Thank you for the update!
Keep 'em coming.

This is a great discussion.

I do agree not all products should span the high variety of 2nd-level industry components.  But as a way to compromise the reduced variety with the possible result of super-cheap bots, is to increase the quantity.
This will also encourage industry characters to focus on one faction or another, host themselves on islands with requisite kernals and raw materials, and become a staple of their market suppliers. 

This will further segregate markets and centers of industry, which is something eve ironically has been trying to do to lessen the load on jita, and provide viable markets for non-maxed out indy characters.  (Less centralized, less competition, more room for margins).  [Edit: I forgot to highlight this would be BAD with current market density, we need a 'jita' to drive prices down as they are way inflated from undersupply, and new players that cant supply themselves.]

One thing that was a twist for me seeing this games industry material and processes: the prototypes and subsequent tiered item being required for the next tier item.
This is interesting, but seems to overwhelming result in one outcome: T1->T3 are more valuable as factory component than they are modules themselves.
To ville's comment, T2 should not just be a component to make t3, then t4, it should be a useful module in its own right.  However, purely by what the process is set up as, demand for them as products to produce the most valuable and highest margins will outweigh the potential new customer base that would be buying this extra performative T2 module.

What then? you may ask. Since each tier requires effectively the module(embedded with the module's material composition) plus another load of the same materials + another type(increasing in rarity/price).  Why not supplant the required lower tier item with its material-demand instead?

Prototypes will still be needed to make the CT, and maybe for this the lower tier item is still needed (since this would once per some 100 modules).  But the CT will not have a requirement for the tier before! [Maybe its optional? That however feels like something that might not be ready to implement code-wise]

This would result in the T2 and T3 modules becoming their own end-products, sought out for their own benefits balanced against price! 
Again, as ville said, they need to be useful and perhaps uniquely so, versus the other tiers.  Lower fitting for T2 is good, but maybe extra effectiveness (just a smidge).  T3 maybe only boosts 1/2 of the modules different effects... maybe this opens up a whole variety of different Tier variations that can exist before the 'maxed-out' T4.

+1 to most of what Burial has been posting.

Also, have we considered creating a factor for modifying locktime between bot classes(maybe based on surface area.. or some other attribute)?
I might be reading into the intentions behind the patch and some of the other discussion, but if you want to make light and assaults more viable on the battlefield: why not make them harder to lock onto?
Yes this is right out of Eve but it works really well at giving smaller bots to land hits/lay down ewar before getting popped. 

It could be a modifier on current locktime so two bots of the same class (or srf. area, or mass, or ...) will have F=1.0 to each-other.  Whereas lets say a small ewar bot against some heavy mech might have F=0.5, and the H.Mech will only have F=1.5.  With both locktimes at 10s, the light bot could lock the heavy with 10s before the heavy locks back.  Keep in mind this is in addition to range, extensions that modify locktime directly, etc. etc.
(This being the extreme ends of the spectrum.)

What this helps with is fleet composition variety and encourages even squads that are mostly mechs to also include the smaller tacklers, ewar, and counter-small bot assaults.  This exists to some degree, but the solution of patching up lights and assaults with more armor or range, etc, makes them perhaps more powerful singularly than their class was intended.  Nerfing others down to match doesn't make sense.  So maybe the solution is a game mechanic or bot attribute that levels this out between classes. 

With faster lock times, light bots are guaranteed (under 1:1 circumstances) to land 'hits' against larger bot classes.

Yes, this too can grow into a whole set of modules and extensions.  Improve your locktime, lock-modifier, ability for others to lock you, ability to lock others etc. etc. You get the idea.

As for affecting PVE, I don't see it being an issue.  If anything it makes the player want to fit an equivalently sized bot for the assignment to maximize speed and turnaround time (Adding risk! and Excitement!  Oh Ah!).  And makes grinding with mechs slower (oh no, potential whining, oh noo), but no less effective (Whining averted! Huzzah!)

TL;DR
Modifier on Lock-time based (mostly) on bot class differentials.

Don't skip on documentation, please?

Inda, I wasn't counting the most recent robot re-balancing post because at the bottom in italics it is said that it is not a monthly report and that will come later.
http://blog.perpetuum-online.com/posts/ … balancing/
"ps. This isn't the monthly report, that's still coming."  It had plenty of content to count, but I was hoping this line was suggesting one blog post would still be forthcoming for this month (November).

Once a month is better.  The quotation I pulled from the September blog, as I remember, was after community members demanded more communication from the Devs after having none over the summer.  I would like to see something monthly, even if its an inch of progress on the same path as previously announced.  I think most of us understand things take time.  But if the evaluation is that progress does not warrant a post, that's fine.  I perhaps misunderstood the premise of the monthly report as it resulted from the discussions last summer.

+1
Hunter, you are right. 
Alpha general markets need to be supplied.  Market density has been cited for a number of negative reviews.  I know in-corp markets are a valuable feature, but ultimately defeat a public market which affects only newer players. 
I would also append to your list in saying all aspects of early experiences in-game are subject to scrutiny.
For the players: being positive and Patient with new players (especially in Help Chan) is crucial.  This seems to be fine, most are understanding in chat.  However, I don't think we should self-censor in all in-game media for the sake of putting on a facade.  Many have been here for years and are justifiably bitter in some regards.  Their* perspective is still valuable, and Devs should feel the pressure to improve their game.  However, perhaps the positive and constructive voices should make more of an effort to make themselves present in the game/forums(ones perhaps we have never heard).

http://steamcommunity.com/app/223410/di … 969421023/
Steam post citing similar issues, and the review status as being detrimental to future growth of the game.

Also, I don't know if we can reset the game 'status' to EA, wipe reviews and let the Devs have a round#2 release of the game when it is really ready. (Assignments, Pve, Indy balance, Combat balance/specialization, etc.)

*Some, not all.

Well, the individual hasn't let off the negative PR campaign.  And honestly, kudos to those that are doing their best to provide honest and direct answers and responses to his attacks and misconceptions. 
His script to scrape chat logs for activity is interesting, and perhaps points to reporting realtime player data officially rather then letting him control the discussion and make it out to be some intentional PR move by the Devs to mislead the players or potential players.  This data, of course he may doctor with no way for us to prove or say otherwise, which logically he will do.

I post here to say to those that are responding to him: don't!  Just let him say whatever, say your side of the story but don't feed the troll.  Don't address him, address the question from the community and move on.

Steam does have rules and report mechanisms.  So perhaps it might be worth looking into: http://store.steampowered.com/online_conduct/

The only answer I have to people that are dissatisfied with the 'product' is that its categorized as an Indie-MMO, gauge expectations accordingly.  All the people ranting about buying under false pretenses are just cases of impulsive decision making. 

I think it does well considering this, and its price point/no sub.  But these are all opinions after all.

Sorry I don't mean to dredge things up, nor make this bigger than it needs to be.  Hopefully he moves on to slandering another indie game, because you know those greedy deceitful indie companies...

So to summarize what I gather here:
Some like the additional cover/pathing confusion they provide (hence a dis-advantage for one side or another).
Some want them removed altogether, or revert to how it was before.
One guy likes em.
Another would like to see variety.
Everyone hates lag.

So its clear, as it stands it is perhaps excessive and could be more strategically implemented.  And perhaps as a bonus: more variety/complexity of plant life. 

Cool, so hotfix tomorrow or what? lol
But seriously is there a process for fielding things beyond this forum?