is a nice way to show the role of an item at a glance. The problem is it kills immersion in a game like EVE. There is a level of immersion involved with shopping for outfitting your ship. Buying a set of XM-2300 Missile Launchers fits with the atmosphere and general "a world you could live in" vibe you guys have been going for. By giving them role based names, I instantly had WoW flashbacks, and the names sound pretty lame, I'll be honest: An ample Railgun? A Scoped Railgun? A SCOPED Railgun!? Are you implying any other variation of Railgun is without scope? Again, you should really reconsider this renaming policy. It is not the direction you should be looking. I'd like to second this. I'm worried that someone at CCP has been told to make the names less varied ("easier") because that will help retain new players. Quite the reverse: the fact you needed to look up your equipment made Eve feel like a real, immersive new universe and was originally part of the attraction for me. Don't throw that away. Leather Jerkin of the Monkey?. Perfect. CCP, Please retain some of immersive elements. Call it a Gaussian Scoped Railgun, or an XT-3200 Ample Launcher, or whatever. The quirks make Eve interesting. Look at that we could have it both ways. Use the new Key words to describe the meaning and help market searches while keeping some interesting flavor. You could even bring back the cool names from back in the day like Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon Microwarpdrives, just add in the rather useful and descriptive 10MN into it and maybe keep the sorta descriptive experimental. Thus 'Experimental Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon 10MN Microwarpdrive'
I already want one of those to put on my Drake! |
Krystyn
Serenity Rising LLC Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
186
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 01:38:00 -
[388] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: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. This could be fixed in the way that every module has a "Part name", or a sort of "complex manufacturer name", which is simplified for easy discussion between capsuleers, into the names you have proposed. So, the Experimental 10mn Microwarpdrive could be referred to by it's manufacturer as the Y-T8 Hydrocarbon Overcharged 10MN Microwarpdrive. This could be a field similar to the item name, simply the "part name". This makes sense in terms of lore, because the manufacturers of the part probably would not call their part a "Upgraded 10mn Microwarpdrive". If they engineered an upgraded part, they would likely describe the type of upgrade they did in the part name. These part names, typically being complex, would be simplified in conversation between consumers. (Like the brand name or generic name of medecine) Then, to satisfy people, you could search the market based on part name as well as standard name. Make this part name prominent in the item description. This sort of thing (in my opinion) adds to deepness of lore in the game. If you were really nice, you could specify in the items panel to view part names for modules rather than standard names... In that respect, bring back Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon Microwarpdrive. That was the best name...
Great Minds think alike! |
Krystyn
Serenity Rising LLC Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
186
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 02:00:00 -
[389] - Quote
I want friggin Widdowmaker Missiles back too!!!! And Juggernaut Torps and Gremlin Rockets and Doom torpedoes for my Phoenix!!!
Now I admit you can't tell exactly what type of damage the missile will do so you could add a descriptive damage type to the name such as Widdowmaker Thermal/Thermic Heavy Missiles. Although, the friggin picture is red so thats kind of a giveaway too. DOOM EM Citadel Torpedo is way cooler than Mjolnir. Ok Mjolnir is pretty cool too? But couldn't it be considered kinetic damage with the smashing and all by it's namesake hammer. Anyways some flavor to the item names or hell even more flavor text couldn't hurt. It's a friggin space game played by people who might appreciate random sci-fi trivia added in. It's not WOW...if we wanted to play WOW we would go play WOW...since we don't want to play WOW don't turn EVE into WOW |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
5457
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 04:06:00 -
[390] - Quote
Well, in that instance I would go for "Y-T8 Hydrocarbon Overcharged 10MN Microwarpdrive"
That way anyone looking for "10MN micro" will be able to find it. Of course, a proper search mechanism would allow searching for "MWD" and "cruiser", but I'll just sit back and arm-chair program, wondering why the numpties at CCP haven't done this yet, paying no attention to the fact that I've failed to do the same kind of thing in the application I've spent my last five years maintaining Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |