This is a valid point.
The details of how the Tiericide is done are not important for the player who is choosing a module. As you say, what’s important for the player is what will be the effect of such choice. This is something we are looking into and we do plan some changes in that area, to come along the Tiericide for turrets and charges.
Nice! looking forwards to the tiercide of turret and missiles 
#makehybridgreatagainsoicanflyakronos&bettertiercidethemauraderstobeusefullagain!
That’s not my experience. As T2 modules generally take more fitting space than any of the meta/T1 modules, swapping from T2 to scoped versions is often enough to make a fit fit, with minimal sacrifices. In some cases where certain modules are taking most of the capacitor in your ship, switching from T2 to enduring is a big decrease in capacitor usage (single oversized propmod, remote reps in a non-capchain ship, etc). Restrained modules are a good option as well, one of my favourites for MWD and sometimes nanofibers if my align is good enough and I’m trying to save some EHP.
If all you use is compact/T2/faction, you’re missing out. 
Dear @CCP_Dopamine @CCP_Rise, @CCP_Psych:
Every time you change module names, people have to go through and update all of the fits they have posted to forums, pinned to discords, etc etc, because the game doesn’t remember the old names when you try to re-import an old fit1.
In at least one case I can think of, that’s basically 2 fits for every subcapital hull in the game. While I totally get the reasoning behind the name changes, and agree that it’s important to make things more intuitive for new players so they don’t feel frustrated and can slowly ease themselves into the levels of near-suicidal masochism that EVE sometimes requires… can we maybe just get it all overwith already? Just do it all in one go! Change all the names! Everything! Rename all the hulls, too! Change the ammo names! The drone names! All of it! Just do it once. PLEASE.
Having to redo the same work again and again every month because you guys changed one or two categories is exhausting.
Please. Just get it overwith. I’d like to be able to have time to focus on designing fittings, instead of trying to keep up with cosmetic differences that have to be manually updated.
1. So if, for example, some old player comes back and grabs a Falcon fitting from their corp’s pinned fits in Discord, and goes to import it, the game gets to ‘Adaptive Invulnerability Field II’ and basically throws it back in their face screaming ‘what kind of idiotic nonsense is this?!? I don’t know what that is! You make no sense, stupid human!’ despite having dealt with Adaptive Invulns just fine for seventeen years.
When module tiercide was first introduced, the long term goal was for the meta modules to be player built using T1 + named components that drop as loot. The capital meta modules introduced at the same time already use this system. Meta modules for Triglavian and EdenCom weapons are also player built using abyssal materials instead of the named components.
Hopefully this will be extended to standard modules once Tiericide is complete - which should provide an adequate sink for T1 modules.
This is a good point.
With tiericide, there is no reason to ever use T1 modules, unless your local market is lacking the meta modules you need.
I don’t think the ROI on this work is so great anymore, compared to nerfing broken things
this was already the case before. There was no point using MO modules because Mx were just better.
Just use a mailing list and place your fits in it, ingame. This way you can share them easily.
I’m not using a mailing list for 40,000 characters. No.
Hell, I’m not even sure the eve-mail system can handle that.
(As another note: the in-game fitter, including import/export, can’t actually handle enough entries to accurately model a reasonably full cargo bay. So suddenly you can’t even use some fits.)
The words were mainly English but I have pretty much no idea what you said, looked good and convincing though.
This is a ‘broken’ thing… ?
They didn’t take stacking of the modules into account in their explanation. That doesn’t make it wrong though, it’s just missing some nuance.
Or should I say that your explanation was wrong as well, because you didn’t take stacking penalties into account? I won’t, because your explanation is pretty good, even though it’s missing some nuance.
I’m pretty sure that piece of explanation by CCP is meant for people who think that an 88% resist bonus is 8% or 10% better than an 80% resist bonus, and they explain pretty well why it isn’t, without going into too much detail. And their explanation isn’t meant for people who know enough math to make the right (and more detailed) calculations themselves.
I agree with this, but want to add that this is a fairly rare occurrence. I’ve found it most often to be applicable to propulsion mod usage.
In general, it’s very rare that you would have the resources for a single non-compact meta module, but not for a T2 module. Usually, you would need to save resources on at least a couple of modules at the same time, at which point the more efficient way of fitting is to use maximum effect modules (T2+) in some slots, and compact modules in the other slots, as opposed to having a bigger mish-mash of T2 and non-compact meta stuff. For some modules, such as armor repairers, or stasis webifiers, you simply can’t compromise on stats - bigger repair amounts and longer tackle ranges always trump everything else.
I’m a very invested theorycrafter for EVE fittings (primarily for PvP), and have been since my early days. I’ve noticed that my recent setups are much less dynamic, and much more reliant on faction modules to make them work normally. The concept of using “best-named” modules as T2 substitutes no longer exists, so the choices are much narrower.
I mean, “CCP math” has been used as a playful jab at their efforts for nearly two decades. The game just wouldn’t be the same without it.
You don’t use restrained mwds ? They are great, especially on battleships. Enduring modules are also useful. Scoped are a bit harder to judge but have their use as well.
Also what about pre-tiercide modules where it is basically “meta-4/t2” duality of choice?
The nice thing about tiercide is that I take a single look at module and can instantly tell how it is better from t1. Problem with lack of use of t1 modules is less with tiercide and more with how much loot is dropped by rats. And teh fact that they drop fully functional modules.
BTW can you quote some statistics about how much of different charges are being used? I believe that projectile ammo is using pretty much all kinds of them, but that has more to do with dps types. From my experience most used crystals are multifreq, standard and radio. Gamma is used at times for extra cap while still having much dps. Can’t talk much about hybrid charges - I ever only seem to use antimatter/thorium/iridium.
They always do lack meta modules… at least when you try to fit a fleet.
Hell, ccp could just make some form of feedback loop, whereby there is tracking performed on how much meta modules are used and then apply that to modify drop rates from rats. Details are a bit more complex but idea in general could be done.
If I am able to, I do. Like I said, propulsion mods seem to be the exception right now, where the named versions are still outright better (and cheaper) than T2.
It worked, because those modules carried a price premium. You could get the T2 module, or spend 3-4 million ISK extra to get the same stats with lower resource requirements. It was a stopgap between T2 and faction modules.
I agree, the new naming scheme is very convenient, and should be kept this way. But that doesn’t mean that we have to limit the game to 1-2 named modules per item type.
Why not let items have more than one variable, for example?
I literally wrote “assuming no stacking”. Stacking is NOT the reason it is wrong.
It’s not missing nuance, it’s just plain maths : being twice as good means you need to apply the other one twice to have same effect.
It’s not about being “slightly wrong”. It’s about CCP using formula which are incorrect. If you want to compare multiplicative effects, you need to use log scale.
They also give the best evasion. the ratio speedmult/ sigbloom is the best for restrained, even better than some factions IIRC.
Also that you don’t have useless modules that nobody use because they are just plainly worse than same value. eg turrets M1 or M2 ? dude go m4.
You mean, like compact MSE or ballistic or … can’t remember the others.
It’s actually very simple.
if one item A DOUBLES your DPS. Then two items A do QUADRUPLE your DPS. so if another item B does quadruple your DPS by itself, then it’s effect is the same as two items A : it’s thus twice as strong.
If item C does ×8, that’s the same as using 3 items A : C is 3 times as strong as A. That’s exactly what the log scale is : show cumulative strength of multiplactive effects.
T2 propulsion mods are aberration - is better to call them “velocity” meta. They provide more speed but for mwds I see no use over restrained. For ab they are not that bad.
arbalest compact missile launchers?
Storyline modules fill that role. Some are cheap, some are expensive.