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) |
|
CCP Gargant
C C P C C P Alliance
878
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 16:14:00 -
[1] - Quote
Oceanus is released next week and with it starts the advertised module rebalancing. To start out with the team decided to target eight specific groups of modules and CCP Fozzie has written a dev blog to explain the reasoning, method, and the groups.
Head on over here to check it out.
Oceanus is released on Tuesday, September 30th. These changes are looking very good. What do you think? CCP Gargant | EVE Universe esports Coordinator |
|
Cristl
Perkone Caldari State
138
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 16:15:00 -
[2] - Quote
First, but where is the actual blog? |
Mashie Saldana
BFG Tech
1171
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 16:18:00 -
[3] - Quote
Second, time to read a blog. Mashie Saldana Dominique Vasilkovsky
|
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
833
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 16:23:00 -
[4] - Quote
I think you screwed up Restrained Capacitor Flux Coil, as they're flatly better in every way than the T2 version. Aside from that this looks like a good design philosophy for named mods. |
|
CCP Gargant
C C P C C P Alliance
878
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 16:29:00 -
[5] - Quote
Fixed missing links and cleaned a few posts up CCP Gargant | EVE Universe esports Coordinator |
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
803
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 16:31:00 -
[6] - Quote
I'm glad to see the normalization of faction mods, but I'm a little worried about Warp Scramblers (which are obviously not being touched right now.) Currently, the True Sansha warp scrambler has 3 points, compared to all the other faction warp scramblers which have 2 points. Is there any thought to allowing similar variations in faction modules in the same vein as named modules are now? This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Seolfor
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
78
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 16:32:00 -
[7] - Quote
x |
TheMercenaryKing
StarFleet Enterprises Intrepid Crossing
287
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 16:33:00 -
[8] - Quote
@Fozzie
So "upgraded" are just generally better than T1 (m0), then what's the point of T1 meta 0 items? There should be some kind of draw backs to say T1 is generally better and all of these have a benefit that is offset by a slight Nerf in these other areas. |
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1301
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 16:34:00 -
[9] - Quote
Finally!
I've been waiting for informations about this for weeks
You teased me too much guys :( Signature Tanking - Best Tanking
|
Argent Rotineque
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 16:35:00 -
[10] - Quote
It would seem like there could be more room for differentiation if meta items that were restrained or compact kept the benefits closer to meta 0 (with the advantage being a larger reduction in fitting cost/drawback) and that would allow all items to have an upgraded option in addition to the fitting items. |
|
BadAssMcKill
ElitistOps
889
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 16:35:00 -
[11] - Quote
So now all the mods sound the same . |
Asuka Solo
Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises
2702
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 16:35:00 -
[12] - Quote
Slightly off topic, but I feel this is an appropriate time and topic to start the debate.
Any plans to create module groups based on ship / hull size alongside the relevant optimal / falloff / strength bonuses?
i.e: Small Warp disruptors / Scrams / Webs for frigates and dessies that can only tackle smaller hulls at close range Med Warp disruptors / Scrams / Webs for cruisers and BCs that can only tackle medium hulls at med range Large Warp disruptors / Scrams / Webs for Battleships and larger Industrials that can only tackle large hulls at long range Capital Warp disruptors / Scrams / Webs for Capitals that can only tackle capital and super hulls across grid
I don't see a point in having small / med / large Neuts / Nosses / guns if we don't apply the same logic to medium slots of an offensive / remote boosting nature.
Preventing sub capitals from engaging and locking down everything in the game with a module nerf like this would open up allot of room for Capital hull role expansion.... Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk! |
Skyler Hawk
The Scope Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 16:39:00 -
[13] - Quote
Will tiericide enable faction weapons such as the repuglic fleet LMLs mentioned in the blog to benefit from the T2 weapon specialization skills and use T2 ammo? If not, it's still hard to see them getting much use outside of niche situations. |
Aquila Sagitta
Blue-Fire
504
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 16:40:00 -
[14] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote:I think you screwed up Restrained Capacitor Flux Coil, as they're flatly better in every way than the T2 version. Aside from that this looks like a good design philosophy for named mods.
This. It doesn't follow the theme at all... Its even more powerful then the cosmos versions Blue-Fire Best Fire |
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising Executive Outcomes
16
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 16:41:00 -
[15] - Quote
Asuka Solo wrote:Slightly off topic, but I feel this is an appropriate time and topic to start the debate.
Any plans to create module groups based on ship / hull size alongside the relevant optimal / falloff / strength bonuses?
i.e: Small Warp disruptors / Scrams / Webs for frigates and dessies that can only tackle smaller hulls at close range Med Warp disruptors / Scrams / Webs for cruisers and BCs that can only tackle medium hulls at med range Large Warp disruptors / Scrams / Webs for Battleships and larger Industrials that can only tackle large hulls at long range Capital Warp disruptors / Scrams / Webs for Capitals that can only tackle capital and super hulls across grid
I don't see a point in having small / med / large Neuts / Nosses / guns if we don't apply the same logic to medium slots of an offensive / remote boosting nature.
Preventing sub capitals from engaging and locking down everything in the game with a module nerf like this would open up allot of room for Capital hull role expansion....
Having to drop caps to hold down other caps ... that sounds more like a jail free card for everyone ratting in a carrier. but nice try. |
IIIMAPOBOgKA
Babylon Knights The Unthinkables
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 16:41:00 -
[16] - Quote
What will happen with invention where you could "sacrifice" a meta 4 module to augment your success rate if all the mods are dropping to meta 1 ? |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
11351
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 16:42:00 -
[17] - Quote
Hey everyone, the overall module rework has been a long time coming and it feels great to start rolling it out! Hopefully these changes and the ones that follow will help make your fitting experience a more engaging one. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective
1301
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 16:44:00 -
[18] - Quote
I don't understand why the "Restrained Capacitor Flux Coil" should have better stats AND lower fitting requirements than the T2 variation.
Its 100% worse to fit the T2, something that shouldn't happen right AFTER a module rebalance Signature Tanking - Best Tanking
|
Adrie Atticus
The Shadow Plague The Bastion
379
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 16:44:00 -
[19] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone, the overall module rework has been a long time coming and it feels great to start rolling it out! Hopefully these changes and the ones that follow will help make your fitting experience a more engaging one.
You screwed up on Cap Flux Coil, new meta 1 is better than T2. |
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
126
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 16:44:00 -
[20] - Quote
IIIMAPOBOgKA wrote:What will happen with invention where you could "sacrifice" a meta 4 module to augment your success rate if all the mods are dropping to meta 1 ?
Methinks you missed a dev blog
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/lighting-the-invention-bulb/
|
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
803
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 16:45:00 -
[21] - Quote
Another restriction that has been somewhat weird to me is with faction guns / launchers. Currently, faction guns and missile launchers have been strictly inferior to T2, because they can't use T2 ammo. This is especially important for Projectiles and Lasers, in which Barrage and Scorch are basic requirements. Has any thought been given to allowing T2 ammo to be used in faction guns / launchers? This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Makari Aeron
The Shadow's Of Eve TSOE Consortium
108
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 16:46:00 -
[22] - Quote
I'm glad to see this finally rolling out. Yall had been talking about this sort of thing for over a year. *thumbs up let's do this*
I am slightly concerned these changes (more so changes to other modules) may make certain fits unusable due to the tightness of the fits. CCP RedDawn:Ugly people are just playing life on HARD mode. Personally, I'm playing on an INFERNO difficulty..||| CCP Goliath:I often believe that the best way to get something done is to shout at the person trying to help you. ||| CCP Goliath:http://goo.gl/PKGDPZ |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
834
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 16:47:00 -
[23] - Quote
Querns wrote:Another restriction that has been somewhat weird to me is with faction guns / launchers. Currently, faction guns and missile launchers have been strictly inferior to T2, because they can't use T2 ammo. This is especially important for Projectiles and Lasers, in which Barrage and Scorch are basic requirements. Has any thought been given to allowing T2 ammo to be used in faction guns / launchers? Yeah, I agree with this: you need to take a close look at this issue and either let them use T2 ammo or give them bonuses at the higher levels that make the tradeoff worth it. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3883
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 16:48:00 -
[24] - Quote
IIIMAPOBOgKA wrote:What will happen with invention where you could "sacrifice" a meta 4 module to augment your success rate if all the mods are dropping to meta 1 ?
As stated in the devblog about invention, that's being removed. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
IIIMAPOBOgKA
Babylon Knights The Unthinkables
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 16:48:00 -
[25] - Quote
thanks ! indeed missed that one ! |
|
CCP Lebowski
C C P C C P Alliance
193
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 16:49:00 -
[26] - Quote
Aquila Sagitta wrote:Retar Aveymone wrote:I think you screwed up Restrained Capacitor Flux Coil, as they're flatly better in every way than the T2 version. Aside from that this looks like a good design philosophy for named mods. This. It doesn't follow the theme at all... Its even more powerful then the cosmos versions Well spotted, this should actually be -25% (which is what you'll see on Sisi just now). We'll get that changed in the blog.
CCP Lebowski | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/ccp_lebowski |
|
Aquila Sagitta
Blue-Fire
504
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 16:54:00 -
[27] - Quote
Could we get some numbers on the new cap flux coil vs cap power relays?
You nearly doubled the regen but you also doubled the penalties which makes me think they will still be useless or even worse then before. Blue-Fire Best Fire |
PinkKnife
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
505
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 16:54:00 -
[28] - Quote
So, while we're at this, what's the point of having multiple faction variants that are essentially the same thing? Do we really need a Cal navy and a Gurista/ Dread Gurista variation of a module that all have the same damn attributes?
It makes sense that say Sansha and True Sansha might have different power levels.
It doesn't make sense that Sansha and Guristas have the same power levels.
Is it a matter of just having lore related item drops for different factions of space? If so, that's idiotic and should be removed. |
Adaahh Gee
Sarz'na Khumatari The Unthinkables
120
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 16:55:00 -
[29] - Quote
No no no no no no no
Please don't start renaming modules again, the naming of modules is very important for immersion of players and is a known nomenclature by players that have been in game for some time. it is also a right of passage for newer players to learn these things. I remember when the MWD's were renamed, missile launchers and missiles followed (and were swiftly changed back after community outcry)
Will ship names follow? Will my Atron become a "Restrained Gallente Frigate I", as that is the route you are going down.
By all means, sort out the imbalances that allow meta 4 to be a better option than T2 (Webs, scrams, ECM etc) but please leave the names alone. |
RenoIdo
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 16:57:00 -
[30] - Quote
Are small balance and graphics patches all we can expect from now on?
I have been playing since 2010 and all that's been added is just a little fluff on top of the same exact game I've been playing this whole time, and... some balancing.
The facts:
1) No real expansion since 2010
2) Game has lost subs and average concurrent players every year since 2010
3) CCP is being so poorly managed they can't see the correlation between facts 1 and 2. |
|
Ranamar
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
71
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 16:57:00 -
[31] - Quote
Altrue wrote:I don't understand why the "Restrained Capacitor Flux Coil" should have better stats AND lower fitting requirements than the T2 variation. Its 100% worse to fit the T2, something that shouldn't happen right AFTER a module rebalance
I was going to come here and post this, too. Is this a typo or an oversight?
Edit: I see it got addressed in the time I posted. |
Cristl
Perkone Caldari State
138
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 16:58:00 -
[32] - Quote
*spiritual first goes here* (Gargant, you utter cad, leave my posts alone)
Also, the Vigor MAPC market price shot up faster than I could react .
What about PWNAGE, surely we won't lose that? |
Ransu Asanari
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union The Predictables
137
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 17:00:00 -
[33] - Quote
From the Oceanus Patch Notes:
Micro B88 Core Augmentation -> Compact Compact Micro Auxiliary Power Core
So.. like double compact? Powder and Ball Alchemists Union - "Turning Lead into Gold since 2008" |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
834
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 17:00:00 -
[34] - Quote
PinkKnife wrote:So, while we're at this, what's the point of having multiple faction variants that are essentially the same thing? Do we really need a Cal navy and a Gurista/ Dread Gurista variation of a module that all have the same damn attributes? yes, so that the mods have a price cap (that's the point of the highsec navy LP store ones being the same as nullsec drop ones) |
PinkKnife
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
505
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 17:00:00 -
[35] - Quote
Ranamar wrote:Altrue wrote:I don't understand why the "Restrained Capacitor Flux Coil" should have better stats AND lower fitting requirements than the T2 variation. Its 100% worse to fit the T2, something that shouldn't happen right AFTER a module rebalance I was going to come here and post this, too. Is this a typo or an oversight? Edit: I see it got addressed in the time I posted.
Literally, read 7 posts up. Jesus it isn't that hard. |
Adaahh Gee
Sarz'na Khumatari The Unthinkables
120
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 17:05:00 -
[36] - Quote
Ransu Asanari wrote:From the Oceanus Patch Notes: Micro B88 Core Augmentation -> Compact Compact Micro Auxiliary Power Core So.. like double compact?
Double compact and "Micro" that makes it really small. |
Ranamar
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
71
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 17:06:00 -
[37] - Quote
PinkKnife wrote:Ranamar wrote:Altrue wrote:I don't understand why the "Restrained Capacitor Flux Coil" should have better stats AND lower fitting requirements than the T2 variation. Its 100% worse to fit the T2, something that shouldn't happen right AFTER a module rebalance I was going to come here and post this, too. Is this a typo or an oversight? Edit: I see it got addressed in the time I posted. Literally, read 7 posts up. Jesus it isn't that hard.
Literally wasn't there when I started posting... (as determined by not being able to click through from the previous dev post)
Also, I'm confused now. Wasn't restrained supposed to have reduced drawbacks, rather than increased drawbacks? |
Ransu Asanari
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union The Predictables
137
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 17:07:00 -
[38] - Quote
Not very happy with the Light Missile Launcher adjustments. It seems like the reduction in named modules is reducing choice and dumbing down missiles in general.
1. The "Ample" Launcher has the same fitting requirements as the Meta0 (6PG, 21CPU) , which is pretty poor. The previous version of the Limos, TE-2100, and Arbalest all had much better fitting than Meta0, and gave an actual tier that you could use to fit based on what your ship could spare. Compacting this seems like a nerf. If anything, reduce the CPU fitting on the "Ample" launcher to somewhere between 17-20 so it is equivalent to where the Arbalest was, while still having it be better than the Meta0.
2. I am happy that the "Compact" Launcher kept the same fitting as the Malkuth, as that was necessary for a lot of fittings, such as the Talwar.
3. You mentioned varied specializations for Gunnery modules to include things like tracking. Why not have variant Missile modules that vary range, explosion radius/velocity or other values as an equivalent? Powder and Ball Alchemists Union - "Turning Lead into Gold since 2008" |
Lyron-Baktos
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
463
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 17:08:00 -
[39] - Quote
The basic modules make no sense to me How the **** do you remove a signature? |
Callic Veratar
633
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 17:10:00 -
[40] - Quote
I'm hoping that the faction and cosmos modules are rebalanced after the meta 1-4 stuff is done to be equal but different in modifying their more important attributes. |
|
Mara Tessidar
Dark Star Safari Logistics
1167
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 17:13:00 -
[41] - Quote
Capacitor flux coils are still useless. Color me surprised. |
Hawkin Shadowblade
Paragon Trust The Bastion
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 17:15:00 -
[42] - Quote
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. |
Lelira Cirim
EVE University Ivy League
161
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 17:16:00 -
[43] - Quote
Did Fozzie redo Damage Controls like he talked about? :) Do not actively tank my patience. || -áEvents Team -á|| -áUniWiki Team |
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
356
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 17:20:00 -
[44] - Quote
Shouldn't Scoped Survey Scanner have a CPU requirement of 5 not 4? Seems odd that the Scoped is reducing CPU and giving range. |
Cristl
Perkone Caldari State
138
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 17:22:00 -
[45] - Quote
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. |
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1210
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 17:25:00 -
[46] - Quote
Hey, baby, wanna see my Ample Launcher?
(I really wouldn't mind the old names back, or at least something less awkward-sounding.)
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables. |
Adaahh Gee
Sarz'na Khumatari The Unthinkables
120
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 17:26:00 -
[47] - Quote
We've been here before, is it a two year cycle?
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=61741 |
Aquila Sagitta
Blue-Fire
504
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 17:30:00 -
[48] - Quote
Ranamar wrote:[quote=PinkKnife]
Also, I'm confused now. Wasn't restrained supposed to have reduced drawbacks, rather than increased drawbacks?
Yeah cap flux are pretty fucky.
Preliminary tests:
Gnosis with only 100mn mwd 1 = 2:10; 2531 GJ 1 cfc2 (2:00; 2025GJ); cpr (2:30) 2 cfc2 (2:10; 1620GJ); cpr (3:30) 3 cfc2 (5:00; 1296GJ); cpr (15:00) 4 cfc2 (21.7%; 1036GJ); cpr (22.7%) 5 cfc2 (40.3%; 829GJ); cpr (41.2%) 6 cfc2 (54.5%; 663GJ); cpr (55.3%) Blue-Fire Best Fire |
Ransu Asanari
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union The Predictables
137
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 17:32:00 -
[49] - Quote
Man I still find website articles referring to "Cold-Gas Arcjet Thrusters" as the best ones.
Think of all the blogs/sites that are now going to be out of date once the names start changing again.
Maybe CCP should build and provide a find/replace file for the module tiercide to make it easier for external resource managers like EVE University WIki to make updates? Powder and Ball Alchemists Union - "Turning Lead into Gold since 2008" |
Ponder Yonder
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
41
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 17:36:00 -
[50] - Quote
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. |
|
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
126
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 17:41:00 -
[51] - Quote
Ransu Asanari wrote:Man I still find website articles referring to "Cold-Gas Arcjet Thrusters" as the best ones. Think of all the blogs/sites that are now going to be out of date once the names start changing again. Maybe CCP should build and provide a find/replace file for the module tiercide to make it easier for external resource managers like EVE University WIki to make updates?
There's a common ground to be had.
Special naming sucks when you want to find a processor upgrade and search for "proc" on the market and find
Co-Processer I Nanoelectrical Co-Processer 1 Quantum Co-Processor 1 Co-Processer II
but not
Nanomechanical CPU Enhancer I or Photonic CPU Enhancer I
which are probably the meta item you want and now have to spend extra clicks to Info on the base model, variations, info, show market details. That is bad naming complexity with no value.
But I agree that something other than standard MMO prefix/suffix fare is desired. |
Ion Rubix
University of Caille Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 17:41:00 -
[52] - Quote
Although I can appreciate the direction you're taking some of the names are less a than inspiring! An online thesaurus gave me better options:
* Restrained - Limited, Suppressed, Inhibited
* Enduring - Sustained
* Ample (Seriously!!!) - Expanded, Extensive
Some of these alternatives I've seen somewhere before... now let me think... |
Zifrian
Licentia Ex Vereor Black Core Alliance
1565
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 17:42:00 -
[53] - Quote
What does this mean for invention as mentioned in the previous dev blog? Are you getting ahead of yourself? GÇ£Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do. GÇ¥ - Dale Carnegie
Maximze your Industry Potential! - Download EVE Isk per Hour! |
Hawkin Shadowblade
Paragon Trust The Bastion
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 17:44:00 -
[54] - 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.
The "scoped"/"ample"/etc. shouldn't be there at all, in my opinion. As Cristl stated, it was a huge point of immersion when you'd actually have to look up and research your gear, it's advantages and disadvantages and why you would or wouldn't use it compared to other similar modules. I think if they're going to rename them, and I frankly think they should, they should take the opportunity to kind of tie the modules into the lore a bit more. Names suggesting a railgun that specializes in range is of Intaki origin or such. This is their opportunity to either really boost the immersion, or seriously damage it. |
scimichar
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
225
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 17:44:00 -
[55] - Quote
Still no reason to use T1 over scoped, ample, or T2. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
826
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 17:49:00 -
[56] - Quote
please fix laser naming, it's totally horrible and makes me mad:
dual light beam laser small focused beam laser
so first thing is we have light and we have small. I'm thinking you should either have things being light medium heavy, or you have them be small medium large. having both in the same set of modules upsets me greatly.
and secondly, we have the 'size' word in a different place on each - should be either dual light and small focused, or it should be light dual and focused small.
so to make me happy, we would have 'dual light' and 'light focused'. or we'd find something new entirely, because small focused is stupid, and medium is also stupid.
and I'm sure these will be gone, but:
Dual Heavy Modulated Energy Beam I Dual Heavy Modulated Pulse Energy Beam I
you're killing me here.
/autism |
Hawkin Shadowblade
Paragon Trust The Bastion
2
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 17:49:00 -
[57] - Quote
scimichar wrote:Still no reason to use T1 over scoped, ample, or T2. That's another thing I was interested in seeing, if they'd have any reason to use the meta 0 (What is civilian then? Meta -1?) modules. The three logical courses are they remove meta 0's completely, which would be a waste. Make them the go-to all around weapons without the bonuses and inferred penalties of Meta 1's. Or simply make them relatively dirt cheap. |
Almethea
Trans Stellar Express
159
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 17:49:00 -
[58] - Quote
Destroying EVE history, One parts At A Time ?
even if i can undestand it will more easy for the precious new player xp, i feel old may be it's time for me WTS BPO : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=307169 |
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
126
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 17:50:00 -
[59] - Quote
scimichar wrote:Still no reason to use T1 over scoped, ample, or T2.
The scoped or ample modules should penalize the stat they are not improving thus making T1 the middle ground module vs. one that sacrifices A for B. |
Adaahh Gee
Sarz'na Khumatari The Unthinkables
121
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 17:51:00 -
[60] - Quote
Obil Que wrote:Ransu Asanari wrote:Man I still find website articles referring to "Cold-Gas Arcjet Thrusters" as the best ones. Think of all the blogs/sites that are now going to be out of date once the names start changing again. Maybe CCP should build and provide a find/replace file for the module tiercide to make it easier for external resource managers like EVE University WIki to make updates? There's a common ground to be had. Special naming sucks when you want to find a processor upgrade and search for "proc" on the market and find Co-Processer I Nanoelectrical Co-Processer 1 Quantum Co-Processor 1 Co-Processer II but not Nanomechanical CPU Enhancer I or Photonic CPU Enhancer I which are probably the meta item you want and now have to spend extra clicks to Info on the base model, variations, info, show market details. That is bad naming complexity with no value. But I agree that something other than standard MMO prefix/suffix fare is desired.
I tend to look up "proc", then hit variations and use the compare tool to find the module with the stats that suit the job and budget for the task in hand. My main concern is that Eve will turn into a very "beige" game with everything named similarrly, all the ships balanced and all the NPC's pretty much the same (don't even get me started on Rogue drone loot removal and the adding of bounties to them)
|
|
Seismic Stan
Freebooted Junkworks
507
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 17:52:00 -
[61] - Quote
I understand the need for this balancing pass and adding usability and diversity is great, but to echo some of the comments already made, it's a shame that the character and flavour has to be expunged from the item names.
For example, missile launcher 'brands' like 'Arbalest', 'Limos', 'Malkuth' et al give a bit of depth for the low, low price of one word. Banishing them entirely seems a shame. Is there no way to retain some element of this character?
Also, 'ample'? Really? Perhaps I'm more of a misogynist than I realised, but that just makes me think of boobs. EVE Online: The Text Adventure --- GameSkinny Correspondent --- Freebooted Blogger |
Ryan Rs
Strange Energy The Bastion
18
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 17:53:00 -
[62] - Quote
Please don't collapse all faction tackle into one meta level. Having multiple range / price points is very useful.
Currently the pricing for faction tackle works in a similar way to deadspace mods. Small boosts in performance command big price increases. It's not like the situation with named co-procs where everyone automatically goes for the meta 4. Please preserve multiple range / price points in faction tackle. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
826
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 17:55:00 -
[63] - Quote
also for the majority of weapon systems, ammo capacity is not a thing. it only seems to come into play for railguns, rockets, cruise missiles and torpedoes. and obviously rapid launchers, but only scrubs use those. |
Wander Prian
Arctic Light Inc. Arctic Light
37
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 17:56:00 -
[64] - Quote
Why not use the meta-levels as the way to differentiate between different mods ? Like meta1 being easier to fit, meta2 taking less cap etc etc. That way we can keep the old names and keep it interesting |
Berluth Luthian
Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION
200
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 17:57:00 -
[65] - Quote
Will you also be looking at faction module lp and tag prices to try to balance lp stores? |
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
356
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 18:01:00 -
[66] - 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.
Names should convey something useful to the user/consumer. What does the 3200 stand for? What does it represent? Does it convey anything useful? If these can't be answered, then it is a horrible product name.
Flavor can still be done through description text. |
Maennas Vaer
Twisted Insanity. The Kadeshi
11
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 18:03:00 -
[67] - Quote
Ponder Yonder wrote:
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.
I do agree with the argument that EVE will lose some of its immersion with this change as much as I like the new names. This guys suggestion is a good middle ground. +1 |
Anzomi Inkunen
SukaX Drive Yards
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 18:05:00 -
[68] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:IIIMAPOBOgKA wrote:What will happen with invention where you could "sacrifice" a meta 4 module to augment your success rate if all the mods are dropping to meta 1 ? As stated in the devblog about invention, that's being removed.
Yes but that invention change isn't supposed to happen for a bit (or at least for this release). What will happen in the meantime to the invention of those modules? |
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
356
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 18:06:00 -
[69] - Quote
Seismic Stan wrote:I understand the need for this balancing pass and adding usability and diversity is great, but to echo some of the comments already made, it's a shame that the character and flavour has to be expunged from the item names.
For example, missile launcher 'brands' like 'Arbalest', 'Limos', 'Malkuth' et al give a bit of depth for the low, low price of one word. Banishing them entirely seems a shame. Is there no way to retain some element of this character?
Also, 'ample'? Really? Perhaps I'm more of a misogynist than I realised, but that just makes me think of boobs.
How about Voluminous? |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
897
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 18:10:00 -
[70] - Quote
i find the T2 mods just being plain better at everything a little at odds with role based mods...
T2 lml is better at everything ... surely allowing the use of T2 ammo is enough of a buff in itself?? why use the ample version when T2 is better at it?? 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.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please |
|
khaip ur
K.C.C
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 18:11:00 -
[71] - Quote
Shouldn't it be something like
Capacitor Flux Coil I 36% 10 -20%
Compact Capacitor Flux Coil 37% 8 -20%
Restrained Capacitor Flux Coil 37%10 -18%
Upgraded Capacitor Flux Coil 38% 10 -20%
Capacitor Flux Coil II 40%14-20% |
David Magnus
297
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 18:12:00 -
[72] - Quote
These look like great, straight-forward changes.
Awesome work, thanks! http://soundcloud.com/davidkmagnus/fight-us-maybe http://soundcloud.com/davidkmagnus/winterupdate http://soundcloud.com/davidkmagnus/supercaps http://soundcloud.com/davidkmagnus/pandemiclegion |
JamesT KirkJr
the oasis group TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 18:12:00 -
[73] - Quote
Marcel Devereux wrote: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. Names should convey something useful to the user/consumer. What does the 3200 stand for? What does it represent? Does it convey anything useful? If these can't be answered, then it is a horrible product name. Flavor can still be done through description text.
Please look at the world you live in and tell me wtf marketing was thinking when they named stuff. I mean, like ANYTHING. What does "Antec" communicate to me about a computer case? How about "Asus G750" which is the computer I am using? Camry for a car? seriously, if you can find anything, it's going to be an exception to the rule.
I'm sorry, but your point is baseless irl. It's up to the consumer to know what they're buying, and by looking at the Variations on the ML tab and checking market data, I instantly knew that XT-3200 was the best bang for the isk in HML. I might have also needed to check Requirements, but that's another tab on the same window, and that takes seconds.
The problem was finding where that info lived in the first place. If CCP wants to improve their player experience for everyone, mass DB operations which change names and stats isn't the answer. Fixing your godawful MSWord Menus in Space UI is the answer, because they're the biggest barriers to gameplay there is.
Just count clicks to find info that you expect right at hand sometimes. I dare you. CCP could leave the entire rest of the game alone and increase enjoyment by hundreds of percent just by making a UI that works like a space game UI. |
Valterra Craven
278
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 18:12:00 -
[74] - Quote
Man, the market sure reacts quickly to changes... oh well not fast enough for this one :(
I do see a couple problems.
1. The meta layout of your re balance makes no sense. a. Why have meta gaps? (shouldn't the number increase like power does and not skip numbers) b. Why are basic modules meta 6 and t1 mods are meta 0... basic should be meta 0 and t1 should be meta 1...
2. I notice that there seems to be no reason to fit a t1 cap flux coil. The t1 flux coil takes 5 more cpu but the basic has the exact same stats as the t1...
Which brings me to this point. That is incredible sloppy given that you know for a fact that problem already exists with several classes of modules. One of the primary things of this change should be to ensure that stuff like that doesn't happen anywhere in the meta.
3. When you changed the refine efficiency you cut the value on the market in HALF of a lot of modules. Seriously, go look at the market and see how many things dropped 50% in value over night because of that change. So what I recommend is that you boost the refine for all of the modules that this affected to what they were giving pre-crius. This shouldn't affect manufacturing because as you said, none of these have blueprints and can't be made by players. |
Adaahh Gee
Sarz'na Khumatari The Unthinkables
121
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 18:14:00 -
[75] - Quote
Marcel Devereux wrote:
Names should convey something useful to the user/consumer. What does the 3200 stand for? What does it represent? Does it convey anything useful? If these can't be answered, then it is a horrible product name.
Flavor can still be done through description text.
I have always seen the named item as a brand, like Pepsi, McDonalds or Nike. They don't "mean" anything, they don't say anything about the item, but once you are familiar, you just know that Pepsi is a Cola drink, Mcdonalds is fast food (mainly burgers) and Nike is trainers (or sneakers if you are American)
Imagine how boring life would be if you went out for a "Fast food restaurant I" wearing your "Sports footwear II" and had a refreshing drink of "Cola flavoured Beverage III"
And we'd all be playing "Internet MMORPG based in space I" not Eve Online. |
Cristl
Perkone Caldari State
139
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 18:14:00 -
[76] - Quote
Marcel Devereux wrote:Names should convey something useful to the user/consumer. What does the 3200 stand for? What does it represent? Does it convey anything useful? If these can't be answered, then it is a horrible product name.
Flavor can still be done through description text.
I disagree. Consider some, say, Motto Guzzi motorcycles: do the names 'Griso 8V SE', 'Stelvio 1200 NTX' and 'Norge GT 8V' convey much? No, they need to be looked up. That builds interest, and then appreciation.
And they're surely much better names than 'Slightly Increased Fuel Economy V7', even if you have no interest in motorcycles. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
826
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 18:15:00 -
[77] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:i find the T2 mods just being plain better at everything a little at odds with role based mods...
T2 lml is better at everything ... surely allowing the use of T2 ammo is enough of a buff in itself?? why use the ample version when T2 is better at it??
in a general weapons fix, they should allow T2 ammo to be used by all weapons, and get weapon spec skills affecting all tiers of weapons. obviously also they should be nerfing T2 ammo into the ground, but yeah. |
Lexiana Del'Amore
Nouvelle Rouvenor Monkeys with Guns.
84
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 18:17:00 -
[78] - Quote
RIP Arbalest :'( |
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
356
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 18:17:00 -
[79] - Quote
JamesT KirkJr wrote:Marcel Devereux wrote: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. Names should convey something useful to the user/consumer. What does the 3200 stand for? What does it represent? Does it convey anything useful? If these can't be answered, then it is a horrible product name. Flavor can still be done through description text. Please look at the world you live in and tell me wtf marketing was thinking when they named stuff. I mean, like ANYTHING. What does "Antec" communicate to me about a computer case? How about "Asus G750" which is the computer I am using? Camry for a car? seriously, if you can find anything, it's going to be an exception to the rule. I'm sorry, but your point is baseless irl. It's up to the consumer to know what they're buying, and by looking at the Variations on the ML tab and checking market data, I instantly knew that XT-3200 was the best bang for the isk in HML. I might have also needed to check Requirements, but that's another tab on the same window, and that takes seconds. The problem was finding where that info lived in the first place. If CCP wants to improve their player experience for everyone, mass DB operations which change names and stats isn't the answer. Fixing your godawful MSWord Menus in Space UI is the answer, because they're the biggest barriers to gameplay there is. Just count clicks to find info that you expect right at hand sometimes. I dare you. CCP could leave the entire rest of the game alone and increase enjoyment by hundreds of percent just by making a UI that works like a space game UI.
And you proved my point. Those are all horrible names and the marketing/product people that came up with them should be fired. Look at the iPhone, Nexus, and Samsung devices. The names actually mean something, have progression, and can be easily deciphered by the consumer.
|
JamesT KirkJr
the oasis group TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 18:20:00 -
[80] - Quote
CCP Gargant wrote:Oceanus is released next week and with it starts the advertised module rebalancing. To start out with the team decided to target eight specific groups of modules and CCP Fozzie has written a dev blog to explain the reasoning, method, and the groups. Head on over here to check it out. Oceanus is released on Tuesday, September 30th. These changes are looking very good. What do you think?
Honestly? That no creator of anything ever is a reliable judge of "what's good" where their creation is concerned. Judging your work is our job. Ty for keeping a professional perspective.
|
|
Absolutely Not Analt
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
167
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 18:27:00 -
[81] - Quote
Marcel Devereux wrote:Seismic Stan wrote:I understand the need for this balancing pass and adding usability and diversity is great, but to echo some of the comments already made, it's a shame that the character and flavour has to be expunged from the item names.
For example, missile launcher 'brands' like 'Arbalest', 'Limos', 'Malkuth' et al give a bit of depth for the low, low price of one word. Banishing them entirely seems a shame. Is there no way to retain some element of this character?
Also, 'ample'? Really? Perhaps I'm more of a misogynist than I realised, but that just makes me think of boobs. How about Voluminous?
That's only appropriate when discussing bloomers Eve is a multi player game.-áAnd you are the content. - Ralph King-Griffin Being meh at two things is not better than being great at one. - Lugh Crow-Slave
|
Vesan Terakol
The Vo'Shun Bad Intention
84
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 18:30:00 -
[82] - Quote
Can we get some sort of a merge between the current naming system and the new one? I appreciate the clarity, but this way the names sound way too artificial.
E.G. Quote "Prototype 'Arbalest' Light Missile Launcher is now Compact Light Missile Launcher"
Or wouldn't it sound better as ]COMPACT 'Arbalest' Light Missile Launcher[
It will still retain the clarity without making it sound too generic. Because having this "special" module does bear some degree of awesomeness, even when diminished by its inferiority compared to t2
P.S. This information should have been out earlier, way earlier, as i see this opinion of mine is shred by a good amount of players. You need the feedback on those name changes! Because you need better ones! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4259327 - more suff in the Zero.Zero collection |
Moraguth
Ranger Corp
87
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 18:30:00 -
[83] - Quote
I'd like to add my low rumbling of disapproval for the name changes. Yay balancing, boo name changes.
Additionally, I liked the thesaurus use from an earlier post, I think these might be some better alternatives.
Quote: Upgraded- Used for named modules where no specialization is possible Compact- Used for named modules that specialize in reduced fitting cost Enduring- Used for named modules that specialize in lower cap use or otherwise longer running time Ample- Used for named modules that specialize in extra capacity Scoped- Used for named modules that specialize in longer range Restrained- Used for named modules that specialize in reduced drawbacks
Upgraded - i'm okay with this prefix Compact - Efficient (same functionality, less use of fittings) Enduring - Optimized (same fittings, less resource usage for activation) Ample - Expanded/Extended (like an extended magazine for a gun - same utility, more shots before reload) Scoped - Charged/Overcharged (it makes me think of having extra powder in a bullet, so longer range) Restrained - Optimized (again. I think this works for both as they kind of do the same thing)
.... Is there a module that exists that could have a "Enduring" version as well as a "Restrained" version? I can't think of any off the top of my head, so I don't really have a problem using the same prefix to do a similar job under different circumstances. I can kill you with my brain too. It's genetic.
