These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Market Discussions

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Battleship Prices go up to current Tier 3 values

Author
Uppsy Daisy
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1 - 2013-05-03 16:24:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Uppsy Daisy
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=231750

Affect on mineral prices?

Perhaps it will be balanced by the new minerals in 0.0 and low sec roids.

On second thoughts, doesn't the supply of Zydrine and Nocxium remains unchanged, so are they going up, up, up?
Rhivre
TarNec
Invisible Exchequer
#2 - 2013-05-03 16:41:38 UTC
If the movement in price of say the Domi, Geddon etc is balanced by changes in mineral prices, thats one hell of a crash in mineral price.
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3 - 2013-05-03 16:56:17 UTC
Quoting myself from the thread.

mynnna wrote:
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


I sort of have to assume when Rise says "average of 40m" he's speaking at current mineral prices, not trying to predict the future.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#4 - 2013-05-03 17:14:30 UTC

I was pretty certain this change was coming....

I think this makes market speculation of minerals prices more difficult. Suddenly nullsec is receiving major boosts to ore yield of low ends, and suddenly most battleships require more low end minerals to manufacture.
Tank Talbot
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#5 - 2013-05-03 23:58:15 UTC
I am admittedly not an industrialist and I am still new to the game. Some reading left me with thread relevant questions I thought some of you might be able to answer or speculate upon the reaching effects thereof.

a) Will the tech income nerf and increased BS production costs make ship replacement programs more difficult to actually implement (particularly for small and medium sized alliances and corps) limiting their ability to compete in null warfare?

b) Will increased transportation costs (iso) and more minerals present in null lead to more industrial corps being “brought” out to null for on site manufacturing?

Thanks .Smile
mechtech
Ice Liberation Army
#6 - 2013-05-04 01:22:46 UTC
Tank Talbot wrote:
I am admittedly not an industrialist and I am still new to the game. Some reading left me with thread relevant questions I thought some of you might be able to answer or speculate upon the reaching effects thereof.

a) Will the tech income nerf and increased BS production costs make ship replacement programs more difficult to actually implement (particularly for small and medium sized alliances and corps) limiting their ability to compete in null warfare?

b) Will increased transportation costs (iso) and more minerals present in null lead to more industrial corps being “brought” out to null for on site manufacturing?

Thanks .Smile


a) No, because if you're not already loaded and established, you don't own tech moons. Increased BS cost will certainly make BCs even more attractive.

b) Yes, more stuff will be built in 0.0. Outposts are getting a large slot increase with Odyssey. Overall, I wouldn't expect any visible changes to how industry operates though. Industry corps won't be brought out to null, people will simply fly alts down to chew up the extra minerals and fill the slots.
Speculation Dave
Bring Me Sunshine
In Tea We Trust
#7 - 2013-05-04 04:55:47 UTC
Excellent news!

Big smile
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#8 - 2013-05-04 11:53:24 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Tank Talbot wrote:
b) Will increased transportation costs (iso) and more minerals present in null lead to more industrial corps being “brought” out to null for on site manufacturing?


I imagine we might see fewer JF pilots flying down T1 hulls of any size, preferring instead to bring down 425 Railguns now that there's production capacity to build said hulls.

No idea what, if any impact this might have, or even if the tope price increase will be enough to make up for the time delay and skill requirements, but that's about the only impact I'd expect.



1 Rhea load is ~7500 425 Railgun Is. 7500 Railguns is 14b ISK and 10m m3 of Minerals. The refining loss assuming ME 200 is ~8m ISK on all of that.

When alliances can effectively tax "industrial" (read: mining) corps, they might be brought in. Until (and possibly even after) then, "Industrial" corps will remain primarily a renter phenomena.

Most alliances do have many industrial players. Industry is supremely alt-friendly. Why bring in more people to manage when somebody who is already contributing is willing to do it without any new headaches?
Most alliances have people who mine rather than rat/mission/etc in their off time. No alliance I've ever been in had a problem with people doing that. Why do "industrial" corps' members have to be segregated?



Anyway, back on topic. I am superduper happy about this announcement.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Tank Talbot
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#9 - 2013-05-05 01:17:08 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Tank Talbot wrote:
b) Will increased transportation costs (iso) and more minerals present in null lead to more industrial corps being “brought” out to null for on site manufacturing?


I imagine we might see fewer JF pilots flying down T1 hulls of any size, preferring instead to bring down 425 Railguns now that there's production capacity to build said hulls.

No idea what, if any impact this might have, or even if the tope price increase will be enough to make up for the time delay and skill requirements, but that's about the only impact I'd expect.



1 Rhea load is ~7500 425 Railgun Is. 7500 Railguns is 14b ISK and 10m m3 of Minerals. The refining loss assuming ME 200 is ~8m ISK on all of that.

When alliances can effectively tax "industrial" (read: mining) corps, they might be brought in. Until (and possibly even after) then, "Industrial" corps will remain primarily a renter phenomena.

Most alliances do have many industrial players. Industry is supremely alt-friendly. Why bring in more people to manage when somebody who is already contributing is willing to do it without any new headaches?
Most alliances have people who mine rather than rat/mission/etc in their off time. No alliance I've ever been in had a problem with people doing that. Why do "industrial" corps' members have to be segregated?



Anyway, back on topic. I am superduper happy about this announcement.



