|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 23 post(s) |
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
72
   |
Posted - 2014.12.23 17:40:44 -
[1] - Quote
Didn't do the math yet, but I suppose travel fit ships will die to camps when Proteus hit the server due to the nerf of 'meta 4' inertia stabs and nanofibers ... you better put a warning in the patch notes.
Also I think there will be no actual use of meta modules for those two agility mods, everybody will use T2 now as the quality of the drawbacks does not force a choice in my opinion unless you don't need the boost to cross a full second boundary. Maybe you can balance it by shifting the stats towards the old meta 4 and make T2 slightly better than today.
I'm my own NPC alt.
|
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
72
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 17:42:55 -
[2] - Quote
Why do you keep the names "Miner I" and "Miner II"? ... They should be named "Mining Laser I/II" to keep the naming consistent.
I'm my own NPC alt.
|
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
77
|
Posted - 2014.12.26 22:28:25 -
[3] - Quote
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:
also fingers crossed all my local hull i-stabs turn into t2 i-stabs. According to jEveAssets I have 27 of them fit vs 1 t2 version.
Huh? Christmas is over ... so far all meta-4 was nerfed down to meta-1 in previous tiericide rounds ... though I would be happy to avoid a probably expensive mass exchange on my ships ...
I'm my own NPC alt.
|
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
77
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 09:00:40 -
[4] - Quote
CCP Terminus wrote:Oraac Ensor wrote: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. Currently Meta 4 Expanded Cargoholds are purely worse than T2 Cargoholds (In fact all meta 1-4 modules are). However when we do the merging it's certainly an option to turn Meta 4 Expanded Cargoholds into T2 Expanded Cargoholds because of the stats similarities.
Please consider merging meta-4 into T2 also for inert stabs and nanofibers as the primary stats are the same. It will still be a nerf compared to current fit options because of the stronger drawbacks but not that breaking as merging into the new much worse meta-1.
I'm my own NPC alt.
|
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
89
|
Posted - 2015.01.07 19:23:36 -
[5] - Quote
Tranks for the update, though I have some doubts the smaller sig penalty will help the new meta 1 inertial stabilizer much. Do you have an update on the mapping at patch day?
I'm my own NPC alt.
|
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
93
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 17:49:39 -
[6] - Quote
I'm concerned about the direction this is taking and imo this is against the proposals made by Fozzie on Fanfest. The simple linear progression of better primary stats vs. higher drawbacks we now have for some modules does not give us choices but may even reduce the number of options. The rule of thumb to follow now is, fit T2 if you have the skills and can digest the drawbacks, or else fit meta 1 and suffer from a big nerf. Where is the choice? At least I would expect two meta 1 modules with interesting stats to match certain situations ... If this requires coding, then it requires coding!
Also by mapping meta 4 -> meta 1 you nerf a significant amount of existing ship fits, be prepared for the reactions of the unaware players 
I'm my own NPC alt.
|
|
|
| |
|