Please, for the love of the whatever you hold dear, stop calling an Abaddon "abba-dawn".-á It is "uh-bad-in" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abaddon |
Seismic Stan
Freebooted Junkworks
508
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 18:30:00 -
[84] - Quote
Marcel Devereux wrote:Seismic Stan wrote:I understand the need for this balancing pass and adding usability and diversity is great, but to echo some of the comments already made, it's a shame that the character and flavour has to be expunged from the item names.
For example, missile launcher 'brands' like 'Arbalest', 'Limos', 'Malkuth' et al give a bit of depth for the low, low price of one word. Banishing them entirely seems a shame. Is there no way to retain some element of this character?
Also, 'ample'? Really? Perhaps I'm more of a misogynist than I realised, but that just makes me think of boobs. How about Voluminous? Buxom Light Rocket Launchers? EVE Online: The Text Adventure --- GameSkinny Correspondent --- Freebooted Blogger |
JamesT KirkJr
the oasis group TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 18:33:00 -
[85] - Quote
Marcel Devereux wrote:JamesT KirkJr wrote:Marcel Devereux wrote:Ponder Yonder wrote:Cristl wrote:
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. Names should convey something useful to the user/consumer. What does the 3200 stand for? What does it represent? Does it convey anything useful? If these can't be answered, then it is a horrible product name. Flavor can still be done through description text. Please look at the world you live in and tell me wtf marketing was thinking when they named stuff. I mean, like ANYTHING. What does "Antec" communicate to me about a computer case? How about "Asus G750" which is the computer I am using? Camry for a car? seriously, if you can find anything, it's going to be an exception to the rule. I'm sorry, but your point is baseless irl. It's up to the consumer to know what they're buying, and by looking at the Variations on the ML tab and checking market data, I instantly knew that XT-3200 was the best bang for the isk in HML. I might have also needed to check Requirements, but that's another tab on the same window, and that takes seconds. The problem was finding where that info lived in the first place. If CCP wants to improve their player experience for everyone, mass DB operations which change names and stats isn't the answer. Fixing your godawful MSWord Menus in Space UI is the answer, because they're the biggest barriers to gameplay there is. Just count clicks to find info that you expect right at hand sometimes. I dare you. CCP could leave the entire rest of the game alone and increase enjoyment by hundreds of percent just by making a UI that works like a space game UI. And you proved my point. Those are all horrible names and the marketing/product people that came up with them should be fired. Look at the iPhone, Nexus, and Samsung devices. The names actually mean something, have progression, and can be easily deciphered by the consumer.
Umm if your point was "I can cherrypick examples of what supports my point and just say "I win"", then I suppose I did. But unless I misunderstood you, your whole argument was that names "should do this". My point was that the vast majority of product names don't irl, and that system actually works well enough.
The problem with your argument is that CCP was representing many fictional entities' naming when they wrote the mod names, and that is actually consistent with how naming works IRL. In Eve, that makes for a major immersive element. And as I said above, oddball names aren't actually harmful to the selection process per se, unless there's no OTHER information to go on.
The problem here is that the player can't get the information they need to make a decision based on the size and stats of the mod without a lot of clickery through a deep tree menu, and even then we have more clickery to see stats. The ordinary answer is "improve the UI so players CAN see the info they're looking for", but apparently CCP just wants to run mass DB inserts instead of actually fixing the root problem here. |
Vesan Terakol
The Vo'Shun Bad Intention
85
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 18:38:00 -
[86] - Quote
Moraguth wrote:I'd like to add my low rumbling of disapproval for the name changes. Yay balancing, boo name changes. Additionally, I liked the thesaurus use from an earlier post, I think these might be some better alternatives. Quote: Upgraded- Used for named modules where no specialization is possible Compact- Used for named modules that specialize in reduced fitting cost Enduring- Used for named modules that specialize in lower cap use or otherwise longer running time Ample- Used for named modules that specialize in extra capacity Scoped- Used for named modules that specialize in longer range Restrained- Used for named modules that specialize in reduced drawbacks
Upgraded - i'm okay with this prefix Compact - Efficient (same functionality, less use of fittings) Enduring - Optimized (same fittings, less resource usage for activation) Ample - Expanded/Extended (like an extended magazine for a gun - same utility, more shots before reload) Scoped - Charged/Overcharged (it makes me think of having extra powder in a bullet, so longer range) Restrained - Optimized (again. I think this works for both as they kind of do the same thing) .... Is there a module that exists that could have a "Enduring" version as well as a "Restrained" version? I can't think of any off the top of my head, so I don't really have a problem using the same prefix to do a similar job under different circumstances.
What you say, good sir, is brilliant!
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4259327 - more suff in the Zero.Zero collection |
AssandTits
University of Caille Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 18:42:00 -
[87] - Quote
Uninspiring, bland and quite functionally pointless balance pass so far.
You are removing choice in the name of ... choice? And yet when your game is on the verge of having a fight to the death with TWO major competitors you dumb it down. Other games tried this, it cost them upwards of 50% of their subscriptions. Heed well the story of the NGE.
What is happening here is simple and easy to see, you ****** up invention making it too easy and accessible and you need to drive T2 sales to keep the invention monkeys happy. So you reduce the effectiveness of meta, you run faction/deadspace up in price by making modules that currently are useless usable (therefore making the nullbears on the CSM happy) and **** the newbie.
You also use balance on weapon systems to hide the complete **** up you are making of Interceptors. Like the Drake, you take the easy route instead of admitting your failure (another trait of a failing corporate structure by the way) and dealing with the problem.
|
Rook Mallard
Aperture Harmonics
11
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 18:42:00 -
[88] - Quote
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.
Gaaaah!! Deja-vu times 100!
We went down this road when you messed up the AB and MWD names a while back. It seems that the feedback you got back then was quickly forgotten.
You are now getting rid of trademark names like 'Arbalest', 'Limos', 'Malkuth'. Moreover, the "standarized" names you chose are hideous. Use the description tab for each module to explain what they do and stop screwing up names and killing immersion. What type of dark hard-code sci-fi setting are you turning EVE into when you start naming everything using just 4 words??
Also, Ample? Really? |
Krodes Thara
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 18:48:00 -
[89] - Quote
For sure having 5 faction modules with same stats is not confusing and it is good game design... What about the lore with each faction excelling in something? Are you going to trow all that away? I'm okay with the rest somehow, but faction modules should have different qualities and uses.
When you get to shields Pithi and Gisti shields will have the same attributes? |
Copper Khai
18
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 18:55:00 -
[90] - Quote
thanks for all that you do. one small criticism.
Some named modules are not EVE-like. they sound like magic items. Maybe you are doing it for beginners or cross over MMO players. But it stuck out to my ears.
Ample? Enduring?
not very scientific...
- Upgraded- ok
- Compact- ok (nanu, spun, )
- Enduring- no (efficient, stable, streamlined, normalized, eco, rewired, )
- Ample- no (flushed, distended, augmented)
- Scoped- ok
- Restrained- (insulated, confined)
|
|
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
836
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 18:56:00 -
[91] - Quote
Rook Mallard wrote: We went down this road when you messed up the AB and MWD names a while back. It seems that the feedback you got back then was quickly forgotten.
You are now getting rid of trademark names like 'Arbalest', 'Limos', 'Malkuth'. Moreover, the "standarized" names you chose are hideous. Use the description tab for each module to explain what they do and stop screwing up names and killing immersion. What type of dark hard-code sci-fi setting are you turning EVE into when you start naming everything using just 4 words??
Also, Ample? Really?
I'm going to clue you in on something: the people who get very, very mad when you change a name are a loud, tiny minority. I'm glad CCP remembers that.
The name change is great. Nane changes seem to be one of those things that really triggers some hard sperging but they're solidly good: I hate having to look up which one of four random names is the 'good' meta module. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
899
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 18:56:00 -
[92] - Quote
on the weapon systems .. ammo needs a big revisit .. people use the T2 guns as soon as possible because T1 ammo has very poor choice ...
T2 should be a long train lv5 skills with spec skills/ T2 ammo .. meta/roles should be viable alternatives using T1/faction ammo providing useful alternatives .. like
- ammo capacity - cap usage - lower fittings - better tracking etc..
but making T2 just better at everything makes the choices .. non choices 95% of the time 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.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please |
Lexiana Del'Amore
Nouvelle Rouvenor Monkeys with Guns.
84
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 19:15:00 -
[93] - Quote
so CCP logic is now meta 0, meta 1, meta 5, meta 6... brilliant.... |
Cae Lara
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 19:15:00 -
[94] - Quote
I'll have to dissent from everybody crying 'muh immersion'. Clicking through show info->variations->compare->click meta level to literally look at a spreadsheet on every item type is not immersion and is not enjoyable. Great, current players had to go through that nonsense so surely every player should have to from now until the end of time? How about no, but I can dig people asking for some of the flavor text to be retained on item names in addition to clear and consistent markers of what a module is and does.
+1 to finding better adjectives. Ample sounds goofy and scoped doesn't even begin to make sense. |
Maenth
The Thirteen Provinces
11
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 19:16:00 -
[95] - Quote
The 'Restrained' Capacitor Flux Coil I feel has an issue. The 'restrained' should have lower drawbacks, right? but it has the worst drawback in the group, as well as the best T1 bonus! Wouldn't the name Enduring be a bit more.. fitting ? |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
4430
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 19:25:00 -
[96] - Quote
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 cleaned up. @ccp_rise |
|
Mauvian
1st Steps Academy Fidelas Constans
2
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 19:28:00 -
[97] - Quote
So.... back to Cap Flux coils again.....
Fozzy you said... "Capacitor Flux coils ... and a second that has a reduced capacitor capacity drawback amount (but similar overall cap recharge)."
Restrained Capacitor Flux Coil 41% 10 -25% 1
Yet the numbers on the restrained Cap Flux Coil instead show more recharge and more draw back.
Were you intending those stats? Or were you intending something more along the lines of....
37% 10 -15% 1?
Either your paragraph describing changes should be edited or the stats should :D
Edit: looks like CCP Rise got in before I did! |
TigerXtrm
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
877
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 19:32:00 -
[98] - Quote
scimichar wrote:Still no reason to use T1 over scoped, ample, or T2.
Try cost. Supply and demand will sort it out.
Valterra Craven wrote:Man, the market sure reacts quickly to changes... oh well not fast enough for this one :(
I do see a couple problems.
1. The meta layout of your re balance makes no sense. a. Why have meta gaps? (shouldn't the number increase like power does and not skip numbers) b. Why are basic modules meta 6 and t1 mods are meta 0... basic should be meta 0 and t1 should be meta 1...
Because Legacy Code. Dun dun dun!!!
Good balance pass overall, will be interesting to see how modules are going to be used. What I don't get is two things:
1. Who possibly uses 'Civilian' type modules and why are they even in the game (and why haven't they been taken out during this pass?)
2. The hell are basic modules? Something from the 2003 era? Again, why not just take them out of the game completely if no-one ever uses them? My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things! |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
899
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 19:33:00 -
[99] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: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.
what about the weapons .. Lml's ... i've made a few posts about T2 weapons etc.. 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.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please |
Mauvian
1st Steps Academy Fidelas Constans
2
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 19:39:00 -
[100] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:scimichar wrote:Still no reason to use T1 over scoped, ample, or T2. Try cost. Supply and demand will sort it out. Valterra Craven wrote:Man, the market sure reacts quickly to changes... oh well not fast enough for this one :(
I do see a couple problems.
1. The meta layout of your re balance makes no sense. a. Why have meta gaps? (shouldn't the number increase like power does and not skip numbers) b. Why are basic modules meta 6 and t1 mods are meta 0... basic should be meta 0 and t1 should be meta 1...
Because Legacy Code. Dun dun dun!!! Good balance pass overall, will be interesting to see how modules are going to be used. What I don't get is two things: 1. Who possibly uses 'Civilian' type modules and why are they even in the game (and why haven't they been taken out during this pass?) 2. The hell are basic modules? Something from the 2003 era? Again, why not just take them out of the game completely if no-one ever uses them?
I use Civilian type weapons on my Drone boats for ratting. Gives me something to gain aggro with, that doesn't use ammo.
|
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
4146
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 19:45:00 -
[101] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: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.
Thank you for your hard work! |
Longdrinks
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
102
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 19:46:00 -
[102] - Quote
Looking forward to becoming ninth dan black belt in eft-fu when these hit tranquility. |
Schmata Bastanold
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
2778
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 19:56:00 -
[103] - Quote
Wake me up when you move to something actually useful like tackle, tank, propulsion and gank. Which one of 50 shades of fuse to use is not exactly most exciting part of fitting my ship. Invalid signature format |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
899
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 19:57:00 -
[104] - Quote
multiplies instead of percentages on the cpu/RC doesnt help either 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.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please |
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
760
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 20:07:00 -
[105] - Quote
Updating fits every 6 weeks for months on end .... who's not going to love that? CCP .. always first with the wrong stuff CSM .. CCP Shills with a vacation plan
|
Summer Isle
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
72
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 20:22:00 -
[106] - Quote
Change the Meta levels, as well, getting rid of the to-be-empty groups. Tech 2 would then be Meta 2.
...Halflife 2 confirmed? |
Summer Isle
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
73
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 20:29:00 -
[107] - Quote
Schmata Bastanold wrote:Wake me up when you move to something actually useful like tackle, tank, propulsion and gank. Which one of 50 shades of fuse to use is not exactly most exciting part of fitting my ship. Oh, god, everyone, Schmata isn't interested in the current modules. We need to fix this, stat! Burn the bridges and get rid of any module she doesn't use, we need to focus only on her boring-ass tackle ship! Go! Go! Go! Go! Let's move, people! |
Leyete Wulf
Dark Fusion Industries Limitless Redux
59
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 20:30:00 -
[108] - Quote
Restrained Cap Flux is still wacky and out of line with the other mods in its category. If the point is to scale the 'main stat(s)' along the meta then its regen stat is way to high (higher than all the others). And the penalty still doesn't correlate since fitting multiple restrained units would yield better performance than multiple tech two units.
Also, I think you just murdered my arbalest LML fit frigs as they will now take a hit in ROF (~6.66) reduce damage modifier (brought to par with meta 1) and reduced comparative bay size vs former limos and TE series launchers (also reducing sustained dps). I love the module tiericide but can I at least have my arbalests converted to the large bay versions? |
Ponder Yonder
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
42
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 20:37:00 -
[109] - Quote
Hi CCP,
Looking at the LML changes,this strikes me as odd:
Meta 0 should be the baseline. It should define the balance between PG/CPU and damage application. Meta 1+ modules should be harder to fit, with corresponding increases in damage application. This is very important for ships where PG/CPU is tight, providing players with decisions and trade-offs. It is also very important for new chars to be able to increase their damage application as their fitting skills improve.
Now look at the new LML's:
'Light' Meta 0: PG/CPU: 6/21, ROF: 16s, Capacity: 40 'Compact' Meta 1: PG/CPU: 6/16, ROF: 13.6s, Capacity: 40 'Ample' Meta 1: PG/CPU: 6/21, ROF: 13.6s, Capacity 48
That's it for the Tech 1 launchers!
Both Compact and Ample are the same or easier(!) to fit than meta 0, and provide better damage application. There is therefore no reason to fit meta 0 ever.
What makes this worse, is that there is no progression available for a character as their fitting skills increase. They are stuck with Compact or Ample until they hit Light Missiles V, when Meta 5 becomes an option. All the fitting skills will make absolutely no difference because there is no choice.
My suggestion would be that: a) Meta 1+ should be harder to fit than meta 0, with corresponding benefits. b) There should be a ladder of meta modules, with corresponding increases in benefits, that players can progress to as their skills improve.
It should be turned around as follows:
'Light' Meta 0: PG/CPU: 6/16, ROF: 16s, Capacity: 40 'Compact' Meta 1: PG/CPU: 6/21, ROF: 13.6s, Capacity: 40 'Ample' Meta 1: PG/CPU: 6/21, ROF: 16s, Capacity 48
Now there is a trade-off between fitting and damage application.
Absolutely make the benefits clear in the descriptions, but don't remove player choice. This is Eve. Players should make decisions. And decisions should have consequences. |
Tsukinosuke
Id Est The Volition Cult
16
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 20:47:00 -
[110] - Quote
better idea than current, so it seems an improvement.. anti-antagonist-á "not a friend of enemy of antagonist" |
|
Mequen Wheeler
CT Industries LLC UMBRELLA C0RP0RATI0N
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 20:50:00 -
[111] - Quote
Great. How will merging all the Meta 'Named' modules into 1 'Meta 1' category affect those of us who buy and sell in these modules? If I'd know this was to happen I'd have cancelled a LOT of buy orders. Oh ... right, that's not PvP so doesn't matter?
|
Zappity
SUPREME MATHEMATICS A Band Apart.
1344
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 20:52:00 -
[112] - Quote
Great dev blog and good direction. But I really don't like the naming conventions. Just re-purpose the existing named varieties for each group rather than generic 'scoped', 'restrained' etc. It removes too much depth. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
899
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 20:53:00 -
[113] - Quote
yes... meta 0 needs too have some function/role .. otherwise people will skip it entirely and go too the next meta up - lower fittings or better performance ... and then T2 it seems as T2 seems too be even better in performance than the best performing meta... some rethink is needed i think 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.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
459
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 20:55:00 -
[114] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:scimichar wrote:Still no reason to use T1 over scoped, ample, or T2. Try cost. Supply and demand will sort it out. Actually, no, it won't.
In most cases, the NPC drop rate and current supply of metas is so high that the market price of low metas is as low, or lower than, the build cost of T1.
Low meta module price, when the market supply is saturated, is roughly based on its reprocessing value. When the reprocessing numbers were cut by 50%, the price of most of the metas also dropped, but the cost of building T1 modules remained the same, which made the situation worse.
So, since most T1 modules always have (1) worse stats and (2) comparable or higher cost , when compared to low metas, they simply do not get used (when was the last time you saw someone post a T1 fit?) Which also means, ofc, no reason to build them, except as an ingredient in building T2 modules. This has also been one of the reasons that there isn't much noob manufacturing, outside of T1 ammo and rigs.
Combining the low and high metas into a single meta should further degrade the situation, since, effectively, all of those over-abundant low metas are becoming high metas, flooding the market.
CCP - any plan to address this issue? |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
791
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 20:55:00 -
[115] - Quote
Aquila Sagitta wrote:Could we get some numbers on the new cap flux coil vs cap power relays?
You nearly doubled the regen but you also doubled the penalties which makes me think they will still be useless or even worse then before.
The only time I've ever been interesting in using Cap Flux coils was when nos got rebalanced. Cap Flux coils reduce total cap but increase cap regen, allowing for some interesting niche fits. Those fits might be worth another look.
GÇ£I personally refuse to help AAA take space from itself so it can become an even shittier version of itselfGÇ¥ -Grath Telkin, 2014.
Free PASTA! |
snorkle25
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 20:58:00 -
[116] - Quote
Glad your cleaning up all these modules, there really is no need to have multiple varieties that no one uses (inertia stabs, I'm looking at you...).
That said, WTF?! When are you going to finish up fixing ships?! You go and buff the F out of the marauders but how about the black ops?! I'd really like to be able to have a Redeemer, Panther or sin that is actually worth the isk and SP I've invested into it instead of having a mini mobile bomber bridge.
Please finish up what you started and balance out the rest of the ships, up through Titans, thanks.
Yours truely, a customer. |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
791
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 21:09:00 -
[117] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote:Rook Mallard wrote: We went down this road when you messed up the AB and MWD names a while back. It seems that the feedback you got back then was quickly forgotten.
You are now getting rid of trademark names like 'Arbalest', 'Limos', 'Malkuth'. Moreover, the "standarized" names you chose are hideous. Use the description tab for each module to explain what they do and stop screwing up names and killing immersion. What type of dark hard-code sci-fi setting are you turning EVE into when you start naming everything using just 4 words??
Also, Ample? Really?
I'm going to clue you in on something: the people who get very, very mad when you change a name are a loud, tiny minority. I'm glad CCP remembers that. The name change is great. Name changes seem to be one of those things that really triggers some hard sperging but they're solidly good: I hate having to look up which one of four random names is the 'good' meta module.
I couldn't agree more. There's nothing worse than having to go to the comparison tool and select meta level to find out which item is the meta 4 one. Even after 5 years I still don't have them all memorized.
But I will genuinely miss the Arbalest launchers and meta 4 ECM when that one happens. Speaking of which... can I assume that this set of rebalances and renaming will include fixes to meta 4 items like ECM that are strictly better than T2? I want to know what to buy on the market. GÇ£I personally refuse to help AAA take space from itself so it can become an even shittier version of itselfGÇ¥ -Grath Telkin, 2014.
Free PASTA! |
Daimus Daranius
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 21:13:00 -
[118] - Quote
Hey CCP, I was hoping to see Shield Flux Coils fixed as part of module rebalance, since they are currently the most useless modules in EVE (I can't think of a single application where they would be useful). My suggestion - replace the shield recharge bonus with a reduction to either duration or cap use of shield boosters. |
Rain6637
Team Evil
19885
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 21:15:00 -
[119] - Quote
+1 for this new balancing philosophy, that preserves preceding ship balancing philosophies. President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Rainfleet on Twitch | Twitter | Rainfleet mk.III | Imgur |
Falin Whalen
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
728
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 21:24:00 -
[120] - Quote
Ponder Yonder wrote:Hi CCP,
Looking at the LML changes,this strikes me as odd:
Meta 0 should be the baseline. It should define the balance between PG/CPU and damage application. Meta 1+ modules should be harder to fit, with corresponding increases in damage application. This is very important for ships where PG/CPU is tight, providing players with decisions and trade-offs. It is also very important for new chars to be able to increase their damage application as their fitting skills improve.
Now look at the new LML's:
'Light' Meta 0: PG/CPU: 6/21, ROF: 16s, Capacity: 40 'Compact' Meta 1: PG/CPU: 6/16, ROF: 13.6s, Capacity: 40 'Ample' Meta 1: PG/CPU: 6/21, ROF: 13.6s, Capacity 48
That's it for the Tech 1 launchers!
Both Compact and Ample are the same or easier(!) to fit than meta 0, and provide better damage application. There is therefore no reason to fit meta 0 ever.
What makes this worse, is that there is no progression available for a character as their fitting skills increase. They are stuck with Compact or Ample until they hit Light Missiles V, when Meta 5 becomes an option. All the fitting skills will make absolutely no difference because there is no choice.
My suggestion would be that: a) Meta 1+ should be harder to fit than meta 0, with corresponding benefits. b) There should be a ladder of meta modules, with corresponding increases in benefits, that players can progress to as their skills improve.
It should be turned around as follows:
'Light' Meta 0: PG/CPU: 6/16, ROF: 16s, Capacity: 40 'Compact' Meta 1: PG/CPU: 6/21, ROF: 13.6s, Capacity: 40 'Ample' Meta 1: PG/CPU: 6/21, ROF: 16s, Capacity 48
Now there is a trade-off between fitting and damage application.
Absolutely make the benefits clear in the descriptions, but don't remove player choice. This is Eve. Players should make decisions. And decisions should have consequences. While I somewhat agree with you. It looks like there realy isn't a choice, go 'Ample' or go home, with the numbers as presented by CCP.
The numbers you put out realy even things out as far as balance and choice, but I would say that there is room for a third meta item in that list.
'Light' Meta 0: PG/CPU: 6/21, ROF: 16s, Capacity: 40 'Compact' Meta 1: PG/CPU: 6/16, ROF: 16s, Capacity: 40 'Ample' Meta 1: PG/CPU: 6/21, ROF: 16s, Capacity 48 'Augmented' Meta 1: PG/CPU: 6/21, ROF 13.6s, Capacity 40
There you go, a choice between fitting, capacity, or ROF.
"it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka-á |
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
5436
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 21:35:00 -
[121] - Quote
I'll join the chorus asking CCP, don't take my fancy names away from me!
With clear differences between models, it should be easy to see that the "Malkuth" range of missile launchers of all sizes is optimised for CPU (or general fitting) while the "Arbalest" is optimised for DPS (i.e.: larger ammunition magazine).
Encouraging players to actually read the "Show Info" details will help them understand the mechanics of the game better. If you simplify the space too much you enter the realm of "dumbing down". This might make the game "more accessible" to people who are less interested in exploring fittings and running calculators or simulators, but makes the game more boring to people who care about names, details, and the joy of learning.
In the name of the Limos, the Malkuth, and the Arbalest, so help me pod.
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5896
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 21:39:00 -
[122] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Aquila Sagitta wrote:Could we get some numbers on the new cap flux coil vs cap power relays?
You nearly doubled the regen but you also doubled the penalties which makes me think they will still be useless or even worse then before. The only time I've ever been interesting in using Cap Flux coils was when nos got rebalanced. Cap Flux coils reduce total cap but increase cap regen, allowing for some interesting niche fits. Those fits might be worth another look. Indeed, my thoughts exactly... especially on larger vessels. If you like EVE Online and War Thunder content stop by my YouTube channel.-á
Ranger 1 Presents https://www.youtube.com/user/Ranger1Presents |
Sven Viko VIkolander
Friends and Feminists
277
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 21:54:00 -
[123] - Quote
Hey Fozzie Overall these are great first changes to module rebalancing and I am really excited about how radically they are going to change standard fits. There is a ship-level meta and I hope this will create a better module-level meta as well. Probably the thing that will have the biggest impact is the name changes and standardizationGÇöit is going to help new players a lot since currently figuring out the differences between meta items is a huge hassle.
The fact that bitter vets here are largely complaining about the name choices is probably a good sign the plan is solid...
There are a few things I am confused about though, and a few questions I have about the project going forward:
1) The main thing I am confused about is the lack of meta 1 options available to light missile launchers, compared with the large amount of meta 1 options for the (proposed) future beam laser changes. Beam lasers (and similar weapons?) might get 4 or so different meta 1 options, while light missiles (and similar weapons?) are going to be limited to twoGÇöfitting, and extra capacity. This seems like a fairly large nerf to the general LML meta, given that the fitting options are going to be much more predictable for LMLs than they are for other systems like beam lasers et al. Why not try to maintain consistency across all weapon systems and have 4 or so meta 1 options? For missiles, why not add LML range and LML overheating capacity for instance?
2) Are all meta 1 items going to have the same heat properties? Why not have some meta 1 items that have better ability to overheat? (e.g., a GÇ£HardenedGÇ¥ light missile launcher variant.)
3) Going forward, can we expect that T2 modules will be uniformly better than the T1 meta 1 modules, or will some T2 modules remain terrible? For instance, T2 Microwarp drives are pretty much useless, the T2 Stasis Web is worse than the current meta 4, etc.
4) On the chart for the rebalance plan, you have faction items as having GÇ£more powerGÇ¥ than T2 items. Will this be uniformly implemented as well? For instance, I am thinking of modules such as the terrible line of faction turrets (e.g., faction railguns and that crap). Are these going to have a greater GÇ£power levelGÇ¥ than the respective T2 modules? In other words, will we finally see daredevils with blinged-out turrets as well? |
Falin Whalen
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
728
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 22:21:00 -
[124] - Quote
Sven Viko VIkolander wrote:WORDS
We have pointed out, that the things that shoot stuff have many atributes that can be enhanced. Just two for LMLs is a travesty. I do not think that heat damage should be one of them tho. There is already range, cap use, tracking, fitting, ROF, and ammunition load, that is six atributes that have to be crammed into four meta items. Which ones do you leave out? Projectiles don't have to worry about cap use, so it is a little better off with having to cram five atributes into four meta items, and missiles only have three off of that list, so they would be a snap.
Heat shouldn't be one of the things to fidle with in meta items, they are for all intents and purposes T1 items, just with 'enhanced' atributes.
"it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka-á |
Mohingan Dark
Chaotic Horizon
16
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 22:24:00 -
[125] - Quote
why are the meta 1 items all around better than the meta 0?
i thought the point was to make it where meta 1 was better in ONE STAT but had A DRAWBACK
example:
meta 0: light missile launcher 1 - BASE MODULE
meta 1: compact missile launcher - less cpu BUT worse range than meta 0 scoped (awful word choice) missile launcher - more range but worse rof than meta 0 ample missile launcher - more ammo but less explosion radius than meta 0
all meta 1 = same in every stat other than the bonus/drawbacks
in that case there would actually be a CHOICE in what module to take....do i need more range or do i need less cpu cause of my fit?
what this would also make happen is having t2 always better than the meta in that there would be no drawback....plus it would be easier to balance the faction/officer mods then too....
PS....some of the naming choices need a tweak.... |
Schmata Bastanold
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
2781
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 22:27:00 -
[126] - Quote
Summer Isle wrote:Schmata Bastanold wrote:Wake me up when you move to something actually useful like tackle, tank, propulsion and gank. Which one of 50 shades of fuse to use is not exactly most exciting part of fitting my ship. Oh, god, everyone, Schmata isn't interested in the current modules. We need to fix this, stat! Burn the bridges and get rid of any module she doesn't use, we need to focus only on her boring-ass tackle ship! Go! Go! Go! Go! Let's move, people!
Oh I'm sure you spend hours agonizing over flux coils and RCUs so I'm happy that first stage of tiercide will help you make right choices. It has to start somewhere after all.
But you have to admit that contrary to ship tiercide they chose not exactly the most popular groups to rebalance.
And next time try harder, less words more sarcasm and maybe I will even feel hurt :) Invalid signature format |
Esceem
Suns of New Eden
9
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 22:29:00 -
[127] - Quote
The game gets massively over balanced.
All the ship balancing, now the module balancing, "Tiericide", name standardisation etc. kills variety and thus immersion. Initially, I thought, you guys would just tweak a bit here and a bit there, where necessary - not iron everything flat just for the sake of change itself.
For some time now, EVE loses the feel of being a vital living world - just like a sandbox that contains, well, just lots of sand... Yawn.
|
handige harrie
Hedion University Amarr Empire
263
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 23:02:00 -
[128] - Quote
Nice changes in general,
but the names are bland and sound really unsci-fi -y. They are terrible really.
You can get much better and more fitting names if you use a different prefix and/or suffix for every itemgroup.
like with weapons:
+Optimal Range Railguns could be called 'Charged' +Optimal Range Artillery could be called 'Propelled' or 'extra propelled' +Optimal Range Ship Scanner could be called 'Long Range' +Reduced drawback Bulkheads could be called 'Big Boned'
You can make better fitting names that way and everything will remain pretty recognizable without getting too generic.
Baddest poster ever |
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
638
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 23:02:00 -
[129] - Quote
Krodes Thara wrote: For sure having 5 faction modules with same stats is not confusing and it is good game design... What about the lore with each faction excelling in something? Are you going to trow all that away? I'm okay with the rest somehow, but faction modules should have different qualities and uses.
When you get to shields Pithi and Gisti shields will have the same attributes?
with their roadmap it appears they intend to have different factions specialize in different bonuses. I think shield boosters are probably one of the best examples of that currently. Pith boosters boost more at the cost of cap where gist boosters use way less cap but don't boost as much. That said Gist boosters also seem to use way less CPU. so I'm not quite sure what the plan will be when they get there. imo the guristas line could probably use a slight boost somewhere, as people seem to be preferring ASBs to Pith boosters, at least on the large side. I would guess in the medium and small versions people are using undersized boosters so it smooths out the differences.
MWDs seem like another example, Serpentis (core) MWDs use more cap, have a smaller sig radius penalty, use more CPU, and Use less PG as compared to the Angel (gist) versions.
With both examples it isn't the simple A or B that seem to be presented in the current versions, but then again when buying top of the line fittings a few more complexities shouldn't really be a draw back?
CPU/PG upgrades are well, pretty boring. Maybe have one group boost a step down in power but also drop cpu use by a point or two? I'm not sure that is a meaningful enough change to really care about though. You can trust me, I have a monocole |
TigerXtrm
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
877
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 23:03:00 -
[130] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:TigerXtrm wrote:scimichar wrote:Still no reason to use T1 over scoped, ample, or T2. Try cost. Supply and demand will sort it out. Actually, no, it won't. In most cases, the NPC drop rate and current supply of metas is so high that the market price of low metas is as low, or lower than, the build cost of T1. Low meta module price, when the market supply is saturated, is roughly based on its reprocessing value. When the reprocessing numbers were cut by 50%, the price of most of the metas also dropped, but the cost of building T1 modules remained the same, which made the situation worse. So, since most T1 modules always have (1) worse stats and (2) comparable or higher cost , when compared to low metas, they simply do not get used (when was the last time you saw someone post a T1 fit?) Which also means, ofc, no reason to build them, except as an ingredient in building T2 modules. This has also been one of the reasons that there isn't much noob manufacturing, outside of T1 ammo and rigs. Combining the low and high metas into a single meta should further degrade the situation, since, effectively, all of those over-abundant low metas are becoming high metas, flooding the market. CCP - any plan to address this issue?
1. NPC drop rate is not equal to the amount of modules that make it to the market. Most missioners don't bother looting and in the past the vast majority of those useless meta modules ended up in the shredder (might still be the case).
2. The price for those modules is currently so low because no-one wants them unless they're sold under reprocessing value. Once they get a purpose and there is a demand for them, their price will go up to more reasonable levels for their purpose. Their T1 counterpart will become the baseline for the price with an extra markup on top to account for possible rarity or scarcity, depending on how much the modules are going to be used. My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things! |
|
Krell Kroenen
The Devil's Shadow
187
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 23:04:00 -
[131] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:i find the T2 mods just being plain better at everything a little at odds with role based mods...
T2 lml is better at everything ... surely allowing the use of T2 ammo is enough of a buff in itself?? why use the ample version when T2 is better at it??
Maybe because of skill requirements and cost? |
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
638
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 23:17:00 -
[132] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:scimichar wrote:Still no reason to use T1 over scoped, ample, or T2. Try cost. Supply and demand will sort it out. Valterra Craven wrote:Man, the market sure reacts quickly to changes... oh well not fast enough for this one :(
I do see a couple problems.
1. The meta layout of your re balance makes no sense. a. Why have meta gaps? (shouldn't the number increase like power does and not skip numbers) b. Why are basic modules meta 6 and t1 mods are meta 0... basic should be meta 0 and t1 should be meta 1...
Because Legacy Code. Dun dun dun!!! Good balance pass overall, will be interesting to see how modules are going to be used. What I don't get is two things: 1. Who possibly uses 'Civilian' type modules and why are they even in the game (and why haven't they been taken out during this pass?) 2. The hell are basic modules? Something from the 2003 era? Again, why not just take them out of the game completely if no-one ever uses them?
cost has sorted it out, meta 1-3 items are more often reprocessed for minerals than used on ships, I'm pretty sure there are a few meta 4s that you are better off just reprocessing too. I don't even want to know what the unused supply in hangars all over EVE is.... and god knows how many are generated each day by the NPC killers. I mean Meta loot is so worthless I don't even bother dropping a mobile tractor unit in most missions.
Civvy mods are used in tutorials and such. that said getting rid of them probably isn't the worst idea.
and I'd say bring basic mods back, if they truly are used in niche fits not having them ever entering the game is worst off. Same thing with Micro cap boosters. that said I just looked at the basic damage control line, and well as far as I'm concerned they can just get rid of them or sweep them under a rug somewhere, they just clutter up the damage control section.
the Supplemental EM ward amplifier is a 25% EM resist for 6 cpu, where the meta version is 32.5% but for 20 cpu and 1 pg, and tech 1 is 25 cpu. It isn't a great mod but the very low fitting cost might find a use somewhere. You can trust me, I have a monocole |
Azahar Ortenegro
Astromechanica Maxima Astromechanica Federatis
6
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 23:38:00 -
[133] - Quote
Droping the names of meta modules is a bad idea. Dumbing down the choice in meta modules is worse.
But, by cancelling every order of meta item all over New Eden, you're sending us to a cluster-wide market crash. And announcing it only 5 days before the release makes it impossible to even try to mitigate that.
You should seriously not include these changes in Oceanus, get back to work on the module tiericide, and ask the players months before making any changes. |
Adaahh Gee
Sarz'na Khumatari The Unthinkables
131
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 23:38:00 -
[134] - Quote
Chainsaw Plankton wrote: the Supplemental EM ward amplifier is a 25% EM resist for 6 cpu, where the meta version is 32.5% but for 20 cpu and 1 pg, and tech 1 is 25 cpu. It isn't a great mod but the very low fitting cost might find a use somewhere.
