Deciphering Tiericide

[Mr_Beardsley]

To me it would make a lot more sense if modules were named after the NPC corporation that designed them. Each family of modules (defensive, propulsion, ECM, turret, etc) made by a particular corp would have common benefits and drawbacks compared to those designed by other NPC corps. Example: a Creodron Drone Damage Amplifier II might provide a slightly higher damage boost than similar modules from other companies but would also need more power to fit, requiring some compromise to equip it on a cruiser or smaller hull.

[Archer_en_Tilavine]

@Mr_Beardsley

if modules were named after the NPC corporation that designed them

This would probably be a bad idea. We already have a problem in which several identical items exist with the same exact stats but different names - this is fracturing the economy for zero good reason. Ideally only one of each would exist, and for this to make sense lorewise (esp if the item is being provided by multiple LP stores with the same stats) then the name would need to be agnostic.

[Mr_Beardsley]

Did you read beyond the first line of my post? Because it sure doesn’t seem like it.

[Dior_Ambraelle]

Is that possible to also tiericide the ammo at some point?
I personally find it quite annoying that we have identical attributes on differently named ammo, and for some reason sometimes there are significant differences in their cost on the market.

[Aphrodite_Sexy]

You don’t really need maths. Just see which modules are overused, then buff everything else (for example make compact more compact etc). Maybe nerf that overused one too. Meta 4 guns are expensive and overused, but no one is using meta 3 guns because they want the best guns on their ship? Make meta 3 guns cost even less and buff em! No one using Tech 1 hardeners because the faction ones are 0.5 mil? Decrease droprate, increase utility, and buff those T1! No one using shield fleets because mid slots are more useful than low slots in pvp? Decrease remote shield repairer powergrid use so we can fit large ones on scythes!

[Archer_en_Tilavine]

I actually did. Corps belong to factions. Why would one faction pitch another faction’s corp’s product, particularly if we’re talking about military equipment? Is one corp going to supply military equipment for two different factions?

[CCP_Psych]

Hello sir/madam!

Thank you for the post!

In the blog, the comparison is done based on the end result, produced by a single fitting of two different modules (in this case how much damage will be applied). So the question being answer is “How much more damage is mitigated by module B compared to module A” (effectiveness comparison for single fitting).

Now, you have done a magnificent work, but you are answering a slightly different question. Your example answers the question of “How many of module A does it take to get the same result as a single module B” (required modules to reach same effectiveness). Something that is very useful in many cases indeed.

So module B is 40% more effective than module A
but
it takes around 1.32 A modules to reach the same effectiveness of a single module B.

We will try to be more clear in future on how we communicate these kind of details.

Thank you again for the post!

[Valiran_Teleros]

I’m wondering, why are meta modules strictly better than T1 modules? Why can’t there be some sort of tradeoff?

Take the Fleeting Compact Stasis Webifier, for example. The name implies that it will use more capacitor per cycle than a vanilla T1 webifier (“fleeting” is basically the opposite of “enduring”) in exchange for requiring less power/CPU. Why can’t we have modules like that?

I’m also wondering if it wouldn’t be possible to repurpose all of the current “civilian” and “basic” modules as low-power, low-requirement modules that can be used if nothing else will fit. You would be better off fitting a T1 or meta module, but they’d be better than nothing.

Finally, in the interest of recording the old names used, would it be possible for the flavor text of meta modules to mention those old names as examples of “popular models” in use by capsuleers?

For instance, the armor repair modules that got tiericided back in January could have flavor text like this:

Among the numerous makes and models of compact armor repair modules in use by capsuleers, two of the most popular are the ‘Accommodation’ Vestment Reconstructor manufactured by Viziam, and the unimaginatively-named Armor Repair Unit produced by Allotek Industries.

[Ms_Steak]

@Dior_Ambraelle

Is that possible to also tiericide the ammo at some point?

The only ammo that really needs tiericide is projectile T1 ammo, imo. There is almost no point in using anything other than EMP/PP/Fusion and seldom Titanium Sabots/Depeleted Uraniums (for tracking). Long range variants’ (Nuclear/Proton/Carbonized Lead) damage output is just way too low to even consider using.

Although it is possible to de-cluster Energy and Hybrid T1 ammo: condense 8 types to 5. From -50%/-37.5%/-25%/-12.5%/0%/20%/40%/60% optimal bonus to -50%/-25%/0%/30%/60%.

@Dior_Ambraelle

I personally find it quite annoying that we have identical attributes on differently named ammo, and for some reason sometimes there are significant differences in their cost on the market.

only applies to faction ammo and that is normal.

[darkestkhan_Eriker]

@Ms_Steak

The only ammo that really needs tiericide is projectile T1 ammo, imo. There is almost no point in using anything other than EMP/PP/Fusion and seldom Titanium Sabots/Depeleted Uraniums (for tracking). Long range variants’ (Nuclear/Proton/Carbonized Lead) damage output is just way too low to even consider using.

Actually long range projectile ammunition has different issue than dmg output. It is totally useless. They give bonus to optimal range. What is the main thing of projectile weapons? FALLOFF. Long range t1 ammo is useless on autocannons and nearly useless on artillery - optimal on medium autocannons is about 4km… extra 2km of range while having half dps is not only useless, but counterproductive.

@Ms_Steak

only applies to faction ammo and that is normal.

To be fair we have to either get rid of caldari navy charges or add republic fleet missiles. The fact that caldari has both missiles and charges is teh reason why caldari lp is worth much more than any other lp. (outside small or pirate factions)

[Ms_Steak]

@darkestkhan_Eriker

and nearly useless on artillery

not nearly, just plainly useless too. Main thing of artillery is high alpha damage and these ammo types dont have it.

@darkestkhan_Eriker

To be fair we have to either get rid of caldari navy charges or add republic fleet missiles. The fact that caldari has both missiles and charges is teh reason why caldari lp is worth much more than any other lp.

it could be interesting to see CN missiles doing slightly more damage and RF to have slightly better application. For charges: CN charges to have better range/tracking bonuses and FedNavy to have higher damage. That would promote players to do meaningful choice and selecting proper tools for the job.

[Kadesh_Priestess]

Hi whoever wrote this blog,

Got a question regarding formula used to measure resistance effectiveness:

The calculations for progression purposes will take into account the fact that the value of the resistance module bonus is not added directly to the ship resistances, but rather it proportionally increases the resistance by reducing the difference between the current resistance and 100% resistance by a given percentage. One module is better than the other by the amount of the damage reduction, not by how big the difference is in the resistance bonus they provide. For example, -88% bonus is not 8%, nor 10% better than -80% bonus. It is 40% better as the better module reduces the remaining incoming damage of the weaker module by 40% (1 - 0.8 = 0.2; 1 - 0.88 = 0.12; (0.2 - 0.12) / 0.2 = 40%). As the base value for comparing all modules damage resistance bonus, the Meta Level 0 - Tech I module (-40%) is taken.

Namely, this part:

(1 - 0.8 = 0.2; 1 - 0.88 = 0.12; (0.2 - 0.12) / 0.2 = 40%

Resistance multiplier/factor (which affects hp, local and remote rep effectiveness) of a ship is measured as 1 / (1 - resistance). So in case of 80%, you get 5x of base HP as EHP, in case of 88% you get 8.(3) of base HP as EHP.

So, you cannot say that the 88% resist is 40% better than the 80% resist - because it is 8.(3) / 5 = 66.(6)% better. But, the 80% resist is 5 / 8.(3) = 40% worse than the 88% resist.

I guess, if “correct” methodology was used, we’d end up with completely different numbers.

[Anderson_Geten]

@CCP_Psych

In the blog, the comparison is done based on the end result, produced by a single fitting of two different modules (in this case how much damage will be applied). So the question being answer is “How much more damage is mitigated by module B compared to module A” (effectiveness comparison for single fitting).

And my point was : when you want to compare two thing, comparing the raw numbers when they are used multiplicatively is not a valid method.

In that case, you are talking about comparing the effects of the group of armor hardeners, in order to balance them. In that context, you are placing the types on a scale of effectiveness in order to have a clear vision© of their differences and the way to mathematically balance them.

What I am saying, is that a scale of effectiveness MUST follow the rule : “if you are X times as effective as one type Y, then that means that X types Y are as effective as you”. This is required in order to have a meaningful comparison.

Then, the only scale of effectiveness that can be meaningful, and so that should be used for this work, is the logarithmic scale (as exp is the only continuous homomorphism from (R,+) into (R,×)). Any scale that is NOT logarithmic with the multiplication effect, is not appropriate for this work.

So, the formula you use in the article, as an example of how you balance the modules, is not appropriate. You explain how you avoid an incorrect formula to express the efficiency scaling, by using another incorrect one.

