Player Features and Ideas Discussion

yes, but only if you are willing to w8 until the market adjust the prices

I can pretty well gurantee that these ships will be used extensively. Some of these changes are absolutely fantastic, to the point of being imbalanced. Some of these ships will be absolutely worth their weight in gold, and given that they will still be cheaper to buy and explode then a hac I cannot even begin to understand what all this sperge is about. If the people here even bothered to eft the potential fits for these ships they'd be blown away by how great these ships are. To put it into context, the increased hull cost will be roughly the cost of 1 drake hull.

Whole coalitions like cfc, hbc, n3 have a wide array of battleship fleet concepts designed around tier3 bs like rokhs, maels and abaddons and that some of these upgraded tier2 and tier1 bs will be even better then their tier 3 counterparts, I have no doubt that this will not impact nullsec blobbers in the least bit. To say nothing of alliances like fa, razor, AAA (back when they existed) etc. flying lokis or tengus or hbc flying navy apocs etc. ISK is clearly not an issue for people with sov.

For people who aren't funded by renting or tech or r64's post-patch, the additional cost will be the cost of a drake hull, which again is very minimal. If you cannot afford a drake hull, then the proposed mineral changes have absolutely no impact on your ability to afford a bs, regardless of what tier it is, because you cannot afford it anyways.

This whole thread is a bunch of spergy retards dramatically over-reacting to a very small change, which won't honestly affect the vast majority of people given that for sov alliances, they will probably fund you getting into these ships and for non-sov entities you can make an easy 200-300mil/hour in wh's, lowsec FW, 0.0 missions, incursions etc.

you may laugh now but just wait.

It will be the phoon. The changes made it a superior missile ship in every way including dps.

Despite whatever changes you make the tier 3 battleships are always going to be better based on the bonus's they have (ie tank and damage). The other bonus's are not going to have much effect on the use of Tier 1.s and 2s outside marginal roles.

-In PVP people go for the ship with the best tank and damage.

-In PVE people go for the ship with the best tank and damage.

Just to make this clearer
-Bonus's to application of damage in exchange for a loss of tank bonus = marginal role

Battleships are no longer the ship of choice for major battles they once were.

-In fleets Battleships are bricks that's all, then once the slowcats and blap dreads drop they are dead bricks.

-T1 Battleships in fleets are outclassed by most other similar priced ships in EVE and 'attack' battlecruisers are half the cost of today's tier3 and more mobile, for PVP to be honest is worth more in most situations.

- Today some of the tier 1 and 2 battleships offer some interesting possibilities and given that they are around or less then 100mil it is not too much to ask to fork out given they will probably die.

So the point? What would I like to see?
-I would like to see mineral price remain as is, why change it beyond this wish to create balance when one does not exist?

One battleship from each race has
'ship of the line'
'mainstay of fleet'
'specialised support/older cost effective ship'

Each with a different mineral cost and role what is wrong with this? Balancing? screw balance.. they need unique roles not an imposed balance that means nothing to us. Every battleship type should be relevant and have a number of roles within PVP as well as PVE.

I liked the micro jump drives on battleships and I would like to see more battleship based modules aiding mobility or trading mobility for survivability/damage for limited durations. There needs to be a counter to massed fleets of capitals beyond other capitals (yea PL batphone *cough*), a battleship module that aids in this but restricts the use of the battleship to just this role would also be welcome.

Considering BCs get nearly equal damage performance already with cruiser weapons, the problem is in battleships themselves, not in ABCs. Too little gank and tank for all their drawbacks, now we can add cost to that list.

Depending on where you want to take the Navy hulls, wouldn't a price closer to current tier2's (around 150M I think) be more appropriate?

Navy market is rock bottom, has been for 2+ years and will probably not change any time soon. For a mere x2 ISK one can get bling instead of T1 in some cases when it should be at least x3-4 .. provided navy gets the same bump as T1 has gotten then double cost will be a no brainer for competitive pew.

In short: 200M+ will never fly the way the game is now. BS have been hard hard over the years (probing etc.) with ABC's finally putting them out of their misery .. if you intend for them to be used despite their size dictated inhibitions then the pricing must be competitive or the benefits of choosing them substantial (read: MOAR!).

Me. I would even pay 750 mil for it as long as it is the only ECM Battleship.

yeah there will allways be noobs who will buy the ship doesnt matter how costly or how ****** it is

You are literally throwing your ISK into a blender here. Blackbirds will get the job done better for much cheaper, and you can lose way more of them for the same price as a Scorpion (which in it's current form is easily the biggest joke in EVE next to the Raven, in my opinion).