That is a very expensive module though (current sell order in Jita is 94mil) It is one of the older module groups that still seem to be around, they have pretty much zero skill need and very low fitting spec, I do not believe they even drop anymore from NPC's |
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
638
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 23:42:00 -
[135] - Quote
Ponder Yonder wrote:*snip* Now there is a trade-off between fitting and damage application.
Absolutely make the benefits clear in the descriptions, but don't remove player choice. This is Eve. Players should make decisions. And decisions should have consequences.
agree, the choices are almost meaningless in the proposed example. I think the t2 version of the LML really just outshines by a ton. that said I've mostly considered light missiles to be like nipples on a breast plate. (side effect of being a newbie in the nano days?) Maybe when they get to larger weapons the differences will feel meaningful? Also the T2 version still gets bonuses from the spec skills, dunno why named versions have the odd ROF You can trust me, I have a monocole |
Kirsanth
The Pioneers
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 23:48:00 -
[136] - Quote
Please, please, please, do not name all the "new modules" in a boring vanillia manner.
Someone above made an excellent suggestion regarding Scoped Intaki railguns: Associating the meta one varieties by corporate lore name instead is a great idea.
It encourages us to make associations with Eve's corporate names and identies. So just as we have in today's automotive industry IRL. if you want reliable and affordable you look to a particular set of companies, if you want fast and or luxurious you automatically check the brand names you have known about since childhood.
Some other suggestions for you to think about before release day.
Ishukone Compact Light Missile launcher Sebestior Extended Mag Light Missile Launcher
These two alone convey more meaning, desire and pride than Compact Light Missile Launcher.
You could even go a step further and have Caldari corp ones drop in Caldari space and Minmatar/Amarr ones drop in their space, albeit with same stats as Compact and Extended (please don't use Ample...it's just somewhat ...wrong for a missile launcher).
I could go on.
Making all of the modules in Eve sound bland and un-interesting for the sake of ease of use for new players is a bad move. I do agree that the naming convention has not been always nice to use, but also I do remember actually feeling excited about discovering Cold Arc Jet Thruster in my cargo hold the first time I found one in a loot drop all those years ago. The module names added to the flavour of the game and set it apart from its competitors.
Combine the new naming convention with the existing Corp lore names and you will have a richer universe. |
ROXGenghis
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
206
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 23:57:00 -
[137] - Quote
Highest-upvoted comment on the reddit thread is worth repeating here:
spazturtle said: Ample and Enduring don't really sound right for EVE. Instead of Ample it should be High Capacity and instead of Enduring it should be Efficient. Those names sound like things you would put on a space ship. |
Sephira Galamore
Inner Beard Society Affirmative.
348
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 00:21:00 -
[138] - Quote
Please keep the immersive names! Thank you. |
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
638
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 00:25:00 -
[139] - Quote
Adaahh Gee wrote:Chainsaw Plankton wrote: the Supplemental EM ward amplifier is a 25% EM resist for 6 cpu, where the meta version is 32.5% but for 20 cpu and 1 pg, and tech 1 is 25 cpu. It isn't a great mod but the very low fitting cost might find a use somewhere.
That is a very expensive module though (current sell order in Jita is 94mil) It is one of the older module groups that still seem to be around, they have pretty much zero skill need and very low fitting spec, I do not believe they even drop anymore from NPC's I'd guess it only costs that much due to the extremely limited supply, also that shows it has a use somewhere.
Krell Kroenen wrote:Harvey James wrote:i find the T2 mods just being plain better at everything a little at odds with role based mods...
T2 lml is better at everything ... surely allowing the use of T2 ammo is enough of a buff in itself?? why use the ample version when T2 is better at it?? Maybe because of skill requirements and cost? several years ago I would agree with you, these days eve players have way more SP and way more isk than they know what to do with. When I started I was buying xr-3200 heavy missile launchers for ~5mil a pop, arbalests were going for ~15mil. I traded modulated tachyons for ~6mil. Cost on most items just isn't even relevant as a balancing factor.
newbs will use meta items, almost everyone else will use t2, and a few people will use meta when fitting is an issue. Like now some people are using arby launchers on their crows and worms as the dps change is minimal and the fittings are relaxed.
now there are a bunch of variables that will affect cost how many newbs are joining how much ccp has made it easier to train for t2 versions of various items Removal of learning skills how much players realize specialization is important lower costs of t2 items tiericide making fitting various ships easier balance between the various races and ships meaning players are buying different things
as far as I'm concerned nearly everything is damn cheap these days. Mineral costs seem to be the only thing up, tbh I wouldn't be surprised if overall they are down and I just haven't been paying attention, and well that is because they have been messed with by CCP pretty heavily over the last few years. Oh and most t2 ships seem a bit more expensive than I remember, and over the last year they seem way more stable than I would have thought (although there seems to be a lot of short term ups and downs)
the first BCU II I remember buying was 9mil or so, back in the BPO cartel days my friend said he was buying at 20mil each. now I don't even count the cost of t2 gear on ships I fly.
the new meta items are just underwhelming I'll join the chorus asking CCP, don't take my fancy names away from me! In the name of the Limos, the Malkuth, and the Arbalest, so help me pod - Mara Rinn |
Falin Whalen
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
728
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 00:56:00 -
[140] - Quote
Not only are the modules underwhelming, but in the case of the LML, there is only one choice. The 'Ample' meta 1 LML module is the new meta 4 module, unless you have a gimicky tight fit, it is the clear choice.
So congrats on reballancing the modules and making only one worth it to get CCP. "it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka-á |
|
profundus fossura
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
9
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 00:56:00 -
[141] - Quote
Love the changes and look forward to more interesting variations on the modules but the names aren't great any chance of retaining some of the names and doing something similar to implants eg
Eifyur andf co 'gunslinger' Small projectile Turret SP-601
sounds cool and still clearly identifies what it is - although could do with shortening a bit so name fits properly in market window also the standardized names run the risk of not being relevant or clear for all modules and as has been said earlier runs the risk of reducing immersion and making Eve less distinct from other MMOs that use standard naming or colour coding whatever for item quality.
Can you not for keep some of the great names and add a suffix eg
'Limos' Light Missile Launcher - ECO 'Arbalest' Light Missile Launcher - XMG
Where - XMG stands for Xpanded Magazine and ECO for Economical - I know thats not the best but it's late here but this could apply to all weapon systems with TR - tracking etc for turrets
Alternatively could you use some other aspect of lore such as NPC corp names with each corp having a particular focus such as Hyasyoda specializing in reduced fitting caldari mods and Nugoeihuvi in expanded capacity ones so that players can quickly learn to associate a particular brand with their specialty
Re faction mods is it necessary to have four named mods that are the same why not consolidate these to a neutral NPC faction like Sisters of Eve or Interbus where there is no room for four distinct mods and where there is enough scope for four types at faction level make them specialty in one area
e.g Tracking computer Angels Increased Tracking Sanshas Increased Optimal Guristas Increased falloff Serpentis signature resolution
With similar boosts for ammunition and guns so players can mix factions to achieve a balance or specialize all the way in say Angels kit for best possible tracking |
Primaxin
Heuristic Industrial And Development Galactic Skyfleet Empire
2
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 01:15:00 -
[142] - Quote
Anzomi Inkunen wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:IIIMAPOBOgKA wrote:What will happen with invention where you could "sacrifice" a meta 4 module to augment your success rate if all the mods are dropping to meta 1 ? As stated in the devblog about invention, that's being removed. Yes but that invention change isn't supposed to happen for a bit (or at least for this release). What will happen in the meantime to the invention of those modules?
This. Would be nice to get an official response. My guess is that we're just stuck with Meta 1 until they get around to changing the invention formula, no telling when that's going to happen, but probably at least into 2015. |
rho alpha
Nanoware Labs
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 01:30:00 -
[143] - Quote
I have been hooked on eve for 5 years now and won't be deterred so easily as just dumbing down the module names.
I often use high meta modules now, for instance 'scout' projectiles turrets, 'experimental' AF, 'prototype' MWD, & 'C5-L Emergency' SB. Fitting an extra gun more than makes up for the loss of the specialty skill bonus. If their stats are crippled by this change, the meta 4 modules will be as useless as the meta 1-3.
There may be some niche exceptions, can't tell without seeing the stats, but I agree with the market that the meta 1-4 items, whatever they're called, are destined for the reprocessing plant. |
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
638
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 01:42:00 -
[144] - Quote
re-factoring names is an important undertaking I think but I do completely agree with keeping some of the spice in game. I'm looking at medium neuts in game, and when I type "Medium Energy Neut" in the search bar, I get t1, t2, and faction, with all the meta 1-4 missing. it shouldn't be too hard to change things around so it is Unstable Medium Energy Neutralizer, 50W Medium Energy Neutralizer, 'Gremlin' Medium Energy Neutralizer, and so on. I mean I really like things the "diminishing" tag as I can search for it and bam all the meta4 nos are in one place.
I'm liking that suffix idea, maybe move to the middle 'arbalest' xmg light missile launcher that way I can search for "xmg light mis" instead of "Light Missile Launcher XMG" as "Missile Launcher XMG" would bring up all the different launchers. although maybe some people would prefer that? I'll join the chorus asking CCP, don't take my fancy names away from me! In the name of the Limos, the Malkuth, and the Arbalest, so help me pod - Mara Rinn |
Unezka Turigahl
Det Som Engang Var
301
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 01:50:00 -
[145] - Quote
LML T1 LML Limos 72X (Xtended Magazine of .72m3) LML Malkuth 16C-E (Effficient variant, requiring 16 CPU) LML Arbalest 13.2R (Rapid Fire variant, with 13.2 seconds between shots) LML T2
Upgraded Economic Efficient eXtended Scoped Forgiving RapidFire ... |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon Cynosural Field Theory.
1053
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 01:59:00 -
[146] - Quote
I'm not into those module names. Keep the variation. If you are going to name it in a simpler manner, have this in the description.
Don't do this trauma missile thing again. |
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 02:31:00 -
[147] - Quote
CCP AGAIN YOU F.U.C.K.I.N.G RUIN a Great Game....
Over and Out
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
2894
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 02:40:00 -
[148] - Quote
I n otice the "compact" light missile launcher reduces only one fitting requirement, the CPU. There is no named version that uses the same CPU, but less power, no "Efficient" version.
Maybe something to add? http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
sytaqe violacea
Circus of midnight
25
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 02:44:00 -
[149] - Quote
Quote:Micro 'Vigor' Core Augmentation is now Navy Micro Auxiliary Power Core
Pirate NPC drops Navy Micro Auxiliary Power Core!? |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
2894
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 02:46:00 -
[150] - Quote
Red Bluesteel wrote:CCP AGAIN YOU ******** RUIN a Great Game....
Over and Out
] Maybe you would prefer they went back to working on Incarna? http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
|
Valterra Craven
280
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 02:52:00 -
[151] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Red Bluesteel wrote:CCP AGAIN YOU ******** RUIN a Great Game....
Over and Out
] Maybe you would prefer they went back to working on Incarna?
I'm game for that. I like looking at boobies, especially ones that could bounce in station! |
Gargep Farrow
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
67
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 03:16:00 -
[152] - Quote
We now get to see a downside to the 6 week schedule. This idea is nowhere near ready to launch in 5 days. While the idea of module rebalancing is good, this particular method is not.
1. I will repeat what others have said; "The new names SUCK". Ample rocket launcher, is lame. Scoped Arbalest rocket launcher, or Expanded Arbalest rocket launcher, yep, I can go for that.
2. Arbitrarily changing the stats, and therefore the value of the items sitting in hangars or on the market, is not a good way to keep your players happy.
Sorry CCP this idea needs to be put on hold. |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
462
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 03:40:00 -
[153] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:1. NPC drop rate is not equal to the amount of modules that make it to the market. Most missioners don't bother looting and in the past the vast majority of those useless meta modules ended up in the shredder (might still be the case). This fact merely indicates that the supply of metas from NPCs far exceeds the combined demand for metas *and* T1 modules by players, which is why most T1 modules will continue to see no use.
TigerXtrm wrote: 2. The price for those modules is currently so low because no-one wants them unless they're sold under reprocessing value. Once they get a purpose and there is a demand for them, their price will go up to more reasonable levels for their purpose. Their T1 counterpart will become the baseline for the price with an extra markup on top to account for possible rarity or scarcity, depending on how much the modules are going to be used.
Not likely, esp. for the cheaper modules, and given the supply situation you spelled out in (1). As long as the supply far exceeds the demand, meta module prices will remain baselined on reprocessing value.
Also, as someone else pointed out, players have a lot more ISK these days. So, a 50K ISK meta module is always going to be used over a 5K ISK T1 module, despite the 10x cost difference, even by noob players.
If T1 modules do not have any stat advantages, then meta modules needs to have a signficantly higher absolute cost (not merely a markup on the cost of the T1 module), in order for players to consider using T1 modules. In order to achieve this situation, metas either need to be much more scarce (ie. a large reduction in NPC drop rates), and/or need to reprocess for much higher value than the T1 equivalents.
And, yes, this adjustment would result in a one-time benefit to everyone who has a stockpile of metas, but the market would adjust as those stockpiles are depleted, and profitable T1 module manufacturing would become viable again.
|
JamesT KirkJr
the oasis group TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 03:47:00 -
[154] - Quote
Cae Lara wrote:I'll have to dissent from everybody crying 'muh immersion'. Clicking through show info->variations->compare->click meta level to literally look at a spreadsheet on every item type is not immersion and is not enjoyable. Great, current players had to go through that nonsense so surely every player should have to from now until the end of time? How about no, but I can dig people asking for some of the flavor text to be retained on item names in addition to clear and consistent markers of what a module is and does.
+1 to finding better adjectives. Ample sounds goofy and scoped doesn't even begin to make sense.
How about just fixing the "lets hide the info inside clicky menu after clicky menu" UI design instead? That would certainly solve the problems you mention.
And hey, how about showing the important stats of an object when you see it in Market? That'd remove all of the reason for renaming things. When you click an item in Market, the header of the Market shows the item name and some info, but there's a big open space there just begging to be filled in with useful information, like the description, fitting, critical attributes, etc. |
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
638
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 03:57:00 -
[155] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Red Bluesteel wrote:CCP AGAIN YOU ******** RUIN a Great Game....
Over and Out
] Maybe you would prefer they went back to working on Incarna?
if there was more content than just captains quarters and some fancy dress Incarna would have been a decent expansion. I mean looking around at other games it amazes me just how much people like to play dressup in computer games. I'll join the chorus asking CCP, don't take my fancy names away from me! In the name of the Limos, the Malkuth, and the Arbalest, so help me pod - Mara Rinn |
Torgeir Hekard
I MYSELF AND ME
49
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 04:06:00 -
[156] - Quote
Your naming is garbage and your faction tiericide is stupid.
Oh, and the meta tiericide is stupid too. If, as stated in the dev blog, the idea is that all the flux coils give me similar overall cap recharge, then WHY take something other than the best fitting one? We're back at square one here.
1) If we are to do with named meta levels, then better fitting mods should sacrifice useful stats.
2) Simillary, T2 should be better for harder fitting (meta4 ewar anyone?).
3) A gazillion of absolutely equal faction modules is stupid. What's wrong with better and worse faction modules? The problem with named is, they are all relatively cheap. Price is almost never a balancing factor with them (there are odd exceptions like better named MAPCs that can be more expensive than the rest of a fit, but even then it's usually pocket change). So you can just go with the best one (though there are odd exceptions too. Ironically, one of the most prominent is light missiles with malkuth being a crucial low-cpu choice for certain fits as opposed to the "best named" arbalest).
With faction modules price is usually an important factor. It's relatively common to get the cheaper one if it's enough to do the job. Or, in odd cases, you can get a cheaper faction equivalent of a T2 (seprentis pasive armor resists come to mind).
If we are to forgo the price balancing factor entirely, then we might as well do with dedspace mods since their price is the only thing that balances their stats.
Moreover, with faction mods it's quite logical that different factions of New Eden have their own preferences and capabilities when making their respective faction mods, so the mods can not be similar and should reflect the faction flavour.
4) Naming. Dear CCP. Your game has severely enhanced my memory capabilities for which I'm eternally grateful to you. Please please please do not remove this wonderful opportunity for newer players. If you want to kill immersion that much please find another way. Sincerely yours, a faithful customer. |
JamesT KirkJr
the oasis group TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 04:11:00 -
[157] - Quote
Are all of you uber knowledgeable people missing the point that the NAMES are way less important than the NERF to the stats??
Since people skip Meta 1 and 2 modules, let me point out that means 15-20% of the capability of the current T1 modules fit. Across the entire board (eventually).
How is this not generating an anti-nerf reaction? Besides mine, of course.
To CCP, I don't really give a crap about any of the things you claim I am getting in exchange. You're taking the PRIMARY abilities of modes and nerf-batting them, and giving us SECONDARY this-and-thats in exchange. I am not using equipment for it's secondary capabilities, I'm using it for its PRIMARY purposes.
When I have a ship with X amount of DPS because it has Meta 4 launchers on it, and you NERF THE DPS BY 20%, how am I going to overcome that NERF with my skill, when I as a player am already fighting players that have better equipment than me? Or running sites that challenge both my skills and my ship to the limits already?
Explain how this is not a freakin' HUGE NERF to the gameplay of every character who is not fully T2 fitted in every respect. Like me and my Prototype Arbalest torpedo launchers and XR-3200 HLMs.
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
638
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 04:20:00 -
[158] - Quote
Gargep Farrow wrote:We now get to see a downside to the 6 week schedule. This idea is nowhere near ready to launch in 5 days. While the idea of module rebalancing is good, this particular method is not.
1. I will repeat what others have said; "The new names SUCK". Ample rocket launcher, is lame. Scoped Arbalest rocket launcher, or Expanded Arbalest rocket launcher, yep, I can go for that.
2. Arbitrarily changing the stats, and therefore the value of the items sitting in hangars or on the market, is not a good way to keep your players happy.
Sorry CCP this idea needs to be put on hold.
I agree, they really need to be posting what is going to be in the patch that shows up in 6 weeks and 4 days nowish (okay maybe get the patch out, and a week later or so), and not what is going live in 4 days
module tiericide is a great high level idea, and while most of the changes are okay and probably wont really affect anyone, getting into some of the good mods, and judging from what fozzie said in that trailer thingy that showed up the other day they shoehorned LMLs into the list of mods getting updated pretty last minute.
as it stands the only valuable meta mods are either equal t2 and/or are easier to fit. Meta DCs have slightly less stats but are much easier to fit, Also Neuts where meta > t2, with less cap use and easier to fit. Using my magic crystal ball on the future of other meta mods, and well I just don't see all that many meaningful changes. ah well should keep the reprocessing crews happy I guess? I'll join the chorus asking CCP, don't take my fancy names away from me! In the name of the Limos, the Malkuth, and the Arbalest, so help me pod - Mara Rinn |
Marlenus
Ironfleet Towing And Salvage
2
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 04:21:00 -
[159] - Quote
I have been around a long time and I *still* have to "show info" on a ton of meta modules, especially in the categories where there are five flavors of basic modules cluttering up my old inventory stacks. I whole-heartedly love the notion of combining and rationalizing a bunch of the meta modules. I do agree however that with stuff like weapons systems, there are plenty of parameters to tweak for more than two flavors of meta mods.
My biggest concern, though, as a scruffy salvager type, is that you are making rat loot EVEN MORE BORING.
Right now, if there aren't any faction wrecks in your loot field, the only possible interesting loot item you're going to find is a rare Meta4 module that's actually worth some ISK. There aren't many of these, and most looting now is an endless refrain of "worthless, dull, worthless, boring, worthless, dull, scrap, fail, worthless." When rat loot had more mineral value, at least there was that. Now? Nah.
So now we are combining four different metas of varying rarities into one or two varieties. Assuming no changes to the loot table, the rares will now be more common (Malkuth and Arbelest drops combined into one new module drop) and less valuable.
I don't offer this as a reason not to do it. Simplifying the fitting experience for new players is enough reason to do it, IMO, in a game with declining enrollment. Good plan, long overdue.
But that leaves the question: What can you do to make rat looting more interesting?
I know this is a PvP game. The PvE experience is never the priority. But there have been a lot of changes over the years that have made rat looting more generic, less valuable, and much less interesting. Isn't it time to spice it up a little?
Obviously we don't want random Gurista pirates dropping faction loot. I mean, we WANT it, but it doesn't make game design sense. But couldn't they at least drop some quafe, or some exotic dancers? Couldn't every rat have some small fractional-percentage chance of having *something* unusual or amusing or modestly valuable in his personal locker when we blow him up?
I feel like looting is going to be EVEN MORE BORING after these useful and valuable changes. Throw us a bone, here? |
Arronicus
Caldari Navy Reconnaissance
1137
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 04:27:00 -
[160] - Quote
This is a very nice start to a very long overdue fix. It has been a plight on the diversity in Eve that most named modules have been useless for anything other than reprocessing, and that many meta 4 modules are better than their tech 2 meta 5 counterparts in all ways. Good job on taking the first steps to fixing this problem, in a way that actually creates useful diversity within the module groups. Now about that rorqual fix.... >.> |
|
Syri Taneka
NOVA-CAINE
109
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 04:46:00 -
[161] - Quote
CCP Lebowski wrote:Aquila Sagitta wrote:Retar Aveymone wrote:I think you screwed up Restrained Capacitor Flux Coil, as they're flatly better in every way than the T2 version. Aside from that this looks like a good design philosophy for named mods. This. It doesn't follow the theme at all... Its even more powerful then the cosmos versions Well spotted, this should actually be -25% (which is what you'll see on Sisi just now). We'll get that changed in the blog.
But that doesn't RESTRAIN the drawback, that makes the drawback (reduced capacitor) WORSE. High cap recharge is a wonderful thing, but a thick reservoir is often more important in a battle, if for no other reason than Neut/NOS warfare. To properly Restrain the drawback, you need a smaller chunk taken out of cap capacity and a subsequent reduction in recharge rate (to keep the module in line with other options).
Also, on a side note, I would like to suggest changing the word 'Restrained' to 'Mitigated'. |
Mei Nakamura
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 04:53:00 -
[162] - Quote
I'd just like to add a +1 to the opinion that changing the names sucks. Learning all the names and their respective pros/cons was one of the things that got me hooked on this game.
As a noob, I distinctly remember feeling a sense achievement when I got my first Malkuth drop, or could afford my first prototype gauss gun. I didn't always fit the meta 4's because I didn't know such a scale existed and even when I did, I mostly couldn't afford to buy them anyway. The price differential made it "ok" for there to be better versions of everything. Sometimes I fit lesser modules just because I thought the names were cooler and they were cheaper.
It's easy to forget that when you've been around for a while, and you start using meta 4's or T2 by default, but I think the proposed changes are the wrong way to fix that. If it were me, I'd leave everything where it is, warts and all, and instead add BPC drops for named modules, allowing for inventing T2 named modules.. 'Arbalest' Heavy Missile Launcher II anyone??
|
JamesT KirkJr
the oasis group TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 04:59:00 -
[163] - Quote
Mei Nakamura wrote:I'd just like to add a +1 to the opinion that changing the names sucks. Learning all the names and their respective pros/cons was one of the things that got me hooked on this game.
As a noob, I distinctly remember feeling a sense achievement when I got my first Malkuth drop, or could afford my first prototype gauss gun. I didn't always fit the meta 4's because I didn't know such a scale existed and even when I did, I mostly couldn't afford to buy them anyway. The price differential made it "ok" for there to be better versions of everything. Sometimes I fit lesser modules just because I thought the names were cooler and they were cheaper.
It's easy to forget that when you've been around for a while, and you start using meta 4's or T2 by default, but I think the proposed changes are the wrong way to fix that. If it were me, I'd leave everything where it is, warts and all, and instead add BPC drops for named modules, allowing for inventing T2 named modules.. 'Arbalest' Heavy Missile Launcher II anyone??
+1 for an original and very likely better idea. |
|
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
3377
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 05:12:00 -
[164] - Quote
Removed a yellow wall. ISD Dorrim Barstorlode Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Fu Qjoo
Pangalactic Frontline Supply Agency
7
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 05:29:00 -
[165] - Quote
Why are you doing this? I do not want to play with illiterate people that are to dumb to click the compare button in the module info. What will this game be when you dumb it further down? Eve lives mostly, if not only from the complexity and difficulty. If you take this away, what stays? |
Benito Arias
Angry Mustellid
40
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 05:46:00 -
[166] - Quote
Tiericide, fine, but keep the damn naming interesting. Don't want Scoped railguns or Restrained whatever, it just sounds stupid. Use thesaurus, keep the names immersive, and leave the trademarks be! Don't you touch my IFFAs and my Faint Epsilon scramblers.
Added. And if you stick to your plan of makeng it all bleak and boring, does it mean you will be renaming MWDs again? Heh. |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon Cynosural Field Theory.
1053
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 05:47:00 -
[167] - Quote
Benito Arias wrote:Tiericide, fine, but keep the damn naming interesting. Don't want Scoped railguns or Restrained whatever, it just sounds stupid. Use thesaurus, keep the names immersive, and leave the trademarks be! Don't you touch my IFFAs and my Faint Epsilon scramblers.
I was frankly saddened when they touched my Y-T8 overcharged hydrocarbon microwarpdrives, those were my absolute favorite name.
Would be nice if they could have a checkbox in the settings to turn off "simple names". So we could get back all the good ones. Why not, CCP? |
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
6613
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 06:12:00 -
[168] - Quote
Who ever came up with the naming scheme for the new modules is the most bland and boring person ever. I hate myself for saying this, but the names need more psssshhhh. |
Lord Echon
Adventurers
11
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 06:16:00 -
[169] - Quote
All in all, I welcome the module tiercide. Having niche roles for the named modules is a huge improvement over them not seeing any use (besides meta 4, of course).
However, as has already been mentioned, faction turrets and launchers need to be looked at. They are inferior to their T2 counterparts, and personally I am not sure allowing them the use of T2 ammo makes sense. They should be given a unique bonus of some sort to make them worthwhile, and justify the price tag.
Also, the naming scheme for the new meta 1 items seems rather bland compared to the colourful names of the old named modules. |
Erien Rand
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 06:23:00 -
[170] - Quote
Hello Fozzie,
I love the work you are doing and you obviously care greatly about our game. However, as many other have said, those names remove a layer of depth and immersion from the game.
I remember when I started the game part of what kept me around was the excitement of finding some obscurely named item and then having to research a bit to see if it was worth anything. That is was very engaging to a 2 month old newbie in a poorly fit Vexor and his 4 hobgoblin I's.
I have dipped my toe into other MMOs and come running back to Eve every time, part of it was the fact that item naming was so simplistic and I essentially had a bunch of junk with the same name in my bag.
I implore you to consider keeping the legacy names in some way on each item, I feel that you are removing some of the "color" from the game. Perhaps add the new names as "traits" in the show info or have them appear when you mouse over the item.
Thanks for reading |
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
83
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 06:32:00 -
[171] - Quote
I remember confussion with so many modules and tiers when i started to play EvE. Changing names that way won't help, there are just too many of them for new players. Also there's a compare tool, great device for every player. I don't think we need name changing for group of mods every six weeks. You guys just can't resist, can you? Overall idea is good and you have to break it with some unnecessary change. Bad for vets, not really helping new ones. My breakfast was AMPLE but after reading the blog i have heartburn. Bacon tastes so much better when it's marinated in vegan tears.-á
I am the night. I'm Bantam. |
Emiko Rowna
Aliastra Gallente Federation
12
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 06:47:00 -
[172] - Quote
Would this not work better?
Co-Processor Of the Tiger Co-Processor Of the Bear Co-Processor Of the Gorilla Co-Processor Of the Boar Co-Processor Of the Monkey Co-Processor Of the Falcon Co-Processor Of the Wolf Co-Processor Of the Tiger Co-Processor Of the Eagle Co-Processor Of the Whale Co-Processor Of the Owl |
Naket Kalidor
The Flying Wombats
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 06:52:00 -
[173] - Quote
Naming should be interesting, and all the laws of communication are against systematic naming. People want to be individual, selling products requires individual products even if it is the same thing a thousand times in a different package with a different name. Having systematic names kills the individuality in the game and the overall game perception as an interesting myterious universe. Isn't this mysterious universe what you sell? |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
720
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 07:14:00 -
[174] - Quote
This new "simple" naming scheme is horrible and takes out a whole lot of flavor from the game. For the sake of being special, decide for one of the old Meta 1-4 names and make it "Compact B88 Micro Auxiliary Power Core" or something similar. Reducing names to a set of mere standard name pieces for all the modules removes a great deal of felt variety from the game, which is bad in my opinion. |
Moloney
Faceless Men
164
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 08:12:00 -
[175] - Quote
Will meta modules have the advantages of current meta 2 modules or meta 4 modules?
Aka, how many of my ship fittings are now obsolete and how much value is being removed from my inventory? |
Zappity
SUPREME MATHEMATICS A Band Apart.
1347
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 08:14:00 -
[176] - Quote
Are you going to modify the drop rates when you remove a module from a specific lineup? You probably need to reduce the drop rates of meta 1-3 a little now that invention won't use them. I realise that the current meta-4 value will be distributed over some of the other metas but I doubt it is adequate given the enormous supply and existing invention demand. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Barton Breau
University of Caille Gallente Federation
72
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 08:24:00 -
[177] - Quote
Shouldnt this be postponed till it looks less than something that was thought over for less than the time it took to write the dev blog? |
Moloney
Faceless Men
164
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 08:39:00 -
[178] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone, the overall module rework has been a long time coming and it feels great to start rolling it out! Hopefully these changes and the ones that follow will help make your fitting experience a more engaging one.
No the new naming conventions are great for coders / dev and boring for customers.
|
Marox Calendale
Human League
29
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 08:55:00 -
[179] - Quote
How is this new "All named modules are meta 1 modules" concept working with T2 BPC Invention, as at the moment the Meta 4 Modules grant higher chances for a successful invention than meta 1 - 3 do? |
Emiko Rowna
Aliastra Gallente Federation
13
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 09:01:00 -
[180] - Quote
Marox Calendale wrote:How is this new "All named modules are meta 1 modules" concept working with T2 BPC Invention, as at the moment the Meta 4 Modules grant higher chances for a successful invention than meta 1 - 3 do?
Read this Dev Blog http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/lighting-the-invention-bulb/
The part about "Merging Invention with Reverse Engineering" near the bottom.
It comes down to meta items will no longer be a part of the invention process. At least if I'm reading it right. |
|
Marox Calendale
Human League
29
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 09:14:00 -
[181] - Quote
Emiko Rowna wrote:Marox Calendale wrote:How is this new "All named modules are meta 1 modules" concept working with T2 BPC Invention, as at the moment the Meta 4 Modules grant higher chances for a successful invention than meta 1 - 3 do? Read this Dev Blog http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/lighting-the-invention-bulb/The part about "Merging Invention with Reverse Engineering" near the bottom. It comes down to meta items will no longer be a part of the invention process. At least if I'm reading it right. Ah thanks, forgot that. But if I am right, Invention revamp is not coming with oceanus or is it? So what will happen to Light Missiles Launchers for example, as they change to tiericide in oceanus but the T2 Invention revamp will be probably later? |
Alexander McKeon
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
71
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 09:24:00 -
[182] - Quote
After playing around the the capacitor recharge differential equation a bit, it appears that the capacitor power relay will continue to provide superior cap / second recharge in all circumstances, while using less CPU to fit and not giving a capacitor amount penalty. The only real benefit here is the active shield tanked ships who don't want the -10% shield boost penalty will be able to make somewhat more use of flux coils. It'd be far more interesting to have them provide a better recharge than power relays at the cost of capacitor quantity.
This also allows for more potent cap reduction to reach jump cap faster I guess, but that's a somewhat niche use. |
Emiko Rowna
Aliastra Gallente Federation
13
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 09:29:00 -
[183] - Quote
Marox Calendale wrote:Emiko Rowna wrote:Marox Calendale wrote:How is this new "All named modules are meta 1 modules" concept working with T2 BPC Invention, as at the moment the Meta 4 Modules grant higher chances for a successful invention than meta 1 - 3 do? Read this Dev Blog http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/lighting-the-invention-bulb/The part about "Merging Invention with Reverse Engineering" near the bottom. It comes down to meta items will no longer be a part of the invention process. At least if I'm reading it right. Ah thanks, forgot that. But if I am right, Invention revamp is not coming with oceanus or is it? So what will happen to Light Missiles Launchers for example, as they change to tiericide in oceanus but the T2 Invention revamp will be probably later?
Now that is a very good question. Let us hope a Dev will bring a very good answer.
|
Nalha Saldana
Contractors Ltd.
818
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 09:33:00 -
[184] - Quote
I like the module changes but please don't do this with the names!
The best idea with names would be to use NPC manufacturing corps have names on them, for example Amarrian modules that use less fitting could be named "Zoar and Sons Reactor Control Unit". |
Emiko Rowna
Aliastra Gallente Federation
13
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 09:53:00 -
[185] - Quote
"We will convert every module of one type into modules of another type, everywhere in the database. This includes modules currently fit to ships and modules in containers or contracts."
With respect to reprocessing, will I be losing any value related to the minerals output? |
Vartan Sarkisian
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
162
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 10:12:00 -
[186] - Quote
I am confused, you say for example...
"For instance all of the named Light Missile Launchers have the same rate of fire"
And then the light missiles chart shows a different "time between shots" which is rate of fire.
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time... like tears in rain... Time to die. |
Onslaughtor
Occult National Security
96
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 10:13:00 -
[187] - Quote
So I think you missing a good opportunity with two of the proposed meta types.
So with the missiles. It would make sense to add a third meta type for ROF like at 13.2 with a 21 to 23 cpu requirement and a 36 to 40 missile bay. The upgraded lml would be a nice damage focused meta mod that would be good for adding more complex but logical fitting decisions.
add
Upgraded Light Missile Launcher 6 PWG 21 to 23 CPU 13.2s ROF 40 or less CPR
The second was with the Reactor Controls. There is a large gap between the 1.2 and 1.5 of the meta to t2 and that can make all the difference in fitting. It would make sense to add a second upgraded type that has 20 or 21 cpu cost but give a 1.3 or 1.4 . That way we can fill out that gap in choices when fitting ships.
add
Upgraded Reactor Control Unit 1.13 or 1.14 pwg% 20 or 21 CPU
Basically, try to seriously fill every one of these specializations. They make the game logically complex (which is really good) but only if there are enough choices to make it interesting. |
Nalha Saldana
Contractors Ltd.
820
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 10:32:00 -
[188] - Quote
Vartan Sarkisian wrote:I am confused, you say for example...
"For instance all of the named Light Missile Launchers have the same rate of fire"
And then the light missiles chart shows a different "time between shots" which is rate of fire.
They mean all launchers of same meta level, there will be power scaling between t1, named, t2, faction and officer. |
Gosti Kahanid
GANOR Deep Space Explorers GANOR INC.
63
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 10:35:00 -
[189] - Quote
Onslaughtor wrote:So with the missiles. It would make sense to add a third meta type for ROF like at 13.2 with a 21 to 23 cpu requirement and a 36 to 40 missile bay. The upgraded lml would be a nice damage focused meta mod that would be good for adding more complex but logical fitting decisions.
That, I think, would be a bad Idea. Everyone would then fit for more damage. Why should I use a module with more ammocapacity when I can get more DPS out of it? With Turrets there will probably be more options for application (hopefully nothing which provides more DPS than another), but missile launchers don-¦t have anything which would provide better application, for this they could offer different missiles, but for the launchers this is enough |
Emiko Rowna
Aliastra Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 10:52:00 -
[190] - Quote
So how will this impact my saved fittings? Will the modules names in my saved fittings be changed to the new modules names? |
|
Eessi
Murderous Inc
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 11:29:00 -
[191] - Quote
"We are lowering the number of named variations to two, one fitting variation and a second that has a reduced capacitor capacity drawback amount (but similar overall cap recharge). " - CCP Fozzie
Compact Capacitor Flux Coil
Capacitor Recharge Time: 37% CPU Requirement: 8 Capacitor Capacity Multiplier: -20%
Restrained Capacitor Flux Coil
Capacitor Recharge Time: 41% CPU Requirement: 10 Capacitor Capacity Multiplier: -25%
The fitting variant has better fitting and less drawback. Is this an error? |
Ikonia
Royal Amarr Expeditions
70
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 11:33:00 -
[192] - Quote
I see the idea behind that changes, but the solution is not very wise.
It just focuses to solve a problem, based on a false decision made years ago and therefor only solves something, that is more or less a cosmetical issue with no further effect. Why? Simply because nobody cares about T1 equipment after 3 month in game and mostly uses t2 whereever possible or takes faction and plex stuff, easily available now. And for reprocessing material, i dont really need a changed name or rebalnced values, it is junk, not more, not less.
Another point is Cosmos items. The problem on them is not residing in its technical values, but by its availability (1 time per player), the effort to make them available (stoneold faction based access to superhard missions) causing a horrible high price for an item, that i can lose exactly one time and then have to buy for costs higher than officer stuff but with values worse than actual tech2. You can also just take them out of game, wouldnt disturb anyone at all.
Instead of that "rebalancing" some kind of toon based "slicing" would be of sense. T1 - sliceable by pilots to a certain direction (restrained scoped whatever) - can be used for producing pre-sliced T2 for further improvement. THIS would have been worth an announcement.
The rebalance as it is now just solves, as i said, a stoneold problem that just covers the first 3 month in a player-life and then only is of sense in certain niches, which then are gone anyway when players start using tech2, what everyone goes for anyway. Instead of that change some improvements on new tech2 additional would have been a true benefit.
As of now: Exploration is a game-wide folks sport done by almost everyone, faction and plex type stuff is easily in reach for everyone older than 5 days making stuff available for which you dont need skills higher than 4 to use it, and it is stuff thats much better than tech 2 but has nearly at same price level as tech 2 and is already available in massive amounts everywhere - and you rebalance .. tech 1? Seriously?
As you mean. System Analytics skill is obviously not on skill V. Systems Balancing should at least be III before you start doing it in a life game. |
AssandTits
University of Caille Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 11:50:00 -
[193] - Quote
So it appears Fozzie has gone into "**** the customer, I'm hiding in a box under my desk" mode. TL;DR for any dev who has the misfortune to have to try and DCU this mess.
1) Rebalance - meh whatever
2) Naming convention - What did you suddenly employ an ex Blizzard idiot and give him the ability to name ****? Seriously this is a SPACE game, not ******* PANDALAND.
3) No we do not want Panda suits available in the "Fund Fozzie's eventual move to Riot" Fund |
Vesan Terakol
The Vo'Shun Bad Intention
87
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 11:50:00 -
[194] - Quote
OK, now that I've slept over that matter, have some thought about it...
Lets talk names! I see why some modules bear such ridiculous names.
For instance, "limited" adaptive invulnerability field. Through my 3 years of playing EVE, that name has always puzzled me, as it...
MADE NO SENSE!
What is limited about that module? Even as i looked into the statistics, over and over again, i never came to associate "limited" with the actual difference in the module. Neither "limited" and "upgraded" helps me differentiate the MWD and afterburner variations. You know what does? Estimated price!
Now, I figured it! You tried to pull this same maneuver! And you know what? It didn't quite work, because such module name prefixes ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH! They make your team look like bloody illiterates and your management as completely ignorant of your doings, as, FFS, even a kid for whom English is not the native language will at least try and pull out words that give a bad-ass vibe to what he is naming.
Those proposed name prefixes are LAME (in any meaning you can put to this word, slang and literal), and I don't say that in blind rage, i say it in the shades of mournful regret that will overcome me if you are to push that nonsense out. It will achieve nothing.
On page 5 i believe there is a post by Moraguth that suggested some synonyms of your proposed name changes. Please, do take a careful look at this post. THAT is how you should name modules if you want clarity.
Long story short:
- DO NOT use Google translate, please! - DO NOT embarrass the entire team by making the entire player base look upon you as ignorant illiterates! - DO use this opportunity to fix old mistakes in naming!
Lets talk statistics!
I do like the general direction of what you're doing. The statistics make more sense. Yet, you shouldn't have delayed releasing that information that much. You did this with the RLML rework last year to a major outcry from the public and yet you do it again!
There are changes that need to be pushed regardless of whether the community likes them, as they are healthy for the game. This one kind of is, yet you should have posted your draft in the F&I forums long time ago, as it needs a lot of polish. It can be done a lot better!
Mentioned above i saw a lot of really good ideas about the modules you could use and it will be for the better of the game. I, personally, see a lot of other possible numbers you can play with when it comes to variation.
What about "charges used per cycle" ? Can we have variations that would use/shoot twice as much per cycle but twice as slower? (I don't dare to think how you would name one of those... i better start digging a hole in which to hide).
Long story short:
- DO allow players more time to think about changes and provide feedback instead of pushing them without warning! It helps no one! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4259327 - more suff in the Zero.Zero collection |
Snape Dieboldmotor
Minotaur Congress
36
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 11:53:00 -
[195] - Quote
I would love to see a named overload option (ie. propulsion). There has got to be a way to do it and still keep it balanced. |
ra n
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 11:59:00 -
[196] - Quote
It would be better to eliminate all the meta 1-4 items and convert existing inventory to T1 meta 0 than this awful change! That would have the advantage of making T1 manufacturing useful again once the massive inventory was worked off.
Keeping the named modules has some small benefit to very new players. They will have access to very cheap modules with better stats than meta 0. Of course they will not have a progression of more powerful modules costing more ISK with meta 2, 3 & 4. They will be stuck with these lame modules until they get T2 skills or the ISK to buy faction/deadspace modules.
As for the names, they may make it easier for the new player to figure out what's what. What is lost though is the edgy, techie feel of Eve. The new names seem so slapdash, one size fits all. The new player imagination will not be engaged.
The meta 4 modules are useful for experienced players. This change trashes preferred fittings and reduces the value of meta 4 modules to their scrap metal value. Most meta 1-2 modules are already worth no more than scrap metal except to the new player to whom they're great WITHOUT change.
In 5 years of playing Eve, I have never posted on forums before today. Usually change is good, stagnation bad. But this change is TRULY AWFUL! |
Yongtau Naskingar
Yongtau Naskingar Corporation
73
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 12:07:00 -
[197] - Quote
Eessi wrote:The fitting variant has better fitting and less drawback. Is this an error? Has to be. Patch notes say "Capacitor Capacity Multiplier GÇô 25% (was 10%)" which is pretty huge. I guess even CCP can't really keep straight which number is better when it's bigger. |
Ssieth
Tenebras Exteriores Dominatus Atrum Mortis
104
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 12:29:00 -
[198] - Quote
RenoIdo wrote:Are small balance and graphics patches all we can expect from now on?
I have been playing since 2010 and all that's been added is just a little fluff on top of the same exact game I've been playing this whole time, and... some balancing.
The facts:
1) No real expansion since 2010
2) Game has lost subs and average concurrent players every year since 2010
3) CCP is being so poorly managed they can't see the correlation between facts 1 and 2.
*tutts* Correlation does not imply causation. W-Spacer.-á Bittervet. 75% PvP, 25% assorted other stuff. |
Medalyn Isis
Rosewood Productions Stain Confederation
315
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 12:41:00 -
[199] - Quote
This seems to have been rushed through. I don't like the proposed changes for two main reasons.
1. Meta 0 modules are worse it every stat. This goes against tiericide, and does not help the T1 manufacturer when most of the rat loot can be bought for a fraction of the price. Meta 0 should also have an advantage also over the other meta items, perhaps they should have the lowest fitting requirement to accentuate their property as a good module for new pilots. At the moment there is no reason for anyone to use them for anything other than manufacturing T2 items.
2. The new naming convention is awful.
Please think again and subject this proposal to a little more Q&A and testing from the community before releasing it. I was expecting a thread in F&I. |
Leyete Wulf
Dark Fusion Industries Limitless Redux
60
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 12:50:00 -
[200] - Quote
Medalyn Isis wrote:I was expecting a thread in F&I.
This, about a month ago...
Seriously
|
|
Althalus Stenory
Flying Blacksmiths
34
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 12:55:00 -
[201] - Quote
I stopped reading here:
Lelira Cirim wrote:/starts singing Paul Simon's "Please don't take my Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron away...." we'll need to make a petition and get as much people as we can to only our PWNAGE ! :'(
Well I really like the fact module tiericide finally begins ! My only though now is that Capacitor Flux Coil, as it's going to be, will probably weaken active shield tanking as such fits usually use these modules (bigger drawback, but bigger regen). But... as I don't have EFT to check it, we'll see :] |
Medalyn Isis
Rosewood Productions Stain Confederation
316
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 13:31:00 -
[202] - Quote
nvm |
AssandTits
University of Caille Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 13:32:00 -
[203] - Quote
Althalus Stenory wrote:I stopped reading here: Lelira Cirim wrote:/starts singing Paul Simon's "Please don't take my Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron away...." we'll need to make a petition and get as much people as we can to only our PWNAGE ! :'( Well I really like the fact module tiericide finally begins ! My only though now is that Capacitor Flux Coil, as it's going to be, will probably weaken active shield tanking as such fits usually use these modules (bigger drawback, but bigger regen). But... as I don't have EFT to check it, we'll see :]
No
That has been done before and fail basically because CCP are so arrogant they think they have a unique product in the market and can do whatever the hell they want. The fact it is a Dev Blog and not an F+I post basically means CCP are saying "**** you players, this is what will happen."
The CSM once more shows its complete uselessness at defending the Game from interference from Devs who are basically the #%$@ that is left at the bottom of the bowl after those who have the capability and drive to succeed left.
This is just the tip of the iceberg people, unless the message is sent loud and clear that persistent dumbfuckication of the game has to stop.
Burn Jita, burn it to the ground. |
Ponder Yonder
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
49
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 13:33:00 -
[204] - Quote
Dear CCP,
Meta 4 drops is currently a significant source of ISK, especially in null-sec. If memory serves, about half my ratting income used to come from meta 4 drops.
With the pattern laid down in this change you will effectively kill this source of ISK.
How is this being addressed? How will the loot tables be adjusted, or are null-sec spawns going to drop the same, lame, modules as high sec?
The meta 4 market is also very active, since large meta 4 modules are highly sought after. Not every one has large turrets trained to V, and until they do, meta 4 is the logical middle ground. With these changes, you are killing this completely, effectively telling the playerbase that there is no more choice in the damage that a module does.
And the names? Did you have a contest to see who could come up with the least imaginative names? For Bob's sake! 'Ample'? Is that the best you could come up with? Honestly, has anyone ever unsubscribed because they couldn't figure out the difference between Malkuth and Limos?
This has all the makings of a poorly designed, rushed implementation that will break a lot of things for the sake of very little benefit indeed.
|
Gray's Anatomist
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 13:33:00 -
[205] - Quote
I have two issues with the impending doom^W tiericide:
- Current tiers had several useful properties for tight fits. For example, some modules used less CPU for less effect, which came in 4 steps (not 1, not 2, 4 steps), some modules increased in value linearly, but their price was prohibitively high for throwaway fits (meta 4 damage controls anyone?). Overall this provided for interesting jigsaw puzzle solving while fitting, and even created a mini-profession of fitting specialist. This "update" not only removes this fun part of the game, but also invalidates real, working fits across the game. And if, by chance or luck, the ships will still fly - they'll lose their value against less craftily fit opponents. Is this what you want? "My ship is AMPLER than yours?"
- The names, indeed, are part of EVE lore. Why won't you call Titans "Ample Very Big Ships"? Why Sansha, Guristas, Serpentis and Blood, when you can call them "blaster terrorists", "laser terrorists", "missile terrorists" and "ewar terrorists"? Rename "Shadow Serpentis" into "scoped blaster terrorists" and see how much fun the players have.
Bottom line is: this change devalues player skills and experience. This might initially make for a lower learning curve for new players, but it won't help retain the older players, quite the opposite.
Blah-blah, it's 3 days before the update, too late to change anything. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
723
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 13:37:00 -
[206] - Quote
Gray's Anatomist wrote:I have two issues with the impending doom^W tiericide:
- Current tiers had several useful properties for tight fits. For example, some modules used less CPU for less effect, which came in 4 steps (not 1, not 2, 4 steps), some modules increased in value linearly, but their price was prohibitively high for throwaway fits (meta 4 damage controls anyone?). Overall this provided for interesting jigsaw puzzle solving while fitting, and even created a mini-profession of fitting specialist. This "update" not only removes this fun part of the game, but also invalidates real, working fits across the game. And if, by chance or luck, the ships will still fly - they'll lose their value against less craftily fit opponents. Is this what you want? "My ship is AMPLER than yours?"
- The names, indeed, are part of EVE lore. Why won't you call Titans "Ample Very Big Ships"? Why Sansha, Guristas, Serpentis and Blood, when you can call them "blaster terrorists", "laser terrorists", "missile terrorists" and "ewar terrorists"? Rename "Shadow Serpentis" into "scoped blaster terrorists" and see how much fun the players have.
Bottom line is: this change devalues player skills and experience. This might initially make for a lower learning curve for new players, but it won't help retain the older players, quite the opposite. Blah-blah, it's 3 days before the update, too late to change anything.
That's all not of interest anymore to a game developer desperate to appeal to Angry Bird players. |
Croc Evil
Croc's Family Business
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 13:41:00 -
[207] - Quote
I generally likes whole rebalance idea. Keep it coming. It would be good to see more meta 1 variants.
As some other I also feel new naming conventions are kinda "flat" and not very cool. Would be great to keep eg 'Albarest' name as prefix to Compact Light Missile Launcher as someone suggested.
I also think that especially offensive new meta 1 modules should be closer to their tech II variants. For example light missile launchers. Tech II variant is already significantly stronger than all other variants (storyline/faction/deadspace etc included) because of possibility to use tech II ammunition. So I think meta 1 variants should be only little bit worse in damage output with tech I ammunition. LML Storyline/faction/deadspace seems ok to me in this regard.
I would also like to see lower NPC drop rate for meta 1 variants. Right now EVE is flooded with many meta 1-4 modules (with some exceptions). For start lower drop by eg 30%, replaced partially with meta 0 variant drops. At least it would be a bit simpler to go through junk after mission/signature cleaning :-)
|
Drone 16
Law Dogz
241
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 13:56:00 -
[208] - Quote
In other news, Raytheon in a bid to attract more customers has decided to rename its next generation TTWCS-Tactical Tomahawk Weapon Control System (which has an increased missile bay) Ample Cruise Missile Launchers; sales are expected to sky rocket.... It puts the peanutbutter on itself or it leaves the bonus round... - E1's greatest Hits |
Drone 16
Law Dogz
241
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 14:03:00 -
[209] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Gray's Anatomist wrote:I have two issues with the impending doom^W tiericide:
- Current tiers had several useful properties for tight fits. For example, some modules used less CPU for less effect, which came in 4 steps (not 1, not 2, 4 steps), some modules increased in value linearly, but their price was prohibitively high for throwaway fits (meta 4 damage controls anyone?). Overall this provided for interesting jigsaw puzzle solving while fitting, and even created a mini-profession of fitting specialist. This "update" not only removes this fun part of the game, but also invalidates real, working fits across the game. And if, by chance or luck, the ships will still fly - they'll lose their value against less craftily fit opponents. Is this what you want? "My ship is AMPLER than yours?"
- The names, indeed, are part of EVE lore. Why won't you call Titans "Ample Very Big Ships"? Why Sansha, Guristas, Serpentis and Blood, when you can call them "blaster terrorists", "laser terrorists", "missile terrorists" and "ewar terrorists"? Rename "Shadow Serpentis" into "scoped blaster terrorists" and see how much fun the players have.
Bottom line is: this change devalues player skills and experience. This might initially make for a lower learning curve for new players, but it won't help retain the older players, quite the opposite. Blah-blah, it's 3 days before the update, too late to change anything. That's all not of interest anymore to a game developer desperate to appeal to Angry Bird players.
I wish I could give this more than one like.
I can't even look at these silly names
It puts the peanutbutter on itself or it leaves the bonus round... - E1's greatest Hits |
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
186
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 14:16:00 -
[210] - Quote
In the second image the 'COSMOS' modules are not given a position in the bar to state where you think they currently reside in terms of strengths & weaknesses.
In the second image, post any/all module tiercide changes, you place them straddling the T2 and Faction 1/2 columns but not really having their own space within the chart.
At present a small number of the 'COSMOS' modules do have slightly better stats in terms of effects/damage/ROF etc than their T2 counterparts but the majority have worse effects/damage/ROF etc . The 'COSMOS' modules do I think all have better fittings though atm.
Given the rarity of the 'COSMOS' BPCs due to the missions only being completable once per character along with the difficulty in acquiring the materials to make them some of which are VERY hard to source I propose the following:
In the second image place the 'COSMOS' modules between Faction 1/2 and the Officer module categories in their own column. Give ALL the 'COSMOS' modules the same OR BETTER effects/damage/ROF as their T2 equivalents along with the current reduced fitting requirements.
Given that it is far easier to source Faction modules than 'COSMOS' modules this seems to make perfect sense to me. This will increase the demand for 'COSMOS' BPCs and materials and act as an additional conflict driver. Keep the availability of 'COSMOS' BPCs and materials as they are currently and watch the blood spill. |
|
Red Deck
Stupid Stunts
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 14:16:00 -
[211] - Quote
Gray's Anatomist wrote:I have two issues with the impending doom^W tiericide:
- Current tiers had several useful properties for tight fits. For example, some modules used less CPU for less effect, which came in 4 steps (not 1, not 2, 4 steps), some modules increased in value linearly, but their price was prohibitively high for throwaway fits (meta 4 damage controls anyone?). Overall this provided for interesting jigsaw puzzle solving while fitting, and even created a mini-profession of fitting specialist. This "update" not only removes this fun part of the game, but also invalidates real, working fits across the game. And if, by chance or luck, the ships will still fly - they'll lose their value against less craftily fit opponents. Is this what you want? "My ship is AMPLER than yours?"
- The names, indeed, are part of EVE lore. Why won't you call Titans "Ample Very Big Ships"? Why Sansha, Guristas, Serpentis and Blood, when you can call them "blaster terrorists", "laser terrorists", "missile terrorists" and "ewar terrorists"? Rename "Shadow Serpentis" into "scoped blaster terrorists" and see how much fun the players have.
Bottom line is: this change devalues player skills and experience. This might initially make for a lower learning curve for new players, but it won't help retain the older players, quite the opposite. Blah-blah, it's 3 days before the update, too late to change anything. I am afraid I have to very much agree with this post.
I have been plaing EVE for less than two years, so I am not a newbie anymore, but I suppose I can't be called a 'bittervet' yet either...
Some of the changes proposed just make me shake my head in disbelief. The naming scheme, as stated in dozens of earlier posts, is so bland and uninspired it's painful. The idea of merging e.g. Malkuth and Arbalest LMLs (one of them currently selling for like ten times more than the other) into a single mod illustrates how detached the dev(s) engineering this change are from the game.
The whole idea of having just one "Easier to Fit" version of any given mod is just unbelievable... what on Earth is wrong with having several versions of a mod, each being progressively more rare / expensive, but easier to fit? Why do you want to cram everything into a single uniform scheme? Having quirks and exceptions and irregularities is what makes EVE so interesting and unique... that's what makes me toy with fits for hours.
I am all for dropping rubbish meta mods (and there is a ton of them) - either by removing them from the rat drops or by changing their stats to make them actually useful. I am all for renaming some of the currently confusingly named mods. But the proposed changes seem to be largely just for the sake of a change to me, taking away both flavour and gameplay options.
There are several ideas in this thread that I believe are very much worth considering (I liked the cryptic suffixes hinting at the changed stat of a meta mod akin to the current implant naming convention - and I would like to keep 'Malkuth'/'Arbalest'/'Limos' names if for nothing else then just for flavour reasons).
Alas, as with almost all recent changes, it's too late to have any meaningful discussion now... all we can do now is rant. |
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
186
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 14:21:00 -
[212] - Quote
I also don't like the current regime of renaming items and processes to make them simpler to understand. We are not idiots and in addition the current names of items are just better pure & simple. Some of the recent changes such as renaming refining & calling it reprocessing was just plain illogical. |
Nalha Saldana
Contractors Ltd.
822
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 14:25:00 -
[213] - Quote
This is what a NPC corp based naming system could look like and would be 100x better than that crap
Amarrian modules Upgraded/Ample - Amarr Constructions Scoped - Imperial Armaments Compact - Zoar and Sons Enduring - Carthum Restrained - Viziam
Caldarian modules Upgraded/Ample - Caldari Constructions Scoped - Caldari Steel Restrained - Perkone Enduring - Rapid Assembly Compact - Top Down
Gallentean modules Upgraded/Ample - Allotek Compact - Chemal Restrained - CreoDron Enduring - Duvolle Scoped - Roden
Minmatarian modules Upgraded/Ample - Core Complexion Enduring - Freedom Extension Compact - Boundless Creation Restrained - Eifyr Scoped - Six Kin
The modules would get a name based on what race it belongs to (same as invention interfaces)
As example here are the devblog items: Allotek Co-Processor Zoar and Sons Reactor Control Unit Zoar and Sons Micro Auxiliary Power Core Top Down Light Missile Launcher Caldari Constructions Light Missile Launcher Freedom Extension Cargo Scanner Six Kin Cargo Scanner |
AssandTits
University of Caille Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 14:28:00 -
[214] - Quote
Nalha Saldana wrote:This is what a NPC corp based naming system could look like and would be 100x better than that crap
Amarrian modules Upgraded/Ample - Amarr Constructions Scoped - Imperial Armaments Compact - Zoar and Sons Enduring - Carthum Restrained - Viziam
Caldarian modules Upgraded/Ample - Caldari Constructions Scoped - Caldari Steel Restrained - Perkone Enduring - Rapid Assembly Compact - Top Down
Gallentean modules Upgraded/Ample - Allotek Compact - Chemal Restrained - CreoDron Enduring - Duvolle Scoped - Roden
Minmatarian modules Upgraded/Ample - Core Complexion Enduring - Freedom Extension Compact - Boundless Creation Restrained - Eifyr Scoped - Six Kin
The modules would get a name based on what race it belongs to (same as invention interfaces)
As example here are the devblog items: Allotek Co-Processor Zoar and Sons Reactor Control Unit Zoar and Sons Micro Auxiliary Power Core Top Down Light Missile Launcher Caldari Constructions Light Missile Launcher Freedom Extension Cargo Scanner Six Kin Cargo Scanner
Unfortunately that naming convention will confuse all those spoon fed WoW kiddies CCP seems to think will actually have the attention span to play EVE.
Stop pandering to might be's, pay attention to just barley have.
|
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION The Obsidian Front
485
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 14:33:00 -
[215] - Quote
Copper Khai wrote:thanks for all that you do. one small criticism. Some named modules are not EVE-like. they sound like magic items. Maybe you are doing it for beginners or cross over MMO players. But it stuck out to my ears. Ample? Enduring? not very scientific...
- Upgraded- ok
- Compact- ok (nanu, spun, )
- Enduring- no (efficient, stable, streamlined, normalized, eco, rewired, )
- Ample- no (flushed, distended, augmented) or Expanded / Extended
- Scoped- ok
- Restrained- (insulated, confined)
Although I've been looking forward to this (and I've also posted in the features and ideas forum pretty much these exact changes!) the naming of the modules is very dull.
I have to go with Copper Khai on this and her suggestions are so much better. As an engineer by trade, the names I've highlighted in the quote above make so much more sense to me. |
Drone 16
Law Dogz
242
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 15:01:00 -
[216] - Quote
Nalha Saldana wrote:This is what a NPC corp based naming system could look like and would be 100x better than that crap
Amarrian modules Upgraded/Ample - Amarr Constructions Scoped - Imperial Armaments Compact - Zoar and Sons Enduring - Carthum Restrained - Viziam
Caldarian modules Upgraded/Ample - Caldari Constructions Scoped - Caldari Steel Restrained - Perkone Enduring - Rapid Assembly Compact - Top Down
Gallentean modules Upgraded/Ample - Allotek Compact - Chemal Restrained - CreoDron Enduring - Duvolle Scoped - Roden
Minmatarian modules Upgraded/Ample - Core Complexion Enduring - Freedom Extension Compact - Boundless Creation Restrained - Eifyr Scoped - Six Kin
The modules would get a name based on what race it belongs to (same as invention interfaces)
As example here are the devblog items: Allotek Co-Processor Zoar and Sons Reactor Control Unit Zoar and Sons Micro Auxiliary Power Core Top Down Light Missile Launcher Caldari Constructions Light Missile Launcher Freedom Extension Cargo Scanner Six Kin Cargo Scanner
Love this idea
It puts the peanutbutter on itself or it leaves the bonus round... - E1's greatest Hits |
June Blindbird
Flying Blacksmiths
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 15:08:00 -
[217] - Quote
The module Tiericide on its "make better stats and add usefulness for everything" part is a very good news, however it seems that you also decided like for Afterburners & co to rename and put generic and spirit-less prefixes on the names.
I understand that the purpose is to help people (in particular newbies) because the prefix will tell immediately the purpose of the variant, but as a player which thinks that immersion is important in any game, the impact is sensible to me. Eve online may become easier to learn but that also drives it away from a deep game, with a lore, a spirit and history. If possible I'd really appreciate if you could find at least qualifiers which sounds more Eve-ish, like the ones proposed further posts above. |
Arcos Vandymion
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
30
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 15:17:00 -
[218] - Quote
Just gonna go ahead and point out that even after that, noone in their right mind will use anything but T2 turrets/launchers if they can. Certainly not while you gain up to 10% to their performance via skill making them better than any meta above 5 even when you use the same ammo.
That's not considering T2 ammo because there is literally no reason to spend 50m a pop on True Sansha Mega Pulse Lasers if you can't burninate them bad guys to crisp with a Scorch crystal with them. A T2 Mega Pulse can and only costs a fraction for better performance. |
Madeleine Lemmont
Divide et Impera DE
7
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 15:26:00 -
[219] - Quote
1st I think, this could be a step into the right direction. Of curse some guys will hate it, due to have additional work to redesign their fittings. But these players are visible always. So far...
In association to the new ship database solution you should try to create a more dynamic item database. As long as you have each item with an own database entry including all item properties, this won't work, due to a lag of individualization possibilities.
If this would happen, we have a chance to realize "module research" or "module engineering". This for instance would result in a larger amount of "corpnamed" modules with corp-colors.
|
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
795
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 15:52:00 -
[220] - Quote
Daimus Daranius wrote:Hey CCP, I was hoping to see Shield Flux Coils fixed as part of module rebalance, since they are currently the most useless modules in EVE (I can't think of a single application where they would be useful). My suggestion - replace the shield recharge bonus with a reduction to either duration or cap use of shield boosters.
Cap Power Relays already reduce shield boost amount. GÇ£I personally refuse to help AAA take space from itself so it can become an even shittier version of itselfGÇ¥ -Grath Telkin, 2014.
Free PASTA! |
|
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
840
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 16:12:00 -
[221] - Quote
Nalha Saldana wrote:This is what a NPC corp based naming system could look like and would be 100x better than that crap this naming system is 100% terrible
however I am heartened by that there are only a small group of people talking loudly at each other here: the angry about names brigade is even smaller than I had thought |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
904
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 16:14:00 -
[222] - Quote
Krell Kroenen wrote:Harvey James wrote:i find the T2 mods just being plain better at everything a little at odds with role based mods...
T2 lml is better at everything ... surely allowing the use of T2 ammo is enough of a buff in itself?? why use the ample version when T2 is better at it?? 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.
the skill requirements are the only thing stopping people ignoring the metas entirely and just skipping too T2 ..
The purpose of the T2 is too allow specialization .. in this case T2 ammo ... but if its better at everything then its not really specializing is it??
bottom line is people will use only the compact and T2 .. lower fittings for tight fits and also whilst training skills up and then they will jump too the T2 cos its better and can use T2 ammo ... somehow i don't think this is what CCP had in mind here ... 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.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please |
Medalyn Isis
Rosewood Productions Stain Confederation
316
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 16:44:00 -
[223] - Quote
The real issue is the uselessness of the T1 modules. That is something which manufacturers have been complaining about for aeons.
Is the drop rate going to be substantially reduced for the meta items so that their price doesn't simply drop below the inferior T1 meta 0 modules as is the current case?
Having nice names is great, and the names suggested now are pretty bad. But this is small fry compared to the actual gameplay issue of meta 0 being useless still and probably more expensive than the meta 1-4 stuff.
As I've seen suggested, at least give meta 0 items one saving grace, and one reason why to choose them over the massive amount of rat spew which everyone has piles of as a consequence of missions and ratting. |
profundus fossura
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
13
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 16:57:00 -
[224] - Quote
Gosti Kahanid wrote:Onslaughtor wrote:So with the missiles. It would make sense to add a third meta type for ROF like at 13.2 with a 21 to 23 cpu requirement and a 36 to 40 missile bay. The upgraded lml would be a nice damage focused meta mod that would be good for adding more complex but logical fitting decisions.
That, I think, would be a bad Idea. Everyone would then fit for more damage. Why should I use a module with more ammocapacity when I can get more DPS out of it? With Turrets there will probably be more options for application (hopefully nothing which provides more DPS than another), but missile launchers don-¦t have anything which would provide better application, for this they could offer different missiles, but for the launchers this is enough
Could vary other stats for missile launchers like explosion radius which would impact damage and give a more interesting fitting choice. |
Krell Kroenen
The Devil's Shadow
188
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 16:58:00 -
[225] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Krell Kroenen wrote:Harvey James wrote:i find the T2 mods just being plain better at everything a little at odds with role based mods...
T2 lml is better at everything ... surely allowing the use of T2 ammo is enough of a buff in itself?? why use the ample version when T2 is better at it?? 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. the skill requirements are the only thing stopping people ignoring the metas entirely and just skipping too T2 .. The purpose of the T2 is too allow specialization .. in this case T2 ammo ... but if its better at everything then its not really specializing is it?? bottom line is people will use only the compact and T2 .. lower fittings for tight fits and also whilst training skills up and then they will jump too the T2 cos its better and can use T2 ammo ... somehow i don't think this is what CCP had in mind here ...
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*. |
Callic Veratar
633
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 17:00:00 -
[226] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: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.
A flux coil with a greater drawback and more recharge is definitely useful. How about another Overclocked Capacitor Flux Coil (where overclocked is a greater drawback for even more effect). |
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1211
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 17:04:00 -
[227] - Quote
Medalyn Isis wrote:As I've seen suggested, at least give meta 0 items one saving grace, and one reason why to choose them over the massive amount of rat spew which everyone has piles of as a consequence of missions and ratting.
This.
I can live with Vast Tracts of Launchers if this is fixed. The only reason to use any T1 item less than Meta 4 is a) cost, when that actually matters; b) availability, if you happen to not be near a trade hub, or c) really, really tight fits. I've used a non-Rolled Tungsten T1 plate exactly once because it was the only way to shoehorn a plate onto that particular ship.
And the fallback if Meta 4 isn't available is always the next lowest. There should be a reason to prefer meta 0 beside the mostly irrelevant fact that they're dirt cheap instead of merely cheap.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables. |
profundus fossura
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
13
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 17:05:00 -
[228] - Quote
Vesan Terakol wrote:OK, now that I've slept over that matter, have some thought about it...
Lets talk names! I see why some modules bear such ridiculous names.
For instance, "limited" adaptive invulnerability field. Through my 3 years of playing EVE, that name has always puzzled me, as it...
MADE NO SENSE!
What is limited about that module? Even as i looked into the statistics, over and over again, i never came to associate "limited" with the actual difference in the module. Neither "limited" and "upgraded" helps me differentiate the MWD and afterburner variations. You know what does? Estimated price!
Now, I figured it! You tried to pull this same maneuver! And you know what? It didn't quite work, because such module name prefixes ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH! They make your team look like bloody illiterates and your management as completely ignorant of your doings, as, FFS, even a kid for whom English is not the native language will at least try and pull out words that give a bad-ass vibe to what he is naming.
Those proposed name prefixes are LAME (in any meaning you can put to this word, slang and literal), and I don't say that in blind rage, i say it in the shades of mournful regret that will overcome me if you are to push that nonsense out. It will achieve nothing.
On page 5 i believe there is a post by Moraguth that suggested some synonyms of your proposed name changes. Please, do take a careful look at this post. THAT is how you should name modules if you want clarity.
Long story short:
- DO NOT use Google translate, please! - DO NOT embarrass the entire team by making the entire player base look upon you as ignorant illiterates! - DO use this opportunity to fix old mistakes in naming!
P.S. I also believe that you owe the player community an official apology about even considering your list of name prefixes.
Lets talk statistics!
I do like the general direction of what you're doing. The statistics make more sense. Yet, you shouldn't have delayed releasing that information that much. You did this with the RLML rework last year to a major outcry from the public and yet you do it again!
There are changes that need to be pushed regardless of whether the community likes them, as they are healthy for the game. This one kind of is, yet you should have posted your draft in the F&I forums long time ago, as it needs a lot of polish. It can be done a lot better!
Mentioned above i saw a lot of really good ideas about the modules you could use and it will be for the better of the game. I, personally, see a lot of other possible numbers you can play with when it comes to variation.
What about "charges used per cycle" ? Can we have variations that would use/shoot twice as much per cycle but twice as slower? (I don't dare to think how you would name one of those... i better start digging a hole in which to hide).
Long story short:
- DO allow players more time to think about changes and provide feedback instead of pushing them without warning! It helps no one!
Always wondered how Duel and Quad guns only use one charge at a time : )
|
Lexiana Del'Amore
Nouvelle Rouvenor Monkeys with Guns.
87
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 17:24:00 -
[229] - Quote
In other news, major car manufacturer such as Volkswagon, Ford and Renault are to rename their Golf, Focus and Clio to a unified " Hatchback I "... this in order to "help" confuzed consumers... |
Wilhelm Ormand
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
15
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 17:36:00 -
[230] - Quote
I think it's great that module tiericide is finally happening and I would like to provide some feedback upon the proposed changes.
- Some of the names seem badly chosen:
Compact. Reduced fitting cost doesn't make a module more compact, why not just Reduced? Enduring should definitely be called Efficient as this refers to an improvement of dynamic resources. Ample should definitely be called Expanded as this is already in game for probe launchers and very descriptive. Scoped seems unfitting. Extended would semantically be the best choice but sounds a lot like Expanded.
- How far can it be called tiericide when the new named mudules have improvements other then the main specification? This means that choosing a named module is still always a better choice then meta 0 and T2 is only not preferred when fitting is tight. What about bringing meta 0 modules a little closer to T2 and having the named modules only improve on the named specification? The current proposition seems to just create new tiers instead of the un-tiering that is being promised and preached about.
- I think single quotation marks serve no purpose in names and should be done away with completely. If Khanid Navy Co-Processor is fine, why not Deuce Co-Processor (instead of 'Deuce' Co-Processor)?
Also, what is up with the different writings of "Basic"? One with and one without single quotation marks: Basic Co-Processor vs. GÇÿBasicGÇÖ Capacitor Flux Coil.
To end this feedback I would like to say: keep up the good work and don't take all the (sometimes badly worded) critique the wrong way. |
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
904
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 17:37:00 -
[231] - Quote
Krell Kroenen wrote:Harvey James wrote:Krell Kroenen wrote:Harvey James wrote:i find the T2 mods just being plain better at everything a little at odds with role based mods...
T2 lml is better at everything ... surely allowing the use of T2 ammo is enough of a buff in itself?? why use the ample version when T2 is better at it?? 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. the skill requirements are the only thing stopping people ignoring the metas entirely and just skipping too T2 .. The purpose of the T2 is too allow specialization .. in this case T2 ammo ... but if its better at everything then its not really specializing is it?? bottom line is people will use only the compact and T2 .. lower fittings for tight fits and also whilst training skills up and then they will jump too the T2 cos its better and can use T2 ammo ... somehow i don't think this is what CCP had in mind here ... 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*.
i am surprised they didn't ask for our help on this important project... they take 1 step forward .... 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.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please |
James Zimmer
House of Pain Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 17:47:00 -
[232] - Quote
As a fairly new player, I can easily see that a lot of this is focused on helping out us newbs, so I'd like to give my opinion:
1. Simpling naming conventions is generally a good thing. It's annoying to have to go to the compare tool every time I want to buy a module to figure out which one is best for my purposes. For example "Arbalest" doesn't tell me anything, and I would much prefer if I at least had a clue as to what distinguished the module by the name. That being said, if EVERYTHING in the game gets standardized, I think it will feel extremely dull. Maybe a better way to standardize it would be by module class. For example, long range artillery and autocannons could be called "extended barrel" modules while long range rockets and missiles could be called "long-burn" modules. You could also add a more stylized name to distinguish between T1 and T2 for each module class, as that would be easy to remember and make it feel a little less dull. For example you could have your long range T2 light missile launcher named something like this "Arbalest (tier) Long-Burn (specialty) Light Missile Launcher (module type)"
2. I like the idea of making modules specialized into different focus areas. It will give more variety to fits and allow players to specialize to what they want to do. It essentially allows you to enhance a trait without a stacking penalty. However, I think there are some weaknesses to how it is being implemented. The differences between the two Meta 1 missile launchers for example, is minuscule. I have to worry about it on the fitting screen, but after that, the first time it makes a difference is when the "Compact Light Missile Launcher" reloads, 9 minutes into the fight (assuming 0 skills and no overheat). My purchasing decision will be very simple: If I need the extra powergrid and CPU, I will go with the "Compact" version. If not, I will go with the cheapest available, because it really doesn't matter. More meaningful differences would be long-range with lower rate of fire vs. shorter range and higher rate of fire and maybe higher fitting requirements. I'm not talking about duplicating rockets, but I think it would be interesting to have to make the decision of whether you want a 20-25 km rapid fire light missile destroyer, or a 40+ km slow fire light missile destroyer (this may also require a buff to rocket launchers, so they remain a viable option).
3. I think it would be interesting to have these options continue into tier 2 modules rather than the single tier 2 module that's simply better at everything. |
Krell Kroenen
The Devil's Shadow
188
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 18:36:00 -
[233] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Krell Kroenen wrote: 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*.
i am surprised they didn't ask for our help on this important project... they take 1 step forward ....
The 6wk cycles does not grant much if any wiggle room for changes I suppose. I partly think they let us post on the forums to watch us get on our soap boxes and attack each other as we fight for our own ideas of how we think things should be. While they snicker and chuckle behind the scenes and carry out their plans as they see fit.
Which if that is the case then so be it. In theory they have more information than we do, especially about their long term plans that might make my point of view mute. While I feel there is no harm in stating our point of views, I am going to try to not bend myself out of shape defending it when it seems rather clear that the feature in question is rather set in stone.
Besides, Eve is just a game and if they change it to the point that I no longer find it worth my time and money I can always leave. Lame module names and less than idea stats for some mods in my opinion while disappointing, is not game breaking for me. |
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 19:34:00 -
[234] - Quote
AssandTits wrote:Althalus Stenory wrote:I stopped reading here: Lelira Cirim wrote:/starts singing Paul Simon's "Please don't take my Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron away...." we'll need to make a petition and get as much people as we can to only our PWNAGE ! :'( Well I really like the fact module tiericide finally begins ! My only though now is that Capacitor Flux Coil, as it's going to be, will probably weaken active shield tanking as such fits usually use these modules (bigger drawback, but bigger regen). But... as I don't have EFT to check it, we'll see :] No That has been done before and fail basically because CCP are so arrogant they think they have a unique product in the market and can do whatever the hell they want. The fact it is a Dev Blog and not an F+I post basically means CCP are saying "**** you players, this is what will happen." The CSM once more shows its complete uselessness at defending the Game from interference from Devs who are basically the #%$@ that is left at the bottom of the bowl after those who have the capability and drive to succeed left. This is just the tip of the iceberg people, unless the message is sent loud and clear that persistent dumbfuckication of the game has to stop. Burn Jita, burn it to the ground. Your so True ...
My next Games will be Elite and Star Citizen, i personally have enough from this ******** Game Downgrade Changes/Patches whatever
|
Thror Ginkar
Flying Blacksmiths
13
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 19:44:00 -
[235] - Quote
Would it be possible to at least keep some of the "names" for the different "named" modules ? Some examples:
- Enduring 'Regard' Remote capacitor booster - Scoped 'Scout' 250mm artillery canon - Compact 'F-S9' Medium shield extender - Restrained 'Type-D' Capacitor flux coil
I really think that removing all these technical names, sometimes even funny names (Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron ) gives some deepness to the game. It looks like something real where reasearcher comes up with a name for its discovery, and you will be taking away this realism. I totally understand that naming conventions are helpful for the NPE. But I don't see any obstacle in combining both conventional and fantasy namings.
Give us a Scoped 'Pwnage' Target painter, bring back the old Catalyzed cold gas 'Arcjet' thrusters in the form of an Enduring 'Arcjet' 1mn Afterburner, and revive the good old 'V-M15' Braced Multispectral Shield Matrix...
EVE has an history, don't sacrifice everything on the altar of simplification when there is a possibility to mix the past and the future. I know it's now "EVE - The Second Decade", but please don't remove everything of the first decade, those were great times too . |
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 19:57:00 -
[236] - Quote
Gray's Anatomist wrote:I have two issues with the impending doom^W tiericide:
- Current tiers had several useful properties for tight fits. For example, some modules used less CPU for less effect, which came in 4 steps (not 1, not 2, 4 steps), some modules increased in value linearly, but their price was prohibitively high for throwaway fits (meta 4 damage controls anyone?). Overall this provided for interesting jigsaw puzzle solving while fitting, and even created a mini-profession of fitting specialist. This "update" not only removes this fun part of the game, but also invalidates real, working fits across the game. And if, by chance or luck, the ships will still fly - they'll lose their value against less craftily fit opponents. Is this what you want? "My ship is AMPLER than yours?"
- The names, indeed, are part of EVE lore. Why won't you call Titans "Ample Very Big Ships"? Why Sansha, Guristas, Serpentis and Blood, when you can call them "blaster terrorists", "laser terrorists", "missile terrorists" and "ewar terrorists"? Rename "Shadow Serpentis" into "scoped blaster terrorists" and see how much fun the players have.
Bottom line is: this change devalues player skills and experience. This might initially make for a lower learning curve for new players, but it won't help retain the older players, quite the opposite. Blah-blah, it's 3 days before the update, too late to change anything. +Like, +Like, +Like
|
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 19:58:00 -
[237] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Gray's Anatomist wrote:I have two issues with the impending doom^W tiericide:
- Current tiers had several useful properties for tight fits. For example, some modules used less CPU for less effect, which came in 4 steps (not 1, not 2, 4 steps), some modules increased in value linearly, but their price was prohibitively high for throwaway fits (meta 4 damage controls anyone?). Overall this provided for interesting jigsaw puzzle solving while fitting, and even created a mini-profession of fitting specialist. This "update" not only removes this fun part of the game, but also invalidates real, working fits across the game. And if, by chance or luck, the ships will still fly - they'll lose their value against less craftily fit opponents. Is this what you want? "My ship is AMPLER than yours?"
- The names, indeed, are part of EVE lore. Why won't you call Titans "Ample Very Big Ships"? Why Sansha, Guristas, Serpentis and Blood, when you can call them "blaster terrorists", "laser terrorists", "missile terrorists" and "ewar terrorists"? Rename "Shadow Serpentis" into "scoped blaster terrorists" and see how much fun the players have.
Bottom line is: this change devalues player skills and experience. This might initially make for a lower learning curve for new players, but it won't help retain the older players, quite the opposite. Blah-blah, it's 3 days before the update, too late to change anything. That's all not of interest anymore to a game developer desperate to appeal to Angry Bird players. Your Wrong, they all Play World of Whoolooloo
|
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 20:06:00 -
[238] - Quote
Nalha Saldana wrote:This is what a NPC corp based naming system could look like and would be 100x better than that crap
Amarrian modules Upgraded/Ample - Amarr Constructions Scoped - Imperial Armaments Compact - Zoar and Sons Enduring - Carthum Restrained - Viziam
Caldarian modules Upgraded/Ample - Caldari Constructions Scoped - Caldari Steel Restrained - Perkone Enduring - Rapid Assembly Compact - Top Down
Gallentean modules Upgraded/Ample - Allotek Compact - Chemal Restrained - CreoDron Enduring - Duvolle Scoped - Roden
Minmatarian modules Upgraded/Ample - Core Complexion Enduring - Freedom Extension Compact - Boundless Creation Restrained - Eifyr Scoped - Six Kin
The modules would get a name based on what race it belongs to (same as invention interfaces)
As example here are the devblog items: Allotek Co-Processor Zoar and Sons Reactor Control Unit Zoar and Sons Micro Auxiliary Power Core Top Down Light Missile Launcher Caldari Constructions Light Missile Launcher Freedom Extension Cargo Scanner Six Kin Cargo Scanner Best Example so far ...
+Like
|
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 20:17:00 -
[239] - Quote
I have the Ultimate solution for the fastest ending of this Tiericidde whatever...
Simple: Change the name Meta into something else, Point and Finish.
And Please STOP this Downgrades... |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5898
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 22:00:00 -
[240] - Quote
Translation: Change is scary. Hold me. If you like EVE Online and War Thunder content stop by my YouTube channel.-á
Ranger 1 Presents https://www.youtube.com/user/Ranger1Presents |
|
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
464
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 22:20:00 -
[241] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Krell Kroenen wrote:Harvey James wrote:i find the T2 mods just being plain better at everything a little at odds with role based mods...
T2 lml is better at everything ... surely allowing the use of T2 ammo is enough of a buff in itself?? why use the ample version when T2 is better at it?? Maybe because of skill requirements and cost? the skill requirements are the only thing stopping people ignoring the metas entirely and just skipping too T2 .. The purpose of the T2 is too allow specialization .. in this case T2 ammo ... but if its better at everything then its not really specializing is it?? bottom line is people will use only the compact and T2 .. lower fittings for tight fits and also whilst training skills up and then they will jump too the T2 cos its better and can use T2 ammo ... somehow i don't think this is what CCP had in mind here ... In truth, T2 modules are simply OP. As is stated in virutally every player blog and guide, if you are not fitting T2 modules, or skilling up to do so, then you are doing it wrong.
In pre-tiericide ship terms, T2 modules have been the FOTM, every month, practically since they were introduced, sort of like the old Hulk for mining. Metas are something you "fly" only until you have the skills to use T2 - again, just like the old Retriever. And, T1 modules are like the old Procurer - no reason to ever use them.
At least with the old mining ships, the jump in SP and ISK to go from T1 to T2 provided a significant barrier, which kept the use of Hulks somewhat reasonable. This isn't the case with T2 modules. Players have more ISK these days and T2 modules are not that expensive, relative to the hull cost - so, everyone uses them.
And, ship tiericide actually made this situation worse, since the CPU and PG were adjusted upwards to allow virtually all ships to fit 100% T2 modules. Prior to ship tiericide, you usually could not fit all T2 - you had to make compromises and use metas in some slots.
Seems like T2 modules are in dire need of a major hit from the nerf bat, if metas and T1 modules are to see much regular use, except as a brief step on the way to using T2 modules. T2 advantages need to be tweaked down, and CPU/PG reqs need to be tweaked up. |
Mohingan Dark
Chaotic Horizon
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 01:17:00 -
[242] - Quote
each meta 1 should just have one stat better than the meta 0, but also sacrifice another stat.......so meta 0 would still be worthwhile and/or preferred by some (ie: more range but less tracking....more tracking but less range.....less fitting requirement but lesser rof.....faster rof but less ammo....etc.) |
Robert Parr
Iron Tiger T3 Industries
13
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 02:09:00 -
[243] - Quote
AssandTits wrote:Uninspiring, bland and quite functionally pointless balance pass so far.
You are removing choice in the name of ... choice? And yet when your game is on the verge of having a fight to the death with TWO major competitors you dumb it down. Other games tried this, it cost them upwards of 50% of their subscriptions. Heed well the story of the NGE.
What is happening here is simple and easy to see, you ****** up invention making it too easy and accessible and you need to drive T2 sales to keep the invention monkeys happy. So you reduce the effectiveness of meta, you run faction/deadspace up in price by making modules that currently are useless usable (therefore making the nullbears on the CSM happy) and **** the newbie.
You also use balance on weapon systems to hide the complete **** up you are making of Interceptors. Like the Drake, you take the easy route instead of admitting your failure (another trait of a failing corporate structure by the way) and dealing with the problem.
(Fozzie says:) No, no...trust me, you'll like that your Drake is worthless in the end Wait till this guy gets to guns..you're really gonna love that!!!! |
Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
207
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 03:05:00 -
[244] - Quote
Why not simply drop meta 1-3 and NOT screw up ship fittings by leaving meta4 in place.
Call them all upgraded. I mean really, upgraded, compact, enduring, ample, scoped, restrained, what did you steal that from wow jewelcrafting? You forgot a few, accurate, adept, bold, bracing........... |
Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
207
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 03:06:00 -
[245] - Quote
Robert Parr wrote:AssandTits wrote:Uninspiring, bland and quite functionally pointless balance pass so far.
You are removing choice in the name of ... choice? And yet when your game is on the verge of having a fight to the death with TWO major competitors you dumb it down. Other games tried this, it cost them upwards of 50% of their subscriptions. Heed well the story of the NGE.
What is happening here is simple and easy to see, you ****** up invention making it too easy and accessible and you need to drive T2 sales to keep the invention monkeys happy. So you reduce the effectiveness of meta, you run faction/deadspace up in price by making modules that currently are useless usable (therefore making the nullbears on the CSM happy) and **** the newbie.
You also use balance on weapon systems to hide the complete **** up you are making of Interceptors. Like the Drake, you take the easy route instead of admitting your failure (another trait of a failing corporate structure by the way) and dealing with the problem.
(Fozzie says:) No, no...trust me, you'll like that your Drake is worthless in the end Wait till this guy gets to guns..you're really gonna love that!!!!
Ahh, fozzie and drake, that explains a lot. |
Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
207
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 03:37:00 -
[246] - Quote
Nalha Saldana wrote:This is what a NPC corp based naming system could look like and would be 100x better than that crap
Amarrian modules Upgraded/Ample - Amarr Constructions Scoped - Imperial Armaments Compact - Zoar and Sons Enduring - Carthum Restrained - Viziam
Caldarian modules Upgraded/Ample - Caldari Constructions Scoped - Caldari Steel Restrained - Perkone Enduring - Rapid Assembly Compact - Top Down
Gallentean modules Upgraded/Ample - Allotek Compact - Chemal Restrained - CreoDron Enduring - Duvolle Scoped - Roden
Minmatarian modules Upgraded/Ample - Core Complexion Enduring - Freedom Extension Compact - Boundless Creation Restrained - Eifyr Scoped - Six Kin
The modules would get a name based on what race it belongs to (same as invention interfaces)
As example here are the devblog items: Allotek Co-Processor Zoar and Sons Reactor Control Unit Zoar and Sons Micro Auxiliary Power Core Top Down Light Missile Launcher Caldari Constructions Light Missile Launcher Freedom Extension Cargo Scanner Six Kin Cargo Scanner
This is the whole thing laid out in a table.
http://www.wow-gem.com/gems.aspx |
Drone 16
Law Dogz
246
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 04:41:00 -
[247] - Quote
Drone 16 wrote:Nalha Saldana wrote:This is what a NPC corp based naming system could look like and would be 100x better than that crap
Amarrian modules Upgraded/Ample - Amarr Constructions Scoped - Imperial Armaments Compact - Zoar and Sons Enduring - Carthum Restrained - Viziam
Caldarian modules Upgraded/Ample - Caldari Constructions Scoped - Caldari Steel Restrained - Perkone Enduring - Rapid Assembly Compact - Top Down
Gallentean modules Upgraded/Ample - Allotek Compact - Chemal Restrained - CreoDron Enduring - Duvolle Scoped - Roden
Minmatarian modules Upgraded/Ample - Core Complexion Enduring - Freedom Extension Compact - Boundless Creation Restrained - Eifyr Scoped - Six Kin
The modules would get a name based on what race it belongs to (same as invention interfaces)
.
As example here are the devblog items: Allotek Co-Processor Zoar and Sons Reactor Control Unit Zoar and Sons Micro Auxiliary Power Core Top Down Light Missile Launcher Caldari Constructions Light Missile Launcher Freedom Extension Cargo Scanner Six Kin Cargo Scanner Love this idea
Adopt these names then put a "traits" tab in the item description for these new terms like "ample". Also add a mouse over on the item that gives a pop up of the trait and what it means It puts the peanutbutter on itself or it leaves the bonus round... - E1's greatest Hits |
Falkor1984
The Love Dragons
52
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 07:11:00 -
[248] - Quote
Ransu Asanari wrote:Not very happy with the Light Missile Launcher adjustments. It seems like the reduction in named modules is reducing choice and dumbing down missiles in general.
1. The "Ample" Launcher has the same fitting requirements as the Meta0 (6PG, 21CPU) , which is pretty poor. The previous version of the Limos, TE-2100, and Arbalest all had much better fitting than Meta0, and gave an actual tier that you could use to fit based on what your ship could spare. Compacting this seems like a nerf. If anything, reduce the CPU fitting on the "Ample" launcher to somewhere between 17-20 so it is equivalent to where the Arbalest was, while still having it be better than the Meta0.
2. I am happy that the "Compact" Launcher kept the same fitting as the Malkuth, as that was necessary for a lot of fittings, such as the Talwar.
3. The devblog mentions specializations for Range, Tracking, Fitting, and Cap Use. Why not have variant Missile modules that vary range, explosion radius/velocity or other values as an equivalent, to give more ship design choices? A "Scoped" version with extra flight time, as an example.
This basically goes for the whole tierciding of modules and ships. CCP thinks it is expanding choices while the players think they are losing choices. Meanwhile CCP is ironically trying to use tierciding to keep players happy in order to buy time to fix or develop major things. Declining subscription numbers is the result. And that is what we are seeing now for a long time. |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
144
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 09:48:00 -
[249] - Quote
Hmm... so much noise over the details of the naming, so little over the basic premise itself which is not what I expected and still has some critical holes.
The most obvious and most frequently mentioned hole is that this balancing does NOTHING to promote the use of tech 1 items. At all.
In fact, it's the third in a series of changes likely to do exactly the opposite; making named items even cheaper and more widely used than currently. Between the reprocessing change dropping out the floor on named items, the upcoming invention changes dropping out the non-fit-related demand, and this proposed change of multiple variations condensed into fewer causing an increase in supply, there is now more than ever going to be absolutely no reason to use tech 1 items. This is bad and the exact opposite of what a module tiericide should be trying to accomplish.
There are actually TWO different approaches I expected to see, neither of which is happening, and both of which are, I think better on the whole than the approach presented in the devblog.
The first of these two options is what I THOUGHT tiericide was going to do (and I think others felt this way too); provide variations AROUND the tech 1 base point. Not be across the board better, PLUS variation, as has been proposed.
Let's take the reactor control example as a simple demonstration of what I expected (and what I think many people expected):
meta 0 : Reactor Control Unit I : 1.1x, CPU 20 meta 1 : Compact Reactor Control Unit: 1.08x, CPU 16 meta 4 : Upgraded Rector Control Unit: 1.12x, CPU 21 meta 5 : Reactor Control Unit II : 1.15x, CPU 22
This has the benefit of promoting the use of tech 1 items as a balance between fitting and benefit. This of course assumes unlimited and cheap supply of the named items (e.g. no external restriction on their use), which is not necessarily a good assumption to build into the system but does seem to be borne out by current market realities.
The second of the two options is also viable; provide improvements to INDIVIDUAL tech 1 stats without being fundamentally better than the tech 1 variant for certain key stats in all cases. Again with reactor control, that would look like:
meta 0 : Reactor Control Unit I : 1.1x, CPU 20 meta 1 : Compact Reactor Control Unit: 1.1x, CPU 16 meta 4 : Upgraded Rector Control Unit: 1.12x, CPU 20 meta 5 : Reactor Control Unit II : 1.15x, CPU 22
While in this case the use of anything but named items is still something of a no-brainer (again, assuming unlimited cheap supply, an assumption which is practical truth even if it shouldn't be), at least the gap is not nearly so far as what is being proposed. It ALSO neatly fixes the cases where you have an item with only one named variant, "Upgraded", since "Upgraded" now always implies that the single key stat for the item is better with no increased drawbacks/fitting requirements (if there are any). Basically, "Upgraded" could just be called "Tech 1.5" and affect a single key stat for each module type (this would generally be pretty obvious; the ONLY case I could see some dissent would be on weapons; is base damage or range the more "key" stat? I vote damage).
Compact still works across the board as a prefix for variants that reduce fitting costs while leaving all other tech 1 stats the same. You then have meta2/3 to play with for variants affecting other secondary stats that are more situational to each module type. Even better, to allay some of the naming outcries, I suggest leaving some of the more unique module names in those meta 2/3 names since whichever secondary stat it affects (whether it be ammo capacity, reload time, cycle time, range, tracking, etc.), it's going to be non-obvious no matter what seemingly global-sounding name you guys pick. Looking at the actual stats there for comparison will typically still be necessary, so this is a way to leave some flavor in the game and keep more people happy.
The important caveat here, though, is that I think the only way for this second option to work is to provide a REAL limitation to the use of named items. You cannot depend on market forces here without drastically affecting the drop rates and current stockpiles (good luck if you choose that route). No, instead I propose a more meaningful limitation... skill training. Skill level 1 allows for tech 1, skill level 3 allows for named items, and skill level 4/5 allows for tech 2.
I think this would also go a long way to giving new players fast, meaningful rewards in their choices based on training. For any veteran player the gap to get to level 3 to use any named items in their current fits will be practically meaningless (assuming they, for whatever reason, only have a skill at 1/2 as it is; fairly unlikely anyway). But for new players it's still sufficient commitment in training time -- on the order of several weeks to get all relevant skills to at least level 3 to use named modules across the board for most common fitting things -- that it provides for some interesting up-front choices for new players and immediate feedback/gratification of "higher skills can give more choices".
While this second approach and skill based gate would still leave for an unfortunate wasteland of tech 1 items in the long run and is not a perfect module tiericide, it won't be nearly as bad as the current CCP proposed solution or even the current situation with meta 4. It will still at least produce SOME demand for tech 1 among new players/new alts as a forced game mechanic, rather than the current scenario where there is literally NO demand for tech 1 outside of tech 2 production. There are no meaningful reasons at ALL not to use named items now, being that cost/availability is simply not an issue (maybe not always meta 4, but certainly never tech 1 base). |
Francisco Vazquez Garcia
Push Industries Push Interstellar Network
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 11:03:00 -
[250] - Quote
Krodes Thara wrote: For sure having 5 faction modules with same stats is not confusing and it is good game design... What about the lore with each faction excelling in something? Are you going to trow all that away? I'm okay with the rest somehow, but faction modules should have different qualities and uses.
I second that.
Would be very nice if faction that excel in 1 field (like amarr - armor, gallente - drones, thukkers - navigation) would offer the more powerful faction items, while the other ones would focus on reduced fitting requirements or have a less powerful version, simmilar to the very rare storyline items.
It makes me sad that 5 factions have exactly the same item. It makes choosing the faction to rat or do missions for, much less important. |
|
Pecora Nera
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 11:22:00 -
[251] - Quote
Its good that cpp are finally making the effort to clean up the state of the modules. A number of issues and solutions have been raised and described quite eloquently in the comments above, I wont dwell on those other than I do agree with the general discussion so far.
Instead, i wish to discuss two other issues that have been lightly touched on: 1) user-manufactured T1 modules are basically useless/valueless compared to higher metas, and will become even more-so. 2) if all rat-dropped modules are now to be "useful", the rarity and therefore value of them will go through the floor.
My proposed solution: 1) all user manufactured modules to be re-graded to meta 2 by default
2) most rat-drops to be meta 1 "Limited" or "Basic", which will have ~10% less fitting requirements, but ~25% less "oomph" and ~10% more cap use. But they will have enough base mineral value to make them worth looting.
3) meta 3/4 to be used for the much rarer 'upgraded' and 'compact' etc drops, which will protect the market value of these items.
|
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
316
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 14:30:00 -
[252] - Quote
Probably pointed out before but the Restrained (reduced penalties) Cap Flux is borked - having the same penalties but significantly better bonus.
However... The naming convention thing is annoying. We've already lost so many really cool names for no real gain and now more are going by the wayside - Cold-Gas Arcjet Thrusters, Bloodclaws, Widowmakers; needless complexity or cool point-of-interest/point of specialisation? Personally I think the latter.
I also feel that the implied goal of the changes (making EVE more friendly/less intimidating to new players) is at odds with the method - because the granularity which is important as a newer player is being lost.
Consider LMLs: As a new player you probably begin with T1 because they're cheap, and if you check the market out, look at the variations or otherwise do a little research you move to Malkuth launchers very quickly, the price difference is minimal (they're incredibly cheap considering how much new players earn these days), they're really easy to fit which means that your low skills don't have much of a bearing - and they hold a couple more missiles and shoot just a little faster... They're a very newbie friendly but gentle upgrade. A progression from the starting gear... Malkuths are exactly where I think they should be right now. Limos are close to where they ought to be and TE- are probably not too far off - the problem with launcher progression is Arbalests. If I were writing the changes I would build a steady progression through the launcher types; Malkuth would stay where they are, Limos would retain their current capacity and RoF but their fittings would be tweaked a little, slightly more difficult to fit than Malkuths. TE-s similarly, a slight improvement over Limos in capacity and RoF but slightly harder to fit. And Arbalests would be almost as "good" as T2 and almost as hard to fit (I'd actually make them a little more difficult to fit that T1). This means that newer players, in the months during which their fitting skills are climbing, have a nice granular progression which is mirrored at higher meta levels. It also means meaningful choices (when the choice isn't T2 or nothing) for older characters - rather than Arbalests all the way (the Meta 4 problem mentioned in the blog), have I got the fitting to do that? With the current stats, if you don't have the fitting for Arbalests then it's all the way down to Malkuth (IIRC), with a more linear progression then perhaps the added DPS and increased clip makes TE-s a viable fitting option.
And finally, I fit Nanomechanical Co-Processors sometimes... If I need CPU enough to dedicate a slot to gaining it I want to a) use the cheapest I can and b) I don't want to have much CPU left over when I'm done. I don't want to fit a Dyad or a Dread Gurista Co-Pro if I only need 7%. |
Robert Parr
Iron Tiger T3 Industries
13
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 16:19:00 -
[253] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:Hmm... so much noise over the details of the naming, so little over the basic premise itself which is not what I expected and still has some critical holes. The most obvious and most frequently mentioned hole is that this balancing does NOTHING to promote the use of tech 1 items. At all.
In fact, it's the third in a series of changes likely to do the opposite; making named items even cheaper and more widely used than now. With the reprocessing change dropping out the floor on named items, the upcoming invention changes dropping out non-fit-related demand, and this proposed change of condensing variations likely to increase supply, there is now more than ever going to be absolutely no reason to use tech 1 items. This is bad and the exact opposite of what a module tiericide should accomplish.
There are at least two better approaches I expected to see, neither of which is happening.
The first of these two options is what I thought tiericide was going to do (and I think others felt this way too); provide variations around the tech 1 base point. Not across the board better, PLUS variation, as has been proposed.
Let's take the reactor control example as a simple demonstration of what I expected (and what I think many people expected):
meta 0 : Reactor Control Unit I : 1.1x, CPU 20 meta 1 : Compact Reactor Control Unit: 1.08x, CPU 16 meta 4 : Upgraded Rector Control Unit: 1.12x, CPU 21 meta 5 : Reactor Control Unit II : 1.15x, CPU 22
This has the benefit of promoting the use of tech 1 items as a balance between fitting and benefit. This of course assumes unlimited and cheap supply of the named items (e.g. no external restriction on their use), which is not necessarily a good assumption to build into the system but does seem to be borne out by current market realities.
While in this case the use of anything but named items is still something of a no-brainer (again, assuming unlimited cheap supply, an assumption which is practical truth even if it shouldn't be), at least the gap is not nearly so far as what is being proposed. It ALSO neatly fixes the cases where you have an item with only one named variant, "Upgraded", since "Upgraded" now always implies that the single key stat for the item is better with no increased drawbacks/fitting requirements (if there are any). Basically, "Upgraded" could just be called "Tech 1.5" and affect a single key stat for each module type (this would generally be pretty obvious; the ONLY case I could see some dissent would be on weapons; is base damage or range the more "key" stat? I vote damage).
Compact still works across the board as a prefix for variants that reduce fitting costs while leaving all other tech 1 stats the same. You then have meta2/3 to play with for variants affecting other secondary stats that are more situational to each module type. Even better, to allay some of the naming outcries, I suggest leaving some of the more unique module names in those meta 2/3 names since whichever secondary stat it affects (whether it be ammo capacity, reload time, cycle time, range, tracking, etc.), it's going to be non-obvious no matter what seemingly global-sounding name you guys pick. Looking at the actual stats there for comparison will typically still be necessary, so this is a way to leave some flavor in the game and keep more people happy.
The important caveat here, though, is that I think the only way for this second option to work is to provide a REAL limitation to the use of named items. You cannot depend on market forces here without drastically affecting the drop rates and current stockpiles (good luck if you choose that route). No, instead I propose a more meaningful limitation... skill training. Skill level 1 allows for tech 1, skill level 3 allows for named items, and skill level 4/5 allows for tech 2.
I think this would also go a long way to giving new players fast, meaningful rewards in their choices based on training. For any veteran player the gap to get to level 3 to use any named items in their current fits will be practically meaningless (assuming they, for whatever reason, only have a skill at 1/2 as it is; fairly unlikely anyway). But for new players it's still sufficient commitment in training time -- on the order of several weeks to get all relevant skills to at least level 3 to use named modules across the board for most common fitting things -- that it provides for some interesting up-front choices for new players and immediate feedback/gratification of "higher skills can give more choices".
While this second approach and skill based gate would still leave for an unfortunate wasteland of tech 1 items in the long run and is not a perfect module tiericide, it won't be nearly as bad as the current CCP proposed solution or even the current situation with meta 4. It will still at least produce SOME demand for tech 1 among new players/new alts as a forced game mechanic, rather than the current scenario where there is literally NO demand for tech 1 outside of tech 2 production. There are no meaningful reasons at ALL not to use named items now, being that cost/availability is simply not an issue (maybe not always meta 4, but certainly never tech 1 base). **** ME....Fozzie, are you paying any attention????? VERY MUCH THIS^^^^ WOW a good idea on paper and in practice...YOU should have been doing this all along...instead we got half-assed sausage making homogenization WTF OVER??? Get a clue please, you are ruining the game....stop what you are doing and start doing THIS^^^^^^^^^^^ Please pull your head out!!!!!! |
C IO1011
Nanoware Labs
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 16:31:00 -
[254] - Quote
There is a problem with ships, drones, BPOs and modules just accumulating and it needs to be addressed.
This trashing of meta modules is not a solution. The huge inventory of modules will still exist keeping prices at scrap value but the modules are nerfed to where only a player with < a year experience or some lightly trained alts would use them. T1 meta 0 modules are still useless except for invention.
Perhaps adding the year of manufacturing to each module, ship, drone, BPO and some advance components could help. If 10 years are allowed that would multiply the number of items by 10 in the market and eventually more than 10 in inventories as obsolete items accumulated. Manufacturing could only make the current year's model.
Also older items and more heavily used items require maintenance. The older and more heavily used the more maintenance. It would probably be very difficult to keep track of maintenance fees so how about items taking random damage everytime it is assembled, docked in a station, entering a force field, fitted. I prefer not to have random damage taken while using an item or traveling. It would be realistic but incredibly annoying. The frequency and severity of the random damage would increase with the age of an item.
Items >10 years old cannot be used or traded in the market (per some Concord safety regulation?). They may be scrapped, kept or sold (via contract or trade) as collectors items. Consider a small expense for maintaining obsolete items or random damage (rats or insects in the upholstery?). Keeping a vintage 1960 Corvette Stingray or a classic Mercedes Benz does have some expenses.
Ten years is just a suggestion and exceptions could be made for tournament prizes (which don't accumulate) and other specials. I think a similar schedule could be applied to BPOs. Blueprints and manufacturing documents for a 1975 Ford Maverick may be a collectors item but have no commercial value. Even with durable goods, a 1984 Whirlpool clothes washer design has little value. Environmental compliance, new features, cost reductions, reliability, material and efficiency improvements would render it obsolete. This would eventually solve the T2 BPO problem. BPOs that take a long time to improve (capitals) should have a longer life expectancy.
The big corps and alliances are well represented on the CSM and influential. They may object to their capital fleet being scrap metal in 10 years and paying for repairs over those 10 years. They are also the most invested in keeping Eve a viable game so their input SHOULD be considered.
It gives entry level players a chance to buy a less inexpensive old beater battleship (perhaps even with older faction/deadspace modules) to play with rather than an expensive new battleship. I could see Brave Newbies, Red and Blue members being good customers of older items.
Intended consequences and limitations
1. This would take years to have any significant impact on oversupply. A. New NPC drops could be for older items. A 2008 meta 2 TP, a 2007 220mm Vulcan AC, a 2009 Pith A Large Shield Booster B. Items with the most oversupply could be converted randomly into 0-5 year old items during the update. May be player rage with this but you could ask them first? C. If this were applied to all BPOs, the date of the last T2 BPO awarded is well known and could be appended to all T2 BPOs.
2. Manufacturing would go down drastically near the end of the year. No one wants to make an item that will be a year old next month. A. Perhaps the year and month could be added to the item? This seems far too complex. B. Let manufacturing be seasonal. Make dated items in the beginning of the year, ammo at the end.
3. Heavily used items would have to be new to avoid the random damage. Lightly used or likely to be destroyed items could be older models.
|
Falin Whalen
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
733
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 16:49:00 -
[255] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote::SNIP: what I thought tiericide was going to do (and I think others felt this way too); provide variations around the tech 1 base point. Not across the board better, PLUS variation, as has been proposed. Let's take the reactor control example as a simple demonstration of what I expected (and what I think many people expected): meta 0 : Reactor Control Unit I : 1.1x, CPU 20 meta 1 : Compact Reactor Control Unit: 1.08x, CPU 16 meta 4 : Upgraded Rector Control Unit: 1.12x, CPU 21 meta 5 : Reactor Control Unit II : 1.15x, CPU 22 This has the benefit of promoting the use of tech 1 items as a balance between fitting and benefit. This of course assumes unlimited and cheap supply of the named items (e.g. no external restriction on their use), which is not necessarily a good assumption to build into the system but does seem to be borne out by current market realities. The graph ends up like this. :SNIP: This^^^ Oh, so much this.
Realy there is no incentive, with Fozzies plan for module teiracide, for regular tech one items to have any place in fitting choices on ships. There is no tradeoff for using the 'Compact' item. Its simply better fitting wise with no compromises to effect, and in the case of the LML is a straight up DPS boost on top of the better fiting. ( It unfortunately is outclassed by the 'Ample' as it has the same ROF increase plus a larger ammunition cappacity. )
Fozzie, should have put this up on F&I a few weeks ago, so that these concerns about the direction he's taking with this feature could be brought to light. Instead we have the Dev blog come out five days before release, and over a weekend as well, so nothing can be tweeked before actual launch of the feature.
The complaining of the names getting changed is obfuscating real fedback into how Fozzie is screwing up module tiericide, and will have to redo it all again later. This "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead." style of feature release is going to bite Fozzie in the butt, when he has to redo everything again. "it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka-á |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
832
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 17:04:00 -
[256] - Quote
so how is this going to work for turrets? with the different sizes within each size. |
Falin Whalen
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
733
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 17:33:00 -
[257] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:so how is this going to work for turrets? with the different sizes within each size. 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. "it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka-á |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
904
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 17:46:00 -
[258] - Quote
Falin Whalen wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:so how is this going to work for turrets? with the different sizes within each size. 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.
something like
electrons - lower fitting ions - tracking neutrons - cap usage
then add some for - range - damage 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.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please |
Kirsanth
The Pioneers
6
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 17:52:00 -
[259] - Quote
Eve Online has always been presented as one of the most the most capitalist dystopian universes in Science Fiction to date. Even a cursory glance at backdrops of films like Blade Runner reveal mile high ads extolling the virtues of weird and everyday products (like the unforgettable geisha eating candy on the Blade Runner blimp).
