EVE Search - Sticky:[June] Module Tiericide - Armor Plates and Shield Extenders

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:[June] Module Tiericide - Armor Plates and Shield Extenders

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 5 post(s)

CCP Delegate Zero C C P C C P Alliance 201	Posted - 2015.05.20 20:46:24 - [1] - Quote As part of the ongoing module tiericide efforts we are making some consolidation and balance changes to armor plates and shield extenders. In general the principles being followed are as for module tiericide as a whole: Goals of Module Tiericide Reduce unnecessary complexity Provide meaningful options within the module set Specifically the pattern of changes for both armor plates and shield extenders aims to: Remove the clearly superfluous '50mm' and micro' size categories. Consolidate 'Named' modules from meta levels 1-4 into two variants within meta level 1 - a 'compact' variant and a 'restrained' variant. Maintain the general positioning and power level of Tech II variants in the families. Place 'Storyline' variants in a place that is somewhere between the 'compact' and Tech II variants in terms of relevant stats. Significantly enhance the appeal of 'Faction' variants with substantial relative easing of fitting and increases in bonuses, while maintaining relatively low penalties. Establish diversity within the 'Faction' variants by adjusting stats in broadly in line with thematic notes as far as available tuning allows. The case for removing the 50mm plates and micro extenders respectively was fairly clear. It also seemed reasonable to double up the HP bonus of small shield extenders to open up more use cases for them compared with medium extenders. The case of plate size groupings is more complicated due to the greater number of options that exist. There is an argument that 100mm plates remain something of an oddity but for this pass we have decided to eliminate the obviously subpar options represented by 50mm and micro modules and see how matters develop. Change Sheets Rather than blast a series of densely packed numbers at you in text form, the changes can be viewed in the following sheets: Armor Plates Module Tiericide Shield Extender Module Tiericide Consequences of Consolidation Changes Some merging of modules will take place as a result of these changes. All existing 50mm plates will be changed into a special 'Storyline' 100mm plate designed to be very low fitting, low bonus, low penalty. The same will hold true of Micro shield extenders, as they will merge into a Small extender following a similar stat profile. In terms of 'Named' modules, the 'Reinforced Nanofiber Plates' range will merge into the 'Crystalline Carbonide Restrained Plates'. Likewise, the 'Reinforced Titanium Plates' will merge into the 'Rolled Tungsten Compact Plates'. With shield extenders this process is mirrored by the merger of 'Subordinate Screen Stabilizers' into 'F-S9 Regolith Compact Shield Extenders', and the merger of 'Supplemental Barrier Emitters' into 'Azeotropic Restrained Shield Extenders'. Aspects of naming have necessarily changed to reflect the changes, with the balance of flavor and information in naming conventions that has been settled on with previous sets of module tiericide changes. As a reminder the meta module signifiers used for these changes are: Compact: lower fitting requirements Restrained: lower penalties on use The sources of modules will remain the same in terms of loot drops, LP stores and so on. Release Plan These changes are planned for the June 2nd release and are currently available to play around with on the Singularity test server. Please let us have your feedback or questions regarding these planned changes. CCP Delegate Zero \| Game Designer \| @CCPDelegateZero

James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 701	Posted - 2015.05.20 20:59:08 - [2] - Quote Generally like the changes to the shield extenders, I would like the HP/sig ratio looked at closely. T2 LSE has 104 HP/sig RF LSE has 137.5 HP/sig T2 MSE has 157HP/sig RF MSE has 240HP/sig T2 SSE has 260HP/sig RF SSE has 550HP/sig Thukker has infinite! Seeing as sig radius is a MASSIVE factor in how well many minmatar ships tank and how they are generally in a bad spot currently, giving a bit more work on that would be nice. Also, Good job on giving us meta modules which make for interesting choices on these now, and making the faction flavorful enough to merit work getting the specific faction's mod without making any of them entirely OP (other than maybe thukker SSE) Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 13045	Posted - 2015.05.20 21:21:06 - [3] - Quote What is the point of having Meta levels at all, if you're just going to skip huge sections of them? It goes from 0, to two kinds of 1, to 5. That makes less sense than what currently exists. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.
BugraT WarheaD 168	Posted - 2015.05.20 21:35:28 - [4] - Quote owwwwwww sweat !
Moac Tor Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation 67	Posted - 2015.05.20 21:36:12 - [5] - Quote Thanks for releasing the official statement.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1169	Posted - 2015.05.20 21:53:18 - [6] - Quote interesting changes, certainly like the options of restrained and compact, but as ever i remain unconvinced by the tiny reductions to fittings on the compact ones. 100mm plates, are they actually used much though? .. would like too see some stats on the usages of the different sizes and what ship sizes they are used on most. also kind of curious as too adding a larger battleship sized plate, maybe a 2200mm and what the thoughts on this is? 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, nerf sentries, -3 slots for droneboats Nerf web strength, Make the blaster eagle worth using
Bienator II madmen of the skies 3300	Posted - 2015.05.20 22:00:14 - [7] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: What is the point of having Meta levels at all, if you're just going to skip huge sections of them? It goes from 0, to two kinds of 1, to 5. That makes less sense than what currently exists. i guess once all mods are balanced ccp will just compact the meta levels and remove all empty spots or remove the notion of meta all together. how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
Lochiel Raising the Bar Of Sound Mind 22	Posted - 2015.05.20 22:06:41 - [8] - Quote Request to change the naming pattern to Nmm [Restrained\|Compact] [Flavor Name] Plates So that when I search for "200mm Restrained" I get exactly the module I was looking for?
Circumstantial Evidence 179	Posted - 2015.05.20 22:11:48 - [9] - Quote Will BPC / BPO's for 50mm plates be converted to Storyline BPO, or regular 100mm BPO?
Destoya Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 401	Posted - 2015.05.20 22:21:06 - [10] - Quote Armor plates really seem to have gotten the shaft here... Reduced max tank on all rolled tungsten plates as well as on 800mm/1600mm T2 plates. Small shield extender gives comparable tank to a 200mm plate with a third of the fitting requirements. Can you just confirm that this was an intention of the changes and clarify the reasoning behind this?

Mizhir Matari Exodus The Camel Empire 74385	Posted - 2015.05.20 22:37:07 - [11] - Quote Is there any reasons why there is a large variety on the different faction plates while faction shield extenders provide the same HP boost? Kaarous Aldurald wrote: What is the point of having Meta levels at all, if you're just going to skip huge sections of them? It goes from 0, to two kinds of 1, to 5. That makes less sense than what currently exists. The new system is way better. The old meta stuff was just only meta 4 being used (and sometimes meta 3 if meta 4 is expensive) and then the rest of it was trash. Now there are different choices. LIke for MWD you can pick between better cap, easier fitting or lower sig bloom. One Man Crew - Collective Solo PVP - Video is out!
probag Bear Xiong Offices 69	Posted - 2015.05.20 22:41:07 - [12] - Quote Please reconsider the unsurpassable nerf to " 'Bailey' 1600mm Steel Plates ". They are currently a sub-par, ~600mil, version of normal 1600mm Steel Plates. As killmail data shows, they are nearly completely unused; the number of ships lost using this particular module is on the order of magnitude of a dozen a year. What killmail data does not show is the one single fit that fuels nearly 100% of the demand for 'Bailey' 1600mm Steel Plates: the dual-plated, dual-ENAM, dual-trimarked, full slave linked Rapier. The reason it does not show up on killboards is because it is not used by people who engage into fights they would lose; only smart people use this fit, so there are close to no losses. The dual-plated, dual-ENAM, dual-trimarked, full slave Rapier is literally the only ship fitting that makes use of this module. With your proposed PWG change to the module, you are making impossible roughly all of the ships flown with this module fit. And given the extremely high price of the module, there will be no fit to step up to the plate and make this module again. tl;dr: Looking at historical market and kill-mail data, by nerfing 'Bailey' 1600mm Steel Plates, you are making the one and only common fit that uses this module impossible, and thus eliminating ~98.5% of the total demand for the module. Given its enormous price and mediocre new stats, there will be no fit on any ship at all that this module will be worth using on. It will go from one of the very few Storyline modules to have a dominant niche to another Storyline module that is never, ever, used.
Suitonia Genos Occidere Warlords of the Deep 547	Posted - 2015.05.20 22:44:20 - [13] - Quote I have a question in regards to COSMOS/Storyline Faction Plates and Extenders, why are the fitting requirements for these being increased and in several instances being harder to fit than the 'compact' meta variants. I thought that Storyline/Cosmos was supposed to have the best fitting requirements? Contributer to Eve is Easy: https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
Jack Hayson Atztech Inc. Ixtab. 164	Posted - 2015.05.20 22:48:17 - [14] - Quote It's nice that faction plates finally become useful, but why the nerf to the commonly used T2 and meta 4 plates? Do you feel that armor buffer tanking is too strong?
Arla Sarain 452	Posted - 2015.05.20 22:57:25 - [15] - Quote Small shield extenders get double HP over 100mm plates. 200mm plates have roughly same HP but 10PG or more and slows the ship down. Ships that will be fitting these modules won't prefer either really, just that PG is more valuable on small ships.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1170	Posted - 2015.05.20 23:01:53 - [16] - Quote on faction extenders. caldari - should have the highest HP .. shield HP is a caldari specialty Republic Fleet - lower sig pen makes more sense then thukker having it Thukker - give it the lowest fittings 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, nerf sentries, -3 slots for droneboats Nerf web strength, Make the blaster eagle worth using
Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. 3414	Posted - 2015.05.20 23:06:37 - [17] - Quote Ive always wondered how sufficient armor to cover a Battleship with 1.6 meters of steel all fits into a 50 cu m package. The armor thicknesses seem to be just so huge! Possible change to make it all make more sense: Drop a zero. 10mm, 20mm, 40mm, 80mm and 160mm plates. Also: Do you have any idea of the usefulness of the other meta levels? It seems odd to just have them abandoned. Know a Frozen fan? Check this out Frozen fanfiction
Firia O'Flame Golgotha Mining and Freight 20	Posted - 2015.05.20 23:07:03 - [18] - Quote Lochiel wrote: Request to change the naming pattern to Nmm [Restrained\|Compact] [Flavor Name] Plates So that when I search for "200mm Restrained" I get exactly the module I was looking for? I support this. Simple search methods are a benefit.
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 2852	Posted - 2015.05.20 23:12:34 - [19] - Quote So, what will happen to the 50mm reinforced steel plate BPOs and the micro shield extender BPOs? Roleplaying Trinkets for Explorers and Collectors
Iyacia Cyric'ai Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 147	Posted - 2015.05.20 23:24:54 - [20] - Quote Looks like faction plates will be a thing again.

Ripard Teg Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 1035	Posted - 2015.05.20 23:30:18 - [21] - Quote Guys! You have a serious opportunity here to make Small Shield Extenders not useless! Please don't let it go by! I have a dream. It is not a big dream. It is a small dream. In my dream, Small Shield Extenders are a good option for frigates and Medium Shield Extenders are a good option for cruisers. Must I abandon my dream? aka Jester, who apparently was once Deemed Worthy To Wield The Banhammer to good effect.
Iyacia Cyric'ai Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 148	Posted - 2015.05.20 23:47:01 - [22] - Quote Ripard Teg wrote: Guys! You have a serious opportunity here to make Small Shield Extenders not useless! Please don't let it go by! I have a dream. It is not a big dream. It is a small dream. In my dream, Small Shield Extenders are a good option for frigates and Medium Shield Extenders are a good option for cruisers. Must I abandon my dream? Is this just a sneaky way of saying you want x-large shield extenders?
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1080	Posted - 2015.05.20 23:48:50 - [23] - Quote I'd drop 100mm plates, they're never worth a slot. it's hard enough finding a use for 200mms (and 800mms). instead of fitting a small plate with tank rigs, it's often better and faster to use ACRs and a big plate. small plate gank fits probably will still be bad compared to hull tank fits, because of hull tanks being stupid (capless, omni resist, 0 pg, no penalty buffer tank, just why). so yeah, the high bang:buck of ancillary armour reps, and more recently bulkhead rigs, has gotten me to drop the 200mm plates from all my frigate fits except mwd + plate gang fits. I used to solo with AAR + 200mm plate fits, but swapping the plate for an adaptive nano plating typically improved the total ehp when factoring in the AAR, while also being easier fitting and having no mass increase. I'm just going to guess that small extenders aren't going to be very useful even with that huge buff. midslots are life. people are armour tanking ships that have 5 mids and 2 lows because webs and ewar are so high value. I hope you guys see that this is bad, rather than celebrating it as some player driven emergent sandbox something something. those restrained extenders seem to have much more lenient penalties than the restrained plates. currently the armour/shield rigs already add as much or more penalty than the actual plates/extenders. I guess they'll be way more after this. I'd like it if tank rigs were much lower impact, but with less crippling penalties.
Aliventi Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic 858	Posted - 2015.05.20 23:50:20 - [24] - Quote Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote: Ripard Teg wrote: Guys! You have a serious opportunity here to make Small Shield Extenders not useless! Please don't let it go by! I have a dream. It is not a big dream. It is a small dream. In my dream, Small Shield Extenders are a good option for frigates and Medium Shield Extenders are a good option for cruisers. Must I abandon my dream? Is this just a sneaky way of saying you want x-large shield extenders? First, +1 to making small shield extenders frigate sized and medium shield extender designed for cruisers. If that isn't going to happen (which it totally should!) XL Shield Extenders would be a fantastic idea so Shield BS don't always have to fit 2 large shield extenders.
Aliventi Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic 858	Posted - 2015.05.20 23:53:01 - [25] - Quote Also, +1 to getting rid of 100mm plates.
Circumstantial Evidence 179	Posted - 2015.05.20 23:55:27 - [26] - Quote Ripard Teg wrote: Guys! You have a serious opportunity here to make Small Shield Extenders not useless! Please don't let it go by! I have a dream. It is not a big dream. It is a small dream. In my dream, Small Shield Extenders are a good option for frigates and Medium Shield Extenders are a good option for cruisers. Must I abandon my dream? Hmm. Do you mean to suggest a complete rethink, so that small parts only fit on small ships, or just additional thought on the stats for extenders? When I started EVE, I thought small parts went on small ships. After a while, I discovered the part size class names (S/M/L) had little to do with what ship size class they fit on.
Moac Tor Cy-Core Industries Stain Confederation 67	Posted - 2015.05.21 00:01:57 - [27] - Quote I'd be hesitant to go any larger than LSE's and 1600mms. Battleships already come equipped with massive tanks built into the ships base stats, allowing even larger buffers would have a big change on the current meta. TrouserDeagle wrote: I'd drop 100mm plates, they're never worth a slot. it's hard enough finding a use for 200mms (and 800mms). instead of fitting a small plate with tank rigs, it's often better and faster to use ACRs and a big plate. small plate gank fits probably will still be bad compared to hull tank fits, because of hull tanks being stupid (capless, omni resist, 0 pg, no penalty buffer tank, just why). so yeah, the high bang:buck of ancillary armour reps, and more recently bulkhead rigs, has gotten me to drop the 200mm plates from all my frigate fits except mwd + plate gang fits. I used to solo with AAR + 200mm plate fits, but swapping the plate for an adaptive nano plating typically improved the total ehp when factoring in the AAR, while also being easier fitting and having no mass increase. I'm just going to guess that small extenders aren't going to be very useful even with that huge buff. midslots are life. people are armour tanking ships that have 5 mids and 2 lows because webs and ewar are so high value. I hope you guys see that this is bad, rather than celebrating it as some player driven emergent sandbox something something. those restrained extenders seem to have much more lenient penalties than the restrained plates. currently the armour/shield rigs already add as much or more penalty than the actual plates/extenders. I guess they'll be way more after this. I'd like it if tank rigs were much lower impact, but with less crippling penalties. I agree with this. Plates are overshadowed, 200mm or 800mm rarely get used in any of my fittings, and 100mm are non existant. Ancillary reppers have made this situation even more severe.
Ripard Teg Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 1035	Posted - 2015.05.21 00:26:37 - [28] - Quote Iyacia Cyric'ai wrote: Ripard Teg wrote: Guys! You have a serious opportunity here to make Small Shield Extenders not useless! Please don't let it go by! I have a dream. It is not a big dream. It is a small dream. In my dream, Small Shield Extenders are a good option for frigates and Medium Shield Extenders are a good option for cruisers. Must I abandon my dream? Is this just a sneaky way of saying you want x-large shield extenders? If CCP really wants to avoid XLSEs, there are ways around it, such as narrowing the gap a little between the sizes. The SSE1 could be given the MSE1's fitting requirements and give +900 shield. The MSE1 could be given the LSE1's fitting requirements and give +1800 shield. And the LSE1 could require say 400 grid and give +2700 shield. That would better differentiate the sizes. As it is, nobody is going to continue to use the SSE. Twice ** is still **. That said, I don't think it would be too imbalancing to add an XLSE1 as long as the fitting requirements were balanced. Say 1200 grid required, giving +3600 shield. Shield tanking on the high end is underpowered compared to armor tanking. A lot of battleships could absorb such a module without having to change much. Those that couldn't (hello, Minmatar!) would have to make some fitting choices. More choice is nearly always a good thing. aka Jester, who apparently was once Deemed Worthy To Wield The Banhammer to good effect.
unidenify Plundering Penguins 113	Posted - 2015.05.21 00:34:54 - [29] - Quote those Small Shield Extender would be game changing in Fit. they give more CPU but less PG plus less sig radius when fit 2 of those module vs their counterpart Medium Who know, maybe we can see tanky Corax with 2 Small Extender
Ripard Teg Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 1036	Posted - 2015.05.21 00:45:24 - [30] - Quote unidenify wrote: Who know, maybe we can see tanky Corax with 2 Small Extender Very few people are going to give up a precious mid to do this. Besides, as it is a MSE Corax has a sig of 78m, a third of most medium guns. It doesn't really need the help and the frigs that might double SSE need it even less. The only place you'll see SSEs is where we see them now: badly-fit industrials and barges. aka Jester, who apparently was once Deemed Worthy To Wield The Banhammer to good effect.

