| Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
   |
Posted - 2007.03.24 11:31:00 -
[1]
Hey.
I don't normally post writeups on aspects of the game. Well, I used to but I stopped somewhere between now and a year ago. Recently I've come to notice more and more items where the tech 2 version is not as good as a named version. This breaks the idea of meta levels, where the highest meta level named item should be worse than tech 2, or rather that Tech 2 should be better than it.
Some examples of T2 modules which are better than their best named counterpart include:
All turrets and launchers. - While they have the same stats as best named, they can use tech 2 ammo
All armour and shield hardeners
All active and passive armour repairers
All active and passive shield boosters
Reactor Control Units
Power Diagnostic Units
All turret damage mods
Ballistic control units
Capacitor Batteries
Sensor booster - same stats but has a longer cycle duration to make it more cap efficient
Remote Sensor booster
Co-Processors
Cloaking devices
Damage Control Unit
All Afterburners and Microwarpdrives
All warp scramblers (increased range)
Overdrives
Shield extenders
Shield Boost Amplifiers
Smartbomb (increased range)
Cap Rechargers
Cap flux coils
All Drones and ammo (they don't have named versions, though)
All rigs (again no named versions)
Nanofibres
Shield Rechargers
Shield Power Relays
Shield flux coils
There are probably more but I didn't go through everything. So the design trend is firmly set - T2 gear is better than the best named gear but has higher fittings and skill requirements. Why else would people use it when named gear is availible on the market in sufficient quantities to supply the whole demand in eve at a reasonably low price? People choose T2 hardeners, for example, because they are better than the readily availible alternatives of Tech 1 and named.
Unfortunately, there are groups of modules which break this trend and as such their tech 2 versions are barely used and are not worth inventing. Until recently, Tech 2 cap boosters were useless because they simply held one more charge in their capacity but had the same cycle duration as tech 1, while the best named had a reduced duration. This was recently fixed so that the T2 version has the same cycle duration as the best named and keeps the increased capacity. This is a good fix but there are other mods that need fixed.
Here is a list of module types which are not any better than their tech 1 counterparts and not worth using due to increased cap use, powergrid use, cpu use and cost, making the abundant and usually cheap named alternative a better choice:
ECCM and projected ECCM
ECM jammers and ECM burst
Target Painters, sensor dampeners and tracking disruptors
Sensor Backup arrays
Shield transporters/remote armour repairers
Nosferatu
Armour plates - Hp bonus is the same but the named version adds less mass to the ship. As a result, rolled tungsten is better than the T2 version if mass is important to you and the same otherwise.
And now for some modules where the tech 2 version is actually WORSE than the best named and so they aren't used in the game at all or is barely used. Inventing these modules is like throwing away your datacores, bpcs and decryptors:
Stasis Webifier - Best named is 90% speed reduction at 10km. T2 is 80% speed reduction at 10km.
Heavy Energy Neutralisers - The best named heavy neut uses 500 of your cap to neut 600 of the enemy's at a range of 25.2km. The T2 version uses 600 of your cap to neut 600 of the enemy's at a range of 25.5km. So the T2 version uses more capacitor, powergrid and CPU and gains 300m range. As a result, less than 10 Heavy neut IIs sell in jita each week while over 400 of the best named ones sell.
Continued...
Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources. |
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2007.03.24 11:38:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Nyphur on 24/03/2007 11:36:41
... continued.
Medium neuts - of special note are medium energy neutralisers, who's best named versions use 150 cap to neut 180 while T2 uses 170 to neut 170. So not only do they neutralise MORE, they use less cap to do so and top top it off, the best named has 100m additional range.
Inertial stabalisers - The t2 and best named both give 20% inertia bonuses but the T2 gives 11% sig radius penalty while the best named gives only 8%
Energy transfer arrays - The large named version uses 338 energy to give 324. The T2 version uses 439 energy to give 351. It's incredibly inefficient compared to the best named one and its only redeeming factor is 750m extra range. The medium and small show a similar tale.
Capacitor Power Relay - best named and T2 both give 24%, while trends with other mods would suggest it should give 25% as it used to before it was actually released. The tech 2 version has a higher shield boost penalty.
It is my opinion that these modules are broken and require a fix. Many of these tech 2 items were not in the game until recently and may have been prenerfed or have skipped detailed balancing control before being released as blueprints or inventable products. I think it's about time they get looked at.
If I may be so bold as to suggest some changes:
ECCM - Make the T2 give 100%, not 96%.
Projected ECCM - Make the best named give under 120%.
ECM, Target painters, sensor dampeners, tracking disruptors - Give T2 additional optimal range but the same strengths as best named.
Shield transporters/remote armour repairers - give T2 the same stats as best named but additional range.
Nosferatu - Reduce diminishing nos effectiveness slightly but enough to make a difference. e.g. Heavy nos 110 instead of T2's 120.
Stasis web - Give T2 12km range but keep the 80% strength
Armour plates - Increase the HP given by T2 or reduce the HP given by rolled tungsten. Also, why are nanofibre plates heavier than others instead of lighter?
Heavy neuts - Since long range is the domain of faction and officer versions of this module, make them neut 600 cap for under 500 cap (my suggestion is 450) and adjust all faction and officer versions to reflect this change.
Medium neuts - As above, make it more cap efficient than the best named version, either by reducing the Tech 1 and named version's efficiency or increasing the tech 2 version's efficiency. This is a job for the guys who balance things.
Inertial stabalisers - Not a huge deal. Could be left as they are but I'd sugfest rebalancing such as decreasing best named to 18% or increasing T2 to 22%. Even 21%, anything so it's better than named gear.
Energy transfer arrays - Match the cap use of best named with T2 but leave the slightly increased transfer amount of T2 in.
Capacitor Power Relay - Restore the 25% figure to the T2 version.
These are simply suggestions but I definitely think something needs done about useless T2 modules. In particular, the neutraliser is something I'd like to see changed, and not just because I just bought a BPO of the heavy neut II - that was a bit of a motivator for me to post this isntead of jsut complaining to people I know about it.
I feel that altering the difference in cap efficiency between best named and tech 2 neuts is important as additional range simply would not make it better than best named. Neuts are becoming a very important part of capital and battleship conflicts and it's a darn shame that even though bpos are out and tons of them are on the market, Tech 2 neuts aren't worth using over cheap named ones.
The other major issues I see are webbers, where it's just plain silly to have the tech 2 version being weaker than and the same range as the best named and even second best named. Cap relays are another one that I feel is important and T2 energy transfer arrays really have been left behind in the balancing act. These things, in my humble opinion, are not correct and need changed.
Thank you for reading.
Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources. |
LordInvisible
Gallente
adeptus gattacus
O X I D E
|
Posted - 2007.03.24 14:22:00 -
[3]
well, didnt read all this mumbo jumbo, but i sure agree that t2 mods should have better statistics then t1 part..
have u checked if there is any problem with faction stuff too?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2007.03.24 14:38:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: LordInvisible
well, didnt read all this mumbo jumbo, but i sure agree that t2 mods should have better statistics then t1 part..
have u checked if there is any problem with faction stuff too?
There are indeed some faction modules which do not give a higher bonus than T2, such as true sansha capacitor rechargers, but even they have lower fittings than T2. Many faction items have T2 stats and lower fittings and while I'm not sure hwat the exact design ethos was behind faction loot I KNOW that tech 2 stuff is not meant to be outdone by tech 1 named gear.
Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources. |
Kar Anshral
|
Posted - 2007.03.24 15:30:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Kar Anshral on 24/03/2007 15:28:48
With the passive non-energized resist plating the T2 is worse then the best named. 'refuge' adaptive nano gives 15.36% resist while the T2 adaptive nano gives 12.5%.
T2 cap relay is also worse then best named, they both reduce cap recharge time by 24% but T2 reduces shield boost by 11% and best named only by 10%.
I think with T2 with EW modules is that the T2 would be more readily available(and thus cheaper) then the best named T1 but use more cpu/cap.
Like with the T2 medium nosferatu, I use those on Hurricane because I have the grid/cpu to spare anyway and don't wanna spend too much to get diminishings(which are rather expensive partly because of the curse/pilgrim)
Webifiers really need to be improved though, the T2 version is soo bad, the moment you fit it, your ship explodes!
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2007.03.24 19:09:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Kar Anshral
With the passive non-energized resist plating the T2 is worse then the best named. 'refuge' adaptive nano gives 15.36% resist while the T2 adaptive nano gives 12.5%.
T2 cap relay is also worse then best named, they both reduce cap recharge time by 24% but T2 reduces shield boost by 11% and best named only by 10%.
I got the cap relay one but I did miss the passive non-energized armour resist plating. That's another one.
Originally by: Kar Anshral
I think with T2 with EW modules is that the T2 would be more readily available(and thus cheaper) then the best named T1 but use more cpu/cap.
That would have been my guess but the same is not true of most other T2 items.
Originally by: Kar Anshral
Like with the T2 medium nosferatu, I use those on Hurricane because I have the grid/cpu to spare anyway and don't wanna spend too much to get diminishings(which are rather expensive partly because of the curse/pilgrim)
This is perfectly reasonable but to the game, T2 cost more than t1. Refine both and see which gives more. Additionally, the opposite is true of neuts, where the best named cost peanuts.
Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources. |
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2007.03.26 05:20:00 -
[7]
This really needs sorted. How some of these items made it into the game I don't know but I suspect they weren't actually rebalanced before being made inventable or bpos being released.
Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources. |
Par'Gellen
Gallente
Low Grade Ore
|
Posted - 2007.03.26 07:15:00 -
[8]
The named target painter "Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron" is better than its T2 counterpart. It also probably wins the "Longest Module Name In Eve" award. 
---
CCP : Save my mousewheel! |
Syrann
The Praxis Initiative
FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.03.26 16:18:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Par'Gellen
The named target painter "Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron" is better than its T2 counterpart. It also probably wins the "Longest Module Name In Eve" award.
True - but it's also the only one that can be abbreviated to PWNAGE.
Also, /signed. There are also quite a few T2 modules with ridiculously low skill training requirements (lvl 1 for T1, lvl 2 for Tech 2), but since the modules are worse then T2, it doesn't really matter.
------------
It's great to be Ama... Erm crappit, nevermind. |
Random Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.03.27 10:23:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Random Caldari on 27/03/2007 10:20:24
Originally by: Nyphur
Hey.
I don't normally post writeups on aspects of the game. Well, I used to but I stopped somewhere between now and a year ago. Recently I've come to notice more and more items where the tech 2 version is not as good as a named version. This breaks the idea of meta levels, where the highest meta level named item should be worse than tech 2, or rather that Tech 2 should be better than it.
Do not confuse Tech Level with Meta Level the two are not directly related.
All player manufacturable gear is Meta Level 0 afaik
Tech level is a seperate attribute of an item an can be viewed on the info sheet , Meta level cannot be viewed on the info sheet and can only be deduced by looking at the items stats.
It is possible to have Tech II Items with a Meta Level , I know some exist in the data dump , but I dont know if they have ever been released in game.
Tech II gear requires more skill to use. therefore if all tech II items were made better than top named it would alter the balance between new players and old players.
Things are good as they are, it may be true that certain items need love/nerfage but to make all Tech II better than Top named would make the game much too biased to older skilled players.
Most Tech II Items are produced in large enough quantities to make them expendable, Where as Top Named (where it is better than Tech II) tends to be an expensive substitute item for those that dont have the skill to fit tech II. |
Esaka
Hunters Agency
Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.03.27 15:44:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Syrann
Originally by: Par'Gellen
The named target painter "Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron" is better than its T2 counterpart. It also probably wins the "Longest Module Name In Eve" award.
True - but it's also the only one that can be abbreviated to PWNAGE.
LOL!
Ontopic: I don't know if it was intended that way (probably not), but I like the fact that you just can't rely on fitting t2 and be done. Doing some analysis of what is really better and using named t1 stuff were it helps rewards your for thinking beyond t2 = i-win. This of course can be argued by higher t2 fitting requirements and setup problems you'll get when only using t2 stuff.
--------------------------------------
Agent & Mission-Info: http://www.eveinfo.com
Evewide Market-Info: http://eve-central.com/ |
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2007.03.27 16:36:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Random Caldari
Do not confuse Tech Level with Meta Level the two are not directly related.
All player manufacturable gear is Meta Level 0 afaik
Things are good as they are, it may be true that certain items need love/nerfage but to make all Tech II better than Top named would make the game much too biased to older skilled players.
Most Tech II Items are produced in large enough quantities to make them expendable, Where as Top Named (where it is better than Tech II) tends to be an expensive substitute item for those that dont have the skill to fit tech II.
Are you sure that tech 2 and faction are not given a meta level rating? You can include faction items in invention runs to increase success chance. Though you can't include tech 2 so I would guess you're right.
Let's be clear, level 4 in a single skill is usually the skill requirement of tech 2 modules, barring things like weapons which need specialisation skills. That's not a whole lot of training time. The tech 2 modules listed are not, by any measure, a domain of exclusivity for older players. Making them better than best named does not unbalance the game toward older players. To get from using a tech 1 module to using its tech 2 counterpart is only a week or two of training time.
The main problem is not that all tech 2 items are not better than best named. I'd not be happy to see them all be about as good as best named but at least then they'd be consistently best named items but producable on demand. The main problem I'm having is that the design ethos for tech 2 is not consistent. Some tech2 items are better than best named, some are about the same and some are even worse! There are tech 2 items in eve which are simply not worth using, under any circumstance, ever. An example is the stasis webiffier II. The worst named version, which sells for about the same price as the basic tech 1 version, are almost identical to tech 2. Tech 2 gives 80% slowdown at 10km, worst named gives 78.75% at 10km, it has less cap usage and a third less CPU usage than the tech 2 and only needs propulsion jamming 1 compared to 4. This isn't the best named, this is the worst named. The best and second-best named are better in every way.
