| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 23 post(s) |
|
CCP Terminus
C C P
C C P Alliance
118
   |
Posted - 2014.12.27 16:55:54 -
[151] - Quote
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn wrote: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. 
The thing with Module Tiericide is that it's a thing that can be done purely by designers, so this doesn't cut into programming hours towards the sorts of things you describe. So in this case we can have both.
Happy New Year to you too :) |
|
MBizon Osis
State War Academy
Caldari State
62
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 18:04:44 -
[152] - Quote
CCP Terminus I am not a bright guy on these flux mods shields or cap EFT shows me they are bad for every fit I try so how can they be good or in the game at all? what fits would anyone use them for? I would like any advice on this.
And the whole we have to change the names of every thing every 2 years? http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/whats-in-a-name/ Feb 2012 "I'm CCP Gnauton, one of EVE's Senior Writers. I'm currently spearheading an initiative to rename those of EVE's modules and implants whose names have been deemed too confusing by a fearless cross-departmental cadre of game designers, UI designers & content developers."
https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Module_changes this is a long list.
Why again? Is this just a new thing? Every 2 years ccp changes the names of every thing cause? And if you could please
Have the Ore Scanner read in M3. You don't need to make a conversion for any other mod in the game to use. Even the Dscanner got a easy to use interface. Can you please look into this mod from the 1st pass of Module Tiericide/rebalance.
TY Happy New Years |
Kiran Korr
State War Academy
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 10:14:00 -
[153] - Quote
Returning player here. My sentiments pretty much fall in line with Valterra Craven (post #94) and MBizon Osis (Post #152).
I will miss the meta 1-4 modules. In the old days you could find a sweet spot mixing modules for your fit. You work around limitations in the hull and the best module was not always the higher meta for that hull. I still see some of that in the new system.
I understand with the re-balancing a lot of modules were not really relevant and were not being used but now we have nothing between 0-5 and a series of shinies above. I would say the naming /database needed some cleaning but throwing something out does not equal fixing it. Change is good went its done for a reason to improve play or to solve a problem...not so good when its done for its own sake or just to make something old new again. The whole 5+ metas simply form the new 0-5 metas
I remember when a eccm was a must have module for any pirate to counter the ecm defense of the prey but but warfare was different then, bloodlines meant something etc. Variety can be good too. |
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
212
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 14:17:03 -
[154] - Quote
CCP Terminus wrote:Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn wrote: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. The thing with Module Tiericide is that it's a thing that can be done purely by designers, so this doesn't cut into programming hours towards the sorts of things you describe. So in this case we can have both. Happy New Year to you too
I stand corrected. Happy New Year!
" They're gonna feel pretty stupid when they find out. "-áRick.
" Find out what ? "-áAbraham.
" They're screwing with the wrong people. "-áRick.
Season four.-á-á ' The Walking Dead. ' .
|
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
559
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 20:50:40 -
[155] - Quote
While you are rebalancing the stats, consider whether or not it really makes sense to have modules which cost less than 10K ISK, and/or reprocess for less than 1K. Some modules can even be bought for 1 ISK, because they drop so frequently and aren't even worth the effort of picking up and reprocessing.
Back before ship tiericide, when several frigates had sub-100K - even sub-50K - prices, these sorts of prices made sense, but not so much today, esp. since players also have a lot more ISK in pocket. I remember when 1M ISK was a lot for a new player, but it is just chump change now.
Anyways, something to think about, since these high-quantity, low-value modules are the ones which also tend to be infrequently used, bought or sold - yet contribute to cluttering up the database. |
Akemon Numon
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2014.12.28 21:50:59 -
[156] - Quote
So when the meta 4 mod is better than the T2 either in fitting or just better stats what is the replacement? All the meta4s are being deleted. So the T2s are not from what I can see getting buffed accordingly. So fits that were maximized are gone. How is this making the game better? Taking away good fitting options and leaving us with worse ones? Example the Power Relays the Beta Reactor Control: Capacitor Power Relay I less CPU, 3 TF and the T2 same cap recharge bonus but 8 TF! And the T2 is staying at 8 TF after the changes? This is a clear fitting Nerf.
