EVE Search - Rebalancing T2 Modules in EVE Online

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Rebalancing T2 Modules in EVE Online

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 3 post(s)
Akemon Numon Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 9	Posted - 2015.01.01 00:01:09 - [1] - Quote As most of you should know by now CCP is doing the module balancing Tiericide. And part of this is the removal of meta4 mods of all types. http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/rebalancing-modules-round-two Not to insult anyone's intelligence, but some newer players might not know that many meta4 mods have better stats, as in lower fitting cost (less CPU, CAP, PG, OR less negative effect) than the same type of Tech2 mod. Now all this time we had a choice with these better meta4 mods or the T2 in the same class. Now we will not and the inferior T2 mods are not getting buffed to compensate for the loss of the better meta4s. I propose that in the cases where the departing meta4 has an edge over the Tech2 mod that edge is transferred to the T2 mod. Tech 2 already takes more damage from Over Heating, cost more ISK and SP, and is skill intensive and expensive to make. These facts are the balance to making all the T2 mods as good as the departing "superior" M4 mods. And for the tired old 'that is a Power Creep' mantra how can that be if the stats have been in the game for ever? Just now there is no choice as the option of fitting the better meta4 mods will not be there any longer. And many of the T2 mods are already better than the same meta4. This would actually rationalize this state of affairs. Tech2 is having had to train skills to lvl5 to use and in the case where meta4 is better was confusing and inconsistent given that many T2 mods are the best choice over meta4. I think we as players should have the privilege to keep these better m4 stats by training the skills for T2 and all that goes with Tech 2(increased damage from Over Heating, cost in ISK and SP, and the fact that they are skill intensive and expensive to make) modules. These fitting changes are going to effect all the players in this game. Not just X ship or type of X play. If you PVP or PVE. Miner, ganker, Titan pilot and new player in a T1 frig will know how life is with out the better meta4 mods. And the thing of it is...half or more T2 mods are the better fit over m4. CCP balance this the right way and allow us to keep all our fits as they are please with improved Tech2 where the m4 was a better fit. Not sure how or why I even have to implore the Balance Experts to keep the same fitting options I have had for 4 years, but I am and do. I do not believe that given the absence of competing meta4 mods some of the T2 has to suck as badly as it does in some cases. Nor do I think that met4 was OP or that transferring the better stats to T2 will break the game some how. Thank you for reading Just my 0.02 ISK
Andrew Indy Four Pillar Production Headshot Gaming 115	Posted - 2015.01.01 02:00:57 - [2] - Quote The funny thing is now (will be) a choice when it comes to mods, currently with some mods its meta4 or go home, now you can choose the T2 but live with the penalties or a meta version that fits your needs. Think Armor plates. They are one of the very few mods that got changed before Tieracide. Meta4 plates used to be better in every way than T2, then they dropped the amour bonus a bit so T2 had more armor but greater fittings and weight. Yet people still use the mewta4 plates a lot because a huge number of Fits just don't work with T2. PS, as far as power creep goes, it does not really matter. If everyone has better T2 or worse T1 (meta) then everything is fair. T2 will be better than T1 (meta) with tieracide so you will get value for your isk ect. What the stats are now is irrelevant.
Tiddle Jr Galvanized Inc. 8	Posted - 2015.01.01 02:42:00 - [3] - Quote So you are only focused on meta 4 and meta 5 difference? I think CCP should firstly look at the whole meta line (t1 cosmos faction dead space officer), then we could keep this discussion ongoing. We have same issue with abc x-types vs. officer
Lienzo Amanuensis 7	Posted - 2015.01.01 15:49:21 - [4] - Quote I had always hoped we'd have four of each type of gun, but each one would have a different specialty, like range, tracking, sig res or low fitting. Each of the other stats would be a little worse than the tech 1 equivalent. I would love to see the invention system move in this direction, where instead of getting a kick in the shins, we just get random meta. Every little module should try to be the best little module it can be and die gloriously before moving on to pixel heaven.
MBizon Osis State War Academy Caldari State 62	Posted - 2015.01.02 03:58:58 - [5] - Quote Akemon Numon "Faction or better to have the same fit" ^This is more of the Half Baked Balance I have come to expect form ccp. Meaningless meta progressions, stats all over the place in no order. And a general vibe from these 'Balance Experts' of people that don't even play the game they are modding. Kusum Fawn Its sad that the majority of issues with modules are not going to be addressed, its almost like CCP doesnt know what the actual problems even are. 1. Inconsistent grouping names - the module has several different attributes that are used for sorting, In order these are name, group, catagory, size, slot, volume, meta and tech. Odd choices have been made in how these are displayed, and what things are called/grouped. EX -"50mm Reinforced Nanofiber Plates I" are group named "Armor reinforcer" while "Energized EM membrane" are "Armor Plating Energized" . "Magnetic Field Stabilizer I" has a blueprint under the name "Fast Loader" while the group name is Magnetic Field Stabilizer, Gyrostabilizers also have this problem. Ballistic control units and Heat sinks are under their respective named categories. 2. unfinished module and ammunition sizing -Tracking computers, sensor disruptors sensor boosters are all small sized, why? they fit on every size ship, stasis webs , armor plates, cargo scanners are unsized completely. its a half built system but you arent fixing that. why? 3. inconsistent module m/3 Limited light ion blaster I is 25m/3 , Limited light Neutron Blaster I is 20 m/3 Limited Ion Blaster (medium) is 10m/3 , Limited Neutron Blaster is 10 m/3 Heavy Ion blaster I (medium) is 10 m/3 , Heavy Neutron Blaster I is 25m/3 This is wildly inconsistent. 4. inconsistent meta changes for all weapon/module types. in many cases there is a clear meta progression 0 is worst in all respects, and 4 is best in all respects, matching or better then t2. this also means that there is never any reason to fit meta 0-3 if 4 is available. in many cases there is a fitting choice between 3 and 4 that caused 3 to get fit instead of 4. and similar choices for meta 4 and tech 2 items. However the changes proposed and the ones implemented (as noted by another poster in this thread) there are now fewer fitting choices and far less variation of fitting options. Makuth light missile launchers (meta 3) had a lower cpu then the 'arbolast' meta 4 launcher and thus some fits used makuth and some used arbolast. actual fixes to your system would work better then dumbing down parts of it that you don't understand because it isn't completed to begin with." There are so many things wrong with the wildly disorganized module groups. High Metas that are total crap like the Gallente Mining Laser Meta 8. It is little better than meta 0! Gallente Mining Laser CPU 59 Mining Amount 40m3 Meta 8 Miner 1 CPU 60 Mining Amount 40m3 Meta 0 Completely misleading descriptors like the Adaptive Nano Plating: " It has the ability to instantly adapt to any attack." It don't adapt to JACK, it's just a passive resist mod with fixed stats. Unlike the Reactive Armor Hardener that actually reacts to armor layer damage by shifting between resistances over time. Some of the Faction mods are no better than the T2 for vast amounts of ISK and LPs. And more, but the Original Poster's concerns are T2 and Death Roe meta4 mods. And I agree the time to fix all these issues is with this module balancing Tiericide. The fact that half the T2 is not as good as the Meta4 THAT we have been fitting our ships SENSE Before there WERE T2 mods, the meta4 came before T2 in the game. The T2 mods should have the better stats. This is Called BALANCE CCP take something away, give something back! Or it just becomes the game of Nerf Online. PS: Making more Faction mods to make up for DXing meta4 is telling us just how badly this project is going.