Another issue I see with tech 2 items that are not better than the best named gear is simply that with the increase in players, a lot of named gear is more availible than its tech 2 counterparts. Named gear will always be cheaper than tech 2 if tech 2 is better since the minimum price tech 2 can sell for is the price of tech 1 plus additional components and minerals - while tech 1 named items refine for about the same amount as tech 1 standard modules and can be sold for as low as the price fo tech 1. Essentially, both items can be sold for a minimum of base mineral cost and in the case of tech 2, that is much more than best named.
Regardless of everything else, there should not be tech 2 items in the game which are not worth buying over readily availible, cheap alternatives. The price of named tech 1 gear should NOT be allowed to dictate the maximum price tech 2 will sell for because the price of tech 1 named gear can feasibly go as low as the price of tech 1 standard gear. And since tech 1 gear is needed to build tech 2, it's always going to cost more to manufacture than tech 1.
So it's entirely plausible for there to be a tech 2 item out there that is worse than named versions and more expensive to manufacture than the named costs to buy. Want an example? Stasis webbifier II. Build cost in minerals is about 200k, but there are "Patterned Stasis Web I"s for sale for under 100k. the patterned version is better in all ways than tech 2. Therefore, the tech 2 version is not worth building even if you had a free bpo.
Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources. |
Kataclismo
|
Posted - 2007.03.27 18:07:00 -
[13]
the t2 spend much more CPU/PG then its t1 counterpart... BUT it gets benefits from specialization skills and you need highers skill lvl's to use it, soo it makes the t2 much more powerfull then t1. For sure there are nameds and factions much better then t2's but players may not produce'em and they are "rare" stuff.
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2007.03.27 18:11:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Kataclismo
the t2 spend much more CPU/PG then its t1 counterpart... BUT it gets benefits from specialization skills and you need highers skill lvl's to use it, soo it makes the t2 much more powerfull then t1. For sure there are nameds and factions much better then t2's but players may not produce'em and they are "rare" stuff.
Very few T2 modules have specialisation skills, only weapons as far as I am aware.
Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources. |
Kar Anshral
|
Posted - 2007.03.27 19:41:00 -
[15]
I believe what is missing for modules is standardized rules about how modules improves from T1 to meta/T2/faction/... Like meta has better stats, T2 has a specialisation skill effect, faction is better then T2 etc etc. Right now the way modules improves seems arbitrary and up to the creator/designer that put the modules into the database.
Creating some ground rules that have to be followed by every module and then going over every module ingame to have them follow these rules closely.
|
Kai Lae
Gallente
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.03.27 22:31:00 -
[16]
Could CCP at least fix the armor plates? T2 being worse than T1 makes no sense, at all.
Raptor and Ares Fix |
Artu Stargazer
|
Posted - 2007.03.28 02:32:00 -
[17]
The T2 Shield Transporters get the same range and Shield/Second as the best T1 named. However, they do it for less cap (66 for a S95a Small, 60 for the T2). The fitting requirements however are pretty insane. 84 CPU for a small, 126 on a medium, 154 on large, and I'm not sure they ever seeded Large Transporter II BPOs.
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2007.03.29 14:02:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Kai Lae
Could CCP at least fix the armor plates? T2 being worse than T1 makes no sense, at all.
Off the top of my head, T2 armour plates are the same as best named but give more mass. Mass isn't really a HUGE thing unless you're using an oversized plate and mwd.
Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources. |
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2007.03.30 13:50:00 -
[19]
Update:
From another thread, I gather that they've improved T2 Stasis webs on sisi to be the same as best named but with higher cpu use. This is one step in the right direction. There are plenty more modules that are worse than best named and need some attention. There are also still others such as battleship mods and armour plates that are just as good as best named and in the same abundance on the market but simply aren't worth fitting due to grid and cpu reqs. That might be balanced out by the prices dropping due to invention but if you recall, I made an argument above showing that the best named items can ALWAYS undercut Tech 2 prices and make a profit even if the tech 2 versions aren't making any profit at all.
This might be solved by increases in supply of tech 2 or decreases in supply of best named gear but one thing is for sure - right now, some tech 2 modules that are working as intended are not worth buying over their named counterparts.
Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources. |
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2007.04.04 20:53:00 -
[20]
Updated the first post. T2 Stasis webs are now on TQ with the same stats as best named. That is perfectly acceptable. It doesn't follow the same trend as warp disruptors/scramblers and may leave the huginn slightly weaker than the lachesis but that's a matter for another discussion. That's one crossed off the list, here's what's left in the list of modules whose Tech 2 version is worse than Tech 1 named and thus useless:
Energy Neutralisers
Energy Transfer Arrays
Adaptive Nano Membrane (non-energised)
Armor coating (passive non-energised armour resistance plating)
And these two are arguable:
Inertial stabalisers - This one can be ignored if we're assuming the signature radius penalty isn't a measure of ability
Capacitor Power Relay - Gives the same percentage as best named. Can be ignored I guess.
Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources. |
Airmaker
Umbra Congregatio
|
Posted - 2007.04.06 10:16:00 -
[21]
The webbifiers do have the same 90% speed reduction and range, but the skil requirements are higher and fittings worse than best named. For the greater investment in skill training and the greater hit on CPU / Power that T2 items require, I really expect some benefit on the actual working end of the mod, i.e. either speed reduction or range.
Of course the current stats don't make the item unusable or unsellable, (if people only used or bought the best items, we wouldn't be building any T1 stuff) but those stats must really put anyone off from inventing the T2 bpo and manufacturing the webber IIs - although there may be a market for them, I think it will be small and the profits low.
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2007.04.07 13:44:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Airmaker
The webbifiers do have the same 90% speed reduction and range, but the skil requirements are higher and fittings worse than best named. For the greater investment in skill training and the greater hit on CPU / Power that T2 items require, I really expect some benefit on the actual working end of the mod, i.e. either speed reduction or range.
Of course the current stats don't make the item unusable or unsellable, (if people only used or bought the best items, we wouldn't be building any T1 stuff) but those stats must really put anyone off from inventing the T2 bpo and manufacturing the webber IIs - although there may be a market for them, I think it will be small and the profits low.
Considering the price of the best named right now and the cost of T2 to manufacture through invention, I'd say T2 has the price advantage at the moment. However, as I said before, T2 base costs are higher than T1 base costs and the named items refine into roughly T1 base cost worth of minerals. The best named can always be sold cheaper than T2 without making a base loss.
Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources. |
Rhaegor Stormborn
|
Posted - 2007.04.07 14:30:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Syrann
Originally by: Par'Gellen
The named target painter "Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron" is better than its T2 counterpart. It also probably wins the "Longest Module Name In Eve" award.
True - but it's also the only one that can be abbreviated to PWNAGE.
Rofl.
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2007.04.13 17:03:00 -
[24]
Updated the second post.
Webbers have been fixed. Time for energy transfers, energy neutralisers and possibly:
Cap relays
ECCM
ECM
Target painters
Sensor dampeners
Tracking disruptors
Sensor boosters and sensor backup arrays.
Nosferatu
Shield transporters
Armour plates
Inertial stabalisers.
I don't care how they're fixed as long as we don't have a whole list of T2 modules that aren't worth using :/.
Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources. |
Von Druid
Black Omega Security
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.04.13 19:13:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Von Druid on 13/04/2007 19:11:01
Webbers aren't fixed. They have the same range and velocity reduction as the best named webbers, but use more cap and have higher fitting requirements - they are worse than the best named. I don't think the price advantage counts :)
|
Bowlance
|
Posted - 2007.04.14 07:39:00 -
[26]
I completely agree with the OP on the fact that there are many t2 items that have no use what-so-ever when compared to t1 named items.
But I don't know if he mentioned this or not, but I think t1 should be worse, named t1 w/ low skills should be average, t2 should be good, and all the faction gear should be best. In that order. I don't agree that t2 gear should have higher fitting requirements than named t1 gear.
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2007.04.22 00:58:00 -
[27]
I'm still adamant that something be done about useless Tech 2 modules. Just the other day, someone was telling me that his corpmates made fun of him for making a setup that used T2 neuts because named were cheaper, better in every way and easier to fit.
Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources. |
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2007.04.26 22:13:00 -
[28]
While we're at it, how about making bulkheads and non-energized passive membranes useful? Non-energized membranes are considered frigate modules by the game, while energized are considered cruiser modules. It's been a very long time since a frigate hasn't had a better choice of module for a low slot than a non-energized membrane. In the current state of the game, people tend to either you an energized one if they have the CPU or a speed module if they don't. I can't really see a use for non-energized membranes.
Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources. |
Tonto Auri
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2007.04.26 22:35:00 -
[29]
You lost point at start by forgot that T-I named modules are non-restorable equipment.
You can quickly build plain T-I(MT0) item or T-II(MT5) module if You have BPO(or enough runs BPC), but not MT1-MT4.
So I think there's not a case of general problem, but I agree that some T-II equipment need love. At least it must have fitting closer to T-I counterparts (and not twice than T-I, else I'd go for any MT1 equipment which not that rare/expensive(and sometimes cheaper!) and saves my CPU/PG alot).
--
. |
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2007.04.26 23:51:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Tonto Auri
You lost point at start by forgot that T-I named modules are non-restorable equipment.
No, I covered that during the thread a few times.
Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources. |
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2007.05.07 23:10:00 -
[31]
Still no fixes for these useless modules?
Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources. |
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2007.05.17 12:46:00 -
[32]
I can't get onto Sisi at the moment. Since there is a new patch out, can someone check if any of the modules in the list have been fixed?
Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources. |
GPerson
Gallente
The Scope
|
Posted - 2007.05.17 22:58:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Rhaegor Stormborn
Originally by: Syrann
Originally by: Par'Gellen
The named target painter "Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron" is better than its T2 counterpart. It also probably wins the "Longest Module Name In Eve" award.
True - but it's also the only one that can be abbreviated to PWNAGE.
Rofl.
All the (named) target painters can do that. The other two are PWND and PWNT. 
~~~Sig Stuffs Here~~~
I highly recommend drunken posting.
This sig has been unhighjacked since 2005. |
Artu Stargazer
|
Posted - 2007.05.18 02:26:00 -
[34]
I think you may have misunderstood me.
The T2 shield transports are universally better than their best-named counterparts because they have better cap/shield boost ratio. I was merely saying that the fitting on them is beyond insane with regards to CPU, especially compared to the best named ones.
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2007.05.18 16:36:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Artu Stargazer
The T2 shield transports are universally better than their best-named counterparts because they have better cap/shield boost ratio.
But they don't. Best named and T2 currently have exactly the same boost amount and capacitor used, but T2 have a lower activation duration, making them better. I'm pretty sure that last part is new.
Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources. |
Sobic Kurophsky
Incognito Inc
|
Posted - 2007.05.19 01:21:00 -
[36]
Friendly bump for a spot on topic.
|
Dr Fighter
|
Posted - 2007.05.21 03:02:00 -
[37]
I agree 100% with Nyphur, and at some piont would like to see pretty much all of this mods bought back into line with everything else.
TBH i really cant see how some mods hav strayed from the normal path of named vs. T2, T2 is a tech lvl higher, and should be worth fitting over best named and therefore worth the higher fitting reqs.
perhaps some named stuff is too good 
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2007.06.06 06:35:00 -
[38]
I still think these things are important and would hate to see them get left out of the next patch so I'm bumping this tread.
Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources. |
GiddeOn Drake
|
Posted - 2007.06.12 02:05:00 -
[39]
I just checked the comparison of tachyon, dual and heavy beam lasers, and the T2 version is worst than the top named version, maybe you need to check again the stats for turrets.
They have the same damage modifier and optimal range, but the top named has less energy use, less cpu and powergrid requirements and less skills to use.
The skill requirements is something that should be included in the comparison table IMHO.
|
Liliane Woodhead
Intergalactic Charwomen
|
Posted - 2007.06.21 03:25:00 -
[40]
Nice bug report, thanx :)
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2007.06.21 03:44:00 -
[41]
Originally by: GiddeOn Drake
They have the same damage modifier and optimal range, but the top named has less energy use, less cpu and powergrid requirements and less skills to use.
The skill requirements is something that should be included in the comparison table IMHO.
All tech 2 modules have higher skill reqs, higher fittings and most have higher energy usage. The balancing factor is that they are meant to be more availible AND better than the best named equipment, but in a lot of cases they aren't. For energy neutralisers, their usefulness is a direct function of the amount of capacitor they use, so the increased cap use is not acceptable. As for turrets, they gain 2% damage per level from the specialisation skill and can use T2 ammo, which is a boost in itself.
A small upate with Rev 2.0. I went over all the modules in the list and discovered the following "fixes" were implemented in the recent patch:
# Heavy Energy Neutralisers - T2 range reduced by 300m. The best named is now better in every single conceivable way than T2. T2 heavy neuts are now entirely obsolete.
# Medium Energy Neutralisers - rebalanced to be in line with Heavy neuts. Now the T2 version has the same range as best named and neuts the same amount but requires more capacitor. T2 med neuts are now also obsolete, though they were before.
Keep in mind that T2 small neuts have the same cap used to cap neutralised ratio as best named, neutralise more cap and have a larger range. T2 small neuts are the only ones that are actually balanced. All other modules in the list appear to be unchanged.
Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources. |
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2007.06.21 03:46:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Liliane Woodhead
Nice bug report, thanx :)
These aren't bugs, they're things that have been intentionally put in the game and are working as intended. They're unbalanced and need changed, but they're not bugs.
Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources. |
Artu Stargazer
|
Posted - 2007.06.21 06:28:00 -
[43]
Well, it appears that the T2 Large shield transport does have the same cap/shield ratio as the S95a. However, the Micro, Small and Medium T2 ones have lower cap usage than their S95a counterparts. Also, all the T2 transports have a shorter cycle time and therefore transfer more shields per second.
|
Odysseusx
Gallente
Mugen Shipyards
|
Posted - 2007.06.21 11:28:00 -
[44]
Edited by: Odysseusx on 21/06/2007 11:33:49
Also included in this are the Small Nosferatu II,the only worthwhile bonus they gave was mostly the extra 500 range,which got a stealth "adjustment",some weeks ago.
Now they are exactly the same range,but with harsher fitting requirements as the best named Dimmys
As they are a frig part,this can on many ships be a fitting problem,with no real advantage in terms of the difference in Cap taken,especially in faster high damage battles.
But the extra range was of significant tactical benefit especially in Web to Web encounters.
There really isn't much incentive to use the T2 versions of this module as most times if I can't forgo the little extra for a Diminishing,i'll just drop down a peg and fit a Knave.
|
Maze La'Zie
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
|
Posted - 2007.06.21 11:57:00 -
[45]
I wholeheartedly agree with Nyphur.
I would in particular like to see a fix to T2 Energy Transfer Arrays.
|
Fury Overdose
Gallente
Meridian Dynamics
FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.06.21 12:05:00 -
[46]
/signed
Some of these modules have been messed up since their introduction, I don't see why they have not been fixed yet as one would imagine it would not take a brain surgeon to figure out how to balance these components, and the programming for the devs would be fairly light.
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2007.06.21 17:08:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Fury Overdose
/signed
Some of these modules have been messed up since their introduction, I don't see why they have not been fixed yet as one would imagine it would not take a brain surgeon to figure out how to balance these components, and the programming for the devs would be fairly light.
Since each T2 module's release, a number of them HAVE been fixed. Stasis Webbifiers were fixed in the course of this thread and heavy cap injectors were fixed before it. What surprises me the most is that it's not like these modules have been accidentally ignored, neuts WERE just looked at and rebalanced and their idea of balance was to nerf the range, removing the only advantages they had over named versions.
And you're right, all it'd take is an edit in the database to change the stats.
Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources. |
Ignition SemperFi
The Arrow Project
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.06.22 02:39:00 -
[48]
/signeddddddddddddd
CCP seriously pretending you screwed up is fine if this game was shareware.
BUT WE PAY FOR THIS!
ARROW CAP SHIPS FOR SALE We Promise you wont be disappointed! |
Fearless Kill
|
Posted - 2007.06.23 20:36:00 -
[49]
this needs to stay on page 1
|
Shigawahhhhh
Caldari
Metalworks
|
Posted - 2007.06.24 00:23:00 -
[50]
I'm a bit tired so I may have missed it but T2 expanders are not better than named just "easier" to fit since they don't slow you as much as locals...seems a bit strange to me.
|
Wiccy84
The Arrow Project
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.06.26 00:07:00 -
[51]
bump back to top
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2007.06.26 02:10:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Shigawahhhhh
I'm a bit tired so I may have missed it but T2 expanders are not better than named just "easier" to fit since they don't slow you as much as locals...seems a bit strange to me.
They had their bonus changed to provide the same percentage cargospace increase but you're right that they are better than best named due to the lower speed decrease. It's just one more example of a module that fits the correct idea that T2 should be better than T1.
Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources. |
Ignition SemperFi
The Arrow Project
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.06.26 22:49:00 -
[53]
UP UP AND UP
ARROW CAP SHIPS FOR SALE We Promise you wont be disappointed! |
lok'ee
|
Posted - 2007.06.27 00:44:00 -
[54]
To play DA here. But, the best T1 are supposed to be semi-rare. Time+Many users has borked this. While T2 can pretty much be crafted at will these days. So if you look at it from a sterile PoV, you can acquire T2 easier then Meta4 T1.
Also your exaggerating, most of the T2 are slightly better then Meta4 T1. Which if you look at the Meta levels is probably inline with the just from M0T1->M1T1->M2T1->M3T1->M4T1->M5T2.
If you look at the meta levels CCP never intended Tech 2 to be that much more powerful. As if you look at faction or officer loot. You can see they increase similarly inline when you go worst to best.
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2007.06.27 03:23:00 -
[55]
Edited by: Nyphur on 27/06/2007 03:22:25
Originally by: lok'ee
But, the best T1 are supposed to be semi-rare. Time+Many users has borked this. While T2 can pretty much be crafted at will these days. So if you look at it from a sterile PoV, you can acquire T2 easier then Meta4 T1.
I covered the increased supply of T2 earlier. The supply of many T2 modules is still not higher than the supply of the named version for the reason that the inventors only make what's profitable and a module that's worse than a named version which has thousands on the market for lower than the manufacturing price of the tech 2 version is NOT profitable. The issue isn't supply, it's whether there's enough supply to cover demand. Check sales volumes in jita to get a rough idea of the rate of sale rate difference between t2 and t1 meta heavy neuts.
Originally by: lok'ee
Also your exaggerating, most of the T2 are slightly better then Meta4 T1. Which if you look at the Meta levels is probably inline with the just from M0T1->M1T1->M2T1->M3T1->M4T1->M5T2.
If you look at the meta levels CCP never intended Tech 2 to be that much more powerful. As if you look at faction or officer loot. You can see they increase similarly inline when you go worst to best.
I don't believe I have exaggerated at all. Can you quote me where I said that most Tech 2 modules are excessively better than meta level 4 Tech 1? I certainly don't remember saying anything of the sort. My issue is that some T2 are NOT better than their named versions at all and some are actually worse (and not just due to fitting costs). You said it yourself, T2 is meant to be the next step up from Meta level 4 tech 1 and most modules do indeed follow that pattern. This thread is about those that break that pattern.
Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources. |
Jaketh Ivanes
Amarr
Riggers Incorporated
|
Posted - 2007.06.27 12:41:00 -
[56]
As already said. The T2 modules are more easily available than named T1 modules.
And the "but no one wants to build a T2 module where the market is satturated with named T1 counterparts" argument doesn't hold, as the market can switch. CCP can easily fix the problem by lowering the drop rate of the good T1 equipment.
Names T1 should allways be better than T2, be it stat wise or fitting wise, otherwise noone would ever fit T1 or farm T1. And the market would grind to a halt leaving the lucky few with a BPO to make the cash (more than they do now).