This is supposed to be a universe where Joint Harvesting are bombing worlds flat so their customers half a galaxy away can enjoy Wheaty Flakes as a part of their daily nutritional balanced diet.
The new trend for naming conventions breaks this so hard its difficult to see how the corporate competition implicit in the back story can be upheld. IRL marketing companies spend billions of dollars every day making their products sound unique and desirable. Why would far future capitalists be any different.
There is a wealth of player and dev written material in Eve universe and I am confused as to why you did not jump at the chance to use it. Naming the modules after the Corporations in the Empires will be relatively simple. You could add monikers as well for added desirability. Brutor 'Havok' 200mm auto cannon anyone??
To give a helping hand, here I shall attempt to sum up, with some keywords and phrases, the main corps in the Minmatar Republic and what I believe their production interests should be. I will add also some suggestions as to what Corps I think should be associated with which modules. I'll refrain from actually naming individual items, as I don't have time. But I am sure players and devs can rise to the challenge.
For the sake of brevity (haha) I am ONLY going to do Minmatar here. I or others can do a similar exercise for the other empires too if there is interest.
This list is not exhaustive I am sure variations and crossovers could be implemented between the Empire Factions. But, initially, the idea here is to cement associations in lore for the new meta 1 items with players, new and old alike.
Minmatar: Naming convention most often associated with Viking/Norse mythology, melee weapons and Natural Disasters.
Brutor Tribe: Miltiaristic, beligerent, martial, no nonsence, hit and fade, speed, tactical
Offensive mods: 200mm, 425mm and 800mm Auto Cannon, 280mm, 720mm and 1400mm artillery, Gang Link skirmish mods Defensive mods: Armour Plates, Armour Resistant Plating Propulsion mods: Micro Warp Drives, Overdrive Injectors Ewar mods: Target Painter, Warp Scrambler/Disruptors, Interdiction Spheres Fitting mods: Reactor Controls. Auxillery-Micro Power Plant
Sebestior Tribe: Innovative, technical, precision, over engineered, lots of flashy lights, re-invention
Offensive: 125mm, dual 180mm and dual 425mm Auto Cannon, 250mm, 650mm and 1200mm Artillery, Compact Missiles Launchers, Defensive mods: Shield Booster, Shield Amps, Remote Shield Repair, Ancillary Shield Booster Populsion mods: Inertia Modules, Micro Jump Drive Ewar mods: Local ECM and ECCM ladar, Stasis Webifier Fitting mods: Diagnostic Units, Flux Capacitors, CPU upgrades.
Vherokior Tribe: Endurance, efficiency, exploration, reliable, longevity
Offensive: 150mm, 220mm and dual 650mm Auto Cannon, High Capacity Missile Launchers, Harvesting Equipment Defensive: Shield Extenders, Shield Hardeners, Shield Re-charger, Passive Shield Hardener, Shield Relays. Propulsion mods: After Burners, Warp Core Stabs Ewar mods: Sensor Boosters, Passive Lock mods, Sensor Backup Arrays, Scan Probe Launchers/Probes, Scanning Upgrades. Fitting mods: Capacitor Re-chargers, Capacitor Batteries, Cargo Expanders
Krusal Tribe: Intelligence and counter, sly, cunning, propaganda, secrecy, espionage
Offensive: Gang Links info warfare Defensive: Cloaking Device Propulsion mods: n/a Ewar mods: Projected ECCM ladar, ECCM ladar Burst, Target Breaker, Cargo/Ship Scanners, Fitting mods: n/a
Boundless Creation: New talent, niche markets, specialists, unusual tech, stolen/borrowed tech, nanite technology.
Offensive mods: Explosive damage Drones, Nuclear Smart Bombs Defensive mods: Damage Control Units, Local and Remote Armour Repairers, Active Armour Hardeners, Nanite Paste, Energized Armour Plating, Ancillary Armour Repairer Propulsion mods: Warp Accelerators, Jump Drive Economisers Ewar mods: Tracking Enhancers/Disruptor Fitting: Cap Power Relay, Cap Boosters
Six Kin: Construction, builders, rugged, tough, usually associated with large scale construction like POS and Gates.
Offensive mods: Deployable Turrets all projectile types, Salvagers, Tractor Beam units Defensive mods: Deployable Shield Explosive Resistance Units, Reinforced Bulkheads Propulsion mods: Minmatar Gate Technology, Nanofiber Bulkheads, Deployable Micro Jump Drive Ewar: Deployable Ladar Jamming Array Fitting mods: n/a (they are more interested in building big stuff like ship interiors and stations)
Eifier and Co: Bio engineering, narcotics, clone technolgy
Generally they have a niche market already with implants. SO no need to expand with modules, but boosters could be expanded upon with associations with this corp.
There are other corps in the Republic but I can imagine they will be making cheap knockoffs , sub-contracting to the main corps or being interested in other stuff that's more PI oriented or some other industry or undertaking.
p.s. +1 and my thanks if you actually read to the end of this post |
Nike Andedare
Diamond Command
7
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 18:29:00 -
[260] - Quote
Adding my two cents to the pot.
The idea at fanfest is needed, but after reviewing the blog there is clearly some community concern. The names don't feel right; I agree with the approach, but I believe you can do better; Restrained is a poor naming word. Yes you want to have differences IE Enduring may be too similar sounding to Efficient, not to mention being Compact can be taken as Efficient, but I know your team can do better!
Chopping out the scaling meta system is nice and all, but remember they are used as a sorting tool when you changed the inventory, I hope you will be putting in the option to make filters via variant, and don't leave out the idea of just putting a code letter or two in front of the module name and having the variant under the attributes tab (keeps names shorter and maybe not break the original sense of immersion). Back to the meta numbering, its just a cop-out to leave empty "meta slots." Since there is no scale anymore, you should not have spaces left. You want things to be compared on the same levels of T1, T2 and T3 power then just have those 3 levels! Then you can sort by the variances. The major problem I see some arguing is you'd have to put Faction/Navy along side T2 and Dead space/officer modules in the T3 level, but that would feel smoother overall. COSMOS, needs to know what it is before I can give an opinion of where it falls in... or maybe there can be COSMOS in each Tech level since they can be such snowflakes.
Its great you are removing redundancy and useless modules, streamlining module categories across all types, but I am not sure it will make less work for the players in the end, especially if you want us to have the ability to make them all in the future.
There are so many ways to go about implementing how and where a researcher or producer could add or modify the basic blueprint or module to be a variant, just keep simplicity in mind (along with # of clicks) when going through this process. I know this is foresight, but just looking out for the whole road map Fozzie. |
|
Guttripper
State War Academy Caldari State
537
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 19:15:00 -
[261] - Quote
*reads the various replies...
CCP knows what they are doing - just ask them. |
Shin Dari
Covert Brigade
49
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 19:43:00 -
[262] - Quote
This module teiracide doesn't really help the market problem, here is my suggestion to improve that part of the concept:
[Meta Salvage] Remove named module drops from NPC wrecks and replace their value with additional salvage: meta salvage.
How I think it should be: Light Missile Launcher Blueprint + Minerals + Meta Salvage* = Named Light Missile Launcher * The amount of Meta Salvage needed for production is determined by the module size class.
Example: System type - Meta effect - Meta Salvage Item - Salvaged from Missile Launcher - reduced fitting - Malkuth Bay Regulator - Guristas Pirates Missile Launcher - extra capacity - Limos Launcher Bay - Caldari State Missile Launcher - longer range - Arbalest Missile FCS - Mordu's Legion
Right now there aren't any real big differences in the salvage drop tables. But this gives us the opportunity to give each NPC faction their own unique salvage drops. Also this will allow us to keep some of the old names. This will reduce the excess quantity modules on the market and will make sure that named modules will cost more then meta 0 counterparts. The market will then be a lot healthier and now the players will really make nearly all the modules on the market.
|
AssandTits
University of Caille Gallente Federation
9
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 20:15:00 -
[263] - Quote
DEVS still in hiding? Yup time to start the account consolidation and start putting asside the sub fees for other games. |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion
145
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 20:30:00 -
[264] - Quote
Francisco Vazquez Garcia wrote:Krodes Thara wrote: For sure having 5 faction modules with same stats is not confusing and it is good game design... What about the lore with each faction excelling in something? Are you going to trow all that away? I'm okay with the rest somehow, but faction modules should have different qualities and uses.
I second that. Would be very nice if faction that excel in 1 field (like amarr - armor, gallente - drones, thukkers - navigation) would offer the more powerful faction items, while the other ones would focus on reduced fitting requirements or have a less powerful version, simmilar to the very rare storyline items.
I'd honestly be perfectly happy if they just condensed all identical faction items into single items with unique but more generic names. Instead of Domination, True Sansha, and Republic Fleet Light Missile Launchers that are all identical, just condense that into a single item called "Engineered Light Missile Launcher" or something and have all 3 LP stores provide the same item. This would be another place where CCP could keep flavor in names in the game while still fixing the current super-confusing state of having multiple faction modules that are all identical.
I really think that CCP trying to find a unique niche for every single faction variant currently out there alongside tech 1, named, tech 2, deadspace, and officer variations is perhaps "trying too hard". The current variety/balance in faction/deadspace/officer modules seems to be working quite well and is balanced cleanly around the scarcity/cost of those items. We don't need to niche those faction items further; just condense the naming to something slightly more generic and unify the itemIDs.
|
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
64
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 21:14:00 -
[265] - Quote
Damn... what made you think that five days was going to be enough to talk about these proposed changes? Alt of [redacted on advice from a reputable internet spaceships lawyer] |
Destitute Tehol Beddict
Trygalle Trade Guild Letherii Div
30
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 22:10:00 -
[266] - Quote
Whats going to happen to the drop rates of the modules?
Will they be combined together if say x1 drop + x2 drop + x3 drop + x4 drop = X
or will there be a overall gain/reduction?
Thanks
The Loot Channel:-áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=374715&find=unread |
Rain6637
Team Evil
20077
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 22:13:00 -
[267] - Quote
yeah no President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Rainfleet on Twitch | Twitter | Rainfleet mk.III | Imgur |
Susan Black
KA POW POW Inc Late Night Alliance
154
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 22:18:00 -
[268] - Quote
How will this impact the drop rate of different modules? Now that everything is 'the same' with specializations, and all the named will be meta 1, are you also balancing out the drop rate of these modules so that some specializations aren't for some reason more 'rare' then others?
Prior to these changes, one aspect of 'choice' in choosing modules was cost. This was a pretty big determining factor for many people in what items to fit on their ship --meta 4 was better, but meta 3 was cheaper enough to be worth it, and etc.
It sounds like while choices for 'functionality' is being introduced, the aspect of choice based on rarity and cost is almost being eliminated completely, as far as meta modules are concerned.
www.gamerchick.net @gamerchick42 |
Krell Kroenen
The Devil's Shadow
189
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 22:25:00 -
[269] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:Damn... what made you think that five days was going to be enough to talk about these proposed changes?
That's the point they don't want to talk about it. Fozzie in the o7 video more or less stated that we will grow to love the changes.
So why talk about it? *smirks* And that's why they haven't revisited this thread since then more than likely. They are done and have moved on to something else. |
Kirsanth
The Pioneers
10
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 23:25:00 -
[270] - Quote
Naming conventions aside, which i do think are important; I also think there must be a better way of implementing tiericide.
The big problems as I see them are A) making player made mods worth the effort and B) making npcs drops situational improvements.
Lena Lazair ...
There are at least two better approaches I expected to see, neither of which is happening.
The first of these two options is what I [b wrote:thought[/b] tiericide was going to do (and I think others felt this way too); provide variations around the tech 1 base point. Not across the board better, PLUS variation, as has been proposed. Let's take the reactor control example as a simple demonstration of what I expected (and what I think many people expected): meta 0 : Reactor Control Unit I : 1.1x, CPU 20 meta 1 : Compact Reactor Control Unit: 1.08x, CPU 16 meta 4 : Upgraded Rector Control Unit: 1.12x, CPU 21 meta 5 : Reactor Control Unit II : 1.15x, CPU 22 This has the benefit of promoting the use of tech 1 items as a balance between fitting and benefit. This of course assumes unlimited and cheap supply of the named items (e.g. no external restriction on their use), which is not necessarily a good assumption to build into the system but does seem to be borne out by current market realities. The graph ends up like this. By contrast your graph is trying too hard to look like your ship graph, which makes no sense since T2 modules are not specialized at all and ignores the direct balance between fitting and power in using modules. The second of the two options is also viable; provide improvements to individual tech 1 stats without being fundamentally better than the tech 1 variant for certain key stats in all cases. Again with reactor control, that would look like: meta 0 : Reactor Control Unit I : 1.1x, CPU 20 meta 1 : Compact Reactor Control Unit: 1.1x, CPU 16 meta 4 : Upgraded Rector Control Unit: 1.12x, CPU 20 meta 5 : Reactor Control Unit II : 1.15x, CPU 22 ...
This is the best set of improvements posted yet. I for one would like to see Meta 0 mods improved over what they are now maybe meta 2 and becoming the base non specialised units. The other npc dropped sub meta 5 modules then being better in some ways but noticably worse worse in others.
my personal suggestion for Reactor Control Unit would look something like this:
meta 2 : Reactor Control Unit I : 1.125x, CPU 20 (player made) meta 1 : Compact Reactor Control Unit: 1.10x, CPU 16 (less bonus, better fit) meta 3 : Upgraded Rector Control Unit: 1.135x, CPU 24 (more bonus , worse fit) meta 5 : Reactor Control Unit II : 1.15x, CPU 22 (player made)
This would encourage diversity and give players a reason to go make and fit T1 stuff. Though the making part would have to wait until our huge stocks of sub meta 5 mods are depleted. I am no economist but i would hope this might actually make pvp slightly more affordable in the long run.
Also since CCP is now on a 6 week cycle, this can and should be rolled back till november to sort out what the player base has to feedback. This is a MASSIVE change to the game's dynamic and the way this is being handled at the moment feels like Incarna all over again.
|
|
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
64
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 23:31:00 -
[271] - Quote
I agree that this should be pushed back. You don't have nearly enough time to gather any meaningful feedback and implement changes from it. Alt of [redacted on advice from a reputable internet spaceships lawyer] |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
465
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 23:34:00 -
[272] - Quote
Kirsanth wrote:Naming conventions aside, which i do think are important; I also think there must be a better way of implementing tiericide. The big problems as I see them are A) making player made mods worth the effort and B) making npcs drops situational improvements. Lena Lazair ...
There are at least two better approaches I expected to see, neither of which is happening.
The first of these two options is what I [b wrote:thought[/b] tiericide was going to do (and I think others felt this way too); provide variations around the tech 1 base point. Not across the board better, PLUS variation, as has been proposed. Let's take the reactor control example as a simple demonstration of what I expected (and what I think many people expected): meta 0 : Reactor Control Unit I : 1.1x, CPU 20 meta 1 : Compact Reactor Control Unit: 1.08x, CPU 16 meta 4 : Upgraded Rector Control Unit: 1.12x, CPU 21 meta 5 : Reactor Control Unit II : 1.15x, CPU 22 This has the benefit of promoting the use of tech 1 items as a balance between fitting and benefit. This of course assumes unlimited and cheap supply of the named items (e.g. no external restriction on their use), which is not necessarily a good assumption to build into the system but does seem to be borne out by current market realities. The graph ends up like this. By contrast your graph is trying too hard to look like your ship graph, which makes no sense since T2 modules are not specialized at all and ignores the direct balance between fitting and power in using modules. The second of the two options is also viable; provide improvements to individual tech 1 stats without being fundamentally better than the tech 1 variant for certain key stats in all cases. Again with reactor control, that would look like: meta 0 : Reactor Control Unit I : 1.1x, CPU 20 meta 1 : Compact Reactor Control Unit: 1.1x, CPU 16 meta 4 : Upgraded Rector Control Unit: 1.12x, CPU 20 meta 5 : Reactor Control Unit II : 1.15x, CPU 22 ... This is the best set of improvements posted yet. I for one would like to see Meta 0 mods improved over what they are now maybe meta 2 and becoming the base non specialised units. The other npc dropped sub meta 5 modules then being better in some ways but noticably worse worse in others. my personal suggestion for Reactor Control Unit would look something like this: meta 2 : Reactor Control Unit I : 1.125x, CPU 20 (player made) meta 1 : Compact Reactor Control Unit: 1.10x, CPU 16 (less bonus, better fit) meta 3 : Upgraded Rector Control Unit: 1.135x, CPU 24 (more bonus , worse fit) meta 5 : Reactor Control Unit II : 1.15x, CPU 22 (player made) This would encourage diversity and give players a reason to go make and fit T1 stuff. Though the making part would have to wait until our huge stocks of sub meta 5 mods are depleted. I am no economist but i would hope this might actually make pvp slightly more affordable in the long run. Also since CCP is now on a 6 week cycle, this can and should be rolled back till november to sort out what the player base has to feedback. This is a MASSIVE change to the game's dynamic and the way this is being handled at the moment feels like Incarna all over again. I agree that this is a good suggestion for the overall direction for module tiericide.
I will suggest, though, that the T2 fitting stats might still need to be bumped up further. Only a 2 CPU difference between T1 and T2 is not typically significant. And, as long as everyone can still easily fit all T2 modules on their ships, metas and T1s will not see increased use, even with this proposed direction. |
Kirsanth
The Pioneers
10
|
Posted - 2014.09.27 23:43:00 -
[273] - Quote
I see the point about t2 fitting. I think though with the items like basic fitting modules that need to go on all classes of ship; the gap between t1 and 2 could remain small, otherwise you'd never be able to fit t2 to frigs. however whenit comesto some of the more specialised modules like turrets and launchers the gap between player made T1 and T2 should be appropriately bigger, and ought to scale with class of ship |
elitatwo
Congregatio
325
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 01:52:00 -
[274] - Quote
Destitute Tehol Beddict wrote:Whats going to happen to the drop rates of the modules?
Will they be combined together if say x1 drop + x2 drop + x3 drop + x4 drop = X
or will there be a overall gain/reduction?
Thanks
This sounds more like yet another nerf to highsec and ratting in general. Not that the module balance is a bad thing but in case CCP didn't notice, loot drops contains all kinds of stuff meta 1-4.
Commander and Major 'named' NPCs even faction or 'blue' modules and Officer the 'purple' ones.
With the upcoming 'rebalance' there will be less stuff to drop.
Are you planning to increase the loot tables in return?
I mean, you taketh away and you should give something in return. signature |
Rain6637
Team Evil
20084
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 02:18:00 -
[275] - Quote
Fozzie, my concern:
Previously you balanced ships by PG/CPU, to limit them from being OP, and to give them an identity. By having a module class distinguished by their fitting, using them could allow previously nerfed capabilities to happen again. This would be most noticeable in frigates, whose fitting characteristics are tightest compared to the cost of a set of utility modules.
I'm having a hard time seeing how you can maintain balance and identities of these ships when their fitting is a set pool of resources, with no considerations for what modules are fit.
If I wanted to be accusatory about it, I would say you're just creating another balancing problem to keep yourself in a job. But instead, the objective opinion is you're making the module balancing system more complicated than the ship balancing system.
What would put me at ease is if ships also had attributes that were specified down to the module types, and the basic function. e.g. scram, long point, jams, damps, target painters...
Are you sure that ships will be limited to the same characteristics that you wanted previously? Can you be?
Just based on this preliminary announcement, that is the issue I see, but of course live fitting combinations remain to be seen.
If you have all of this solved, then you know, disregard. President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Rainfleet on Twitch | Twitter | Rainfleet mk.III | Imgur |
Destitute Tehol Beddict
Trygalle Trade Guild Letherii Div
31
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 05:09:00 -
[276] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Destitute Tehol Beddict wrote:Whats going to happen to the drop rates of the modules?
Will they be combined together if say x1 drop + x2 drop + x3 drop + x4 drop = X
or will there be a overall gain/reduction?
Thanks
This sounds more like yet another nerf to highsec and ratting in general. Not that the module balance is a bad thing but in case CCP didn't notice, loot drops contains all kinds of stuff meta 1-4. Commander and Major 'named' NPCs even faction or 'blue' modules and Officer the 'purple' ones. With the upcoming 'rebalance' there will be less stuff to drop. Are you planning to increase the loot tables in return? I mean, you taketh away and you should give something in return.
If drop rates are combined I don't see an issue (if anything more stuff might get picked up), but if the module is only going get x4 drop then thats a general 1/4-3/4 drop of stuff being dropped... I mean I know nerfing missions/killing npcs is cool and everything but.... why?
The Loot Channel:-áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=374715&find=unread |
Rain6637
Team Evil
20088
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 06:04:00 -
[277] - Quote
I think you're asking questions when there is no reason to be found.
Please allow me to explain. I'll start with this quote, that hints at an answer to your question:
Quote:The problem with this system is that cost/rarity tiers only work as gameplay tools if the differences in rarity and/or power are very significant. Named modules have suffered from the same problem that the old Tech One ship tiers faced before Tiericide; thereGÇÖs virtually no reason to use anything other than the top level. What exactly is meant by "problem" isn't defined. It seems like a case of ambiguity to trick you into accepting the answer without a solid explanation. (because reasons). The same thing has been done using the word "specialization" in the dev blog, and in the past.
Whether the ambiguous language is on purpose, or it's as deep as the thought process goes, I can't tell, because there's no difference in the result: whether it makes sense or you understand it, it's going to happen.
In the lines just prior to the quote, there's more logical trickery that makes me think Fozzie's real job is making your head spin so that you stop evaluating the substance of the changes:
Quote:With Module Tiericide, we are taking our aim at another set of tiers that can stifle choice: meta levels.
The meta level attribute is partially used to differentiate classes of modules behind the scenes, but itGÇÖs most visible place for players is with the so-called GÇ£metaGÇ¥ modules (also known as named modules). Named modules drop from NPCs all over EVE, and were originally intended to represent a tiered set of special upgraded versions of the base T1 module. Since their names are not very helpful in determining their power level, most players have come to rely on their meta level attribute to figure out which is best at a glance. This is why the phrase GÇ£meta 4 moduleGÇ¥ has become so common in EVE. In reverse: players have come to rely on meta 4 modules because the names are not very helpful, and they were originally intended to represent tiers, so we're changing meta levels under the umbrella of the term "tiericide."
It just doesn't add up, and the sequence just doesn't even seem connected. Dev blogs have been consistently ambiguous and slippery like this. It's either a glorious literary accomplishment, or this is the very logic they [themselves] accept. The first is incredibly hard, while the second is very easy.
The only thing I can solidly agree with is the idea that highsec rats should drop less valuable stuff, and value should depend on usefulness. But for the most part, EVE's gameplay is the product of players breaking and exploiting the mechanics in the most favorable way possible. So when reading this dev blog, I don't have much faith in statements that include words like "intended."
There's another answer to the question "why?" and that is simply this is a game, and without change, there would be guaranteed stagnation. So just as much as I'm suspicious of the reasons behind changes, I doubt "why" is a question worth asking.
Just go with it, and react to what happens, I guess. President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Rainfleet on Twitch | Twitter | Rainfleet mk.III | Imgur |
Rayvenous
Die Geistig Gestuerzten
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 07:56:00 -
[278] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:I'll join the chorus asking CCP, don't take my fancy names away from me!
With clear differences between models, it should be easy to see that the "Malkuth" range of missile launchers of all sizes is optimised for CPU (or general fitting) while the "Arbalest" is optimised for DPS (i.e.: larger ammunition magazine).
Encouraging players to actually read the "Show Info" details will help them understand the mechanics of the game better. If you simplify the space too much you enter the realm of "dumbing down". This might make the game "more accessible" to people who are less interested in exploring fittings and running calculators or simulators, but makes the game more boring to people who care about names, details, and the joy of learning.
In the name of the Limos, the Malkuth, and the Arbalest, so help me pod.
+1
Yes, I am an old grunt... but I am fine with the module changes in general. It will take a few days to adopt the changes and maybe will force some fitting tool action...
But please, for heavens sake: DON-¦T change the names!!
I love EVE, but I don-¦t want to see generic names all over the place. This will be an absolute immersion killer |
Falkor1984
The Love Dragons
52
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 08:24:00 -
[279] - Quote
Gray's Anatomist wrote:I have two issues with the impending doom^W tiericide: Bottom line is: this change devalues player skills and experience. This might initially make for a lower learning curve for new players, but it won't help retain the older players, quite the opposite. Blah-blah, it's 3 days before the update, too late to change anything.
This ^^.
How come players see it but CCP does not? They truely believe they are creating a better game, whilst they are actually destroying it. The same thing happened with tiers on ships, that screwed up a lot of crazy fits and choices out there. |
uziel99
Multiplex Gaming The Bastion
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 08:35:00 -
[280] - Quote
Mara Tessidar wrote:Capacitor flux coils are still useless. Color me surprised.
There are many modules in the game, that at first glace inspire a scratch to the head. It's just a matter of finding that special snowflake situation to use them. |
|
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION The Obsidian Front
486
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 10:50:00 -
[281] - Quote
Falkor1984 wrote:Gray's Anatomist wrote:I have two issues with the impending doom^W tiericide: Bottom line is: this change devalues player skills and experience. This might initially make for a lower learning curve for new players, but it won't help retain the older players, quite the opposite. Blah-blah, it's 3 days before the update, too late to change anything. This ^^. How come players see it but CCP does not? They truely believe they are creating a better game, whilst they are actually destroying it. The same thing happened with tiers on ships, that screwed up a lot of crazy fits and choices out there.
Tiercide of the ships was necessary and succesful.
Tiercide of the modules is necessary, however, I do feel that the devs are oversimplifying this whole thing.
The naming system is very "immature". The number of options is becoming few. The differentiation between the faction equipment is becoming non existant.
I think these three points above need to be addressed and this whole thing needs to go through the features and ideas system first. |
Rain6637
Team Evil
20088
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 11:29:00 -
[282] - Quote
you're damn right **** is about to get ****** up! it's called Balancing, though, and it's my job. we even gave it an edgy name like "tiericide" blublublubu scary, huh! what dev blog, oh that? hell, I was so blazed I don't even remember writing it! welcome to CCP's house of insanity, by the way it's not just a haunted house, it's a race! ready, set President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Rainfleet on Twitch | Twitter | Rainfleet mk.III | Imgur |
TheLostPenguin
Surreal Departure
84
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 12:50:00 -
[283] - Quote
Great, another case of taking a small point that needed fixing and blowing it into a huge needless CHANGE EVERYTHING FOR THE SAKE OF IT.
If this was just rebalancing the handfull of oddities where meta 4 is better than t2 it'd make perfect sense as that situation has existed for a mystifying length of time, but instead we get this...
The names have been discussed aplenty, if you're so set on the whole package of screwup then yes names have to change, but why not re-use the existing ones, so for instance when looking for launchers I know the good fitting launcher is still an arbalest (because chances are if I'm not fitting t2 it's because fittings so in the absence of any good reason to do otherwise I'll use best fitting alternative), we still get to have flavoured names, and it's also possible to quickly find the module you want.
The general concept of this seems flawed to me though and I think we'll just end up with 1 or maybe 2 named versions of a module that are ever used in place of t2 due to skills/budget, and the rest will fall into the same oblivion meta 1/2 currently reside in, where they cannot compete on either price or stats. To use the comparision with the lml, I *might* use the ammo variant if it gave me the freedom to do everything else on the fit, but chances are I'll take the slightly lower dps over a long fight for the much greater freedom of the lowest fittings option. Meta 1/2 may be 'broken' in that they see next to no use but 3/4 are not (other than the odd cases with being better than t2), why do this when it seems all you'll do is replace some under-used modules with other under-used modules.
Rather than spend time on this (and from the small number of things covered here, it looks like this is going to take years to cover all modules) why not work on changing something for the better, like removing all module drops from npcs and instead dropping components used to invent named bpcs? That's a system change that could keep a few people out of trouble for a while and is vastly overdue to happen, and should upset fewer people too whilst moving EVE closer to the long-claimed "everything made by players" game. |
AssandTits
University of Caille Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 15:08:00 -
[284] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:Damn... what made you think that five days was going to be enough to talk about these proposed changes?
This is not a discussion. If it was this post would have been in the F+I section and made at least the week before thesuper dooper video of what we are doing is awesome that CCP released for the gaming industry monkeys.
This is basically the way CCP does business now, nothing we have said in this thread will make the damndest difference to their approach. |
AssandTits
University of Caille Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 15:09:00 -
[285] - Quote
Krell Kroenen wrote:Primary This Rifter wrote:Damn... what made you think that five days was going to be enough to talk about these proposed changes? That's the point they don't want to talk about it. Fozzie in the o7 video more or less stated that we will grow to love the changes. Which sounds something that a kidnapper would say to his victim, which might explain the grinning and chuckles given when they talked about using the word ample as a mod name in the video. *shudders* If they wanted to talk about the changes this thread would be in Ideas and Features a couple weeks ago. Not here.
Greed is Good!!!!!
They tried this, it failed due to REAL player action. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
904
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 16:08:00 -
[286] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: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.
what happened then? 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.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
904
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 16:10:00 -
[287] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:Damn... what made you think that five days was going to be enough to talk about these proposed changes?
especially when CCP aren't doing much talking 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.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please |
Mokusui
Lazy Brothers Inc
11
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 16:29:00 -
[288] - Quote
While the module stat changes have a good chance to produce positive results in the overall usage of the myriad module variations, I am very concerned about the removal of a part of EVE's "flavor" through the overly-aggressive renaming of modules. For instance, one aspect of the Star Wars universe that makes immersion so easy for its fans is the existence of many different corporations, each producing a range of brands and products with distinctive names befitting a capitalist market. The current spate of EVE developers seems intent on approaching EVE like a programming project: standardize names, organize meticulously, and sterilize all. EVE is a messy universe, full of money and blood. Leave in the unique module name permutations, leave in the flavor. |
Kynric
Sky Fighters
182
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 17:04:00 -
[289] - Quote
I will miss arbelest and malkuth as I still miss the old afterburner and mwd names. The world seemed smaller and less interesting once the names were changed. |
Priscilla Project
Custom Clothing Productions
192
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 17:34:00 -
[290] - Quote
Hi!
I would like to bring your attention to the relevant discussions thread in GD, here:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=375576&find=unread
A lot of people are not happy with this absolutely crappy idea of yours that will remove so much depth from the game!
Let me tell you WHY it's a crappy idea, okay?
Back in 2009 when I started playing this game, my favourite ship was a 10mn AfterBurner Rifter, sporting 250mm Artillery!
Yes, you read that right!
And I loved it! It felt like a freaking muscle car! Any you wanna know WHY it felt like a muscle car?
Because it had a Y-S8 Hydocarbon Afterburner!
Can you imagine how I would have felt fitting a LIMITED 10MN AFTERBURNER onto it?
Is the difference really not that obvious for you?
Why don't we rename all our ships too, when we're at it? Who needs names anyway, right?
Minmatar Attack Frigate. Minmatar Combat Frigate. Minmatar Logistics Frigate.
Why have names like Rifter, Slasher, Breacher, etc ?? What's the point?
If people can just search for "frigate" they get them all listed, right?
Why do you have to make it so hard for people to find ships? How can you expect that they freaking remember all these names, right?
Yes, I am pissed about how you are ruining the game form the inside, turning it into a bland, empty, depthless game nobody will care about, because you remove any emotional value and connection to it!
MY rifter felt like a musclecar!
YOUR rifter feels like a worthless piece of crap! The most sexy piece of clothing New Eden saw to date! The 'Open Avenue' short dress! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=374461 Join my mailing list, "wemew", for fast and easy future updates! (without the ") |
|
Priscilla Project
Custom Clothing Productions
192
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 17:45:00 -
[291] - Quote
And if you still don't freaking get it, then either ask what the hell you seem to be missing, or freaking HIRE someone who actually has a connection to the game !
*YOU* certainly have *NONE* ! The most sexy piece of clothing New Eden saw to date! The 'Open Avenue' short dress! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=374461 Join my mailing list, "wemew", for fast and easy future updates! (without the ") |
Ginger Barbarella
2020
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 17:54:00 -
[292] - Quote
Anyone have any idea if CCP is going to compensate for the loss of invention chance for those of us that use high mets items (meta 2 and 3) in invention? The increase in chance of success is not negligible with the use of meta items, and it seems just another kick to the crotch of Industry if meta 2-4 is going to be vanishing.
Thanks.
Edit: just came across this: New Formula? I'll have to run the math on this... "Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac |
Pecora Nera
Perkone Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 18:22:00 -
[293] - Quote
Priscilla Project wrote:Hi!
And I loved it! It felt like a freaking muscle car! Any you wanna know WHY it felt like a muscle car?
Because it had a Y-S8 Hydsocarbon Afterburner!
A Y-S8 HYDROCARGON AFTERBURNER!
Can you imagine how I would have felt fitting a LIMITED 10MN AFTERBURNER onto it? !
I agree with this rant.
But I strongly suspect that CCP's unstated reason for the great module renaming is not intended to dumb-down the game, but is actually been done to make the localisation to other languages easier (and cheaper).
It's a lot easier to translate "limited" into French (or any given %language% ), and use that for all modules, than to get a meaningful translation of "Y-S8 HYDROCARBON" (and all the other module specific flavour-names.) |
Priscilla Project
Custom Clothing Productions
197
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 19:25:00 -
[294] - Quote
Pecora Nera wrote:Priscilla Project wrote:Hi!
And I loved it! It felt like a freaking muscle car! Any you wanna know WHY it felt like a muscle car?
Because it had a Y-S8 Hydsocarbon Afterburner!
A Y-S8 HYDROCARGON AFTERBURNER!
Can you imagine how I would have felt fitting a LIMITED 10MN AFTERBURNER onto it? ! I agree with this rant. But I strongly suspect that CCP's unstated reason for the great module renaming is not intended to dumb-down the game, but is actually been done to make the localisation to other languages easier (and cheaper). It's a lot easier to translate "limited" into French (or any given %language% ), and use that for all modules, than to get a meaningful translation of "Y-S8 HYDROCARBON" (and all the other module specific flavour-names.) But that's the great part about it!
Names do not necessarily need a translation! It's a name! And you know what hydrocarbon translates to in ...
... french? hydrocarbure ! ... spanish? hidrocarburos ! ... in dutch? koolwaterstof ! ... in german? kohlenwasserstoff !
But the ABSOLUTELY best part about it?
It doesn't matter what it translates to!
There are so many names that are literally irrelevant to translate anyway, because what matters is not the name, but that they give the item a feeling!
You will not find a single item in the real world where marketing thinks about "oh my, does that name make any sense?" ... No!
They might think about a name that MIGHT have a connection to the actual item, but this isn't even relevant! What matters is that it sounds cool and fits the product!
A rifter ... feeling like a muscle car, because it's engine sounds powerfull!
And not LIMITED!
The most sexy piece of clothing New Eden saw to date! The 'Open Avenue' short dress! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=374461 Join my mailing list, "wemew", for fast and easy future updates! (without the ") |
Oraac Ensor
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
557
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 19:48:00 -
[295] - Quote
Two questions:
1. Where exactly is the logic in Meta 5, 6, etc. if there is no Meta 2, 3 and 4?
2. Until now, when newbies have asked what to do with all their unwanted loot, the answer has generally been "sell Meta 4 and above, reprocess everything else" - so what will be the advice now? |
Emiko Rowna
Aliastra Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 19:59:00 -
[296] - Quote
Oraac Ensor wrote:Two questions:
1. Where exactly is the logic in Meta 5, 6, etc. if there is no Meta 2, 3 and 4?
2. Until now, when newbies have asked what to do with all their unwanted loot, the answer has generally been "sell Meta 4 and above, reprocess everything else" - so what will be the advice now?
For #1, I think it is a way to get things into loot tables.
and
For #2, give everything to me. |
profundus fossura
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
14
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 21:36:00 -
[297] - Quote
Priscilla Project wrote:Pecora Nera wrote:Priscilla Project wrote:Hi!
