None of the names of these tech 1 modules say anything about which one is stronger or weaker than the other.
Would be nice if the names of modules, especially Tech 1 NPC dropped modules, had something in the name to tell us which one is stronger compared to the others.
Maybe just change the name to the meta level, like, this
T = Tech / Tier
M = meta level
T1 M0 small energy pulse turret
T1 M1 small energy pulse turret
T1 M2 small energy pulse turret
etc
something like this clearly shows what tech 1 npc dropped module is stronger. The higher the meta level, the stronger it is.
{}{}{}{}{}
For tech 1 npc dropped modules that arent stronger, but are slightly different, the words that say how they are different could be simpler and more understandable.
For example, for armor hardeners,
Instead of [ Experimental Enduring Thermal Armor Hardener 1 ] ,
it could be
[ Low capacitator usage thermal armor hardener ]
and for compact, it could be
[ Low fitting usage thermal armor hardener ]
Would be much easier to understand what the module is and how it is different, better, or worse, than others.
I do think that the weapons need to go through tiericide.
“Low fitting usage thermal armor hardener” is a name though. What’s wrong with “compact”? It’s not that hard to learn “compact = lower fitting, enduring = less cap, restrained = less downsides, etc.”
Unfortunately, there’s no one definition of “stronger.” Which is stronger depends on what a specific user needs for their specific use case. Longer range? More damage? Less PG/CPU? Almost every module or ammo trades one metric for another. Yes, we have tiers, but there’s also a great deal of subjectivity and situational dependence when it comes to choosing things. This is why we have a compare tool.
I see no reason to keep a unnessessary overcomplex system just to force people using compare tools. Tiericide in Propmods, Plates etc.. has been successful and shows that a simple but consistent system can work.
Same for guns: “compact”, “enduring” or “restrained” would absolutely work and make it easier for new players to get into the fitting game.
I’m not saying there’s no room for improvement, or that naming couldn’t be more clear or consistent. I’m just pointing out that it’s not as simple as having tier I, tier II, and tier III, and telling players that tier III is always “stronger” than tier II, for every use case.
If weapons were to go through tiericide, I would expect a set of four focuses; tracking, range, rate of fire, fitting/capacitor.
The trick is coming up with clear names that don’t also murder immersion. I want “tracking-enchanced 125mm railgun” about as little as I want “125 mm railgun II-grade”. I think the best would be if each weapon type receives its own naming schema. Laser, autocannon, and blaster turrets for example likely are less heavy than railguns and artillery, so they could be pneumatic-drive while the heavy ones are hydraulic-drive. Or have manufacturer names with consistent bonuses. If Eyfir for example consistently make the high firerate weapons, having the rapid-fire autocannon be named something like Eyfir Gale 220mm Autocannon wouldn’t leave things entirely unclear, and would still leave some variety, since each weapon type would have a distinct set of manufacturers, and it wouldn’t be that difficult to learn which is which once you’ve played for a while.
enduring require less capacitor (mostly relevant for lasers and hybrids, irrelevant for projectiles) and have slightly larger ammo-hold (irrelevant for lasers, mostly relevant for hybrids and projectiles)
scoped have a slightly higher damage modificator
I personally see no reason to add tracking enhanced or range enhanded weaponry, they don’t exist today and are not nessessary. “Restrained” versions make little sense, as weapons have no drawbacks like mass or cap-penalty where that would be useful.
Having considered this for a bit, if you give one of them more damage, then that’s the only one that will get used, because that’s just such a valuable stat. It’s basically why we got tiericide to begin with. It won’t actually improve anything over the current situation, where your choice is basically just meta 4, because the lower meta versions aren’t ever worth bothering with.
IDD with your idea to have restrained be both cap usage and increased ammo capacity, that’s an elegant solution, but scoped should probably increase range and tracking instead.
Instead of giving it awful names based on the current awful meta design, it is about time tiericide is applied to the weapons as well.
This way we get ‘compact’, ‘enduring’ and ‘scoped’ weapon versions which are consistent with other modules and also each have their own uses instead of being a simple progressive line where a bunch of them is inferior and not worth using.
In some fits, only “compacts” will do. In others, you will require “endurings” to make the fit not run dry pretty soon. And yes, “scopeds” can also increase range instead of damage (I wouldn’t do tracking) a bit. Scoped remote repairers also increase range imho.
Why would anyone want to have a simple clear keyword like ‘compact’ written out as ‘low fitting usage’ in module names?
You just need to compare modules once to learn that ‘compact’ means low fitting usage and now you can consistently apply that knowledge everywhere in the game whenever you see meta modules, but without making all the module names unnecessarily long and with awful names.
Yeah, they each serve a purpose, none of them are just reprocessing trash. You’ll use compacts if you need to (also goes for enduring for lasers), otherwise you pick between slightly better range and application (I do think tracking should be included) or marginally more DPS (less time between reloads).
name though. What’s wrong with “compact”? It’s not that hard to learn “compact = lower fitting, enduring = less cap, restrained = less downsides, etc.”