These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Carrier BPO Changes - What was the reason why?

First post
Author
Sarkyn
Ardent Spirits
#1 - 2011-11-29 23:06:29 UTC
So, as a producer of Carriers, I logged on and first thing I checked was the carrier BPOs.

I see quite seemingly random fluctuations in the component ingredients. I will need to sit down and work out what the cost change is, but overall, carriers will go up in price.

So I have to ask - what was the reason for this?

Why change what it takes to make a carrier? Why make them more expensive?
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#2 - 2011-11-29 23:13:37 UTC
Sarkyn wrote:
So, as a producer of Carriers, I logged on and first thing I checked was the carrier BPOs.

I see quite seemingly random fluctuations in the component ingredients. I will need to sit down and work out what the cost change is, but overall, carriers will go up in price.

So I have to ask - what was the reason for this?

Why change what it takes to make a carrier? Why make them more expensive?


This was in the patch notes, it is because dreads had their capital drone bay components removed.

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog

Sarkyn
Ardent Spirits
#3 - 2011-11-29 23:15:42 UTC
Two step wrote:


This was in the patch notes, it is because dreads had their capital drone bay components removed.


I absolutely fail to see how this is related.

BECAUSE they've made dreads cheaper they needed to make carriers more expensive?

That's like saying "We made Battlecruisers more expensive, so Shuttles are cheaper now"
Buruk Utama
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#4 - 2011-11-29 23:39:36 UTC
They did more than remove the bay on dreads they also tinkered with the overall components and cost for both carriers and supers due to the drone changes. Before claiming the carriers are going up in price for no reason also ensure that the dreads, supers and others that were changed are not also going up in price in a similar fashion. Until confirmed one way or another, is not an issue.
Sarkyn
Ardent Spirits
#5 - 2011-11-29 23:44:33 UTC
Carriers are going up in price.

More components in the carrier = more minerals in the carrier = more base cost.

There's no comparison to be made, a carrier build today is more expensive than a carrier built before the patch.

I don't see any reason why carriers input components has anything to do with balance changes.

The ships were rebalanced for COMBAT, not COST.

Buruk Utama
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#6 - 2011-11-29 23:54:32 UTC
Sarkyn wrote:
Carriers are going up in price.

More components in the carrier = more minerals in the carrier = more base cost.

There's no comparison to be made, a carrier build today is more expensive than a carrier built before the patch.

I don't see any reason why carriers input components has anything to do with balance changes.

The ships were rebalanced for COMBAT, not COST.



Again most cap ships were reconfigured. If all cap ships went up in price for whatever reason you really have no legs to stand on. Also this change was disclosed long ago, why are you now just getting around to seeing it?
Sarkyn
Ardent Spirits
#7 - 2011-11-30 00:02:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Sarkyn
Buruk Utama wrote:
Sarkyn wrote:
Carriers are going up in price.

More components in the carrier = more minerals in the carrier = more base cost.

There's no comparison to be made, a carrier build today is more expensive than a carrier built before the patch.

I don't see any reason why carriers input components has anything to do with balance changes.

The ships were rebalanced for COMBAT, not COST.



Again most cap ships were reconfigured. If all cap ships went up in price for whatever reason you really have no legs to stand on. Also this change was disclosed long ago, why are you now just getting around to seeing it?


Okay, let me clear you up. You're not getting what I'm saying.

2 Things:

1) Carriers were not "reconfigured". Supers and dreads were, carriers were not changed.

2) The "parts" does not add up to match the "reconfiguration" for carriers.

Supers and Dreads were made cheaper. This was because they dreads longer have drone bays (so we don't have to build those drone bays, so they're cheaper). And Supers were reduced in Drone Bay size.

For Dreads, No Drone Bay = Less parts = less costs = cheaper.
^ This makes sense.

Carriers were made more expensive. They now require more Drone Bay components. But (see 1) they did not get any changes to their drone bays.

For Carriers, Same Drone = More Parts = more costs = more expensive.
^ This does not make sense.



Edit, actually, now I think about it, the changes to Supers make no sense either.

They reduced the size of the SuperCarrier Drone bay, but increased the number of Drone Bay components.

There just seems to be no reason for these arbitrary cost changes, and it's small "unimportant" tweaks like this that will cause the market to react.

All carriers, which are usually people's first capital ship, are going to go up in price. There just seems no reasoning behind this rebalance.