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2007.06.28 03:42:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes
As already said. The T2 modules are more easily available than named T1 modules.
The demand on the markets for these items isn't large enough, named versions more than adequately cover the demand so the additional production capacity of tech 2 doesn't factor into it. I also think you underestimate the number of meta level 4 modules coming out of 0.0. It's not just faction gear that drops more out there, you can farm sanshas for hours and get tons of nice named smartbombs or farm blood raiders and get nos/neuts. Currently, the only people who buy heavy neut IIs are people who don't realise that the best named version is better in all ways and is cheaper than T2.
Quote:
Names T1 should allways be better than T2, be it stat wise or fitting wise, otherwise noone would ever fit T1 or farm T1.
But named items aren't usually better than T2. We're not debating the relative merits of making t2 better than named or named better than t2. We're discussing the fact that CCP already chose to make T2 better than the best named and implemented this on pretty much every module and ship in the game but overlooked various modules.
If nothing else will convince you, here are some stats from Jita on heavy neuts.
Best named:
Number on the market: 200
Number sold per day: Approximately 90
Price per unit: 400k
T2:
Number on the market: 700
Number sold per day: Approximately 4
Price per unit: 870k
Manufacture cost from an ME 10 BPO: Approximately 700k.
Manufacture cost including invention cost: Over 1m.
It costs more to manufacture T2 ones from a bpo than it does to buy named ones from the market, and supply on the market has been very VERY steady and kept up with demand for as long as the market order history has lasted. This thread is not meant to be degrading into economics issues over supply and demand, and I apologise for throwing more fuel on the fire. The issue I am bringing up is simply that some tech 2 modules are worse than best named while the majority aren't. That's an inconsistency and it needs corrected.
Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources. |
Kuolematon
Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.06.28 05:35:00 -
[58]
So they nerffed Cap Power Relay II's to 24%? I tought it was 25% .. darn! 
"to be honest it makes me wonder about the mental state of a person who would join a corp called Space Perverts and Forum warriors"
|
Ignition SemperFi
The Arrow Project
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.07.08 21:39:00 -
[59]
this is another post that should never fall from page 1
ARROW CAP SHIPS FOR SALE We Promise you wont be disappointed! |
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2007.07.12 20:56:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Ignition SemperFi
this is another post that should never fall from page 1
I usually don't feel right bumping my own threads here but as long as other people keep pointing out that they're also interested in these modules being fixed, I don't feel so bad. Back to page 1 it goes.
Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened. |
Scorpyn
Caldari
Infinitus Odium
|
Posted - 2007.07.12 22:10:00 -
[61]
Edited by: Scorpyn on 12/07/2007 22:20:09
Standard rockets are better than javelin rockets. There are only 2 things that the javelin is better at : velocity and flight time. The explosion velocity is 1/4 of standard rockets, and the explosion radius is doubled.
The explosion radius increase is not a major problem imo, but the explosion velocity decrease is. It should be higher on the javelin than on the standard.
(I am also of the opinion that the drawbacks of T2 ammo is generally too harsh.)
|
Selene Le'Cotiere
Amarr
Dark Oracle Enterprises
|
Posted - 2007.07.13 03:04:00 -
[62]
I'm not sure if this has been brought up yet... But the Caldari Navy passive resist mods are better than their Tec2 counterparts.
40% resist vs 37.5%
|
Jurgen Cartis
Caldari
Interstellar Corporation of Exploration
|
Posted - 2007.07.13 05:29:00 -
[63]
Caldari Navy hardeners are fine. They're faction, which is generally supposed to be better than T2 in some way, even if their item stats say 't1'.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.07.13 08:11:00 -
[64]
Personally I am getting the impression that I am doing something wrong skilling T2 rails.
Prototypes have the same damage and range, better fitting, require 20% less capacitiy, and currently cost less.
I see a 10% damage increase (a skill level V) as hardly worth it, and the T2 ammunition are useful only in specific circumstances (this for a mostly PvE point of view, in PvP it can be different).
|
Slythought
Sly Inc
|
Posted - 2007.07.13 08:17:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Syrann
Originally by: Par'Gellen
The named target painter "Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron" is better than its T2 counterpart. It also probably wins the "Longest Module Name In Eve" award.
True - but it's also the only one that can be abbreviated to PWNAGE.
I lol'd and I am getting funny looks around the office
--------
Yes ... I am an alt...get over it! |
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2007.07.13 21:19:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Personally I am getting the impression that I am doing something wrong skilling T2 rails.
Prototypes have the same damage and range, better fitting, require 20% less capacitiy, and currently cost less.
I see a 10% damage increase (a skill level V) as hardly worth it, and the T2 ammunition are useful only in specific circumstances (this for a mostly PvE point of view, in PvP it can be different).
I personally don't think T2 guns are a big enough benefit to warrant the obscene training time. I don't like the way T2 guns require all the skills for the smaller sizes of T2 guns. Training for T2 large guns is an obscene waste of time, in my opinion.
But you do recognise that T2 guns deal more damage due to the 2%/level bonus they get from the specialisation skill. And T2 ammo, while specialised, is good at its specialised task, especially in PvP.
Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened. |
Thommy
|
Posted - 2007.07.24 19:58:00 -
[67]
I fully agree with this too, it shouldn't be that T1 named outperforms T2 modules (considered the training needed for T2).
Are any more of the modules fixed after the last patches?
Guide to fix eve problems.
Patch day recommendations |
Velvet69
eXceed Inc.
INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.07.25 06:35:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Nyphur
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Personally I am getting the impression that I am doing something wrong skilling T2 rails.
Prototypes have the same damage and range, better fitting, require 20% less capacitiy, and currently cost less.
I see a 10% damage increase (a skill level V) as hardly worth it, and the T2 ammunition are useful only in specific circumstances (this for a mostly PvE point of view, in PvP it can be different).
I personally don't think T2 guns are a big enough benefit to warrant the obscene training time. I don't like the way T2 guns require all the skills for the smaller sizes of T2 guns. Training for T2 large guns is an obscene waste of time, in my opinion.
But you do recognise that T2 guns deal more damage due to the 2%/level bonus they get from the specialisation skill. And T2 ammo, while specialised, is good at its specialised task, especially in PvP.
I'm quoting the pair of you
A T2 sniper fleet is the backbone of any alliance that wants to hold 0.0 space.
Sure the training time is long, best part of 3 months to get caldari BS lvl4 and large rail spec lvl4. But the 1st time you take a rokh into battle with an optimal of almost 240k with some sniper eagles in gang to pick off the inties that are trying to get close, you will forgive every minute of the 3 months it took to get those guns and ammo, trust me ;)
Now back on topic
o/
Velve
IXC Velvet69
Proud Member of 'The House of Prawn' |
William Hamilton
Caldari
THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS....
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.07.25 06:53:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Scorpyn
Edited by: Scorpyn on 12/07/2007 22:20:09
Standard rockets are better than javelin rockets. There are only 2 things that the javelin is better at : velocity and flight time. The explosion velocity is 1/4 of standard rockets, and the explosion radius is doubled.
The explosion radius increase is not a major problem imo, but the explosion velocity decrease is. It should be higher on the javelin than on the standard.
(I am also of the opinion that the drawbacks of T2 ammo is generally too harsh.)
Half of all t2 ammo is useless, the other half renders everything else obsolete...
|
Jaketh Ivanes
Amarr
Riggers Incorporated
|
Posted - 2007.07.25 12:29:00 -
[70]
Main reason t1 named items should outperform t2 items, it the availability of t2 items.
Otherwise, the market for any t1 item would be completely ruined and look to much like WoW, where items keep getting obsolete. No need to use a lvl 20 sword if you are lvl 28. In EvE, there are still reasons to fit a lvl 20 mod even though you are level 50.
And I like that everything has a purpose and use (well, allmost everything anyways  )
|
Ssoraszh Tzarszh
Minmatar
Grumpy Old Farts
Gruntfuttocks
|
Posted - 2007.07.25 12:33:00 -
[71]
You forget that tehre are now 'name' moduels with the quotes, these are cosmos modules and are the same as t2, have sometimes better fitting stats. These modules are rare and expensive as you need some wierd stuff to build them if you actually can find a bpc as no bpo's excists.
So yes, you can geta betetr fit than t2, it however will without doubt cost you a great deal more isk than fitting t2.
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2007.07.26 02:18:00 -
[72]
Edited by: Nyphur on 26/07/2007 02:20:18
Originally by: Thommy
I fully agree with this too, it shouldn't be that T1 named outperforms T2 modules (considered the training needed for T2).
Are any more of the modules fixed after the last patches?
Yes, actually. Energy transfer arrays were rebalanced according to my exact suggestion. How long before they fix Nos and Neuts is anyone's guess.
Originally by: Ssoraszh Tzarszh
You forget that tehre are now 'name' moduels with the quotes, these are cosmos modules and
I do know about cosmos modules, I dealt in them for years. They aren't named, they're a separate class and are not what I am discussing.
Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes
Main reason t1 named items should outperform t2 items, it the availability of t2 items.
Like everyone else that brought this argument up, you made the mistake of assuming I'm requesting a blanket change in game balance across all module types. I'm not, I'm pointing out that MOST modules already follow the idea that t2 is better than best named but with worse fittings and that a few select modules are broken in that regard.
What anyone thinks should or shouldn't be in force with regard balance between T2 and best named is not important. What's important is that the devs have shown repeatedly, though design of other modules and fixing of some of those on my list, that they intend T2 to be better than best named. By CURRENT design standards, the modules listed in my original posts as broken are broken.
Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened. |
Vladtsun Raide
|
Posted - 2007.07.26 08:20:00 -
[73]
Agree that T2 ammo and gun requirements are obscene, specially when we can all train Cruise to 3 in a day and pound the hell out of a gun ship.
I'd like to see T2 improved, not 'named' reduced.
|
Sartaron
Amarr
Quantar Swords
SynchronizerZ
|
Posted - 2007.07.26 10:54:00 -
[74]
With T2 weapons you get at least the T2 skill-bonus.
But i think T2 items, which don't have a related skill, which espeacially boosts them should be "stronger" than all T1 counterparts and should have higher fitting requirements. This goes for most(or all?) ECM modules, where the strength is equal to the T1 counterpart and the T1 counterparts have lower fitting requirements.
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2007.08.02 03:53:00 -
[75]
Hopefully with the nos changes and neuts becoming more useful, they'll actually fix them so the T2 versions aren't useless.
Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened. |
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2007.08.30 17:09:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Nyphur
Hopefully with the nos changes and neuts becoming more useful, they'll actually fix them so the T2 versions aren't useless.
I knew I was being overoptimistic :(.
The patch occured and no change has been made to the stats of best named or t2 nos or neuts. That's disappointing.
Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened. |
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2007.12.05 01:47:00 -
[77]
Just a quick update to this old thread. The patch notes for trinity now state:
Quote:
* Heavy Energy Neutralizer II is now better than its best T1 counterpart.
I'll recheck every item in the list when the server comes up to see what's left, if anything.
Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened. |
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2007.12.06 00:43:00 -
[78]
I just logged on after the patch and am severely disappointed to see that the patch notes lied about the change.
There are patch notes relevant to Heavy energy neutralisers:
Quote:
Patch notes here :
"Heavy Energy Neutralizer II is now better than its best T1 counterpart."
Quote:
Patch notes here
"The capacitor need of neutralizers has been reduced to improve efficiency"
Neither of these are true. The first one is untrue because the new stats are as such:
Named:
Energy used: 500
Energy neutralised: 600
Duration: 24 s
Range: 25 km
Heat Damage: 4.6 HP
Overload duration bonus: -15 %
Required skills: Energy Emissions Systems 3
CPU: 32 TF
Grid: 2000 MW
T2:
Energy used: 500
Energy neutralised: 600
Duration: 24 s
Range: 25 km
Heat Damage: 4.6 HP
Overload duration bonus: -15 %
Required skills: Energy Emissions Systems 5
CPU: 40 TF
Grid: 2250 MW
As it stands, the stats are identical and the fittings and skill reqs for the T2 version (as expected for a T2 module) are much worse. The T2 version is in no way at all better than the best named version. In fact, this change was propogated across the board and now all three size classes of energy neutraliser have T2 versions identical in stats to best named but with worse fittings.
Now to the second patch note, which claims that energy neutralisers have been made more efficient by reducing their energy use. On the surface, this appears to be true because large T2 neuts used to take 600 cap and now take 500, but that's not the whole story. The patch notes say energy neutralisers have lower energy use, so I checked large, medium and small neutralisers.
Apart from smalls, the stats haven't changed. Large best named still take 500 cap can neut 600 and mediums still take 150 cap and neut 180. Compared to energy transfer arrays, where balance WAS achieved and T2 actually ARE better than best named, this situation is a joke. It shows that the devs actually looked at energy neuts and nosferatu, spent time and effort rebalancing them and still failed even though an alternative and successful measure for balance already exists with how they handled energy transfers.
I'll update the main post.
Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened. |
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2007.12.18 01:51:00 -
[79]
Still broken.
Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened. |
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2007.12.19 02:03:00 -
[80]
fix it
Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened. |
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2007.12.20 18:30:00 -
[81]
fix it
Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened. |
Buyerr
|
Posted - 2007.12.20 20:59:00 -
[82]
yup named stuff is ridicules now that t2 have been nerfed to oblivion
|
Zeph Solaris
NYIT Gangstaz
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.12.20 22:31:00 -
[83]
The only benefit I see with t2 gear is its cost. A tech 2 heavy launcher costs much less than the arbalest version. I see it as the time you spend training skills helps you pay less in the future while adding a couple of new benefits. Same thing with the F-90 sensor booster and its tech 2 counterpart. They have the same attributes (minus different fitting), but the F-90 costs much more. T2 items are also more common than the best named. Being able t.o use t2 items greatly benefits you when it's time to buy modules for your new ship.
