Thank you for math
+1

Ok.  Let's see these numbers now applied to stacked tunings.
Zoom's numbers on stacked modules (weapon tunings)

Accum
# Mods:   1x     2x     3x     4x     5x     6x
T1        1.1    1.21   1.33   1.46   1.61   1.77
T2        1.05   1.1    1.16   1.22   1.28   1.34
T3        1.3    1.69   2.2    2.9    3.7    4.83
T4        1.55   2.4    3.72   5.77   8.95   13.88
T4+       1.7    2.9    4.9    8.35   14.2   24.14

Damage
# Mods:   1x     2x     3x     4x     5x     6x
T1        1.1    1.21   1.33   1.46   1.61   1.77
T2        1.1    1.21   1.33   1.46   1.61   1.77
T3        1.3    1.69   2.2    2.9    3.7    4.83
T4        1.4    1.96   2.74   3.84   5.38   7.53
T4+       1.5    2.25   3.38   5.06   7.6    11.4

Some case studies:
Let's assume a bot will have an unstable accum with weapons drawing 2x accum.
This bot could fit:
6 T1's, or 2 T3's, or 1 T4 or 1 T4+
This would achieve dmg increases of:
1.77, 2.2, 1.4, or 1.5
If I want to get the T4 fit or the T4+ fit to perform better, I am looking at accum cost of 3x!

That doesn't make a lick of sense. 

Why would people bother buying T4+ or making T4 if they are less useful than T3?  I must protest this.

T4 should be better in most cases 1:1 vs other module tech levels.  So too with T4+.
If T4 is literally made of all the tech levels below, and if T4+ is going to continue costing a ***, then they should be superior.  My post was about making T1, T2, and T3 just usable, but not better than T4. 
It seems this is an over-correction.

What would make more sense is that if we could begin discussing how much raw damage multiplication a bot should get with any configuration of head slots before some critical accumulator threshold. 

Let's instead frame this around the end-results of the stacking and how they play out, as with the chart above.

Let's say 2.0x accum is the breaking point for weapon tunings, where bots will be unstable (NOTE: this is not true for all weapon types, and certainly not all bots...)
So using this as a tipping point, we can calibrate the ideal fit, with the accumulator penalty as-stacked and resultant damage modification, as-stacked.

A proposed framework (weapon tunings)

Accum
# Mods:   1x     2x     3x     4x     5x     6x
T1        -.-    -.-    -.-    -.-    <2     2.0
T3        -.-    -.-    -.-    <2     2.0    >2
T4        -.-    -.-    <2     2.0    >2     -.-
T4+       -.-    <2     2.0    >2     -.-    -.-

Damage
# Mods:   1x     2x     3x     4x     5x     6x
T1        -.-    -.-    -.-    -.-    <1.5   1.5
T3        -.-    -.-    -.-    <1.75  1.75   >1.75
T4        -.-    -.-    <2     2.0    >2     -.-
T4+       -.-    <2.25  2.25   >2.25  -.-    -.-

* T2 omitted because it would not read as clearly, and I don't give a ***.

You see the accum "stability point" is used to control the measure of performance and be the anchor by which to balance across the tech levels.  This makes it easy to look at how to adjust the performance of the higher tech levels since we know the accum will curve too steeply after this by +1 module.

I am not saying these are the "right" numbers, I am saying that you can look at how bots perform with their accumulators, see what multiplier renders the bot useless, find a threshold value, and that is your constant across the accumulator chart.  Cool, accumulator done!

On the Damage chart, follow this same diagonal, and specify some value a certain tech level at the SAME STABILITY should perform relative to the others.  Hell, it could be all equal.  But do NOT make T4 less damage than T3!

Reading this chart you can then say:
The stacked-accum multiplier of [2x] is achieved with = 6:T1's, 5:T3's, 4:T4's, 3:T4+'s
The Damage multiplier as-stacked of these are then = 1.5x(6 T1's), 1.75x(5 T3's), 2x(4 T4's) 2.25x(3 T4+)

See?  You can fit more tunings of lower tech levels 'as stably as' 1 less tuning of a higher tech level.
BUT, the higher tech level gets more dps at the SAME STABILITY.  Ideally this stability-point should be known and balanced among factions and bot types... I'm sure someone did the math on that somewhere..

So now (again, just an example) reverse engineer this with maths to produce the original tuning multipliers for the new balance and apply them across the matrix

A proposed framework, filled out (weapon tunings)

Accum
# Mods:   1x     2x     3x     4x     5x     6x
T1        1.12   1.26   1.41   1.58   1.77   2.0
T3        1.14   1.30   1.48   1.69   2.00   2.28
T4        1.19   1.42   1.68   2.00   2.38   2.84
T4+       1.26   1.59   2.00   2.52   3.18   4.0

Damage
# Mods:   1x     2x     3x     4x     5x     6x
T1        1.07   1.14   1.22   1.31   1.40   1.5
T3        1.12   1.25   1.40   1.57   1.75   1.97
T4        1.19   1.42   1.68   2.00   2.38   2.84
T4+       1.31   1.72   2.25   2.95   3.86   5.06

Now everyone can try with their own ideal damages on that accum-critical diagonal and see how the damage multipliers work out, stacked and with different tiers and slots for tunings.
Try it!  Think of what the ideal max damage should be, at what cost to the accumulator, how many tuning slots should this use?  Then cascade that down with each tech level and take the fractional power of those numbers to get the module's new multiplier.

Also note I haven't looked closely at the effects of the other tuning types and their changes, but I reckon they could benefit from the same methodology.

+1

Messaged in-game.

I hope the balancing addresses the indy, repper and weapon tuning balance too.  Some interesting side effects..

For estimation follies try: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planning_poker
And then multiply by pi

Happy new year \o/

+1 to additional sources of kernals and/or RP

The old way was to grind beacons.
Beacons are nerfed so:
+More/Better loot on TAPs
+More/Better loot on NPCs in general, or certain spawns (rare/caravans/reds)
+Provide new ways to get RP

I see so many new players see the industry system, get excited, and then crushed when they realize the kernal grind is hopelessly long, and involves them skilling into high-end PVE combat to do it.
Even with the corp research tree, they still want to bonuses.  This gives indy players a goal to work towards, but at this moment in time its not a goal, but an impossibility for many.

And to add to Rugerx's solution and make it easy to see an implementation: put kernals in the syndicate store!
Tokens->kernals.  Maybe even just NIC; there is your nic sink! Boom inflation problem solved.

I do like the daily assignments more, because this draws players back to the game with regularity, and rate-limits the kernals one could earn over time, so its not easy to just drop 10bil nic and have your research done.

+1, was this implemented?  I remember some talk about it being ready-to-go but there was concern about explosions, energy drain, etc..

I really think the accum penalty as a stand-in for a more direct performance degradation as a real stacking penalty is causing more issues than the one it solves.

As many have said and pointed out: anything that also depends on accum is now adversely affected.  Shields, ecm, enwar, reps, etc.

Also, the fact that now cycle times being reduced to make fits stable or using lower-tier equipment is totally backwards.  Why would T4 modules, that cost more to make, but have less utility for the end-user and therefore less value to them  because of faster cycle times?  Or why would having high skills with cycle time reduction, even with maxed out accum skills still result in accum instability?  More skills should improve performance.  If you can't run miners continuously, ore/hr is reduced, and this is the performance metric miners care about. 
As a miner/harvester, one should purchase and add more modules to a fit, therefore costing more(value), to increase this overall performance.  If adding more performance-enhancing modules suddenly starts making the fit less performative than a fit with empty slots(cheaper; but more effective?): why?  why not just reduce the increase in performance per module?  So the 4th or 5th module might be a drop in the bucket, but it doesn't go from viable to broken!  Now, cheaper fits get more done.  Whereas investing more here breaks the fit. 
Same for any PVE activity.  Now with less dps tunings, or accum instability, less bots are killed(PVP: therefore demand for bots/mods drops*), less materials are yielded, and pve-combat progress slows.

*This is a higher level issue about the life-span of a bot on field in pvp and pve and how that affects market/material demands.  I'd argue this demand needs to increase, not decrease.  More bots dying faster=good for the economy.

The tuning buffs and penalties on armor rep tunings and indy tunings are having some exploitable 'features'.  Very fast harvest mission running, nora explosion on yields, and more to find out!

So overall:
PVE combat is slower; due to lower damage output
Harvesting/mining have potentially high yield/short burst potentials; cause assignment times to drop.  token market inflation?
PVP: longer time on field, due to less overall dps. (Stalemates more likely; less death; less material demand)
PVP: more diverse fitting. +1

Huzzah! \o/:D

Patch release fresh off of a sale would be a good way to show new players how much hard work the devs put in, and how dedicated they are, to this wonderful game

Oh and imagine if the heavy or ewars were released during the winter sale!
That would certainly draw a crowd...

This is valuable information about how you see the ultimate design of the game versus its current implementation. 
So if this npc spawn then holds let's say 1/2 the value of the artifact ( or some amount that would make the hit-run strategy less appealing), then the question becomes the strength of the spawn.
If they are just nominal spawns, super weak --able to be killed with a hermes-- then this certainly biases the use of this new bot.  Otherwise if the spawn exceeds the capability of a hermes, the fit goes then to a super tanked sequer with a couple of real combat mechs in squad.  But this too might be an opportunity to provide high-end group PVE content even if it does outclass the Hermes for some beta/gamma artifacts. 
So long as the loot is worth it.

Dropping the base accuracy of geoscanners also might be a good way to pitch this as the 'dedicated exploration bot'.  So that way miners, exploration mission runners, SAP scanning, might all have something to gain with this platform.
But as with all nerfs, people will be angry because they have to change what they do and how they do it.
Whatever you do here, don't make it harder for new players to scan in the tutorial!  Hell, give them level 10 in geochem too.