EVE Search - Sticky:Dev Blog: Rebalancing Modules in EVE Online, Round Two

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

Sticky:Dev Blog: Rebalancing Modules in EVE Online, Round Two

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 23 post(s)

CCP Logibro C C P C C P Alliance 724	Posted - 2014.12.23 14:42:19 - [1] - Quote In the endless battle for balance in EVE Online, the march continues in the direction of module rebalance. In round two, CCP Terminus and the rest of the module taskforce sink their teeth into Harvesting Equipment, Hull Upgrades, Propulsion Upgrades and Engineering Equipment. To see all the upcoming changes, read this new dev blog. CCP Logibro // EVE Universe Community Team // Distributor of Nanites // Patron Saint of Logistics @CCP_Logibro


CCP Terminus C C P C C P Alliance 82	Posted - 2014.12.23 14:47:53 - [2] - Quote Reserved for clarifications

Fonac Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 110	Posted - 2014.12.23 14:55:49 - [3] - Quote Looks good! - I like the fact you've made the faciton variants of capacitor power relays, and cap rechargers, slightly better than cap rechargers.

Chribba Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire 13681	Posted - 2014.12.23 14:58:40 - [4] - Quote Mmmmmining! Yummy new Cargo Expanders!! <3 GÿàGÿàGÿà Secure 3rd party service GÿàGÿàGÿà Visit my in-game channel 'Holy Veldspar' Twitter @Chribba

Steve Ronuken Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM 4599	Posted - 2014.12.23 14:59:27 - [5] - Quote Good job with the names Woo! CSM 9! Fuzzwork Enterprises Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Rapscallion Jones Omnibus Solutions 63	Posted - 2014.12.23 15:01:12 - [6] - Quote Thank you, Thank You, THANK YOU! Saving the lore is good!
Swiftstrike1 Swiftstrike Incorporated 843	Posted - 2014.12.23 15:02:54 - [7] - Quote The blog section referring to Capacitor Power Relays has a column heading "Shield Boost Bonus" and all the numbers are positive. Does this mean that CPRs are getting a significant buff or should that say "Shield Boost Penalty"? Targeting, Sensors and ECM Overhaul
Ix Method Shadows Legion High-Sec Tomfoolery 357	Posted - 2014.12.23 15:08:30 - [8] - Quote Putting the Compact, Restrained, etc. before the flavour text would make the market sidebar for example a hell of a lot easier to read. Having it sorted alphabetically by the flavour text will be just as headache inducing as currently. Travelling at the speed of love.
Soldarius Deadman W0nderland The 99 Percent 973	Posted - 2014.12.23 15:13:47 - [9] - Quote Looks good. Maybe my Thukker Tribe LP will finally be worth something now. http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Maennas Vaer High Flyers The Kadeshi 19	Posted - 2014.12.23 15:13:51 - [10] - Quote 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.

Aeril Malkyre Knights of the Ouroboros 383	Posted - 2014.12.23 15:16:02 - [11] - Quote Ix Method wrote: Putting the Compact, Restrained, etc. before the flavour text would make the market sidebar for example a hell of a lot easier to read. Having it sorted alphabetically by the flavour text will be just as headache inducing as currently. Agreed. While I'm sssssuuuuuppppeeerrr happy that you're keeping the lore names, it might benefit from being spun around like this.

CCP Terminus C C P C C P Alliance 83	Posted - 2014.12.23 15:20:12 - [12] - Quote Maennas Vaer wrote: 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. For some of the new Faction modules we've tried to keep the overall power close to the same but make the modules better in different circumstances. For instance ORE Reinforced Bulkheads would probably be preferred on haulers due to the reduced cargo capacity penalty, whereas Syndicate Reinforced Bulkheads have a reduced Inertial Modifier which will be useful for ships that want to keep more mobility.

Soldarius Deadman W0nderland The 99 Percent 973	Posted - 2014.12.23 15:20:43 - [13] - Quote Maennas Vaer wrote: 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. Some variation in the stats based on factions is desirable. Otherwise, we may as well have just one faction. It puts value on the variant modules based on useful stats, rather than some arbitrary tier system. Of course, there are typically far more factions than stats on modules. So some duplication, which is what you seem to want, is inevitable. Ex: Caldari Navy and Thukker Tribe PDS, both of which favor shield amount and recharge over cap amount and recharge. I'm good with it. http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
TheSmokingHertog TALIBAN EXPRESS 274	Posted - 2014.12.23 15:21:10 - [14] - Quote Pictures would say much more as the current tables.
Faren Shalni Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 104	Posted - 2014.12.23 15:26:58 - [15] - Quote 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? So Much Space

CCP Terminus C C P C C P Alliance 83	Posted - 2014.12.23 15:32:32 - [16] - Quote Faren Shalni wrote: 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? The CPU fitting it 2 higher (20 to 22) but the Powergrid bonus is also 1% better (5% to 6%).

Aryth GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1672	Posted - 2014.12.23 15:34:32 - [17] - Quote CCP Terminus wrote: Maennas Vaer wrote: 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. For some of the new Faction modules we've tried to keep the overall power close to the same but make the modules better in different circumstances. For instance ORE Reinforced Bulkheads would probably be preferred on haulers due to the reduced cargo capacity penalty, whereas Syndicate Reinforced Bulkheads have a reduced Inertial Modifier which will be useful for ships that want to keep more mobility. The issue is more you have made faction the default and only choice for several of these modules for all cases where the ships rarely die. Before, the primary stat was equivalent to T2 and you had fitting advantages in general. Now they are superior to T2 and so no one will use expanded cargo II that can possibly afford/not lose faction. Not that faction is going to be some great expense anyway. Not for freighters for example. Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal. Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Sam Spock The Scope Gallente Federation 35	Posted - 2014.12.23 15:39:59 - [18] - Quote I like that you have added a few faction modules here. During a future round could you give some concideration on expanding the list of Gurista's deadspace modules? Specifically the Pithi and Pithum ones? There are only 2 each of the Pithi ones but there are many for the frigate sized modules for the other pirate factions. Also, Angels have pretty much the same shield modules (though not quite as good) as the Guristas but also have other things like an afterburner and mwd. Perhaps a Pithum (a,b,c)-type ECM? Giving you Inconsistent grammar, speilling and Punct-uation since 1974!
Abla Tive 76	Posted - 2014.12.23 15:40:01 - [19] - Quote 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?
Morihei Akachi Nishida Corporation 132	Posted - 2014.12.23 15:50:24 - [20] - Quote 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? Your spirit is the true shield.

Nakaara Adahsa Hedion University Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2014.12.23 15:58:11 - [21] - Quote 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.
Milla Goodpussy Federal Navy Academy 127	Posted - 2014.12.23 16:02:54 - [22] - Quote I really am getting sick and tired of Faction mess coming into play and ruining all tiers. its like the pvp elitest went faction crazy and now what all modules to be faction related all the while you're gimping T2 level modules which indy's craft together! why not just give indy's the power to craft faction as promised a very long time ago?
Aurora Fatalis Stillwater Corporation That Escalated Quickly. 89	Posted - 2014.12.23 16:10:48 - [23] - Quote The use of quotation and tech level marks is inconsistent. Elara Restrained Mining Laser Upgrade 'Carpo' Mining Laser Upgrade Single Diode Basic Mining Laser 'Basic' Expanded Cargohold Limited Expanded 'Archiver' Cargo I Mark I Compact Power Diagnostic System 'Cartel' Power Diagnostic System I Caldari Navy Power Diagnostic System If Chribba told you not to trust him, would you?
Anton Menges Saddat Minion Revolution SpaceMonkey's Alliance 68	Posted - 2014.12.23 16:13:44 - [24] - Quote Not feeling the cargo changes nor the new names. stop dumbing down eve. and ample, restrained, scoped, compact.... wtf?
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1314	Posted - 2014.12.23 16:14:03 - [25] - Quote Aurora Fatalis wrote: The use of quotation and tech level marks is inconsistent. Elara Restrained Mining Laser Upgrade 'Carpo' Mining Laser Upgrade Single Diode Basic Mining Laser 'Basic' Expanded Cargohold Limited Expanded 'Archiver' Cargo I Mark I Compact Power Diagnostic System 'Cartel' Power Diagnostic System I Caldari Navy Power Diagnostic System The 'Basic' Expanded cargohold is the only one of those that really bucks the trend. Elara = "meta" module (drops from rats), no quotes 'Carpo' = storyline, in quotes Single Diode = basic module, no quotes 'Archive' = storyline, in quotes Mark I Compact = meta module, no quotes 'Cartel' = storyline, in quotes Caldary Navy PDS = faction, no quotes This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1314	Posted - 2014.12.23 16:20:26 - [26] - Quote Ix Method wrote: Putting the Compact, Restrained, etc. before the flavour text would make the market sidebar for example a hell of a lot easier to read. Having it sorted alphabetically by the flavour text will be just as headache inducing as currently. EDIT: The Meta 1 Cap Power Relays seem to be the wrong way round. The Shield Boost modifier is a drawback meaning one is flat out better than the other, unless I'm being tired and stupid. 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? This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Martin Peterson NUCULAR Enterprises Circle-Of-Two 0	Posted - 2014.12.23 16:21:42 - [27] - Quote 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
Faren Shalni Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 104	Posted - 2014.12.23 16:33:58 - [28] - Quote CCP Terminus wrote: Faren Shalni wrote: 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? The CPU fitting it 2 higher (20 to 22) but the Powergrid bonus is also 1% better (5% to 6%). :( So Much Space
Nelly Uanos Spirit Unlimited La Division Bleue 24	Posted - 2014.12.23 16:35:03 - [29] - Quote Love the change! Only grip I got is the Ore cargo expander... why not 30% COME ON! I need one with 30% bonus on my Impel, so I can get a damn 4000m3 cargo to scoop big thing in space without sacrificing another low slot of my tank.... Otherwise give me scoop to fleet hangar

CCP Terminus C C P C C P Alliance 83	Posted - 2014.12.23 16:36:56 - [30] - Quote Nakaara Adahsa wrote: 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. 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.


Altrue Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective 1515	Posted - 2014.12.23 16:38:37 - [31] - Quote The name part adds unneeded complexity of the fitting process and is a step backward in improving EVE by removing that kind of stuff. If you had 4 variants for the 4 meta version maybe, and I mean, MAYBE, this would be understandable. But as it stands, you give one arbitrary nickname to an arbitrary type (e.g restrained), which doesn't actually benefits anyone. I play since 2008, I'm in the middle of the target audience you mean to please with keeping the meta nicknames, and yet it doesn't feel needed even to me, so... Signature Tanking - Best Tanking

CCP Terminus C C P C C P Alliance 83	Posted - 2014.12.23 16:39:27 - [32] - Quote Martin Peterson wrote: 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 Yeah that's probably an error. I would expect the restrained to have the -8. I'll look into it.

ergherhdfgh Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 220	Posted - 2014.12.23 16:41:31 - [33] - Quote You guys just love breaking stuff don't you? I don't understand why you guys hate freight haulers so much. You messed up freighters when you gave them low slots and nerf all of their stats so you needed to fit mods just to get to where you were before now when we try to get reasonable hit points it takes 10 years to align and you want to make that 11 years? I'll admit that the naming of the mods was a bit confusing but I don't really see how you've changed that all that much and now we have to learn them all over again but not only that but the one's that you have already changed are going to get renamed again? I mean as it is I just go to the compare all tool and pick the one with the stats that I'm looking for so why not just leave well enough alone? The only good thing that I can see coming out of this is that finally the faction cap rechargers will be a better recharge rate than meta 5. That never made sense to me. Other than that I see everything you are doing here as counter-productive.
SpaceSaft Capts Deranged Cavaliers Gentlemen's.Club 137	Posted - 2014.12.23 16:49:51 - [34] - Quote I'm not sure why we need 9 modules with 3 each being exactly the same. Couldn't they have been renamed to some special name? "Type something something science modified Cap Recharger" instead of "name Cap Recharger"? Ideally even referencing what's special to this one? I mean, I can see that it's nice to have "Racial navy" stuff but if it's all the same, can't it be put together? In the end it's just meta levels anyway, do you have to obfuscate that so much? The UI is still bad.
Qual Infinity Engine Sleeping Dragons 61	Posted - 2014.12.23 17:02:16 - [35] - Quote Looks good. I like the idea of keeping flavor, though I would not go with the one to one model. Being able to find specific meta modules by thier nick name only is one of the perks of being a veteran... That said, I understand the reasoning for going with a one to one model. I do think you could have tried to keep more than one modules in the meta 1-4 range, just to give more options when choosing sub T2 modules, though that is more of a nice to haev than a need. How about modules with T1 bonus but sub T1 fitting requirements? I think there would be a nice niche for those?
Jean Luc Lemmont Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 504	Posted - 2014.12.23 17:02:21 - [36] - Quote Querns wrote: Ix Method wrote: Putting the Compact, Restrained, etc. before the flavour text would make the market sidebar for example a hell of a lot easier to read. Having it sorted alphabetically by the flavour text will be just as headache inducing as currently. EDIT: The Meta 1 Cap Power Relays seem to be the wrong way round. The Shield Boost modifier is a drawback meaning one is flat out better than the other, unless I'm being tired and stupid. 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? I believe they mentioned in the dev blog they would be revising those, yes. Will I get banned for boxing!?!?! This thread has degenerated to the point it's become like two bald men fighting over a comb. -- Doc Fury It's bonuses, not boni, you cretins.
Indahmawar Fazmarai 3505	Posted - 2014.12.23 17:03:20 - [37] - Quote CCP Terminus wrote: Nakaara Adahsa wrote: 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. 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. Oh really? Do you think that a freighter pilot does not look for HITPOINT and VELOCITY penalties? How cute! Since your buddies forced every freighter pilot to fit cargohold expanders to retain a fraction of their former usability, the favorite modules are: Partial Hull Conversion Expanded Cargo (~30 milion ISK a piece) Synthetic Hull Conversion Reinforced Bulkheads I (~60 million a piece) For the modest price of 150 million ISK, those modules give you a net speed, cargo and hitpoint bonus. Which is gone now that you plan to "consolidate" the Partial Hull into the "basic" Free tip: when players pay 30 million ISK for a Meta 4 module, it must be doing something right! I'd suggest to give to the "Basic" module the same cargo bonus as the new Type-D (+22.5%). Or just add a new module that is suit to freighter needs of high velocity penalty, high cargo bonus and low hull penalty. The Greater Fool Bar is now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden! Ingame chat channel: The Greater Fool Bar
Vukae Dhoul Lazerhawks 7	Posted - 2014.12.23 17:08:42 - [38] - Quote Personally, the problem I see with this list is that it fails the most obvious simplification: making sure that all variants of a given type of module have the type name unmodified somewhere in them (regardless of extra flavor and descriptive text). For example, with regard to the mining laser, could you at least decide whether it is a 'miner' or a 'mining laser'? Similarly, decide whether nanofibers should be internal, cargo vs cargohold, inertia or inertial stabilzers, ...

CCP Terminus C C P C C P Alliance 86	Posted - 2014.12.23 17:20:33 - [39] - Quote Querns wrote: 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? Yep, as stated in the blog post, we'll be retroactively giving names back to the modules of the first pass.

Grunschlck League Of Misfit Pilots 1	Posted - 2014.12.23 17:25:49 - [40] - Quote 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".

Nakaara Adahsa Hedion University Amarr Empire 3	Posted - 2014.12.23 17:28:45 - [41] - Quote CCP Terminus wrote: Nakaara Adahsa wrote: 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. 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. Are you saying that the named Meta 1-4 cargohold modules will still exist? None of them were included in the table posted in the blog, so it looked like all of them were being removed. If they are being kept, then I'm less concerned about the changes. I use the meta 1-4 modules a fair bit. However, the modules that are being collapsed have a different drawback profile: they sacrifice velocity more than structure. The meta 1-4 modules sacrifice structure more than velocity. I prefer the latter, but some players might prefer to sacrifice velocity over structure in some cases. There is an unusually high price for some of the modules being eliminated, but maybe that's just because they are rare now if they are no longer being dropped by NPCs.
Dangeresque Too Pistols for Pandas 39	Posted - 2014.12.23 17:29:31 - [42] - Quote One of the things I'm not quite liking with this trend, and was hoping would be corrected after the first set of module changes: Why do all these modules have to have short sentences for names? Really what is the point of that mouthfull? Especially when the interface only really has space to show us 2-3 (maybe 4 if they are really short) of the words in the name. When I have a bunch of modules in my hangar I really don't want to have to mouse over each one to see what the heck it is. For a quick example... http://imgur.com/cuXSYN1, you tell me which one those are, and yes, they are all different modules/metas. I can understand some people might be concerned about the "lore" of an item, then why not just put the "lore" into the description. If they really care about the lore they can read about it there, instead of cluttering up my interface with additional info that pushes out the info I actually need or am looking for.
Aurora Fatalis Stillwater Corporation That Escalated Quickly. 90	Posted - 2014.12.23 17:30:27 - [43] - Quote Grunschlck wrote: 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". You must be dying for when they get to shield extenders, which are currently named Supplemental Barrier Emitter I Subordinate Screen Stabilizer I Azeotropic Ward Salubrity I F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction (no I) They really need to be consistently denoted as what they are, namely Forcefield Embigerators. If Chribba told you not to trust him, would you?
Dangeresque Too Pistols for Pandas 39	Posted - 2014.12.23 17:33:41 - [44] - Quote And if you are fixing the names, one thing I've noticed in general is that all of the Officer modules have "modified" as part of their name, every, single, one. Are you worried we won't be able to tell that is is an Officer module if it doesn't say "modified"? Unless you really feel that "modified" is so completely core to the lore of the item, which in that case you would need to put "modified" as part of the name for any of the other faction and deadspace mods.
Tipa Riot Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 72	Posted - 2014.12.23 17:40:44 - [45] - 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 - [46] - 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.
Masao Kurata Z List 179	Posted - 2014.12.23 18:00:51 - [47] - Quote I'm not feeling any compelling reason to ever use meta nanofiber or inertia stabs with these stats, tech II is just the better choice every time. Otherwise this seems fairly good.
Aliventi Hard Knocks Inc. 794	Posted - 2014.12.23 18:07:58 - [48] - Quote I have a question. The Devblog didn't say anything about the no longer dropping meta versions (Such as Type-E and Partial Power Plant:) of cap rechargers and capacitor power relays. What is happening to those? Are they being rebalanced into Storyline modules?
Midnight Hope Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 153	Posted - 2014.12.23 18:21:40 - [49] - Quote CCP Terminus wrote: Querns wrote: 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? Yep, as stated in the blog post, we'll be retroactively giving names back to the modules of the first pass. Good job with the new naming convention! How about bringing back some of the names that were dropped when the propulsion modules went under the knife? Any chance we can add flavor/lore back to the bland 1mn,10mn, 100mn ABs and MWDs? How hard can it be?
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 1676	Posted - 2014.12.23 18:25:28 - [50] - Quote Thank you for the naming change - good solution. And please do bring back some flavour to the prop mods when you get around to them. Y-S8 Hydrocarbon ftw! Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.

