Deciphering Tiericide

[Destiny_Corrupted]

@Anderson_Geten

@Destiny_Corrupted

You could get the T2 module, or spend 3-4 million ISK extra to get the same stats with lower resource requirements.

You mean, like compact MSE or ballistic or … can’t remember the others.

I think the ones that have been tiericided, but still cost a lot, have inherently lower drop rates.

@Wanda_Fayne

@Destiny_Corrupted

the same stats with lower resource requirements

Storyline modules fill that role. Some are cheap, some are expensive.

Not widely enough available to be relevant.

[Wanda_Fayne]

@Destiny_Corrupted

Not widely enough available to be relevant.

Same could be said for many M4 modules…

[Destiny_Corrupted]

Most of those have fairly stable rates of “production” so to say. A couple of them, like ballistic controls and shield boost amps, seem to have low drop rates, but they’re still found regularly, at the least. Storyline modules on the other hand are specialty items.

[Wanda_Fayne]

True, but the storyline slot is still there nonetheless. Soon there will no longer be M4 modules available and will have to choose one of the other variants.

[Gerard_Amatin]

@Anderson_Geten

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.

I just read your comment again, and you’re right about using the log scale.

[Circumstantial_Evidence]

@Arrendis

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

IDK if this is a little thing that @CCP_karkur could help with: the in-game “copy fit to clipboard” does it EFT style, but you need the option to also export a DNA string / link. Everything I write below is too difficult to set up, without it.

<a href="fitting:588:21857;1:3636;1:3651;1::">Reaper</a>
Represents a stock Reaper fit. A player can copy/paste that string into an eve-mail or eve-note.

Importing DNA string / links into EVE won’t have the changed name problem, because of ID #'s vs names. But they’re not human readable, so the DNA string would have to be saved along with the EFT text in externally saved fit lists. That doubles the work initially, but, the list wouldn’t have to be maintained as much afterward, with a disclaimer like “module names may change, but DNA is hopefully forever.”

[Arrendis]

The ability to quickly and easily export in that format would be perfect, yes.

[Anderson_Geten]

if I may add, the issue with DNA is that when some modules are removed, those fits don’t make sense.
Though the removed modules are generally lower meta ones. example, when nano platings will be tiericides, all but the current M4 wil be removed.

[Mkikaden_Tiragen]

I would say that a fitting with a removed module should still produce errors, since the item is plain gone, but a fitting with a renamed module should have some way of remaining valid (with the user sanity-checking the final fit for ‘does this even look flyable’ with regard to module attribute changes). DNA sounds like a viable approach to that.

[Litsea_Reticulata]

@Arrendis

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 fit 1 .

Get one of your Standard Nerds to run a replacement script over your IT stuff and you’re done in minutes. Unless you have no Standard Nerds? Or you will not give them admin to the database? sed s/old/new

[Circumstantial_Evidence]

ID’s for removed modules usually stay in the database, just without flags like “market item” that make them tradeable. Nobody has any of them, after the conversion. I tested this with a 2014 DNA link containing deprecated modules. The fitting was displayed without errors, but, a former meta 4 module in the fit can’t be purchased. “Buy All” throws up this error, which a player would have to resolve:

The following item types cannot be added to the order: Beta Reactor Control: Reaction Control I

(Nonetheless, I added post # 2003 to the ‘little things’ thread, asking to add DNA string / links to the Export to Clipboard feature.)

[Xyertyl_Vyvorant]

I have been playing around. And i know change is hard to accept. No matter what you Devs will do, there will always be people being unhappy about the new stuff. Me personally, i greatly appreciate that you try to declutter Eve online and make things more simple without sacrificing the complexity.
Here are my thoughts on Hybrid turrets and ammo. It’s blasters only, but i think rails are more clean. I would love to test play this on the test servers:

Cheers

[Eve_Griefer]

One question to be answered, how frequent can you make changes to modules without making the Fitting Team’s job basically impossible.
Also, would more corp fittings in the fitting tool help matters?

[Jennifer_Maxwell]

Yeah, I’m not thrilled. I didn’t like this whole idea in the first place.

[Marcus_Kormienko]

but session crashes, so how can there be a fix, and lost ships in some crashes as well,

[Archer_en_Tilavine]

CCP should consider buffing T1/Faction long-range turret ammo (hybrids/projectiles/lasers) before tiericiding the turrets themselves; this will make their jobs a lot easier and solve two problems at once.

Boost T1/Faction Long Range Ammo Damage!

(The contents of post are in reference to T1/Faction hybrid/projectile ammo and frequency crystals only.) Right now, the status quo for turret ammo is that short-to-mid range ammo are used almost exclusively primarily because: they do enough damage, especially in relation to their range, to be worth using (whereas T1/Faction long range ammo is almost never worth using) for hybrid and energy turrets, mid range ammo is more cap efficient (this is somewhat true of long range ammo, but not to the…

[Elise_Frei]

Hi CCP, definitely one of the most interesting dev blogs in recent years. Can I ask why you changed the Invulnerability to Multispectrum Shield Hardner?

[Archer_en_Tilavine]

The word “adaptive” is somewhat synonymous to “reactive” and implies it would change, but it never did (in contrast to a reactive armor hardener) - they probably changed it to correctly denote the bonuses are in fact static and not dynamically allocated.

[brice_kinney]

A very interesting Devblog.

Not so sure I want to see turrets or ammo removed from game though.

[elitatwo]

Don’t forget to update to loot tables for regular wrecks and don’t forget to increase the drop-rates of those meta1 modules as compensation for the removal of the meta 1-4 modules.