And further, with regards to officer modules especially, would it be possible to combine officer names with adjectives, so that rather than "Estamels ModifiedGǪ" we'd have "Estamel's EnduringGǪ"

This would open up possibilities for more/better items, such as a power diagnostic systems from various pirate commanders, one specialising in endurance (higher cap and shield regen), another in ample (higher shield/cap bonuses), another in scoped (higher PG bonus). At present those cap rechargers are looking like a linear progression of "good, better, best" over 12 modules. There's room for four tiers of three variants, or three tiers of four variants if one of the commander's variants keeps the "modified" adjective.

I have two criticisms of the revised naming conventions, and one observation which is linked to a question.

1. The generic terms GÇ£ampleGÇ¥ and GÇ£restrainedGÇ¥, with their connotations of bosoms and BDSM respectively, and GÇ£scopedGÇ¥, continue to be inappropriate to technological equipment and implausible for a highly developed and variegated future technological market. (GÇ£ScopedGÇ¥ is not a word. It looks like it ought to be the past participle of a verb, GÇ£to scopeGÇ¥, meaning, if we are to believe your use of it here, GÇ£to make reach furtherGÇ¥. This is gibberish. The designation you are looking for is GÇ£long-rangeGÇ¥.) These terms, as they stand, feel stupid, and they make me feel stupid fitting modules named with them to my ships. I feel like I am being talked down to by my game. I notice that since their release I have been avoiding using them, solely for that reason.

2. You are attempting to introduce a very rigid consistency into an area where it is inappropriate, and where we do not suffer from its lack IRL. This is nowhere more obvious than in the decision to call an overdrive, a module intended to be the quintessence of extra power and speed, GÇ£restrainedGÇ¥. This is absurd: the marketing genius of the future who came up with this would be fired instantly. A kind of cookie-cutter sameness is being applied across the board to items regardless of what those items actually are. I donGÇÖt feel you are taking your own fictional world seriously any more. I have no idea, in that case, why I should continue to.

Observation: Travelling round New Eden in recent days IGÇÖve tried to keep an eye out for the relative prices of the generic modules from the last round of tiericide, and my sense is that there are massive price differences between the new named modules. On the assumption that, for example, GÇ£compactGÇ¥ LMLs are not dropping significantly less frequently than GÇ£ampleGÇ¥ ones, I assume that in many cases one of them is much more popular and being used more widely than the other(s), and is being priced accordingly. Is this right in terms of actual usage? If it is, is it the result you were expecting when you decided to remove modules you felt were being under-used? How are you evaluating the success of module tiericide in general?

Reserved for clarifications

For those bothered by the inconsistency in the names, if it's easy enough and doesn't affect too many things (tutorial/mission text, etc.) I'll look into unifying the base naming of everything.

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?

As far as I am aware both bonuses and drawbacks are affected by stacking penalties in an equal manner.

You said in the announcement that Tier II Mining Upgrades will receive a 1% mining amount bonus to reflect their rarity and to counter the increased cost. However, Mining Laser Upgrade II is slated to change from 10% CPU penalty and 9% mining bonus to 12.5% CPU penalty and... 9% mining bonus. Where is the bump to 10%, or was that a typo?

Further, when will we see MLU IIIs?

The 1% increase was in reference to the two that will become storylines. The 'Carpo' and 'Aeode'. Not Tech II

As for the MLU CPU penalty, currently in game its a 12.5% CPU bonus base. The 10% you are seeing is probably on your mining ship with you having Mining Upgrades level 4. Which drops it to a 10% after skill value

And, here I thought the point of "tiericide" was to get rid of tiers, not create more of them... ;)

You said in the announcement that Tier II Mining Upgrades will receive a 1% mining amount bonus to reflect their rarity and to counter the increased cost. However, Mining Laser Upgrade II is slated to change from 10% CPU penalty and 9% mining bonus to 12.5% CPU penalty and... 9% mining bonus. Where is the bump to 10%, or was that a typo?

Further, when will we see MLU IIIs?

In addition, currently 'Aoede and 'Ingenii' modules are already extremely expensive and better than T2 MLU's. This change will not alter these facts and is not meant to help gankers. It provides an option for players on whether they want to risk expensive modules for a bonus, in a similar way that it does right now.

this guy has an incredible sense of detachment for miners.. assuming they are going to go grind out and use ORE MLU's just to make their ships even more gank targets but will not for one second think to even begin nerf'ing cloaky campers, unlimited power cloaks, catalyst and his friends "blighted weapons" idea's.

you guys need some outside help really.. its pretty obvious you're concentrated on causing players to lose expensive ships just so it makes the "news" about how eve online is full of players who enjoy losing expensive ships to pvp.

then you sit there and scratch your head wondering why new players do not stick around.. you resort to using monkey surveys get feedback just to distort the truth in the feedback and implement YOUR OWN idea's instead..

what does ccp want?? short term players who get ganked just so it can do their marketing..

or does ccp want a good mmo with a good community with some win on both sides of the table?

I shouldn't ask you cause of course you'll run back to your data pull's and spreadsheets believing your formula spells out fun.

tiercide is nothing but breaking things in order to serve a purpose for demographic and continue to force future changes .. once your data doesn't add up.. i'll be sitting and waiting for you pretty pie charts indicating how your mod changes is used..

you remember what happened to Teams do you?? yeah.. and back then "this will encourage more use of teams".. now.. well teams are not used so they're being removed.. afterall this time the community was telling you so up front and center.. but you denied it.

you guys have denial syndrome and backwards logic.

Merry Xmas to all and to new sci-fi mmo's.. I cant wait to spend my money elsewhere.

what about the rorqual?? ***CRICKETS********