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2007.12.26 00:05:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Zeph Solaris
The only benefit I see with t2 gear is its cost. A tech 2 heavy launcher costs much less than the arbalest version. I see it as the time you spend training skills helps you pay less in the future while adding a couple of new benefits. Same thing with the F-90 sensor booster and its tech 2 counterpart. They have the same attributes (minus different fitting), but the F-90 costs much more. T2 items are also more common than the best named. Being able t.o use t2 items greatly benefits you when it's time to buy modules for your new ship.
I already addressed the supply and cost arguments somewhere on page 1 I think. This isn't about concept, this is about a few modules which are broken, some of which CCP have officially recognised that are unbalanced and have yet to fix. T2 neuts being made better than best named was even in the patch notes but wasn't implemented.
Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened. |
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2007.12.27 16:43:00 -
[85]
fix it
Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened. |
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2007.12.28 14:11:00 -
[86]
fix it
Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened. |
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2008.01.05 15:35:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Nyphur
fix it
Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened. |
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 01:37:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Nyphur
Originally by: Nyphur
fix it
Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened. |
Bane Glorious
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.01.07 04:05:00 -
[89]
Definitely need to do something about damps, at least. T2 damps have always used so much cap that they're unusable, and it inflated the price of Phased Muons for no good reason.
Damps are less popular now, yes, but the point still stands. |
abbagabba
Gallente
Monster Raving Loonies
|
Posted - 2008.01.10 12:09:00 -
[90]
2 more modules where T2 are worse, don't think ive seen them on your list.
Cargo scanners : meta 4 has an activation time of 3s, so does the tech II but has higher CPU requirements.
Passive Targetters : Higher CPU requirements, uses slightly less energy but has double the activation time (!), which is basically the time before you can use it again. A lower activation time would make the tech II worth using.
|
Qui Shon
|
Posted - 2008.01.10 13:31:00 -
[91]
Some people hate irregularities, exceptions. They probably like to categorize, structure and compartmentalize everything in their minds. I do too, of course, but I also love exceptions.
Named beats T2 in every way for 17% of mods? Awesome. Specs dont follow meta levels for all items? Great. A few expensive items obsoleted on release by much cheaper and readily available cheap ones? *Good*
Deadends in module progression and resulting market irregularities, bad fittings due to ignorance, these are good things, not bad. Oddities, quirks and irregularities is what makes anything alive, gives it character.
It's also pretty clear CCP is not a single unified entity with a single design vision. Your assertment that CCP have shown everything should follow a certain trend, prinicple or function, is therefore not true.
|
Amanita Muscaria
|
Posted - 2008.01.10 16:39:00 -
[92]
T2 Inertia Stabilizers are more abundant on market than best named T1. The T1 version beats T2 by having smaller sig radius bonus and lesser skill requirements, but still T2 version sells better and amazingly at higher prices.
Why is that?
I hopped in my cheetah and travelled through over a dozen regions buying these cheap gems off the market in hopes of getting the price of local hull conversion inertial stabilizers go up, closer to where it should be (more as an experiment than making iskies as time lost travelling is countless millions lost from grinding level 4 missions) considering the better attributes and smaller supply.
So far it's not looking good, people seem to prefer T2, just because it is T2?
Prove me wrong and go buy the s**t.
|
Qui Shon
|
Posted - 2008.01.10 20:30:00 -
[93]
Either you were successful one way or another, or someone else was. In Sinq there are 11 local hull istabs for sale, at 1,3-1,35-1,5mil, and so on with rising prices. T2 go for 1.1mil, and there are maybe 250 for sale in total.
So, everything is peachy and hunky dory, no reason to change a thing.
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2008.01.22 19:54:00 -
[94]
Originally by: Qui Shon
Some people hate irregularities, exceptions. They probably like to categorize, structure and compartmentalize everything in their minds. I do too, of course, but I also love exceptions.
Named beats T2 in every way for 17% of mods? Awesome. Specs dont follow meta levels for all items? Great. A few expensive items obsoleted on release by much cheaper and readily available cheap ones? *Good*
Deadends in module progression and resulting market irregularities, bad fittings due to ignorance, these are good things, not bad. Oddities, quirks and irregularities is what makes anything alive, gives it character.
It's also pretty clear CCP is not a single unified entity with a single design vision. Your assertment that CCP have shown everything should follow a certain trend, prinicple or function, is therefore not true.
Your entire argument is that things are fine as they are because you personally like flaws and think they give the game character. You have to understand that your opinion doesn't mean squat and neither does mine. What matters is that CCP have shown through game design and rebalance that T2 modules should all be better than best named but that this is not the case for some specific broken cases.
It was even in the patch notes that T2 neuts were being made better than best named, which shows an intent to make them so. It was left out of the patch for whatever reason and without knowing that reason, we can only assume that the design intent behind the change remains. In that light, the broken modules listed in my original posts ARE still broken, not necessarily from my point of view or yours but from CCP's.
As for my assertion that ccp have shown that everything should follow this trend, that fact has been made evident through example several times in this thread. Several modules mentioned originally were fixed so that t2 was better than best named and as stated before, the patch notes clearly indicate the direction of design intent.
You can't just rebuff the entire assertion based on the fact that you think CCP is not a single unified entity with regard design decisions. Quite simply, you are not a dev and so don't know anything about CCP's internal workings or intentions. Neither am I, but at least I've gone to the effort of forming my assertions and viewpoints on real evidence that backs them up.
Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened. |
Akutan
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 08:02:00 -
[95]
Shield Power Relays are also borked.
|
Dianeces
Minmatar
Repo Industries
|
Posted - 2008.03.04 08:31:00 -
[96]
Edited by: Dianeces on 04/03/2008 08:31:37
I fail at reading. Disregard.
|
Vested Interest
|
Posted - 2008.03.06 05:57:00 -
[97]
Edited by: Vested Interest on 06/03/2008 05:58:13
If the best-named T1 module is better than the T2 equivalent, always, won't this mess up the loot market entirely?
I mean, the ratters have to have a chance to score big without going into the construction business. The best-named unit needs to be a hair better than the T2 item for just this reason.
In other words, if the T2 unit is always better, and these "anomalies" are "fixed" won't loot values drop across the board? This would swing the market unfairly in the builders' favor I think.
At this point there isn't a great deal of money to be made in anything less than the best-named T1 modules, with exceptions, for non-building traders. But the T2 version is always available as a solid "almost the best and much cheaper" option.
Yes I understand the consistency argument but I believe CCP needs to take my points into consideration as well.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |