These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

[Odyssey] Tech 1 Battleships - Build Costs

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
#1 - 2013-05-03 16:15:00 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Phantom
Hello everyone!

The purpose of this post is to explain the last element of the battleship rebalance: build costs. We found that even internally this was a very sensitive subject, one which people had very strong feelings about, and so we spent a lot of time making sure that we went ahead with a good plan. We feel confident that we have that plan, and while we do appreciate feedback (as always), this proposal is very likely the way we will be proceeding at release.

Let me give you the 'what' first, then the 'why':

  • The AVERAGE build cost of a battleship is going up by around 40mil
  • Former tier 3 prices will not change substantially, and so the majority of the change in cost is carried by the former tier 1 and 2s.
  • Prices will be differentiated slightly by role ('attack' and 'disruption' being a bit cheaper than 'combat')

    • The reasons for the change are as follows:

    The primary goal of tiericide is to eliminate any explicit power difference between ships within a class. If the power within a class is more or less level across all ships (which it is after the rebalance), the price should also be level.

    So then, if prices are to be more level, where should this new price line be set? The obvious answer would be to just average the cost of all battleships and then set the prices at that average - top tier prices would come down, and bottom would go up. Unfortunately, with battleships, this was not possible. Top tier battleships represent an enormous amount of mineral consumption in EVE at their current costs. That means that lowering the cost of tier 3 battleships would have a recessionary effect on EVE's economy as mineral prices suffered.

    That means we are to have prices more equal, but also, we can't lower the prices of the top tier ships significantly. This felt a bit uncomfortable at first, causing certain Devs to say "OMGWTFZFBFBFBB!!" when they saw the proposal, but we looked into some metrics around player wealth and income and found that EVE players are making money faster and faster, and even new players should have no trouble enduring the bump in cost. On top of this, inflation provides room for cost increase as well.

    The result is that we all agree that this price increase should not hurt demand substantially, and reflects a more healthy overall design philosophy than the old tier system.

    Special Note: You will NOT be able to buy battleships now and then refine them for the increased cost after the changes go live. Like all previous tiericide changes we will use extra materials to implement this cost change.

    We hope you agree, and look forward to your feedback.

    CCP Rise

    @ccp_rise
    Freya Kaundur
    Doomheim
    #2 - 2013-05-03 16:17:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Freya Kaundur
    first in the flame war that will start. good luck and have fun. let the forum pvp start
    Uppsy Daisy
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #3 - 2013-05-03 16:19:14 UTC
    This is going to use a LOT of minerals....
    Jonas Sukarala
    Deep Core Mining Inc.
    Caldari State
    #4 - 2013-05-03 16:20:29 UTC
    but what does that mean to current battleship prices graphs please!!!!!!

    'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?  ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high

    Gizznitt Malikite
    Agony Unleashed
    Agony Empire
    #5 - 2013-05-03 16:26:01 UTC

    Hmmm.... Suddenly there's another mineral sink for all those low-end minerals added to ABC ores (note: I think the addition of low ends to ABC's is a good thing)!

    Should be interesting times for those mineral market prospectors.
    Malcanis
    Vanishing Point.
    The Initiative.
    #6 - 2013-05-03 16:26:33 UTC
    CCP Rise wrote:
    Hello everyone!

    The purpose of this post is to explain the last element of the battleship rebalance: build costs. We found that even internally this was a very sensitive subject, one which people had very strong feelings about, and so we spent a lot of time making sure that we went ahead with a good plan. We feel confident that we have that plan, and while we do appreciate feedback (as always), this proposal is very likely the way we will be proceeding at release.

    Let me give you the 'what' first, then the 'why':

  • The AVERAGE build cost of a battleship is going up by around 40mil
  • Former tier 3 prices will not change substantially, and so the majority of the change in cost is carried by the former tier 1 and 2s.
  • Prices will be differentiated slightly by role ('attack' and 'disruption' being a bit cheaper than 'combat')

    • The reasons for the change are as follows:

    The primary goal of tiericide is to eliminate any explicit power difference between ships within a class. If the power within a class is more or less level across all ships (which it is after the rebalance), the price should also be level.

    So then, if prices are to be more level, where should this new price line be set? The obvious answer would be to just average the cost of all battleships and then set the prices at that average - top tier prices would come down, and bottom would go up. Unfortunately, with battleships, this was not possible. Top tier battleships represent an enormous amount of mineral consumption in EVE at their current costs. That means that lowering the cost of tier 3 battleships would have a recessionary effect on EVE's economy as mineral prices suffered.

    That means we are to have prices more equal, but also, we can't lower the prices of the top tier ships significantly. This felt a bit uncomfortable at first, causing certain Devs to say "OMGWTFZFBFBFBB!!" when they saw the proposal, but we looked into some metrics around player wealth and income and found that EVE players are making money faster and faster, and even new players should have no trouble enduring the bump in cost. On top of this, inflation provides room for cost increase as well.

    The result is that we all agree that this price increase should not hurt demand substantially, and reflects a more healthy overall design philosophy than the old tier system.

    Special Note: You will NOT be able to buy battleships now and then refine them for the increased cost after the changes go live. Like all previous tiericide changes we will use extra materials to implement this cost change.

    We hope you agree, and look forward to your feedback.

    CCP Rise



    The mineral supply community thanks you for your contribution.

