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

I disagree GÇö-áhaving the fluff bit of the module first makes the market much more searchable. If I want the Compact Mining Laser, I can just type in "compact mining" into the search bar. Doing it your way would mean I would have to remember the "particle bore" part of the name to get the "compact particle bore mining laser."

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?

Lets take Expanded Cargoholds as an example of the current market. In this specific modules case, the Cargo Capacity Bonus is the primary, if not only, stat players look at when purchasing the module. Coupling this with the low ISK cost and skill requirements of T2 Expanded Cargos, means that this module is basically the only option. Having the variety of 13 modules does not provide any tangible benefit to the player, it only provides clutter.

In reality there are only 2 things a player looks at when deciding to buy an Expanded cargohold: The price in ISK, and the Cargo Capacity Bonus.
This is why the 5 Meta 0 modules have been combined into 1. They are relics of years past which don't drop from NPCs anymore, but now can have a use as low penalty modules where cargo capacity is perhaps not quite as important (in those rare cases).
The named (Meta 1-4) module can fill the small cost gap between T1 Expanded Cargoholds (which cost roughly 1750 ISK) and T2 Expanded Cargoholds (costing roughly 275,000 ISK).
The much rarer Storyline and Faction modules can fill higher cost niches.

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?

Lets take Expanded Cargoholds as an example of the current market. In this specific modules case, the Cargo Capacity Bonus is the primary, if not only, stat players look at when purchasing the module. Coupling this with the low ISK cost and skill requirements of T2 Expanded Cargos, means that this module is basically the only option. Having the variety of 13 modules does not provide any tangible benefit to the player, it only provides clutter.

In reality there are only 2 things a player looks at when deciding to buy an Expanded cargohold: The price in ISK, and the Cargo Capacity Bonus.
This is why the 5 Meta 0 modules have been combined into 1. They are relics of years past which don't drop from NPCs anymore, but now can have a use as low penalty modules where cargo capacity is perhaps not quite as important (in those rare cases).
The named (Meta 1-4) module can fill the small cost gap between T1 Expanded Cargoholds (which cost roughly 1750 ISK) and T2 Expanded Cargoholds (costing roughly 275,000 ISK).
The much rarer Storyline and Faction modules can fill higher cost niches.

Overall, I like the module tiericide changes. However, one thing I've found annoying in the past and which seems to be continued now, is the inconsistency in naming of the inertia stabilizers. You'd think that having them in one table, the inconsistency would be noticeable by you too, but alas, apparently not.

This is what I'm talking about:

Inertia Stabilizers I
Type-D Restrained Inertial Stabilizers <-- inconsistent
Inertia Stabilizers II
'Basic' Inertia Stabilizers
Synthetic Hull Conversion Inertia Stabilizers
Domination Inertial Stabilizers <-- inconsistent
Shadow Serpentis Inertial Stabilizers <-- inconsistent

Please make up your minds and go for either "inertia" or "inertial", but not both. As it is now, searching in the market for "inertia stabilizer" will get me a partial list and searching for "inertial stabilizer" will get me another partial list. That I'm always searching for "inertia" in the market and thus circumvent this inconsistency, is besides the point.

As there are already gyro-stabilizers in the game with "inertial" in their names (consistently, I might add), I would like to take it one step further: either rename the inertia stabilizers to "inertial stabilizers" or rename the inertia stabilizers to "inertia stabilizers" and rename the gyro-stabilizers with "inertial" in their names to "inertia".

Yep, as stated in the blog post, we'll be retroactively giving names back to the modules of the first pass.

There is a distinct lack of meta 1 modules.

This reduces the richness of gameplay for us mere mortals who can't afford faction and haven't trained up the skills for tech II modules.

in the past, at least I had the interesting choice of "is it worth the extra 200k isk for the meta 3 module, or go with the meta 2"?

Now it is a purely mechanical "stick on the meta 1 module and roll".

Can't you think up *some* variation?

Or u know...you could train t2 considering it wouldn't take u that long and u have PLENTY of warning....So it's not like they are just springing this on us.