If a CCP employee comes here and says "We thought carriers were too cheap, so we changed it." That'd be fine. I'd accept it.
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
#8 - 2011-11-30 00:10:21 UTC
Did you take into consideration that the prices on drone bay components might fall due to a lesser demand ?
mkint
#9 - 2011-11-30 00:12:17 UTC
You're missing the part where it uses different parts but the same minerals. At least that's what the notes said. Never saw those changes mentioned by any dev elsewhere. Seems stupid to change build requirements of regular carriers since there were no other changes to justify it.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.

Sarkyn
Ardent Spirits
#10 - 2011-11-30 00:12:40 UTC
Sheynan wrote:
Did you take into consideration that the prices on drone bay components might fall due to a lesser demand ?


Yes, and this would be utterly inconsequential compared to the overall mineral cost increase.

The parts are not unique. They're all made from base minerals. So there's no chain of supply and demand to support other than pure mineral miners. As a long-standing carrier builder, I don't care how many of each part go in. I care about total overall cost of carrier.
Sarkyn
Ardent Spirits
#11 - 2011-11-30 00:16:45 UTC
mkint wrote:
You're missing the part where it uses different parts but the same minerals. At least that's what the notes said. Never saw those changes mentioned by any dev elsewhere. Seems stupid to change build requirements of regular carriers since there were no other changes to justify it.


They aren't using the same minerals.

The parts go up by 7, but down only by 2.


Zions Child
Higashikata Industries
#12 - 2011-11-30 00:21:32 UTC
The gist of it is: You haven't read the patch notes and are making assumptions. Many things have changed. In a month, the market will fix itself, and then we can determine whether or not carriers are more expensive or cheaper. Right now you're being an idiot.
Soon Shin
Scarlet Weather Rhapsody
#13 - 2011-11-30 00:33:23 UTC
So is CCP increasing certain components of a carrier while at the same time decreasing other components? Or are they just increasing the components needed for no reason?

I fail to see why they should increase the cost of building a carrier since nothing has been changed with it. They shouldn't even be doing it if they are not changing the stats of the carrier.

I fail to see why supercarriers or carrier should need more capital drone bay when they are not getting an increase in drone bay capacity.

Their logic makes no sense and the changes should be reverted.
Sarkyn
Ardent Spirits
#14 - 2011-11-30 08:53:15 UTC
Soon Shin wrote:

I fail to see why they should increase the cost of building a carrier since nothing has been changed with it. They shouldn't even be doing it if they are not changing the stats of the carrier.

I fail to see why supercarriers or carrier should need more capital drone bay when they are not getting an increase in drone bay capacity.

Their logic makes no sense and the changes should be reverted.


^ that.
Nomad I
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#15 - 2011-11-30 08:58:41 UTC
CCP is failing again.
Vernn Miller
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#16 - 2011-11-30 09:04:17 UTC
Ohnoes the game is changing but I want things to still be what I want them to be!

[i]How many Caldari does it take to screw in a light bulb? - None. Caldari do not screw, they are grown in factories.[/i]

Daedalus II
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2011-11-30 09:24:37 UTC
I also wondered about this when the patch notes arrived. The only thing I could justify it with was that CCP wants to keep the general material flow in the game the same. So while the producers of the ships will get new and sometimes illogical changes to what is needed, those who produce for example Drone Bays would still have the same demand, although from a different source, keeping the prices stable.

Personally I think it feels like a pretty haphazard change, but it's possible CCP actually put some thought behind it (although I doubt it).
Mnengli Noiliffe
Doomheim
#18 - 2011-11-30 09:36:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Mnengli Noiliffe
how I understood this change:

basically since dreads and titans have their drone components removed, leaving carriers as is would reduce the requirement for the capital drone components which would affect the market how CCP did not want it to be affected. as to why, it is highly speculative topic.

so to leave the demand for capital drone components about the same as it is now, they increased those component requirements in the remaining cap ships that still need those components.
Arttemis Prime
Financial tracking 01
#19 - 2011-11-30 09:51:12 UTC
More drone bays is a good thing, why, because it doesnt devalue a Drone Bay BPO, bare in mind that in a single patch that BPO became useless on 13 different ships, and was a huuuuge part of building a Supercarrier, infact ide go so far as to say, Drone Bay BPOs are the most bought of all the Capital BPOs, so this just, saves the market so to speak.

As for whining about it, profit from it, you can see Carriers will rise in price, so build and store as many as possible, buy them cheap and sell them in a few weeks time Big smile
DocDoo
BIG
#20 - 2011-11-30 10:28:01 UTC
umm as a long time capital producer
I'd just like to point out to the OP
capital BPO's have been changed in the past,
and the fiddling of a few carriers comps is not the smallest change that has happened.
in fact Dreads, carriers , supers and titans all have been nobbled - so please go and adjust your spreadsheets ...
12Next page