Janeway84 Def Squadron Pride Before Fall 123	Posted - 2014.12.23 18:34:02 - [51] - Quote Yo CCP Logibro! Where's the frigate size ice mining lasers? So we can ninja mine with ventures or prospects in the shattered wh's?
Bienator II madmen of the skies 3065	Posted - 2014.12.23 18:51:24 - [52] - Quote can't wait till you guys are cleaning up pop mods :) eve style bounties (done) dust boarding parties imagine there is war and everybody cloaks - join FW
Cloon McCloon Space Fukery 12	Posted - 2014.12.23 18:53:04 - [53] - Quote Thing I Good Thing Gooder Thing Goodest Thing Thing II
Alain Colcer Agiolet Security and Logistics 121	Posted - 2014.12.23 18:55:36 - [54] - Quote @CCP terminus You sure about the Shadow Serpentis Power Diagnostic System? not sure if it fits racial/faction designs... Serps are = gallente + minmatar...none of those are good at PDS....which fit more with the Amarr/Ammatar/Sansha/Blood Raider lineup. Shadow serps could be good with cap boosters though.
St'oto Hell's Death Squad Templis CALSF 2	Posted - 2014.12.23 18:56:45 - [55] - Quote Abla Tive wrote: 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. As far as the changes go - I like it. Can't really complain at all yet.
Galdron Enderas Twinstar Universal Services DARKNESS. 3	Posted - 2014.12.23 19:33:37 - [56] - Quote i am not sure if this is a mistake MLU T2 gains a massive Nerf when changing from 10% to 12,5% CPU penalty. and the only comparable named MLU reachs 500kk isk for each piece. Especially the Mackinaw already has a massive CPU problem for fitting. 3x MLU T2 2x Stripminer 1x Surveyscanner T2 1x Adaptive Invulfield T2 will exhaust the CPU nearly completly (all Level 5) --> every thoughtable "Tank" fitting (at least agains rats) will not work or be payable anymore. Already now many fittings need a CPU Rig to work. After the nerf of T2 Minincrystals which die now realy alot faster caused by "ore yield" to "cycle time" change without any thought compensation. We would now step in paperthin Exhumers caused from a massive CPU problem ? Of course Code or any other Miner-ganker will love this ... but thats hopefully not the intended reason for this change

CCP Terminus C C P C C P Alliance 90	Posted - 2014.12.23 19:40:49 - [57] - Quote 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. As for Nanofiber Internal Structures and Inertial Stabilizers, we think the reduced drawback should be valuable enough for players to use them in certain situations. If this turns out not to be the case some rebalancing will probably occur.

Aiyshimin Shiva Furnace 278	Posted - 2014.12.23 19:57:37 - [58] - Quote Looks nice, now please remove the meta modules from hisec mission loot tables.
Abla Tive 78	Posted - 2014.12.23 20:00:11 - [59] - Quote St'oto wrote: Abla Tive wrote: 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. I already have a prioritized training queue that stretches out into the future. All that is happening is that the richness of my game experience is being reduced. Why would anyone ever choose a meta 0 item (you know, the kind you can manufacture?!) Meta 1 will be absolutely better and because they will drop at the same rate as meta 1-4 combined, the market will price them competitively. What I am looking for is interesting module variations at a level below faction level items. As it stands now, mere mortals will either choose meta 1 modules or meta 5 (if they have the skills and the CPU/Power to spare)
Rivr Luzade Coreli Corporation 1096	Posted - 2014.12.23 20:01:17 - [60] - Quote Only on the phone here: Do T2 mods stay the same as they are now or is this another nerf to freighters?

Sizeof Void Ninja Suicide Squadron 549	Posted - 2014.12.23 20:02:11 - [61] - Quote Overall, this round looks better than the first round of module tiericide. I would like to point out, however, that there wil still be no reason to use T1 modules, in cases where the meta 1 version is abundantly available and cheaper than the T1 version. So, are you going to adjust the T1 module build cost (ie. BPO) and the reprocessing value of the meta 1 modules? Ideally, the T1 build cost should always be lower than the meta 1 reprocessing value (don't forget to figure in the 50-55% reprocessing efficiency). You may want to adjust the T2 module build cost, as well - to make sure that the cost ratio between T2 and T1 is still reasonably high. Remember that most of these numbers have not been tweaked, since the modules were first introduced into the game. Mineral prices - and the sizes of players' wallets - have changed a bit over the years. Also, are you going to take a look at the current supply of the old metas, which will be aggregated into the new meta 1? And, adjust the NPC drop rate accordingly, as well?
Amber Solaire Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 45	Posted - 2014.12.23 20:25:34 - [62] - Quote Why are you turning Meta 4 modules into Meta 1 modules? Also, by changing named modules, like the Erin MLU, you are automatically nerfing their collector value, as well as their rarity Renaming anything that reduces the value of an item is just not fair (the named MLUs should not be changed at all)
VonKolroth Section 8. Fatal Ascension 42	Posted - 2014.12.23 20:35:58 - [63] - Quote Dangeresque Too wrote: One of the things I'm not quite liking with this trend, and was hoping would be corrected after the first set of module changes: Why do all these modules have to have short sentences for names? Really what is the point of that mouthfull? Especially when the interface only really has space to show us 2-3 (maybe 4 if they are really short) of the words in the name. When I have a bunch of modules in my hangar I really don't want to have to mouse over each one to see what the heck it is. For a quick example... http://imgur.com/cuXSYN1, you tell me which one those are, and yes, they are all different modules/metas. I can understand some people might be concerned about the "lore" of an item, then why not just put the "lore" into the description. If they really care about the lore they can read about it there, instead of cluttering up my interface with additional info that pushes out the info I actually need or am looking for. This is how I feel about it. Though if we do insist on keeping flavor text, I would like to see changes made to the market window that makes the sorting of modules clearer for those of us that are fitting ships quickly because our fleet buddies are waiting for us to pitch something together for impromptu roams and the like. Maybe let us have a "Meta Mode" or "Sort by Meta" of some type instead of items always being alphabetically sorted in the left side of the market window. I'm all about EvE remaining a rich immersive universe, but there are more then a few of us in the game who are more business minded... Almost always finding ourselves in time critical situations and/or just purchasing and fitting a ton of things for newbros who have no idea where to even start when it comes to fitting ships. Putting the flavor at the beginning of the module name does not simplify things in any way, which was my prymary hope for the module tiericide in the first place. Sent from my Gallente Erabus Titan on -FA- SRP
Alexis Nightwish 63	Posted - 2014.12.23 20:59:45 - [64] - Quote No "Enduring" mining lasers? 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? Examples: Expanded Cargos: ________Restrained: -15% structure ________Basic: -10% structure Nanos: ________Restrained: -10% structure ________Basic: -5% structure Reinforced Bulkheads: ________Restrained: -5% cargo ________Basic: -5% cargo Istabs: ________Restrained: +9% sig radius ________Basic: +5% sig radius Overdrives: ________Restrained: -10% cargo ________Basic: -1% cargo Capacitor Power Relays: ________Restrained: -10% shield boost ________Basic: -5% shield boost Why does the "Restrained" Cap Power Relay have the same penalty as the T1? Shouldn't it be less, or shouldn't the penalty be swapped with the "Compact" version's? Why are "Basic" modules Meta 6? Is this a mistake or is it for invention purposes? Power Projection: A Brighter Future
Masao Kurata Z List 179	Posted - 2014.12.23 21:11:59 - [65] - Quote Amber Solaire wrote: Also, by changing named modules, like the Erin MLU, you are automatically nerfing their collector value, as well as their rarity Renaming anything that reduces the value of an item is just not fair (the named MLUs should not be changed at all) I think you must be very confused on this point, the Erin and Elara MLUs are getting merged to a single module with better stats than either, except for a slightly increased fitting cost but the reduced CPU penalty should compensate for that, while Carpo and Aoede MLUs are getting very clear buffs. If anything their prices should go up, they're much better for actual use (as is fitting for their rarity).
Lara Divinity Black Scorpion Nomads 28	Posted - 2014.12.23 22:02:14 - [66] - Quote u guys must be really bored there at ccp always changin things
Aryth GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1672	Posted - 2014.12.23 22:15:27 - [67] - Quote Are the faction expander or other modules going to come in BPC form that requires a T2 version maybe? If not, I do not see why players do not just continue to look at M3 expansion ability and continue to buy the best. Faction. That seems an awful nerf to those T2 markets. Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal. Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.

CCP Terminus C C P C C P Alliance 95	Posted - 2014.12.23 22:37:31 - [68] - Quote Alexis Nightwish wrote: 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? ... We felt that the T2 Expanded Cargohold was already in a good place, although if we were to follow the trends you'd be correct. In fact it would be even higher unless the T1 module had thepenalty reduced. It's still something we could change before Proteus is released. In the rebalance, 'Basic' modules are meant to have the lowest restrictions and fitting requirements of all modules, but also the weakest effects. This was the general trend before the rebalance, which has been reinforced through the rebalancing. These modules are a legacy from years ago and are no longer seeded in the game, but the low drawbacks may work for niche fits.

Mara Rinn Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium 5657	Posted - 2014.12.23 22:38:49 - [69] - Quote Miner I Miner II Blah blah blah mining laser I would change "mining laser" to "miner" to enhance discoverability in the market UI. Nanofiber Internal Structure I Nanofiber Internal Structure II Blah blah blah Nanofiber Structure Ignoring the US spelling, I'd change all of these to use the shorter "Nanofiber structure" to enhance discoverability. Type-D Restrained Overdrive Injector Speaks for itself Day 0 Advice for New Players
Mr Omniblivion GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 291	Posted - 2014.12.23 22:42:25 - [70] - Quote We, too, use a dartboard to choose names on various items

Dan Hour Isogen 5 6	Posted - 2014.12.23 22:47:11 - [71] - Quote I'm not sure if its a type-o or if someone else has brought this up already, but why is the Quote: 'Motte' Capacitor Power Relay I straight up better than the faction ones, same recharge bonus less shield boost penalty less fitting Should that shield boost penalty be higher, or at the least the same as faction? Edit: for example the second meta item for the cap flux coils has the same bonuses as tech 2 with just less fitting, this should be the same yes?
Jen Takhesis The Scope Gallente Federation 91	Posted - 2014.12.23 22:47:15 - [72] - Quote Mara Rinn wrote: [list] Type-D Restrained Overdrive Injector Speaks for itself Maybe Type-D Increased Mediocredrive Injector instead?
Terminator 2 Omega Boost 39	Posted - 2014.12.24 00:19:17 - [73] - Quote Well i would expect another round of Mining Barges tank buff is needed when you expect players to fit Ingenii MLUs? Or is this just a planned buff for the ganker income? Any mining barge - including skiffs - that uses a fitting worth more than 300m isk is a sitting duck waiting to explode by gank action. So you expect us to fit 400m isk Ingenii MLUs? 3 of them? for 1.2b isk? On ships you can't tank up enough to survive in highsec?
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE 822	Posted - 2014.12.24 00:39:14 - [74] - Quote I was really annoyed when I first read the blog, but after looking a bit more it isn't all that bad. Probably due to the dropping of the Local Hull naming line. I mean seriously who used whatever-D mods? Local hull and beta hull ftw, type d, and Mark I blow! I will say I am excited to see faction cap mods be better than t2, I think that is the first truly useful thing module tericide has done for the game. I hope going forward we see some meaningful differentiation between modules. because so far it really seems like unused module cleanup. and well most of the differentiation is meaningless for nearly all applications 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. 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
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE 822	Posted - 2014.12.24 00:42:55 - [75] - Quote Mara Rinn wrote: Miner I Miner II Blah blah blah mining laser I would change "mining laser" to "miner" to enhance discoverability in the market UI. Nanofiber Internal Structure I Nanofiber Internal Structure II Blah blah blah Nanofiber Structure Ignoring the US spelling, I'd change all of these to use the shorter "Nanofiber structure" to enhance discoverability. Type-D Restrained Overdrive Injector Speaks for itself that's the other thing, a lot of the renaming is in parts other than the ones being addressed. webs and neuts being my main gripes (at least the ones I can think of) 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
Sizeof Void Ninja Suicide Squadron 549	Posted - 2014.12.24 00:43:39 - [76] - Quote Minor suggestion: I would recommned losing the single quotes on names. It does not add anything to the game lore, and it makes for possible confusion and search-by-name irritation. Example 1: 'Basic' Capacitor Recharger should just be Basic Capacitor Recharger. Example 2: 'Aoede' Mining Laser Upgrade should just be Aoede Mining Laser Upgrade.
sytaqe violacea Circus of midnight Vox Populi. 25	Posted - 2014.12.24 00:57:05 - [77] - Quote GOOD lore name back new faction modules(especially ORE Expanded Cargohold) BAD why no rebalance to WCS? Did you forget those existence? Thukker Power Diagnostic System and Caldari Navy Power Diagnostic System have same property while their LP value have huge gap. Domination Overdrive Injector has advantage on the Cargo Capacity Penalty, what lore reason make it?
Dinta Zembo Snuff Box Snuffed Out 90	Posted - 2014.12.24 00:59:30 - [78] - Quote +1 for more cargo and +100 for actually making faction cap rechargers worth buying, nice one
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1830	Posted - 2014.12.24 01:27:43 - [79] - Quote sytaqe violacea wrote: Thukker Power Diagnostic System and Caldari Navy Power Diagnostic System have same property while their LP value have huge gap. LP Value is set by the players, not by CCP.
sytaqe violacea Circus of midnight Vox Populi. 25	Posted - 2014.12.24 01:46:11 - [80] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: sytaqe violacea wrote: Thukker Power Diagnostic System and Caldari Navy Power Diagnostic System have same property while their LP value have huge gap. LP Value is set by the players, not by CCP. Hint: Factinal Warfare 1x Caldari Navy Power Diagnostic System needs 10,000 Militia LP 4,000,000 ISK 1 Power Diagnostic System I 2 Federation Navy Fleet Colonel Insignia I 4 Federation Navy Fleet Colonel Insignia II 1x Thukker Power Diagnostic System needs 45,000 Thukker LP 30,000,000 ISK 1 Power Diagnostic System I So...if Calmil LP were worth 5~6 times as much as Thukker LP or tag's values were skyrocketed, it will be reasonable to build Thukker one.