How is that a good balance? Were all the "BETTER" meta 4 mods un-balancing the game? Or is it to un-balancing to make the T2 mods as good as the better Meta 4s you are killing were/are? I don't see how any of this is making a better game, forget about all the name changes. This is wild stuff. For the ISK/SP cost and skills needed for them the T2 mods should have the better stats of the SAME meta4s you are deleting from the game forever.
I understand trying to add some "consistency" to the mods as in (why meta 4 could even be better than T2 in the first place). But why not make the T2 as good as the better M4s? What is the idea behind the 'better tech has to suck as badly as it does' in some cases?
How about this for Mod re-balance in each case where the meta4 is better in some way, those become the new T2 stats? The stats are in game and you have stated this is a low modding work load" "The thing with Module Tiericide is that it's a thing that can be done purely by designers, so this doesn't cut into programming hours" CCP Terminus ).
So just let us skill into the better stats we have been using all along with the improved T2 mods as the meta4s will be a thing of the past. And having to use faction or better to have the same fit with Meta4 mods is a BS answer. |
Seito Shoki
State War Academy
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 06:07:17 -
[157] - Quote
CCP,
I have a possible solution that would cater to both the players who are upset by this change, and your need to simplify the naming scheme. With all due respect, I think you are making a big mistake by taking complexity (choice) out of the last MMO that offers an abundance of intellectual and challenging game-play that gamers like myself have come to expect from you.
Possible solution: Add an additional name to the soon to be deleted /consolidated modules as to give them a designation for your naming scheme consistency, while retaining the freedom and choice to fit a ship to your personal/affordable standards.
bad example - Meta0=substandard, Meta 1=used, Meta 2=upgraded ... and so on.
Choice should = fun and not confusion and on this note I agree with you CCP, but if you take away the choice, you take away the fun.
Having to use faction or better to obtain a meta4 fit (that you as an intellectual gamer took the time to research) is indeed the wrong solution. With the additional name, those who are min/maxers can still take pride in their fits while those who don't care...won't care, and CCP you can have your naming consistency changed = EVERYBODY wins.
Go with what Akemon Numon described in the post above me, or discus my idea...please do not take complexity out of this game. Complexity and intelligent decision processes when deciding how to fit your ship are, in my opinion, a huge selling point for the players.
|
Vyktor Abyss
The Abyss Corporation
Abyss Alliance
577
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 21:57:54 -
[158] - Quote
I'm very confused. 8 years playing and now feeling like I don't know a thing. Thanks. |
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
IDLE EMPIRE
850
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 09:44:53 -
[159] - Quote
CCP Terminus wrote:Somatic Neuron wrote: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. McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote: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. Changing the velocity penalty to an inertia modifier could be an option we could look in to before the release. The hitpoints penalty can certainly be a factor though currently and would be something we want to keep. As for having different penalties for each module, this goes against the structure of all other module types and would be something we most likely would not do.
while I agree that it doesn't really make sense to introduce other penalties, I do agree that the concept of trade offs is being completely ignored and that I would like to see some option presented rather than the more or less non-option of t1/meta/t2. back when I first started the cost/benefit choice was present on most modules, now the price of t2 is so low on most items, and meta is in such supply that for most items cost/benefit is rarely a consideration, and it mostly comes down to cap use and/or fitting issues. Also with the ship teiricide I feel that most ships have a ton of fitting room.
so for say cargo expanders I would expect
meta 0 -25% Hull hp +20% cargo -10% velocity (reasonable base stats, that aren't the worst in every way)
meta 1 -15% Hull hp +25% cargo -15% velocity (reduce one penalty, increase bonus, increase other penalty)
meta 2 -17.5% hull HP +22.50% cargo -9% velocity (smaller reduced penalty, smaller increase bonus, reduced other penalty)
meta 4 -35% hull HP +30% cargo -20% velocity (big bonus, big penalties)
meta 5 -20% hull HP +27.5% cargo -10% velocity (in general pretty good all around)
I'll admit I'm mostly just thinking out loud here, but its cargo expanders I'm having trouble thinking about them too much. but in my mind meta 0 needs to be useful in some respect other than it is super easy to make, as these days even t2 seems easy to make. I feel like I would expect meta 4 to provide a larger bonus than t2, but also a much larger draw back. then again they are cargo expanders, if we just got rid of every variant and only had t2 I probably wouldn't care. but I'm more thinking about other mods where I do care, and/or think some choice is important. There are a ton of just useless mods out there that I really wouldn't mind seeing gone.
what I am really curious is how you plan to balance something like damage controls, or warp scramblers, where meta 4 is valuable and still has some cost/benefit associated, where meta 3 pretty much suffices for fitting reasons, although meta 1/2 aren't very desirable. Although with a damage control the benefits from tech 2 greater than with meta 4. but with the warp scrambler I think the meta 4 is the same or better on each stat compared to tech 2.
