These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Is PVP becoming too expensive?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Danny John-Peter
The Congregation
RAPID HEAVY ROPERS
#41 - 2013-09-24 07:44:50 UTC
Garviel Tarrant wrote:
Large Collidable Object wrote:
Pvp has become cheaper.

During the recent rebalance, CCP opted to nerf anything that requires SP into the ground whilst buffing everything else (or give T2 entireley useless 'bufffs' like the MWD sig bonus on HACs, which will only help them against BS, but nothing else).


BS just got shuffled around instead of receiving a long-required buff, whereas T1 friugs and cruisers got buffed into oblivion.

Most likely, that's due to CCP not understanding their own tracking formula and constantly underrating mobility for years now.

I for once only undock my noob alt in frigs, destroyers and T1 cruisers, as they're grossly overpowered in terms of 'bang for the buck' whereas I'm about to unsub or even sell my 100+ mill SP characters.


Quite sure buffed into oblivion is a contradiction


Probably but he has a valid point.

Thanks to the T1 Frigate/Cruiser buff you can get so much for so little, T1 Frigates are in just the right place now and T1 cruisers were arguably overbuffed particularly in terms of mobility.
Valleria Darkmoon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#42 - 2013-09-24 09:36:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Valleria Darkmoon
Battle BV Master wrote:

Battleship prices have gone slightly up? Slightly? Really?

My first Domi (late 2010 aka a time period you also played in) cost me 59mil (that was market price in Jita, not a friend of a friend deal) Now they are 145mil.

Using rough math a Domi has gone up 2,5 times in price since I started playing. A Plex hasnt even doubled...

So if PLEX is a yardstick, then I'd say prices of Battleships have gone (way) up since I started playing.

The following is a quote from Kil2 in features and ideas regarding battleship build costs when T1 Battleships were rebalanced as lower tier ships used to require less materials to build than their higher tier counterparts:

-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')

EDIT: In the post I wrote before which the forum ate, I pointed out that Tritanium has dropped from ~6.1 ISK/unit 6 months ago to ~4.5 ISK/unit today, which will drive construction costs down. The Abaddon was selling for 239 mil 6 months ago and now is selling for 187 mil (Heimatar). So the drop in price is roughly consistent with the drop in the price of the building materials. Hence prices of ships is dropping. Meanwhile the increase in former non-tier 3 battleship prices is explicable.

So your Dominix increasing in price by that amount should have been explained to you and should have been expected. Its price went up because it now takes more materials to build it than it did before, hence the player building it would have to take a substantial loss to sell it to you at the old price. This is also why I used the Abaddon as my measuring stick in my previous post as its price (being and old tier 3) was not expected to change very dramatically and so it would provide the best method for determining the actual trend in ship prices. The Abaddon has dropped in price in the last 6 months as has the price of Tritanium, so if you check the Rokh, Hyperion and Maelstrom I suspect this trend will hold. The Dominix is particularly expensive of late as it has been in high demand, competition between buyers naturally drives up prices.

Reality has an almost infinite capacity to resist oversimplification.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#43 - 2013-09-24 09:49:19 UTC
Large Collidable Object wrote:
Pvp has become cheaper.

During the recent rebalance, CCP opted to nerf anything that requires SP into the ground whilst buffing everything else (or give T2 entireley useless 'bufffs' like the MWD sig bonus on HACs, which will only help them against BS, but nothing else).


BS just got shuffled around instead of receiving a long-required buff, whereas T1 friugs and cruisers got buffed into oblivion.

Most likely, that's due to CCP not understanding their own tracking formula and constantly underrating mobility for years now.

I for once only undock my noob alt in frigs, destroyers and T1 cruisers, as they're grossly overpowered in terms of 'bang for the buck' whereas I'm about to unsub or even sell my 100+ mill SP characters.


BS just got "shuffled around" did they? Looked to me like a number of little-used BS (Hype, Mega, Raven etc) are suddenyl very viable indeed, rather than being utter jokes. I guess you could call that shuffling if you were determined not to like having an increased number of usable battleships.

Can you name a HAC that didn't get made better than it was before?

