These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

EC rig build costs are absurd - lower material requirements

Author
Julie Oppenheimer
COX INDUSTRIES
#1 - 2017-03-29 11:03:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Julie Oppenheimer
The material cost alone for citadel and EC rigs is completely out to lunch. For example, an Azbel costs about 3.9B in materials (from components, at the time of writing) and a T1 manufacturing rig for it costs 3.8B in materials. Comparable to a Fortizar, which costs 9.9B in materials and a T1 rig for it costs 2.6B in materials. Or even T1 ship rigs whose build cost is significantly lower than the build cost for the hull (even though that's not the greatest of comparisons because it's ships vs structures).This is exasperated by the fact that engineering complex rig bonuses are extremely granular.

Clearly this is by design and not a market forces effect or else we'd be seeing comparable rig build costs across the board.

I propose that the material requirements for engineering complex rigs should be lowered by ~30% to bring the build quantities more in line with that of the citadel rigs.

(Estimates sourced from eve-industry.org)

Edit, since I think my post is being misunderstood:

Example:

Large EC : Standup L-Set Manufacturing rig 1:1
Large Citadeal : Standup L-Set Defense rig 4:1
Battleship : T1 Engineering rig 8:1
Carrier : T1 Armour rig 30:1

This ratio can't be fixed by raising/lower the price of salvage because that would affect all in-game rigs, it needs to be fixed by lower the materials needed for the EC rigs.
Do Little
Bluenose Trading
#2 - 2017-03-29 11:20:13 UTC
Another option might be to encourage mission runners/ratters to salvage their wrecks or give bookmarks to new players so they can salvage the wrecks.

The potential supply of salvage available in the game is huge - look at the bounties earned:
http://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/MER/Feb_2017/9aaa_top.sinks.faucets.over.time.png

If there is a material shortage, CCP can tweak the drop rate but the problem should be addressed by encouraging more supply -not artificially reducing demand.
Akrasjel Lanate
Lanate Industries
#3 - 2017-03-29 12:57:22 UTC
I think that intended. Blink

CEO of Lanate Industries

Citizen of Solitude

Cade Windstalker
#4 - 2017-03-29 16:16:26 UTC
The rigs are supposed to be expensive. Prices will go down as more people salvage more stuff due to the increased demand.
Julie Oppenheimer
COX INDUSTRIES
#5 - 2017-03-29 18:27:31 UTC
I think my post is being misunderstood, it's not the absolute cost I am worried about, it's the relative cost of the rigs vs EC's, and the cost ratios of rigs vs stuff you put rigs on (ex. rigs vs citadel cost, rig vs ship cost) which is more important I think. A big crash in salvage prices might fix the rig vs EC cost but the rigs vs cost of other stuff you put rigs on costs will be an even worse comparison. Also talking mostly about materials costs rather than ISK costs.

Example:

Large EC : Standup L-Set Manufacturing rig 1:1
Large Citadeal : Standup L-Set Defense rig 4:1
Battleship : T1 Engineering rig 8:1
Carrier : T1 Armour rig 30:1

This ratio can't be fixed by raising/lower the price of salvage because that would affect all in-game rigs, it needs to be fixed by lower the materials needed for the EC rigs.
Rawketsled
Generic Corp Name
#6 - 2017-03-30 00:17:28 UTC
Julie Oppenheimer wrote:
I think my post is being misunderstood, it's not the absolute cost I am worried about, it's the relative cost of the rigs vs EC's, and the cost ratios of rigs vs stuff you put rigs on (ex. rigs vs citadel cost, rig vs ship cost) which is more important I think. A big crash in salvage prices might fix the rig vs EC cost but the rigs vs cost of other stuff you put rigs on costs will be an even worse comparison. Also talking mostly about materials costs rather than ISK costs.

Example:

Large EC : Standup L-Set Manufacturing rig 1:1
Large Citadeal : Standup L-Set Defense rig 4:1
Battleship : T1 Engineering rig 8:1
Carrier : T1 Armour rig 30:1

This ratio can't be fixed by raising/lower the price of salvage because that would affect all in-game rigs, it needs to be fixed by lower the materials needed for the EC rigs.

It's not a matter of Citadel Rigs and EC Rigs.

It's about M Rigs and L Rigs.

Your true issue the difference in price between Citadels and ECs.


Unrelated to that, have you calculated the ROI on EC rigs? I'd wager that the time taken to repay the cost of the rig via the savings of the rig are the most important factor here.
Elenahina
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#7 - 2017-03-30 01:00:19 UTC
Rawketsled wrote:


Unrelated to that, have you calculated the ROI on EC rigs? I'd wager that the time taken to repay the cost of the rig via the savings of the rig are the most important factor here.


You're not wrong. That's exactly how I would determine if I wanted to buy those rigs or not.

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno

Kenrailae
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#8 - 2017-03-30 01:17:04 UTC
Having recently spent the requisite pile of isk to rig an azbel for production.... they are pretty pricey. Having done the research on how much better they are than other options, they have the potential to make that back.... assuming the azbel doesn't get blown up in the time it takes to make it back. Obviously the sec status of the location applies as well.


Cost/benefit analysis.... but ALL that being said.... yeah, their base material cost wouldn't hurt to be tweaked down a hair.

The Law is a point of View

The NPE IS a big deal

Tessa Sage
Long Pig Luncheon Meat
#9 - 2017-05-01 21:13:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Tessa Sage
Julie Oppenheimer wrote:
The material cost ...for engineering complex rigs should be lowered by ~30% to bring the build quantities more in line with that of the citadel rigs.


I hope to pin something of value to this excellent observation, JO. Most build requirements for citadels did not take harvest time into account but rather the likelihood of affecting the market (can't source it here, have to go to Jita).

There's a spectrum far from Goldilocks with regards to movement of materials upon acquisition: market entities' resolve to keep what they mine rather than sell it. I have built jump freighters that took far beyond blueprint spec in time and materials. Every five to six jumps; roughly 10 minutes; I hazarded 77mm equivalent, far more ISK / hr than a single toon can grind effectively for any sense of continuity of contract... unless you're Perry Swift's alt.

Kidding aside we can't expect any top-level change. What has to happen is two-fold:

Supply
1) Facilitating the discovery, aggression and salvage of rival citadels: loot must exceed the sunk ISK / m3 with respect to wardec (empire space ops) and ship replacement (null fleets). Pool that as a corporation until rig blueprint copies can commence.

Deterrence
2) Listing excess rigs on the market given reduced haul risk and portability (blueprint pass-through in Engineering Complexes kicks out additional m3 from the raw pile like a Tsiolkovsky at L3). We looted you, but you can rebuild too! Finding the right ISK / m3 again.

Keep elaborating on your idea OP, and thanks for contributing to the forums. o7
Alderson Point
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2017-05-02 12:47:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Alderson Point
Julie Oppenheimer wrote:
The material cost alone for citadel and EC rigs is completely out to lunch. For example, an Azbel costs about 3.9B in materials (from components, at the time of writing) and a T1 manufacturing rig for it costs 3.8B in materials. Comparable to a Fortizar, which costs 9.9B in materials and a T1 rig for it costs 2.6B in materials. Or even T1 ship rigs whose build cost is significantly lower than the build cost for the hull (even though that's not the greatest of comparisons because it's ships vs structures).This is exasperated by the fact that engineering complex rig bonuses are extremely granular.

Clearly this is by design and not a market forces effect or else we'd be seeing comparable rig build costs across the board.

I propose that the material requirements for engineering complex rigs should be lowered by ~30% to bring the build quantities more in line with that of the citadel rigs.

(Estimates sourced from eve-industry.org)

Edit, since I think my post is being misunderstood:

Example:

Large EC : Standup L-Set Manufacturing rig 1:1
Large Citadeal : Standup L-Set Defense rig 4:1
Battleship : T1 Engineering rig 8:1
Carrier : T1 Armour rig 30:1

This ratio can't be fixed by raising/lower the price of salvage because that would affect all in-game rigs, it needs to be fixed by lower the materials needed for the EC rigs.


If the playerbase finds that the return on investment is non practical, then the demand for the rigs, and with it the demand for industrial citadels to fulful this role, will be very low, after the first rush of excitement.

CCP notice such things eventually, and the build requirements will then be amended.

Unfortunately, all we can achieve is a sense of satisfaction and thinking "I told you so CCP", they are Data driven, and player concerns about cost, will be noted and put aside until the data confirms it.
B'ron Jan Escobar
xell network seven
V.e.G.A.
#11 - 2017-05-02 18:05:43 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
The rigs are supposed to be expensive. Prices will go down as more people salvage more stuff due to the increased demand.



Totally Agree

The High Amount of Materials Needet are to increase the Value of Salvage, and so, make Salvaging more Attractive.
Lowering the Costs could revoke that Effect again.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#12 - 2017-05-02 18:25:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Rowells
Do Little wrote:
If there is a material shortage, CCP can tweak the drop rate but the problem should be addressed by encouraging more supply -not artificially reducing demand.

That would have far-reaching impacts on many other things in order to fix one problem area.

Also to OP, iirc fozzie did mention that many of the larger rigs were looking to have their build costs reduced significantly. I think it was one of the fanfest presentations.
Andrew Indy
Cleaning Crew
#13 - 2017-05-03 08:03:36 UTC
Don't even look at T2 XL rigs, some cost ~200bil. Makes 3bil look downright affordable.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#14 - 2017-05-03 13:54:39 UTC
Just a random thought on all of this.
CCP wants us to form together in player made corps and venture forth and do stuff.
CCP wants to move the game in a direction that has more and more of the stuff handled by players or player corps.
CCP wants to reduce the affects the large nul sec groups have on the game (jump fatigue etc).
And yet they introduce structures into the game that are so incredibly expensive that a vast majority of the corps in the game simply cannot afford to own one which then drives control of the game back into the hands of the large nul sec groups that can afford them.

Gives one cause to wonder if CCP knows what they really want.
B'ron Jan Escobar
xell network seven
V.e.G.A.
#15 - 2017-05-03 14:18:40 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
Just a random thought on all of this.
CCP wants us to form together in player made corps and venture forth and do stuff.
CCP wants to move the game in a direction that has more and more of the stuff handled by players or player corps.
CCP wants to reduce the affects the large nul sec groups have on the game (jump fatigue etc).
And yet they introduce structures into the game that are so incredibly expensive that a vast majority of the corps in the game simply cannot afford to own one which then drives control of the game back into the hands of the large nul sec groups that can afford them.

Gives one cause to wonder if CCP knows what they really want.

A Astrahus costs at the Moment in Jita around about 1Billon Isk without Modules and Fitting. You say me that a HighSec Corp can't Afford making 1 Billion???
Fortizars and Keepstars are more for LowSec/Null Sec and WH Space, were the People do need bigger Structures and have the Money to Aquire them.
I don't See any Reasons why a Corp/Alliance, that only Operates in High Sec, would need a Keepstar. If they can Afford it though, then go ahead and Build one ;)


As for the Costs of the XL T2 Rigs, i was lookin for the Build Prices and yea, i think they might be a bit to high. A bit of Tweeking could be done by CCP, although i think that they have more data about how much Salvage is moved on the Market. Lowering the required Materials around 15% could help though, IMHO
Do Little
Bluenose Trading
#16 - 2017-05-03 15:11:01 UTC
There is really no reason why a small corporation needs to build its own structure. Rent offices in someone elses structure - There are several organizations with structures scattered throughout empire space where you can rent for low or no cost.

Is it worth spending several billion ISK for a rig that provides a 2% bonus? Some people will say yes - we'll recover that in a few months. Others will say no.

For my highsec operation, I have rented offices in several engineering complexes with different combinations of rig bonus, system cost index and convenience. For some jobs the bonus matters, others the job cost is most important, most of the time convenience wins.
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
#17 - 2017-05-03 19:21:41 UTC
I have 5 T2 and 3 T1 medium rigs in space. It's not an ideal setup; one of the T2s is redundant. I'll probably end up seeing about selling one of the structures off. But do I consider the whole thing worthwhile? Clearly, yes. If you don't, don't drop a damn structure, or at least don't rig it. I'd say the cost is actually a reasonable deterrent to the proliferation of redundant structures.
Tessa Sage
Long Pig Luncheon Meat
#18 - 2017-05-03 20:57:28 UTC
Zhilia Mann wrote:
I have 5 T2 and 3 T1 medium rigs in space. It's not an ideal setup; one of the T2s is redundant. I'll probably end up seeing about selling one of the structures off. But do I consider the whole thing worthwhile? Clearly, yes. If you don't, don't drop a damn structure, or at least don't rig it. I'd say the cost is actually a reasonable deterrent to the proliferation of redundant structures.


NPC Stations are redundant structures as far as players can tell. But they add to the behind-the-scenes. Simplicity in game development is having less artifacts dotting the foreground so that bit by bit the player(s) can piece together the narrative implicit.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#19 - 2017-05-08 00:30:46 UTC
they ate meant to replace outpost upgrades if anything they are on the cheap side


My only issue is they caused capital rigs to spike