I'll join the chorus asking CCP, don't take my fancy names away from me!
In the name of the Limos, the Malkuth, and the Arbalest, so help me pod
- Mara Rinn
|
Ravcharas
Infinite Point
Nulli Secunda
399
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 16:36:17 -
[160] - Quote
"Restrained" makes them sound worse than meta 0. |
|
|
Cledus Snowman Snow
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 22:11:01 -
[161] - Quote
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/rebalancing-modules-round-two
Gallente Mining Laser: why is this even in the game at all?
Now stats:
Gallente Mining Laser CPU 59 Mining Amount 40m3 Meta 8
Miner 1 CPU 60 Mining Amount 40m3 Meta 0
After patch:
Gallente Mining Laser CPU 60 Mining Amount 45m3 Meta 8
Miner I CPU 60 Mining Amount 40m3 Meta 0
Again why is this garbage meta 8?
In addition to the module tiericide, new faction modules are being added?
So with the reduction of Meta 1 -4 you are adding more Faction to take their place?
How many 10's of millions are these new Faction Inertial Stabilizers and Reinforced Bulkheads
and all the other new mods going to cost to get the same fit as we had with cheap Meta mods?
If one of the main goals is to reduce the clutter and of having a dozen or more mods of the
same type yet you are making as many new ones as you are reducing from the old?
Is this "you want the same fit you have to use Faction or better?" And yes it is very salesmanship
of you to not have the old/ current mods and stats in the Dev blog to compare with 'balanced' mods.
Please be honest with us about this Diminution of Fitting Options that seems to be the over arching trend of
module tiericide.
|
Quintessen
Messengers of Judah
Socius Inter Nos
471
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 22:41:16 -
[162] - Quote
Cledus Snowman Snow wrote:http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/rebalancing-modules-round-two
Gallente Mining Laser: why is this even in the game at all?
Now stats:
Gallente Mining Laser CPU 59 Mining Amount 40m3 Meta 8
Miner 1 CPU 60 Mining Amount 40m3 Meta 0
After patch:
Gallente Mining Laser CPU 60 Mining Amount 45m3 Meta 8
Miner I CPU 60 Mining Amount 40m3 Meta 0
Again why is this garbage meta 8?
In addition to the module tiericide, new faction modules are being added?
So with the reduction of Meta 1 -4 you are adding more Faction to take their place?
How many 10's of millions are these new Faction Inertial Stabilizers and Reinforced Bulkheads
and all the other new mods going to cost to get the same fit as we had with cheap Meta mods?
If one of the main goals is to reduce the clutter and of having a dozen or more mods of the
same type yet you are making as many new ones as you are reducing from the old?
Is this "you want the same fit you have to use Faction or better?" And yes it is very salesmanship
of you to not have the old/ current mods and stats in the Dev blog to compare with 'balanced' mods.
Please be honest with us about this Diminution of Fitting Options that seems to be the over arching trend of
module tiericide.
While not speaking to any other points here, it would make sense to remove some of the more meaningless modules in the game. I'm not sure what benefit it is to have the statistically few Gallente mining modules out there, but they don't really have a place. Please use this time to remove the rare, but useless for cost modules.
|
Gensis Macav
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 03:59:11 -
[163] - Quote
Will the Ammatar Navy Power Diagnostic actually be available in game?
