Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Aphatasis
Evoke. Ev0ke
1
|
Posted - 2012.01.23 18:27:00 -
[1] - Quote
Because i'm very very tired after a very long workday i'll just crosspost my reply from a german forum, hoping someone will plz translate it for me.
Quote:1MN AB: T1 -> Limited 1MN Afterburner I -> Experimental 1MN Afterburner -> T2 MWD: T1 -> Upgraded 1MN Microwarpdrive I -> Limited 1MN MicroWarpdrive I -> T2
10MN AB: T1 -> Experimental 10MN Afterburner I -> T2 MWD: T1 -> Experimental 10MN MicroWarpdrive I -> T2
100MN AB: T1 -> Experimental 100MN Afterburner I -> T2 MWD: T1 -> Prototype 100MN MicroWarpdrive I -> T2
Voll f++rn Arsch! Klar es ist einheitlich jetzt im bezug auf die Meta Level und die Namensgebung, aber durch die ganze Breite betrachtet pissts voll an! Best Named MWDs: Bei 1MN isses der Limited, bei 10MN isses der Experimental, bei 100mn isses der Prototype
W+ñre halt sch+¦n gewesen wenn CCP hergegangen w+ñre und gleich auch die Meta-Level inline gebracht h+ñtte, dann w+++ƒte man dass z.B. der Experimental immer der best Named MWD ist und dann vllt auch gleich die ABs auch dazu inline gebracht! |
Takeshi Yamato
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
143
|
Posted - 2012.01.23 19:15:00 -
[2] - Quote
Right. I checked this on SiSi and there is indeed a problem.
The names DO reflect the meta level of the modules. Technically there is no problem with that. Meta level tags are as follows for both afterburners and MWDs:
Meta 0: I Meta 1: Upgraded Meta 2: Limited Meta 3: Experimental Meta 4: Prototype Meta 5: II
However there are too many meta levels and there is no consistency in meta levels. This makes it confusing and the system, in this particular case, fails to achieve more simplicity.
1mn MWD has a meta 1 and meta 2 version 10mn MWD has a meta 3 version 100mn MWD has a meta 4 version.
1mn AB has a meta 2 and 3 version 10mn AB has a meta 3 version 100mn AB has a meta 3 version
The meta 1,2,3 and 4 MWDs only difference from the Tech 1 version in capacitor penalty and that penalty is the same (19%) for meta 2,3 and 4.
In practice what the player cares about is distinguishing between "best named" and "second best named". Therefore the "best named" and "second best named" should both be of the same meta level across all sizes of both ABs and MWDs. |
Aphatasis
Evoke. Ev0ke
1
|
Posted - 2012.01.23 19:55:00 -
[3] - Quote
Thx Takeshi Yamato! |
Kyoko Sakoda
Veto. Veto Corp
60
|
Posted - 2012.01.23 21:27:00 -
[4] - Quote
"Limited" would make more sense for Meta 1. |
ResearchBunny Agnes
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 13:16:00 -
[5] - Quote
Takeshi Yamato wrote:In practice what the player cares about is distinguishing between "best named" and "second best named". Therefore the "best named" and "second best named" should both be of the same meta level across all sizes of both ABs and MWDs. Signed, signed and signed - the new names aren't any more of a simplification, they're still needlessly over-complicated. Rationalize the meta levels so that all the MWD/AB have a commonly named "best-named" and second best named and renaming everything makes sense.
Kyoko Sakoda wrote:"Limited" would make more sense for Meta 1. Also signed, having "limited" be better than "upgraded" is just bizarre. Honestly, this makes more sense:
meta 1 - Limited meta 2 - Experimental meta 3 - Prototype meta 4 - Upgraded
It's clear that "Limited" isn't as good as "Upgraded" and that an experimental drive is probably not as good as a prototype (ie, on the way to production.)
In short, the new meta names are just as senseless as before, there are just fewer of them. If you want to confuse people less you might as well just name the drives
I I m1 I m2 I m3 I m4
Then they at least aren't confusing. |
Tarunik Raqalth'Qui
The Kairos Syndicate Transmission Lost
62
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 20:39:00 -
[6] - Quote
Yes. Ideally, we'd see it so that the best named AB/MWD across all size classes had the same meta level (either meta2 or meta4). |
Takeshi Yamato
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
146
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 21:23:00 -
[7] - Quote
Tarunik Raqalth'Qui wrote:Yes. Ideally, we'd see it so that the best named AB/MWD across all size classes had the same meta level (either meta2 or meta4).
The fewest steps to this would be
100mn MWD Meta 4 -> Meta 3
1mn MWD Meta 1 -> Meta 2 Meta 2 -> Meta 3
So this is what I'd recommend. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |