|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
|
CCP Gargant
C C P
C C P Alliance
917
   |
Posted - 2014.12.19 16:19:40 -
[1] - Quote
With the new year we have a new chapter in EVE Online's history! Right off the bat on January 13th Proteus will hit Tranquility and bring with it a host of changes. CCP Seagull gives us a preview of the stuff coming, as well as commenting on the Sovereignty change plans.
Head on over here to read it.
CCP Gargant | EVE Universe esports Coordinator
|
|
|
CCP Terminus
C C P
C C P Alliance
46
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 19:07:36 -
[2] - Quote
Vic Vorlon wrote:And....sold all my meta 4 Aoede mining laser upgrades. Phew!
Those are become faction modules with the same drop rate as before. Mining Laser Upgrades are not changing as much as some of the other module types when it comes to merging named modules. There will be more info out about the changes very soon.
|
|
|
CCP Terminus
C C P
C C P Alliance
46
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 19:43:32 -
[3] - Quote
Mining changes have been talked about and thought of for a while now both internally and externally. There are thoughts on changing the gameplay of mining to make it more of a visceral experience, and provide miners with a range of passive and active gameplay that they can choose how much they engage in.
With that being said other issues are taking precedence in the near/mid future. |
|
|
CCP Terminus
C C P
C C P Alliance
46
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 20:03:50 -
[4] - Quote
I Love Boobies wrote:I take it you have no plans to fix the Rorqual yet, eh? I mean, you guys screwed it over big time when you made the compression changes. Some people trained for a long time to get into the Rorqual just to compress ores, and you pretty much made them pointless when you changed compression. It's not like the capital industrial and other relevant skills like that can be used with other ships and so on.
The Rorqual does not a major mining revamp to be changed. I don't know the current plans for changing the Rorqual if there are any. It would be something better answered by CCP Rise or CCP Fozzie as they are the experts, and I have yet to touch ship balancing since coming on board. |
|
|
CCP Terminus
C C P
C C P Alliance
57
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 11:15:20 -
[5] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote: In my opinion, T2 modules should be more powerful than T1 or metas, but should also have drawbacks, which make it impossible or problematic to fit T2-only to ships. A ship with T2 bonuses to weapons should see some disadvantage in tank or speed; a ship with T2 bonuses to tank should see some disadvantage in firepower; et cetera.
Primary This Rifter wrote:What I hope to see from module tiercide is an increase in diversity between sub-T2 modules, and in situations where T2 is not necessarily the optimal choice (however as said above, I'd like them to maintain a general superiority over T1 variants). ... My biggest concern though is how much immersion is lost if everything has "ample" or "compact" or "polarized" variants.
With this round of module tiericide we haven't touched the overall balance of the modules by too much, since most of them were in a good place already. With that being said, in general T2 modules should have the most powerful effects (not including storyline, faction and officer modules) but also the largest skill and fitting requirements. Conversely, the new 'Basic' variants have much lower skill and fitting requirements and much weaker effects. T1 is your basic, and the named modules are between T1 and T2 in power and fitting, with their own niche specializations.
We applied this reasoning to as many module types as we could without breaking existing economies or causing other issues.
As for naming, we've changed our policy on naming based on the feedback from you guys. Personally, I think it strikes a good combination between flavour and function now.
We'll be putting up a dev blog about the next module tiericide round early next week, which will have much more information. Right now we're shooting for Tuesday.
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
well as no one else has said it yet,
welcome aboard
i like your direct tone.
o7
Thanks :) It's a blast working at CCP. o7 |
|
|
CCP Terminus
C C P
C C P Alliance
67
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 21:19:56 -
[6] - Quote
Catherine Laartii wrote:So question here...if hull and prop upgrades like overdrives and nanos use no pg or cpu, what exactly will be unique about cleaning up the meta with them? will they just have intermediate stats or will you be changing the mods themselves in some way?
The named modules in these categories are almost all being combined into a single module. This module has intermediate stats between the T1 and T2 variants and usually of the Restrained type, meaning the module drawbacks are not as severe. |
|
|
CCP Terminus
C C P
C C P Alliance
72
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 15:48:09 -
[7] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Morihei Akachi wrote:CCP Terminus wrote:GǪ usually of the Restrained type GǪ But you're not going call them that, right? "Dear newbies GǪ despite their name, the Hobbled Overdrive Injector System is actually better than the basic Overdrive Injector System I." (Elements of this story have been exaggerated for dramatic effect)
So as stated earlier we've revised the naming system taking your guy feedback into account.
More specifically the naming style will now consist of three parts [flavour] [specialization] [module type]. So you will see Restrained modules, but they'll be Type-D Restrained Overdrive Injectors for example. This will also be retroactively applied to modules which lost their flavour names in the last tiericide pass so everything should be consistent.
There will be a dev blog out about the module tiericide most likely on Tuesday. |
|
|
|
| |
|