It is not available in any of the LP stores or on the market.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=70445
https://eve-central.com/home/quicklook.html?typeid=17524 |
Steppa Musana
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
12
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 12:42:33 -
[164] - Quote
I have to support those who are upset that the overall number of modules is being reduced considerably. I want more choices not easier amd obvious choices. There are a lot of stats to work with for most modules fluctuation of those for different purposes woukld be the way to go about this rebalancing. |
Iris Bravemount
Eldar Army
La Division Bleue
356
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 12:45:24 -
[165] - Quote
While I welcome the overall initiative, and and really appreciate the fluff being put back in the names, I have one major gripe with the module tiericide so far-á:
It tends to gravitate towards:
Tech 1: Average
Meta 1: Good
Tech 2: Better but harder to fit
Faction: Plain better
Storyline: Meh
Officer: Better than faction but harder to fit
While I would have expected (and liked) it to be:
Tech 1: Average
Meta 1: Better in stat A, worse in stat B, equal in other stats if any, number of variations based on number of stats
Tech 2: Better but harder to fit
Faction: Plain better, with various factions focusing on various stats
Storyline: Like faction, but not as good.
Officer: Better than faction but harder to fit, various officers specializing on various stats
Basically: Meta 1 should offer comprimise, but not plain improvement when compared to Tech 1, Factions, storyline and Officer should specialize instead of all (or most) being the same.
"I will not hesitate when the test of Faith finds me, for only the strongest conviction will open the gates of paradise. My Faith in you is absolute; my sword is Yours, My God, and Your will guides me now and for all eternity." - Paladin's Creed
|
Alex PROTOSS
The First Foundation
SOLAR FLEET
5
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 18:14:27 -
[166] - Quote
Iris Bravemount wrote:While I welcome the overall initiative, and and really appreciate the fluff being put back in the names, I have one major gripe with the module tiericide so far-á:
example
This way, we could have more purpuseful variety, and less linear progression.
This way creates tonnes of useless modules, but in fact as first step, this way is right. Next step must filter useless modules or out from game or boosting their stats. |
Crumplecorn
Eve Cluster Explorations
1733
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 23:54:01 -
[167] - Quote
RESTRAINED OVERDRIVE
RESTRAINED OVERDRIVE
RESTRAINED OVERDRIVE
RESTRAINED OVERDRIVE
RESTRAINED OVERDRIVE
RESTRAINED OVERDRIVE
RESTRAINED OVERDRIVE
RESTRAINED OVERDRIVE
RESTRAINED OVERDRIVE
RESTRAINED OVERDRIVE
Happy New Year
Witty Image - Stream
Not Liking this post hurts my RL feelings and will be considered harassment
|
Juan Mileghere
Incident Command
Southern Star Dominion
1
|
Posted - 2015.01.01 18:43:35 -
[168] - Quote
The T2 Mining laser's activation cost will be 70 now? seems a bit high compared to the Variants, then again, that's just me. |
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION
The Obsidian Front
595
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 12:17:50 -
[169] - Quote
Ravcharas wrote:"Restrained" makes them sound worse than meta 0.
The entire new naming system is a complete failure in my eyes. I simply don't get why we need to dumb down the manes into a set of four names for everything.
The argument is that you it means you don't need to learn a strange name means this module does this best but you have to learn that a ship class name and remember that a Thorax for example is a Hybrid Gun gun Attack Cruiser. Or a Raven is a missile Attack BS. Even though Raven has no link to the word shields or missiles.
I want modules that are named correctly. Not modules that are all given the same 4 prefixes just so I know what they do at a glance.  And those "Ample" armour plates are gonna look sexy on my Thorpenisrax |
Mac Chicovski
Capts Deranged Cavaliers
Gentlemen's.Club
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.03 17:53:09 -
[170] - Quote
CCP Terminus wrote: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.
It's not mere OCD that 'bothers' people: the thing is that I can't search for one name in the marketplace or in my inventory, and get all the variants.
Consider:
Civilian Miner
MinerI
EP-S Gaussian Scoped Mining Laser
...etc
If you'd pick one of 'miner' or 'mining laser', then it's consistent.
If you pick the latter, then the elision would be in 'mining laser upgrades', since you couldn't get all mining lasers without getting their upgrades. But, at least at that point, you could make an actual decision: explicitly tie the 'upgrade' to the base module. If you decide to do that, all the Gyrostabilizer might become 'Projectile Gyrostabilizer', similarly 'Laser Heat Sink', 'Hybrid Field Stabilizer', and 'Missile Control System', etc.
Another example:
Nanofiber Internal Structure
Type-D Restrained Nanofiber Structure
...etc
Similarly, here: pick 'nanofiber structure' or 'nanofiber internal structure'.
And the inconsistencies in 'cap' and 'capacitor' has always driven me wild,but this is a one-off:
Cap Recharger
Eutectic Compact Cap Recharger
Cap Recharger II
'Basic' Capacitor Recharger
'Palisade' Cap Recharger |
|
|
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
212
|
Posted - 2015.01.04 16:40:20 -
[171] - Quote
Trinkets friend wrote:I am an habitual hull tanking addict, and I approve of these tiercide changes on the bulkheads.
I was concerned that a few of my more outre fittings would be made impossible if the 11 tech 1 metalevel bulkheads got merged into three, but at least the Compact keeps low CPU (32 tf) and the Restrained is still useable by a few of the fits, which can get very tight on CPU indeed.
Regarding the naming conventions, I am also in favour, as Sizeof Void says, of removing the quotation marks from the storyline and metalevel modules, because it's a pain to search these.
However, as Dangerous Too points out, module metalevels are not visible in your hangar and you have to show info or at least mousover when you display them as icons. You can get around this with displaying your items in a list, but then you feel like an accountant.
I think that some thought needs to be put to these nomenclature conventions in general, to fix these problems so that the metalevel of the modules is more apparent when browsing your hangar in ocon mode (like most people do), and to assist in text searching in the search bar.
The problem is twofold - display, and searching.
eg; lets take the 1600mm plates. If you renamed the modules from 1600mm reinforced nanofiber armour plating to 1600mm nanofiber reinforced armour plating, it would display the metalevel in the icon display mode, and also in list searches the metalevels would be sorted better.
eg, right now a list of 1600mm plates of all metalevels are sorted by '1600mm', then by 'reinforced' (useless, since all share that name) and thirdly by metalevel.
moving to the bulkheads, cargo expanders, nanofibres, for instance, a name sorted list of modules will put all the metalevels together. eg, Type-D's of all module types will be sorted together, separate from Mark I's.
i also think you should make a decision whether to adopt US spelling conventions or English. Nanofiber is wrong, and should be nanofibre. No one in the history of the world has contracted myelofiberosis as a disease, is my point; they all contract myelofibrosis. Therefore, logically, nanofibre is correct and fibre is the correct spelling, end of story. Please change your nanofibres to reflect the correct placement of the r in these words. That's my 5c.
Iceland has a strong historical connection with the United States hence the usage of Americanised English within New Eden. I can live with that. Not sure I can live with the generic terminologies for modules that are being implemented across the board. As others have pointed out words like 'ample' etc are fairly poor names for modules. I would much rather stick with the original names for modules as they 'fit' with the background of New Eden. We are losing too much of our storyline and political background as it is. I have no problem with 'name' type names either within names of modules. We are adults mostly and can handle longer words.
" They're gonna feel pretty stupid when they find out. "-áRick.
" Find out what ? "-áAbraham.
" They're screwing with the wrong people. "-áRick.
Season four.-á-á ' The Walking Dead. ' .
|
Arcos Vandymion
White Beast Inc.
95
|
Posted - 2015.01.04 19:11:50 -
[172] - Quote
Morihei Akachi wrote:
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.
Now that you mention it -
though thinking about it that's more of a reason to put it on your ship together with a pink-hued paintjob and red floor lights (spinners optional). Would explain all the exotic dancers and slaves in the cargohold... |
Brainless Bimbo
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
84
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 20:44:49 -
[173] - Quote
WTF.. Meta 3 and 4 items getting a boost to Meta 6, honestly you gotta be joking or are you sitting just too close to the noxious vapors from the nearest volcano resulting in your brains resulting in a mass resembling rotting shark meat and providing the same utility to critical thought...
Give it a bit more thought, make every thing follow the tiericide template as is for existing modules so no one is advantaged, IF you want Meta 6 items make them from scratch, if you have too many types/names remove them and replace with the new lower meta value or refund the scrap value like other things that have been removed..
already dead, just haven-¦t fallen over yet....
|
Cledus Snowman Snow
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 04:24:10 -
[174] - Quote
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?