Primaxin PubSwarm Federation Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere 5	Posted - 2014.12.24 01:50:15 - [81] - Quote Again, the naming, while some may quibble about it is not the real problem and gets far too much discussion. The real problem is for those who do ratting who actually also collect the "loot". Ratting is already a totally repetitive activity with virtually no variation. Every specific type of anomaly is the same each time (there may be 2 variations but you know what I mean). About the only thing that provides a tiny bit of variety is the value of the loot for a given anomaly. It can vary quite a bit by finding certain rare and desirable meta 4 modules. Apparently that tiny bit of randomness in this otherwise extremely dull activity is too much for the Eve developers. Now we will get the same generic stuff every single time. No chance to have a little excitement by finding something good. This seems to me to be a step in the wrong direction because it makes an aspect of gameplay that many players use even less interesting than it already is.
Trinkets friend Sudden Buggery Prolapse. 1983	Posted - 2014.12.24 02:15:50 - [82] - Quote 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. J's before K's. Prolapse. Turning holes inside out with pew pew. http://www.localectomy.blogspot.com.au
GetSirrus Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 81	Posted - 2014.12.24 02:21:20 - [83] - Quote any chance to add in ORE versions of the Mining and Ice upgrades?
Morihei Akachi Nishida Corporation 139	Posted - 2014.12.24 02:40:37 - [84] - Quote Trinkets friend wrote: 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. +1 in favour of European spelling. Your spirit is the true shield.
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 1677	Posted - 2014.12.24 02:54:40 - [85] - Quote It would be much easier if we could just right-click, Show Group like we can in PYFA or EFT. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
Arthur Aihaken X A X 4044	Posted - 2014.12.24 02:57:03 - [86] - Quote Really like the proposed changes. Faction modules finally get the bonuses they should've always had. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Lara Divinity Black Scorpion Nomads 28	Posted - 2014.12.24 03:33:32 - [87] - Quote Terminator 2 wrote: Well i would expect another round of Mining Barges tank buff is needed when you expect players to fit Ingenii MLUs? Or is this just a planned buff for the ganker income? Any mining barge - including skiffs - that uses a fitting worth more than 300m isk is a sitting duck waiting to explode by gank action. So you expect us to fit 400m isk Ingenii MLUs? 3 of them? for 1.2b isk? On ships you can't tank up enough to survive in highsec? 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
Lara Divinity Black Scorpion Nomads 28	Posted - 2014.12.24 03:46:34 - [88] - Quote by the way wheres the bonus in this ccp? Ice Harvester Upgrade II514012.5-9 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 ? when is somthing good goin to happen i just wonder could atleast have raised cycle time with 1% to
Mara Rinn Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium 5658	Posted - 2014.12.24 04:11:02 - [89] - Quote Rather than "restrained" how about "stoic"? It's fewer letters, and less likely to be made fun of (chuckle restrained overdrive snort) Day 0 Advice for New Players
Mara Rinn Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium 5658	Posted - 2014.12.24 04:29:39 - [90] - Quote Also, is there anything preventing you readjusting the meta levels so that we have meta 0 for plain T1, then meta 1 for the "better" T1 modules, then meta 2 for T2, with 3 for cosmos, 4 for faction, and headspace/officer starting at 5 and up? Day 0 Advice for New Players

Ambrosia Grande Profundum 0	Posted - 2014.12.24 04:31:38 - [91] - Quote Really not a fan of the current module naming scheme as pointed out by others. I also do not understand what you mean by all the other "meta 0" modules, especially if you're referring to Meta 1-4 type modules. It might just be my OCD personality, but one thing I feel is that the Meta level should definitely directly relate to how useful the item is. Why is the Basic Cargo expander meta 6 while having worse expansion stats when compared to a T2 Cargo Expander? A lot of logic seems to escape me when I read through this list and it angered me enough to make a post.
Mara Rinn Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium 5658	Posted - 2014.12.24 04:54:41 - [92] - Quote And further, with regards to officer modules especially, would it be possible to combine officer names with adjectives, so that rather than "Estamels ModifiedGÇª" we'd have "Estamel's EnduringGÇª" 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. Day 0 Advice for New Players
Sizeof Void Ninja Suicide Squadron 550	Posted - 2014.12.24 05:25:03 - [93] - Quote Mara Rinn wrote: And further, with regards to officer modules especially, would it be possible to combine officer names with adjectives, so that rather than "Estamels ModifiedGÇª" we'd have "Estamel's EnduringGÇª" 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. And, here I thought the point of "tiericide" was to get rid of tiers, not create more of them... ;)
Valterra Craven 412	Posted - 2014.12.24 05:58:06 - [94] - Quote I'm starting to think you guys are really just bad at auditing things, because when it comes right down to it, this is what the module rebalance is: an audit. I don't think you guys are being holistic enough in your approach to this and at the end of the day it looks like you are basically just telling a program to change a bunch of values without thinking through the changes. (Yes, I know that this is an exaggeration) I think your spreadsheets need to incorporate vastly more data than what it seems they do and someone that's better at auditing and quality control should be going over these values than a dev team. I can accept that you guys are human and mistakes happen, but it seems like you guys are just repeating the same mistakes over and over again. You guys still haven't addressed this basic question: (from the previous thread) 1. The meta layout of your rebalance makes no sense. a. Why have meta gaps? (shouldn't the number increase like power does and not skip numbers) b. Why are basic modules meta 6 and t1 mods are meta 0... basic should be meta 0 and t1 should be meta 1... Names: While A lot of people complained in the previous rebalance thread about the "lore" of names, I think you guys took that feedback a little too far. What I saw from that thread was that the names you chose for some of your "specializations" weren't "sci-fi" enough. I wish you would have listened more to that feedback rather than the "lore" feedback. I think the first plan to sterilize module names made a lot more sense than your current one does. The lore names are just too much extra jargon that literally means absolutely nothing and just mess with the sort order of the mods for no apparent reason other than just because. Module names should sort in the market by their meta level in my opinion. Penalties: I think you guys need to completely redo these on every module. Its not real clear why modules like mining upgrades need penalties while things like dps upgrades (mag stabs) don't. Either every module has a penalty or every module has no penalty. This picking and choosing and clearly favoring PVP mods over PVE modules seems like favoritism and is just plain silly.
Dark Drifter Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance 145	Posted - 2014.12.24 06:25:01 - [95] - Quote Morihei Akachi wrote: 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? prety much what this guy said. i will add 2 things 1 the civilian mining laser has worse fitting and yeld than T1 ... 2= adding new faction mods to the game is all well and good. but when those items are assumed to come from thair respective LP stores. it makes thair addition to the game null and void. as in my 7-8 years of eve i have never met a single player who has run missions for or had/has LP with ORE or SYNDICATE corperations. on top of that (for ORE) all the missions are null sec mining missions that are not worth the time or risk to run for such low LP payouts
Iomi Alabosa Dead Star Syndicate I'd Rather Be Roaming 7	Posted - 2014.12.24 06:40:18 - [96] - Quote In some of the cases you've made the naming more confusing again, especially for beginners, whereas the initial tiericide effort actually made quite a bit of sense, in terms of the renaming. Your references to "lore" and "history" make no sense to me -- I don't see how "Type-D" have any relationship to EVE lore (EvE has lore? I thought EvE was just kill-thy-neighbour, or if you can't kill thy neighbour, then at least scam him, especially if he's noob, but I digress....) In any case, my one big beef is your use of the term "Basic" in a number of these modules, where the "Basic" module is generally Meta 6, and at least third in the list of weakest to strongest alternative. The English word "Basic" literally means "starting point" -- if you insist on using it for a name of a module, then it should be the most BASIC of the module alternatives, i.e. the one that is weakest, having the least skill requirements, and the heaviest CPU and PWG requirements. In other words, BASIC modules should be Meta 0, not Meta 6.
epicurus ataraxia Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude 1452	Posted - 2014.12.24 08:03:40 - [97] - Quote A simple point on the naming of the historic modules, that originally were caused basic and are no longer dropped. There is a real issue that retaining that name will cause significant confusion as a meta 6 item. That is simply contradictory to your goals, which are to be encouraged and praised. I suggest these basic items are all renamed heirloom to reflect their value and remove confusion. There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd 3200	Posted - 2014.12.24 08:20:13 - [98] - Quote CCP Terminus wrote: Reserved for clarifications As one who originally posted about removing the flavor and lore from names, I approve of this cycle's crop of module names. Anyone who complains that they're still too complicated needs to engage their higher thought processes and notice the descriptor word in each name. With that out of the way... Since you're going back and renaming previously-rebalanced modules, maybe you could strip the "Ample" off of things and give them a descriptor that applies better to weapons than to breasts? "High-Capacity" would be pretty good. "Extended" is good too and is only one word. Final point: Along with the other people who've mentioned it, I also find it curious that "Basic" mods, while having worse stats than T2, are meta 6 rather than meta 2 or 3 or 4. Perhaps this should be looked at? It should definitely not persist into the actual release.
Sturmwolke 610	Posted - 2014.12.24 09:11:52 - [99] - Quote Overcomplication where none was needed. Solution is downright silly. Therefore, I hereby propose an initiative to rename ships so that they can be easily identified by dummies: Rapier -> Rapier Longtooth Lachesis -> Lachesis Shadoweaver Apocaypse Navy Issue -> Apocalypse Navy Issue Goldenrod Moros Interbus Edition -> Moros Interbus Edition Killerbee ... etc. Yes, please make it happen. This will help new players for sure. It'll knock the confusion off those players having difficulties differentiating the different ships. Guaranteed. Trust me.
Edward Olmops DUST Expeditionary Team 234	Posted - 2014.12.24 10:28:25 - [100] - 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. Except that it breaks killboards all the time...

Edward Olmops DUST Expeditionary Team 234	Posted - 2014.12.24 10:42:01 - [101] - Quote Also, out of curiosity... while we are on the topic: I noticed 3 or 4 years ago (much to my surprise) the the the drawbacks of Reinforced bulkheads were affected by stacking penalties at that time. The use case was that I fitted a very odd bait Armageddon with 7 or 8 Reinforced Bulkheads (to give someone the impression of having ALMOST killed a battleship while it actually had >100k EHP on structure. Also, real l33t pilots love hull tanking). 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?
War Kitten Panda McLegion 5675	Posted - 2014.12.24 11:28:49 - [102] - Quote It sure would've been nice if you'd included the previous values next to the new values for all the modules for ease of comparison. I'm not going to bother looking up every single module - so no feedback on your values... I'll just assume they're all broken and be bittervet about it. :) Keeping the flavor of the names was a good move though, well done. I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
Mixu Paatelainen Eve Refinery 200	Posted - 2014.12.24 12:40:23 - [103] - Quote I'm a bit confused. I think you might be too. From an outside perspective it appears to me that you haven't begun this process by asking some pretty fundamental questions. 1. How do most players search for modules? 2. Does your tiericide plan help, or hinder the answer to question 1? For all the justified criticism of the choice of adjectives in this and previous exercises (why is the most useful cheap 1m microwarpdrive'Limited'?), I think you've mistakenly opted to address lore complaints and not crappy name complaints. I like lore based names, but I like useful mods more. In a perfect world I'd get useful mods with sci-fi names. Would it be so hard to throw the community a bone and crowd-source names for stuff? Make a devblog with the stats for as yet unnamed mods, lay out some basic rules (easy to search for, sci-fi themed) and invite suggestions, then give a nice reward to the winner. Maybe a plex and a line in the mod description acknowledging them.
McChicken Combo HalfMayo The Happy Meal 165	Posted - 2014.12.24 13:07:57 - [104] - Quote What happened to the meaningful choices we were promised? The nuking of the meta class is rather unsatisfying. There are some cases where this is understandable, like capacitor rechargers, but there isn't much excuse for other modules. The Power Diagnostic unit has how many stats, and there's ONE meta module? I think the logic with these changes is all off. My recommendation is as follows: - The Meta 0 module has base stats - The Meta 1-4 modules each have one stat that is above the base stat, with the rest of the stats below the base stats. - The T2 module has an all around increase to base stats, but still less than the specialized stat of a given Meta 1-4 module - Storyline and faction modules each have one stat that is above the comparable specialized Meta 1-4 stat, with the rest of the stats the same as the T2. There can be some variation on this, particularly when it comes to modules with reduced fitting stats, but generally I would like to see this as the theme. And bring back my Local Hull Conversion. ~ Bookmarks in overview ~ Fleet improvements

CCP Terminus C C P C C P Alliance 99	Posted - 2014.12.24 15:46:00 - [105] - Quote Lara Divinity wrote: Terminator 2 wrote: Well i would expect another round of Mining Barges tank buff is needed when you expect players to fit Ingenii MLUs? Or is this just a planned buff for the ganker income? Any mining barge - including skiffs - that uses a fitting worth more than 300m isk is a sitting duck waiting to explode by gank action. So you expect us to fit 400m isk Ingenii MLUs? 3 of them? for 1.2b isk? On ships you can't tank up enough to survive in highsec? 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 ? T1 and T2 MLU's stats have not changed at all. The reasoning behind increasing the power of the Storyline modules ('Carpo', 'Aoede', 'Anguis', 'Ingenii') was to make them a more attractive option to players who do have the capital to purchase one. They've also been given different roles, the 'Carpo and 'Anguis' modules are there for players who want to save CPU, while the 'Aoede' and 'Ingenii' modules offer a raw bonus to mining amount. All four of these modules provide that bonus at the cost of being very expensive modules. 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.


CCP Terminus C C P C C P Alliance 99	Posted - 2014.12.24 15:51:51 - [106] - Quote Edward Olmops wrote: 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.

TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 957	Posted - 2014.12.24 18:25:31 - [107] - Quote aren't those high-end cap rechargers due for a nerf? it's a bit silly how they're better than cap relays by a mile, when they should probably be worse. **** makes no sense.
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE 830	Posted - 2014.12.24 18:32:35 - [108] - Quote CCP Terminus wrote: Edward Olmops wrote: 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. it doesn't say anything about stacking penalties on the module. quick test in game shows the bonus is not stacking penalized, and the drawback does appear to be stacking penalized. which sounds the same as most other modules that involve drawbacks. what I am still curious about is the modules where meta levels somewhat matter (damage controls, webs, and scrams off the top of my head). Although even there it is a very strong meta 3/4/5 battle. and modules where having multiple branches in the same meta level is interesting (think guns). the changes so far seem to be destroying any choice in that regard. tech 1 remains completely uninteresting, the meta options are rather unattractive, and t2 is pretty much awesome. From what I've seen so far fitting meta is just a last resort save on cpu/pg option. and quite frankly that's poopy. 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
Haplo Bartow School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 0	Posted - 2014.12.24 18:53:36 - [109] - Quote 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?
Mr Grape Drink Build A Bear Workshop The Amish Mafia 13	Posted - 2014.12.24 20:01:36 - [110] - Quote Im seeing the ORE Miner as all around better than the T2. Should have higher fitting or activation. Or maybe this was incentive for people to put 400-500 mil worth of lasers on their ventures? :D

Mr Grape Drink Build A Bear Workshop The Amish Mafia 13	Posted - 2014.12.24 20:12:36 - [111] - Quote Haplo Bartow wrote: 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
Haplo Bartow School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 0	Posted - 2014.12.24 20:14:55 - [112] - Quote Mr Grape Drink wrote: Haplo Bartow wrote: 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 Ah, I see. Thanks
Mara Rinn Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium 5662	Posted - 2014.12.24 21:07:08 - [113] - Quote Sizeof Void wrote: Mara Rinn wrote: And further, with regards to officer modules especially, would it be possible to combine officer names with adjectives, so that rather than "Estamels ModifiedGÇª" we'd have "Estamel's EnduringGÇª" 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. And, here I thought the point of "tiericide" was to get rid of tiers, not create more of them... ;) Yarp. Three or four tiers is better than 12 tiers of "good, better, best" IMHO. Day 0 Advice for New Players
NorthCrossroad EVE University Ivy League 90	Posted - 2014.12.24 21:40:03 - [114] - Quote Pretty good overall, but faction Overdrive Injectors really require a bit more juice. Reduced penalty won't really help make them useful. Give them a slight speed boost - like 12.75 or even 13%. That will make them useful for those who are ready to pay more for each m/s. North
Quintessen Messengers of Judah Socius Inter Nos 471	Posted - 2014.12.24 23:52:32 - [115] - Quote I was really a fan of the simpler names from Tier-icide, Part 1. If you want better lore, create better lore. But Type-D doesn't really tell me anything -- it's just familiar. And that familiarity will have less and less meaning. I do agree with many other posters about 'Basic' being a bad name. How about 'Simple', 'Simplified', or 'Streamlined' to indicate that they are less complex components with less pros and less cons. How about instead of a meaningless descriptor you add lore/description tab to modules that describes the module's purpose in lore, the inventor corporation or some other piece of content that really does place the class of module in context. A single person updating them at the same time the modules are going through tiericide should be manageable. It shouldn't require a team of writers to do it. Also, please be very clear on delineating 'Basic' and Restrained modules. Please don't make them a mess of reduced drawbacks, skills, fitting. Please make sure they are consistent otherwise the false information will make the current situation even worse.
Milla Goodpussy Federal Navy Academy 133	Posted - 2014.12.25 00:57:59 - [116] - Quote 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******
Lara Divinity Black Scorpion Nomads 31	Posted - 2014.12.25 03:34:08 - [117] - Quote Haplo Bartow wrote: 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 bump has been made into 400million isk Mlu's but as ccp told me its the miners choice to invest in that or in more tank o.O basicly the same as sayin who cares really ur just a miner u want more yield fit 3 400mill mlu's on ur already expensive exhumer then u get that 1% extra. awesome change aint it if u read back on the thread u would have seen my posts about it to its just another nerf imo under the disguise of we renaming modules to make things easyer
Masao Kurata Z List 182	Posted - 2014.12.25 03:36:51 - [118] - Quote CCP Terminus wrote: 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. FWIW as a ganker I consider it a buff to gankers but it's the miner's own silly fault if he uses these without taking precautions . This is getting a bit ahead of ourselves, but would you consider giving the ORE strip miners and ice harvesters a yield buff to at least equal T2 strip miners with crystals? Despite the immense expense a lot of miners use them briefly then realise that their primary stat is worse than T2 (and I'm sure many more realise this before buying them).
Lara Divinity Black Scorpion Nomads 31	Posted - 2014.12.25 03:41:40 - [119] - Quote Milla Goodpussy wrote: 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****** i hear Elite Dangerous is ready to play and Looks Awesome, might try that one out to prolly has better content at this point since its new and has to compete with older games like umm...Eve Online
Sizeof Void Ninja Suicide Squadron 555	Posted - 2014.12.25 05:29:41 - [120] - Quote I took a second look at the devblog tonight, and I think that adding new faction modules, which are better in every way over T2, is the wrong way to go, esp. for modules which can be purchased from LP stores. Officer modules, which drop rarely and from high-risk sites, are ok. They have very little impact on game balance due to their scarcity. Faction modules, which can be acquired in quantity via LP, however, imbalance the game too much in favor of those with larger wallets (ie. a gold ammo problem). They also contribute to another serious imbalance in the game, which is LP farming. All of which, you might not care much about, but the fact that the faction modules are OP compared to T2 versions means that you are adding power creep, which will affect the overall ship balance, as well. Keep in mind that the ship rebalancing was done with respect to T2 fits - not to faction fits. Easily obtainable faction modules should have some advantage over T2, but they also need to have drawbacks, as well. And, not merely cost - expensive is not much of a barrier (although prohibitively expensive, ex 1B ISK per module, would probably be ok).