Velicitia XS Tech 2671	Posted - 2015.01.02 11:31:42 - [6] - Quote MBizon Osis wrote: 2. unfinished module and ammunition sizing -Tracking computers, sensor disruptors sensor boosters are all small sized, why? they fit on every size ship, stasis webs , armor plates, cargo scanners are unsized completely. its a half built system but you arent fixing that. why? Because they're balanced where they are ... would you really argue that a T2 short point should have greater than 9km range for a BS? MBizon Osis wrote: 4. inconsistent meta changes for all weapon/module types. in many cases there is a clear meta progression 0 is worst in all respects, and 4 is best in all respects, matching or better then t2. this also means that there is never any reason to fit meta 0-3 if 4 is available. in many cases there is a fitting choice between 3 and 4 that caused 3 to get fit instead of 4. and similar choices for meta 4 and tech 2 items. However the changes proposed and the ones implemented (as noted by another poster in this thread) there are now fewer fitting choices and far less variation of fitting options. Makuth light missile launchers (meta 3) had a lower cpu then the 'arbolast' meta 4 launcher and thus some fits used makuth and some used arbolast. Pretty much this, except "cost" was also a factor sometimes. Those M4 items, being better than lower meta in most all regards, usually cost more than M3 or even T2 ... so sacrificing some DPS (or fitting space) to save coin was also a valid route. This, however, is a result of the "player driven economy" and not necessarily a balance issue per se ... so CCP should leave it alone. MBizon Osis wrote: Completely misleading descriptors like the Adaptive Nano Plating: " It has the ability to instantly adapt to any attack." It don't adapt to JACK, it's just a passive resist mod with fixed stats. Unlike the Reactive Armor Hardener that actually reacts to armor layer damage by shifting between resistances over time. Although the "adaptive" modules increase all resistances for you (granted it's a straight resist to all 4, rather than an instant shift based on incoming damage, as you noted) -- which is different than the single damage type hardeners. Slight change to the wording would take care of that though. One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Zan Shiro Alternative Enterprises 565	Posted - 2015.01.02 13:05:59 - [7] - Quote Akemon Numon wrote: I think we as players should have the privilege to keep these better m4 stats by training the skills for T2 and all that goes with Tech 2(increased damage from Over Heating, cost in ISK and SP, and the fact that they are skill intensive and expensive to make) modules. This basis for an idea is a lost cause sadly. In many years of the meta whine threads I and others premise that you should run meta gear with t2 if not higher skills fell on deaf ears. Some people said this not good enough and since every other game make finding better gear easier eve should follow suit. At some point ccp listened to these people. So now meta will be gimped in that it loses what made it good as a good mod loses 1 or several bonuses to share among other meta and t2 will at some be "the best" and the art and science that was theory crafting in eve will lose some importance. Sad really....I like my theory crafitng as a way to take the game away from the game. fitting tools on puters or neocom on my apple devices...lots of nice diversions I had here.
Mary Jane Moonbeam Shiva Furnace 4	Posted - 2015.01.02 13:11:09 - [8] - Quote Lienzo wrote: I had always hoped we'd have four of each type of gun, but each one would have a different specialty, like range, tracking, sig res or low fitting. Each of the other stats would be a little worse than the tech 1 equivalent. I would love to see the invention system move in this direction, where instead of getting a kick in the shins, we just get random meta. Every little module should try to be the best little module it can be and die gloriously before moving on to pixel heaven. This the plan for module tiericide as explained in the first dev blogs. The modules done do far and in Proteus don't really have enough dimensions, and thus can't follow the plan. However when they get to offensive modules, your dreams will come true.
MBizon Osis State War Academy Caldari State 62	Posted - 2015.01.02 17:01:52 - [9] - 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. So something like this: Meta 0 : is dropped mods in the different fitting flavors 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 prolly the lest likely 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.
Anhenka The Cult of Personality DARKNESS. 846	Posted - 2015.01.02 17:21:35 - [10] - Quote MBizon Osis wrote: 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. Everyone's ideas make more sense to themself when they propose the idea. And no, your idea is confusing as hell. So there's Meta 0.. which are the dropped variants.. Then there's meta 1, which is the current t1 mods, but which are the combination of two unspecified version of the meta 0's. Then there's meta 2, which are like all the meta 0's cobbled together but also like current tech 2 or the best current meta 4, although "best" of the meta4/t2 choice mods can be debatable or how you cobble together all the meta 0 varients. Then meta 3 which is storyline, even though meta 2 proposal would outperform many storyline mods.. You have manufactured t1 goods having an edge on the dropped variants, which is bad because it basically reduces all dropped modules to reprocessing value. You have a three option confusing proposal on what t2 would look like, and mess up the meta standings with regard to storyline. You have this idea that t1 would be a combo of two dropped version, but since there is only one basic t1 version to manufacture, now you have CCP deciding which bonuses to give out of the original 4, and which ones not to make avaialble in the t1 form. This is bad. Then there's the part about meta levels with regard to mods that do not have four names variants, like Siege modules, or micro auxiliary power cores, or probe launchers, all of which leave gaping holes in your " No gaps and no BS" spurt of self satisfaction. But please, tell us more about how your idea is simple, flawless, and better than anything else CCP has proposed so far. Please do.