Interestingly enough, with the HBC / TEST issues this audio chat from their leadership was pointed out and during the latter conversation after the announcements they talk in detail about how the upcoming changes are affecting them, and the potential need to create or hire their own mining and industrial corps for battleships etc. Looks like some null powers are indeed worried. Zydrine and Nocxium were mentioned too.
Kharamete
Royal Assent
#10 - 2013-05-05 02:25:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Kharamete
Tank Talbot wrote:

Interestingly enough, with the HBC / TEST issues this audio chat from their leadership was pointed out and during the latter conversation after the announcements they talk in detail about how the upcoming changes are affecting them, and the potential need to create or hire their own mining and industrial corps for battleships etc. Looks like some null powers are indeed worried. Zydrine and Nocxium were mentioned too.


In addition to that podcast/chat/sota I've had two other heavily industrialised friends complain that their alliance leadership basically has told them to sod off when they've asked for more consideration for the increased logistical needs, the increased mining, and the need for more protection.

Remember, if null doesn't mine its ice it will have to import from a high sec pool that only provide 80 per cent of the consumption. In test's case, Pizza were likely to permacamp their ice systems. In fountain it's going to be the Godfathers, etc. Null-sec culture isn't really there to cater to what needs to be done. Building t1 hulls will mean having to move a LOT of ore with freighters to the refineries, which will mean more isotopes used in the jump bridge networks. Those freighters will need to be protected. Miners need to be protected. You need a whole ecosystem for industrialists, and the first reactions I've had is that the pvp heavy alliances will have none of that. They'll just increase the cost for renters.

So, I see lots of drama ahead. Which is good. It means more isk to me.

CCP FoxFour: "... the what button... oh god I didn't even know that existed. BRB."

My little youtube videos can be found here

Black Death Jasmine
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#11 - 2013-05-05 04:31:41 UTC
Kharamete wrote:
Tank Talbot wrote:

Interestingly enough, with the HBC / TEST issues this audio chat from their leadership was pointed out and during the latter conversation after the announcements they talk in detail about how the upcoming changes are affecting them, and the potential need to create or hire their own mining and industrial corps for battleships etc. Looks like some null powers are indeed worried. Zydrine and Nocxium were mentioned too.


In addition to that podcast/chat/sota I've had two other heavily industrialised friends complain that their alliance leadership basically has told them to sod off when they've asked for more consideration for the increased logistical needs, the increased mining, and the need for more protection.

So, I see lots of drama ahead. Which is good. It means more isk to me.


I was just removed from an Alliance for voicing similar concerns. The people who aren't dynamic and unwilling to change will quickly collapse. Currently their Jump Freighter routes take them 4-5 jumps to Jita, and 2-3 from Rens. They often ship things back and forth. With the speculation of Topes going through the roof, I'm pretty sure that Alliance is going to starve itself out in a week, lol.

Probably doesn't help I keep "adjusting" their ice market.

Forever T-Ara LeeSsang ♥ Waffles♥

Carniflex
StarHunt
Mordus Angels
#12 - 2013-05-07 11:31:47 UTC
Black Death Jasmine wrote:
Kharamete wrote:
Tank Talbot wrote:

Interestingly enough, with the HBC / TEST issues this audio chat from their leadership was pointed out and during the latter conversation after the announcements they talk in detail about how the upcoming changes are affecting them, and the potential need to create or hire their own mining and industrial corps for battleships etc. Looks like some null powers are indeed worried. Zydrine and Nocxium were mentioned too.


In addition to that podcast/chat/sota I've had two other heavily industrialised friends complain that their alliance leadership basically has told them to sod off when they've asked for more consideration for the increased logistical needs, the increased mining, and the need for more protection.

So, I see lots of drama ahead. Which is good. It means more isk to me.


I was just removed from an Alliance for voicing similar concerns. The people who aren't dynamic and unwilling to change will quickly collapse. Currently their Jump Freighter routes take them 4-5 jumps to Jita, and 2-3 from Rens. They often ship things back and forth. With the speculation of Topes going through the roof, I'm pretty sure that Alliance is going to starve itself out in a week, lol.

Probably doesn't help I keep "adjusting" their ice market.


I think its more likely that "excess" empire towers will shut down than that the null sec alliances cant afford to JF around the stuff. While inconvinient the isotope prices even excess of 2000 isk / unit are not sufficient to bankrupt your average null sec alliance which happens to be in control of the moons in its territory. What can and will, probably, happen with that excessive ice price is ofc taking down the POS towers on moons that are not worth it and are not there for some strategic reason like cyno gen, jump bridge or such.

With the 30 ly distance (fairly deep null, should be reasonably average for the null sec regions) a Rhea burns approx 30k isotopes (5-5-4 skills). So the fuel costs would be:
(1) 350 isk / unit - 10.5 mil isk - ~29 isk / m3
(2) 700 isk / unit - 21.0 mil isk - ~57.5 isk / m3
(3) 1400 isk / unit - 42. mil isk - ~115 isk / m3
(4) 2800 isk / unit - 84. mil isk - ~230 isk / m3

Ofc for the trip to there and back you will need to double the cost per m3 but it stands to reason these freighters would not be returning back to empire empty. Moon goo, PI materials, ice products, loot and salvage etc. can be dragged back to Jita for sale. With the increase in manufacturing slots you can now build the hulls locally from imported minerals. A Titans worth of minerals can be moved in approx three jump freighter loads with the right mix of compressed goods. 425 mm rails are just one of the most popular ones but there are items that can reach even slightly higher compression ratios. Tahyion beams, for example, reach 1:30 compression ratio last I looked.

Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.

Drachiel
Mercury LLC
#13 - 2013-05-09 04:06:58 UTC
I'm foreseeing lower demand in the hisec hubs because of the outpost changes. Sure we already had POS indy but now outposts won't be complete **** for building ships.