These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Naomi Knight
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#201 - 2013-05-04 10:03:12 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Roime wrote:


Fact: I won't be flying tier 1 or 2 battleships after Odyssey, their poor performance won't justify the huge ISK loss on the killboard



Do you honestly let "killboard stats" dictate your playstyle?

Really?



wow

yup most people do that
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#202 - 2013-05-04 10:11:34 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Roime wrote:


Fact: I won't be flying tier 1 or 2 battleships after Odyssey, their poor performance won't justify the huge ISK loss on the killboard



Do you honestly let "killboard stats" dictate your playstyle?

Really?



wow


What else? ISK in itself is meaningless, it's an endless resource that literally grows in the trees in this game. The only value ISK holds is on the killboard.

When you fly solo and small gang you will lose ships, and the cost of those ships has a big effect on your efficiency, especially when you are not pulling in hundreds of kills every month.

Anyway, the point is about value for money, how you value the money is not important- battleships don't have properties that would justify their value. Cheaper or same price ships are simply better.


.
Super spikinator
Hegemonous Conscripts
#203 - 2013-05-04 10:14:27 UTC
Aducat Ragnarson wrote:
ITT:

CCP: 'BS's will get an increase in buildcost of approximately 40mil isk'

Former T1 BS 2 days ago: 90-130mil

Playerbase: 'Waaaaaah! My [former T1 BS] will cost 250million!'

90 to 130mil, 40mil increase -> 250mil

Solid mathskills...


40 million is what CCP is projecting. either based on mineral prices + mark up or possibly old trends. In addition I think this may be an estimate of what they will settle on, how long the market takes to settle on a price is a different matter.
Josilin du Guesclin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#204 - 2013-05-04 10:18:43 UTC
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:

How will this make sense? If you raise the prices on everything faction BSes like the navy typhoon will cost the same as a normal typhoon, pretty stupid if you ask me. Considering how some tier 1 or 2 ships haven't even changed much why would you increase the price by much?

A Typhoon costing the same as a Typhoon FI isn't that unreasonable - the new Typhoon is going to be a beast despite Torpedoes being fairly horrible.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#205 - 2013-05-04 12:01:34 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Aducat Ragnarson wrote:
ITT:

CCP: 'BS's will get an increase in buildcost of approximately 40mil isk'

Former T1 BS 2 days ago: 90-130mil

Playerbase: 'Waaaaaah! My [former T1 BS] will cost 250million!'

90 to 130mil, 40mil increase -> 250mil

Solid mathskills...


Speaking of....

40m average increase.

[backoftheenvelope]
Ignore races, and there are 3 Battleships.

T1: 100m becomes 100m+x
T2: 150m becomes 150m+y
T3: 240m becomes 240m+z


40m average increase = (x+y+z)/3

Assume z is 0. Because the post says t3s will stay about the same.

40=(x+y+0)/3

x+y=120

Now, for t1 BS to only go up by 40m, t2 would have to increase by 80m. I find that unlikely. I find it more likely that t1 increase by ~80m and t2 by ~40m.
[/backoftheenvelope]

So, roundabouts 200m per tier 1 or 2 battleship and 240m for tier 3s. Which is still a significant cost savings if you can run attack rather than combat (or combat rather than attack, I can't keep them straight).

"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
coeathal vega
Doomheim
#206 - 2013-05-04 12:08:31 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
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.


So , in other words, "we don't care what you think, but go ahead and post anyway. We won't change our mind".
CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
#207 - 2013-05-04 12:16:41 UTC
Hey guys - will try to get caught up on this today...

Quote:
So , in other words, "we don't care what you think, but go ahead and post anyway. We won't change our mind".


What I mean by this is more that - we had a good idea of what you would think, because many people internally felt the same way. We spent a lot of time talking with those people and trying to figure out if there was a different solution that fit our goals and also made them more comfortable. This is where we arrived.

@ccp_rise
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#208 - 2013-05-04 12:18:31 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Hey guys - will try to get caught up on this today...

Quote:
So , in other words, "we don't care what you think, but go ahead and post anyway. We won't change our mind".


What I mean by this is more that - we had a good idea of what you would think, because many people internally felt the same way. We spent a lot of time talking with those people and trying to figure out if there was a different solution that fit our goals and also made them more comfortable. This is where we arrived.


What so internally all the devs also felt the battleships weren't worth the increase too?

'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
#209 - 2013-05-04 12:25:25 UTC
No, but SOME devs were concerned that it was going to be too hard on players with less income.

As a result we spent quite a bit of time talking about how quickly we wanted BS to be accessible, and we also looked into metrics around player income in as much detail as possible. It was easy to establish that people simply have higher income than they used to across all character ages. With that information, everyone agreed this was the best way to move forward.

@ccp_rise
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#210 - 2013-05-04 12:28:30 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
No, but SOME devs were concerned that it was going to be too hard on players with less income.

As a result we spent quite a bit of time talking about how quickly we wanted BS to be accessible, and we also looked into metrics around player income in as much detail as possible. It was easy to establish that people simply have higher income than they used to across all character ages. With that information, everyone agreed this was the best way to move forward.


okay makes sense but do you also feel like most of the players that the battleships still aren't up to scratch for the price compared to how well the ABC's and bc's/navy bc's perform?

'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
#211 - 2013-05-04 12:41:43 UTC
Quote:
okay makes sense but do you also feel like most of the players that the battleships still aren't up to scratch for the price compared to how well the ABC's and bc's/navy bc's perform?


I really don't feel this way. As I said before, I think its really dangerous to think about performance relative to price. I can ask you maybe - if all ships cost the same amount, would BS be okay?

I know a lot of people feel ABC are too strong still, but that's its own issue which we are still watching.

@ccp_rise
Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#212 - 2013-05-04 12:46:02 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
okay makes sense but do you also feel like most of the players that the battleships still aren't up to scratch for the price compared to how well the ABC's and bc's/navy bc's perform?


I really don't feel this way. As I said before, I think its really dangerous to think about performance relative to price. I can ask you maybe - if all ships cost the same amount, would BS be okay?

I know a lot of people feel ABC are too strong still, but that's its own issue which we are still watching.


even if they all cost 200 mil basic thats before the 70mils worth of mods and rigs i would say some battleships really aren't worth the price...
Attack battleships are the weakest partly because ABC's and also because they aren't mobile enough/tanky enough for the price when you could get a navy bc for much less with better mobility.

So on ABC's any thoughts on making them T2 as they are specialists much like logistics are .. large mods on medium hull?

'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

Akiyo Mayaki
Perkone
Caldari State
#213 - 2013-05-04 12:46:10 UTC
At least buff the Raven just a little bit so the price will matter. It's not going to be sold.

No
Zimmy Zeta
Perkone
Caldari State
#214 - 2013-05-04 12:56:19 UTC
So, since the role "cheap, mass produced battleship with low entry barriers for highsec POS grinds" that was formerly filled by the Geddon will apparently no longer exist, what are your ideas for the future of highsec wars? ABCs?

I'd like to apologize for the poor quality of the post above and sincerely hope you didn't waste your time reading it. Yes, I do feel bad about it.
Jones Hawkwood
TOPKEK
#215 - 2013-05-04 13:15:53 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?



Won't the heavier building costs on T3 be compensated by a drop in mineral prices? That's what I think, at least.
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#216 - 2013-05-04 13:22:09 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
okay makes sense but do you also feel like most of the players that the battleships still aren't up to scratch for the price compared to how well the ABC's and bc's/navy bc's perform?


I really don't feel this way. As I said before, I think its really dangerous to think about performance relative to price. I can ask you maybe - if all ships cost the same amount, would BS be okay?

I know a lot of people feel ABC are too strong still, but that's its own issue which we are still watching.


You need to do more than just watch it. Even before the BS price increase, I was struggling to see the reasons to fly an attack BS over and ABC. The advantages in tank of an attack BS are simply not worth the loss of mobility; indeed, it's quite easy to argue that the ABCs are more survivable and hence "tankier" because they're so much mobile.

You've really got to go medieval on the ABCs to give attack BS a place in the game.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#217 - 2013-05-04 13:23:45 UTC
Roime wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Roime wrote:


Fact: I won't be flying tier 1 or 2 battleships after Odyssey, their poor performance won't justify the huge ISK loss on the killboard



Do you honestly let "killboard stats" dictate your playstyle?

Really?



wow


What else?


Some people have other goals.

So if CCP didn't give us killmails, you'd literally have nothing to play for?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#218 - 2013-05-04 13:25:33 UTC
Gypsio III wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
okay makes sense but do you also feel like most of the players that the battleships still aren't up to scratch for the price compared to how well the ABC's and bc's/navy bc's perform?


I really don't feel this way. As I said before, I think its really dangerous to think about performance relative to price. I can ask you maybe - if all ships cost the same amount, would BS be okay?

I know a lot of people feel ABC are too strong still, but that's its own issue which we are still watching.


You need to do more than just watch it. Even before the BS price increase, I was struggling to see the reasons to fly an attack BS over and ABC. The advantages in tank of an attack BS are simply not worth the loss of mobility; indeed, it's quite easy to argue that the ABCs are more survivable and hence "tankier" because they're so much mobile.

You've really got to go medieval on the ABCs to give attack BS a place in the game.


Scenario: A straight up fight between an equally sized Rokh Fleet and Naga fleet over some objective (breaking up a camp on a station, destroying a POS, whatever).

I can't see any plausible scenario where the Rokhs won't easily win.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#219 - 2013-05-04 13:28:20 UTC
Malcanis wrote:


Scenario: A straight up fight between an equally sized Rokh Fleet and Naga fleet over some objective (breaking up a camp on a station, destroying a POS, whatever).

I can't see any plausible scenario where the Rokhs won't easily win.


Agreed, although noting that the Rokh isn't an attack BS...P
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#220 - 2013-05-04 13:30:11 UTC
Akiyo Mayaki wrote:
At least buff the Raven just a little bit so the price will matter. It's not going to be sold.


why the new raven is like the old drake... its going to be great for blob fests in tidi... expect to see shield cruise/mjd raven comming to a battlefield near you.

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.