MBizon Osis State War Academy Caldari State 62	Posted - 2015.01.03 00:55:29 - [11] - Quote Anhenka I am going to try and address your confusion by using smaller words and even easier to understand text. The problem is that a choice or 2 in possibles "is confusing as hell" to you, is not on me, and might not even be your fault, prenatal drug exposure is a real shame. "You have manufactured t1 goods having an edge on the dropped variants, which is bad because it basically reduces all dropped modules to reprocessing value. " You are 6 months out of date on this one Anhenka. 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 and 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. This post I made did not cover Story Line and higher except to assign a meta numeral. So again don't over confuse your self. "Mods that do not have four names variants" well its not hard to figure out 2 stats to improve is it now? I hope I have helped you to get past whatever disability that caused you so much confusion. If I wanted to use the CCP model first I would start with Changing the names of the mods, then make more Name Changes. Then make a Dev blog or 2 about the Goals and lay out, how the mods are going to be changed. Then not follow those goals at all, change the lay out after the first patch and make more faction mods to make up for the low meta mods getting taken out. Then change part of the changed names back to some of the old name. Leave the T2 as they are but take away the mets4s that are better with out buffing the T2s. Then remove the "sacrifice" a meta 0-4 module to augment your success rate in invention. And leave Tech one worthless and half the T2 less than the meta 4s were.
Akemon Numon Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 9	Posted - 2015.01.04 04:11:55 - [12] - Quote Huh... don't know what I was expecting for responses, but this is underwhelming. The players will go on for hundreds of pages over proposed changes to a single ship type or an added feature to the UI. But take away the best non faction or higher mods in the game and it's just a few lone voices in the wind. I understand the need for this balancing pass and adding usability and diversity is great, but CCP you are removing choice in the name of ... choice? MBizon Osis you have some interesting ideas. How ever I do not like the new CCP names for the dropped mods in your plan. And I don't care how they rearrange the lower than Tech 2 just as long as all the T2 mods have as good a stats as the meta 4 mods CCP is axing from the game. This is the balance you all should focus on here. Google these meta 4 mods, they are as old as the game itself, as someone pointed out. Now they are going away forever, along with all of our min/maxed fits. I have no faith that the Dev team on this will heed this thread but I have to try. And please for the love of Pete make the Ore Scanner read in m3.
Cledus Snowman Snow Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 6	Posted - 2015.01.06 04:32:53 - [13] - 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.
Azozae State War Academy Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.01.06 08:35:54 - [14] - Quote It's all about managing the server footprint and encouraging pilots to fly null/WH.
Tusker Crazinski Delta vane Corp. Mordus Angels 14	Posted - 2015.01.06 13:44:06 - [15] - Quote Honestly I'd rather all the named mods do ONE thing very well at the expense of others while the T2 mods get 75% of all the good stats of each mod. Kinda why Nano fibers are used more than I-stabs and overdrives.
Ioci Bad Girl Posse Somethin Awfull Forums 546	Posted - 2015.01.06 13:57:30 - [16] - Quote It is unfortunate that we are losing creativity to conformity but when all else fails, fit the next best thing and blob up. Former Guardian Fit 2 x T2 large cap transfer 4 x Meta 4 Large remote armor. It's not an option to fit all T2 on the rack so I will continue with the Meta 4 and get them at reproc rather than the 700K they go for now. I just won't rep as much. R.I.P. Vile Rat
King Fu Hostile Cutthroat Industries We need wards. 312	Posted - 2015.01.06 14:20:29 - [17] - Quote Akemon Numon wrote: As most of you should know by now CCP is doing the module balancing Tiericide. And part of this is the removal of meta4 mods of all types. http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/rebalancing-modules-round-two Not to insult anyone's intelligence, but some newer players might not know that many meta4 mods have better stats, as in lower fitting cost (less CPU, CAP, PG, OR less negative effect) than the same type of Tech2 mod. Now all this time we had a choice with these better meta4 mods or the T2 in the same class. Now we will not and the inferior T2 mods are not getting buffed to compensate for the loss of the better meta4s. I propose that in the cases where the departing meta4 has an edge over the Tech2 