    "Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

    Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
    Muscaat
    EVE Markets
    #7 - 2013-05-03 16:30:28 UTC
    Isn't this going to screw up the market for battleship manufacturers, in the same way that the frigate changes screwed up that market for manufacturers? Frigates are still selling for (in some cases) a third of their build cost...
    mynnna
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #8 - 2013-05-03 16:30:55 UTC
    Current Tier 3 prices have a range of approximately 200-240m depending on hull. In the past you've smoothed that kind of variation out, will you be doing that here too?

    Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
    SkyMeetFire
    Viziam
    Amarr Empire
    #9 - 2013-05-03 16:32:56 UTC  |  Edited by: SkyMeetFire
    Well that was unexpected. I really thought you guys would balance out to the Tier 2 prices, but at least there is a good reason.

    CCP Rise wrote:

    Special Note: You will NOT be able to buy battleships now and then refine them for the increased cost after the changes go live. Like all previous tiericide changes we will use extra materials to implement this cost change.


    Is there intention to ever roll these minerals back into the primary build cost and out of extra materials, so that ships have a price floor tied to the mineral price again?

    How do you guys feel about the fact that this price change will effectively lock out new builders until the surplus stock of tier 1 and 2 BS sell off? For some ships (procurer for example) they still haven't equalized to the new build costs in more than 9 months.
    TrouserDeagle
    Beyond Divinity Inc
    Shadow Cartel
    #10 - 2013-05-03 16:33:51 UTC
    CCP Rise wrote:
    EVE players are making money faster and faster


    Not me. Pretty limited with 1 account, no high sec access and no interest in T3s.
    MeBiatch
    GRR GOONS
    #11 - 2013-05-03 16:34:33 UTC
    mynnna wrote:
    Current Tier 3 prices have a range of approximately 200-240m depending on hull. In the past you've smoothed that kind of variation out, will you be doing that here too?


    man i miss 55 million isk domis and 90 million hypes...

    its like faction scrams before hte nano nerf... i had like 20 true sansha scrams back then and each one was worth 7 million... now look at thier price...

    There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

    Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
    Akrasjel Lanate
    Immemorial Coalescence Administration
    Immemorial Coalescence
    #12 - 2013-05-03 16:37:51 UTC
    Free ISK Roll

    CEO of Lanate Industries

    Citizen of Solitude
    CCP Rise
    C C P
    C C P Alliance
    #13 - 2013-05-03 16:38:52 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Rise
    mynnna wrote:
    Current Tier 3 prices have a range of approximately 200-240m depending on hull. In the past you've smoothed that kind of variation out, will you be doing that here too?


    Somewhat, but it won't be completely smooth.

    Quote:
    Is there intention to ever roll these minerals back into the overall ship cost, so that ships have a price floor tied to the mineral price again?


    It would be nice, but aren't willing to underestimate the extreme patience of the player base and so its hard to imagine how we could do it in the forseeable future.

    @ccp_rise
    Phoenus
    Doomheim
    #14 - 2013-05-03 16:39:10 UTC
    Well this is going to be an interesting way to pass the next 5 hours at work.

    *popcorn*
    CCP Rise
    C C P
    C C P Alliance
    #15 - 2013-05-03 16:40:37 UTC
    Quote:
    Well this is going to be an interesting way to pass the next 5 hours at work.


    Hey man, nice to talk with you at fanfest Big smile

    @ccp_rise
    progodlegend
    Amok.
    Goonswarm Federation
    #16 - 2013-05-03 16:42:47 UTC  |  Edited by: progodlegend
    Quote:
    So then, if prices are to be more level, where should this new price line be set? The obvious answer would be to just average the cost of all battleships and then set the prices at that average - top tier prices would come down, and bottom would go up. Unfortunately, with battleships, this was not possible. Top tier battleships represent an enormous amount of mineral consumption in EVE at their current costs. That means that lowering the cost of tier 3 battleships would have a recessionary effect on EVE's economy as mineral prices suffered.


    I don't like this kind of logic dictating balance. It sounds like your pricing decision has nothing to do with whether a 220mil isk battleship is balanced compared to a 40-50 mil isk battlecruiser, but instead is entirely based in not wanting to mess with any of the mineral consumption numbers, even though you are about to give mining a major boost anyway, which is sure to have the same effect.

    This is supposed to be a re-balance of all the ships, they should not be priced based on whether the economy might react slightly or not. It's lazy logic anyway, as their is no guarantee that a reduction in price would result in a reduction in mineral consumption. Even simple economics states that if you reduce price, demand and consumption will go up, and that should balance out your mineral consumption that you lost initially.

    I can remember numerous times when alliances in 0.0 have stopped using battleship fleets temporarily because of the costs of losing them, so it's not crazy to think that a price reduction would lead to a usage increase.
    Phoenus
    Doomheim
    #17 - 2013-05-03 16:45:41 UTC
    CCP Rise wrote:
    Quote:
    Well this is going to be an interesting way to pass the next 5 hours at work.


    Hey man, nice to talk with you at fanfest Big smile


    Was so stoked we got to chat, and reminisce on old times! <3

    Can't wait for next year.
    Bagehi
    Science and Trade Institute
    Caldari State
    #18 - 2013-05-03 16:47:31 UTC
    Miners everywhere cheer. Where's Chribba?
    TrouserDeagle
    Beyond Divinity Inc
    Shadow Cartel
    #19 - 2013-05-03 16:48:17 UTC
    progodlegend wrote:

    This is supposed to be a re-balance of all the ships


    They aren't even nerfing tier 3 BCs.
    Cultural Enrichment
    Jenkem Puffing Association
    #20 - 2013-05-03 16:49:52 UTC
    So, t1 and t2 battleships will be a dead zone for manufacturers for the few incoming years,

    ****'em, right?
    123Next pageLast page