Morihei Akachi Nishida Corporation 160	Posted - 2015.05.21 01:03:00 - [31] - Quote CCP Delegate Zero wrote: As a reminder the meta module signifiers used for these changes are: Restrained: lower penalties on use Still calling technological equipment "restrained," eh? This doesn't get any more plausible merely by virtue of repetition. I doubt I'll be fitting these. "Enduring", "restrained" and "ample" as designations for starship components are foreign to the genre of high-tech science fiction and do not belong in Eve Online.
Catherine Laartii Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate 539	Posted - 2015.05.21 01:24:45 - [32] - Quote Is there any possibility of releasing 3200mm plates and XL extenders? Battleships need some serious love, and introducing battleship-sized buffer mods would go a long way towards that.
Catherine Laartii Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate 539	Posted - 2015.05.21 01:27:30 - [33] - Quote TrouserDeagle wrote: I'd drop 100mm plates, they're never worth a slot. it's hard enough finding a use for 200mms (and 800mms). instead of fitting a small plate with tank rigs, it's often better and faster to use ACRs and a big plate. small plate gank fits probably will still be bad compared to hull tank fits, because of hull tanks being stupid (capless, omni resist, 0 pg, no penalty buffer tank, just why). so yeah, the high bang:buck of ancillary armour reps, and more recently bulkhead rigs, has gotten me to drop the 200mm plates from all my frigate fits except mwd + plate gang fits. I used to solo with AAR + 200mm plate fits, but swapping the plate for an adaptive nano plating typically improved the total ehp when factoring in the AAR, while also being easier fitting and having no mass increase. I'm just going to guess that small extenders aren't going to be very useful even with that huge buff. midslots are life. people are armour tanking ships that have 5 mids and 2 lows because webs and ewar are so high value. I hope you guys see that this is bad, rather than celebrating it as some player driven emergent sandbox something something. those restrained extenders seem to have much more lenient penalties than the restrained plates. currently the armour/shield rigs already add as much or more penalty than the actual plates/extenders. I guess they'll be way more after this. I'd like it if tank rigs were much lower impact, but with less crippling penalties. I agree; the restrained plates should have the lowest mass out of any of them, either more so or tied with certain faction plates (it seems like the fed navy plates are the lightest with this).
Muon Farstrider Partial Safety 0	Posted - 2015.05.21 01:41:33 - [34] - Quote Ripard Teg wrote: unidenify wrote: Who know, maybe we can see tanky Corax with 2 Small Extender Very few people are going to give up a precious mid to do this. Besides, as it is a MSE Corax has a sig of 78m, a third of most medium guns. It doesn't really need the help and the frigs that might double SSE need it even less. Problem with the Corax in particular is that the damn thing has what feels like zero PG. You put a full rack of light missiles and a microwarpdrive on it and you're literally at 59/60 PG, even with AWU V. You need a MAPC and a current router to get a MSE on one. I'm just a newb, but at least in a non-solo situation I'd consider putting 2x SSE on it since it's not quite as critical to have the full rack of mids on every ship in that case. (Especially because I can make up for the extra module slot by replacing the MAPC with a signal enhancer instead of using a sebo.) It does offer a few options for ships that have the midslots.
Alexis Nightwish 199	Posted - 2015.05.21 01:58:32 - [35] - Quote Lochiel wrote: Request to change the naming pattern to Nmm [Restrained\|Compact] [Flavor Name] Plates So that when I search for "200mm Restrained" I get exactly the module I was looking for? I'd much rather have the size in between the tiericide name and the type of module it is like this: [flavortext] [tiericide name] [size] [shield extender/plates]. Example: Rolled Tungsten Compact 1600mm Plates This way I can search for all "Compact 1600mm" or all "1600mm Plates" and get what I'm looking for. Large F-S9 Regolith *Compact* Shield Extender -á CPU 35 (+1) Really?! CCP, if your goal is to get people to fit SSE or sub-400mm plates on their frigates, or to encourage people to use medium tank modules on their cruisers, this isn't going to do it. The slots are too precious, and even with the new stats I'd rather have a resist module instead of a small HP module. Also you're completely missing the chance to fix something that's been broken for a long time: the disparity between armor and shield at larger sizes. What do I mean? Well the go-to HP modules for frigates is the MSE and 400mm. These add around 1000 HP to your ship. Armor a little more, shield a little less but given their inherent balancing factors (mass vs sig radius, higher base resists vs regeneration) this is fine. Now look at the go-to for everything cruiser and up: LSE and 1600mm. HUGE disparity between their HP. 1600mm armor literally gives 80-90% more HP than LSE! This is a primary factor in why you only see armor in large fleet fights. They give so much HP, and penalize speed so little, and sig radius not at all (I'm not even going to talk about bombers here. I have another thread for that.), and they have better inate resists, that it's the obvious choice. Another thing you're missing out on is the opportunity to provide more fitting options for shields. Right now you have three shield sizes, and five armor. Why not make five shield sizes as well like so: -á-á-á-á-á[SIZE]-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á[APPROX HP Sh/Ar]-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á[FITTING RESTRICTIONS] Micro/100mm-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á400-500/500-600-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-áPerfect for Frigates Small/200mm-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á600-750/750-900-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-áPerfect for Destroyers, tight fit/max skills/implants/fitting mods for Frigates Medium/400mm-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á800-1000/1000-1200-á-á-á-á-á-á-áPerfect for Cruisers, tight fit/max skills/implants/fitting mods for Destroyers; prohibitive for Frigates Large/800mm-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á1500-1800/2000-2400-á-á-á-á-á-áPerfect for BC, tight fit/max skills/implants/fitting mods for Cruiser; prohibitive for Destroyer down X-Large/1600mm-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á2750-3250/4000-5000-á-á-á-á-á-áPerfect for BS, tight fit/max skills/implants/fitting mods for BC; prohibitive for Cruiser down I know you guys aren't going to look at these modules for years after this. Please take the time to fix them now! CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge EVE Online's "I win!" Button Fixing bombs, not the bombers
Lloyd Roses Artificial Memories 1058	Posted - 2015.05.21 01:59:40 - [36] - Quote I like this. Finally pimp has a meaning for buffer mods. Can't you smuggle in a x-large shield extender category? I want to blow BS appropriate amounts of PG and CPU on an extender!
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 702	Posted - 2015.05.21 02:15:15 - [37] - Quote probag Bear wrote: The dual-plated, dual-ENAM, dual-trimarked, full slave Rapier is literally the only ship fitting that makes use of this module. With your proposed PWG change to the module, you are making impossible roughly all of the ships flown with this module fit. And given the extremely high price of the module, there will be no fit to step up to the plate and make this module worth using again. tl;dr: Looking at historical market and kill-mail data, by nerfing 'Bailey' 1600mm Steel Plates, you are making the one and only common fit that uses this module impossible, and thus eliminating ~98.5% of the total demand for the module. Given its enormous price and mediocre new stats, there will be no fit on any ship at all that this module will be worth using on. It will go from one of the very few Storyline modules to have a dominant niche to another Storyline module that is never, ever, used. They are also much in demand for TDF logi in incursions. Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp
Phoenix Jones Isogen 5 1336	Posted - 2015.05.21 02:26:10 - [38] - Quote They just improved every frigates tank. Not bad. Yaay!!!!
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 702	Posted - 2015.05.21 02:26:49 - [39] - Quote Alexis Nightwish wrote: Another thing you're missing out on is the opportunity to provide more fitting options for shields. Right now you have three shield sizes, and five armor. Why not make five shield sizes as well like so: -á-á-á-á-á[SIZE]-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á[APPROX HP Sh/Ar]-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á[FITTING RESTRICTIONS] Micro/100mm-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á400-500/500-600-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-áPerfect for Frigates Small/200mm-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á600-750/750-900-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-áPerfect for Destroyers, tight fit/max skills/implants/fitting mods for Frigates Medium/400mm-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á800-1000/1000-1200-á-á-á-á-á-á-áPerfect for Cruisers, tight fit/max skills/implants/fitting mods for Destroyers; prohibitive for Frigates Large/800mm-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á1500-1800/2000-2400-á-á-á-á-á-áPerfect for BC, tight fit/max skills/implants/fitting mods for Cruiser; prohibitive for Destroyer down X-Large/1600mm-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á2750-3250/4000-5000-á-á-á-á-á-áPerfect for BS, tight fit/max skills/implants/fitting mods for BC; prohibitive for Cruiser down I know you guys aren't going to look at these modules for years after this. Please take the time to fix them now! I kinda like this, and noodled up a slightly different version, which was based off of the ratios between existing modules, which I included in a post inside the battleship balance proposal I'm working on. Important part of this post quoted below Quote: XL Shield Extender II 6563HP 879PG 63CPU 90Sig And 3200MM plate II 9600HP 1438PG 39CPU 15000000 kg Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp
Midori Tsu Evolution Northern Coalition. 138	Posted - 2015.05.21 03:01:06 - [40] - Quote I think the syndicate plates should get another look at, with the proposed changes there will be very little reason to use them over the other the fed navy, especially when you consider the price and availability. I have yet to see an armor tanked ship that needs the PG so much that it will take an increase in CPU. In any case, if that were an issue the trade off for the fed navy will work just as well and is better as it uses less cpu, 25 pg is not much of an increase. not to mention fed navy adds less mass. As for price and availability, the fed navy has it beat as well, it comes from FW which just pours out LP. At tier 2 it is a single 10 minute novice plex to get enough LP to buy the plate from the LP store. That's with a T1 frigate. So when you consider how saturated the market will be and how easy it will be to get these to market, these will be easy to get. The syndicate plates will require a minimum of 3 missions in a tengu or battleship. Then you'll have to move it with a jump freighter, cloaky transport or hope to god a good wormhole appears nearby. Not to mention, you'll have to live in syndicate. I don't think we'll see a large availability of these. So why would i ever want to pay more for something that has 5% less PG and is worse in every other way? If the syndicate plates had less mass than the fed i think it might be a good trade off.

