So what happened to making all the faction variants equally as strong as one another as stated in CCP Fozzies first dev blog? With the new Bulkheads, Inertia Stabilizers and Power Diagnostic Systems you've gone back on what you stated was one of the goals with the module tiericide project in the first place and returned to the older 'faction tiers'.

Can we get some consistency and clarification on your approach here please?

EDIT: Good job on the names by the way.

just noticed that Power Diagnostic System II on the blog has 22tf cpu whereas in game it is 20tf cpu is this a mistake on your part or are you actually nerfing the fitting?

I don't like any of these expanded cargohold changes; not sure about the other "rebalancing".

As a relatively new player still, I've appreciated the variety of choices that currently exist. It provides a range of levels for both features and affordability when fitting ships. In all of this "rebalancing", there seems to have been little to no thought given to how the market values the given options. Not everyone is buying massive amounts of ISK via PLEX, so having multiple options when fitting ships is a good thing.

Also, the range of choices is good when deciding how much to invest in a ship being built for a particular purpose. Balancing risk vs. reward is an inherent part of the EVE universe, and reducing choices makes it more difficult to balance these.

In general, I like what exists today, and don't like where things are going in all of these changes. You developers are going to negatively impact gameplay for new players, not the reverse.

At the Capacitor Power Relays there is no real benefit in picking the Type-D Restrained Capacitor Power Relay over the Mark I Compact Capacitor Power Relay. The compact version got a lower malus on the shield-boost amound and also uses less CPU than the the restained version

For quick reference:
(name, meta, cpu, shield-boost-"bonus", cap-recharge-bonus)

Type-D Restrained Capacitor Power Relay , 1 , 4 , -10 , 22
Mark I Compact Capacitor Power Relay , 1 ,2 , -8 , 22

On this note GÇö-ádoes CCP have plans to amend the modules touched in the first pass of this balancing initiative to add the "lore name" back?

Shouldn't the velocity penalty of the Restrained Expanded Cargo (-13%) and the T2 Expanded Cargo (-10%) be swapped so that it is in keeping with the theme of Tech II modules having the most power outside of faction and storyline modules, but with the largest drawbacks?

Why do "Basic" modules have the same or lower penalties than "Restrained" modules? ...

didnt u know ccp always nerfs in favor for code or gankers i wonder when they gonna do som good for the mining community .
ah wait they did they intoduced the prospect lol

...

...
by the way wheres the bonus in this ccp?
Ice Harvester Upgrade II 5 1 40 12.5 -9
cpu penalty went up by 2.5% compared to what we have now a 10%cpu penalty the cycle time bonus stays the same.
like we do need extra cpu penalty ?

Now, with all those drawbacks the Armageddon should have been basically immobile, but in fact it was much more agile than expected. It turned out that the drawback of the 2nd module was only 87% effective the third only 57% and so on as with other positive modules.

I can't even recall whether I actually used the ship, but...
Is that still in the game?And is it intentional?

Question are Strip Miner I and II being removed or changed? i don't see them talked about in the post?

At present, the Meta 4 and T2 modules give the same 27.5% bonus while differing only slightly in price and penalties.

But you propose to reduce the Meta 4 module to 22.5%?

That is not right. That is not right in any way, CCP.

Existing Meta 4's should be merged with T2, not with other Meta items bought by players knowingly choosing lower bonus levels.

I would suggest to use Inertia modifiers as the penalty for the various modules, as Velocity and Structure HitPoints aren't ever looked at by people buying/fitting Cargoholds anyway.

Players would also care about other drawbacks, and this is where you should have started with the mentality behind the rebalance.

Meta 0 has base cargo boost with no drawbacks
Meta a has base cargo + x with structure hitpoint drawback
Meta b has base cargo + x with inertial modifier drawback
Meta c has base cargo + x with velocity drawback
Meta 5 has base cargo + x with structure hitpoint drawback - y, but takes longer to train for and costs significantly more
The faction/storyline modules are just super meta a-c modules.

I think I will reiterate my standard reply.

Please use valuable Dev work hours to fix parts of the game client that are actually broken. The names of the modules are not broken. I have no problem with adding more module types though such as more modules for Thukker Tribe for example.

The time would be better spent fixing broken stuff like the corp roles & permissions, making multiple user POS stuff secure, or further fixes to Null-sec sovereignty.

Say hi to the Yule Boys for me and have a Happy New Year.

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?
...
Adding even more faction mods to make up for the meta mods getting the axe.
...
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.

If it's not already too late please do the same here;

Civilian Miner
Miner I
EP-S Gaussian Scoped Mining Laser
Miner II
Gallente Mining Laser

Either call the group 'Mining Laser' or just 'Miner'. This can be quite confusing for new bros starting out and when searching the market.

Expaded Cargohold II
Structure Hitpoint Bonus (%) Cargo Capacity Bonus (%) Velocity Modifier (%)
Old: -20 27.5 -10
New: -23 27.5 -18

Why the nerf ?! Do suicide gankers really need so much help?

Thanks for explaining - I see what you mean now.

If you're interested, the current structure reduction is 20% per module, which works out as 0.8 * 0.8 * 0.8 = 0.512, which is a 49.8% drop in strusture HP. 23% works out as 0.77 * 0.77 * 0.77 - 0.4565, which is a 54.35% reduction in structure HP.

Similary, the current 10% reduction in velocity works out as 0.9 * 0.9 * 0.9 = 0.729, i.e. a 27.1% reduction, whereas 18% works out as 0.82 * 0.82 * 0.82 = 0.5514, i.e. s 45.84% reduction.

I suppose the only way round that is to upgrade to the Archiver or the ORE Expander, which are probably going to be mahoosively expensive, or to downgrade from T2 to Meta 1, which stills drops cargo capacity and increases velocity reduction.

Definitely less than good.

THIS PLS

What happened to retroactively renaming the modules from the first balance pass? Is this coming later?