Sizeof Void Ninja Suicide Squadron 555	Posted - 2014.12.25 06:28:05 - [121] - Quote One other thing: when I look at the relative difference in numbers between the T1, meta, T2, and faction versions, I get the feeling that these numbers are always being adjusted as if each module operated completely independent of any other module, or rig, on a ship, and without regards for skill bonuses. Essentially, I feel that the differences in the numbers are too large, when aggregated on a ship fit, and when skill bonuses are taken into account (ie. difference between players with level 4 skills and level 5 skills). Small percentages multiply into large amounts very quickly. And, I'm always concerned when the overall combat stat difference between a T2/faction-fit ship vs. a T1/meta-fit ship is too great. Esp. since the former is likely to be flown by a high-SP older player, with a larger wallet, and the latter is likely to be flown by a low-SP younger player, with a smaller wallet. If the aggregated combat stat difference for two ship/pilot combinations is 5-10% (20% at most), ok - the older, richer player has a reasonable, but not overwhelming, advantage over the younger, poorer player. But, when the difference exceeds 100%, this is ridiculous - it becomes a "gold ammo" problem and a "level 1 vs level 100" problem. This sort of thing tends to discourage new players, particularly those who are interested in solo and small gang PvP. Module tiericide should look at reducing the differences between the numbers, of different versions of a module - and certainly not increasing the low-to-high range. And, the differences should probably all be in tenths of a percent, not full percent values - ie. 0.1% between a T1 and meta module, and maybe 0.5% difference between a T1 and T2 module. Note: i'm a (very) high-SP older player, with a (very) fat wallet, so I'm arguing on behalf of a more level playing field for the benefit of new players.
Malou Hashur Ministry of War Amarr Empire 55	Posted - 2014.12.25 08:11:13 - [122] - Quote All of this really makes no difference...... Instead, you could use the time you are wasting on this to actually FINISH something. 6 months ago you promised to provide separate sliders for tooltips.........still waiting finish the new UI, there are numerous issues outstanding which, going by the total silence of devs on the subject, are going to be left as they are For the love of God, actually COMPLETE something for a change before moving on to break something else. CCP Philosophy -->> If it works, break it. If itGÇÖs broken, leave it and break something else.
Cledus Snowman Snow Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 5	Posted - 2014.12.25 11:29:09 - [123] - Quote edited for clarity "#1 - 2014-12-23 14:42:19 UTC \| 4 In the needless battle for the Biennial name changes in EVE Online, the farce continues in the direction of module in-balance. In round two, CCP Terminus and the rest of the module taskfarce sink their teeth into Harvesting Equipment, Hull Upgrades, Propulsion Upgrades and Engineering Equipment. To see all the upcoming nerfs, read this new dev blog." How about fixing what was ignored form the first pass? " Call it whatever you want this year and change it two years from now Again. How bout the CCP balancing specialists take the time to even try to make some of these mods better for the users in this game? If your mining laser, strip mining laser, modulated deep core mining laser, ore hold, cargo hold, station hanger, fleet hanger, cans, POS, SILOS, and every thing in the ENTIRE GAME reads in m3 why would the Ore Scanner read in Units of Ore? And not m3 amount? Just how hard would it be to make it read both? Or just m3? "
Alex PROTOSS The First Foundation SOLAR FLEET 5	Posted - 2014.12.25 13:04:14 - [124] - Quote CCP Terminus, fix meta PDS and Capacitor Power Relays. With this update, you kill flexibility in Scythe fitting. It was used meta CPR and PDS because of CPU lack.
Fearghus Mikakka Quill Spirit Inc. Rebel Alliance of New Eden 0	Posted - 2014.12.25 15:02:10 - [125] - Quote CCP Logibro wrote: In the endless battle for balance in EVE Online, the march continues in the direction of module rebalance. In round two, CCP Terminus and the rest of the module taskforce sink their teeth into Harvesting Equipment, Hull Upgrades, Propulsion Upgrades and Engineering Equipment. To see all the upcoming changes, read this new dev blog. Question are Strip Miner I and II being removed or changed? i don't see them talked about in the post?

CCP Terminus C C P C C P Alliance 116	Posted - 2014.12.25 17:52:22 - [126] - Quote Fearghus Mikakka wrote: Question are Strip Miner I and II being removed or changed? i don't see them talked about in the post? Any mining laser (deep cores, etc.) or strip miner not mentioned in the blog post went untouched. We may revisit Strip Miners at a later date.

Conventia Underking Noir. Suddenly Spaceships. 149	Posted - 2014.12.25 19:44:52 - [127] - Quote For the record, I prefer the names without flavor text. I'm not sure if my view is the minority or majority, but I didn't feel the need to comment before. I suppose it doesn't matter that much though. For God; Salvation is Imperative, but not at the cost of our Humanity! The Vitoc Problem - Conventia Underking
beakerax Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 39	Posted - 2014.12.25 21:58:16 - [128] - Quote Thank you for the naming compromise. This is a good change. To commemorate this devblog, Is there any chance CCP itself could be renamed to We Agree We May Have Gone Too Far Productions?
Fabada Asturiana23 poder perruno 0	Posted - 2014.12.25 23:20:32 - [129] - Quote Like hull tanker lover i think that the new "balance" bullkheads will be the end of this kind of tank sistem. I deisagre whith the new penalities, cpu ....etc, and why not meta 4 modules ? Like gallente i think that the new balance is unbalance. its a pain cause when i drive a hull tanked ship in a fight,the excitament is superior its a true combat, kill or die, no alternatives. Thanks ccp........ (its pure irony)
Alex PROTOSS The First Foundation SOLAR FLEET 5	Posted - 2014.12.25 23:31:51 - [130] - Quote CCP Terminus, say, why fraction stasis webifiers are all the different, and new, CPR, CR - are just big list of same modules? Why only 3 types for 4 fraction PDS modules? (Thukker and ammatar are to relic so they can go to officer class)

Sh'iriin DEFCON. The Initiative. 5	Posted - 2014.12.26 02:43:15 - [131] - Quote Dev I : next patch is close and we haven't finished more than 20% of the content.... Dev II: we could reduce the announcements of stuff we have no time to really fix, tune the release cycle and stop to change things that didn't need any change! Producer: you are fired Dev I: we still only have 1mb of new fluffy textures and some minor ship changes? Producer: just inflate what you have into a "release" Dev I: we could take a change we made recently, change it again and back and .... Dev III: and we could rename a shitload of modules, change numbers slightly and.... Producer: you guys actually propose to make modules even less easy to understand for new players and less easy to manage for old vets by complicating names and stuff - instead of deleting 30% useless modules and make the rest really different from each other? Dev I: uhm...ahhhh....yes? Dev III: we could post something about lore and diversity and even add some new modules? Producer: BRILLIANT - you are promoted! whats next? 16 new ammo items with 'lore' names and +/- 1 more/less falloff then the current ones? hyper 'basic' muffin antimatter shells incoming?
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE 840	Posted - 2014.12.26 05:54:11 - [132] - Quote Sizeof Void wrote: One other thing: when I look at the relative difference in numbers between the T1, meta, T2, and faction versions, I get the feeling that these numbers are always being adjusted as if each module operated completely independent of any other module, or rig, on a ship, and without regards for skill bonuses. Essentially, I feel that the differences in the numbers are too large, when aggregated on a ship fit, and when skill bonuses are taken into account (ie. difference between players with level 4 skills and level 5 skills). Small percentages multiply into large amounts very quickly. And, I'm always concerned when the overall combat stat difference between a T2/faction-fit ship vs. a T1/meta-fit ship is too great. Esp. since the former is likely to be flown by a high-SP older player, with a larger wallet, and the latter is likely to be flown by a low-SP younger player, with a smaller wallet. If the aggregated combat stat difference for two ship/pilot combinations is 5-10% (20% at most), ok - the older, richer player has a reasonable, but not overwhelming, advantage over the younger, poorer player. But, when the difference exceeds 100%, this is ridiculous - it becomes a "gold ammo" problem and a "level 1 vs level 100" problem. This sort of thing tends to discourage new players, particularly those who are interested in solo and small gang PvP. Module tiericide should look at reducing the differences between the numbers, of different versions of a module - and certainly not increasing the low-to-high range. And, the differences should probably all be in tenths of a percent, not full percent values - ie. 0.1% between a T1 and meta module, and maybe 0.5% difference between a T1 and T2 module. Note: i'm a (very) high-SP older player, with a (very) fat wallet, so I'm arguing on behalf of a more level playing field for the benefit of new players. I kinda feel like that is how it is now, for a cheap fit it is mostly meta 3 fittings, where the vet can fit t2 stuff and the expensive meta 4 mods. I don't think the difference is quite that bad though. that said with the way this is going the t1 and meta versions could be a bit stronger. 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
Madbuster73 C.Q.B Snuffed Out 136	Posted - 2014.12.26 14:52:16 - [133] - Quote Really CCP??? You are now going back from your decision of making things EASIER to giving items complicated names again??? I really liked the short easy names for modules. Now its back to the same way it was because some people cant adapt?? Dont bent for every whiner on the forum that is stuck in the past. EvE should be moving forwards and not backwards. -1 from me for going back to the old names.
Oraac Ensor 595	Posted - 2014.12.26 15:22:04 - [134] - Quote CCP Terminus wrote: 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. Not quite true, as mentioned by at least one previous poster, but probably accurate in most cases. So why are you victimising many players who have opted for maximum Capacity Bonus? 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.
Oovarvu Cloister's Fuchal Vae. Victis. 4	Posted - 2014.12.26 16:14:05 - [135] - Quote whilst not against the rebalancing of mods i am saddened somewhat by the loss of some of the quirkier side of this great game. and i must say that when damage controls get 'balanced' i for one will badly miss the meta 4 variant and the fits it allows, it will be a real shame to lose that mod.
JanSVK Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 4	Posted - 2014.12.26 19:50:59 - [136] - Quote The changes look good. I would like to ask and point out: Caldari Navy Power Diagnostic System, Thukker Power Diagnostic System, .... Ammatar Navy Capacitor Power Relay Dark Blood Capacitor Power Relay, ... Ammatar Navy Cap Recharger, Dark Blood Cap Recharger,... These modules have identical attributes. I would suggest to colapse them into a single module to reduce duplicity.
Somatic Neuron Masterwork Productions Inc 55	Posted - 2014.12.26 20:00:58 - [137] - Quote CCP Terminus wrote: 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 module (consolidated meta 1-4) 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. If you know the Expanded Cargohold modules are "broken", and yet still do nothing about it, then what is the point of making any changes? It would be a far more intelligent decision to keep the cargo bonus similar, but give them different abilities that are actually useful...to give us choices in what we use. 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. Example: Expanded CargoHold I - Cargo Capacity Bonus: 17.50%, Inertia Modifier: +5% 'Basic' Expanded CargoHold - Cargo Capacity Bonus: 20.00%, Inertia Modifier: +8% Type-D Restrained Expanded Cargo - Cargo Capacity Bonus: 22.50%, Inertia Modifier: +10% Limited Expanded 'Archiver' Cargo I - Cargo Capacity Bonus: 25.00%, Inertia Modifier: +13% Expanded CargoHold II - Cargo Capacity Bonus: 27.50%, Inertia Modifier: +15% ORE Expanded CargoHold - Cargo Capacity Bonus: 30.00%, Inertia Modifier: +18% I'm not sure that this is balanced, but it gives you an idea at what I am suggesting. Basically, penalties should make up for the bonuses, and make us decide for ourselves where our happy point is in relation to Penalty/Reward. Structure and Velocity penalties are meaningless to 99.9% of people using cargoholds anyway....if we get attacked, we die...a few % of structure isn't going to make enough of a difference, normally, to allow you to survive....and your velocity isn't going to make the difference in very many instances either....however, affecting how quickly we can get to warp...that's HUGE....
Tipa Riot Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 77	Posted - 2014.12.26 22:28:25 - [138] - 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.
McChicken Combo HalfMayo The Happy Meal 171	Posted - 2014.12.26 23:28:49 - [139] - Quote CCP Terminus wrote: Nakaara Adahsa wrote: 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. 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 module (consolidated meta 1-4) 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. This is just not correct, sorry. Few will use anything but T2 Cargoholds or above, unless it's a matter of skill requirements. 275,000 ISK isn't going to matter. This rebalance has not provided more choices. I also don't think players only look at "ISK" and "cargo" when deciding to buy these modules. Where are you getting this data from? I never saw such a survey handed out to players . The past (and current) balance of the modules has "cargo" as the only determining factor. In reality players do care about the structure hitpoint bonus but the modules were never balanced properly for it to matter. 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. Maybe it's not perfect but these are real choices. This rebalance is just homogenizing the game further. ~ Bookmarks in overview ~ Fleet improvements
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1836	Posted - 2014.12.27 01:58:12 - [140] - Quote While cargo expanders are in the spotlight could they be given a stacking penalty? This would allow for a larger variety of fits and higher base figures on industrials rather than basically requiring them to fit extenders to carry a single cruiser.

Oraac Ensor 595	Posted - 2014.12.27 02:04:01 - [141] - Quote Somatic Neuron wrote: Velocity and Structure HitPoints aren't ever looked at by people buying/fitting Cargoholds anyway. Wrong. If you had bothered to read this thread before posting you would know that this is incorrect. Somatic Neuron wrote: Structure and Velocity penalties are meaningless to 99.9% of people using cargoholds anyway.... Please supply details of the player survey that shows this. Somatic Neuron wrote: if we get attacked, we die...a few % of structure isn't going to make enough of a difference, normally, to allow you to survive.... A few %??? 20% is not "a few" - and even that, from one module, could be the difference between death and survival. Never escaped with less than 20% structure? I certainly have. Slap on 5 of those and you lose about Gàö of your structure, which is not "a few %" by any stretch of the imagination. McChicken Combo HalfMayo wrote: Few will use anything but T2 Cargoholds or above, unless it's a matter of skill requirements. 275,000 ISK isn't going to matter. This rebalance has not provided more choices. I also don't think players only look at "ISK" and "cargo" when deciding to buy these modules. Where are you getting this data from? I never saw such a survey handed out to players. If you have never seen a player survey on the subject there is no way you can assert that "Few will use anything but T2 Cargoholds or above, unless it's a matter of skill requirements." I am always amazed at the number of posters on these forums who think that their opinion/playstyle must automatically represent all but an insignificant minority.

CCP Terminus C C P C C P Alliance 117	Posted - 2014.12.27 02:30:26 - [142] - Quote 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.


CCP Terminus C C P C C P Alliance 117	Posted - 2014.12.27 02:44:37 - [143] - Quote 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.

Oraac Ensor 595	Posted - 2014.12.27 03:39:02 - [144] - 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 make it more than an option - the differences (1% on each penalty) are tiny.
Somatic Neuron Masterwork Productions Inc 55	Posted - 2014.12.27 07:18:19 - [145] - Quote Oraac Ensor wrote: I am always amazed at the number of posters on these forums who think that their opinion/playstyle must automatically represent all but an insignificant minority. Odd statement considering you imply that your opinion is superior to anyone that disagrees with you. My "opinions" are based on a significant amount of playtime since the game was released (I've been playing since 2003 on the majority of my characters), with a vast majority of it being nullsec/wormhole logistics, before Jump Freighters, Jump Bridges and all that nonsense...when the ONLY thing that saved you from getting ganked was the fleet you brought with you and/or long scout chain....and even then it wasn't a guarantee. I can tell you with certainty that none of the logistics folks that I worked with EVER looked at max velocity or structure points when they fit their haulers. We always, ALWAYS, fit out with max cargo capacity in mind, regardless of cost. Time to warp would be a significant consideration, however, as that is the sole determining factor if you can get away from the gate in time. You would then have to take risk vs reward into consideration when fitting for a particular role. And I said "normally" a few % doesn't matter, because in my line of work, if they lock onto you, you are dead regardless.
McChicken Combo HalfMayo The Happy Meal 171	Posted - 2014.12.27 07:42:00 - [146] - 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. Perhaps have all the attributes for each module but at differing rates, so based on the way you fit your ship a different module is preferred. So meta a-c in my examples would each have two drawbacks stronger than meta 0 but one drawback weaker. T2 would have weaker drawbacks than Meta 0 but still more in each category than the specialized drawback of a given meta a-c module. If I'm using Gallente haulers or haulers with few tanking modules, I'd want less structure HP drawback. If I'm looking to crash a gate to escape a camp I'd want less velocity drawback. If I'm hoping to use align time to escape (via quick warp or cloak-MWD maneuver) I'd want less intertial modifier drawback. ~ Bookmarks in overview ~ Fleet improvements
Tipa Riot Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 77	Posted - 2014.12.27 09:00:40 - [147] - 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.
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 1681	Posted - 2014.12.27 11:20:02 - [148] - 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. You have surely seen this list? https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=306344 Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
Dynamiittiukko Fistful of Finns Triumvirate. 39	Posted - 2014.12.27 13:41:30 - [149] - Quote I'm curious: why use different naming methods for some of the modules within a single group? Example: Inertia Stabilizer I Type-D Restrained Inertial Stabilizer Why the extra "L" in the meta module's name? Why not just name all of them in one way or the other? .d
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn Department 10 211	Posted - 2014.12.27 15:06:53 - [150] - Quote 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. " 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. ' .


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.


CCP Terminus C C P C C P Alliance 132	Posted - 2015.01.07 13:45:59 - [181] - 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? ... 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. For the T2 mods which are worse than the Meta 4 modules, which are you referring to? I looked over the old and new stats and found only two cases where the Meta 4 module was better than the T2, and this was in Inertial Stabilizers and Capacitor Power Relays. In the IS instance, the difference was a 3% less signature radius penalty on the meta 4 variant, which doesn't affect fitting but is a slight nerf. In the CPR instance, the new Mark I Compact Capacitor Power Relay is easier to fit than the old Meta 4 module and has nearly the same stats as the old Meta 4 module with the same Shield Boost penalty and 2% less Capacitor Recharge Rate bonus. If there are other instances I've missed please let me know. For the new faction modules, we felt there was an opportunity to add some interesting high-end modules to some module types which had no faction variation previously. Even with these new additions most module types are seeing a 33%-50% reduction in the number of modules of that type. The ore scanner issue is not related to the dev blog or the tiericide project at all, but for the record I also think it's odd. I have no idea why it was done that way originally, and hopefully one day we'll get around to looking at them. Until then, you can do some simple math, or wait one cycle and see roughly what number of ore has been removed from the rock in question.