exiik Shardani Terpene Conglomerate 28	Posted - 2015.05.21 03:15:02 - [41] - Quote + for 200mm and 400mm plates + for faction variants of plates - for nerf of 800mm and 1600mm tungstens/T2 plates (each -100 HP means -132 / -152 effective HP, because most armor buffer ships use 2 or 3 trimarks) - it means little nerf to majority fits of Navy Augoror
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2418	Posted - 2015.05.21 03:39:37 - [42] - Quote I'm still looking at the rest of the numbers, but I definitely want to say that once the whole module tiericide is finished, consolidating the meta levels to be more linear and sensical in regards to module type should definitely happen.
Caleb Seremshur Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance 544	Posted - 2015.05.21 04:37:53 - [43] - Quote Arla Sarain wrote: Small shield extenders get double HP over 100mm plates. 200mm plates have roughly same HP but 10PG or more and slows the ship down. Ships that will be fitting these modules won't prefer either really, just that PG is more valuable on small ships. 200mm plate adds 8% or so more mass to a punisher SSE II adds about 4% more sig radius to a kestrel. or so. estimates here. Guess it depends on lots of factors. If your concerns are only fitting then 12 power 16 cpu or 26 cpu 3 power actually makes the SSE harder to fit. Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
sabastyian Death By Design Did he say Jump 27	Posted - 2015.05.21 04:50:38 - [44] - Quote Why the cpu nerf to 1600 t2 plates? Not really crying, just annoyed 95% of my fits will now have to be re-worked into worse variants due to this pointless change.
Berluth Luthian Hoplite Brigade 203	Posted - 2015.05.21 04:58:00 - [45] - Quote Dual SSE > 1 MSE for everything but Cpu
Inslander Wessette Killers of Paranoid Souls Universal Paranoia Alliance 20	Posted - 2015.05.21 06:00:06 - [46] - Quote hmmm... Both propulsion and hp module changes in same patch . Recalculating speed values . But... The CCR plates have the same PG/CPU value as the meta 0 plate . But has better armor and lower penalty. Why would anyone use the meta 0 version ? SImilarly between Azeotropic and Meta 0 shield extenders. Or what is the point of the meta 0 module ? Just to be used in production of the T2 variant ? Not as a module as such ? or have i completely missed some value . Isk may be to some extent but lets agree its not going to be a major factor. I see clear tierciding between the Meta 1 and Meta 5 module . Increase in all values across the board . Explain please .
Xindi Kraid Itsukame-Zainou Hyperspatial Inquiries Ltd. 945	Posted - 2015.05.21 06:03:28 - [47] - Quote I mentioned this in the prop mod thread as well, but it's probably not a good idea for the meta modules to also be improved over T1 in the primary stat. They are already better through their other bonuses (fitting, cap use, etc), also making them better at the primary job (in this case having a better HP bonus) only serves to further undermine the usefulness of T1.
Nagarythe Tinurandir House of Freedom The Pursuit of Happiness 204	Posted - 2015.05.21 06:05:35 - [48] - Quote CCP, this is your chance to discourage the common practice of fitting oversized tank mods. Right now it's a standard approach and only seldom one considers the smaller option. How about making 1600mm plates or L extenders on cruiser sized ships a fitting choice that needs some commitment? Same for frigs with med extenders/ 400mm plates. Upping the penalties a little more might do the trick.
Eli Porter Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 10	Posted - 2015.05.21 06:13:22 - [49] - Quote Reduce unnecessary complexity Provide meaningful options within the module set Stealth nerf armor doctrines? That T2 plate nerf is a big deal. Double plated battleships will be losing like 3-5k EHP before links.
Aplysia Vejun The Scope Gallente Federation 23	Posted - 2015.05.21 06:30:59 - [50] - Quote Midori Tsu wrote: I think the syndicate plates should get another look at, with the proposed changes there will be very little reason to use them over the other the fed navy, especially when you consider the price and availability. I have yet to see an armor tanked ship that needs the PG so much that it will take an increase in CPU. In any case, if that were an issue the trade off for the fed navy will work just as well and is better as it uses less cpu, 25 pg is not much of an increase. not to mention fed navy adds less mass. As for price and availability, the fed navy has it beat as well, it comes from FW which just pours out LP. At tier 2 it is a single 10 minute novice plex to get enough LP to buy the plate from the LP store. That's with a T1 frigate. So when you consider how saturated the market will be and how easy it will be to get these to market, these will be easy to get. The syndicate plates will require a minimum of 3 missions in a tengu or battleship. Then you'll have to move it with a jump freighter, cloaky transport or hope to god a good wormhole appears nearby. Not to mention, you'll have to live in syndicate. I don't think we'll see a large availability of these. So why would i ever want to pay more for something that has 5% less PG and is worse in every other way? If the syndicate plates had less mass than the fed i think it might be a good trade off. Good post. Why are the navy versions better AND much cheaper at the same time? @ccp

Rinola Han First Moon Industries 0	Posted - 2015.05.21 07:18:58 - [51] - Quote Just a question, what happens to existing 50mm BPOs? Will they be upgraded to become 100mm BPO? Same questions for T2 BPO. Thanks.
Xercodo Xovoni Directorate 4192	Posted - 2015.05.21 07:51:08 - [52] - Quote I think that the fitting of the plates and SEs need to reflect their active tanking counter parts. You need an SSE to be comparable to a small booster to fit, and 1600mm plates should match a LAR. Additionally, these modules should give benefits that reflect this. I want to see the day where a buffer fit doesnt require 3 plates to be competitive and then STILL need resists on top of that. Likewise goes fro LSEs This also means that yes, like the other are saying, we need an XLSE to match the booster. And while we're on the topic you need put a shield recharge penalty on SEs and buff the crap out of shield rechargers to make them worth it. There's no reason to fit a recharger over an SE at all, like ever. You need yo make the shield tankers pick between buffer to passive recharge, not give them both, because it makes them REALLY annoying to kill. They get a cap-free recharge buff to their buffer. And since we're talking amount over recharge can we get another small buff to cap batteries? They use WAY too much PG and CPU for that tiny neuting defense. They help, but are still generally not worth it. Maybe make their benefits comparable to their SE counter parts? The Drake is a Lie
Brown Pathfinder Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 3	Posted - 2015.05.21 08:04:54 - [53] - Quote Can you guys please make it a little easier to fit in a medium shield extender on mining barges?
Rawketsled Generic Corp Name 196	Posted - 2015.05.21 08:14:47 - [54] - Quote Brown Pathfinder wrote: Can you guys please make it a little easier to fit in a medium shield extender on mining barges? It is easy. My Proc. fits two of them currently.
BadAssMcKill ElitistOps 984	Posted - 2015.05.21 08:20:40 - [55] - Quote Can we please abandon this awful new naming convention It makes everything more wordy and somehow even more ridiculous sounding
Conjaqq Imploding Turtles Rising in Outerspace Gravity Get Off My Lawn 1	Posted - 2015.05.21 08:32:01 - [56] - Quote Not really sure why tech 2 armor plates, are getting nerfed. Tech 2 plates where for the longest time, unusable because of rolled tungesten. Recently that was changed to make their fitting a little more easy. Now this seems to be reverted, and ontop of that the bonus it provides has been lessened aswell.... I dont know, maybe it's fine. It just seems odd to me.
Khan Wrenth Hedion University Amarr Empire 151	Posted - 2015.05.21 09:19:27 - [57] - Quote I must be playing in a very different game than the devs, because I often see armor ships built as shield tankers because you can up your powergrid via lows and increase your EHP to ridiculous levels through large shield extenders in a way you can't get through plates....which is a problem because armor is supposed to buffer better and shield is supposed to rep better. The current meta is predominantly kitey, and armor plates don't mesh well with that because of the speed loss. To see armor plates getting nerfed and shield getting buffed seems completely backwards to me. But that's just my experience, maybe this will be good overall in the long run. I'm just not seeing the same need for this as the devs apparently do. Between the speed creep from the prop module tiericide and the armor nerf, it feels like the devs want to push all of us into kiting whether we want to or not. Speed, mobility, kiting are all very powerful attributes that don't need further buffing. They don't need nerfing either, I don't want to imply that they do. But they certainly need no help from the devs when the playerbase already covets all these qualities and uses them quite extensively. Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Vibiana Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 12	Posted - 2015.05.21 11:44:11 - [58] - Quote Hey devs, pls don't nerf plates! T2 plates are just bad, you make them even worse. We don't need 100mm, we need 3200mm! SSE: too weak, even frigates go for MSE. We need XLSE, with regen penalty!
Evi Polevhia Pyre Falcon Defence and Security Multicultural F1 Brigade 1017	Posted - 2015.05.21 11:50:20 - [59] - Quote Vibiana wrote: T2 plates are just bad How? Currently other than mass they are better than any meta plate. Did you miss the patch that was forever ago where they were made better than Meta 4?

CCP Delegate Zero C C P C C P Alliance 209	Posted - 2015.05.21 11:50:53 - [60] - Quote Omnathious Deninard wrote: So, what will happen to the 50mm reinforced steel plate BPOs and the micro shield extender BPOs? Good question, the plan is to update the 50mm blueprints to 100mm plate prints. As these are BPOs they will be updated to the equivalent 100mm variants. There are no micro shield extender blueprints with the exception of the existing storyline module print and that will shift to its new 100mm incarnation. On the concerns raised about plates, primarily on tech II plates, we will take another look. This will likely involve a change to the respective balance of tech II and storyline plates. We'll also take another look at the balance within the faction meta groups in light of feedback. A general point on module tiericide as an aside: one of the main points of the exercise as a whole is to get the large range of modules in the game into a more coherent state that will actually facilitate balancing more frequently as needed in the future. CCP Delegate Zero \| Game Designer \| @CCPDelegateZero


Jan Minayin Project Kairos The Bastion 0	Posted - 2015.05.21 11:51:57 - [61] - Quote From the perspective of a T2 manufacturer, I'm a bit worried about this move towards faction mods having considerably higher bonuses than the T2 variant. Given the relative ease of obtaining faction mods via faction warfare LP stores, I can't see anyone preferring the T2 over the faction. Would it not be better to have faction mods share the best bonus with the T2, and have better fitting and lower drawbacks, to prevent them being better in literally every way.
Vibiana Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 12	Posted - 2015.05.21 12:33:20 - [62] - Quote Same as for damage mods. Faction damage mods are better in every way. Do you see obsolense of t2 dam mods?
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 705	Posted - 2015.05.21 12:42:06 - [63] - Quote Vibiana wrote: Same as for damage mods. Faction damage mods are better in every way. Do you see obsolense of t2 dam mods? yep. 5-15% increase in overall performance for between 40 and 200 times the price is unlikely to create straight obsolescence. Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp
Berluth Luthian Hoplite Brigade 203	Posted - 2015.05.21 13:35:56 - [64] - Quote CCP Delegate Zero wrote: Omnathious Deninard wrote: So, what will happen to the 50mm reinforced steel plate BPOs and the micro shield extender BPOs? Good question, the plan is to update the 50mm blueprints to 100mm plate prints. As these are BPOs they will be updated to the equivalent 100mm variants. There are no micro shield extender blueprints with the exception of the existing storyline module print and that will shift to its new 100mm incarnation. On the concerns raised about plates, primarily on tech II plates, we will take another look. This will likely involve a change to the respective balance of tech II and storyline plates. We'll also take another look at the balance within the faction meta groups in light of feedback. A general point on module tiericide as an aside: one of the main points of the exercise as a whole is to get the large range of modules in the game into a more coherent state that will actually facilitate balancing more frequently as needed in the future. Will you ever look at LP store offerings/costs as a part of tiericide?
Thanatos Marathon Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop 453	Posted - 2015.05.21 13:45:49 - [65] - Quote Berluth Luthian wrote: Will you ever look at LP store offerings/costs as a part of tiericide? Please get rid of the need for tags to make items in the LP store and up the LP amount required to offset it. Also, nerfing armor!?
Ben Ishikela 32	Posted - 2015.05.21 13:50:28 - [66] - Quote Is there something possible like wanting to buy a placeholder/emptyitem in the LP store. You need a Tag to buy it. It costs negative LP. ==> they pay you with LP for handing in Tags. Thanatos Marathon wrote: Berluth Luthian wrote: Will you ever look at LP store offerings/costs as a part of tiericide? Please get rid of the need for tags to make items in the LP store and up the LP amount required to offset it. Also, nerfing armor!? Add new modules or ships that can use tactics and strategies to shake any op meta or use totaly different gameplay yourself to make it happen! yay :)
Andre Vauban quantum cats syndicate 402	Posted - 2015.05.21 14:27:03 - [67] - Quote Jan Minayin wrote: From the perspective of a T2 manufacturer, I'm a bit worried about this move towards faction mods having considerably higher bonuses than the T2 variant. Given the relative ease of obtaining faction mods via faction warfare LP stores, I can't see anyone preferring the T2 over the faction. Would it not be better to have faction mods share the best bonus with the T2, and have better fitting and lower drawbacks, to prevent them being better in literally every way. Faction modules are actually a very unpopular item to obtain from the FW LP stores. They require an insane number of tags to purchase. Faction plate prices will go through the roof as the supply won't be able to meet the demand because the tags are going to be a MAJOR bottleneck. I think T2 plates will still have a solid place for the price conscious (ie anything other than T3's or pirate/faction BS). .
Fredric Wolf Black Sheep Down Tactical Narcotics Team 89	Posted - 2015.05.21 14:28:18 - [68] - Quote Xercodo wrote: I think that the fitting of the plates and SEs need to reflect their active tanking counter parts. You need an SSE to be comparable to a small booster to fit, and 1600mm plates should match a LAR. Additionally, these modules should give benefits that reflect this. I want to see the day where a buffer fit doesnt require 3 plates to be competitive and then STILL need resists on top of that. Likewise goes fro LSEs This also means that yes, like the other are saying, we need an XLSE to match the booster. And while we're on the topic you need put a shield recharge penalty on SEs and buff the crap out of shield rechargers to make them worth it. There's no reason to fit a recharger over an SE at all, like ever. You need yo make the shield tankers pick between buffer to passive recharge, not give them both, because it makes them REALLY annoying to kill. They get a cap-free recharge buff to their buffer. And since we're talking amount over recharge can we get another small buff to cap batteries? They use WAY too much PG and CPU for that tiny neuting defense. They help, but are still generally not worth it. Maybe make their benefits comparable to their SE counter parts? I am not sure we need XLSE as Armor do not have XLAR so there is a trade off. I do like your idea about giving SE a regen penalty. They are getting dual bonuses while AP one get buffer. Also like the idea of buffing shield recharges and batteries as right now I do not know anyone that fits batteries they need to increase your cap pool by a significant amount or be changed to act something like cap boosters but able to store power generated by your ship to be able to be re injected back at a amount over time.
McChicken Combo HalfMayo The Happy Meal 690	Posted - 2015.05.21 15:03:01 - [69] - Quote Vibiana wrote: Same as for damage mods. Faction damage mods are better in every way. Do you see obsolense of t2 dam mods? There is no reason to use a T2 damage mod except for price. If your ship is already approaching 1B in value, you use faction. The same will be the case with plates and extenders. Balancing modules by price is a bad idea. For one you have to constantly adjust the drop rates and materials consumed to ensure the price differences are roughly as intended, which then steps on the idea of a player-driven market. Worse though is there isn't any smart, meaningful choice as it applies to your ship. The choice is entirely based on your wallet. The choice to use one mod over another should be based on how it affects the ship. Faction damage mods should use more CPU for example. These plates and extenders with more EHP should also be harder to fit or they should have increased mass/sig penalties. There are all our dominion Gate camps: "Its like the lowsec watercooler, just with explosions and boose" - Ralph King-Griffin
Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 232	Posted - 2015.05.21 15:14:42 - [70] - Quote Hmm, I think you should increase the powergrid requirements of small shield extenders if you're going to buff their HP this much, they're too close to free now that they're not useless. Unlike most modules, you don't have to worry about breaking too many fits by changing fitting parameters drastically because any fit with an SSE before this patch was a bad fit. Other than that, I wonder what the introduction of compact tank and propulsion modules in the same patch will do to fits. Many fits which were previously impossible or required prohibitive fitting implants will be possible with the new named modules.

Phaade Perimeter Defense Systems Templis CALSF 349	Posted - 2015.05.21 16:03:22 - [71] - Quote Moac Tor wrote: I'd be hesitant to go any larger than LSE's and 1600mms. Battleships already come equipped with massive tanks built into the ships base stats, allowing even larger buffers would have a big change on the current meta. TrouserDeagle wrote: I'd drop 100mm plates, they're never worth a slot. it's hard enough finding a use for 200mms (and 800mms). instead of fitting a small plate with tank rigs, it's often better and faster to use ACRs and a big plate. small plate gank fits probably will still be bad compared to hull tank fits, because of hull tanks being stupid (capless, omni resist, 0 pg, no penalty buffer tank, just why). so yeah, the high bang:buck of ancillary armour reps, and more recently bulkhead rigs, has gotten me to drop the 200mm plates from all my frigate fits except mwd + plate gang fits. I used to solo with AAR + 200mm plate fits, but swapping the plate for an adaptive nano plating typically improved the total ehp when factoring in the AAR, while also being easier fitting and having no mass increase. I'm just going to guess that small extenders aren't going to be very useful even with that huge buff. midslots are life. people are armour tanking ships that have 5 mids and 2 lows because webs and ewar are so high value. I hope you guys see that this is bad, rather than celebrating it as some player driven emergent sandbox something something. those restrained extenders seem to have much more lenient penalties than the restrained plates. currently the armour/shield rigs already add as much or more penalty than the actual plates/extenders. I guess they'll be way more after this. I'd like it if tank rigs were much lower impact, but with less crippling penalties. I agree with this. Plates are overshadowed, 200mm or 800mm rarely get used in any of my fittings, and 100mm are non existant. Ancillary reppers have made this situation even more severe. Perhaps, but look at how underused battleships are in general today. More tank wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing for them.
khaip ur K.C.C 3	Posted - 2015.05.21 16:35:51 - [72] - Quote I know the consensus is that 100mm plates are useless by my OCD insists that I bring this up. The restrained 100mm should be 30000 instead of 32500 so that it gives about the same percentage bonus as the other sizes. ~85%. Also 800mm restrained should be 1150000.
Xercodo Xovoni Directorate 4192	Posted - 2015.05.21 17:19:54 - [73] - Quote Fredric Wolf wrote: I am not sure we need XLSE as Armor do not have XLAR so there is a trade off. I do like your idea about giving SE a regen penalty. They are getting dual bonuses while AP one get buffer. Also like the idea of buffing shield recharges and batteries as right now I do not know anyone that fits batteries they need to increase your cap pool by a significant amount or be changed to act something like cap boosters but able to store power generated by your ship to be able to be re injected back at a amount over time. Yes but we DO have XL boosters. Lets go ahead and continue the trend of shield modules being oversized all the time since it seems to be pretty unique to them. Just make sure that the costs are on par with the boosters, maybe a cap regen penalty? Like what if you only needed one 1600mm plate to be fitted to a Abaddon to give it all the HP it needs, but it also uses more PG than a LAR and has a small cap penalty to make up for being passive? Something to that effect. Since you'll have less slots devoted to spamming more plates/SEs then maybe fitting a cap recharger or power relay the counteract the penalty would make sense? Can take or leave that last bit, point is, balance them so that only 1 plate or SE should be all you need and that while dual plates and SEs could be possible, will be hard to work with because of shear fitting needs, similarly to boosters and reppers. The Drake is a Lie
Aristash The Flying Dead. The Afterlife. 4	Posted - 2015.05.21 17:50:48 - [74] - Quote bad decision. hate this ****** module tiercid
Brother Mercury Fire on the Mountain 14	Posted - 2015.05.21 18:33:00 - [75] - Quote 800 and 1600 plates (besides the imperial navy/fed navy versions) got a serious nerf here. 3 cpu increase on the 1600 plate is a HUGE nerf to Amarr fitting. Let me be clear, I'm not saying there shouldn't be a small drawback/sacrifice to fitting 1600 plates -- there should be some drawback to fitting 1600 plates. However, this is exactly my point -- there already is a significant drawback to putting 1600 plates on Amarr ships. Before this nerf (cpu increase) every Amarr ship I can think of worth fitting has to sacrifice some modules (either damage control, web, cap booster, point) to fit on decent plates. The CPU on Amarr ships is that tight -- fine. But this takes it too far. Adding CPU to 800/1600 plates is going to require some serious fitting changes and will really hurt a ships combat capabilities. I honestly think it will not just require downgrading a damage control or an ewar module, but even forcing some Amarr ships to use CPU rigs. This is too much. Please consider this CCP, 3 CPU is nothing to laugh at for Amarr ships.
Eija-Riitta Veitonen Unicorn Enterprise 213	Posted - 2015.05.21 19:28:12 - [76] - Quote I like the changes. Especially to the shield extenders. The small ones will be much more usable now!
LUMINOUS SPIRIT The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People 723	Posted - 2015.05.21 19:45:56 - [77] - Quote Regolith shield extender is now better in all classes compared to azeotropic. A TINY sig radius difference is not enough of a reason why anyone would want to fit zeotropic over regolith. This should be changed. Regolith is lower powergrid, azeotropic is lower CPU requirement. now its meaningful. To be fair, there should be a 3rd option, for lower sig radius penalty, but it will not be popular.
Freelancer117 So you want to be a Hero 286	Posted - 2015.05.21 19:54:28 - [78] - Quote Ripard Teg wrote: Guys! You have a serious opportunity here to make Small Shield Extenders not useless! Please don't let it go by! I have a dream. It is not a big dream. It is a small dream. In my dream, Small Shield Extenders are a good option for frigates and Medium Shield Extenders are a good option for cruisers. Must I abandon my dream? Seconded The players will make a better version of the game, then CCP initially plans. http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 2103	Posted - 2015.05.21 20:02:15 - [79] - Quote I always imagined that you would address the use oversized tanking modules with tiericide. It is disappointing that this confusion will remain. Also, you must really like the kiting meta to be nerfing plates. Could we see some usage stats? Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 973	Posted - 2015.05.22 03:32:19 - [80] - Quote Zappity wrote: I always imagined that you would address the use oversized tanking modules with tiericide. It is disappointing that this confusion will remain. Also, you must really like the kiting meta to be nerfing plates. Could we see some usage stats? This is far and away the most dissappointing aspect of this update. It would have been a wonderful opportunity to rationalize the idiotic system we currently have in Eve. The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.

Xe'Cara'eos A Big Enough Lever 281	Posted - 2015.05.22 05:42:03 - [81] - Quote 'scuse my lack of understanding, but why not have a range of meta plates, to present a continuum between T1 and T2, with associated continuum of drawback? For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
Raith Crimson Scarlet Knighthood Arx Alliance 0	Posted - 2015.05.22 06:07:14 - [82] - Quote But.....complexity is necessary in a game about the endless night of a game about space. Imagine travelling across the galaxy only to find that they have all the same stuff as you. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. More content, less faffing around with what we already have. Personally i resent this simplification of our wonderfully complex and compelling game.
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 711	Posted - 2015.05.22 06:15:06 - [83] - Quote Raith Crimson wrote: But.....complexity is necessary in a game about the endless night of a game about space. Imagine travelling across the galaxy only to find that they have all the same stuff as you. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. More content, less faffing around with what we already have. Personally i resent this simplification of our wonderfully complex and compelling game. It is broke though. Several modules are nigh on unused and several others are only barely used, and then usually only by bads. Has to do with m4 mods being, in many cases, just straight up better than m0-m3, and t2 better than m4 on everything but fitting, so they are used almost exclusively, which means that the intended balancing feature from when the modules were new, rarity, has completely been messed up in the time since, and so they are in need of actual balance, not scarcity from when the game was much smaller and there were fewer high sp folks toasting rats in one shot. Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp
Nagarythe Tinurandir House of Freedom The Pursuit of Happiness 207	Posted - 2015.05.22 08:21:08 - [84] - Quote Zappity wrote: I always imagined that you would address the use oversized tanking modules with tiericide. It is disappointing that this confusion will remain. Also, you must really like the kiting meta to be nerfing plates. Could we see some usage stats? QFT. Don't get me wrong, it's nice to see all the smaller ships being flown more, but a confirmation that the Devs acknowledge the issue and are working it would be nice.
Arla Sarain 452	Posted - 2015.05.22 10:12:03 - [85] - Quote Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote: Zappity wrote: I always imagined that you would address the use oversized tanking modules with tiericide. It is disappointing that this confusion will remain. Also, you must really like the kiting meta to be nerfing plates. Could we see some usage stats? QFT. Don't get me wrong, it's nice to see all the smaller ships being flown more, but a confirmation that the Devs acknowledge the issue and are working it would be nice. How would this work? Incoming DPS is too high for small boosters to do anything with. Small shields will get neglected in favor of MASBs if medium extenders are put out of reach of frigs.
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 2111	Posted - 2015.05.22 10:20:32 - [86] - Quote Arla Sarain wrote: Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote: Zappity wrote: I always imagined that you would address the use oversized tanking modules with tiericide. It is disappointing that this confusion will remain. Also, you must really like the kiting meta to be nerfing plates. Could we see some usage stats? QFT. Don't get me wrong, it's nice to see all the smaller ships being flown more, but a confirmation that the Devs acknowledge the issue and are working it would be nice. How would this work? Incoming DPS is too high for small boosters to do anything with. Small shields will get neglected in favor of MASBs if medium extenders are put out of reach of frigs. I'm sure they could figure it out if they turned their eye to it. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
Karak Bol Low-Sec Survival Ltd. 222	Posted - 2015.05.22 10:56:48 - [87] - Quote I just want to rise a voice for differences between armor and shield tank. Shield: XL Booster, but less Buffer Armor: XL Plate (1600 was probably intended as oversized), but less active tank Maybe you could change some stats, so 1600 really is a BS only oversized plate, 800 were the 1600 is now and then work downwards. Later, when you tiericide Active tanks, the same treatment for Shield Boosters. (XL = BS only, L = todays XL = BC and downwards)
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 691	Posted - 2015.05.22 11:01:40 - [88] - Quote Justified Rage surrounding the Barbican storyline 800mm PG increase aside, I like the fact that Imperial Navy plates provide more armour, while being more massive compared to Federation Fleet ones, and also the reduced signature penalty on the Thukker SEs. I like it. A lot. // Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1172	Posted - 2015.05.22 12:20:36 - [89] - Quote Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: Justified Rage surrounding the Barbican storyline 800mm PG increase aside, I like the fact that Imperial Navy plates provide more armour, while being more massive compared to Federation Fleet ones, and also the reduced signature penalty on the Thukker SEs. I like it. A lot. indeed would be nice if shields got the same sort of treatment 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, nerf sentries, -3 slots for droneboats Nerf web strength, Make the blaster eagle worth using
James Zimmer Furtherance. 15	Posted - 2015.05.22 14:24:41 - [90] - Quote First, good choice in getting rid of 50mm plates. No one used them and it will make life less confusing for new players who may not realize that they are never the right choice. Second, I like the idea of tiericide, but these changes seem to be focused purely on reducing options, rather than giving interesting choices. For example, my old logic ran like this: Meta 0: Don't use Meta 1: Don't use Meta 2: Don't use Meta 3: Use if you can't fit or pay for Meta 4 Meta 4: Use if you can't fit T2 T2: Use if fitting isn't an issue My new logic pretty much runs like this Meta 0: Don't use. Compact: Use if you can't fit restrained Restrained: Use if you can't fit T2 T2: Use when fitting isn't an issue As you can see, Meta 1/2 went away, but other than that, there is no change to my logic, except that you eliminated cost as a potential factor in my decision. I would prefer that you keep the same number of modules, but you replace the meta 1/2 modules with interesting choices, like a shield extender that gives fewer hit points, but gives, say an 10% bonus to EM resists, or an armor plate that absorbs a lot of heat from overheated modules, but doesn't take much damage from it, making it an effective heat sink. You could potentially spice up the metagame a lot, and maybe even create situations where T2 doesn't equal strictly better, which I, personally, would find facinating.

Soldarius Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore 1282	Posted - 2015.05.22 15:21:06 - [91] - Quote Thank you for fixing the absolutely terrible Thukker Shield Extenders. Now if you would just fix the Thukker Tribe LP store prices... Even if those extenders are actually good, no one will use them if a Thukker Tribe MSE cost the same as a Republic Fleet SSE. http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Soldarius Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore 1283	Posted - 2015.05.22 15:26:33 - [92] - Quote Arla Sarain wrote: Small shield extenders get double HP over 100mm plates. 200mm plates have roughly same HP but 10PG or more and slows the ship down. Ships that will be fitting these modules won't prefer either really, just that PG is more valuable on small ships. Because shield extenders come prenerfed with a penalty to sigRad, which makes the ship take more damage. And unlike armor plates, there is no skill to reduce that penalty. Seems balanced to me. http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Max Kolonko WATAHA. Unseen Wolves 520	Posted - 2015.05.22 16:11:57 - [93] - Quote in shield spreadsheet there is a typo: large shield extender II have 2 625 currently while in spreadsheet it have 2 600 (+25). I think it should be -25 in there or 2 650. For CPU it shows similar problem: 46 in game, 45 (+1) in spreadsheet Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff?

CCP Delegate Zero C C P C C P Alliance 212	Posted - 2015.05.22 17:02:11 - [94] - Quote The stats sheets have been updated with some changes we will make in light of feedback. Change Sheets - Updated 22-05-15 Armor Plates Module Tiericide Shield Extender Module Tiericide In summary, on reflection the Tech II armor plates have had their HP values maintained as at current TQ numbers; the Storyline plates have been adjusted a group to have low fitting requirements but with less HP bonus than in the original proposed changes; the Syndicate faction plates have had a significant powergrid requirement cut in order to further differentiate them and hopefully make them an attractive option for some uses. Minor adjustment to Storyline shield extenders to emphasize the lower fitting aspect of the modules is also included. Hopefully this addresses the bulk of the concerns. We've listened to all the feedback but don't necessarily agree with all of it. I want to also note that these changes are taking place as part of the module tiericide effort and don't represent the last word in balance of these module groups. CCP Delegate Zero \| Game Designer \| @CCPDelegateZero

Chrisfighter Gladdebacher's 0	Posted - 2015.05.22 17:10:35 - [95] - Quote Very nice, this iteration is way better :) Nur die harten kommen innen Garten, eh .... Eve xD
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 721	Posted - 2015.05.22 17:22:05 - [96] - Quote Very nice, though my initial concerns about sig vs HP on shield extenders still stand. Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp
Valterra Craven 545	Posted - 2015.05.22 17:51:18 - [97] - Quote CCP Delegate Zero wrote: Hopefully this addresses the bulk of the concerns. We've listened to all the feedback but don't necessarily agree with all of it. I want to also note that these changes are taking place as part of the module tiericide effort and don't represent the last word in balance of these module groups. Am curious about the parts you guys don't agree with? It seems like a lot of the feedback here was "this was a start, but why not just redo these groups as a whole the first time sense you are expending effort on them now?" Are these efforts PURELY teiricide just to cut down on the amount of "fluff" we have just so you can go back at a future time and redo everything again? If so, isn' that kinda a lot of effort duplicated?
Perihelion Olenard 208	Posted - 2015.05.22 17:58:57 - [98] - Quote Any plan to make the Federation Navy plates offered through the loyalty point store through the Federation Navy (same for the other respective navys)? It seems odd that we have access to other armor modules, but not the plates. I wear my sunglasses at night.
Styphon the Black Forced Euthanasia Soviet-Union 24	Posted - 2015.05.22 18:23:31 - [99] - Quote I like it these changes. Good positive changes for a change. Only thing... is why are we making the Crystalline Carbonide better than the Rolled Tungsten? Trying to flip the market values?

CCP Delegate Zero C C P C C P Alliance 219	Posted - 2015.05.22 18:27:46 - [100] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: It seems like a lot of the feedback here was "this was a start, but why not just redo these groups as a whole the first time sense you are expending effort on them now?" Are these efforts PURELY teiricide just to cut down on the amount of "fluff" we have just so you can go back at a future time and redo everything again? If so, isn' that kinda a lot of effort duplicated? Those are fair points to make but the main effort in this exercise is the rebalance around the principles we are using to inform module tiericide combined with some of the implications of module tiericide, such as where modules and blueprints are removed. A more radical approach could be contemplated, for sure, and we briefly chatted about it but it is actually a significant bit of extra design time and effort to decide what of various radical options should be taken and to then design around them. The great benefit of module tiericide is that it is establishing a more coherent framework that should make big changes easier to contemplate and implement. Overall, it's a priority call where the allocated time is being focused on a relatively straightforward rebalance and some tidying up rather than on a more radical shift. It's also I would say useful sometimes to see how changes work out knowing that we have the flexibility to revisit and perhaps do more due to the way we now release features. I would anticipate some revisiting once we've done the basic sweep through modules in the current effort. CCP Delegate Zero \| Game Designer \| @CCPDelegateZero


James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 723	Posted - 2015.05.22 18:32:56 - [101] - Quote I like this openness about a bunch of the process. I also like how you are sounding out a revolutionary pass after this evolutionary pass for balance. Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp
Valterra Craven 545	Posted - 2015.05.22 18:36:11 - [102] - Quote CCP Delegate Zero wrote: I would anticipate some revisiting once we've done the basic sweep through modules in the current effort. Ok, you'll just have to forgive us players if we have trust issues surrounding statements like this... considering its been longer than a decade since anything of this nature has been touched... Also, one other point, I really really really wish you guys would look at the faction stores for the items that you are redoing and redo their cost. When you factor in the tag cost for a lot of the items... well things get rather silly/extreme quickly...
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 723	Posted - 2015.05.22 19:00:03 - [103] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: CCP Delegate Zero wrote: I would anticipate some revisiting once we've done the basic sweep through modules in the current effort. Ok, you'll just have to forgive us players if we have trust issues surrounding statements like this... considering its been longer than a decade since anything of this nature has been touched... Also, one other point, I really really really wish you guys would look at the faction stores for the items that you are redoing and redo their cost. When you factor in the tag cost for a lot of the items... well things get rather silly/extreme quickly... Which is good, as faction would otherwise eliminate much of the use of t2 and meta modules. While cost as an absolute isn't a balancing factor, price efficiency is. If you get x value for y isk, or you get x+5% value for 35y isk, there are reasons to choose both for different applications. Like if y is a small enough number relative to your isk and you need that ship to do better, then 35y for better performance is a no brainer. On the other hand, if fit q with module p that costs y for x performance is slated to die by the dozens daily, then faction for mod p is almost out of the question for most people/groups. Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp
Valterra Craven 545	Posted - 2015.05.22 19:49:59 - [104] - Quote James Baboli wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: CCP Delegate Zero wrote: I would anticipate some revisiting once we've done the basic sweep through modules in the current effort. Ok, you'll just have to forgive us players if we have trust issues surrounding statements like this... considering its been longer than a decade since anything of this nature has been touched... Also, one other point, I really really really wish you guys would look at the faction stores for the items that you are redoing and redo their cost. When you factor in the tag cost for a lot of the items... well things get rather silly/extreme quickly... Which is good, as faction would otherwise eliminate much of the use of t2 and meta modules. While cost as an absolute isn't a balancing factor, price efficiency is. If you get x value for y isk, or you get x+5% value for 35y isk, there are reasons to choose both for different applications. Like if y is a small enough number relative to your isk and you need that ship to do better, then 35y for better performance is a no brainer. On the other hand, if fit q with module p that costs y for x performance is slated to die by the dozens daily, then faction for mod p is almost out of the question for most people/groups. Um, do you even know what you are talking about? Have you looked at the tag costs of some of the items in LP stores? Here's an example of an ok item: Caldari Navy EM Ward Field (currently 26mil in jita) Lp 11,250 4.5mil isk 1x EM Ward Field I 2x Fed Navy Fleet Major I (115k isk ea in jita) 4x Fed Navy Fleet Colonel I (1.95mil isk ea in jita) 6x Fed Navy Fleet Colonel II (759k in isk ea in jita) This item has same resists as t2 but has much lower fitting costs. Though to be fair you'd be stupid to buy/use one of these since the Dread Gurstas one has the same stats and is cheaper at 18mil... but that aside the price differential isn't all that bad. Here's an example of a bad item Caldari navy medium Shield Booster (currently 92mil in jita) Lp 40,500 12.2mil isk 1x medium Sheild Booster I 108x Fed Navy Fleet Captain I (240k isk ea in jita) 178x Fed Navy Major I (115k isk ea in jita) This item has less cpu, same activiation, and slightly less boost than a t2 item. Again though, you'd be stupid to buy this since the Dread Guristas item has the exact same stats and sells for a whooping.... 16mil! Granted, this isn't due solely to tag cost, but the idea is still the same. If they are going to be redoing items and messing with faction stuff, these legacy prices should be looked at as well.
Ripard Teg Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 1045	Posted - 2015.05.22 20:17:47 - [105] - Quote CCP Delegate Zero wrote: A more radical approach could be contemplated, for sure, and we briefly chatted about it but it is actually a significant bit of extra design time and effort to decide what of various radical options should be taken and to then design around them. Hopefully, you can understand player frustration here. CCP as a company quite often flip-flops between "we don't want to just kick the can down the road" (the POS revamp being a recent example) and "we'll get back to this later" (constantly pushing supercap rebalance into the future being a recurring example). The first is the occasional recognition from devs that -- as a company -- your record on follow-up isn't the greatest. The second -- which you as a company pull out more often, including this time -- obviously perpetuates this belief. Thus, the frustration and skepticism players feel. aka Jester, who apparently was once Deemed Worthy To Wield The Banhammer to good effect.
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 2112	Posted - 2015.05.22 21:00:50 - [106] - Quote CCP Delegate Zero wrote: It's also I would say useful sometimes to see how changes work out knowing that we have the flexibility to revisit and perhaps do more due to the way we now release features. I would anticipate some revisiting once we've done the basic sweep through modules in the current effort. Gotta call bs on this I'm afraid. I've lost count of the number of times I've heard 'Don't worry, we are going to iterate on this feature - soon!'. Just fix it now. It is the logical time to do it and frankly if you don't think it is important enough to do under this banner then it won't get done at all. Even a simple renaming sweep so it makes sense to fit small things on small ships, medium on cruiser etc would be beneficial. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
James Zimmer Furtherance. 15	Posted - 2015.05.22 21:22:18 - [107] - Quote I really appreciate the responsiveness to the player base. I'm fairly certain no other gaming company would plan changes, show them to the players and then tweak them almost instantly based off of player input.
Midori Tsu Evolution Northern Coalition. 139	Posted - 2015.05.22 21:29:56 - [108] - Quote I like the changes to the syndicate plates, might actually be a popular choice.
Aliventi Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic 859	Posted - 2015.05.22 22:07:01 - [109] - Quote CCP Delegate Zero wrote: Those are fair points to make but the main effort in this exercise is the rebalance around the principles we are using to inform module tiericide combined with some of the implications of module tiericide, such as where modules and blueprints are removed. A more radical approach could be contemplated, for sure, and we briefly chatted about it but it is actually a significant bit of extra design time and effort to decide what of various radical options should be taken and to then design around them. The great benefit of module tiericide is that it is establishing a more coherent framework that should make big changes easier to contemplate and implement. Overall, it's a priority call where the allocated time is being focused on a relatively straightforward rebalance and some tidying up rather than on a more radical shift. It's also I would say useful sometimes to see how changes work out knowing that we have the flexibility to revisit and perhaps do more due to the way we now release features. I would anticipate some revisiting once we've done the basic sweep through modules in the current effort. It's nice to say "Once all the modules go through a tiericide we can come back and take a look." Unfortunately, that is a long way off. Ship tiericide and rebalancing started years ago and we still have 8+ ship groups that need still need to be redone and many others that are still waiting a second pass. How many years until module tiericide is done? How many years before any modules are revisited? I have no idea. Could you possibly give us a date at which a these modules might be revisited by? When CCP sold players the vision of 5-6 week expansions they made it clear that if something took more time that expected to do right then it could very easily be pushed off until the next expansion. Take the time and do it right. Push these changes off until you get the best solution in place. Spend that extra design time and effort to do the radical redesign. It will be much easier to sell the leadership on giving you the time to do a second look that is merely tweaking modules than it will be to sell a second look that redoes all of the modules again. You have these 5-6 week expansions so you can do things right, and do them right the first time. Take advantage of it. Please take advantage of it.
Circumstantial Evidence 181	Posted - 2015.05.22 22:29:37 - [110] - Quote The train has left the station on this tiericide concept, they have held to this same methodology since the first couple parts sets were refined. I appreciate that they are taking it just a few module groups at a time, because the feedback thread would be insane if they dumped a giant spreadsheet full of module group changes for every part on us, all at once. Ship balancing never ends, and so to, with module balancing.

Casivek Andrard Bloody Cross Syndicate Violent Declaration 6	Posted - 2015.05.22 22:43:22 - [111] - Quote Circumstantial Evidence wrote: The train has left the station on this tiericide concept, they have held to this same methodology since the first couple parts sets were refined. I appreciate that they are taking it just a few module groups at a time, because the feedback thread would be insane if they dumped a giant spreadsheet full of module group changes for every part on us, all at once. Ship balancing never ends, and so to, with module balancing. Non sense look at the Ishtar, they refuse to fix the issue and just make it where it is the only viable ship for sentries more so than an Armageddon which is a drone boat BATTLESHIP no less. Instead they rather make pretty little stations and new ship models (still good but not important) instead of fix what actually pissed people off more.
Circumstantial Evidence 181	Posted - 2015.05.22 22:55:14 - [112] - Quote Casivek Andrard wrote: Non sense look at the Ishtar, they refuse to fix the issue... They did change some stats on the Ishtar fairly recently, just not as much as a lot of people wished for. I was thinking of the Sentry thread, as I wrote the above
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 724	Posted - 2015.05.23 00:38:46 - [113] - Quote Circumstantial Evidence wrote: Casivek Andrard wrote: Non sense look at the Ishtar, they refuse to fix the issue... They did change some stats on the Ishtar fairly recently, just not as much as a lot of people wished for. I was thinking of the Sentry thread, as I wrote the above They acknowledge it is a problem, and that sentries on ishtars and other drone boats, particularly 125 bandwidth cruisers (vexor, navy vexor, ishtar) are both a problem, and are iterating on it in just about every release, and seem intent on doing so until it is fixed by making more, smaller but faster and more precisely targeted balance changes, just like the change from biannual releases to 6 week releases with a smaller 1.1 patch to most 6 week patches at the end of the 2nd week of deployment of the 6 week patches was intended to do. Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 724	Posted - 2015.05.23 00:48:17 - [114] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: James Baboli wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: CCP Delegate Zero wrote: I would anticipate some revisiting once we've done the basic sweep through modules in the current effort. Ok, you'll just have to forgive us players if we have trust issues surrounding statements like this... considering its been longer than a decade since anything of this nature has been touched... Also, one other point, I really really really wish you guys would look at the faction stores for the items that you are redoing and redo their cost. When you factor in the tag cost for a lot of the items... well things get rather silly/extreme quickly... Which is good, as faction would otherwise eliminate much of the use of t2 and meta modules. While cost as an absolute isn't a balancing factor, price efficiency is. If you get x value for y isk, or you get x+5% value for 35y isk, there are reasons to choose both for different applications. Like if y is a small enough number relative to your isk and you need that ship to do better, then 35y for better performance is a no brainer. On the other hand, if fit q with module p that costs y for x performance is slated to die by the dozens daily, then faction for mod p is almost out of the question for most people/groups. Um, do you even know what you are talking about? Have you looked at the tag costs of some of the items in LP stores? snipped examples Granted, the cost differential isn't due solely to tag cost (though it does make up a large bulk of it), but the idea is still the same. If they are going to be redoing items and messing with faction stuff, these legacy prices should be looked at as well. The same thing I said earlier about m4 vs t2 being out of whack due to the game having gotten bigger in some ways and incentives shifting significantly apply to this for certain. I think it is because LP has gotten cheaper, but tags have dried up and much more people are able to rat faster and this has flooded the market with the pirate faction items which drop medium frequently, and thus the supply and costs are out of whack from when the modules were concieved and released, making the costs make little sense. Then again, I know many people willing to pay extra for certain faction modules, even for ones which are worse in every way, because of which faction they like or RP as. Quote: Has to do with m4 mods being, in many cases, just straight up better than m0-m3, and t2 better than m4 on everything but fitting, so they are used almost exclusively, which means that the intended balancing feature from when the modules were new, rarity, has completely been messed up in the time since, and so they are in need of actual balance, not scarcity from when the game was much smaller and there were fewer high sp folks toasting rats in one shot. Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp
Dangeresque Too Pistols for Pandas 166	Posted - 2015.05.23 01:07:10 - [115] - Quote First off I wanted to say, at least there will finally be a module tiericide that won't force me to sell all of my used to be meta 4's to buy what used to be meta 2's because CCP felt that the less fitting requirement that the old meta 4's used to have was better swapped with the meta 2's. So at least this time I can keep all my F-S9 Regolith extenders for their fitting benefits. Second... what is with the war on screen space by making module names even longer than they were before? I understand the desire to add flavor and lore, but isn't there a description tab in the info window that would be a better place to flesh out the lore of a particular flavor of item instead of in the name? For example the new "400mm Rolled Tungsten Compact Plates" compared to the old "400mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates". Seeing how all plates were called "XXmm Reinforced", the only unique part of the name we ever needed was "Rolled Tungsten". So now you feel that its not enough that we know the Rolled Tungsten plates are the best for fitting, you have to throw "Compact" into the name as added redundancy to address confusion that isn't even there. Yeah, when CCP first started doing these module changes and were nerfing the old meta 4's and replacing them with buffed meta 2's nobody used they must have felt the need to make sure we knew what was best about the "new" modules. But as long as they keep the module's use and practicality the same they wouldn't need to fluff the name with all the extra screen clutter. I can only make the left side of the market window so big...
Lloyd Roses Artificial Memories 1062	Posted - 2015.05.23 01:53:04 - [116] - Quote Dangeresque Too wrote: First off I wanted to say, at least there will finally be a module tiericide that won't force me to sell all of my used to be meta 4's to buy what used to be meta 2's because CCP felt that the less fitting requirement that the old meta 4's used to have was better swapped with the meta 2's. So at least this time I can keep all my F-S9 Regolith extenders for their fitting benefits. Second... what is with the war on screen space by making module names even longer than they were before? I understand the desire to add flavor and lore, but isn't there a description tab in the info window that would be a better place to flesh out the lore of a particular flavor of item instead of in the name? For example the new "400mm Rolled Tungsten Compact Plates" compared to the old "400mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates". Seeing how all plates were called "XXmm Reinforced", the only unique part of the name we ever needed was "Rolled Tungsten". So now you feel that its not enough that we know the Rolled Tungsten plates are the best for fitting, you have to throw "Compact" into the name as added redundancy to address confusion that isn't even there. Yeah, when CCP first started doing these module changes and were nerfing the old meta 4's and replacing them with buffed meta 2's nobody used they must have felt the need to make sure we knew what was best about the "new" modules. But as long as they keep the module's use and practicality the same they wouldn't need to fluff the name with all the extra screen clutter. I can only make the left side of the market window so big... I think the mechanical fluff name (compact/restrained) adds nicely, as it persists through all groups so far.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 977	Posted - 2015.05.23 03:38:06 - [117] - Quote Lloyd Roses wrote: Dangeresque Too wrote: First off I wanted to say, at least there will finally be a module tiericide that won't force me to sell all of my used to be meta 4's to buy what used to be meta 2's because CCP felt that the less fitting requirement that the old meta 4's used to have was better swapped with the meta 2's. So at least this time I can keep all my F-S9 Regolith extenders for their fitting benefits. Second... what is with the war on screen space by making module names even longer than they were before? I understand the desire to add flavor and lore, but isn't there a description tab in the info window that would be a better place to flesh out the lore of a particular flavor of item instead of in the name? For example the new "400mm Rolled Tungsten Compact Plates" compared to the old "400mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates". Seeing how all plates were called "XXmm Reinforced", the only unique part of the name we ever needed was "Rolled Tungsten". So now you feel that its not enough that we know the Rolled Tungsten plates are the best for fitting, you have to throw "Compact" into the name as added redundancy to address confusion that isn't even there. Yeah, when CCP first started doing these module changes and were nerfing the old meta 4's and replacing them with buffed meta 2's nobody used they must have felt the need to make sure we knew what was best about the "new" modules. But as long as they keep the module's use and practicality the same they wouldn't need to fluff the name with all the extra screen clutter. I can only make the left side of the market window so big... I think the mechanical fluff name (compact/restrained) adds nicely, as it persists through all groups so far. It makes far more sense to keep the compact/restrained part of the name and get rid of the old flavor names. Also, they need to get rid of the quotes around the storyline item names. This naming scheme below makes more sense to me. 1600mm Armor Plates I 1600mm Compact Armor Plates 1600mm Restrained Armor Plates 1600mm Armor Plates II 1600mm Bailey Armor Plates 1600mm Syndicate Armor Plates 1600mm Federation Navy Armor Plates 1600mm Imperial Navy Armor Plates Maybe there are better reasons to keep the order the same, but I would prefer to see simpler and shorter names. The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
Onslaughtor Occult National Security Phoenix Naval Systems 142	Posted - 2015.05.23 03:42:47 - [118] - Quote So I feel I need to say this again. Can we not have the t1 modules be so much worse than the rest of the meta, at least in the primary stat?
Circumstantial Evidence 181	Posted - 2015.05.23 05:09:33 - [119] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: It makes far more sense to keep the compact/restrained part of the name and get rid of the old flavor names. ..... I would prefer to see simpler and shorter names. I kind of agree, but also was one of many who missed the old flavor names. Perhaps they could be buried in description text. Still, I like many of the flavor names. They help with market searches, due to their uniqueness.
Max Kolonko WATAHA. Unseen Wolves 520	Posted - 2015.05.23 14:15:41 - [120] - Quote CCP Delegate Zero wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: It seems like a lot of the feedback here was "this was a start, but why not just redo these groups as a whole the first time sense you are expending effort on them now?" Are these efforts PURELY teiricide just to cut down on the amount of "fluff" we have just so you can go back at a future time and redo everything again? If so, isn' that kinda a lot of effort duplicated? Those are fair points to make but the main effort in this exercise is the rebalance around the principles we are using to inform module tiericide combined with some of the implications of module tiericide, such as where modules and blueprints are removed. A more radical approach could be contemplated, for sure, and we briefly chatted about it but it is actually a significant bit of extra design time and effort to decide what of various radical options should be taken and to then design around them. The great benefit of module tiericide is that it is establishing a more coherent framework that should make big changes easier to contemplate and implement. Overall, it's a priority call where the allocated time is being focused on a relatively straightforward rebalance and some tidying up rather than on a more radical shift. It's also I would say useful sometimes to see how changes work out knowing that we have the flexibility to revisit and perhaps do more due to the way we now release features. I would anticipate some revisiting once we've done the basic sweep through modules in the current effort. Dear CCP Delegate Zero, can you please look over AGAIN on the numbers. There are still errors in brackets (change to current TQ version) is staggering. Just for example: T2 1600 plate takes 33 CPU while in the new sheet it takes 35 (+3) it should be either: (+2) or 36 CPU. I can only assume You put there there manually, maybe use a function to present these numbers. Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff?