@CCP_Psych

Now, you have done a magnificent work, but you are answering a slightly different question. Your example answers the question of “How many of module A does it take to get the same result as a single module B” (required modules to reach same effectiveness). Something that is very useful in many cases indeed.

Indeed, that is very useful when you want to compare the effects of , let’s say modules in Eve. Actually for anything that is compared. It’s just from the notion of a meaningful scale.

What you WANT is to have a meaningful scale of the effects of the modules when balancing them. This is only achievable with a logarithmic scale. Since it’s log family, it depends on the base value you chose but it’s not really a concern( you can choose -40% if you want, or -80%)
If you don’t use log scale, your balancing is done out of meaningless data, and is then just arbitrary replacement of values : the phase of “comparing the existing modules” is just a waste of time.

@darkestkhan_Eriker

What is the main thing of projectile weapons? FALLOFF.

1200mm arto II : optimal 38.64 ; falloff 35.
You were saying ?

Anyhow, re balancing the existing ammos is out of the scope of tiericide. That’s for team talos I think.
Tiericide is to remove the excessive tiers inconsistencies.

[Anderson_Geten]

Also, the sad thing is that I guess you will do the same exact mistake as you did in that article, when trying to apply this to the SBA.

So here is the table of the real effect of the SBA, sorted by (meta, effect). the effect is based on +30% <=> 1 effect.

name	metalevel	CPU	effect	effect / CPU
Shield Boost Amplifier I	0	50.0	1,000	0,020
Ionic Field Accelerator I	1	48.0	1,000	0,021
5a Prototype Shield Support I	2	45.0	1,000	0,022
‘Stalwart’ Particle Field Magnifier	3	43.0	1,000	0,023
‘Copasetic’ Particle Field Acceleration	4	40.0	1,000	0,025
Shield Boost Amplifier II	5	55.0	1,172	0,021
‘Glycerine’ Shield Boost Amplifier	6	43.0	1,000	0,023
Domination Shield Boost Amplifier	8	40.0	1,073	0,027
Republic Fleet Shield Boost Amplifier	8	40.0	1,073	0,027
Caldari Navy Shield Boost Amplifier	9	55.0	1,214	0,022
Dread Guristas Shield Boost Amplifier	9	55.0	1,214	0,022
Gist C-Type Shield Boost Amplifier	11	54.0	1,165	0,022
Kaikka’s Modified Shield Boost Amplifier	11	61.0	1,265	0,021
Pith C-Type Shield Boost Amplifier	11	61.0	1,265	0,021
Hakim’s Modified Shield Boost Amplifier	12	54.0	1,165	0,022
Gist B-Type Shield Boost Amplifier	12	58.0	1,214	0,021
Pith B-Type Shield Boost Amplifier	12	66.0	1,316	0,020
Thon’s Modified Shield Boost Amplifier	12	66.0	1,316	0,020
Gist A-Type Shield Boost Amplifier	13	63.0	1,255	0,020
Pith A-Type Shield Boost Amplifier	13	72.0	1,367	0,019
Vepas’ Modified Shield Boost Amplifier	13	72.0	1,367	0,019
Tobias’ Modified Shield Boost Amplifier	14	63.0	1,255	0,020
Gist X-Type Shield Boost Amplifier	14	72.0	1,367	0,019
Estamel’s Modified Shield Boost Amplifier	14	77.0	1,416	0,018
Pith X-Type Shield Boost Amplifier	14	77.0	1,416	0,018

[CCP_Nomad]

@darkestkhan_Eriker

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.

We don’t want to share the statistics of particular ammo types at the moment, as that might give a wrong impression of what will be the end result of the rebalancing. All the details will be provided at once, when we are ready. I hope that’s understandable.

@Destiny_Corrupted

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?

The number of “named” modules in a group is related to the number and class of the module attributes. As listed in the blog, we defined 7 specializations for named modules: Ample, Compact, Enduring, Restrained, Scoped, Upgraded, Precise. Each group will have only a few possible specializations from this set. For example, only the turrets can have the Precise - tracking specialization. Some groups with a small number of attributes, will have only 1 or 2 specializations.

@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:

Thanks for the kind words and for the efforts you’ve put into presenting your suggestion. We will look into it.

@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?

The name of this module was Adaptive Invulnerability Field, which was confusing for following reasons:

• it didn’t indicate clearly which module group it belongs to (Shield Hardener)
• Adaptive might have suggested it adapts to the situation / type of incoming damage
• Invulnerability might have suggested that it makes you invulnerable

The new Multispectrum Shield Hardener name addresses those three points. Some players expressed their concerns over the fact that the word Multispectrum is already being used by ECM group, but it is worth pointing out that ECM’s are Multispectral, not Multispectrum

@Dior_Ambraelle

Is that possible to also tiericide the ammo at some point?
I personally find it quite annoying that we have identical attributes on differently named ammo, and for some reason sometimes there are significant differences in their cost on the market.

Yes, the charges will be rebalanced together with turrets.

@Valiran_Teleros

I’m also wondering if it wouldn’t be possible to repurpose all of the current “civilian” and “basic” modules as low-power, low-requirement modules that can be used if nothing else will fit. You would be better off fitting a T1 or meta module, but they’d be better than nothing

Yes, we do change the the “Basic” by making them into storyline modules with primary attribute similar to T1, but with very low fitting requirements. We apply similar treatment to “Micro” modules. For example, in March 2020 release we have converted all Micro Capacitor Boosters into a new ‘Seed’ Micro Capacitor Booster storyline module.

The Civilian version of all modules is also something we are looking at, but changes in this area would have to involve much deeper work as that affects both the New Player Experience and the free Corvettes.

@Valiran_Teleros

Finally, in the interest of recording the old names used, would it be possible for the flavor text of meta modules to mention those old names as examples of “popular models” in use by capsuleers?

We try to leave a reference the old flavor names, but it might be a shortened form. For example, the I-a Polarized Armor Regenerator was renamed to I-a Enduring Armor Repairer and ‘Accommodation’ Vestment Reconstructer was renamed to ACM Compact Armor Repairer. The Inefficient Armor Repair Unit and Automated Carapace Restoration are no longer referenced anywhere in the game.
This is indeed interesting idea for preserving the old full names. Thanks for the suggestion.

[Mad_Max_Maller]

When it comes to turrets, it basically comes down to whether or not you can use t2. If you can’t, you fit the best turret in your budget. If you can, it’s t2 99% of the time. It would make things more meaningful if the t1 named turrets were all the same, but with their own unique bonuses that helped certain situations. Instead of the current form where they just get increasingly better.

You would then choose a turret for the situation you will encounter, whether PvE or PvP. You could also add more t2 turrets with similar bonuses.

[Gleb_Koskov]

Your metrics should show which module variants are being used over others, for example restrained microwarp drives are hands down the best choice over the situational compact and the never used enduring variant. Consider improving upon these less used module variants.

[Ploing]

@CCP_Nomad

• Invulnerability might have suggested that it makes you invulnerable

The new Multispectrum Shield Hardener name addresses those three points. Some players expressed their concerns over the fact that the word Multispectrum is already being used by ECM group, but it is worth pointing out that ECM’s are Multispectral , not Multispectrum

but for gods sake the invul is an iconic name. porsche would not rename the 911 because its not a police car.

[Destiny_Corrupted]

@CCP_Nomad

@Destiny_Corrupted

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?

The number of “named” modules in a group is related to the number and class of the module attributes. As listed in the blog, we defined 7 specializations for named modules: Ample, Compact, Enduring, Restrained, Scoped, Upgraded, Precise. Each group will have only a few possible specializations from this set. For example, only the turrets can have the Precise - tracking specialization. Some groups with a small number of attributes, will have only 1 or 2 specializations.

Hence my idea: allow for the possibility of items having more than 1 specialization. These could be “rare” items that drop less often than single-specialization items, but are still common enough to be worth only a few million ISK each.

All items have at least one primary stat, and require fitting resources, so all items are capable of having a dual specialization version (some will be able to have multiple combinations). This would make ship fitting a bit more dynamic and interesting, because right now, it’s pretty much either shove a bunch of compact modules on the ship, or “guess I’m not undocking until I can use the T2 version.”

[elitatwo]

@Mad_Max_Maller

It would make things more meaningful if the t1 named turrets were all the same, but with their own unique bonuses that helped certain situations. Instead of the current form where they just get increasingly better.

If you are logged on, I suggest you take a look at XL or capital turrets. I think our sub-capital turrets will get a similar treatment.

The t1 capital guns come in the flavors of range (scoped), tracking and I believe cap usage (not certain on that one).

This is my guess, so don’t quote me on that.