Grookshank Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 42	Posted - 2015.01.07 14:49:39 - [182] - Quote CCP Terminus wrote: 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? ... 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. For the T2 mods which are worse than the Meta 4 modules, which are you referring to? I looked over the old and new stats and found only two cases where the Meta 4 module was better than the T2, and this was in Inertial Stabilizers and Capacitor Power Relays. In the IS instance, the difference was a 3% less signature radius penalty on the meta 4 variant, which doesn't affect fitting but is a slight nerf. In the CPR instance, the new Mark I Compact Capacitor Power Relay is easier to fit than the old Meta 4 module and has nearly the same stats as the old Meta 4 module with the same Shield Boost penalty and 2% less Capacitor Recharge Rate bonus. If there are other instances I've missed please let me know. For the new faction modules, we felt there was an opportunity to add some interesting high-end modules to some module types which had no faction variation previously. Even with these new additions most module types are seeing a 33%-50% reduction in the number of modules of that type. The ore scanner issue is not related to the dev blog or the tiericide project at all, but for the record I also think it's odd. I have no idea why it was done that way originally, and hopefully one day we'll get around to looking at them. Until then, you can do some simple math, or wait one cycle and see roughly what number of ore has been removed from the rock in question. I have a slightly different example of a slight nerf to a T2 module: New: Nanofiber Internal Structure II -15.75 Inertia Old: Nanofiber Internal Structure II -15.8 Inertia
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 454	Posted - 2015.01.07 15:41:49 - [183] - Quote You're getting a slight speed boost in trade though. You're not going to notice an agility difference that small. Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
Tipa Riot Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 89	Posted - 2015.01.07 19:23:36 - [184] - Quote CCP Terminus wrote: 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 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.
Alex PROTOSS The First Foundation SOLAR FLEET 5	Posted - 2015.01.07 23:39:31 - [185] - Quote And no variation in fraction CR, CPR, PDS?
Cledus Snowman Snow Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 6	Posted - 2015.01.08 09:35:47 - [186] - Quote CCP Terminus wrote "For the T2 mods which are worse than the Meta 4 modules, which are you referring to? I looked over the old and new stats and found only two cases where the Meta 4 module was better than the T2, and this was in Inertial Stabilizers and Capacitor Power Relays. In the IS instance, the difference was a 3% less signature radius penalty on the meta 4 variant, which doesn't affect fitting but is a slight nerf. In the CPR instance, the new Mark I Compact Capacitor Power Relay is easier to fit than the old Meta 4 module and has nearly the same stats as the old Meta 4 module with the same Shield Boost penalty and 2% less Capacitor Recharge Rate bonus. If there are other instances I've missed please let me know. For the new faction modules, we felt there was an opportunity to add some interesting high-end modules to some module types which had no faction variation previously. Even with these new additions most module types are seeing a 33%-50% reduction in the number of modules of that type. The ore scanner issue is not related to the dev blog or the tiericide project at all, but for the record I also think it's odd. I have no idea why it was done that way originally, and hopefully one day we'll get around to looking at them. Until then, you can do some simple math, or wait one cycle and see roughly what number of ore has been removed from the rock in question." Thank you for responding. This means more than you can know. On tight fits the difference tween the T2 Capacitor Power Relay with the same Capacitor Recharge Rate as the Meta4 at 6 more TF. That is is a lot of CPU for a frig. And a larger ship is going to HAVE to change the fit all around for the sake of that much difference. The 2% less Capacitor Recharge Rate bonus is the same as stepping up from T2 to Faction it makes all the difference! It is a fitting nerff plan and simple. Reduced performance. The margins are Tight and to say it's ok you don't need that 2%, well, it feels like a slap in the face. These are not re-changes to some thing you guys put in last year or even 5 years ago these mods and performances have been in the game sense 2002! "The ore scanner issue is not related to the dev blog or the tiericide project at all" http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/rebalancing-eve-one-module-at-a-time What Modules Are We Starting With? In Oceanus, we are starting the Module Tiericide project by applying the process to eight groups of modules. All of these modules represent fairly simple sets of changes as they do not have very many potential variations. They will serve as the launching point as we start the process of applying Tiericide to every module group in EVE. The module groups being changed in Oceanus are: Co-Processors Reactor Control Units Micro Auxiliary Power Cores Light Missile Launchers Capacitor Flux Coils Cargo Scanners Ship Scanners " Survey Scanners" If it can not get fixed in the first pass it never will, cause 'mining mod'. So who cares right. How bout the 2nd pass take a look? the Ship scanner gives the exact fit and even reads said ship's Capacitor! No calculator needed. And miners can not even get a Survey Scanner that reads in a useful amount. You have to have a cheat sheet of the 16 ores, gas, and ice. Also have the dang calculator open and figure out the amounts. The cargo scanner don't need this or the Ship scanner, but they are pvp related so... go figure.
Cledus Snowman Snow Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 6	Posted - 2015.01.08 10:12:06 - [187] - Quote http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/rebalancing-eve-one-module-at-a-time " Module Tiericide With Module Tiericide, we are taking our aim at another set of tiers that can stifle choice: meta levels. Our solution to this problem is to replace the meta-based named module system with a new role-based system. Each named module in a class will have roughly equivalent power level, and that power level will be above T1. Each named module will also have a specialization that gives a player interested in shopping for named modules a viable and interesting choice. As part of this system, we may consolidate a number of named modules together since we may not need four variations to represent all the areas of interesting player choice. To make it clear that meta levels will no longer represent power differences within the named modules, we will be changing all the named modules to have a meta level of 1." This image gives a basic overview of how the meta level attribute is used now and how it will be used after Module Tiericide is complete: http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/66535/1/MetaLevels.jpg This is all pretty clear that ALL meta 4 mods and lower are getting the AXE. This is just the first set of mod groups that has a few Better than T2 meta4s in it and yup CCP is not transferring the the superior stats to the T2 as is the case. This "it's only 2% here and 6 CPU there so whats it matter?" Those are the huge amounts in fitting these ships and having to use faction or higher for the same fit is just plane bunk. And it is not just the 2 mods this round, the plan is all metas 1 to 4 are going away 10 at a time. Sure the lower ones are getting replaced with low lvl mods sure. But all of the Meta 4s are going away forever. Some are just better than the same type of T2 mod. Yes you and who ever answers for round 3 and 4 are going to do what ever it is you plan on doing. But I ask again why not have the Better stats go to the T2 mods in those cases? Let us keep the same fits we have been using.

CCP Terminus C C P C C P Alliance 134	Posted - 2015.01.08 15:59:55 - [188] - Quote Just to clarify on the Survey Scanner issue. The reason I stated it was not part of the Module Tiericide, is that, as previously mentioned the Module Tiericide project has so far been a designer only effort. In order to change Survey Scanners to read volume instead of ore count requires at least some coding, which means it falls outside of the Module Tiericide project. Not to say it won't get done, but it won't be done by the tiericide group.

Aroye Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 10	Posted - 2015.01.08 18:10:33 - [189] - Quote [quote=CCP Terminus]Reserved for clarifications Expanded Cargohold II GÇô Structure Hitpoint penalty increased from 20% to -23%,[u] Velocity modifier increased from -10% to -18% -18% ?? Isn't that just too slow? A few cargo expanders and the ship will hardly move at all.
Aebe Amraen Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 119	Posted - 2015.01.08 20:43:10 - [190] - Quote Aroye wrote: With these cargo expander changes it will be easier to make one shot kills when target haulers fall short when landing on gates and stations. That extra 500m would just take too long to cover! Was that considered? You never fall short on gates. It's literally impossible. Your ship might still burn toward the gate if it's cloaky and you didn't decloak before coming out of warp, but that's a different issue. As for stations... if you're hauling valuable cargo, use an instadock.

Cledus Snowman Snow Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 6	Posted - 2015.01.08 21:37:43 - [191] - Quote CCP Terminus wrote: Just to clarify on the Survey Scanner issue. The reason I stated it was not part of the Module Tiericide, is that, as previously mentioned the Module Tiericide project has so far been a designer only effort. In order to change Survey Scanners to read volume instead of ore count requires at least some coding, which means it falls outside of the Module Tiericide project. Not to say it won't get done, but it won't be done by the tiericide group. Once again thanks for getting back to me I was afraid this was the case. What threw me off was the way this "Module Tiericide project" was presented as the same as the "Ship Tiericide project". And that as you know made some radical changes to a bunch of ships, most likely with some coding involved. http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/rebalancing-eve-one-module-at-a-time "As CCP Ytterbium outlined in his Fanfest 2012 Balancing presentation, followed up with multiple dev blogs, the Tiericide initiative replaced those old tiers with a series of ship lines that represented distinct strengths and weaknesses for distinct roles. Each tech one ship within the same class (like GÇ£cruiserGÇ¥ or GÇ£frigateGÇ¥) post-Tiericide is intended to have roughly similar overall power, but that power can and should be expressed in a variety of forms. " Just so I understand, the Module Tiericide project, is about the following: The re-naming of most mods, or in some cases the re-re-naming. The deletion of all Meta1 to 4 with inferior replacements. The T2 mods that are not as good as the former Meta4 equivalent, are not getting buffed. Leaving us with no option but "want the same fit you have to use Faction or better". I feel I have come to see the light here. Now all the comparisons to the "Ship Tiericide project", had me fooled into thinking that this was to have a positive outcome. Most ships involved they were buffed here and there or had rolls and bonuses changed and an over all improvement of most ships was the result. Good options were added not taken away. This Module Tiericide project is a diminution of fitting options of quality. Perhaps 1/3rd of the T2 mods have a superior meta4 mod of the same type. CCP you are deleting the meta4s with out buffing those T2s that were inferior, this is one of the more wide spread Nerfs to have ever happened to this game. You do understand that tricking out a T1 ship in 2 or 3 Faction mods to keep the same Performance of Fit is not cost effective with Risk vs Reward? For just one Faction mod in some cases is a dozen times or more, the expense of a T1 ship. I am not saying 'omg this will end EVE' no it probably wont. And if you only do groups of 10 at a time you are making it less painful and obvious what you are up to. And keeping players from freaking out till you get to the mods 'they care about'. Perhaps I am just too old a vet to understand your CCP wisdom.
Thales School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.01.09 00:14:23 - [192] - Quote Cledus Snowman Snow wrote: CCP Terminus wrote: Just to clarify on the Survey Scanner issue. The reason I stated it was not part of the Module Tiericide, is that, as previously mentioned the Module Tiericide project has so far been a designer only effort. In order to change Survey Scanners to read volume instead of ore count requires at least some coding, which means it falls outside of the Module Tiericide project. Not to say it won't get done, but it won't be done by the tiericide group. Once again thanks for getting back to me I was afraid this was the case. What threw me off was the way this "Module Tiericide project" was presented as the same as the "Ship Tiericide project". And that as you know made some radical changes to a bunch of ships, most likely with some coding involved. http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/rebalancing-eve-one-module-at-a-time "As CCP Ytterbium outlined in his Fanfest 2012 Balancing presentation, followed up with multiple dev blogs, the Tiericide initiative replaced those old tiers with a series of ship lines that represented distinct strengths and weaknesses for distinct roles. Each tech one ship within the same class (like GÇ£cruiserGÇ¥ or GÇ£frigateGÇ¥) post-Tiericide is intended to have roughly similar overall power, but that power can and should be expressed in a variety of forms. " Just so I understand, the Module Tiericide project, is about the following: The re-naming of most mods, or in some cases the re-re-naming. The deletion of all Meta1 to 4 with inferior replacements. The T2 mods that are not as good as the former Meta4 equivalent, are not getting buffed. Leaving us with no option but "want the same Performance of Fit you have to use Faction or better". I feel I have come to see the light here. Now all the comparisons to the "Ship Tiericide project", had me fooled into thinking that this was to have a positive outcome. Most ships involved they were buffed here and there or had rolls and bonuses changed and an over all improvement of most ships was the result. Good options were added not taken away. This Module Tiericide project is a diminution of fitting options of quality. Perhaps 1/3rd of the T2 mods have a superior meta4 mod of the same type. CCP you are deleting the meta4s with out buffing those T2s that were inferior, this is one of the more wide spread Nerfs to have ever happened to this game. You do understand that tricking out a T1 ship in 2 or 3 Faction mods to keep the same Performance of Fit is not cost effective with Risk vs Reward? For just one Faction mod in some cases is a dozen times or more, the expense of a T1 ship. I am not saying 'omg this will end EVE' no it probably wont. And if you only do groups of 10 at a time you are making it less painful and obvious what you are up to. And keeping players from freaking out till you get to the mods 'they care about'. Perhaps I am just too old a vet to understand your CCP wisdom. Yes it is certainly a concern. One should NOT be removing meta 4 modules without considering the effect of weaker T2 modules. Whilst all players are equally affected, certain ships and roles are seriously nerfed by this action. If that is deliberate and considered, then fine, that is your choice as a game designer. Because the effect is that you are rebalancing the ships by this action, Is that also being passed to those who have spent a great deal of time getting the ships just as they want them? A great deal of time and effort and no doubt heartache, was spent by Fozzie, Rise, etc in getting them just so. Or are you accidentily rebalancing them through ommission The effects here are significant. Please consider them thoroughly, and hopefully All at CCP will work towards the same goals. Hopefully that is so, but from the outside, it seems there is a disconnect going on here.
JanSVK Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 5	Posted - 2015.01.09 12:50:29 - [193] - Quote 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?
Maennas Vaer High Flyers The Kadeshi 20	Posted - 2015.01.09 14:23:07 - [194] - Quote CCP Terminus wrote: Inertial Stabilizers Inertial Stabilizers are now consistently named Inertial Stabilizers instead of some being Inertia Stabilizers and some inertial Stabilizers. 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.

CCP Terminus C C P C C P Alliance 136	Posted - 2015.01.09 14:31:29 - [195] - Quote Maennas Vaer wrote: CCP Terminus wrote: Inertial Stabilizers Inertial Stabilizers are now consistently named Inertial Stabilizers instead of some being Inertia Stabilizers and some inertial Stabilizers. 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. We'd like to unify the Mining Laser names as well. This won't be out in time for Proteus but it's on my list. Inertial Stabilizers were fairly easy to change because they weren't referenced anywhere else, for example in missions or tutorial text. Mining Lasers are most likely a decent amount more work.


CCP Terminus C C P C C P Alliance 137	Posted - 2015.01.09 14:46:41 - [196] - Quote JanSVK wrote: 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? This was done in order to keep them in line with other T2 modules. T2 should offer the most power (in this case Cargo Capacity) but with the highest fitting and drawbacks. The velocity penalty was increased the most because it's the least relevant stat on the module. Before this change T2 Expanded Cargoholds were better in every way than the T1 and meta variants. We don't want obvious fitting options, we want player to have to think about what they're going to use depending on the situation they expect to be in. Everything should have a tradeoff, be it in fitting, raw power, ISK cost, or other variables. If Structure Hitpoints and/or Velocity are a big concern to your fit, consider using the meta 1 version of the module.

Thales School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 1	Posted - 2015.01.09 15:29:04 - [197] - Quote CCP Terminus wrote: JanSVK wrote: 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? This was done in order to keep them in line with other T2 modules. T2 should offer the most power (in this case Cargo Capacity) but with the highest fitting and drawbacks. The velocity penalty was increased the most because it's the least relevant stat on the module. Before this change T2 Expanded Cargoholds were better in every way than the T1 and meta variants. We don't want obvious fitting options, we want player to have to think about what they're going to use depending on the situation they expect to be in. Everything should have a tradeoff, be it in fitting, raw power, ISK cost, or other variables. If Structure Hitpoints and/or Velocity are a big concern to your fit, consider using the meta 1 version of the module. Whilst the concept is understandable, that is an almighty change. There is a fine point between interesting choices and overwhelmingly unpleasant effects. T2 is now an obvious choice to avoid now. And the non faction choices are equally undesireable.
Callisto Helix Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy 18	Posted - 2015.01.09 15:33:07 - [198] - Quote CCP Terminus wrote: JanSVK wrote: 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? This was done in order to keep them in line with other T2 modules. T2 should offer the most power (in this case Cargo Capacity) but with the highest fitting and drawbacks. The velocity penalty was increased the most because it's the least relevant stat on the module. Before this change T2 Expanded Cargoholds were better in every way than the T1 and meta variants. We don't want obvious fitting options, we want player to have to think about what they're going to use depending on the situation they expect to be in. Everything should have a tradeoff, be it in fitting, raw power, ISK cost, or other variables. If Structure Hitpoints and/or Velocity are a big concern to your fit, consider using the meta 1 version of the module. What about the tradeoff of T2 modules requiring significantly more skillpoints than their meta or faction counterparts? Obviously this isn't a big deal for expanded cargoholds, but things like weapons have a hefty training requirement to take advantage of T2. Furthermore, the moves you guys are making with some of the current meta 4 modules has me really scared for when you get to EWar modules. Currently Meta 4 ECM, Damps, Tracking Disruptors, ECCM, Target Painters, Webs, Scrams, and Neuts/NOSs are better than their T2 counterparts. They have the same strength, but are easier to fit, often use less cap, and don't overheat as efficiently. While I fully agree that T2 should be better at the cost of fitting and maybe even cap use, I'm terrified that you're going to nerf the meta modules rather than buff the strength on the T2 variants. There is no reason to use T2 EWar modules currently, but if meta 4 gets nerfed instead of T2 getting buffed, a lot of fits are going to get worse and/or harder to fit overnight.
Alinder Ray Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 6	Posted - 2015.01.09 15:41:12 - [199] - Quote @ CCP Fk Tard Quote:** The scan resolution of Fighter Bombers and Fighters has been reduced to ensure that pilots can not gain an advantage by rapidly scooping and relaunching them. just remove caps from the game ,this will save all the nerfs and bollocks you have implemented in the last few patches,that way you will not have to worry about your infrastructure dying every time a large fight is about to happen. @CSM twats!! you dont speak for me!
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 550	Posted - 2015.01.09 15:50:20 - [200] - Quote Alinder Ray wrote: @ CCP Fk Tard Quote:** The scan resolution of Fighter Bombers and Fighters has been reduced to ensure that pilots can not gain an advantage by rapidly scooping and relaunching them. just remove caps from the game ,this will save all the nerfs and bollocks you have implemented in the last few patches,that way you will not have to worry about your infrastructure dying every time a large fight is about to happen. @CSM twats!! you dont speak for me! you probably didn't vote either so that was already the case

Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 550	Posted - 2015.01.09 15:51:10 - [201] - Quote i love seeing all the bogey men creep out from under the forums floorboards when a nerf hits it is the roulette of blame, but the wheel conspicuously never has an entry labeled "myself"
Promiscuous Female GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 550	Posted - 2015.01.09 15:52:09 - [202] - Quote wheel spins, needle passes by Hatred of Highsec, Goon Developers, and lands on "CSM"
Oraac Ensor 598	Posted - 2015.01.09 16:27:05 - [203] - 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. If this is not implemented it will be grossly unfair to players who have bought Meta 4 modules purely on the basis of their 27.5% bonus and otherwise will have all of them downgraded to 22.5%.
Thales School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 1	Posted - 2015.01.09 16:32:33 - [204] - Quote Oraac Ensor wrote: 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. If this is not implemented it will be grossly unfair to players who have bought Meta 4 modules purely on the basis of their 27.5% bonus and otherwise will have all of them downgraded to 22.5%. I don't think that anyone however would Appreciate ANYTHING turned into these new T2 Cargo expanders that remove your structure and have such massive speed penalties. If any module deserved the "blighted" name these are them.
epicurus ataraxia Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude 1459	Posted - 2015.01.09 17:18:30 - [205] - Quote I hope that there is a realisation that players spend a great deal of time, effort, and ISK. For a percent or two of difference. It seems that absolutely massive changes to the statistics and specification of modules are being significantly underplayed. Whilst a single percent change to a ship creates threadnaughts and very upset players, changes of an order of magnitude more are being seemingly ignored when modules are discussed. What is going to be the effect if this thinking also applies to modules that affect combat more? Will it only be when they go live that players react? And will it end well? I also like the idea of valid and interesting fitting choices, but on this round, I am only seeing the opportunity to try to fit the least bad choice, they are all a bad choice. Looks like it is too late to correct this now. I hope it does not end too badly. There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
Valterra Craven 419	Posted - 2015.01.09 17:32:48 - [206] - Quote CCP Terminus wrote: We don't want obvious fitting options, we want player to have to think about what they're going to use depending on the situation they expect to be in. Everything should have a tradeoff, be it in fitting, raw power, ISK cost, or other variables. If Structure Hitpoints and/or Velocity are a big concern to your fit, consider using the meta 1 version of the module. Oh? So does that mean when you get to DPS mods like mag stabs that you are going to add penalties to them? Or do you guys just enjoy screwing over people who do indy, one of the least fun activities of the game? I love how consistently inconsistent you guys are with your "goals"
EvilweaselFinance BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation 398	Posted - 2015.01.09 17:34:46 - [207] - Quote given that meta 4 cargo expanders cost nothing, there seems to be no real reason to do any sort of change because anyone affected is out like two million isk max, and you're going to be stuck with a bad precedent when you make some other nerf or change and every wretched highseccer comes out with their begging bowl ranting that they deserve a handout everyone knows things can shift, the rest of usdeal with it
Tipa Riot Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 93	Posted - 2015.01.09 17:49:39 - [208] - 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.
Ms Grape Drink Build A Bear Workshop 5	Posted - 2015.01.09 17:53:16 - [209] - Quote I see the ORE Miner is still better or equal to the T2 version in every way. Not very consistent with your goals! All hail ORE Miner..and buy some from me please :)
JanSVK Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 6	Posted - 2015.01.09 17:59:29 - [210] - Quote CCP Terminus wrote: JanSVK wrote: 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? This was done in order to keep them in line with other T2 modules. T2 should offer the most power (in this case Cargo Capacity) but with the highest fitting and drawbacks. The velocity penalty was increased the most because it's the least relevant stat on the module. Before this change T2 Expanded Cargoholds were better in every way than the T1 and meta variants. We don't want obvious fitting options, we want player to have to think about what they're going to use depending on the situation they expect to be in. Everything should have a tradeoff, be it in fitting, raw power, ISK cost, or other variables. If Structure Hitpoints and/or Velocity are a big concern to your fit, consider using the meta 1 version of the module. My proble is the following. If this gets implemented after the patch I need to spend alot more isk on my hauler/freighter to perform the way it is now. The more expensive the fitting the higher chance of suicide ganking. Also it is well know that PVE modules are alot more expensive and more rare by choice of CCP (Limited Expanded 'Archiver' Cargo I is average around 150 mil !!!). What is the planned price for ORE expander? There is another solution. Keep t2 expanders as they are now and modify all the other modules to be in line.

Ms Grape Drink Build A Bear Workshop 5	Posted - 2015.01.09 18:07:17 - [211] - Quote JanSVK wrote: CCP Terminus wrote: JanSVK wrote: 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? This was done in order to keep them in line with other T2 modules. T2 should offer the most power (in this case Cargo Capacity) but with the highest fitting and drawbacks. The velocity penalty was increased the most because it's the least relevant stat on the module. Before this change T2 Expanded Cargoholds were better in every way than the T1 and meta variants. We don't want obvious fitting options, we want player to have to think about what they're going to use depending on the situation they expect to be in. Everything should have a tradeoff, be it in fitting, raw power, ISK cost, or other variables. If Structure Hitpoints and/or Velocity are a big concern to your fit, consider using the meta 1 version of the module. My proble is the following. If this gets implemented after the patch I need to spend alot more isk on my hauler/freighter to perform the way it is now. The more expensive the fitting the higher chance of suicide ganking. Also it is well know that PVE modules are alot more expensive and more rare by choice of CCP (Limited Expanded 'Archiver' Cargo I is average around 150 mil !!!). What is the planned price for ORE expander? There is another solution. Keep t2 expanders as they are now and modify all the other modules to be in line. The planned prices are quite high unfortunately. They are way too much LP and ISK as I've made note of in the Proteus Test Server Feedback thread. Even at an almost insanely low ISK/LP ratio, you're still looking at around 200 mil for each Cargohold. And I think 150 for the bulkheads. Not going to be worth it unfortunately. I would know, I'm one of the few people out there doing missions XD But I guess it's not a big deal as I've gotten no reply on the topic :(
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 1713	Posted - 2015.01.09 19:33:02 - [212] - Quote This doesn't look like tiericide. It looks like rebalancing. There is a difference - tiericide keeps the power bracket identical and changes what is inside. This rebalance has changed the balance of the upper option (T2). If this is carried through to PvP modules then it will affect the balance of the ships too. I'm not sure that was the goal of the original tiericide initiative. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
Dersen Lowery Drinking in Station 1421	Posted - 2015.01.09 20:04:13 - [213] - Quote Zappity wrote: This doesn't look like tiericide. It looks like rebalancing. There is a difference - tiericide keeps the power bracket identical and changes what is inside. This rebalance has changed the balance of the upper option (T2). If this is carried through to PvP modules then it will affect the balance of the ships too. I'm not sure that was the goal of the original tiericide initiative. It was a goal of the ship tiericide initiative. There are still Rifter, Drake and Hurricane pilots who are sore from that. The goal is that nothing is unambiguously better than anything else. Cost, performance, fitting, availability: pick any two. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
Cledus Snowman Snow Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 7	Posted - 2015.01.09 22:04:13 - [214] - Quote CCP Terminus wrote: JanSVK wrote: 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? This was done in order to keep them in line with other T2 modules. T2 should offer the most power (in this case Cargo Capacity) but with the highest fitting and drawbacks. The velocity penalty was increased the most because it's the least relevant stat on the module. Before this change T2 Expanded Cargoholds were better in every way than the T1 and meta variants. We don't want obvious fitting options, we want player to have to think about what they're going to use depending on the situation they expect to be in. Everything should have a tradeoff, be it in fitting, raw power, ISK cost, or other variables. If Structure Hitpoints and/or Velocity are a big concern to your fit, consider using the meta 1 version of the module. So not only is T2 not getting buffed to the better meta4 where that is the case. You are making them worse than pre-patch when they do not suck enough for you as is? You are making the T2 mods you don't like WORSE? How many ways is ccp going to to stick it to haulers? I do not understand the 'Haulers are the new Step headed red childs of EVE'? The new and future of T2 mods not only will they not be getting rolled into the better meta4 stats as is the case, we will be lucky if you don't add more negative effects? Once again T2 already has built in drawbacks (cost, higher skills, take more DAMAGE from Over Heating even the passive mods take more passive damage from rack Heat, and are hard to make cause of the MESSED UP T2 Invention and Production). Do you think by making all mods below faction suck so much we will be forced to use Faction or higher?
Sizeof Void Ninja Suicide Squadron 564	Posted - 2015.01.09 22:17:48 - [215] - Quote Just skimmed the patch notes... So, apparently no changes to the T1 BPO's, nor to the reprocessing of the metas, nor to the NPC drop rates? And, by aggregating most of the metas, in most cases, you just created a massive pool of cheap meta 1 modules? Which will be further aggravated by the fact that they drop from NPCs at meta 1 rates (ie. very frequently)? Thus, still no reason to build or use most T1 modules - meta 1's will be better, cheaper and always available. If you are not going to fix the situation with T1 modules, why don't you just remove them from the game? A second round of failure for module tiericide... :P
MBizon Osis State War Academy Caldari State 64	Posted - 2015.01.09 22:31:03 - [216] - Quote Try this Make dropped mods meta0 (former meta1-4) in the different fitting flavors Ample Scoped Restrained Enduring And make Tech1 the new meta1 with a slightly better over all stats or just a combo of 2 of the lower mods enhanced stats. That would have the advantage of making T1 manufacturing useful again once the massive inventory was worked off. Not perfect, but better And crown T2 with the same stats as now or best M4 current stats. How is this for a re-alignment? Meta 0 : is dropped mods in the different fitting flavors (Names provided by CCP) Ample Scoped Restrained Enduring Each one has an edge over the others in one stat (CPU,PG,CAP,or CYCLE TIME). Meta 1 is also Tech 1 player made. Have a combo of 2 of the lower mods enhanced stats. Meta2 is Tech2 with the same stats as now or best M4 current stats. Or all 4 of the meta 0 enhanced stats. Then Story Line/COSMOS mods take Meta 3. Faction Meta4 on up the chain no gaps and no BS, simple easy to understand. That's why this is the last direction CCP will go. Fine tuning would of course be required in some cases But for 15 min of work makes more sense that what ccp has been doing for the last year in Mod Re balance and these stupid biennial name changes. Every Mod would have some value to the fitting needs of all the players. Low skilled and High SP vets alike. Make it worth the time for new players to MAKE T1 mods and not take a loss. and the flexibility in fitting needed for tight fits. Take a look ccp. PS: When ccp changed the refine efficiency they cut the value on the market in HALF of a lot of modules. Seriously, go look at the market and see how many things dropped 50% in value over night because of that change. You need to stop pretending we are in a pre-crius EVE. Of the few mods still worth much are usually meta 4. All that will go away. All rats will drop exactly the same generic stuff, no chance of ever finding anything especially valuable or interesting. Probably most mods will be worth about 10-15K ISK. Making Tech1 meta1 with better stats over low meta dropped mods is that shot in the arm low lvl manufacturing has needed for ever. Players want to BUILD modules for a profit. Not every one wants to have to skill in to T2 lvl indi skills to make a profit. If you even can competing with T2 BPOs.
Akemon Numon Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 9	Posted - 2015.01.10 10:02:53 - [217] - Quote CCP Terminus wrote: JanSVK wrote: 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? This was done in order to keep them in line with other T2 modules. T2 should offer the most power (in this case Cargo Capacity) but with the highest fitting and drawbacks. The velocity penalty was increased the most because it's the least relevant stat on the module. Before this change T2 Expanded Cargoholds were better in every way than the T1 and meta variants. We don't want obvious fitting options, we want player to have to think about what they're going to use depending on the situation they expect to be in. Everything should have a tradeoff, be it in fitting, raw power, ISK cost, or other variables. If Structure Hitpoints and/or Velocity are a big concern to your fit, consider using the meta 1 version of the module. To get the same amount of cargohold on my freighter I now must fit 3 expanded cargoholds, which will lower structure HP by -60%. Thanks for the Low slots.... #216 - 2014-05-13 21:53:31 UTC \| 9 After some thinking over the feedback in this thread and discussion with the CSM, we've decided to switch the penalty for the hull hp rigs to cargo capacity. We are also going to swap the speed penalty on all reinforced bulkhead modules to an equal percentage cargo capacity penalty. The agility penalty will remain intact at this time." Thanks a lot CCP Fozzie Jump fatigue...thank you soo much. And now This? Will the ass **** ever stop? Ganksters you win gratz! I give up. You can't fight city hall.
epicurus ataraxia Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude 1459	Posted - 2015.01.10 10:37:47 - [218] - Quote I suggest that this thread is immidiately moved to features and ideas so that players can actually find it! Although probably waiting until it is all "discovered" on the live server after proteus is the plan! After all, what could possibly go wrong when players discover that their industrials are only of use for directly warping from gate to gate if they are carrying cargo AS HAULERS ARE MEANT TO. They now have no role if they actually have to move in space. Blockade runners will no longer be able to have any chance to burn out of bubbles, no industrial unless stripped of expanders will be able to burn back to a gate or wormhole ( mass spawn changes just keep on giving! ) , landing short of a station will be a death sentence, and those misguided people who auto pilot will simply be made extinct (after dying of boredom.) I wonder if the devs have realised just how long a 18% +18% +18% +18% +18% actually adds up to on an iteron V? Whilst we have long Joked and ridiculed those BAD PVP players and gankers who have Demanded CCP Nail their targets to the ground as they are incapable of killing anything otherwise, we never actually expected CCP to do it! So our options for fitting are Die like a sacrificial goat, fly near empty multiple times, or Black Frog to replace blockade runners, or red frog for HS. Wormholers are just expected to die. Thanks a bundle. I do not know what worries me more, the thought that you have not thought this through, or that you have and have decided that this is desireable. This will not end well. There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
Nalha Saldana Shattered Void Spaceship Samurai 874	Posted - 2015.01.10 10:47:18 - [219] - Quote To make cargo fit interesting we dont need more different cargo expanders, what we need is a buff to base cargo hold and stacking penalty to cargo expanders so we can fit other things in our lows (Like armor tank?) and still carry a lot.
Dangeresque Too Pistols for Pandas 66	Posted - 2015.01.10 14:49:36 - [220] - Quote epicurus ataraxia wrote: Just rename the deep space transport to the "Useful transport", and completely remove all the other transport ships that need cargo expanders to carry a useful load, that will simplify the number of ships in the game! Job done! Off to the Pub! I do not know what worries me more, the possibility that you have not thought this through, or that you have and have decided that this is desireable. The thing that most people are passing by is that they always had a penalty, but just not quite as high. So it isn't changing terribly much from before the patch. Regardless you are right, with those penalties in place, there really only is one option for safe-highsec transport of non-freighter sized runs, the transport ships. They hold way more than a hauler ever could and tank better than most (though you can get a pretty beast buffer on a badger atm, but with that tank comes only 4.5k cargo). Pretty much they are further encouraging the few intelligent pilots out there into the only 2 options for safest hauling, a triple web hyena escorted freighter... or a massive tanked transport ship. Why fly T1 haulers anymore if not to bait tank and troll the gankers with?

Aliventi Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic 806	Posted - 2015.01.10 19:11:53 - [221] - Quote CCP Terminus wrote: Just to clarify on the Survey Scanner issue. The reason I stated it was not part of the Module Tiericide, is that, as previously mentioned the Module Tiericide project has so far been a designer only effort. In order to change Survey Scanners to read volume instead of ore count requires at least some coding, which means it falls outside of the Module Tiericide project. Not to say it won't get done, but it won't be done by the tiericide group. I am curious as to what changes that people request a lot would require coding. For example there is a huge disparity between missile and gunnery training times. Something CCP Ytterbium said would be a good thing for module tiericide to look at. What about making faction and officer turret/missile able use T2 ammo? That would make faction and officer turrets and missile launchers worth it to use over T2. Would either of those require coding and be outside of your scope? Are there things you would like to see done in the module tiericide process that you won't get done because it requires coding? If there are would there possibly be a new team formed to tackle these tasks?
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 1715	Posted - 2015.01.10 19:29:03 - [222] - Quote Dersen Lowery wrote: Zappity wrote: This doesn't look like tiericide. It looks like rebalancing. There is a difference - tiericide keeps the power bracket identical and changes what is inside. This rebalance has changed the balance of the upper option (T2). If this is carried through to PvP modules then it will affect the balance of the ships too. I'm not sure that was the goal of the original tiericide initiative. It was a goal of the ship tiericide initiative. There are still Rifter, Drake and Hurricane pilots who are sore from that. The goal is that nothing is unambiguously better than anything else. Cost, performance, fitting, availability: pick any two. Yes, that is true and I am all for interesting choices. However, ships are balanced around the current weapons and modules. Balancing the modules is also balancing the ships and will need to be done carefully with a close eye kept on the module usage. For example, let's say that an 'interesting choice' is introduced in which T2 blasters now have a tracking penalty so you can choose between either high tracking in the meta or high damage in the T2. The knock on effect is that blaster boats have now been seriously nerfed because they currently have both. Better to limit the tiericide changes to fitting and existing stats I think. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
epicurus ataraxia Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude 1461	Posted - 2015.01.10 19:51:11 - [223] - Quote Zappity wrote: Dersen Lowery wrote: Zappity wrote: This doesn't look like tiericide. It looks like rebalancing. There is a difference - tiericide keeps the power bracket identical and changes what is inside. This rebalance has changed the balance of the upper option (T2). If this is carried through to PvP modules then it will affect the balance of the ships too. I'm not sure that was the goal of the original tiericide initiative. It was a goal of the ship tiericide initiative. There are still Rifter, Drake and Hurricane pilots who are sore from that. The goal is that nothing is unambiguously better than anything else. Cost, performance, fitting, availability: pick any two. Yes, that is true and I am all for interesting choices. However, ships are balanced around the current weapons and modules. Balancing the modules is also balancing the ships and will need to be done carefully with a close eye kept on the module usage. For example, let's say that an 'interesting choice' is introduced in which T2 blasters now have a tracking penalty so you can choose between either high tracking in the meta or high damage in the T2. The knock on effect is that blaster boats have now been seriously nerfed because they currently have both. Better to limit the tiericide changes to fitting and existing stats I think. Yes, quite right, when omnidirectional tracking enhancers were nerfed, it was a deliberate action, designed to change the overall balance of sentry drone boats. All of the modules have equally wide ranging effects to one degree or another, and when comments are issued saying no one uses this version or this stat doesn't matter much to people then I hear loud alarm bells ringing. There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
MuppetsSlayed Great White North Productions Northern Associates. 18	Posted - 2015.01.11 10:01:54 - [224] - Quote I get most of my minerals from reprocessing and have a fairly big pile of modules to reprocess, I need a few weeks before my skills max for it so have been stockpiling. Out of the tiericide'ed modules will I get more or less minerals if I reprocess them before the patch? I have read through everything and I cant see any mention if the mineral content of the changed modules is more or less than the original mineral value.
MuppetsSlayed Great White North Productions Northern Associates. 18	Posted - 2015.01.11 11:26:20 - [225] - Quote Dangeresque Too wrote: ..... For a quick example... http://imgur.com/cuXSYN1, you tell me which one those are, and yes, they are all different modules/metas. I can understand some people might be concerned about the "lore" of an item, then why not just put the "lore" into the description. If they really care about the lore they can read about it there, instead of cluttering up my interface with additional info that pushes out the info I actually need or am looking for. He has a point here. I am looking at my hanger now in icon view and the part of the name that makes a module unique must be at the beginning. The search needs to be looked into so we can search for "compact itemtype" and find the item were looking for despite the lore name being in between compact and itemtype in the name.
MuppetsSlayed Great White North Productions Northern Associates. 18	Posted - 2015.01.11 13:11:34 - [226] - Quote I have just read every single post in this thread because I was interested in the new faction cargo expanders. Of the 3 ships I own that I was considering them for: Nomad: I think its worth spending the 600 to 900 mill on 3 of them. I undock and jump to a cyno, would never go gate to gate anyways. Rorqual: I think its worth spending the 600 to 900 mill on 3 of them. I undock and jump to a cyno, I would never go gate to gate anyways. Prowler: OMGWTFBBQ :: How much have you just nerfed my blockade runner? I live deep out in 0.0 and spend time daily in one of my blockade runners moving items around. Absolute max fit currently is 16657m3 :: 2 x T2 Expander Rigs, 3 x Expander Cargo Hold 2's, 4 x GSC's for extra 9090k m3 each. Travel fit when moving empty is 7200 m3 :: I have 3 of the gsc's packaged and fit a couple warp stabs and inertia stabaliser. The 3 packaged GSC's negate the 900 m3 gained from the expanded one. Obviously as I load up at different stations I move towards the max space from the travel fit. Its scary how much of a nerf you have done to this ship and are only calling it minor???.
Waylon Skorlin Honest Guvnor Industries 2	Posted - 2015.01.11 14:28:57 - [227] - Quote MuppetsSlayed wrote: I have just read every single post in this thread because I was interested in the new faction cargo expanders. Prowler: OMGWTFBBQ :: How much have you just nerfed my blockade runner? I live deep out in 0.0 and spend time daily in one of my blockade runners moving items around. Absolute max fit currently is 16,657 m3 :: 2 x T2 Expander Rigs, 3 x Expander Cargo Hold 2's, 4 x GSC's for extra 900k m3 each. The largest single item I can carry is only 3,900 m3 and I cant move some things like mobile depots. Travel fit when moving empty is 6,300 m3 :: I have 3 of the gsc's packaged and fit a couple warp stabs and inertia stabaliser. The 3 packaged GSC's exactly negate the 900 m3 gained from the expanded one. Obviously as I load up at different stations I move towards the max fit from the travel fit. Its scary how much of a nerf you have done to this ship and are only calling it a minor tweak??? This whole class of ship now needs to be rebalanced to undo your minor change. I fly Blockade Runners as well, so I'm also interested in the Cargohold Expanders. I'll happily admit that I haven't read all the posts in this thread, which means I may well be missing something, but having looked at the Patch Notes and the Dev Blog I don't understand where the nerf is. Everything you've stated is the way things are at the moment. The changes to T2 Cargohold Expanders only affect velocity and structre, not capacity, so as I understand it things will be exactly the same after the patch, except that the ORE Expander is being introduced, which gives the same structure and velocity nerfs as the current T2 expander, but with an cargohold bonus of 29% instead of 27.5% Can you explain as I really don't want to be missing something!
Waylon Skorlin Honest Guvnor Industries 2	Posted - 2015.01.11 14:33:45 - [228] - Quote Anyway, now that I've finished being distracted by the above, the question I really came here to ask! The Patch Notes say that the Marked Modified SS Inertia Stabs are going to become Type-D Inertia Stabs. Is this correct as all the other Marked Modified modules are becoming Basic?
MuppetsSlayed Great White North Productions Northern Associates. 18	Posted - 2015.01.11 14:48:02 - [229] - Quote Waylon Skorlin wrote: I fly Blockade Runners as well, so I'm also interested in the Cargohold Expanders. I'll happily admit that I haven't read all the posts in this thread, which means I may well be missing something, but having looked at the Patch Notes and the Dev Blog I don't understand where the nerf is. Everything you've stated is the way things are at the moment. The changes to T2 Cargohold Expanders only affect velocity and structre, not capacity, so as I understand it things will be exactly the same after the patch, except that the ORE Expander is being introduced, which gives the same structure and velocity nerfs as the current T2 expander, but with an cargohold bonus of 29% instead of 27.5% Can you explain as I really don't want to be missing something! What I am expecting is that with the nerf to velocity and HP being so big it isn't going to be practical for me to use the max m3 and move stuff around in zero as I currently do.
Waylon Skorlin Honest Guvnor Industries 2	Posted - 2015.01.11 15:14:48 - [230] - Quote MuppetsSlayed wrote: What I am expecting is that with the nerf to HP and most importantly velocity being so big it I am going to need to drop a cargo expander which will reduce my m3 to escape bubble camps as I currently can (an additional m3 nerf??). Expanded Cargohold II GÇô Structure Hitpoint penalty increased from 20% to -23%, GÇô Velocity modifier increased from -10% to -18% I may not have the maths right on this but for my max space fit I make it: 9.27% reduction in structure 25.97% reduction in my velocity (1.08 * 1.08 * 1.08) The prowler was only changed in the Kronos expansion (6 months ago??) to be given the third low slot. 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.


CCP Terminus C C P C C P Alliance 140	Posted - 2015.01.12 11:39:33 - [231] - Quote Waylon Skorlin wrote: MuppetsSlayed wrote: What I am expecting is that with the nerf to HP and most importantly velocity being so big it I am going to need to drop a cargo expander which will reduce my m3 to escape bubble camps as I currently can (an additional m3 nerf??). Expanded Cargohold II GÇô Structure Hitpoint penalty increased from 20% to -23%, GÇô Velocity modifier increased from -10% to -18% I may not have the maths right on this but for my max space fit I make it: 9.27% reduction in structure 25.97% reduction in my velocity (1.08 * 1.08 * 1.08) The prowler was only changed in the Kronos expansion (6 months ago??) to be given the third low slot. 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. You numbers quoted are true for structure penalties, however Expanded Cargohold velocity penalties are affected by stacking penalties. This means for each Additional Expanded Cargohold you add, the penalties that that Expanded Cargohold adds are reduced. For example, using a Basic Expanded Cargohold (-20% Velocity currently and after patch) on an Iteron V (no skills): Values if there were no stacking penalties: Velocity - Base: 110 m/s Velocity - 1 Mod: 88 Velocity - 2 Mod: 70 (70.4) Velocity - 3 Mod: 56 (56.32) Velocity - 4 Mod: 45 (45.056) Velocity - 5 Mod: 36 (36.0448) Actual velocity values in game: Velocity - Base: 110 m/s Velocity - 1 Mod: 88 Velocity - 2 Mod: 73 Velocity - 3 Mod: 65 Velocity - 4 Mod: 61 Velocity - 5 Mod: 60

Spugg Galdon APOCALYPSE LEGION The Obsidian Front 598	Posted - 2015.01.12 11:54:29 - [232] - Quote Perhaps penalties shouldn't stack like bonuses do. Would make the restrained modules even better of a choice
epicurus ataraxia Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude 1463	Posted - 2015.01.12 15:11:53 - [233] - Quote CCP Terminus wrote: Waylon Skorlin wrote: MuppetsSlayed wrote: What I am expecting is that with the nerf to HP and most importantly velocity being so big it I am going to need to drop a cargo expander which will reduce my m3 to escape bubble camps as I currently can (an additional m3 nerf??). Expanded Cargohold II GÇô Structure Hitpoint penalty increased from 20% to -23%, GÇô Velocity modifier increased from -10% to -18% I may not have the maths right on this but for my max space fit I make it: 9.27% reduction in structure 25.97% reduction in my velocity (1.08 * 1.08 * 1.08) The prowler was only changed in the Kronos expansion (6 months ago??) to be given the third low slot. 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. Your quoted numbers are true for structure penalties, however Expanded Cargohold velocity penalties are affected by stacking penalties. This means for each Additional Expanded Cargohold you add, the penalties that that Expanded Cargohold adds are reduced. For example, using a Basic Expanded Cargohold (-20% Velocity currently and after patch) on an Iteron V (no skills): Values if there were no stacking penalties: Velocity - Base: 110 m/s Velocity - 1 Mod: 88 Velocity - 2 Mod: 70 (70.4) Velocity - 3 Mod: 56 (56.32) Velocity - 4 Mod: 45 (45.056) Velocity - 5 Mod: 36 (36.0448) Actual velocity values in game: Velocity - Base: 110 m/s Velocity - 1 Mod: 88 Velocity - 2 Mod: 73 Velocity - 3 Mod: 65 Velocity - 4 Mod: 61 Velocity - 5 Mod: 60 Would you like to plug your figures in a blockade runner before and after and then you will see why we consider it a significant rebalance? The first three in any ship has the biggest effect, and whilst additional only reduce by a small amount the final speed is very very heavily reduced overall. There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
Valterra Craven 419	Posted - 2015.01.12 15:51:10 - [234] - Quote epicurus ataraxia wrote: You have stated we are not concerned by Velocity. When one is burning out of a bubble or burning back to a gate or a wormhole we are VERY concerned by velocity! Whats ironic about this whole thing is that if they don't think velocity is a big deal to modify, then why do they see it as such a big deal to use as a balancing mechanic?
epicurus ataraxia Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude 1463	Posted - 2015.01.12 15:58:19 - [235] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: epicurus ataraxia wrote: You have stated we are not concerned by Velocity. When one is burning out of a bubble or burning back to a gate or a wormhole we are VERY concerned by velocity! Whats ironic about this whole thing is that if they don't think velocity is a big deal to modify, then why do they see it as such a big deal to use as a balancing mechanic? It will be interesting to hear the response, I believe the effect of the penalties in some cases have been seriously underestimated. Whilst in many circumstances they are not much of a problem, in others they are effectively rebalancing ships. Module rebalancing is not a low impact excercise, When one changes primary stats and penalties. Removing duplicate modules is one thing, this is something quite different. There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
Alex PROTOSS The First Foundation SOLAR FLEET 5	Posted - 2015.01.13 12:56:52 - [236] - Quote CCP Terminus, give a scythe +10 cpu. It can't fit t2 CPR so it was normal with m4 analog, and now it's nerfed.
Nomago Cealey Garlinger Jovian Labs Jovian Enterprises 0	Posted - 2015.01.13 15:14:40 - [237] - Quote Mara Rinn wrote: Also, is there anything preventing you readjusting the meta levels so that we have meta 0 for plain T1, then meta 1 for the "better" T1 modules, then meta 2 for T2, with 3 for cosmos, 4 for faction, and headspace/officer starting at 5 and up? THIS PLS

CCP Terminus C C P C C P Alliance 143	Posted - 2015.01.13 17:23:53 - [238] - Quote Nomago Cealey Garlinger wrote: Mara Rinn wrote: Also, is there anything preventing you readjusting the meta levels so that we have meta 0 for plain T1, then meta 1 for the "better" T1 modules, then meta 2 for T2, with 3 for cosmos, 4 for faction, and headspace/officer starting at 5 and up? THIS PLS When the Module Tiericide project is complete I suspect we will do something very similar to this.

Waylon Skorlin Honest Guvnor Industries 2	Posted - 2015.01.13 17:59:05 - [239] - Quote CCP Terminus wrote: Your quoted numbers are true for structure penalties, however Expanded Cargohold velocity penalties are affected by stacking penalties. This means for each Additional Expanded Cargohold you add, the penalties that that Expanded Cargohold adds are reduced. I wasn't aware of this - thank you for pointing it out. Even taking that in to account, though, in the Rhea expansion a Viator with full L5 skills and a 10MN AB II had a max velocity of 537 with three Exp Cargo IIs. Now, in Proteus, the same Viator has a max velocity of 430 m/s, which is a 20% reduction. That's still quite a nerf when trying to escape a bubble.
Waylon Skorlin Honest Guvnor Industries 2	Posted - 2015.01.13 18:16:16 - [240] - Quote I'm also confused now as to the point of T2 modules. In all of these changes, Meta 1 has resulted in greater boosts with reduced penalty whereas Tech 2, for which more skills are required, result in even greater boosts with greater penalties. Taking Expanded Cargoholds as an example, the difference between Meta 1 and Meta 0 is a 28.61% increase in the boost percentage and a 25% and 13.33% reduction in penalty percentages (structure and velocity respectively). Comparing Tech 2 with Meta 0, there is a 57.1% increase in the boost percentage but a 15% and 20% increase in the penalty percentages as well. So, comparing Tech 2 with Meta 1, there is a 22.22% increase in the boost percentage but a massive 53.33% and 38.46% increase in penalty percentages! So what's the point of training for Tech 2 when the relative differences in boost and penalty are so out of kilter? Shouldn't the concept of Meta 1 and Tech 2 be swapped over (i.e. Meta 1 => greater boost for greater penalty and Tech 2 => greater boost for less or same penalty) to compensate for the extra time required in training for them in the first place? I'm all for module tiericide as I agree that the previous Meta 1 - Meta 4 modules were, for the large part, unnecessary, but the way it's been implemented just doesn't seem to make sense to me.

