Assembly Hall

I don't think you understand how markets work.

But it's build costs are not based around the weight of the ship, that is what is normally called a consequence.

I remember when dreads cost 800mil for the hull.

(This is a really bad proposal)

Heres a thought, I dont know how feasable or even if it would be practical for CCP to implement:
Since CCP is going to introduce ring mining, why not tie in moon minerals into the production materials required for caps?
They wouldnt have to be high end moon minerals, it could be low end moon minerals.
Either way, it would encourage ring mining since Corps & Alliances love their caps & the market rewards of such mining would go directly to individuals rather than the Corps or Alliances, although I suspect at some point they maybe able to tax it. It would also fit perfectly into the theme of risk vs reward, since no doubt some may take advantage of PVP opportunities that might subsequently open up due those deciding to take up ring mining.
If the end result of such a idea was to push up the cost of caps well so be it, it may help counter the high number of caps in the game over all.
* now waits for wall of flame*

for balance of cost why are you looking at isk build cost rather then mineral build cost? the market changes prices of minerals fairly regurlary but the build mineral requirements dont change that often. (dreads and carriers just got a mineral requirement change) and so the isk costs reflect that.
coupled with a change in how minerals are introduced into the game, and you get wider disparity in isk costs.

take a look at the mineral costs of building the ships, the skills (and skill cost) and use that as your multipliers.

This has been proposed countless times before, and shot down each time.

Increasing the price wont stop the massive sov space alliances making them to wage war in massive capital fleets. What it will do is hit the small corps, lowsec pirates and all the people who need all the help they can get. As it stands the problem with capital ships is that they are not killed often enough, which is why there is so many of them.

Making them more expensive to build wont change anything. All it will do is make people more careful with them, and so the rate at which cap ships will build up will stay the same. Except that those ships will belong to all the massive sov space alliances will be the ones hording them. If you want the game to stagnate and for the big alliances to stay big and the small alliances stay small, then get this idea pushed through.

If, like me, you don't want any of the above. Then show displeasure at this idea creeping up into the Assembly hall again.

I'm inclined to believe you're joking or trolling, but the way you worded the rest of that paragraph tells me otherwise.

I'll make this easy for you to understand: In EVE, numbers matter a LOT. In general, when two individual ships united together in combat against one ship are evenly matched, the two ships are only marginally cheaper than the one. If a carrier could tank 30 battleships all by itself, then it should cost more than a titan. As long as it only costs as much as a handful of battleships, people who can fly carriers would almost exclusively fly carriers since they would almost never lose them.

As it stands, a carrier has several times the tank of a tier-3 battleship. It should probably cost at least 50 times as much, simply by virtue of its fleet combat value.

Cost of production is almost never a limiting factor. Supercarrier and Titan proliferation proved this all too well.

What will happen is that you raise the bar for a small entity to get a carrier or dreadnought while doing nothing to curb their mass production by larger entities.

Should have been done years ago, were it to be changed now you'd essentially hand current capital owners a huge wad of cash as the market value spikes and unduly penalize all future prospective capital pilots.

Much more sense to limit what they can do and/or where they are of use. Lots of talk about various cyno restrictions and similar "soft" changes that could potentially have a huge impact on how/when/where caps are used. Probably easier (not as much forum rage) to change mechanics than ships at any rate, so there

Caps already have reduce insurance payouts (to make killing them feel more worthwhile) over other t1 hulls. Also their modules cost more. Also I can probably solo the OPs battleship with a frigate, so obviously frigates need to cost 200 million isk now.

I made a mistake in my last post. I meant to say that two ships that make an even match for one would each individually cost MUCH less total, simply because there are two of them.


Carriers aren't even made for tanking without triage. They only tank well with triage, and they damn well can tank 10 battleships when they're feeding between one single other carrier and aren't getting neuted. Compare that to 2 logistics cruisers repping each other against 10 frigates--the frigates will destroy them and won't need neuts to do it, but the 10 frigates cost MUCH less than a logistics cruiser.


argumentum ad populum
My number of likes received is only partially proportional to how much people like my ideas, it also has a lot to do with how often I visit the forums. The number of likes I have will never go away, and if I make a post one day about dressing corpses and I get several hundred likes from it, it won't increase my ability to make useful commentary on ships. But I shouldn't even have to explain this to you.

Shah Fluffers wrote:

Cost of production is almost never a limiting factor. Supercarrier and Titan proliferation proved this all too well.

What will happen is that you raise the bar for a small entity to get a carrier or dreadnought while doing nothing to curb their mass production by larger entities.

Your point is completely reasonable and definitely a major thing that will have to be considered when figuring out how to balance the resources. It is not impossible by any means, it simply hasn't been done right in the past. I don't know the exact solution to the problem (nobody does, without trying and finding out), but the best way to start would be to require capital ships cost materials that are limited in production by the number of players producing them--similar to PI. Absolutely none of the necessary resources should be possible to control completely by one alliance or cartel. This way, any individual with enough net worth can cough up a capital ship.

I think that some resources should be somewhat controllable, just to give something for big alliances to fight over. But there should always be some resource bleed into the main population so that the little people can get their hands on it. One method I thought of would be for moons to gradually deplete (over the course of months) and for other moons to sometimes grow into a new resource. This way, any alliance trying to control a resource (say Technetium) would have to constantly keep an eye out for the new sources, and wrest control of the systems that have it. A small alliance could potentially find a technetium deposit on one of their moons and keep it a secret until they had stockpiled a good chunk.


You're talking about a jump from battleship to capital ship, so no, it's not.