Hakaari Inkuran State War Academy Caldari State 276	Posted - 2015.05.23 15:02:49 - [121] - Quote +1 for hard nerf to meta 4 and stealth increase to drawbacks for these mods. Should hurt cruisers for oversizing a little more. Question: why are the meta mods still better than t1 in MULTIPLE aspects? I thought the concept of new meta 1 is better than t1 in only ONE aspect.
HeXxploiT Big Diggers Get Off My Lawn 148	Posted - 2015.05.23 23:25:03 - [122] - Quote T1 modules are the most basic & common module aside from noob mods. Not sure why a handful of people still don't get this. This is why T1 can be built from bpo's. Think of the rest as specialized.
Count Szadek Veil Of Whatever The Angry Fellows 8	Posted - 2015.05.24 00:35:38 - [123] - Quote I would really like to see an XL Shield Extender for battleship usage.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2423	Posted - 2015.05.24 00:46:24 - [124] - Quote Were the small shield extenders getting that big buff in HP in the original proposal or did I miss it in the change?
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 734	Posted - 2015.05.24 01:27:10 - [125] - Quote Rowells wrote: Were the small shield extenders getting that big buff in HP in the original proposal or did I miss it in the change? it was in the original OP, for them removing micros. Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp
Valterra Craven 548	Posted - 2015.05.24 02:14:40 - [126] - Quote James Baboli wrote: The same thing I said earlier about m4 vs t2 being out of whack due to the game having gotten bigger in some ways and incentives shifting significantly apply to this for certain. I think it is because LP has gotten cheaper, but tags have dried up and much more people are able to rat faster and this has flooded the market with the pirate faction items which drop medium frequently, and thus the supply and costs are out of whack from when the modules were concieved and released, making the costs make little sense. Then again, I know many people willing to pay extra for certain faction modules, even for ones which are worse in every way, because of which faction they like or RP as. And you'd be wrong, plain and simple. Do some market research on the prices of goods as far back as the eve market websites will allow. Prices have stayed remarkably close to stabilized prices from 10 years ago. Sisters Probes are a prime example of this. Prices really only ever change when CCP has made critically bad balancing decisions or messed with entire systems, like mineral rebalances etc.
Onslaughtor Occult National Security Phoenix Naval Systems 143	Posted - 2015.05.24 04:02:58 - [127] - Quote HeXxploiT wrote: T1 modules are the most basic & common module aside from noob mods. Not sure why a handful of people still don't get this. This is why T1 can be built from bpo's. Think of the rest as specialized. Right now T1 is specialized in being bad. Really. At this point if you're not a day one player, and even if you are, most won't fit a T1 because they are so much worse. For the redemption roams NPSI community new player roams we use almost all meta module because they are cheaper and better in almost every single conceivable way. In this listing so far every single t1 module has about 20% less of the primary stat than the its closest meta module. Combined that with the worst case fitting and other penalties and there is zero reason to fit it unless you have literally nothing else. Might as well just make t1 officially called civilian gear if you want to leave them like that. And why is basic and common a bad thing? Why shouldn't the modules you build in your station at home not be competitive in the game?
To mare Advanced Technology 405	Posted - 2015.05.24 10:07:35 - [128] - Quote Count Szadek wrote: I would really like to see an XL Shield Extender for battleship usage. 1- no because armor and shield need some diversity 2- no because people will fit them to cruisers
Lloyd Roses Artificial Memories 1062	Posted - 2015.05.24 11:25:34 - [129] - Quote To mare wrote: Count Szadek wrote: I would really like to see an XL Shield Extender for battleship usage. 1- no because armor and shield need some diversity 2- no because people will fit them to cruisers What do you mean with diversity? Neither Armor nor Shields got access to BS-sized buffer mods. The 1600 plate is a cruisersized mod, or Battlecruiser at max. But 500PG is not allocating relevant fitting ressources for any battleship. Then in Cruisers Online, you can triple your armor buffer with an appropriately sized buffer mod (1600, cause they're so easy to fit you might think they belong there). A Rattlesnake can raise it's buffer by ~20% for each LSE it fits. And in particular, if fittings weren't an issue, we'd see more officer point orthrus, I'm sure. But heck, a cruiser just doesn't have the 2-4k PG a BS plate would potentially require. Onslaughtor wrote: Right now T1 is specialized in being bad. Really. At this point if you're not a day one player, and even if you are, most won't fit a T1 because they are so much worse. For the redemption roams NPSI community new player roams we use almost all meta module because they are cheaper and better in almost every single conceivable way. There is truth in there :D I'd too love to see the gap from plain T1 to T2 being reduced or otherwise make T1 more meaningful. Currently it's the stuff you got in your hangar to build it into T2 things, it would however be nice if T1 could incorporate some sort of appeal to not totally disqualify it. This could be as simple as labeling the tech level pragmatic, non-sophisticated and robust and give it much resilence to overheating. (This would allow newbros with Thermo I to effectively use their T1 point overheated for longer times to pretend they'd be using the T2 one)
Hakaari Inkuran State War Academy Caldari State 276	Posted - 2015.05.24 12:29:55 - [130] - Quote HeXxploiT wrote: T1 modules are the most basic & common module aside from noob mods. Not sure why a handful of people still don't get this. This is why T1 can be built from bpo's. Think of the rest as specialized. They are supposed to be better than T1 in only ONE stat.

Zan Shiro Alternative Enterprises 647	Posted - 2015.05.24 13:12:56 - [131] - Quote HeXxploiT wrote: T1 modules are the most basic & common module aside from noob mods. Not sure why a handful of people still don't get this. This is why T1 can be built from bpo's. Think of the rest as specialized. they want to build off the t1's for cheap fun. Or they like simple T1 then t2. This change needs a spreadsheet to work out the details. this imo was the start of this whole metacide thing. Looking up stuff and thinking gave headaches lol. Now this change tbh...has me liking metacide more (will not lie about or hide the fact I was not in we don't need this metacide crowd). I am liking faction mods actually mean something now. For SE for example I always felt bad for the thukker lp collectors. Now that SE is looking nice. Or at least marketable over RF whose lp easier to obtain with better agent distribution.
Zan Shiro Alternative Enterprises 647	Posted - 2015.05.24 13:18:38 - [132] - Quote Hakaari Inkuran wrote: HeXxploiT wrote: T1 modules are the most basic & common module aside from noob mods. Not sure why a handful of people still don't get this. This is why T1 can be built from bpo's. Think of the rest as specialized. They are supposed to be better than T1 in only ONE stat. Get used to this....ccp did this with the easy low hanging fruit items (ie. not to common and niche items so less polarization in the player base) early where there was 1 one stat to make this easy to do. CCP with this is starting to hit the more complicated mods where this won't be applicable so readily. If applicable at all. My sympathies go out to the shield booster and armor rep team. What I consider a defining stat for them to work from will not be the same as lots of others players. Other players whose choice will vary from even more other players as well.
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 2854	Posted - 2015.05.24 13:40:18 - [133] - Quote I don't like that meta eclipses T1, but if meta blueprints start to drop that require the base T1 module rather than assembled modules, I could support the power increase. Roleplaying Trinkets for Explorers and Collectors
GankYou Redshield Holding Company 432	Posted - 2015.05.24 15:18:17 - [134] - Quote IM/FN 800mm/1600mm Plate & RF LSE/MSE real costs for anyone interested: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5769020#post5769020 CCP Delegate Zero wrote: The stats sheets have been updated with some changes we will make in light of feedback. Change Sheets - Updated 22-05-15 Armor Plates Module Tiericide Shield Extender Module Tiericide In summary, on reflection the Tech II armor plates have had their HP values maintained as at current TQ numbers; the Storyline plates have been adjusted as a group to have low fitting requirements but with less HP bonus than in the original proposed changes. THANK YOU! 'Barbican' Impel not gone after all. ...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK. Gÿ+ Nullsec Ore Changes - Lowend Mineral Price Tracking [2015]
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2212	Posted - 2015.05.25 01:21:19 - [135] - Quote HeXxploiT wrote: T1 modules are the most basic & common module aside from noob mods. Not sure why a handful of people still don't get this. This is why T1 can be built from bpo's. Think of the rest as specialized. An example I posted in another thread of 'mystery item x' T1, 5% 5% 5% 5% Meta 7% 7% 4% 4% T2 7% 7% 7% 7% T2 is still clearly better than T1, but meta is as good as T2 in certain aspects but worse than T1 in other aspects, forcing you to make a trade off with Meta, and making a case where you would use T1 over Meta when you are concerned with overall performance of a single module.
Sabriz Adoudel Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 5120	Posted - 2015.05.25 02:40:57 - [136] - Quote CCP Delegate Zero wrote: The stats sheets have been updated with some changes we will make in light of feedback. Change Sheets - Updated 22-05-15 Armor Plates Module Tiericide Shield Extender Module Tiericide In summary, on reflection the Tech II armor plates have had their HP values maintained as at current TQ numbers; the Storyline plates have been adjusted as a group to have low fitting requirements but with less HP bonus than in the original proposed changes; the Syndicate faction plates have had a significant powergrid requirement cut in order to further differentiate them and hopefully make them an attractive option for some uses. Minor adjustment to Storyline shield extenders to emphasize the lower fitting aspect of the modules is also included. Hopefully this addresses the bulk of the concerns. We've listened to all the feedback but don't necessarily agree with all of it. I want to also note that these changes are taking place as part of the module tiericide effort and don't represent the last word in balance of these module groups. Looked solely at the 1600mm plates for the present, so my feedback is restricted to them. I'm not familiar enough with shields to have a useful opinion on those changes. Firstly there is no reason to ever consider fitting a Meta 0 plate to a ship; meta 1 options are generally better in every stat AND are cheaper. This appears to be a consistent design decision you're making with every part of Tiericide, and I don't agree with it. It renders the meta 0 item useless except as a precursor to producing the T2 version. It's possible for post-Tiericide Meta 1 plates to be generally superior to Meta 0 without being strictly better in every stat. Secondly, the faction plates all have clear things that distinguish them from the other meta 8 options, and are all solid. I could see myself considering all three on a fit. One will undoubtedly become 'the best overall' but all will remain viable options. Well done. However, this poses the question - when deadspace plates are introduced (which I assume they will be in the future), what are your plans for them? I think you should add to the table preliminary stats for deadspace plates, even if you have no intention of adding them to this release. Shoot everyone. Let the Saviour sort it out. I enforce the New Haliama Code of Conduct via wardec ops. Ignorance of the law is no excuse - read about requirements for highsec miners at www.minerbumping.com
Perihelion Olenard 208	Posted - 2015.05.25 07:17:57 - [137] - Quote It is nice that people who want to use something better than tech 2 plates now have options for getting more EHP.
Eli Porter Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 11	Posted - 2015.05.25 07:30:41 - [138] - Quote What's the point in lowering PG cost while increasing CPU cost at about the same level for T2 plates? It doesn't seem to serve any purpose outside of annoying EFT warriors.
Xequecal GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 317	Posted - 2015.05.25 07:42:24 - [139] - Quote Stratios got massively buffed by the plate changes. Stratios has 1150 PG, which currently lets you fit two 1600mm plates and a MWD, but nothing else, so 2x 1600mm plate fits aren't viable unless you want to use Genolutions, storyline MWD, or storyline 1600mm plates, all of which are obscenely expensive. After these changes, you can just fit two Syndicate plates which actually have more HP than T2 plates do now, and won't be that expensive. (27000 LP and no tags) The result is a ship that can fit an expanded probe launcher and a cloak and still do 500-600 DPS of whatever damage type it wants alongside having ~70,000 EHP. Use a reactive armor hardener when hunting ratters (they do the same damage type as the rats) and your EHP will be much higher. Even though you'll be relatively slow when double plated, it's still rather difficult to catch a ship with a covops cloak and a MWD.
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 2133	Posted - 2015.05.25 07:53:43 - [140] - Quote Xequecal wrote: Stratios got massively buffed by the plate changes. Stratios has 1150 PG, which currently lets you fit two 1600mm plates and a MWD, but nothing else, so 2x 1600mm plate fits aren't viable unless you want to use Genolutions, storyline MWD, or storyline 1600mm plates, all of which are obscenely expensive. After these changes, you can just fit two Syndicate plates which actually have more HP than T2 plates do now, and won't be that expensive. (27000 LP and no tags) The result is a ship that can fit an expanded probe launcher and a cloak and still do 500-600 DPS of whatever damage type it wants alongside having ~70,000 EHP. Use a reactive armor hardener when hunting ratters (they do the same damage type as the rats) and your EHP will be much higher. Even though you'll be relatively slow when double plated, it's still rather difficult to catch a ship with a covops cloak and a MWD. Sounds reasonable to me. I like the Stratios :) Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.