Honestly, it's like you people rejoice in not having an attention span or even basic reasoning ability.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
#44 - 2013-09-24 11:08:29 UTC
Large Collidable Object wrote:

During the recent rebalance, CCP opted to nerf anything that requires SP into the ground whilst buffing everything else (or give T2 entireley useless 'bufffs' like the MWD sig bonus on HACs, which will only help them against BS, but nothing else).


So you didn't notice the perma-mwd-vagabond/cerberus by default? Not recognized that your cerb runs at 400dps using rapid lights? Or that they are all quite a bit faster? That they actually are heavy tanked, rather sluggish tech-1 cruisers on steroids? ...

Large Collidable Object wrote:

BS just got shuffled around instead of receiving a long-required buff, whereas T1 friugs and cruisers got buffed into oblivion.

Most likely, that's due to CCP not understanding their own tracking formula and constantly underrating mobility for years now.

I for once only undock my noob alt in frigs, destroyers and T1 cruisers, as they're grossly overpowered in terms of 'bang for the buck' whereas I'm about to unsub or even sell my 100+ mill SP characters.


When I started this game, there were like three BS I would've considered training for, being the megathron as the gallentean one, the maelstrom if minmatar, or the rokh for caldari - amarr BSs were different shades of yellow and all good, and I disliked them all for being amarr. So out of 9 ships, 3 were remotely attractive as a pvp-ship for when you lost only a bunch of frigs/dessis yet. With the rebalance, I finally started training for gallente battleships, cause Domi is quite nice, megathron (and navy mega/vindicator/kronos it leads to) looks wonderful and the hyperion I am actually flying already, having great fun. They weren't shuffled around, would rather say *diversified* as there are actually more viable niches as compared to before, even though they look extremely similiar with minor differences on paper.

I highly doubt it's about bang for the buck. Eve is to my knowledge more a x-people against y*x-people game (y is something between 0 and blob), where T1 tends to lose to T2 with similiar numbers pretty badly. Rush 10 cerbs/zealots with t2 logi into 15 T1 cruisers/battleships plus T1 logi... There is a difference.

Or be like some more experienced lowsec-people and run 10 CS with a couple guards or an archon into 100s of brave newbies and die eventually as you run out of ammo <.<

T1 is good bang for the buck, but you still notice that you're flying a 7mil T1 hull.
Aivo Dresden
State War Academy
Caldari State
#45 - 2013-09-24 11:14:39 UTC
PvP in frigs and cruisers is great fun now. And cheap too! :D
Mra Rednu
Oyonata Gate Defence Force.
#46 - 2013-09-24 11:33:22 UTC
Nova Satar wrote:
So do you believe 300mil per Rokh to be a fair price? For their purpose, their life, and how they come to an end, do you think 300mil is a fair cost?

i don't




I do.
Nova Satar
Pator Tech School
#47 - 2013-09-24 12:12:40 UTC
That Seems Legit wrote:
1. CCP don't influence prices we do, take off your tinfoil hat.

2. Stop being poor and learn how to make isk in game.


yeah ok lol

A patch comes out and doubles the mineral use for a BS for no apparent reason.... That's called influencing the price, and it's done to make people buy more plex for isk, or to sub more accounts for isk making. You think every price is determined purely by players just becuase ccp use the word sandbox in every other post. Take off your dunce hat.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#48 - 2013-09-24 12:47:57 UTC
Nova Satar wrote:

A patch comes out and doubles the mineral use for a BS for no apparent reason....


You have been given the reason. Not liking it is not the same as getting to say it doesn't exist.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#49 - 2013-09-24 13:25:24 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Nova Satar wrote:

i honestly don't believe you're that ignorant, just very naive

just to clarify though, you're saying we've got it good and everything is bout 400% cheaper than it should be?




I'm saying that you're making unsupported assertions and also you're using the rather low rhetorical trick of saying that "battleships are too expensive" without explaining what "not too expensive" or even "not expensive enough" would be.

I am providing data to the effect that relatively speaking battleships have been far more 'expensive' than they are now, using the only reliable metric of value that we have available (game time). It's scarcely disputable that the income of the average (median) EVE player in absolute ISK terms is much higher than it was in September 2006 (which is when I started playing).

Additionally, I flatly don't believe your claims that battleships aren't used in PvP and hardly ever die when they do, and I bet you don't either. I don't believe you're that ignorant either, just dishonest.

My personal experience totally contradicts that: not only are battleships once again the standard for fleets, they're used more than ever, and they die in large numbers tyvm. Looking at INIT's alliance killboard, with the campaign that conveniently started in 01.01.2013: http://killboard.the-initiative.com/?a=cc_detail&ctr_id=5 I see 1659 BS killed and 776 BS lost. That's just from one medium sized alliance. More to the point it shows more Battleships lost and killed than any other ship class.

You'll see a similar story in most PvP alliance killboards.

Furthermore, CCP have revitalised T1 cruisers and battlecruisers, giving players access to viable yet cheaper options if they feel that battleships are too expensive for their taste.


There is no denying that battleship are seeing PvP and in numbers. The dominix made it to the top 20 so it had to be used often. The important question is should they be used by small group/solo more or not? I don't think they should because in the end, they require support wich smaller gangs/solo can't provide. If they were able to support themself solo while also sporting a strong buffer tank, why would people fly anything else?

As long as they can be lost to much smaller ship, people won't want to field them without support. If they can't be lost to smaller ships, then it will be broken. I say leave them on fleet duty like they seem to be meant to be used or possibly as the one "flag ship" of a gang.
Velicitia
XS Tech
#50 - 2013-09-24 14:22:14 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:

There is no denying that battleship are seeing PvP and in numbers. The dominix made it to the top 20 so it had to be used often. The important question is should they be used by small group/solo more or not? I don't think they should because in the end, they require support wich smaller gangs/solo can't provide. If they were able to support themself solo while also sporting a strong buffer tank, why would people fly anything else?

As long as they can be lost to much smaller ship, people won't want to field them without support. If they can't be lost to smaller ships, then it will be broken. I say leave them on fleet duty like they seem to be meant to be used or possibly as the one "flag ship" of a gang.


Pretty much spot on here.

A smallish corp fielding 5 pilots (let's say) should only have like 1 BS, with the others being tackle (frig) and 3x cruiser (optional - 1x logi) or attack BC ... a full gang (10) could probably double everything and add in T2 stuff ('ceptors, falcon, etc.). Granted, this doesn't exactly scale ... but that's why alliances have multiple fleets going at once...

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Nova Satar
Pator Tech School
#51 - 2013-09-24 14:44:54 UTC
Velicitia wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:

There is no denying that battleship are seeing PvP and in numbers. The dominix made it to the top 20 so it had to be used often. The important question is should they be used by small group/solo more or not? I don't think they should because in the end, they require support wich smaller gangs/solo can't provide. If they were able to support themself solo while also sporting a strong buffer tank, why would people fly anything else?

As long as they can be lost to much smaller ship, people won't want to field them without support. If they can't be lost to smaller ships, then it will be broken. I say leave them on fleet duty like they seem to be meant to be used or possibly as the one "flag ship" of a gang.


Pretty much spot on here.

A smallish corp fielding 5 pilots (let's say) should only have like 1 BS, with the others being tackle (frig) and 3x cruiser (optional - 1x logi) or attack BC ... a full gang (10) could probably double everything and add in T2 stuff ('ceptors, falcon, etc.). Granted, this doesn't exactly scale ... but that's why alliances have multiple fleets going at once...


i give up lol
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#52 - 2013-09-24 16:34:15 UTC
Nova Satar wrote:

i give up lol



The time for giving up was before you clicked "post" to start this thread. Here's a tip, don't try to hide your opinon behind a question next time. "Is pvp becoming to expensive" would have better be titled "I THINK pvp is becoming to expensive".

And, frankly, your "question" was answered, it's not becoming to expensive for most other people, in fact, as has been stated, pvp is less expensive now than at almost any other point in EVE's history. Before Tiercide, Tech1 cruisers were only good for "lul, lets go die and pray we can kill even one tech 2 ship before we explode" roams and that's it.

Now, really really really cheap ships are useful in pvp. And isk making in EVE is so easy now (with military upgrades in null sec, factions warfare isk and LP, and high sec incursions) that in relative terms, the current battleships are less of an expense now than they were just last year.

The cost of pvp is fine. Sorry if you believe otherwise.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#53 - 2013-09-24 16:36:41 UTC
What you said:

Malcanis wrote:


You have been given the reason. Not liking it is not the same as getting to say it doesn't exist.


What some people actually think:

Malcanis wrote:


You have been given the reason. Not liking it is THE EXACT SAME THING as saying it doesn't exist, because it doesn't, because I don't like it, me me me me me me me.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#54 - 2013-09-24 16:47:31 UTC
Nova Satar wrote:
Velicitia wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
There is no denying that battleship are seeing PvP and in numbers. The dominix made it to the top 20 so it had to be used often. The important question is should they be used by small group/solo more or not? I don't think they should because in the end, they require support wich smaller gangs/solo can't provide. If they were able to support themself solo while also sporting a strong buffer tank, why would people fly anything else? As long as they can be lost to much smaller ship, people won't want to field them without support. If they can't be lost to smaller ships, then it will be broken. I say leave them on fleet duty like they seem to be meant to be used or possibly as the one "flag ship" of a gang.
Pretty much spot on here. A smallish corp fielding 5 pilots (let's say) should only have like 1 BS, with the others being tackle (frig) and 3x cruiser (optional - 1x logi) or attack BC ... a full gang (10) could probably double everything and add in T2 stuff ('ceptors, falcon, etc.). Granted, this doesn't exactly scale ... but that's why alliances have multiple fleets going at once...
i give up lol
You don't understand. The price of the ship is not the only reason why they are not fielded that often. No matter what price they would be, some ships of much lesser size would be able to out-turn thier guns so you lose your battleship to a frigate. People don't want to lose like that waiting for a frig to wittle down thier large buffer a few HP every seconds. They only ever shine when firing at the other rare solo battleship OR if you can provide the required support to amke them shine. Scramm/web frig and tracking link come to mind for example. Those are not price problems but number p
RavenPaine
RaVeN Alliance
#55 - 2013-09-24 17:23:24 UTC  |  Edited by: RavenPaine
I'm gonna start with a little back-history.

I'm an old time Battleship pilot. I loved the days where people would sit on gates with BS and BC fleets and lose them on a daily basis. Battleships were what players aspired to.
At one time, A Torp Raven cost about 120, fully fitted and insured, and Insurance payout was around 109 million. The loss was nothing, (you could cover it with any 2 missions) and on occasion you could find a Raven hull for 67 million, which made the eventual loss cost zero.

To be perfectly clear, I miss those days a LOT.

Plex just topped over 600 million ISK this week. So at 20 dollars U.S. after insurance and such, that's about 3 Battleships you could lose, maybe 4 or 5 depending on fit, for 20 bucks. Most minimum wage earners make that in 2 hours, and most entertainment will cost at least that per occurrence.
A Movie
Dinner out
Some drinks...like 3
etc.
Add gas or taxi and the cost doubles for almost any entertainment.

What my point is about, is peoples PERCEPTION of cost for Battleship PvP.
It may take several days to earn several million ISK in game, but lets face it, acquiring a BS isn't supposed to be a one day achievement.
Being able to work at McDonalds for 2 hours, and get 4 Battleships, starts to sound like a hell of a good deal at some point.

What I think has happened, is a large part of the player base doesn't want to earn ISK at all, and they don't want to pay RL Money for game stuff. So, they perceive that BS just cost too much. This promotes Cruiser and Frigate PvP, and hence the development of such hulls.

I'm not saying any of this is right or wrong, just pointing out the evolution of the game.
Again, I am sad about this evolvement. and what I might wish to change if I could, is peoples perception of Battleship cost.

Gotta cut this short for work... I had more to say, but I think too slow and type even slower..
(needsmorecoffee)
Large Collidable Object
morons.
#56 - 2013-09-24 23:52:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Large Collidable Object
Malcanis wrote:


BS just got "shuffled around" did they? Looked to me like a number of little-used BS (Hype, Mega, Raven etc) are suddenyl very viable indeed, rather than being utter jokes. I guess you could call that shuffling if you were determined not to like having an increased number of usable battleships.

Can you name a HAC that didn't get made better than it was before?

Honestly, it's like you people rejoice in not having an attention span or even basic reasoning ability.


Whereas I actually embraced T1 ship rebalance, I decided to not fly my higher skilled characters anymore until BS and T2 ships were buffed and used my noob alt instead. Neither T1 BS nor any T2 ship were buffed in remotely the same magnitude as T1 ships were.

Of course T1 BS were better balanced within their class after the buff, however their balance vs BCs and T1 cruisers and even frigs became a lot worse in terms of viability and cost-effectivity, whereas e.g. the Abaddon actually got worse overall.

Now I wouldn't have a problem with that if their building requirements would have been scaled down to somewhere in between Tier1/2 BS.

The same goes for HACs - I have no issues with them becoming a mediocre and more skill-intense variation of cruisers, but then, their manufacturing cost has to be brought down a lot at the same time.

According to some, isk is not a balancing factor (and I agree to some extent), but then, I personally can't see why I should use one of my HAC V characters if I can fit a Talos that is faster than their T2 cruiser counterparts whilst applying more damage at most ranges than the respective HAC could deal to itself, whilst being able to indefinetely kite them on my noob alt.

Paying 4x the price for a ship that requires longer training times and a more expensive clone whilst being outperformed in speed and damage by their T1 BC counterparts whereas the T1 BC gets full insurance payout and the T2 doesn't just appears somewhat unreasonable to me - and I didn't even start about Nomen vs Zealot (funny bit - you can actually catch an MWD Zealot with an OH AB Nomen and get under it's guns, because HACs base-speed is ridculously slow - and for a fraction of the price, smaller sig radius, better cap-stability, a free drone bay and slightly worse resists) ... but maybe that's just because I'm a moron...
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
Veritaal
Veri-Tech Tax Haven
#57 - 2013-09-25 01:52:25 UTC
PVP is only expensive if you want it to be.

T1 cruiser and frigate hulls are very effective in capable hands and very cheap to lose in the process. Making them very attractive for PVP purposes.

T2/T3 and battleships are even more so, but their effectiveness comes at a price. Plus, they tend to get targeted due to that fact.

For example, I went on a roam that consisted of 2 RF Firetails and 1 Thorax. Grand total cost for our fleet : less than 100M. We ended up blapping a 140M Ishkur, 2 haulers (one was carrying several Harpys and a Purifier Pirate), and almost got a Pilgrim, but it lit a covert cyno and we had to run from the BlOpses that came in. We lost 1 firetail.

So that day, PVP was very expensive for the people who decided to bring out their shiny guns.
Camper101
State War Academy
Caldari State
#58 - 2013-09-25 09:45:41 UTC
It all comes down to Eve's basic rule.

If you can't afford to replace it - don't undock it.

If you can't afford to lose a couple of BS you should stay away from them until you find proper ways to earn ISK.

2013.03.01 13:30:58 notify For participating in the General Discussion Forum Section your trustworthiness has been adjusted by -2.5000.

My name is Hans. The "L" stands for danger.
Nova Satar
Pator Tech School
#59 - 2013-09-25 10:27:10 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Nova Satar wrote:

i give up lol



The time for giving up was before you clicked "post" to start this thread. Here's a tip, don't try to hide your opinon behind a question next time. "Is pvp becoming to expensive" would have better be titled "I THINK pvp is becoming to expensive".

And, frankly, your "question" was answered, it's not becoming to expensive for most other people, in fact, as has been stated, pvp is less expensive now than at almost any other point in EVE's history. Before Tiercide, Tech1 cruisers were only good for "lul, lets go die and pray we can kill even one tech 2 ship before we explode" roams and that's it.

Now, really really really cheap ships are useful in pvp. And isk making in EVE is so easy now (with military upgrades in null sec, factions warfare isk and LP, and high sec incursions) that in relative terms, the current battleships are less of an expense now than they were just last year.

The cost of pvp is fine. Sorry if you believe otherwise.


My question and opinion have both been stated very clearly, so thanks for the tip but i think i'll stick to taking them from people who have even the remotest of clues about the topic in question. E.G Not you

Yes, the question was answered by one person and his opinion, which i respect, but that's not how a forum works. You don;t close a thread once one guy replies/

Yes i know there are cheap ships, again this was not the point.

No, Battleships are not cheaper than they were a year ago.
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#60 - 2013-09-25 11:16:19 UTC
Nova Satar wrote:


My question and opinion have both been stated very clearly, so thanks for the tip but i think i'll stick to taking them from people who have even the remotest of clues about the topic in question. E.G Not you


Pretty much everyone that replied to your post tried to explain how you were incorrect. They took the time to explain why you were incorrect but you refused to listen. You're right and everyone else is wrong Roll