Maennas Vaer High Flyers The Kadeshi 21	Posted - 2015.01.13 20:51:00 - [241] - Quote What happened to retroactively renaming the modules from the first balance pass? Is this coming later?
epicurus ataraxia Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude 1466	Posted - 2015.01.13 21:18:00 - [242] - Quote If this carries forwards to the more sensitive modules, and meta 4 is removed and T2 strongly nerfed, then whole classes of ships will become largely unuseable without deadspace or faction modules, and sometimes not even then. Well, we will see, at least every player is affected , but those who used meta 4 because of less than perfect skills will be so out of luck. No point worrying before it happens, hopefully they will also be more sensitive when it comes to those modules, but I must admit, alarm bells are ringing. Either that or there are plans to rebalance all the combat ships (again) we will see. I am sure the DEVs have fittings saved they use for balancing, if they no longer work, then maybe they will take pity on us and rebalance accordingly. I am sure they will not expect everyone to have perfect skills in everything, and do not expect perfect skills and deadspace modules to be at least competent in a ship without running out of CPU cap or powergrid. There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
epicurus ataraxia Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude 1466	Posted - 2015.01.13 21:34:42 - [243] - Quote Waylon Skorlin wrote: I'm also confused now as to the point of T2 modules. In all of these changes, Meta 1 has resulted in greater boosts with reduced penalty whereas Tech 2, for which more skills are required, result in even greater boosts with greater penalties. Taking Expanded Cargoholds as an example, the difference between Meta 1 and Meta 0 is a 28.61% increase in the boost percentage and a 25% and 13.33% reduction in penalty percentages (structure and velocity respectively). Comparing Tech 2 with Meta 0, there is a 57.1% increase in the boost percentage but a 15% and 20% increase in the penalty percentages as well. So, comparing Tech 2 with Meta 1, there is a 22.22% increase in the boost percentage but a massive 53.33% and 38.46% increase in penalty percentages! So what's the point of training for Tech 2 when the relative differences in boost and penalty are so out of kilter? Shouldn't the concept of Meta 1 and Tech 2 be swapped over (i.e. Meta 1 => greater boost for greater penalty and Tech 2 => greater boost for less or same penalty) to compensate for the extra time required in training for them in the first place? I'm all for module tiericide as I agree that the previous Meta 1 - Meta 4 modules were, for the large part, unnecessary, but the way it's been implemented just doesn't seem to make sense to me. Regarding meta 1 to meta three I have to agree, there are only a few cases where these make a significant difference, sometimes none, sometimes a nice little boost. However Meta 4 is quite another story, in many cases they are the only way to balance a decent fit without going right through to deadspace modules. There is a reason , for example, why some cost an absolute fortune, and it is not because we like the name. There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
epicurus ataraxia Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude 1467	Posted - 2015.01.14 17:52:15 - [244] - Quote Edit:- I have read throught my previous posts on this and realise that they may express more negativity than I feel is justified. I want to applaud and encourage the brave direction that is being undertaken By CCP and I do not want to discourag any of the team. I hope they take the right message away, Modules, are not so sexy as ships, but are just as important when all is taken into account, and I hope that our reminding them of this is not taken in the wrong way, we are all affected by any change made, and some will be affected more than others as we all fly different ships. Taking for example velocity penalties on cargo holds, some are unaffected to any notable degree and some will find the effect on their game experience is much stronger and of real significance. Please bear this in mind as you move forward, what may seem overall unimportant, may render some playstyles and game choices invalid. If you are aware of this and make informed and considered choices, all will back you even if we are affected negatively. It is only when players feel that they have not been taken account of that people feel hurt. Congratulations on the work of your team, and I am sure we all wish you success. There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE

CCP Terminus C C P C C P Alliance 143	Posted - 2015.01.15 11:46:56 - [245] - Quote No worries, we know people are very passionate about the game, and so are we. We've gone forward with the changes as is, but this doesn't mean we won't re-evaluate if certain ships or modules begin to see much less use than before, or diversity goals are not being met. Maennas Vaer wrote: What happened to retroactively renaming the modules from the first balance pass? Is this coming later? Apparently this didn't make it in on time, but it's still on the list of things to do.

epicurus ataraxia Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude 1468	Posted - 2015.01.15 17:58:10 - [246] - Quote CCP Terminus wrote: No worries, we know people are very passionate about the game, and so are we. We've gone forward with the changes as is, but this doesn't mean we won't re-evaluate if certain ships or modules begin to see much less use than before, or diversity goals are not being met. Maennas Vaer wrote: What happened to retroactively renaming the modules from the first balance pass? Is this coming later? Apparently this didn't make it in on time, but it's still on the list of things to do. Thank you for that, that is reassuring, please note though when looking for change of use numbers, that there is really no other use for a blockade runner or hauling industrial than to carry cargo. The velocity penalty in most cases will not generate the numbers that will raise alarm bells. But it does make then significantly unpleasant to handle under certain conditions, and that, I think we all agree, is not a desireable outcome. Good luck with the rebalance, and thank you for your efforts. There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
DeMichael Crimson Republic University Minmatar Republic 45547	Posted - 2015.01.16 09:15:48 - [247] - Quote Um, I don't like any of the changes, especially turning all of the Meta level 3 and Meta level 4 mods into Meta level 1. I would have much preferred it if those modules had just been removed from my assets and had the ISK, based on the average Market price of those modules, placed into my wallet. Since most of my ISK is in assets and not in wallet, Module Tiericide is basically bankrupting me. Ever since Incarna, almost every single expansion / release in this game has had a negative affect on my game play experience. Each time it makes me less and less inclined to log into this game. Guess I have a reason to log into the game now - to sell off my remaining Meta Level 3 and Meta level 4 modules before they also get turned into worthless Meta level 1 items. Thanks a lot. DMC 'The Plan' \| California Eve Players \| Proposal - The Endless Battle
Soldarius Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent 1031	Posted - 2015.01.16 15:20:39 - [248] - Quote DeMichael Crimson wrote: Um, I don't like any of the changes, especially turning all of the Meta level 3 and Meta level 4 mods into Meta level 1. I would have much preferred it if those modules had just been removed from my assets and had the ISK, based on the average Market price of those modules, placed into my wallet. Since most of my ISK is in assets and not in wallet, Module Tiericide is basically bankrupting me. Ever since Incarna, almost every single expansion / release in this game has had a negative affect on my game play experience. Each time it makes me less and less inclined to log into this game. Guess I have a reason to log into the game now - to sell off my remaining Meta Level 3 and Meta level 4 modules before they also get turned into worthless Meta level 1 items. Thanks a lot. DMC You can reprocess those modules and still get exactly the same value in minerals as before the rebalance. So there's always that. Also, loling at max cargo-expanded and AB-fit blockade runners. http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
epicurus ataraxia Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude 1478	Posted - 2015.01.16 18:53:37 - [249] - Quote Soldarius wrote: DeMichael Crimson wrote: Um, I don't like any of the changes, especially turning all of the Meta level 3 and Meta level 4 mods into Meta level 1. I would have much preferred it if those modules had just been removed from my assets and had the ISK, based on the average Market price of those modules, placed into my wallet. Since most of my ISK is in assets and not in wallet, Module Tiericide is basically bankrupting me. Ever since Incarna, almost every single expansion / release in this game has had a negative affect on my game play experience. Each time it makes me less and less inclined to log into this game. Guess I have a reason to log into the game now - to sell off my remaining Meta Level 3 and Meta level 4 modules before they also get turned into worthless Meta level 1 items. Thanks a lot. DMC You can reprocess those modules and still get exactly the same value in minerals as before the rebalance. So there's always that. Also, loling at max cargo-expanded and AB-fit blockade runners. Not sure why anyone would use an afterburner to burn out of a bubble? I didn't see anyone say that. And yes, funnily enough, people do use blockade runners to carry cargo. Is that surprising to you? They were used as an example to show that there are circumstances where volicity has relevance, which didn't seem to be taken account of. The dev has since responded, and we have been assured that the effects are being monitored and will be adjusted if their goals are not being met. There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
Valterra Craven 425	Posted - 2015.01.16 19:07:55 - [250] - Quote epicurus ataraxia wrote: The dev has since responded, and we have been assured that the effects are being monitored and will be adjusted if their goals are not being met. This does not mean what you think it does.

epicurus ataraxia Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude 1478	Posted - 2015.01.16 19:16:57 - [251] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: epicurus ataraxia wrote: The dev has since responded, and we have been assured that the effects are being monitored and will be adjusted if their goals are not being met. This does not mean what you think it does. Possibly so, however for the Dev to respond in a reasonable manner is a good sign, and welcome. The new release schedule does give the opportunity to correct as required, and it is our job to point out after the fact if the overall concencus is that something needs rectifying. In my personal opinion there are a few points with these modules that meet this criteria, and I have already mentioned them. Hopefully others will report their findings too. If we act as a resource pool of information, that they can draw on, to supplement their metrics, then that is a win/win situation. If we act in a manner that is overwhelmingly negative to every change, then they will cease to regard that resource. So it is in our power to help ourselves, I hope we can do so. There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
Lady Rift What Shall We Call It 160	Posted - 2015.01.16 19:21:11 - [252] - Quote epicurus ataraxia wrote: Soldarius wrote: DeMichael Crimson wrote: Um, I don't like any of the changes, especially turning all of the Meta level 3 and Meta level 4 mods into Meta level 1. I would have much preferred it if those modules had just been removed from my assets and had the ISK, based on the average Market price of those modules, placed into my wallet. Since most of my ISK is in assets and not in wallet, Module Tiericide is basically bankrupting me. Ever since Incarna, almost every single expansion / release in this game has had a negative affect on my game play experience. Each time it makes me less and less inclined to log into this game. Guess I have a reason to log into the game now - to sell off my remaining Meta Level 3 and Meta level 4 modules before they also get turned into worthless Meta level 1 items. Thanks a lot. DMC You can reprocess those modules and still get exactly the same value in minerals as before the rebalance. So there's always that. Also, loling at max cargo-expanded and AB-fit blockade runners. Not sure why anyone would use an afterburner to burn out of a bubble? I didn't see anyone say that. And yes, funnily enough, people do use blockade runners to carry cargo. Is that surprising to you? They were used as an example to show that there are circumstances where velocity has relevance, which didn't seem to be taken account of. The dev has since responded, and we have been assured that the effects are being monitored and will be adjusted if their goals are not being met. Regarding the loss of value of modules, I do have sympathy, but unfortunately some changes just have to bite that particular bullet, in the real world, there are a lot of traders who gained a nasty shock when the swiss franc removed the euro peg. But as in this case, investors do have a choice of what to invest in, and need to attempt to be correct in predicting the market. Unfortunately some will always be on the wrong side of the trade. I do hope however hope that the module types that desperately need the meta 4 modules for fits ie damage control, and command a very high price accordingly, remain as the "premium" option and do not just become worthless meta 1 items. They behave in many ways more like deadspace or storyline options, and that may be the best way of dealing with the conversion. Those mods you are talking about should all become meta 1 as no mod desperately needs it, it just you can push a fit to the max with it. You want to be able to fit things use faction.
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 1741	Posted - 2015.01.16 19:24:36 - [253] - Quote Soldarius wrote: Also, loling at max cargo-expanded and AB-fit blockade runners. You need three expanded cargo holds on a Viator to get over the 10k mark. This is important for specific items and hulls. Crashing a gate when you jump into a gate camp won't be much fun now - it was very close before. But perhaps that is the way it should be. We need to trade off max cargo capacity vs survivability. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
epicurus ataraxia Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude 1478	Posted - 2015.01.16 19:25:07 - [254] - Quote Lady Rift wrote: epicurus ataraxia wrote: Soldarius wrote: DeMichael Crimson wrote: Um, I don't like any of the changes, especially turning all of the Meta level 3 and Meta level 4 mods into Meta level 1. I would have much preferred it if those modules had just been removed from my assets and had the ISK, based on the average Market price of those modules, placed into my wallet. Since most of my ISK is in assets and not in wallet, Module Tiericide is basically bankrupting me. Ever since Incarna, almost every single expansion / release in this game has had a negative affect on my game play experience. Each time it makes me less and less inclined to log into this game. Guess I have a reason to log into the game now - to sell off my remaining Meta Level 3 and Meta level 4 modules before they also get turned into worthless Meta level 1 items. Thanks a lot. DMC You can reprocess those modules and still get exactly the same value in minerals as before the rebalance. So there's always that. Also, loling at max cargo-expanded and AB-fit blockade runners. Not sure why anyone would use an afterburner to burn out of a bubble? I didn't see anyone say that. And yes, funnily enough, people do use blockade runners to carry cargo. Is that surprising to you? They were used as an example to show that there are circumstances where velocity has relevance, which didn't seem to be taken account of. The dev has since responded, and we have been assured that the effects are being monitored and will be adjusted if their goals are not being met. Regarding the loss of value of modules, I do have sympathy, but unfortunately some changes just have to bite that particular bullet, in the real world, there are a lot of traders who gained a nasty shock when the swiss franc removed the euro peg. But as in this case, investors do have a choice of what to invest in, and need to attempt to be correct in predicting the market. Unfortunately some will always be on the wrong side of the trade. I do hope however hope that the module types that desperately need the meta 4 modules for fits ie damage control, and command a very high price accordingly, remain as the "premium" option and do not just become worthless meta 1 items. They behave in many ways more like deadspace or storyline options, and that may be the best way of dealing with the conversion. Those mods you are talking about should all become meta 1 as no mod desperately needs it, it just you can push a fit to the max with it. You want to be able to fit things use faction. Whilst in an ideal world, that would be correct, in EVE as it currently exists, that is not the case, there are certain meta 4 items that are way outside these strictures, and their removal, without a replacement taking account of this would have significant implications. Hopefully after this module rebalance, you will be correct, but ignoring their requirement is not a good way of handling it. There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
epicurus ataraxia Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude 1478	Posted - 2015.01.16 19:40:36 - [255] - Quote Zappity wrote: Soldarius wrote: Also, loling at max cargo-expanded and AB-fit blockade runners. You need three expanded cargo holds on a Viator to get over the 10k mark. This is important for specific items and hulls. Crashing a gate when you jump into a gate camp won't be much fun now - it was very close before. But perhaps that is the way it should be. We need to trade off max cargo capacity vs survivability. Yes, absolutely right, that Is a decision that CCP need to make, as you say, the choice is if you carry these items at all, as the drop in survivability is significant. It was always a "battle" between the skills of the hauler against the skills of the decloaking team, personally, I believe the balance has been shifted rather a long way. Now I seriously doubt that the metrics are going to be granular enough to show that the ships are now ceasing to carry these ships and items , as doing so in dangerous space has become a little unrealistic. Whilst the use in space of (in this case) blockade runners will likely be unaffected, their functionality is significantly reduced. And I believe it is important to point these things out for their consideration, and hopefully they will be taken account of. There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
Lady Rift What Shall We Call It 160	Posted - 2015.01.16 20:00:39 - [256] - Quote epicurus ataraxia wrote: Lady Rift wrote: epicurus ataraxia wrote: Soldarius wrote: DeMichael Crimson wrote: Um, I don't like any of the changes, especially turning all of the Meta level 3 and Meta level 4 mods into Meta level 1. I would have much preferred it if those modules had just been removed from my assets and had the ISK, based on the average Market price of those modules, placed into my wallet. Since most of my ISK is in assets and not in wallet, Module Tiericide is basically bankrupting me. Ever since Incarna, almost every single expansion / release in this game has had a negative affect on my game play experience. Each time it makes me less and less inclined to log into this game. Guess I have a reason to log into the game now - to sell off my remaining Meta Level 3 and Meta level 4 modules before they also get turned into worthless Meta level 1 items. Thanks a lot. DMC You can reprocess those modules and still get exactly the same value in minerals as before the rebalance. So there's always that. Also, loling at max cargo-expanded and AB-fit blockade runners. Not sure why anyone would use an afterburner to burn out of a bubble? I didn't see anyone say that. And yes, funnily enough, people do use blockade runners to carry cargo. Is that surprising to you? They were used as an example to show that there are circumstances where velocity has relevance, which didn't seem to be taken account of. The dev has since responded, and we have been assured that the effects are being monitored and will be adjusted if their goals are not being met. Regarding the loss of value of modules, I do have sympathy, but unfortunately some changes just have to bite that particular bullet, in the real world, there are a lot of traders who gained a nasty shock when the swiss franc removed the euro peg. But as in this case, investors do have a choice of what to invest in, and need to attempt to be correct in predicting the market. Unfortunately some will always be on the wrong side of the trade. I do hope however hope that the module types that desperately need the meta 4 modules for fits ie damage control, and command a very high price accordingly, remain as the "premium" option and do not just become worthless meta 1 items. They behave in many ways more like deadspace or storyline options, and that may be the best way of dealing with the conversion. Those mods you are talking about should all become meta 1 as no mod desperately needs it, it just you can push a fit to the max with it. You want to be able to fit things use faction. Whilst in an ideal world, that would be correct, in EVE as it currently exists, that is not the case, there are certain meta 4 items that are way outside these strictures, and their removal, without a replacement taking account of this would have significant implications. Hopefully after this module rebalance, you will be correct, but ignoring their requirement is not a good way of handling it. We do not want to end up in a situation where whole classes of ships need a rebalance pass, to correct such an ommission. EVE fits will just change to accommodate. Name the whole classes of ships that absolutely require the use of meta 4. Logi is one of the closest ones and there are fits out there that get by
Valterra Craven 426	Posted - 2015.01.16 22:28:24 - [257] - Quote epicurus ataraxia wrote: Possibly so, however for the Dev to respond in a reasonable manner is a good sign, and welcome. Sorry but words < actions. epicurus ataraxia wrote: The new release schedule does give the opportunity to correct as required, and it is our job to point out after the fact if the overall concencus is that something needs rectifying. Sure it does, they just aren't using it to that effect. We've had many of these new releases and so far they've gone back and reworked less than a handful of anything they released. I'm sorry but this new release schedule was not to give them better flexibility to work on things that had already been released. It was to get content out there as quickly as possible to help their income stream.
epicurus ataraxia Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude 1478	Posted - 2015.01.16 22:50:37 - [258] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: epicurus ataraxia wrote: Possibly so, however for the Dev to respond in a reasonable manner is a good sign, and welcome. Sorry but words < actions. epicurus ataraxia wrote: The new release schedule does give the opportunity to correct as required, and it is our job to point out after the fact if the overall concencus is that something needs rectifying. Sure it does, they just aren't using it to that effect. We've had many of these new releases and so far they've gone back and reworked less than a handful of anything they released. I'm sorry but this new release schedule was not to give them better flexibility to work on things that had already been released. It was to get content out there as quickly as possible to help their income stream. You of course may be entirely right, I do hope however that they have moved on from those times, and are clearly striving to make the most of their new opportunities. After the release of hyperion, they made massive changes to wormhole space, with real and significant resolutions to many of the issues it created, We can only judge them on their actions, and they appear to be on a real high with their releases, they do have new and very different leader, with completely different priorities and motivations, hopefully they will shine if we all give them a chance. If not? Well it is better to travel hopefully than to dread arriving at the destination. We will see. There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
marly cortez Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance 67	Posted - 2015.02.10 21:03:44 - [259] - Quote Did they sneak in an unannounced re-balance on any mods today, seems some have lost the ability to use certain mods due to PG issues


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.