FT Diomedes The Graduates Get Off My Lawn 991	Posted - 2015.05.25 09:09:10 - [141] - Quote Xequecal wrote: Stratios got massively buffed by the plate changes. Stratios has 1150 PG, which currently lets you fit two 1600mm plates and a MWD, but nothing else, so 2x 1600mm plate fits aren't viable unless you want to use Genolutions, storyline MWD, or storyline 1600mm plates, all of which are obscenely expensive. After these changes, you can just fit two Syndicate plates which actually have more HP than T2 plates do now, and won't be that expensive. (27000 LP and no tags) The result is a ship that can fit an expanded probe launcher and a cloak and still do 500-600 DPS of whatever damage type it wants alongside having ~70,000 EHP. Use a reactive armor hardener when hunting ratters (they do the same damage type as the rats) and your EHP will be much higher. Even though you'll be relatively slow when double plated, it's still rather difficult to catch a ship with a covops cloak and a MWD. That is one ship I have thought about flying for a long while now. I'll have to give it a shot when I finish this deployment. It sounds as though it will suit a certain patient play style of which I am very fond. The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
Xequecal GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 318	Posted - 2015.05.25 10:07:50 - [142] - Quote Syndicate 1600mm Steel Plates Syndicate 1600mm Steel Plates Internal Force Field Array I Imperial Navy Adaptive Nano Plating Imperial Navy Drone Damage Amplifier Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Caldari Navy Warp Scrambler 'Langour' Drive Disruptor I 'Langour' Drive Disruptor I 125mm Gatling AutoCannon II,Republic Fleet EMP S 125mm Gatling AutoCannon II,Republic Fleet EMP S 125mm Gatling AutoCannon II,Republic Fleet EMP S Covert Ops Cloaking Device II Sisters Expanded Probe Launcher,Core Scanner Probe I Medium Processor Overclocking Unit I Medium Trimark Armor Pump II Medium Trimark Armor Pump II This is a fit with no implants at all. Yes those are small guns and that's an empty mid slot. You're at 535/535 CPU exactly, there's nothing that fits there. If you use a 2% CPU implant, you can use a sensor booster and fleeting webs. A 4% CPU implant will let you use a target painter and fleeting webs.
Mike theBuilder Lone Wolf Union Yulai Federation 0	Posted - 2015.05.25 10:52:46 - [143] - Quote CCP Delegate Zero wrote: In terms of 'Named' modules, the 'Reinforced Nanofiber Plates' range will merge into the 'Crystalline Carbonide Restrained Plates'. Likewise, the 'Reinforced Titanium Plates' will merge into the 'Rolled Tungsten Compact Plates'. With shield extenders this process is mirrored by the merger of 'Subordinate Screen Stabilizers' into 'F-S9 Regolith Compact Shield Extenders', and the merger of 'Supplemental Barrier Emitters' into 'Azeotropic Restrained Shield Extenders'. When your saying "merge", are we to expect that say the Nanofiber Plates will become what is currently the Meta 3 Module (Crystaline Carbonide Plate), and this combined item gets its name changed, stats adjusted and becomes a Meta 1 Item (it keeps its old TypeID and so on), or those two old modules combined become a new module that will have a new ID, and the balanced stats. Previous rounds with module tiericide, we had every item listed and what they would become, but when you write it this way its not really clear what the exact database entry will change to. This actually have a large effect on market. Because on patch day, if its a new typeID, no items will be listed on any market and instead be moved+combined in hangars all across the universe. It will create a large vacuum on item values when there isn't any way of listing what the previous values used to be before the patch. Obviously people will adapt quick in market hubs, but you can sort of manipulate the market very easy in lower activity regions.
Vlad Vladimir Vladinovsky Black Iron Foundries Phoebe Freeport Republic 30	Posted - 2015.05.26 02:32:33 - [144] - Quote I don't like this 1600mm plate nerf at all, let alone any of the nerfs, you increase the CPU usage when there wasn't a CPU problem before, you reduce the PG usage of the plates when there wasn't a PG issue before. You reduce the effective tank and give armor little to go by. The agility and speed penalties are far worse than sig radius penalties on shield extenders purely because a shield ship retains all their speed and agility and by default can simply out kite a sig radius penalty and then it doesn't matter Yea armor has its own armor layering but the penalty doesn't go away significantly and the agility and speed problems are still there. CCP you seem to heavily favor this kite meta which largely excludes armor at all variants. I've been doing 1v1 fights in FW for a very long time and I see fewer and fewer ships running plates and instead going with these AAR fits because AAR's have zero agility and speed penalty. I've fought merlins that use their lows to tank mods and fill their mids with utilities because they can just gimp a fit and it works. Meanwhile ships like the punisher are in tan objectively WORSE situation now because they didn't get a bonus like shield ships did. Things like the punisher are slow and useless largely because they get scram kited by other brawlers. I totally look forward to liquidating my plate armor fits and never running mallers for anything useful ever again because you've obviously shown a huge bias towards shields. If shield extenders get buffs like this then why don't armor? you punished T2 plates with no significant benefit, the PG was never a problem but you somehow reduce PG and create CPU issues for no reason what so ever. an MSE is now nearly on part with a 400mm plate but I guarantee you I'd rather take an MSE because with that MSE I get to keep all of my agility and speed that negates the sig penalty, but with a 400mm plate I'm slow and sluggish with no way to over come it.
Kaarous Aldurald Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 13133	Posted - 2015.05.26 03:10:25 - [145] - Quote Vlad has a good point there. Speed is by far the most valuable, meaningful stat, and Armor is penalized in that category too severely. The meta is already too kitey, this will make it worse. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs. Best Meltdown Ever.

CCP Delegate Zero C C P C C P Alliance 227	Posted - 2015.05.26 13:16:28 - [146] - Quote Mike theBuilder wrote: When your saying "merge", are we to expect that say the Nanofiber Plates will become what is currently the Meta 3 Module (Crystaline Carbonide Plate), and this combined item gets its name changed, stats adjusted and becomes a Meta 1 Item (it keeps its old TypeID and so on), or those two old modules combined become a new module that will have a new ID, and the balanced stats. The former case - modules variants that are removed will be turned into remaining variants. CCP Delegate Zero \| Game Designer \| @CCPDelegateZero

TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1091	Posted - 2015.05.26 13:57:51 - [147] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Vlad has a good point there. Speed is by far the most valuable, meaningful stat, and Armor is penalized in that category too severely. The meta is already too kitey, this will make it worse. rigs give you most of the penalties, not plates/extenders
Jeanne-Luise Argenau Dark Nexxus S I L E N T. 151	Posted - 2015.05.26 14:24:04 - [148] - Quote doesnt look to bad, personally i would switch the rolled and crystaline plates and also the f-s9 and the azeo as they would then hold the same role as the current one does
Casivek Andrard Bloody Cross Syndicate Violent Declaration 7	Posted - 2015.05.26 14:55:21 - [149] - Quote Vlad Vladimir Vladinovsky wrote: I don't like this 1600mm plate nerf at all, let alone any of the nerfs, you increase the CPU usage when there wasn't a CPU problem before, you reduce the PG usage of the plates when there wasn't a PG issue before. You reduce the effective tank and give armor little to go by. The agility and speed penalties are far worse than sig radius penalties on shield extenders purely because a shield ship retains all their speed and agility and by default can simply out kite a sig radius penalty and then it doesn't matter Yea armor has its own armor layering but the penalty doesn't go away significantly and the agility and speed problems are still there. CCP you seem to heavily favor this kite meta which largely excludes armor at all variants. I've been doing 1v1 fights in FW for a very long time and I see fewer and fewer ships running plates and instead going with these AAR fits because AAR's have zero agility and speed penalty. I've fought merlins that use their lows to tank mods and fill their mids with utilities because they can just gimp a fit and it works. Meanwhile ships like the punisher are in tan objectively WORSE situation now because they didn't get a bonus like shield ships did. Things like the punisher are slow and useless largely because they get scram kited by other brawlers. I totally look forward to liquidating my plate armor fits and never running mallers for anything useful ever again because you've obviously shown a huge bias towards shields. If shield extenders get buffs like this then why don't armor? you punished T2 plates with no significant benefit, the PG was never a problem but you somehow reduce PG and create CPU issues for no reason what so ever. an MSE is now nearly on part with a 400mm plate but I guarantee you I'd rather take an MSE because with that MSE I get to keep all of my agility and speed that negates the sig penalty, but with a 400mm plate I'm slow and sluggish with no way to over come it. Welcome to eve online where ccp says **** everyone that isn't a null bear 99% of the time
Hakaari Inkuran State War Academy Caldari State 280	Posted - 2015.05.26 15:02:31 - [150] - Quote Vlad Vladimir Vladinovsky wrote: I don't like this 1600mm plate nerf at all, let alone any of the nerfs, you increase the CPU usage when there wasn't a CPU problem before, you reduce the PG usage of the plates when there wasn't a PG issue before. You reduce the effective tank and give armor little to go by. The agility and speed penalties are far worse than sig radius penalties on shield extenders purely because a shield ship retains all their speed and agility and by default can simply out kite a sig radius penalty and then it doesn't matter Yea armor has its own armor layering but the penalty doesn't go away significantly and the agility and speed problems are still there. CCP you seem to heavily favor this kite meta which largely excludes armor at all variants. I've been doing 1v1 fights in FW for a very long time and I see fewer and fewer ships running plates and instead going with these AAR fits because AAR's have zero agility and speed penalty. I've fought merlins that use their lows to tank mods and fill their mids with utilities because they can just gimp a fit and it works. Meanwhile ships like the punisher are in tan objectively WORSE situation now because they didn't get a bonus like shield ships did. Things like the punisher are slow and useless largely because they get scram kited by other brawlers. I totally look forward to liquidating my plate armor fits and never running mallers for anything useful ever again because you've obviously shown a huge bias towards shields. If shield extenders get buffs like this then why don't armor? you punished T2 plates with no significant benefit, the PG was never a problem but you somehow reduce PG and create CPU issues for no reason what so ever. an MSE is now nearly on part with a 400mm plate but I guarantee you I'd rather take an MSE because with that MSE I get to keep all of my agility and speed that negates the sig penalty, but with a 400mm plate I'm slow and sluggish with no way to over come it. If you are areguing extenders need a nerf i agree. Non t2 plates needed a nerf though.

Vlad Vladimir Vladinovsky Black Iron Foundries Phoebe Freeport Republic 31	Posted - 2015.05.26 15:52:12 - [151] - Quote Hakaari Inkuran wrote: If you are areguing extenders need a nerf i agree. Non t2 plates needed a nerf though. I didn't argue that, I clearly pointed out that T2 plates got shafted obviously while shields got buffed through the roof. Non T2 plates didn't need nerfing, there was nothing wrong with them, in FW I hardly see plates used at all anymore because people would rather run AAR's because AAR's don't give mass penalties which results in heavy speed and agility penalties. I don't use the punisher anymore for 2 reasons, 1. it has no ability for utilities, 2. its forced to be flown one way and its slow as hell. I've seen people run 200mm plated condors so they can fill their mids with utilities because thats how hard you can gimp things to work in extraneous ways. This doesn't call for a meta plate nerf that doesn't solve anything, its not OP at all and a small shield extender with these changes would poison that anyway. There is nothing OP about 400mm plates purely because of that speed and agility loss. yea your signature is slightly lower but does it matter at all when you're far less agile? its counter intuitive. Kiting metas and kiting ships should have been left to a skill based thing where pilots could out fly others purely because they actually know how to fly their ships. Not this implicated kite role that makes even the most mindless set ups able to kite about. Wanna run an armor kite ship? don't run a plate or trimarks because you're shooting yourself in the foot right off the bat. trouserdeagle wrote: rigs give you most of the penalties I'd argue that with the mass penalty of plates you're adopting agility loss which means you align slower, your acceleration and deceleration is slower and your overall speed is less. Its a double whammy and it has ruined armor meta in the game in favor of kite shield ships that can load their lows with damage and tracking mods and fill their mids with all the tank in the world. This is particularly where the Kiting Shield Ishtar doctrines come from. 5 mids 5 lows, they fill their mids with dual shield extenders, and resist mods to fill gaps. Lows are either 4 drone damage amps and a nano, DCU or shield flux coil. Why aren't they running armor ishtars? because they're objectively worse. Low speed, low agility, less damage than the shield set up and they're prone to sitting still because their speed is so low and they will get spiked by other ships because they're standing virtually still in comparison. Yea you can fill your mids with utilities but in this example, Heavy drones don't really need the assist, nor do geckos or even sentries, yea they help but its obviously not required.
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1092	Posted - 2015.05.26 16:08:42 - [152] - Quote yeah and I'd argue that the mass penalty is tiny, so who cares
Altrue Exploration Frontier inc Brave Collective 1780	Posted - 2015.05.26 17:40:01 - [153] - Quote CCP Delegate Zero wrote: The former case - modules variants that are removed will be turned into remaining variants. Would be cool to have details: What is turned into what? And I mean in a general sense, we never get told how the transformation process will work. Also, what about the cases where a new module appears? Like prop mods I believe. Signature Tanking Best Tanking Exploration Frontier Inc [Ex-F] CEO - BRAVE - Eve-guides.fr
Vlad Vladimir Vladinovsky Black Iron Foundries Phoebe Freeport Republic 31	Posted - 2015.05.26 18:04:51 - [154] - Quote TrouserDeagle wrote: yeah and I'd argue that the mass penalty is tiny, so who cares edit: I actually read your post Quote: Why aren't they running armor ishtars? because they're objectively worse. Low speed, low agility, less damage than the shield set up and they're prone to sitting still because their speed is so low and they will get spiked by other ships because they're standing virtually still in comparison. Yea you can fill your mids with utilities but in this example, Heavy drones don't really need the assist, nor do geckos or even sentries, yea they help but its obviously not required. I don't know where to start with this. I don't want to respond to every sentence individually with 'this is wrong'. I don't believe I am wrong though. I've been flying ishtars in null for a while to know how they work and how they're used. Shield ishtars are so popular because of the raw DPS output with the tanks being very high. This is part of the reason why I opt against armor vexors because a shield vexor while it tanks a little less in comparison, its far faster, more agile and does way more DPS because your low slots aren't reserved for tank mods but instead massive amounts of damage mods. Remember that mass penalty does two things. the first thing it does is make you harder to turn, accelerate, align, get to warp all sorts of agility related things. The second thing that penalty does is reduce your top speed which means you're going to be less able to create angular velocity against a target, it means you're more prone to missile damage and DPS can be activated on you easier. It means you can't catch targets as easily and it makes you sit still more, double backing to the DPS application, you become far easier to shoot at. the rigs further reduce your speed not as a function of mass but just a pure penalty to top speed, it means your AB's and MWD's are less effective because they scale relative to your base, which sounds like I'm stating the obvious but it just compounds far worse Yes shield fits do naturally increase your sig radius, but sig radius exists in the same rules for gun and missile formula and you can better negate damage because you're faster which means the sig radius penalty is so easily negated purely because you're faster and have higher top speeds. You create more angular velocity against a target, while your sig radius makes you easier to hit, you're faster than the armor equivalent and you create a secondary bottleneck on the ship shooting at you through his tracking.
Midnight Hope Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 163	Posted - 2015.05.27 03:19:51 - [155] - Quote Morihei Akachi wrote: CCP Delegate Zero wrote: As a reminder the meta module signifiers used for these changes are: Restrained: lower penalties on use Still calling technological equipment "restrained," eh? This doesn't get any more plausible merely by virtue of repetition. I doubt I'll be fitting these. This^ - Meta modules: Compact: Lower fitting requirements Restrained: Lower drawbacks Please try to get something with a bit more scifi flavor. I'm sure you can find an engineer or three for ideas: Compact -> Micro/Nano (same functionality, less use of fittings) Restrained -> Enhanced/Optimized/Advanced (if I understood correctly, *the item* is not actually "restrained", the item is "enhanced" or optimized in such a way that *its drawbacks* are reduced or restrained)
Masao Kurata Perkone Caldari State 232	Posted - 2015.05.27 17:57:15 - [156] - Quote Meta 0 and navy plate modules are strangely bulky compared to the rest of the modules in the group. For example meta 0 and navy 1600mm plate is 100 m3 vs the 20 m3 of all other 1600mm plate. Is this a design decision or an oversight, and if it's an oversight could you make the module volumes uniform?
Noxisia Arkana Deadspace Knights 427	Posted - 2015.05.28 01:59:45 - [157] - Quote Not a huge fan of the plate nerfs (non faction) from a raw HP standpoint... they didn't feel broken before - and they gave fleets a reason to fit armor buffer over shield. From a shield standpoint, looks cool. Is this on purpose, since you're going to be introducing sov mechanics that will favor nimble multi-pronged attacks; and thus are buffing shield / kiting / sig radius based tactics? If so, what niche would you see armor fleets fulfilling?
James Baboli Ferrous Infernum 793	Posted - 2015.05.28 02:11:44 - [158] - Quote Noxisia Arkana wrote: Not a huge fan of the plate nerfs (non faction) from a raw HP standpoint... they didn't feel broken before - and they gave fleets a reason to fit armor buffer over shield. From a shield standpoint, looks cool. Is this on purpose, since you're going to be introducing sov mechanics that will favor nimble multi-pronged attacks; and thus are buffing shield / kiting / sig radius based tactics? If so, what niche would you see armor fleets fulfilling? Damps to bring them in, tackle to hold them down, blasters to eat them alive. Talking more, Flying crazier, And drinking more Making battleships worth the warp
Anthar Thebess 1046	Posted - 2015.05.28 08:21:14 - [159] - Quote CCP Delegate Zero wrote: I see some issues in the module list you provided. You forgot to put there : - Sansha/Serpentis Armor Plates - Angel/Guristas Shield Extenders Capital Remote AID Rebalance Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
Zarek RedHill Stringent Method Mordus Angels 1	Posted - 2015.05.28 12:00:51 - [160] - Quote re: oversized modules -- I think they should either be impossible OR that you should need to give up a LOT to achieve it. I see MSEs used in frigates currently as a matter of course. IMO you should have to give up a lot of mobility or firepower to achieve this.

Daemun Khanid Sanctus Imperialis 82	Posted - 2015.05.28 20:08:53 - [161] - Quote Med shield extenders like 400 plates are really frigate modules anyway. The name is just decieving since we associate med turrents and modules as cruiser items. Imo either the names should be upshifted (since micro-extenders are getting removed) or just do a complete rename. Daemun of Khanid
Spugg Galdon Nisroc Angels 673	Posted - 2015.05.29 06:42:45 - [162] - Quote Daemun Khanid wrote: Med shield extenders like 400 plates are really frigate modules anyway. The name is just decieving since we associate med turrents and modules as cruiser items. Imo either the names should be upshifted (since micro-extenders are getting removed) or just do a complete rename. Which is why I think all modules that have a "sized name" should be changed. For example, small shield extenders should be called something like 500 GW Shield Extenders. Mediums 1000 GW Shield extenders and large called 2000 GW Shield Extenders. We don't have small medium and large prop mods or small medium and large armour plates. The sizing names are misleading and make people think that they should be fit to certain sized ships. EDIT: Excluding weapons because of reasons
Anthar Thebess 1049	Posted - 2015.05.29 08:23:52 - [163] - Quote Spugg Galdon wrote: Daemun Khanid wrote: Med shield extenders like 400 plates are really frigate modules anyway. The name is just decieving since we associate med turrents and modules as cruiser items. Imo either the names should be upshifted (since micro-extenders are getting removed) or just do a complete rename. Which is why I think all modules that have a "sized name" should be changed. For example, small shield extenders should be called something like 500 GW Shield Extenders. Mediums 1000 GW Shield extenders and large called 2000 GW Shield Extenders. We don't have small medium and large prop mods or small medium and large armour plates. The sizing names are misleading and make people think that they should be fit to certain sized ships. EDIT: Excluding weapons because of reasons Lol. Why? No need to change names again. Capital Remote AID Rebalance Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
Spugg Galdon Nisroc Angels 675	Posted - 2015.05.29 19:25:43 - [164] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: Spugg Galdon wrote: Daemun Khanid wrote: Med shield extenders like 400 plates are really frigate modules anyway. The name is just decieving since we associate med turrents and modules as cruiser items. Imo either the names should be upshifted (since micro-extenders are getting removed) or just do a complete rename. Which is why I think all modules that have a "sized name" should be changed. For example, small shield extenders should be called something like 500 GW Shield Extenders. Mediums 1000 GW Shield extenders and large called 2000 GW Shield Extenders. We don't have small medium and large prop mods or small medium and large armour plates. The sizing names are misleading and make people think that they should be fit to certain sized ships. EDIT: Excluding weapons because of reasons Lol. Why? No need to change names again. You clearly don't "get it". If the modules didn't have the pre-fix "Small/Medium/Large" people wouldn't associate them to specific sized ships so much. "Oversizing" modules to ship type wouldn't exist as it would simply be a case of "that ship has the fitting room for that particular module in this setup".
Lady Rift What Shall We Call It 196	Posted - 2015.06.01 17:50:29 - [165] - Quote Spugg Galdon wrote: Anthar Thebess wrote: Spugg Galdon wrote: Daemun Khanid wrote: Med shield extenders like 400 plates are really frigate modules anyway. The name is just decieving since we associate med turrents and modules as cruiser items. Imo either the names should be upshifted (since micro-extenders are getting removed) or just do a complete rename. Which is why I think all modules that have a "sized name" should be changed. For example, small shield extenders should be called something like 500 GW Shield Extenders. Mediums 1000 GW Shield extenders and large called 2000 GW Shield Extenders. We don't have small medium and large prop mods or small medium and large armour plates. The sizing names are misleading and make people think that they should be fit to certain sized ships. EDIT: Excluding weapons because of reasons Lol. Why? No need to change names again. You clearly don't "get it". If the modules didn't have the pre-fix "Small/Medium/Large" people wouldn't associate them to specific sized ships so much. "Oversizing" modules to ship type wouldn't exist as it would simply be a case of "that ship has the fitting room for that particular module in this setup". and people still call putting a 100mn afterburner on a cruiser over sizing the prop mod.
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn Department 10 234	Posted - 2015.06.01 23:02:21 - [166] - Quote probag Bear wrote: Please reconsider the unsurpassable nerf to " 'Bailey' 1600mm Steel Plates ". They are currently a sub-par, ~600mil, version of normal 1600mm Steel Plates. As killmail data shows, they are nearly completely unused; the number of ships lost using this particular module is on the order of magnitude of a dozen a year. What killmail data does not show is the one single fit that fuels nearly 100% of the demand for 'Bailey' 1600mm Steel Plates: the dual-plated, dual-ENAM, dual-trimarked, full slave linked Rapier. The reason it does not show up on killboards is because it is not used by people who engage into fights they would lose; only smart people use this fit, so there are close to no losses. The dual-plated, dual-ENAM, dual-trimarked, full slave Rapier is literally the only ship fitting that makes use of this module. With your proposed PWG change to the module, you are making impossible roughly all of the ships flown with this module fit. And given the extremely high price of the module, there will be no fit to step up to the plate and make this module worth using again. tl;dr: Looking at historical market and kill-mail data, by nerfing 'Bailey' 1600mm Steel Plates, you are making the one and only common fit that uses this module impossible, and thus eliminating ~98.5% of the total demand for the module. Given its enormous price and mediocre new stats, there will be no fit on any ship at all that this module will be worth using on. It will go from one of the very few Storyline modules to have a dominant niche to another Storyline module that is never, ever, used. At one time the 'Bailey' 1600mm Steel Plates used to a popular choice for those doing Incursions with armour tanked ships. I'm not sure if that is the case now. " 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. ' .
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn Department 10 234	Posted - 2015.06.01 23:18:19 - [167] - Quote Suitonia wrote: I have a question in regards to COSMOS/Storyline Faction Plates and Extenders, why are the fitting requirements for these being increased and in several instances being harder to fit than the 'compact' meta variants. I thought that Storyline/Cosmos was supposed to have the best fitting requirements? When the MLUs were 'iterated' recently the storyline ones were given better stats in terms of performance and not just better fitting stats. To my mind this is how it should be with all COSMOS and 'storyline' modules. For the most part COSMOS and 'storyline' modules are very hard to build due to the rarity factor of materials and BPCs and the perilous nature of the locations where the materials are sourced. T2 modules are, to coin a phrase, as common as muck to acquire so it would seem logical to place COSMOS & Storyline modules in between T2 and Faction in terms of performance AND fittings stats. This would also make the COSMOS system and modules part of the game again whereas at the moment they are largely ignored. " 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. ' .
Unsuccessful At Everything The Troll Bridge 21562	Posted - 2015.06.01 23:56:47 - [168] - Quote That 1600 Rolled Tungsten mass addition... *Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?*
Anthar Thebess 1057	Posted - 2015.06.02 09:39:17 - [169] - Quote Unsuccessful At Everything wrote: That 1600 Rolled Tungsten mass addition... Wormhole gangs will need to rethink their setups. I guess it will be Faction Plates + med grade slave sets. Capital Remote AID Rebalance Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1177	Posted - 2015.06.02 18:00:46 - [170] - Quote i like the options now, even if you lose a sizeable chunk when you add in rigs for HP, maybe a little too much, but also brings up other issues of the sig radius of shield ships and the extra sig rigs add on top can make the restrained option not as strong as it ought too be, and cbc's badly need a sig reduction, shield fit drakes and brutix's, vultures etc having battleship sig when fitted is just plain wrong. 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, nerf sentries, -3 slots for droneboats Nerf web strength, Make the blaster eagle worth using

Vargrh Transhuman Technologies Inc 2	Posted - 2015.06.02 18:28:25 - [171] - Quote Please offer option of keeping the old bracket icons for those that do not want dozens of different symbols for ships moving about in local view.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode ISD Community Communications Liaisons 5590	Posted - 2015.06.02 21:21:56 - [172] - Quote Removed an off topic post. ISD Dorrim Barstorlode Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
Iyacia Cyric'ai Red Federation RvB - RED Federation 154	Posted - 2015.06.03 02:42:53 - [173] - Quote Unsuccessful At Everything wrote: That 1600 Rolled Tungsten mass addition... I guess you could say, it got rolled. YEAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!! I'll see myself out.
Elwha Lynx The Red Island Foundation Shadow Cartel 3	Posted - 2015.06.03 20:54:19 - [174] - Quote Respectfully I'm rather disappointed that in April they modified mods using an improved naming convention, only to completely disregard the improvement by June. For example, if you market search for say "large shield extender" you entirely miss several flavors because of the inconsistent naming convention. It's a missed opportunity to simplify the game that I hope gets reconsidered in the future. TY.
Xequecal GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 324	Posted - 2015.06.04 11:23:10 - [175] - Quote Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn wrote: probag Bear wrote: Please reconsider the unsurpassable nerf to " 'Bailey' 1600mm Steel Plates ". They are currently a sub-par, ~600mil, version of normal 1600mm Steel Plates. As killmail data shows, they are nearly completely unused; the number of ships lost using this particular module is on the order of magnitude of a dozen a year. What killmail data does not show is the one single fit that fuels nearly 100% of the demand for 'Bailey' 1600mm Steel Plates: the dual-plated, dual-ENAM, dual-trimarked, full slave linked Rapier. The reason it does not show up on killboards is because it is not used by people who engage into fights they would lose; only smart people use this fit, so there are close to no losses. The dual-plated, dual-ENAM, dual-trimarked, full slave Rapier is literally the only ship fitting that makes use of this module. With your proposed PWG change to the module, you are making impossible roughly all of the ships flown with this module fit. And given the extremely high price of the module, there will be no fit to step up to the plate and make this module worth using again. tl;dr: Looking at historical market and kill-mail data, by nerfing 'Bailey' 1600mm Steel Plates, you are making the one and only common fit that uses this module impossible, and thus eliminating ~98.5% of the total demand for the module. Given its enormous price and mediocre new stats, there will be no fit on any ship at all that this module will be worth using on. It will go from one of the very few Storyline modules to have a dominant niche to another Storyline module that is never, ever, used. At one time the 'Bailey' 1600mm Steel Plates used to a popular choice for those doing Incursions with armour tanked ships. I'm not sure if that is the case now. His entire complaint is baseless as well, using one of each of the new Bailey plates and Imperial Navy plates results in more armor HP with 1x trimark 1x ACR II than 2x Bailey plates currently give with 2x trimarks.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [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.