Player Features and Ideas Discussion

The material cost alone for citadel and EC rigs is completely out to lunch. For example, an Azbel costs about 3.9B in materials (from components, at the time of writing) and a T1 manufacturing rig for it costs 3.8B in materials. Comparable to a Fortizar, which costs 9.9B in materials and a T1 rig for it costs 2.6B in materials. Or even T1 ship rigs whose build cost is significantly lower than the build cost for the hull (even though that's not the greatest of comparisons because it's ships vs structures).This is exasperated by the fact that engineering complex rig bonuses are extremely granular.

Clearly this is by design and not a market forces effect or else we'd be seeing comparable rig build costs across the board.

I propose that the material requirements for engineering complex rigs should be lowered by ~30% to bring the build quantities more in line with that of the citadel rigs.

(Estimates sourced from eve-industry.org)

Edit, since I think my post is being misunderstood:

Example:

Large EC : Standup L-Set Manufacturing rig 1:1
Large Citadeal : Standup L-Set Defense rig 4:1
Battleship : T1 Engineering rig 8:1
Carrier : T1 Armour rig 30:1

This ratio can't be fixed by raising/lower the price of salvage because that would affect all in-game rigs, it needs to be fixed by lower the materials needed for the EC rigs.

I think that intended.

I think my post is being misunderstood, it's not the absolute cost I am worried about, it's the relative cost of the rigs vs EC's, and the cost ratios of rigs vs stuff you put rigs on (ex. rigs vs citadel cost, rig vs ship cost) which is more important I think. A big crash in salvage prices might fix the rig vs EC cost but the rigs vs cost of other stuff you put rigs on costs will be an even worse comparison. Also talking mostly about materials costs rather than ISK costs.

Example:

Large EC : Standup L-Set Manufacturing rig 1:1
Large Citadeal : Standup L-Set Defense rig 4:1
Battleship : T1 Engineering rig 8:1
Carrier : T1 Armour rig 30:1

This ratio can't be fixed by raising/lower the price of salvage because that would affect all in-game rigs, it needs to be fixed by lower the materials needed for the EC rigs.

You're not wrong. That's exactly how I would determine if I wanted to buy those rigs or not.

I hope to pin something of value to this excellent observation, JO. Most build requirements for citadels did not take harvest time into account but rather the likelihood of affecting the market (can't source it here, have to go to Jita).

There's a spectrum far from Goldilocks with regards to movement of materials upon acquisition: market entities' resolve to keep what they mine rather than sell it. I have built jump freighters that took far beyond blueprint spec in time and materials. Every five to six jumps; roughly 10 minutes; I hazarded 77mm equivalent, far more ISK / hr than a single toon can grind effectively for any sense of continuity of contract... unless you're Perry Swift's alt.

Kidding aside we can't expect any top-level change. What has to happen is two-fold:

Supply
1) Facilitating the discovery, aggression and salvage of rival citadels: loot must exceed the sunk ISK / m3 with respect to wardec (empire space ops) and ship replacement (null fleets). Pool that as a corporation until rig blueprint copies can commence.

Deterrence
2) Listing excess rigs on the market given reduced haul risk and portability (blueprint pass-through in Engineering Complexes kicks out additional m3 from the raw pile like a Tsiolkovsky at L3). We looted you, but you can rebuild too! Finding the right ISK / m3 again.

Keep elaborating on your idea OP, and thanks for contributing to the forums. o7

Totally Agree

The High Amount of Materials Needet are to increase the Value of Salvage, and so, make Salvaging more Attractive.
Lowering the Costs could revoke that Effect again.

Don't even look at T2 XL rigs, some cost ~200bil. Makes 3bil look downright affordable.

A Astrahus costs at the Moment in Jita around about 1Billon Isk without Modules and Fitting. You say me that a HighSec Corp can't Afford making 1 Billion???
Fortizars and Keepstars are more for LowSec/Null Sec and WH Space, were the People do need bigger Structures and have the Money to Aquire them.
I don't See any Reasons why a Corp/Alliance, that only Operates in High Sec, would need a Keepstar. If they can Afford it though, then go ahead and Build one ;)


As for the Costs of the XL T2 Rigs, i was lookin for the Build Prices and yea, i think they might be a bit to high. A bit of Tweeking could be done by CCP, although i think that they have more data about how much Salvage is moved on the Market. Lowering the required Materials around 15% could help though, IMHO

I have 5 T2 and 3 T1 medium rigs in space. It's not an ideal setup; one of the T2s is redundant. I'll probably end up seeing about selling one of the structures off. But do I consider the whole thing worthwhile? Clearly, yes. If you don't, don't drop a damn structure, or at least don't rig it. I'd say the cost is actually a reasonable deterrent to the proliferation of redundant structures.

they ate meant to replace outpost upgrades if anything they are on the cheap side


My only issue is they caused capital rigs to spike