And I loved it! It felt like a freaking muscle car! Any you wanna know WHY it felt like a muscle car?
Because it had a Y-S8 Hydsocarbon Afterburner!
A Y-S8 HYDROCARGON AFTERBURNER!
Can you imagine how I would have felt fitting a LIMITED 10MN AFTERBURNER onto it? ! I agree with this rant. But I strongly suspect that CCP's unstated reason for the great module renaming is not intended to dumb-down the game, but is actually been done to make the localisation to other languages easier (and cheaper). It's a lot easier to translate "limited" into French (or any given %language% ), and use that for all modules, than to get a meaningful translation of "Y-S8 HYDROCARBON" (and all the other module specific flavour-names.) But that's the great part about it! Names do not necessarily need a translation! It's a name! And you know what hydrocarbon translates to in ... ... french? hydrocarbure ! ... spanish? hidrocarburos ! ... in dutch? koolwaterstof ! ... in german? kohlenwasserstoff ! But the ABSOLUTELY best part about it? It doesn't matter what it translates to! There are so many names that are literally irrelevant to translate anyway, because what matters is not the name, but that they give the item a feeling! You will not find a single item in the real world where marketing thinks about "oh my, does that name make any sense?" ... No! They might think about a name that MIGHT have a connection to the actual item, but this isn't even relevant! What matters is that it sounds cool and fits the product! A rifter ... feeling like a muscle car, because it's engine's name sounds powerfull! And not LIMITED! Not AMPLE! Not EXPERIMENTAL! Y-S8 HYDROCARBON AFTERBURNER!
After reading this I want a Y-S8 kohlenwasserstoff Afterburner
|
Falin Whalen
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
734
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 23:39:00 -
[298] - Quote
Damn, If I had known how much you people would cry, bitter tears, over someone renaming your precious modules. I would have learned programming and applied to CCP for a job. Your tears are delicious. BOO FRIGGING HOO!
Seriously, this is going to be the third time I've had to learn/relearn module names. I'm not upset by this and neither should you, ya big whiny babies. "it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka-á |
Drone 16
Law Dogz
246
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 01:02:00 -
[299] - Quote
Falin Whalen wrote:Damn, If I had known how much you people would cry, bitter tears, over someone renaming your precious modules. I would have learned programming and applied to CCP for a job. Your tears are delicious. BOO FRIGGING HOO!
Seriously, this is going to be the third time I've had to learn/relearn module names. I'm not upset by this and neither should you, ya big whiny babies.
What do you care about naming conventions? You never see them.
Your ships are fit for you (you never see the modules)
You undock when you are told (you don't know what ship you are in)
you press F1 when you are instructed ( you don't know what you are firing)
In short, you are bad at this game and we all discount what you and your ilk write out of hand.
Even your tear collecting jar is a hand me down from a comrade who moved on It puts the peanutbutter on itself or it leaves the bonus round... - E1's greatest Hits |
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 01:11:00 -
[300] - Quote
Robert Parr wrote:Lena Lazair wrote:Hmm... so much noise over the details of the naming, so little over the basic premise itself which is not what I expected and still has some critical holes. The most obvious and most frequently mentioned hole is that this balancing does NOTHING to promote the use of tech 1 items. At all.
*** tl;tp *** **** ME....Fozzie, are you paying any attention????? VERY MUCH THIS^^^^ WOW a good idea on paper and in practice...YOU should have been doing this all along...instead we got half-assed sausage making homogenization WTF OVER??? Get a clue please, you are ruining the game....stop what you are doing and start doing THIS^^^^^^^^^^^ Please pull your head out!!!!!! CCP Stopped Reading it own Thread on Page 5 ...
I don't know why they start and Comments Thread, even when they don't Read and React on the Comments and going strait forward with there Mess up what i still call a Downgrade ...
Total wrong Movement CCP, when you didn't react on the Comments you wanted, its the same as you even Post your Dev Blogs and forgot that you have written them and on Patch Day, Woops XXX Accounts Closed ... F.U.C.K Why
Think about it
|
|
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 01:19:00 -
[301] - Quote
Guttripper wrote:*reads the various replies... CCP knows what they are doing - just ask them.
Didn't' laughed that much ever |
Ramman K'arojic
Lone Star Warriors Yulai Federation
29
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 01:21:00 -
[302] - Quote
Seriously CCP Devs when you take on a re-balancing exercise what perspectives do you consider ?
Do you consider ?
- The overall naming convention - Yes
- The overall balance of the modules strengths, - Yes
- There fit differing fit requirements - Not really
- The level of skill required to fit between all modules - Not that I have seen
- The actual benefit of having T2 vs T1 vs Faction named - less visible
- The Recycle amounts - not that I have seen mention - fat chance
- The actual drop rates of T1 Meta Items - less than a fat chance
As for killing the immersion value or complexity of the item names game - are you serious - are you dumbing EVE down to be on a console ? Please rethink this.
Finally I have a serious question: Should a named T1 item EVE EVE be more expensive on the Market than a T2 item of the same type ??? on a comparable attribute basis? What ever the answer is; have you included that as your game design principles in each of the above aspects ??????
No so cheery Ramm
|
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 01:22:00 -
[303] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:Damn... what made you think that five days was going to be enough to talk about these proposed changes? That would imply that they would think at all about their changes, but they really do that |
Falin Whalen
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
735
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 01:37:00 -
[304] - Quote
Drone 16 wrote:Falin Whalen wrote:Damn, If I had known how much you people would cry, bitter tears, over someone renaming your precious modules. I would have learned programming and applied to CCP for a job. Your tears are delicious. BOO FRIGGING HOO!
Seriously, this is going to be the third time I've had to learn/relearn module names. I'm not upset by this and neither should you, ya big whiny babies. What do you care about naming conventions? You never see them. Your ships are fit for you (you never see the modules) You undock when you are told (you don't know what ship you are in) you press F1 when you are instructed ( you don't know what you are firing) In short, you are bad at this game and we all discount what you and your ilk write out of hand. Even your tear collecting jar is a hand me down from a comrade who moved on HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! "it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka-á |
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 01:40:00 -
[305] - Quote
Ginger Barbarella wrote:Anyone have any idea if CCP is going to compensate for the loss of invention chance for those of us that use high mets items (meta 2 and 3) in invention? The increase in chance of success is not negligible with the use of meta items, and it seems just another kick to the crotch of Industry if meta 2-4 is going to be vanishing. Thanks. Edit: just came across this: New Formula? I'll have to run the math on this... Nope CCP doesn't do anything in direction of any kind of compensation ...
But they can start, only on my bill i have an gross turnover loss of 80 Bil Isk a Week since they started the Industry Crap Up
|
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 01:44:00 -
[306] - Quote
Pecora Nera wrote:Priscilla Project wrote:Hi!
And I loved it! It felt like a freaking muscle car! Any you wanna know WHY it felt like a muscle car?
Because it had a Y-S8 Hydsocarbon Afterburner!
A Y-S8 HYDROCARGON AFTERBURNER!
Can you imagine how I would have felt fitting a LIMITED 10MN AFTERBURNER onto it? ! I agree with this rant. But I strongly suspect that CCP's unstated reason for the great module renaming is not intended to dumb-down the game, but is actually been done to make the localisation to other languages easier (and cheaper). It's a lot easier to translate "limited" into French (or any given %language% ), and use that for all modules, than to get a meaningful translation of "Y-S8 HYDROCARBON" (and all the other module specific flavour-names.) And if you play the game that they play, you suddenly no longer be named Mr.Miller but Mr.M++ller (German), very nice ...
|
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 01:47:00 -
[307] - Quote
Oraac Ensor wrote:Two questions:
1. Where exactly is the logic in Meta 5, 6, etc. if there is no Meta 2, 3 and 4?
2. Until now, when newbies have asked what to do with all their unwanted loot, the answer has generally been "sell Meta 4 and above, reprocess everything else" - so what will be the advice now? Reprocess everything less and above Meta 5 and sell it because we don't need anymore Names Items harharhar
|
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 01:49:00 -
[308] - Quote
profundus fossura wrote:Priscilla Project wrote:Pecora Nera wrote:Priscilla Project wrote:Hi!
And I loved it! It felt like a freaking muscle car! Any you wanna know WHY it felt like a muscle car?
Because it had a Y-S8 Hydsocarbon Afterburner!
A Y-S8 HYDROCARGON AFTERBURNER!
Can you imagine how I would have felt fitting a LIMITED 10MN AFTERBURNER onto it? ! I agree with this rant. But I strongly suspect that CCP's unstated reason for the great module renaming is not intended to dumb-down the game, but is actually been done to make the localisation to other languages easier (and cheaper). It's a lot easier to translate "limited" into French (or any given %language% ), and use that for all modules, than to get a meaningful translation of "Y-S8 HYDROCARBON" (and all the other module specific flavour-names.) But that's the great part about it! Names do not necessarily need a translation! It's a name! And you know what hydrocarbon translates to in ... ... french? hydrocarbure ! ... spanish? hidrocarburos ! ... in dutch? koolwaterstof ! ... in german? kohlenwasserstoff ! But the ABSOLUTELY best part about it? It doesn't matter what it translates to! There are so many names that are literally irrelevant to translate anyway, because what matters is not the name, but that they give the item a feeling! You will not find a single item in the real world where marketing thinks about "oh my, does that name make any sense?" ... No! They might think about a name that MIGHT have a connection to the actual item, but this isn't even relevant! What matters is that it sounds cool and fits the product! A rifter ... feeling like a muscle car, because it's engine's name sounds powerfull! And not LIMITED! Not AMPLE! Not EXPERIMENTAL! Y-S8 HYDROCARBON AFTERBURNER! After reading this I want a Y-S8 kohlenwasserstoff Afterburner No what you want is a "Y-S8 Kohlenwasserstoff Nachbrenner" |
Daenika
MMO-Mechanics.com
142
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 02:29:00 -
[309] - Quote
CCP Lebowski wrote:Well spotted, this should actually be -25% (which is what you'll see on Sisi just now). We'll get that changed in the blog.
That...doesn't work.
The base capacitor penalty of the T1 is -20%, countered by a 36% reduction in capacitor recharge time. The equates to a net increase of 25% to cap regen.
The Compact version, using the numbers in the blog, is a 26.98% increase in cap regen, with the same -20% capacity penalty.
The T2 version, again from the blog, is a 31.15% regen increase, with the same -20% capacity penalty.
The Restrained, though, is backwards. It provides a 27.12% regen penalty (slightly more than the Compact, less than T2), but has a higher cap capacity penalty, at -25%. This makes it slightly better for actual potency, but much worse for drawback.
What it should be is -15% capacity (less penalty, which is what "Retrained" is supposed to indicate) with a 33% reduction in cap regen time. That gives it a net regen increase of 26.87% (right in line with the Compact version), but 5% less penalty to overall capacitor capacity. |
Matsumoto Takei
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 04:43:00 -
[310] - Quote
Emiko Rowna wrote:Would this not work better?
Co-Processor Of the Tiger Co-Processor Of the Bear Co-Processor Of the Gorilla Co-Processor Of the Boar Co-Processor Of the Monkey Co-Processor Of the Falcon Co-Processor Of the Wolf Co-Processor Of the Tiger Co-Processor Of the Eagle Co-Processor Of the Whale Co-Processor Of the Owl
This ^^^^
|
|
Marek Walerian
State Protectorate Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 04:59:00 -
[311] - Quote
Looks like all 16 pages have been in vain. The fact that there are no blue dev posts other than on the first page coupled with the next patch being released tomorrow reinforces that fact. Looks like the new names are soon to be in. It is a really sad day in Eve |
Emiko Rowna
Aliastra Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 05:49:00 -
[312] - Quote
Marek Walerian wrote:Looks like all 16 pages have been in vain. The fact that there are no blue dev posts other than on the first page coupled with the next patch being released tomorrow reinforces that fact. Looks like the new names are soon to be in. It is a really sad day in Eve On a side note, I have been playing around with new pvp Helios.. err.. i mean "Frigate of the Bear" fit and want your opinion. Friagte of the Bear Damage Control of the Bear Magnetic Field Stabilizer of the Bear Micro Auxiliary Power Core of the Bear Warp Scrambler of the Bear Tracking Disruptor of the Bear 1MN Afterburner of the Bear 150mm Railgun of the Bear 150mm Railgun of the Bear Small Auxiliary Thrusters of the Bear Small Hybrid Collision Accelerator of the Bear Small Drone of the Bear Let me know what you guys think.
I look forward to trying this out!
I still have not seem an answer to the question I asked pages ago.
As these names change, will my saved fittings be updated? The Dev Blog did not say this was going to be part of the process. I just don't want to find out I will need to go through every saved fitting and update them myself.
|
Portmanteau
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
12
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 09:40:00 -
[313] - Quote
This is a crappy idea, it's dumbing it down for people who CBA to click the compare tool and making the eve lore that much blander in the process. Gone will be the scout autos or malkuth rocket launcher... welcome the "ample" module. FFS... AMPLE ? Why not just call them "ok I guess" or "they'll do I suppose" or even just "average".
CCP can do one, they are creating a dull, dumb and dreary landscape, meh. |
Portmanteau
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
12
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 09:42:00 -
[314] - Quote
Priscilla Project wrote:Hi! I would like to bring your attention to the relevant discussions thread in GD, here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=375576&find=unreadA lot of people are not happy with this absolutely crappy idea of yours that will remove so much depth from the game! Let me tell you WHY it's a crappy idea, okay? Back in 2009 when I started playing this game, my favourite ship was a 10mn AfterBurner Rifter, sporting 250mm Artillery! Yes, you read that right! And I loved it! It felt like a freaking muscle car! Any you wanna know WHY it felt like a muscle car? Because it had a Y-S8 Hydrocarbon Afterburner! A Y-S8 HYDROCARBON AFTERBURNER! Can you imagine how I would have felt fitting a LIMITED 10MN AFTERBURNER onto it? Is the difference really not that obvious for you? Why don't we rename all our ships too, when we're at it? Who needs names anyway, right? Minmatar Attack Frigate. Minmatar Combat Frigate. Minmatar Logistics Frigate. Why have names like Rifter, Slasher, Breacher, etc ?? What's the point? If people can just search for "frigate" they get them all listed, right? Why do you have to make it so hard for people to find ships? How can you expect that they freaking remember all these names, right? Yes, I am pissed about how you are ruining the game form the inside, turning it into a bland, empty, depthless game nobody will care about, because you remove any emotional value and connection to it! I idiot stayed silent the last time you did it, but i will NOT make the same freaking mistake again! MY rifter felt like a musclecar! YOUR rifter feels like a worthless piece of crap!
hear hear !
|
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION The Obsidian Front
487
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 09:58:00 -
[315] - Quote
I still think the new naming system is bloody awful. I hate the fact that we didn't get to give any feedback on this.
Personally, although is may be more work, I think the naming system should be much broader. Instead of just having a set of prefixes for EVERY module in game, their should be a set of prefixes for each type of module (similar to now but simpler). We need to keep the flavour of the Sci Fi nature of the game whilst making it easier to understand without ruining it.
Armour plates are a great example of this because we use materials to seperate the items.
We have Steel Nanofiber Titanium Crystalline Carbonite Tungnsten
If we loose this for: Upgraded Compact Restrained
I think it will look awful and not really make sense!
Take armour plates and simply do this to them: Steel - Basic (snowflakes) Titanium - T1 Tungnsten - "Upgraded" (All round best) Nanofiber - Reduced mass penalty but not so good armour boost Crystalline Carbonite - Easiest to fit T2 Steel - T2 version (Best Armour, Most difficult to fit, More mass penalty than upgraded)
We keep names that make sense and still appear "Real" becase a "Restrained 800mm armour plate" sounds stupid.
Try to be a bit sci fi with shield extenders too. Current: Shield Extender I (T1) Supplemental Barrier Emitter Subordinate Screen Stabilizer Azeotropic Ward Salubrity F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Shield Extender II (T2)
We only need 3 meta versions so change the names to: Shield Extender I (T1) F-S6-R Shield Extender (Lowest Sig Penalty) F-S4-C Shield Extender (Lowest Fitting) F-S9 Shield Extender ("Upgraded") Shield Extender II (T2)
The prefixed letters and numbers will become familiar to users. We don't need the words "Ample or Restrained".
Also, as suggested earlier. Start branding the things!! Implants are branded so why aren't modules!
Examples are easy: Duvolle Labs Armour Repairer Boundless Creation Shield Booster
|
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION The Obsidian Front
487
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 10:21:00 -
[316] - Quote
Then lets look at weapons.
Instead of the daft prefixes of GÇóUpgraded GÇóCompact GÇóEnduring GÇóAmple GÇóScoped GÇóRestrained
Do things like:
GR-5 Mounted (Weapon) Where the GR-5 is a high tracking mount EC-12 Coupled (Weapon) Where the EC-12 is a reduced fitting coupling F4r/T Scope Fitted (Weapon) Extended Optimal B-15/cR Scope Fitted (weapon) Extended Falloff HPc-99 Capacitor Mounted (weapon) Reduced Cap Use EC-100 Extended Magazine (Weapon) Expanded Capacity |
Priscilla Project
Custom Clothing Productions
233
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 10:23:00 -
[317] - Quote
FRONT!
Sol says Hi! The most sexy piece of clothing New Eden saw to date! The 'Open Avenue' short dress! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=374461 Join my mailing list, "wemew", for fast and easy future updates! (without the ") |
Zappity
SUPREME MATHEMATICS A Band Apart.
1354
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 12:21:00 -
[318] - Quote
Any chance of a dev response to the overwhelming sentiment in this thread regarding naming? I know you can't rush these things but Oceanus is only a couple of days away. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
8375
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 13:23:00 -
[319] - Quote
Marek Walerian wrote:Looks like all 16 pages have been in vain. The fact that there are no blue dev posts other than on the first page coupled with the next patch being released tomorrow reinforces that fact. Looks like the new names are soon to be in. It is a really sad day in Eve On a side note, I have been playing around with new pvp Helios.. err.. i mean "Frigate of the Bear" fit and want your opinion. Friagte of the Bear Damage Control of the Bear Magnetic Field Stabilizer of the Bear Micro Auxiliary Power Core of the Bear Warp Scrambler of the Bear Tracking Disruptor of the Bear 1MN Afterburner of the Bear 150mm Railgun of the Bear 150mm Railgun of the Bear Small Auxiliary Thrusters of the Bear Small Hybrid Collision Accelerator of the Bear Small Drone of the Bear Let me know what you guys think.
What would be a kind of awesome revenge would be for that ship to be blown up by a 'Salmon fit Destoyer'. |
Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
209
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 13:38:00 -
[320] - Quote
Pecora Nera wrote:Its good that ccp are finally making the effort to clean up the state of the modules. A number of issues with their approach (and possible solutions) have been raised and described quite eloquently in the comments above, I won't dwell on those other than I do agree with the general discussion so far.
Instead, i wish to discuss two other issues that have been lightly touched on: A) user-manufactured T1 modules are basically useless/valueless compared to higher metas, and will become even more-so. B) if all rat-dropped modules are now to be "useful", the rarity and therefore value of them will go through the floor.
Yea, they likely will just drop them out of the loot table and not adjust to make up for it.
Think drone regions.
I think they're all playing wow. |
|
Leyete Wulf
Dark Fusion Industries Limitless Redux
64
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 14:20:00 -
[321] - Quote
Marek Walerian wrote: Friagte of the Bear Damage Control of the Bear Magnetic Field Stabilizer of the Bear Micro Auxiliary Power Core of the Bear
Warp Scrambler of the Bear Tracking Disruptor of the Bear 1MN Afterburner of the Bear
150mm Railgun of the Bear 150mm Railgun of the Bear
Small Auxiliary Thrusters of the Bear Small Hybrid Collision Accelerator of the Bear
Small Drone of the Bear
Absolutely unbearable....
sry couldn't resist |
Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
210
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 15:29:00 -
[322] - Quote
Drone 16 wrote:Falin Whalen wrote:Damn, If I had known how much you people would cry, bitter tears, over someone renaming your precious modules. I would have learned programming and applied to CCP for a job. Your tears are delicious. BOO FRIGGING HOO!
Seriously, this is going to be the third time I've had to learn/relearn module names. I'm not upset by this and neither should you, ya big whiny babies. What do you care about naming conventions? You never see them. Your ships are fit for you (you never see the modules) You undock when you are told (you don't know what ship you are in) you press F1 when you are instructed ( you don't know what you are firing) In short, you are bad at this game and we all discount what you and your ilk write out of hand. Even your tear collecting jar is a hand me down from a comrade who moved on
This is epic. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
11368
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 15:38:00 -
[323] - Quote
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. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Meditril
T.R.I.A.D Ushra'Khan
371
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 15:45:00 -
[324] - Quote
I am just wondering if you also will take care of the costs of faction modules. For example, the Minmatar Faction Light Missile Launcher us much too much expensive to be used of frigates for that little bit of benefit it provides compared to the T2 module. (Especially taking into consideration that Faction Modules can't use T2-Ammo) |
DireNecessity
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
52
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 16:25:00 -
[325] - 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.
Fozzie,
I agree that obscure naming is a red herring argument and, sadly, it may drown out a different, possibly more fruitful line of exploration. As best I can see, this first pass module rebalancing does nothing to make fitting player produced tech 1 (meta 0) modules sensible in any case since even the compact versions not only use less resources (powergrid/cpu etc.) but also produce better results (rate of fire/powergrid increase, ect.).
This, of course, matches the current situation where generally the player manufactured tech one (meta 0) is the worst of all possible options including from a cost perspective (low meta being so numerous and reprocessing so poorly, it generally sells on the market for less than the meta 0 option).
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
|
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
359
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 16:29:00 -
[326] - Quote
DireNecessity 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. Fozzie, I agree that obscure naming is a red herring argument and, sadly, it may drown out a different, possibly more fruitful line of exploration. As best I can see, this first pass module rebalancing does nothing to make fitting player produced tech 1 (meta 0) modules sensible in any case since even the compact versions not only use less resources (powergrid/cpu etc.) but also produce better results (rate of fire/powergrid increase, ect.). This, of course, matches the current situation where generally the player manufactured tech one (meta 0) is the worst of all possible options including from a cost perspective (low meta being so numerous and reprocessing so poorly, it generally sells on the market for less than the meta 0 option). 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
This!
|
Valterra Craven
281
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 16:59:00 -
[327] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey guys. Thanks for the feedback so far.
Talking about names.
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.
So 17 pages of comments and all you address is two things?
1. Why wasn't this first put on features and ideas boards where players could have hashed out some feedback on this before it went live? Did you even really want Feedback? 2. Why are the new meta numbers so poorly laid out? (Gaps, and basic being meta 6) 3. No comments on the refine efficiency at all of modules since Cruis launched. 4. No comments on how the stated goal of this project is to create choice but how this new systems doesn't create choice and only serves as a clean up to reduce the number of items in the DB.
5. And finally why you guys are being so sloppy with the stats. You still haven't addressed why the basic flux capacitor has the same stats as the t1 with less cpu needed. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
907
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 17:06:00 -
[328] - 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.
the lower drawback is surely countered by the lower recharge bonus??? the inconsistency is a big problem here
its should be the same base as the other meta and the base model .. and then its specialization on top of that 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.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please |
Ned Black
Driders
85
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 17:07:00 -
[329] - 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.
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.
|
Kynric
Sky Fighters
187
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 17:12:00 -
[330] - 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.
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. |
|
Aquila Sagitta
Blue-Fire
507
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 17:42:00 -
[331] - Quote
I still see problems with flux coils. Now the only useful one is the restrained because it actually gives you more cap then it takes away. The others don't have high enough recharge bonus to justify the loss of capacity.
As other have pointed out this whole rebalance is fundementally flawed since you're keeping the same meta as before. The new meta 4 modules are still better to use then t2 and meta 0 is still worthless. Blue-Fire Best Fire |
AssandTits
University of Caille Gallente Federation
14
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 17:53:00 -
[332] - 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.
Fine we get it. You will NOT change direction with the tiericide. Okay that one is on you.
However FOR THE LOVE OF ANY DEITY YOU CHOOSE, look at what you wrote, step back to 2003 and ask yourself does it fit. Restrained, Impaired, .... whats next changing pirate implants to " Crippled Implant of Speed" (Low Grade Snake) or "Very Good Implant of Shield Boosting" (High Grade Crystal).
This is where this naming convention is going, you are going to rip the heart out of EVE and turn it into yet another WoW in space clone. If new players find actual intelligence requirements and being able to READ an issue perhaps this is not the game for them.
|
Money Makin Mitch
Paid in Full
466
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:18:00 -
[333] - 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. THIS! I can already tell what I'm going to be fighting in terms of fit 90% just from seeing the ship on scan or overview because this role bonuses stuff got taken way overboard to the point where it feels like there is only one 'correct' way to fit each type of ship, and not only that, but ships overlap, ie. I almost feel like I'm using the same ship when I choose between my Vagabond or Deimos.
This tiericide with the modules feels like yet another step in limiting my fitting options. Removing and renaming stuff seemingly just to do it. And why even bother with mods at all at this point if every ship is going to be fitted the same anyways? Why not just be done with it and make standard ships that can only switch utility slots, prop mods, and ammo/drone type? |
Medalyn Isis
Rosewood Productions Stain Confederation
322
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:34:00 -
[334] - Quote
Marcel Devereux wrote:DireNecessity 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. Fozzie, I agree that obscure naming is a red herring argument and, sadly, it may drown out a different, possibly more fruitful line of exploration. As best I can see, this first pass module rebalancing does nothing to make fitting player produced tech 1 (meta 0) modules sensible in any case since even the compact versions not only use less resources (powergrid/cpu etc.) but also produce better results (rate of fire/powergrid increase, ect.). This, of course, matches the current situation where generally the player manufactured tech one (meta 0) is the worst of all possible options including from a cost perspective (low meta being so numerous and reprocessing so poorly, it generally sells on the market for less than the meta 0 option). 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 This! This +2. I don't like the names personally, but it is the uselessness of meta 0 items that really makes this change bad. Is there any chance of this concern being taken on board and reiterated on also. |
Shin Dari
Covert Brigade
50
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:41:00 -
[335] - Quote
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. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
907
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:53:00 -
[336] - Quote
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.. 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.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please |
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1213
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:55:00 -
[337] - Quote
One thing about variable names: in reality, there is a huge variation in naming conventions, but you don't have to search for the brand or model to get your choices. If I could type 'stasis webifier' into the Market UI and get back everything that's a stasis webifier, that would moot the problem considerably.
If that's too hard to do for whatever reason, standardizing the names to some degree is fine. Count me in as preferring lore-based or sci-fi-sounding adjectives.
The major problem, which is still unaddressed by CCP, is that this round of changes affirms that meta is always better than vanilla T1. You're missing out on a chance to change something that would represent more good complexity. It might also be a nice buff to new industrialists, although it's a bit tough to see how that would actually shake out. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables. |
Emiko Rowna
Aliastra Gallente Federation
19
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:55:00 -
[338] - Quote
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. |
Daenika
MMO-Mechanics.com
143
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:08:00 -
[339] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:the lower drawback is surely countered by the lower recharge bonus??? the inconsistency is a big problem here
it should be the same base as the other meta .. and then its specialization on top of that.. and then the drawback for each meta specializing should be added and made clear .. so the base meta would end up being better at something .. here being the stronger recharge rate..
meta 0 (base model) 36% compact 34% restrained 34% T2 41%
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. |
Callic Veratar
633
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:11:00 -
[340] - Quote
The T1 modules should be worse than the Meta/T2/Faction mods because T1 modules are used to make T2 and some faction mods and in the future could be used to make Meta modules as well. (Drop meta drops from NPCs for parts that are used to upgrade T1 modules to meta parts and add a new process to convert BPCs into Meta prints).
The argument that removing 'Scout' from a 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon I is removing flavour is quite fallacious. 220mm Vulcan AutoCannon I is the flavour and the difference between a Carbine Repeating Cannon or a Gallium Machine Gun is trivial. Suggesting that a Hurricane or Snake implant will change is silly because we have a Hurricane Fleet Issue, not a Monsoon and Snake High-Grade and Low-Grade not Snake and Serpent implants.
Don't use a logical fallacy to argue your point (slippery slope in this instance). It won't get you very far. |
|
Solecist Project
I'm So Meta Even This Acronym
10188
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:18:00 -
[341] - Quote
Morihei Akachi wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:CCP disagrees with you. And quite apart from all the polemics, that is an interesting observation. Because they clearly didn't always. At some point in the past, when these modules were first being rolled out, some dev or devs clearly put considerable time and creativity into making up names for modules that sounded realistic and plausible for an advanced future technological civilization. And I imagine it was probably really fun. So somewhere along the line all that work that someone did has gone from being "a contribution to the richness and flavour of New Eden" to being "a barrier to getting into the game." I think that's an interesting change of perspective, and I'd be curious to know what precipitated it.
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 |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
907
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:19:00 -
[342] - Quote
Daenika wrote:Harvey James wrote:the lower drawback is surely countered by the lower recharge bonus??? the inconsistency is a big problem here
it should be the same base as the other meta .. and then its specialization on top of that.. and then the drawback for each meta specializing should be added and made clear .. so the base meta would end up being better at something .. here being the stronger recharge rate..
meta 0 (base model) 36% compact 34% restrained 34% T2 41%
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% increaseCompact: (1 - 0.8) / (1 - 0.34) = 21.2% increaseRestrained: (1 - 0.9) / (1 - 0.34) = 36.4% increaseT2: (1 - 0.8) / (1 - 0.41) = 35.6% increaseBasically, 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.
the exact bonus is not the point here .. its the concept thats the point .. which the rest of my post explains
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.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please |
Zappity
SUPREME MATHEMATICS A Band Apart.
1354
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:21:00 -
[343] - Quote
Just keep the flavour names but add usability descriptors. Except 'ample' of course which sounds ridiculous. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
645
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:26:00 -
[344] - 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.
my only fear is with the missile launcher category, in that when "next time" does come around the decision is made that the 2 meta variants offered don't provide meaningful gameplay and you want to add a third or even fourth variant back in. I mean slightly less cpu, and extra capacity are pretty lame tbh... I mean unless the plan was to add awesome versions later and completely mess with supply/demand
The name changes I don't like mostly out of convenience once you know them, very easy to just do a search for arbalest and bam! all off the missile launchers you want to see are right there. for some mods this doesn't work as well, and some mods just have confusing names. and also the convention of names is just strange even in the same module line. I'll join the chorus asking CCP, don't take my fancy names away from me! In the name of the Limos, the Malkuth, and the Arbalest, so help me pod - Mara Rinn |
Hiply Rustic
Aliastra Gallente Federation
228
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:33:00 -
[345] - Quote
This line, Fozzie, is pretty meaningless:
"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."
No one's suggesting that players should memorize all of the module names, I venture to say that the number of people who have currently done so is astonishingly small. So, that point's moot. I suspect we can all read, and that most of us do lookups with the compare tool you guys so thoughtfully gave us to, you know, actually compare stats and requirements of the variously name modules.
This isn't about that.
Ralph King-Griffin wrote: "Eve deliberately excludes the stupid and the weak willied." EvE: Only the strong-willied need apply.
|
Daenika
MMO-Mechanics.com
143
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:41:00 -
[346] - Quote
Quote: for some mods this doesn't work as well, and some mods just have confusing names. and also the convention of names is just strange even in the same module line.
It always confused me why the 'Solace' version was the meta 4 remote armor rep, and the 'Regard' version was the meta 4 remote cap transfer, but the 'Atonement' was not the meta 4 remote shield transfer (instead its the S95a, the similarly named version of which is meta 3 for cap transfers and meta 1 for remote armor reps).
Honestly, looking through the naming schemes for turrets and other high slots, they need a simplification. In fact, most modules fall into that category. Wanting there to be some sort of superiority or experience barrier to memorizing which module names, for every single class in the game, are the meta 4 module you want, is simply BS. There's no game benefit to that. It doesn't reward "skill". It simply turns off new players to the game. Obfuscation for no other purpose than "flavor" and forcing memorization of information that is irrelevant outside of the obfuscation itself is nothing but harmful to the game overall.
I mean, seriously, if you guys are playing this game because your gun is called a "280mm Gallium Cannon" instead of a "200mm Scoped Cannon", you're not appreciating the depth that EVE has. |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
467
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 21:18:00 -
[347] - Quote
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. |
ivona fly
Aideron Robotics
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 21:32:00 -
[348] - Quote
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. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
907
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 21:38:00 -
[349] - Quote
ivona fly wrote: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.
it does seem too be a little light on overall content ... i mean what happened too the ship rebalancing .. it used too come out like a river now its more like an occasional drip 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.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please |
Robart Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
19
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 21:53:00 -
[350] - Quote
I feel that this is the wrong course to take. this is a personal opinion, based on a limited time screwing with meta modules. Complexity for the sake of complexity is wrong. but simplicity for the sake of simplicity is also wrong. most players don't use meta 1-3 stuff? most players in anything large than a cruiser use primarily T2 or better. frigates and destroyers, even cruisers, is where those meta modules shine. there's even a tool which already allows players to compare EVERY attribute of EVERY module in a market group, from having found any of them. the compare window is a better tool to deal with it. it sits there, on the variations tab, hardly used. I've dealt with veteran players (not saying anything about their quality, just they've been here a while), who had no idea it existed.
Please, for the love of Bob, don't do this. Let us keep what fragments of the lore we have. Let us keep this meaningless variety, but make it meaningful. As it is, I remember fondly the idiocy i got into with meta 3 launchers, and the beautifully tight fits that only worked because the meta 2 module had one less PG of draw. it's most important for the new-bros. Cruisers, battlecruisers, and battleships all have enough space on them that in almost every application, T2 mods live in every slot. the price differences as well make for interesting choices. do you go for cheap, or effective?
and that little bit of flavour that each of those silly names adds?
It makes the game fun. Target painters are a beautiful example of what CCP in years past did.
EvE is a complex game. I respect that you need to get new players into the game. I respect that you are frustrated that it seems like no one uses those modules. but if you look at the database closely, find me a module which isn't fit to a ship.
Don't get rid of complexity, please. Don't take our names. Instead, make the differences meaningful.
Fozzie, this isn't WoW, or WoT. A great many of us like our meta levels, and our other legacy ****. take those balance ideas of yours, and put them under the old names. but don't take flavor from the game. It's bitter enough already. |
|
Morihei Akachi
Nishida Corporation
105
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 22:58:00 -
[351] - Quote
Hiply Rustic wrote:This line, Fozzie, is pretty meaningless:
"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."
No one's suggesting that players should memorize all of the module names, I venture to say that the number of people who have currently done so is astonishingly small. So, that point's moot. I suspect we can all read, and that most of us do lookups with the compare tool you guys so thoughtfully gave us to, you know, actually compare stats and requirements of the variously name modules.
This isn't about that.
That's true, as far as it goes. Nevertheless, isn't there a sense in which the complexity of the technology and all the stuff you have to figure out in order to fit a ship quickly and effectively is also a field on which we as players acquire skill and mastery? And isn't that acquisition of (an admittedly fairly arcane) competence a central part of what gives Eve-players a very special sense of accomplishment? I have to work hard, at the moment, to come to a clear understanding of the fitting requirements of every new ship I decide to fly. Having worked hard at it, I have a very real feeling of having mastered something when I can head for a fitting bay and just know the modules I need. The less I need to work at that, the less it will mean to me. And isn't that meant to be one of Eve's major selling points, that achievements there mean more than in some "easy" MMO? Your spirit is the true shield. |
Money Makin Mitch
Paid in Full
467
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 23:07:00 -
[352] - Quote
Robart Baboli wrote:I feel that this is the wrong course to take. this is a personal opinion, based on a limited time screwing with meta modules. Complexity for the sake of complexity is wrong. but simplicity for the sake of simplicity is also wrong. most players don't use meta 1-3 stuff? most players in anything large than a cruiser use primarily T2 or better. frigates and destroyers, even cruisers, is where those meta modules shine. there's even a tool which already allows players to compare EVERY attribute of EVERY module in a market group, from having found any of them. the compare window is a better tool to deal with it. it sits there, on the variations tab, hardly used. I've dealt with veteran players (not saying anything about their quality, just they've been here a while), who had no idea it existed.