Lets skip for the moment all these wonderful side effects of your efforts to date.
The re-naming, re-re-naming, and on and on.
The crap Faction/SL/COSMOS mods not making any sense, Faction mods with the same stats as T2 of the same type (Gallente Mining Laser being total crap compared to Miner2).
Adding even more faction mods to make up for the meta mods getting the axe.
The fact that T2 Invention and production is a complete mess unless you own a T2 BPO.
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. |
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
IDLE EMPIRE
865
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 09:10:23 -
[175] - Quote
Cledus Snowman Snow wrote: (Gallente Mining Laser being total crap compared to Miner2).
afaik gallente mining lasers are a fluff item and should not be treated as a faction item in terms of balancing. they are quite easy to farm, I would have 100s if they were worth anything.
I'll join the chorus asking CCP, don't take my fancy names away from me!
In the name of the Limos, the Malkuth, and the Arbalest, so help me pod
- Mara Rinn
|
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
212
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 12:31:29 -
[176] - Quote
Cledus Snowman Snow wrote: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?
Lets skip for the moment all these wonderful side effects of your efforts to date.
The re-naming, re-re-naming, and on and on.
The crap Faction/SL/COSMOS mods not making any sense, Faction mods with the same stats as T2 of the same type (Gallente Mining Laser being total crap compared to Miner2).
Adding even more faction mods to make up for the meta mods getting the axe.
The fact that T2 Invention and production is a complete mess unless you own a T2 BPO.
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.
I'm not in favour of the current renaming policy or removing/collating the lower meta modules into smaller numbers of module lines either. I will speculate as to what is being planned though and comment on your comments:
a) I personally think the ore scanners are fine as they are.
b) T2 BPOs. Too much forum arguing on those already.
c) Adding more faction mod types gives an improvement to LP stores and missioning which is a good thing given mission loot generally was kicked in the teeth after the reprocessing nerf. +1.
d) Miners aren't going to use mining lasers for longer than it takes to skill up to strip miners. I agree the CPU req seems a bit much but if you are skilling up its a minor problem.
e) Regarding comparisons between the stats of T2 modules vs Storyline/COSMOS I think the latter will end up having same capability or higher than T2 but with lower fitting cost. This makes sense given the rarity of Storyline/COSMOS modules vs inexhaustible supply of T2 modules. BPCs for Storyline/COSMOS have been added to drops at the new exploration sites and building materials are dropping at existing sites now. This will increase supply somewhat but still keep an element of rarity. +1.
" They're gonna feel pretty stupid when they find out. "-áRick.
" Find out what ? "-áAbraham.
" They're screwing with the wrong people. "-áRick.
Season four.-á-á ' The Walking Dead. ' .
|
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland
The 99 Percent
1010
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 18:54:02 -
[177] - Quote
Arcos Vandymion wrote:Morihei Akachi wrote:
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.
Now that you mention it - though thinking about it that's more of a reason to put it on your ship together with a pink-hued paintjob and red floor lights (spinners optional). Would explain all the exotic dancers and slaves in the cargohold...
inb4 Zor's Opus Luxury Yacht.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
14435
|
Posted - 2015.01.07 11:54:06 -
[178] - Quote
Personally looking through the numbers I'm quite happy with most of what I see. The faction Overdrive injectors however just don't appeal to me. I would rather have the Cargo Capacity penalty at -15%-20% and get 0.5 more velocity on either the republic or domination to give us a reason to pick one or the other.
The Republic and Domination Nanofibers are also the exact same mod with a different name. Changing one to -15.75 Inertia Modifier and 10.0 Velocity Modifier would give us a choice between the two.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
CCP Terminus
C C P
C C P Alliance
131
|
Posted - 2015.01.07 13:17:33 -
[179] - Quote
We've made a few changes and clarifications.
You can find the information on the dev blog or on the first page of the comment reserved for clarifications.
Module Tiericide Dev Blog
Comments First Page |
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1075
|
Posted - 2015.01.07 13:31:00 -
[180] - Quote
the 'basic' power diagnostic is pretty useless btw .. 2.5% pg aswell as the other really low stats, its not worth using.
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists.
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic.
Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |