These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Odyssey] Tech 1 Battleships - Build Costs

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#21 - 2013-05-03 16:50:12 UTC  |  Edited by: mynnna
Pricewise, a combo that works out to an average of a 40m price increase sets the Combat BS to around 185m, Attack BS to around 175m, and Disruption to 165m, given current Jita buy prices.

There are other combos that would work of course, but at least looking back at cruisers, this one feels fairly reasonable to me.

I guess we'll find out when they hit SiSi how accurate this is. Bear

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
#22 - 2013-05-03 16:51:02 UTC
Quote:
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 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.


Hey progod

In some ways I agree with you. I think you're right that price will influence consumption and it may not be terrible to have the price go down from a consumption stand point. We ended up going with this largely because no one could make a good case that there was a need for them to be cheaper. The tier 3s worked as a good bar because they show that if battleships are balanced well they are perfectly consumable at the tier 3 price.

Basically we feel that BS are worth the tier 3 price and that having people budget within the class is not as good as having them do it class to class. In-class price tiering creates a lot of weird balance problems and sends very strange messages about how the ships ought to perform, and we want to tone that down as much as we can.

@ccp_rise
Aglais
Ice-Storm
#23 - 2013-05-03 16:51:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Aglais
The Raven will not be worth it's new price. At all.

This forum needs a dislike button, too, as a note.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#24 - 2013-05-03 16:54:53 UTC
progodlegend wrote:


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.


I think this will somewhat be counter balanced by the fact that we now have a lot more interesting/useable cruiser/bc choices than in the past and the coming updates will be incrementing on that again.
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#25 - 2013-05-03 16:57:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonas Sukarala
Aglais wrote:
The Raven will not be worth it's new price. At all.


Indeed the battleship rebalance pass don't justify the increased prices maybe if you increase the performance of all the battleships especially the attack versions and the abbadon the most expensive ship has been nerfed without any changes to improving its performance where it really needs it in its slot layout/turrets/cap issues.

Then you have to also take into account the ABC's are still way too strong after their tiny nerfs and now navy battlecruisers are just squeezing the battleships into a smaller corner of use.

'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

Aliventi
Rattini Tribe
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#26 - 2013-05-03 16:57:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Aliventi
How balanced is the cost and effectiveness of a BS compared to a BC? Is a BS really worth 4 BCs?

Part of me understands what you are doing. I agree what you are doing makes sense. Another part of me goes "I can have more fun in 4 BCs than I can in that BS." It's going to be unusual having no real ship to fill the between BC (~50 mil) and the tiericeded BS (~200-240 mil) prices. That is a large jump with no filler.
Sable Moran
Moran Light Industries
#27 - 2013-05-03 16:59:37 UTC
Muscaat wrote:
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?


LOLled so hard my ribs hurt. I've been selling frigates for many years and I can say that there was no screwing the manufacturers. Every frigate I sell, I sell for profit.

Muscaat wrote:
Frigates are still selling for (in some cases) a third of their build cost...


An opportunity to make ISK, seize it. I certainly did, like I did for cruisers and battlecruisers and now battleships.

Sable's Ammo Shop at Alentene V - Moon 4 - Duvolle Labs Factory. Hybrid charges, Projectile ammo, Missiles, Drones, Ships, Need'em? We have'em, at affordable prices. Pop in at our Ammo Shop in sunny Alentene.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#28 - 2013-05-03 17:00:42 UTC
Aliventi wrote:
How balanced is the cost and effectiveness of a BS compared to a BC? Is a BS really worth 4 BCs?

Part of me understands what you are doing. I agree what you are doing makes sense. Another part of me goes "I can have more fun in 4 BCs than I can in that BS." It's going to be unusual having no real ship to fill the between BC (~50 mil) and the tiericeded BS (~200-240 mil) prices. That is a large jump with no filler.


Some of the new ships/ship changes coming will fill that somewhat - tho not sure what price faction battlecruisers, etc. will be.
progodlegend
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#29 - 2013-05-03 17:03:30 UTC  |  Edited by: progodlegend
CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
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 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.


Hey progod

We ended up going with this largely because no one could make a good case that there was a need for them to be cheaper. The tier 3s worked as a good bar because they show that if battleships are balanced well they are perfectly consumable at the tier 3 price.


This makes a lot more sense than the original post, and is a much better reason for the pricing choice. I didn't mention this in the first post by mistake, but I actually think using the tier 3 price is fine and will lead to a good base line price.

My issue was more with the logic behind it. I was just slightly perturbed that the idea behind balancing BS prices had more to do with mineral consumption, and less to do with whether or not the prices were fair compared to other ship classes. Obviously as you posted above, this was not the case as there was other reasoning that went into it as well. So I'm fine now, was just something I thought I'd point out in the wording of the original post.
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#30 - 2013-05-03 17:06:47 UTC
Rroff wrote:
Aliventi wrote:
How balanced is the cost and effectiveness of a BS compared to a BC? Is a BS really worth 4 BCs?

Part of me understands what you are doing. I agree what you are doing makes sense. Another part of me goes "I can have more fun in 4 BCs than I can in that BS." It's going to be unusual having no real ship to fill the between BC (~50 mil) and the tiericeded BS (~200-240 mil) prices. That is a large jump with no filler.


Some of the new ships/ship changes coming will fill that somewhat - tho not sure what price faction battlecruisers, etc. will be.


mm... faction bc's would be the natural fill..... also T2 cruisers are there and ABC's when fitted is still 120mil or so...
Although i think ABC's really ought to be T2 hulls they just aren't a real bc at least in eve terms... they are a specialization much like logistic cruisers are that use large reps instead of their normal medium counterparts.

'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

CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
#31 - 2013-05-03 17:12:27 UTC
Quote:
How balanced is the cost and effectiveness of a BS compared to a BC? Is a BS really worth 4 BCs?


Its very consistent across EVE to get linear power increase for exponential cost increase. Is a Cruiser worth 10 frigates? Is a Machariel better than 5 battleships? I think BS happened to be at a point in the curve which is extremely important because the price point is right where it starts to hurt people, but BC are right there reminding you of how small your performance increase is.

We think it fits though. PVEers are making their first long-term investment on a BS usually and we don't want that to be available too quickly, and for large scale PVP BS are the last step before moving to extremely end-game ships and so it needs to feel significant.

@ccp_rise
Hagika
Standard Corp 123
#32 - 2013-05-03 17:13:50 UTC
With Battleships becoming and ever so larger and larger isk sink for their actual value, smaller hulls will just become even more popular.

As it sits, battleships are becoming too costly for their actual benefit on the battlefield when smaller hulls bring almost as great of firepower and better mobility for less the cost.

I assume the increase in cost is intended to remove even more isk from the game, yet that direction is also making people go for a cheaper alternative to be able to pvp more often. This will just make the battleship to be used less.
CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
#33 - 2013-05-03 17:14:07 UTC
Quote:
This makes a lot more sense than the original post


Cool. Maybe I should switch them!

Also good meeting you at fanfest, when we were talking I didn't realize that you were on your way to CSM and that I would be talking to you much more!

@ccp_rise
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#34 - 2013-05-03 17:14:28 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
How balanced is the cost and effectiveness of a BS compared to a BC? Is a BS really worth 4 BCs?


Its very consistent across EVE to get linear power increase for exponential cost increase. Is a Cruiser worth 10 frigates? Is a Machariel better than 5 battleships? I think BS happened to be at a point in the curve which is extremely important because the price point is right where it starts to hurt people, but BC are right there reminding you of how small your performance increase is.

We think it fits though. PVEers are making their first long-term investment on a BS usually and we don't want that to be available too quickly, and for large scale PVP BS are the last step before moving to extremely end-game ships and so it needs to feel significant.


Fair point ... but you need to make them all worth that steep increase atm the geddon and Maelstrom are perhaps the only ones worth it.

'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

progodlegend
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#35 - 2013-05-03 17:16:38 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
This makes a lot more sense than the original post


Cool. Maybe I should switch them!

Also good meeting you at fanfest, when we were talking I didn't realize that you were on your way to CSM and that I would be talking to you much more!



At the time I wasn't too sure I was either. But yea it was a good chat.
Alx Warlord
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#36 - 2013-05-03 17:16:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Alx Warlord
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


    Are you really saying that CCP will not lower the Base price of the Battleship because there is not enough Material and ISK sinks in the game!? So the Battleship gameplay need to suffer!? To be set away from the optimal point!?

    CCP Rise, all this could be different if you guys listened. (Well, I'm pretty sure that you guys somewhat listened and that is why the next expansion will be building themed, but no big profs yet...)

    The point is that EVE need bigger ISK and Materials Sinks so that you guys can have more flexibility in giving content to the players. As you just stated, BS mineral cost should be lower but you guys just can't lower it without ruining the economy.

    My sugestion whas THIS: The Block built Sandcastle POS System.

    You Should read it. Because it is the solution for your problems.

    This Idea of STARBASE is a endless sized ISK and Material SINK. and this would be a permanent regulator on the prices and availability in the market.

    In this system, for each new block (Building) added to the starbase, there would be a ISK and material Fee. Assuming that this blocks can't be removed, only destroyed, It becomes the perfect Sink. As there are "Spare" and cheep materials in the market people would be more tempted to trow it in the star-base.

    If you find any kind of drawbacks in this Idea let me know. But the topic is pretty extensive and mostly cover the biggest concerns related to the implementation of it.

    Out of topic....Also I hope that you have read this:[Suggestion] New Weapon Tec, Splitting Hibrids, Caldari and Galente

    Please read these!

    New POS system New SOV system
    Bienator II
    madmen of the skies
    #37 - 2013-05-03 17:17:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Bienator II
    you should have tagged all BS at the moment of the patch as "old" and make them reprocess at old rates, ships build after the patch would have a higher internal version and reprocess using new values. Thats the only clean solution to this problem which re-occurs at every large scale rebalancing. Stacking items of different "versions" shouldn't be a unsolvable problem and would have other unrelated advantages in future (ship combat history? kill log? producer name? ...).

    how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
    Chribba
    Otherworld Enterprises
    Otherworld Empire
    #38 - 2013-05-03 17:18:28 UTC
    Bagehi wrote:
    Miners everywhere cheer. Where's Chribba?

    no time to post, must mine!

    ★★★ Secure 3rd party service ★★★

    Visit my in-game channel 'Holy Veldspar'

    Twitter @ChribbaVeldspar
    Bucca Zerodyme
    Good For Nothing Corporation
    #39 - 2013-05-03 17:19:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Bucca Zerodyme
    CCP Rise wrote:
    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.
    CCP Rise


    Let me summary:
    - Raven didnt changed at all, except some slot swaps. Neighter get EHP nor anything others
    - Rokh got nerfed
    - Lets adjust prices, because they are balanced now
    - The price of the Raven will be about 40m higher now

    Sounds fair. How about we balance CCP-Devs, too?
    cheese monkey
    Chilil-out
    #40 - 2013-05-03 17:19:44 UTC
    Battleships are already terrible compared to BC and even frigates.

    Goodbye Mr. Raven, you were anyways terrible and now you are over priced!

    Drake - 50m
    Raven - 300m
    Tengu - 500m

    Skip the raven, save yourself SP and ISK... Same with all the other races!

    Hats off to the super rich who ATM are buying up all the cheap BS in jita/amarr/rens and then after the patch remarketing them for a nice 20-50% ROI. Invest a Trillion and get 1.2-1.5t back.

    Mineral prices are going to inflate Mhaoooosively... as well as the increased time on ice-mining and the ease at which one can now gank highsec miners with little consequence. I would say miners in general are committing suicide right about now.

    --

    http://eveboard.com/ub/627817229-39.png