mod that edge is transferred to the T2 mod. Tech 2 already takes more damage from Over Heating, cost more ISK and SP, and is skill intensive and expensive to make. These facts are the balance to making all the T2 mods as good as the departing "superior" M4 mods. And for the tired old 'that is a Power Creep' mantra how can that be if the stats have been in the game for ever? Just now there is no choice as the option of fitting the better meta4 mods will not be there any longer. And many of the T2 mods are already better than the same meta4. This would actually rationalize this state of affairs. Tech2 is having had to train skills to lvl5 to use and in the case where meta4 is better was confusing and inconsistent given that many T2 mods are the best choice over meta4. I think we as players should have the privilege to keep these better m4 stats by training the skills for T2 and all that goes with Tech 2(increased damage from Over Heating, cost in ISK and SP, and the fact that they are skill intensive and expensive to make) modules. These fitting changes are going to effect all the players in this game. Not just X ship or type of X play. If you PVP or PVE. Miner, ganker, Titan pilot and new player in a T1 frig will know how life is with out the better meta4 mods. And the thing of it is...half or more T2 mods are the better fit over m4. CCP balance this the right way and allow us to keep all our fits as they are please with improved Tech2 where the m4 was a better fit. Not sure how or why I even have to implore the Balance Experts to keep the same fitting options I have had for 4 years, but I am and do. I do not believe that given the absence of competing meta4 mods some of the T2 has to suck as badly as it does in some cases. Nor do I think that met4 was OP or that transferring the better stats to T2 will break the game some how. And forcing us to use "Faction or better to have the same fit" we have had for our entire time playing EVE is not right or balanced. Thank you for reading Just my 0.02 ISK I think your main issue here is that you made the "removal of meta 4 equal mods" up in your confused little head. The module groups they are changing in the dev blog don't have the kind of meta 4 modules you are concerned about, all their meta 4 mods already are simply worse than T2.
Siobhan MacLeary Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters Ocularis Inferno 188	Posted - 2015.01.06 14:39:57 - [18] - Quote I'm looking back at both the upcoming and previous module rebalance and no modules were removed, just renamed. OP is paranoid and making things up. I'll even be nice and list things out for you. (WIP). Top marks for really caring about player choice, but I think you should pay more attention to the actual content of devblogs as well as CCP's recent design mantra of meaningful choice. GÇ£Point out to me a person who has been harmed by an AFK cloaker and I will point out a person who has no business playing this game.GÇ¥ - CCP Soundwave
Cledus Snowman Snow Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 6	Posted - 2015.01.06 17:22:22 - [19] - Quote King Fu Hostile "I think your main issue here is that you made the "removal of meta 4 equal mods" up in your confused little head. The module groups they are changing in the dev blog don't have the kind of meta 4 modules you are concerned about, all their meta 4 mods already are simply worse than T2." Siobhan MacLearyI'm looking back at both the upcoming and previous module rebalance and while it looks like some modules are being removed and having their meta level changed, based on stats there's still a "Meta 4" module. "Top marks for really caring about player choice, but I think you should pay more attention to the actual content of devblogs as well as CCP's recent design mantra of meaningful choice. " Last 2 posters have missed the OP's very basic premise or are trolling. It is very clear that some Meta4 mods are clearly superior to the corresponding T2 equivalent. Those mods are being taken out of the game. As in GONE. Akemon Numon "Example the Power Relays: 'the Beta Reactor Control: Capacitor Power Relay I' uses less CPU than the T2, 3 TF and the T2 8TF and has the same cap recharge bonus. And the T2 is staying at 8 TF after the changes? This is a clear fitting Nerf. " That's a hefty nerf to a frig size ship I don't care how you want to try to gloss over the change. Even larger min/maxed fits WILL HAVE TO CHANGE. And none of the new Power Relays can match the STATS. This is going to be the case for EVERY meta4 that is better than the T2. And his point, as I understand it the T2s are not getting buffed to match the better m4s. http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/rebalancing-modules-round-two
CaCi-A 001Me State War Academy Caldari State 2	Posted - 2015.01.06 19:27:44 - [20] - Quote edit i don't play real life, the balancing sucks!
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 14435	Posted - 2015.01.06 19:36:09 - [21] - 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
Kruz T Erata State War Academy Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.01.07 08:16:40 - [22] - Quote I feel that all of the major points have been stated on this thread, and while I am not as educated on all of the variations and statistically differences between specific modules, I would like to make one point that concerns me over all. Meta4 Vs. T2 advantages and disadvantages are one of the strongest factors in Eve that separate this game from every other MMO in existance. It forces our players(Especially our new players) to educate themselves and do a little research on the game. At some point we all have to stop and reevaluate our fits. Everything comes into factor, from a ship's limited CPU to our skills and the ISK we have to dedicate to Modules. The prices of these mods work according to their value, and dictate what we can/can't use. Eve is better because of the struggle. It's all about the grind, baby, and hard work builds character. Eve is unique in that it really is about the strong conquering the weak. The weak minded don't last long in Eve, and this adds a lot of flavor to this sandbox. I'm not asking that CCP not rebalance modules. I simply expect them to do exactly what they expect US to do every day: Research for yourself and know what exactly needs to be done for this to work. And keep in mind, some of us have dozens of ships fit with Meta4 mods and they will be majorly impacted by these changes.
Shivanthar 165	Posted - 2015.01.07 09:04:26 - [23] - Quote I don't have any issues with any of the meta. If one uses meta4's before, now they'll be using meta 3 as everybody else If they already trained for meta 5 (t2), and want to get better stats for some drawbacks, they'll use that instead. - If you have problem with "I don't want to train for t2 stuff, it takes long, so give me a meta equivalent", no. - Else if you have problem with "I don't want to train for t2 stuff, it takes long, make training shorter so I can reach to those faster", no. - Else, (in which case is you have already trained for t2, but you want mods that has less drawback with same/close to t2 values), no. If you want meta 5 equivalent meta, use factions/ded. It should be intended that way from the beginning. No need to worry, game will update for everyone, so everybody will be on the same boat. Adapt. _Half _the lies they tell about me aren't true.
Altrue Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective 1542	Posted - 2015.01.07 10:10:45 - [24] - Quote Akemon Numon wrote: Tech 2 already takes more damage from Over Heating, Isn't that a legend? Signature Tanking - Best Tanking
Debora Tsung Die Woge des Wahnsinns Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere 1400	Posted - 2015.01.07 11:36:59 - [25] - Quote The claim that T2 modules are more expensive than Meta 4 modules is debatable, at best. Stupidity should be a bannable offense. Also This --> AFK Cloaking Collection Thread Please stop making "fix afk cloaking!" threads, your idea is not new. Thanks in advance.
Aspichelon Inkura State War Academy Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.01.07 19:46:08 - [26] - Quote I for one agree with Akemon Numon on the fact that removing the meta 4 items and leaving every T2 item unchanged is in no way balancing the game. I'm perfectly fine with removing the meta 4 items but when that is done the T2 items should be improved or matched with the former meta 4 item. Many fits are carefully fitted with a delicate balance for every player out there. Simply removing meta 4's and leaving the "weaker" T2 items as the skill heavy upgrades then we are not talking about an upgrade but as a simple downgrade for everyone. I agree that the T2 SHOULD be a an item that you need the skills for to even fit it. But we may expect it to be an upgrade equal as the former but overall better meta 4. That brings it to how i would like to see it: make every item a skill dependant item with every tier but obviously a "better" version as the one before. All the way up to officer tiers. So in my opinion when nothing is done with the T2 items which are actually worse then it's meta 4 version but have higher needs like cpu and power costs the term "balancing" is a complete fail. I hope CCP will rethink their statement on T2 being unchanged and acts upon EVE's communities thoughts and input.
Akemon Numon Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 9	Posted - 2015.01.10 23:48:27 - [27] - 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?" CCP Terminus"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'? WTH did they ever do to any one? How do you exploit moving cargo? Or it's just CCP bowing to the make ganking easier Lobby. 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?
ISD Ezwal ISD Community Communications Liaisons 3523	Posted - 2015.01.11 19:12:14 - [28] - Quote As there already is a thread on the same topic, this one gets a lock. I have also removed some rule breaking posts. Thread locked. The Rules: 4. Personal attacks are prohibited. Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated. 17. Redundant and re-posted threads will be locked. As a courtesy to other forum users, please search to see if there is a thread already open on the topic you wish to discuss. If so, please place your comments there instead. Multiple threads on the same subject clutter up the forums needlessly, causing good feedback and ideas to be lost. Please keep discussion regarding a topic to a single thread. ISD Ezwal Vice Admiral Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department

Pages: 1 :: [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.