Please, for the love of Bob, don't do this. Let us keep what fragments of the lore we have. Let us keep this meaningless variety, but make it meaningful. As it is, I remember fondly the idiocy i got into with meta 3 launchers, and the beautifully tight fits that only worked because the meta 2 module had one less PG of draw. it's most important for the new-bros. Cruisers, battlecruisers, and battleships all have enough space on them that in almost every application, T2 mods live in every slot. the price differences as well make for interesting choices. do you go for cheap, or effective?
and that little bit of flavour that each of those silly names adds?
It makes the game fun. Target painters are a beautiful example of what CCP in years past did.
EvE is a complex game. I respect that you need to get new players into the game. I respect that you are frustrated that it seems like no one uses those modules. but if you look at the database closely, find me a module which isn't fit to a ship.
Don't get rid of complexity, please. Don't take our names. Instead, make the differences meaningful.
Fozzie, this isn't WoW, or WoT. A great many of us like our meta levels, and our other legacy ****. take those balance ideas of yours, and put them under the old names. but don't take flavor from the game. It's bitter enough already. This
hell, I've been playing and skilling for 3 years now, and my Loki has the most ridiculous hodge-podge of mods to make the fit work.... literally uses up all the CPU and powergrid even after faction/meta stuff... you're basically now taking away my ability to create such fits. Now my Loki will probably no longer work, and even if it does, I don't want to fly some 'ample' bullshit
|
Medalyn Isis
Rosewood Productions Stain Confederation
322
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 23:20:00 -
[353] - Quote
Money Makin Mitch wrote: I don't want to fly some 'ample' bullshit Agreed. Add to that list restrained, who thought naming a module with a name like that is a good idea.
Give us some names with a little more pshhh
Overcharged, extended, plated, layered, honeycombed, optimised. Any of those are a lot more descriptive and sounds a lot better than ample, restrained, enduring. The only one I semi like out of the list you posted is Scoped, all of the rest are terrible.
None are as good as the current names we have though, so seems like this is change just for the sake of change when it comes to completely revamping the module names. |
Ransu Asanari
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union The Predictables
144
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 23:37:00 -
[354] - Quote
Fozzie can you please comment on the Light Missile Launcher changes - was reducing the number of meta launchers, and keeping the fitting the same as the Meta0 intentional? The Light Missile Launcher I will have the same fitting as the Ample Light Missile Launcher, so there will be absolutely no reason to use the Meta0 other than cost.
This is a fairly significant nerf to ship fitting for Light Missiles, because currently you can scale your fitting with what your ship can spare, since Malkuth -> Limos -> Arbalest -> T2 all scale with CPU usage, and only T2 launchers have additional powergrid. Powder and Ball Alchemists Union - "Turning Lead into Gold since 2008" |
Krell Kroenen
The Devil's Shadow
200
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 23:39:00 -
[355] - Quote
Morihei Akachi wrote: That's true, as far as it goes. Nevertheless, isn't there a sense in which the complexity of the technology and all the stuff you have to figure out in order to fit a ship quickly and effectively is also a field on which we as players acquire skill and mastery? And isn't that acquisition of (an admittedly fairly arcane) competence a central part of what gives Eve-players a very special sense of accomplishment? I have to work hard, at the moment, to come to a clear understanding of the fitting requirements of every new ship I decide to fly. Having worked hard at it, I have a very real feeling of having mastered something when I can head for a fitting bay and just know the modules I need. The less I need to work at that, the less it will mean to me. And isn't that meant to be one of Eve's major selling points, that achievements there mean more than in some "easy" MMO?
Very well said.
|
Primaxin
Heuristic Industrial And Development Galactic Skyfleet Empire
2
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 00:24:00 -
[356] - Quote
Most everyone is focusing on the admittedly dumb names but I think that is the least important problem with this change.
Most players do some ratting. Believe it or not, many even pick up the loot. One of the few excitements to ratting and running missions is finding a valuable item, usually meta 4. From what I'm reading, all that will go away. All rats will drop exactly the same generic stuff, no chance of ever finding anything especially valuable or interesting. Probably most mods will be worth about 10-15K ISK.
What a way to ruin that aspect of gameplay. Honestly they haven't done much with PvE for a long time, in fact I was running some of the same missions in high-sec 6 years ago as I've been doing since I returned to high sec 6 months ago. No variety, no randomness, every mission with the same name plays exactly the same. Anomalies are usually the same also (very small chance of something interesting happening). Instead of doing something to make PvE more interesting for those who enjoy that aspect of the game, they're taking away one of the few parts that added some excitement.
To me this is a much much bigger problem than the names. |
Emiko Rowna
Aliastra Gallente Federation
20
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 03:26:00 -
[357] - 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. ...
Thanks.
So how long before you apply this thought process to the ship names? I can't wait to see what the new names might look like.
Scoped Frigate, anyone?
|
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
467
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 04:04:00 -
[358] - Quote
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?
|
Emiko Rowna
Aliastra Gallente Federation
20
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 04:08:00 -
[359] - Quote
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?
Never and I'm starting to think that is the idea. Making one think this are options but there are none. Fitting get real easy then.
|
Drone 16
Law Dogz
250
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 05:23:00 -
[360] - 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.
Hello Fozzie,
I want to say this as respectfully as possible as I know that you love the game and are trying very hard to make a positive difference to it ( and you have many times). However, your statement that we are trying to make everyone memorize obscure names just because we had to is pretty far off.
From what I have read I feel that many here are trying to preserve the depth and immersion that hooked us in the beginning and kept us coming back. These new names takes a lot of that depth away. Maybe you don't see it that way but almost every post in this thread echoes the same idea, don't lessen the immersion.
I have seen may good ideas, from simple mouse overs that show the trait eg. Ample to adding npc corp names to items. There isn't much difference in memorizing what a Creodrone item does compared to its opposite number in your naming convention.
There are a lot of good intentioned people trying to help in this thread please give them their due when making your decisions in the near future.
Thanks It puts the peanutbutter on itself or it leaves the bonus round... - E1's greatest Hits |
|
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 |
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
5457
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 04:08:00 -
[391] - Quote
Krystyn wrote:I want friggin Widdowmaker Missiles back too!!!! And Juggernaut Torps and Gremlin Rockets and Doom torpedoes for my Phoenix!!!
Yup.
Search [ kind:missile size:medium damage:thermal ]
There's your discoverability and accessibility and openness to new players, CCP.
Even better, allow Show Info -> Attributes -> Charge Type to be right-clickable, opening the appropriate group in the Market window. Heck, allow the role icons in the Traits tab to do the same thing: click the "tackle" icon for the Crow and it opens up the market groups for scrams and disruptors. There could be an intermediate stage where you warn the player that you're about to open the Market (e.g: right-click -> Show Market DetailsGǪ).
No more searching, just finding. Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Ai Mei
Starfish Operating Syndicate
28
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 05:56:00 -
[392] - Quote
Ok first everyone lets calm down and take a breather, both on our side and CCP's side. We can get through this as friends and find a balance we can both agree on.
From what i can gather CCP wants to make it easier for new players to fit ships and and understand the game
Players want immersion and the cool names we grew up with because hey those names made the game.
Balance -
As one player said earlier (too lazy to find it) Rather than changing the names, let's look at the prefixes and suffixes.
so like in the light missile launchers
Upgraded - UG UG-'limos' light missile launcher. Compact - CMP CMP-'malkulth' light missile launcher. Ample - AMP AMP-'xt-2000' light missile launcher scope - SCP SCP-'arbalest' light missile launcher.
All 4 basic metas with easy to understand prefixes, and retains the immersion of the old names we love.
Now in the description window, text that says (unabbreviated prefix ) + module name could appear if people really want the full info.
Anyway guys, cut the sarcasm let's be constructive. If we can reach an agreement together when we can all be happy. |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION The Obsidian Front
523
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 08:41:00 -
[393] - Quote
I think the guys at CCP need to go and play a game of World of Tanks or Battlefield or something and see that weapons and equipment never has a stupid name like "Ample".
An L2A1 Assault Rifle with an extended magazine fitted wouldn't be called an Ample Assault Rifle.
CCP. We are not children. We're almost exclusively adults. I play EvE because it is a mature MMO. I even enjoy making the kids who play EvE cry by blowing up their **** because they were too imature and impatient to learn about the game mechanics and modules in order to best utilise them.
I would far prefer to have to learn stuff than to simply just "know it". This is one of the crux of this new naming system. |
Crumplecorn
Eve Cluster Explorations
1507
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 14:20:00 -
[394] - Quote
This naming scheme was an ample fuckup.
CCP Fozzie wrote: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. Can I assume then that you will be going back to "fix" the absolutely opaque ship naming scheme? Witty Image - Stream Not Liking this post hurts my RL feelings and will be considered harassment |
Robert Parr
Iron Tiger T3 Industries
16
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 14:23:00 -
[395] - 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.
Fcking typical Fozzie! Just fcking textbook!!!! You're concerned with style ...yet substance, convienently for you is totally, utterly, and unsurprisingly ignored. Your idea of a useful role for modules is to homogenize until there is really only one choice to make. Just keep dumbing down the game ....it'll work ....till you're out of a job or, the game goes dark or, both. People have genuine concerns with what you are doing and you should really give a second look to some of these ideas BUT, I know you won't. {rolls eyes...why do I even bother...disgust!!} |
Nut Cullet
Claws of the Demon Skeleton Crew.
6
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 15:03:00 -
[396] - Quote
New meta module naming system is immature and childish. It looses all of it's SciFi depth. I hate it , i will go play something with more lore and less dumb down if this carrys on. Your killing my game one piece at a time. |
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1216
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 15:47:00 -
[397] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Krystyn wrote:I want friggin Widdowmaker Missiles back too!!!! And Juggernaut Torps and Gremlin Rockets and Doom torpedoes for my Phoenix!!! Yup. Search [ kind:missile size:medium damage:thermal ]
That might even be something to have Aura talk about in a Tutorial. No reason to hide the feature. I'd be surprised if 1% of the player base reads dev blogs--their loss, but still a problem.
Or, you know, it could just work the way every store on the web works: you ask for 'light missiles' and you get investigated by the NSAa list of everything that is a 'light missile', regardless of what its brand and model name are. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables. |
Cordo Draken
ABOS Industrial Enterprises The Marmite Collective
90
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 15:50:00 -
[398] - Quote
SOB! I just fixed most of my ship fits on EFT, and reupdage the fitting manager from all the stupid name changes of mods and the ship rebalances... Now that's useless until you guys are all done redoing everything again! It's a frakin job just to keep updated ship fits with you guys when I have hundreds of ships everywhere. Bitter sweet CCP... Bitter sweet eëÆWhomever said, "You only get one shot to make a good impression," was utterly wrong. I've made plenty of great impressions with my AutocannonseëÆ eÉà |
Copper Khai
22
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 15:50:00 -
[399] - Quote
Nut Cullet wrote:New meta module naming system is immature and childish. It looses all of it's SciFi depth. I hate it , i will go play something with more lore and less dumb down if this carrys on. Your killing my game one piece at a time. childish? like I'm taking my marbles and going home childish?
I get where you guiys are coming from but Fozzie and CCP have the right idea to eliminating bad complexity. EVE has a ton of it and it needs to go. If you are complaining ask why - is it to preserve your advantage of already knowing? I used to get mad when Photoshop made a new feature that negated my secret studio trick, but then I realized - it's not a matter of roadblocks for the people behind you, it's how good you are at making art.
Lore should be considered. Loose that and you damage the IP, which is what CCP wants to expand. Also, lots of very "scientific" games are coming and they will take a bite out of EVE's player base if you loose that flavor.
Good Luck CCP. You guys have made a great game that I have loved for a long time, and I'm more hopeful than ever about it.
|
Krell Kroenen
The Devil's Shadow
210
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 17:04:00 -
[400] - Quote
Copper Khai wrote:Nut Cullet wrote:New meta module naming system is immature and childish. It looses all of it's SciFi depth. I hate it , i will go play something with more lore and less dumb down if this carrys on. Your killing my game one piece at a time. childish? like I'm taking my marbles and going home childish? I get where you guiys are coming from but Fozzie and CCP have the right idea to eliminating bad complexity. EVE has a ton of it and it needs to go. If you are complaining ask why - is it to preserve your advantage of already knowing? I used to get mad when Photoshop made a new feature that negated my secret studio trick, but then I realized - it's not a matter of roadblocks for the people behind you, it's how good you are at making art. Lore should be considered. Loose that and you damage the IP, which is what CCP wants to expand. Also, lots of very "scientific" games are coming and they will take a bite out of EVE's player base if you loose that flavor. Good Luck CCP. You guys have made a great game that I have loved for a long time, and I'm more hopeful than ever about it.
It is not about losing an advantage there really isn't any advantage to lose, as someone else already pointed out, vets aren't memorizing all the mods. CCP isn't eliminating bad complexity they are eliminating flavor. New players will need to research a whole host of different elements not just module names. Eve has a learning curve. It is part of the game. Some people seek out the challenge of that learning curve and the sense of achievement from mastering it.
If we wanted simple, non complex game play there are other games that do that quiet well.
Besides the type of people that can't be arsed to click and read, are the same type of people that will rage quit when they lose their ship to a ganker. I am willing to bet you that Code has driven off more players than a sci-fi named module. *shrugs*
|
|
Midnight Hope
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
141
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 18:47:00 -
[401] - 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 [...] Thanks.
But Fozzie, you are deluding yourself when you think it is not already a requirement!!
When someone shouts on comms, "Bellicose on gate!!" you have to use "obscure name memorization" to figure out what a Bellicose is, how they are fitted and how much danger it represents!!
Memorizing modules is nothing but practice for real life combat situations when roaming New Eden! You are only harming new players by taking it away!
If I didn't want to memorize obscure scifi stuff I would be playing WOW or Candy Crush!!
|
Tara Vorkosigan
Of Questionable Repute
37
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 20:38:00 -
[402] - Quote
IMO the theory is fine, but the execution is bad. The word Ample should only be used to describe bosoms, and harvests. It just sounds out of place in a Sci-fi game. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
2825
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 06:19:00 -
[403] - Quote
Tara Vorkosigan wrote:The word Ample should only be used to describe bosoms, and harvests. It just sounds out of place in a Sci-fi game.
This. |
Hulk Miner
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
20
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 06:31:00 -
[404] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone, the overall module rework has been a long time coming and it feels great to start rolling it out! Hopefully these changes and the ones that follow will help make your fitting experience a more engaging one. You screwed up on Cap Flux Coil, new meta 1 is better than T2.
Not the first mistake but feel there will be many more.
NOW GIVE MORE LOVE TO COSMOS ITEMS !!!!!!!!!!!!
|
Juliet DiMarco
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
276
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 22:29:00 -
[405] - Quote
Krell Kroenen wrote: Let me put it another way, checkers has less barriers to learning than chess, So why play chess? Checkers has to be better right? But then why do people play chess or even games more complex than chess?
If a developer/exec who cut their teeth at Electronic Arts somehow got the rights to chess, and they believed more people played checkers than chess, you can bet the game would become chessckers in about a year and a half. After all, what good is a game you can't sell to the largest number of people possible? |
Benedictus de Suede
Norsewing Naval Command
5
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 00:10:00 -
[406] - Quote
Being a Caldari guy what do you think my opinion is about the CCP balancing work so far?
Some objective stats from zkillboard which hopefully illustrates how good the battleship balancing turned out to be:
Combat efficiency (PVP): 95,2 Armageddon Navy Issue 93,8 Typhoon Fleet Issue 93,6 Temepest Fleet Issue 92,2 Apocalypse Navy Issue 91,5 Megathron Navy Issue 83,7 Dominix Navy Issue 76,4 Scorpion Navy Issue 65,7 Raven Navy Issue
Well the top 5 seems pretty balanced don't they. Fun if you like armour tanking but sad reading if you like Caldari ships as I do. I-¦ve tried to be creative when it comes to fitting but the differences in fundamentals are just too great.
Here-¦s and comparison between a Typhoon Fleet Issue and a Raven Navy Issue (who supposedly should be a specialized missile ship..hmm I guess not). All skills at lvl 5. Both ships have basic equipment of 3 Ballistic controls II, 1 Damage control II, 100 MWD, 1 Warp disruptor II
Typhoon FI uses 3 low slots and rigs for armour tanking and the Raven NI 3 Med slots and rigs for shield tanking. Both ships are equipped with Heavy Rapid launchers. What-¦s left to play with?
The Typhoon does more DPS with it-¦s 6 launchers than the Raven do with it's 8 launchers and have 2 high slots over (for 2 energy neuts, guns or smart bombs). In addition it can have 5 Heavy Drones. Ok the Raven compensates this by using it-¦s remaining low slot for a drone dmg applifier. Typhoon total DPS=1273 and the Raven total DPS=1173. To sum up even if the Raven had 10 high slots and 8 medium slots it still would be inferior to the Typhoon wouldn-¦t it?
So......Since CCP ship balancing (from a caldari stand point) is crap we can always hope that they buff the shield modules A LOT... |
Benedictus de Suede
Norsewing Naval Command
5
|
Posted - 2014.10.03 00:10:49 -
[407] - Quote
Being a Caldari guy what do you think my opinion is about the CCP balancing work so far?
Some objective stats from zkillboard which hopefully illustrates how good the battleship balancing turned out to be:
Combat efficiency (PVP): 95,2 Armageddon Navy Issue 93,8 Typhoon Fleet Issue 93,6 Temepest Fleet Issue 92,2 Apocalypse Navy Issue 91,5 Megathron Navy Issue 83,7 Dominix Navy Issue 76,4 Scorpion Navy Issue 65,7 Raven Navy Issue
Well the top 5 seems pretty balanced don't they. Fun if you like armour tanking but sad reading if you like Caldari ships as I do. I-¦ve tried to be creative when it comes to fitting but the differences in fundamentals are just too great.
Here-¦s and comparison between a Typhoon Fleet Issue and a Raven Navy Issue (who supposedly should be a specialized missile ship..hmm I guess not). All skills at lvl 5. Both ships have basic equipment of 3 Ballistic controls II, 1 Damage control II, 100 MWD, 1 Warp disruptor II
Typhoon FI uses 3 low slots and rigs for armour tanking and the Raven NI 3 Med slots and rigs for shield tanking. Both ships are equipped with Heavy Rapid launchers. What-¦s left to play with?
The Typhoon does more DPS with it-¦s 6 launchers than the Raven do with it's 8 launchers and have 2 high slots over (for 2 energy neuts, guns or smart bombs). In addition it can have 5 Heavy Drones. Ok the Raven compensates this by using it-¦s remaining low slot for a drone dmg applifier. Typhoon total DPS=1273 and the Raven total DPS=1173. To sum up even if the Raven had 10 high slots and 8 medium slots it still would be inferior to the Typhoon wouldn-¦t it?
So......Since CCP ship balancing (from a caldari stand point) is crap we can always hope that they buff the shield modules A LOT... |
Steluna de Chasteux
all your bases are belong to us Lawful Rebellion
2
|
Posted - 2014.10.04 03:59:00 -
[408] - Quote
I was reorganizing the hangars and noticed that my stack of Arbalest LMLs is now a stack of Compact LMLs. I knew that this was coming, but didn't expect the market value to fall to less than a 10th the original price.
Any chance of a refund for the balance? Or, should I get busy unloading my other pricey meta variants before they're similarly mutilated? |
Steluna de Chasteux
all your bases are belong to us Lawful Rebellion
3
|
Posted - 2014.10.04 03:59:39 -
[409] - Quote
I was reorganizing the hangars and noticed that my stack of Arbalest LMLs is now a stack of Compact LMLs. I knew that this was coming, but didn't expect the market value to fall to less than a 10th the original price.
Any chance of a refund for the balance? Or, should I get busy unloading my other pricey meta variants before they're similarly mutilated? |
Skyler Hawk
The Scope Gallente Federation
26
|
Posted - 2014.10.05 08:30:00 -
[410] - Quote
Fozzie, can you fix the size of T1, T2, and navy MAPCs? As frigate-sized modules, they should presumably have volumes of 5m3 (like the compact and Thukker ones do), but instead they take up 20m3, which is annoyingly large when compared to a frigate's cargo space. |
|
Skyler Hawk
The Scope Gallente Federation
29
|
Posted - 2014.10.05 08:30:47 -
[411] - Quote
Fozzie, can you fix the size of T1, T2, and navy MAPCs? As frigate-sized modules, they should presumably have volumes of 5m3 (like the compact and Thukker ones do), but instead they take up 20m3, which is annoyingly large when compared to a frigate's cargo space. |
Kusum Fawn
State Protectorate Caldari State
547
|
Posted - 2014.10.05 09:25:00 -
[412] - Quote
Its sad that the majority of issues with modules are not going to be addressed, its almost like CCP doesnt know what the actual problems even are.
1. Inconsistent grouping names - the module has several different attributes that are used for sorting, In order these are name, group, catagory, size, slot, volume, meta and tech. Odd choices have been made in how these are displayed, and what things are called/grouped. EX -"50mm Reinforced Nanofiber Plates I" are group named "Armor reinforcer" while "Energized EM membrane" are "Armor Plating Energized" . "Magnetic Field Stabilizer I" has a blueprint under the name "Fast Loader" while the group name is Magnetic Field Stabilizer, Gyrostabilizers also have this problem. Ballistic control units and Heat sinks are under their respective named categories.
2. unfinished module and ammunition sizing -Tracking computers, sensor disruptors sensor boosters are all small sized, why? they fit on every size ship, stasis webs , armor plates, cargo scanners are unsized completely. its a half built system but you arent fixing that. why?
3. inconsistent module m/3 Limited light ion blaster I is 25m/3 , Limited light Neutron Blaster I is 20 m/3 Limited Ion Blaster (medium) is 10m/3 , Limited Neutron Blaster is 10 m/3 Heavy Ion blaster I (medium) is 10 m/3 , Heavy Neutron Blaster I is 25m/3 This is wildly inconsistent.
4. inconsistent meta changes for all weapon/module types. in many cases there is a clear meta progression 0 is worst in all respects, and 4 is best in all respects, matching or better then t2. this also means that there is never any reason to fit meta 0-3 if 4 is available. in many cases there is a fitting choice between 3 and 4 that caused 3 to get fit instead of 4. and similar choices for meta 4 and tech 2 items. However the changes proposed and the ones implemented (as noted by another poster in this thread) there are now fewer fitting choices and far less variation of fitting options. Makuth light missile launchers (meta 3) had a lower cpu then the 'arbolast' meta 4 launcher and thus some fits used makuth and some used arbolast.
actual fixes to your system would work better then dumbing down parts of it that you don't understand because it isn't completed to begin with. Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
|
Adaahh Gee
Sarz'na Khumatari The Unthinkables
144
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 11:31:00 -
[413] - Quote
Kusum Fawn wrote:Its sad that the majority of issues with modules are not going to be addressed, its almost like CCP doesnt know what the actual problems even are.
That would involve either playing the game, or listening the people that do, something that CCP and the CSM seems to do less and less often. |
Adaahh Gee
Sarz'na Khumatari The Unthinkables
148
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 11:31:25 -
[414] - Quote
Kusum Fawn wrote:Its sad that the majority of issues with modules are not going to be addressed, its almost like CCP doesnt know what the actual problems even are.
That would involve either playing the game, or listening the people that do, something that CCP and the CSM seems to do less and less often. |
Saisin
State War Academy Caldari State
148
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 05:27:00 -
[415] - Quote
Tara Vorkosigan wrote:IMO the theory is fine, but the execution is bad. The word Ample should only be used to describe bosoms, and harvests. It just sounds out of place in a Sci-fi game. Agreed, and I also think some of the existing names should be kept, like "Arbalest" or "Malkuth" but simply as flavor content added to the updated name classification... "surrender your ego, be free". innuendo.
solo? There is a new hope http://turamarths-evelife.blogspot.com/2014/05/ok-now-im-betting-man.html |
Saisin
State War Academy Caldari State
168
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 05:27:16 -
[416] - Quote
Tara Vorkosigan wrote:IMO the theory is fine, but the execution is bad. The word Ample should only be used to describe bosoms, and harvests. It just sounds out of place in a Sci-fi game. Agreed, and I also think some of the existing names should be kept, like "Arbalest" or "Malkuth" but simply as flavor content added to the updated name classification...
"surrender your ego, be free". innuendo.
solo? There is a new hope...
http://turamarths-evelife.blogspot.com/2014/05/ok-now-im-betting-man.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmNYWjHWwdg&t=12m18s
|
Kyshonuba
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
29
|
Posted - 2014.10.15 14:10:00 -
[417] - Quote
Steluna de Chasteux wrote:I was reorganizing the hangars and noticed that my stack of Arbalest LMLs is now a stack of Compact LMLs. I knew that this was coming, but didn't expect the market value to fall to less than a 10th the original price.
Any chance of a refund for the balance? Or, should I get busy unloading my other pricey meta variants before they're similarly mutilated?
I for myself earned my money in eve with buying/selling meta 4 itmes in hek. Dealing with modules like "150 & 200 mm light scout auto cannon" or a "small unstable power fluctuator" (meta 4 energy neut) earned me some high sec money. You can install buying alts at different market hubs and transport the "cheaper bought" items to hek for more profit. By doing this I learned about gate travelling, eve geography, the danger of low- and null sec travelling , transporting, ship fitting ...and of cause all about the evil plans of gate campers and market tricksters.
Although i dont play that much these days, I worry that this plan will destroy that kind of misson hub trading. With T2 looking like the new allaround "top item" and the variation amoung meta items reduced there are no fitting options left that traders can use for dealing.
....... and lets dont forget that misson income will be nerfed yet another time just after the refining value of the misson loot have been reduced. ( the dropping market value of light missle launcher illustrates this). |
Kyshonuba
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
30
|
Posted - 2014.10.15 14:10:52 -
[418] - Quote
Steluna de Chasteux wrote:I was reorganizing the hangars and noticed that my stack of Arbalest LMLs is now a stack of Compact LMLs. I knew that this was coming, but didn't expect the market value to fall to less than a 10th the original price.
Any chance of a refund for the balance? Or, should I get busy unloading my other pricey meta variants before they're similarly mutilated?
I for myself earned my money in eve with buying/selling meta 4 itmes in hek. Dealing with modules like "150 & 200 mm light scout auto cannon" or a "small unstable power fluctuator" (meta 4 energy neut) earned me some high sec money. You can install buying alts at different market hubs and transport the "cheaper bought" items to hek for more profit. By doing this I learned about gate travelling, eve geography, the danger of low- and null sec travelling , transporting, ship fitting ...and of cause a lot about the evil plans of gate campers and market tricksters.
Although i dont play that much these days, I worry that this plan will destroy that kind of misson hub trading. With T2 looking like the new allaround "top item" and the variation amoung meta items reduced there are no fitting options left that traders can use for dealing.
....... and lets dont forget that misson income will be nerfed yet another time just after the refining value of the misson loot have been reduced. ( the dropping market value of light missle launcher illustrates this). |
BraiZure Harloon
A-31 Violent Intent
27
|
Posted - 2014.11.05 18:20:27 -
[419] - Quote
In addition to the price tank on meta mods that got "balanced" I ran the numbers on the old meta 4 missile launcher. Looks like it lost about 13% in RoF and a 12% capacity nerf and now takes 13% more heat damage while over heating. Only gains one more CPU savings in fitting. Doesn't seem like the advertised 6.6%. Were they really 15% better than every other weapon system? When they continue with the module changes I'm torn between hoping that other mods get that sort of treatment and hoping others don't get nerfed out of use like these have. |
MBizon Osis
State War Academy Caldari State
51
|
Posted - 2014.11.16 09:03:31 -
[420] - Quote
module balancing, "Tiericide",
Hello all made it to the end of 20 pages of "I don't like the name". I don't care about names and pairing down some of the many not used named mods. But the ship Tiericide made them better in most cases.
The Survey Scanner could be improved to display units and volume (m3), just to simplify the process and remove the math equation. My mining lasers, ore hold, cargo holds, and station hanger all read m3. I know this is a humble module and this will get not get the time of day. But here was a year long thread about them and a Dev urging players to post.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=237199
Lots of crazy in it but a lot of folks just think that reading in m3 would be a nice improvement and make it more useful.
I am not a bright guy on these flux mods shields or cap EFT shows me they are bad for every fit I try so how can they be good or in the game at all? what fits would anyone use them for? I would like any advice on this.
And the whole we have to change the names of every thing every 2 years? http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/whats-in-a-name/ Feb 2012
https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Module_changes
Like I said I don't care but it seams like a waste of time and money you could be making more content or real improvements.
Can't wait to see the fur fly when you get to mods most players really care about.
|
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1561
|
Posted - 2014.11.16 20:25:03 -
[421] - Quote
Any idea when the next round of balancing is?
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
523
|
Posted - 2014.11.26 20:53:30 -
[422] - Quote
Is anyone at CCP still working on Module Tiericide, or is this considered to be a failed project? |
Cledus Snowman Snow
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 12:16:59 -
[423] - Quote
MBizon Osis wrote:module balancing, "Tiericide", Hello all made it to the end of 20 pages of "I don't like the name". I don't care about names and pairing down some of the many not used named mods. But the ship Tiericide made them better in most cases. The Survey Scanner could be improved to display units and volume (m3), just to simplify the process and remove the math equation. My mining lasers, ore hold, cargo holds, and station hanger all read m3. I know this is a humble module and this will get not get the time of day. But here was a year long thread about them and a Dev urging players to post. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=237199 Lots of crazy in it but a lot of folks just think that reading in m3 would be a nice improvement and make it more useful. I am not a bright guy on these flux mods shields or cap EFT shows me they are bad for every fit I try so how can they be good or in the game at all? what fits would anyone use them for? I would like any advice on this. And the whole we have to change the names of every thing every 2 years? http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/whats-in-a-name/ Feb 2012 https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Module_changes Like I said I don't care but it seams like a waste of time and money you could be making more content or real improvements. Can't wait to see the fur fly when you get to mods most players really care about.
I understand you and agree. It is the oll 'Order, counterorder, disorder.'. on the name changes. And the ore scanner changed to read in M3 like eveything else in the Game would make too much Sense. |
IBISWARS
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 22:06:13 -
[424] - Quote
I do not think tier 3 bcers should be able to snipe pos structures outside of range of the guns. If your attacking a pos you should be under fire of the pos weapons not safely out of it's range. Reward vs risk. |
Bolimbe
Shiga's Playground Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.07 20:42:05 -
[425] - Quote
CCP Gargant wrote:Oceanus is released next week and with it starts the advertised module rebalancing. To start out with the team decided to target eight specific groups of modules and CCP Fozzie has written a dev blog to explain the reasoning, method, and the groups. Head on over here to check it out. Oceanus is released on Tuesday, September 30th. These changes are looking very good. What do you think?
I think the module rebalancing looks like a good idea. However, I do not agree that the name changes were needed. As a matter of fact, changing the names and the unique descriptors is another step toward making Eve "just another mmo". You are removing the challenge and limiting the sandbox in order to favor the carebear and those who are too lazy, scared or just wrong in the head to grasp the fun in a dangerous world where, at any time, one can find oneself waking in a new clone or short a billion isk due to a scam or any of the other things that make Eve a unique and fun experience.
CCP should go ahead and create a "carebear server", like every other mmo out there. A server on which pvp is super limited and the only way to engage another pilot is through duel request or if they have pvp turned on. Then, when people cry about the game being too hard or getting blown up or whatever, we can just tell them to go to the carebear server. Many would just cry about pvp on the pvp server but when they get over their pride and moveto the carebear server they will be able to mine away in low and null sec with no fear of loss. (Sounds like fun, right)
BTW, the unique item names and descriptions were one of the biggest reasons I continued to play Eve. I loved reading the cool descriptions and names. They really were quite awesome. |
Paynus Maiassus
Capital Munitions
187
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 18:07:06 -
[426] - Quote
I didn't see any rebalanced modules in the Rhea patch notes. Are there any? Or is this something that CCP started in on and gave up on?
ECM, remote rappers, energy neutralizers are still hopelessly jacked up. |
Dangeresque Too
Pistols for Pandas
14
|
Posted - 2014.12.09 16:11:22 -
[427] - Quote
Bolimbe wrote:BTW, the unique item names and descriptions were one of the biggest reasons I continued to play Eve. I loved reading the cool descriptions and names. They really were quite awesome. Oh you mean like:
Partial Weapon Navigation Peripheral Weapon Navigation Diameter Parallel Weapon Navigation Transmitter Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron
And then shortened: PWN PWND PWNT PWNAGE
But seriously, what the heck is a navigation array generation extron?
And I'm pretty sure the module rebalance thing has probably died as there has been not a peep from CCP about it since the first one.
|
Akemon Numon
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 10:15:35 -
[428] - Quote
WHO cares about the names? Call it whatever you want this year and change it two years from now again. How bout the CCP balancing specialists take the time to even try to make some of these mods better for the users in this game? If your mining laser, strip mining laser, modulated deep core mining laser, ore hold, cargo hold, station hanger, fleet hanger, cans, POS, SILOS, and every thing in the ENTIRE GAME reads in m3 why would the Ore Scanner read in Units of Ore? And not m3 amount?
Just how hard would it be to make it read both? Or just m3? |
Blastil
Aideron Robotics
111
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 18:05:05 -
[429] - Quote
The word 'Restrained' has a bit of a negative connotation (unless you're into that sort of thing). I would suggest the world 'Optimized' or 'Efficient' Since you're reducing a drawback instead of restraining something good. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1659
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 19:35:08 -
[430] - Quote
Ooh, another ten module categories! I never doubted you guys... Good stuff.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
|
Esceem
Suns of New Eden
12
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 23:03:02 -
[431] - Quote
Bolimbe wrote:BTW, the unique item names and descriptions were one of the biggest reasons I continued to play Eve. I loved reading the cool descriptions and names. They really were quite awesome.
Agreed. And yes, I already miss e.g. the old AB names. |
GavinGoodrich
The Great Harmon Institute Of Technology Spaceship Samurai
86
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 23:29:51 -
[432] - Quote
Love how this is going to help new guys get into doctrine ships just a liiiiiittle faster, or come very close, with the extra "fitting" meta taking care of skill points in some areas.
Haaaaaalp my head's on fire
|
D'Kelle
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
85
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 13:53:20 -
[433] - Quote
module balancing, "Tiericide", Will this involve every pilot over 12 months old, likely dealing with the potential substantial refit program now for all ships outfitted? Which in fairness new players wont have the accumulated volumes of ships, but older players sure will. |
phobos1
Rogue Clones Yulai Federation
3
|
Posted - 2015.01.01 13:35:03 -
[434] - Quote
Ive been away for over a year and find on returning that the developers are still Fcking it up as normal when are they going to leave well enough alone , it used to be a great game now its just a great shame !!. |
Cledus Snowman Snow
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 04:26:49 -
[435] - Quote
Hello CCP Devs
Can I please get a response here as to the why T2 are not getting buffed to the same stats as the (better) Meta4s your removing from the game? This is going to be clear fitting issue. Why so silent about it?
Lets skip for the moment all these wonderful side effects of your efforts to date. The re-naming, re-re-naming, and on and on. The crap Faction/SL/COSMOS mods not making any sense, Faction mods with the same stats as T2 of the same type (Gallente Mining Laser being total crap compared to Miner2). Adding even more faction mods to make up for the meta mods getting the axe. The fact that T2 Invention and production is a complete mess unless you own a T2 BPO. And an ORE SCANNER that is useless with out doing your own math equation just so see how much ore will fit in your holds.
Make a statement regarding your decision not to buff the T2 mods to the better meta4 stats in those cases. I can not believe this is an oversight on your part. Show us you at lest know this is going to be major fitting Nerf to the game. Or you either just don't care or think we are to stupid to see what's going on here. |
Katana Seiko
Made in Germany
8
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 00:57:36 -
[436] - Quote
The Tiericide initiative is nice and all, but while we have a faction strip miner, you have effectively removed the only roid scanner with the same range. Can we have maybe a faction roid scanner to even this out? |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: [one page] |