These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Syrias Bizniz
some random local shitlords
#281 - 2013-05-04 22:02:36 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Hello everyone!

The purpose of this post is to explain the last element of the battleship rebalance: build costs. We found that even internally this was a very sensitive subject, one which people had very strong feelings about, and so we spent a lot of time making sure that we went ahead with a good plan. 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.

Let me give you the 'what' first, then the 'why':

  • 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')

    • The reasons for the change are as follows:

    The primary goal of tiericide is to eliminate any explicit power difference between ships within a class. If the power within a class is more or less level across all ships (which it is after the rebalance), the price should also be level.

    So then, if prices are to be more level, where should this new price line be set? The obvious answer would be to just average the cost of all battleships and then set the prices at that average - top tier prices would come down, and bottom would go up. Unfortunately, with battleships, this was not possible. Top tier battleships represent an enormous amount of mineral consumption in EVE at their current costs. That means that lowering the cost of tier 3 battleships would have a recessionary effect on EVE's economy as mineral prices suffered.

    That means we are to have prices more equal, but also, we can't lower the prices of the top tier ships significantly. This felt a bit uncomfortable at first, causing certain Devs to say "OMGWTFZFBFBFBB!!" when they saw the proposal, but we looked into some metrics around player wealth and income and found that EVE players are making money faster and faster, and even new players should have no trouble enduring the bump in cost. On top of this, inflation provides room for cost increase as well.

    The result is that we all agree that this price increase should not hurt demand substantially, and reflects a more healthy overall design philosophy than the old tier system.

    Special Note: You will NOT be able to buy battleships now and then refine them for the increased cost after the changes go live. Like all previous tiericide changes we will use extra materials to implement this cost change.

    We hope you agree, and look forward to your feedback.

    CCP Rise





    Doesn't the adding of 'Extra Materials' also mean that a well researched BPO of the current Tier 1 / Tier 2 Battleships won't give the same benefits to production cost than a well researched Tier 3 BPO does?
    Alsyth
    #282 - 2013-05-04 23:26:28 UTC
    This change makes me glad I trained for all Command Ships and Strategic Cruisers and skipped battleships altogether. Is it a good thing though, I don't think so.
    mynnna
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #283 - 2013-05-04 23:28:56 UTC
    Gonna go ahead and make the ~bold prediction~ that despite the doomcrying in this thread this won't really affect how much BS are used on the whole at all. Might even increase it a bit.

    Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
    Smabs
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #284 - 2013-05-04 23:39:16 UTC
    You're right, although the t1 and t2 BS don't get used much now and I doubt they'll be used much in the future.
    Havegun Willtravel
    Mobile Alcohol Processing Units
    #285 - 2013-05-05 00:31:30 UTC
    Hi Rise,

    Sorry, but I have to seriously disagree with the logic and reasoning behind this.

    Hype used to be 220 unfit and wasn't very popular for alot of reasons. IMO It's vastly improved for Odyssey but if it stays at it's current price I'm doubtful you see many if any more used than currently. That's a failure.

    Overall if you don't see more BS being used you can't claim success, and if you add 20-40% to their build costs that's what's gonna happen.

    Attack & Disruption @ 100 mil, Combat 150-60'ish.

    Nerf the mat's for the Hype, Rokh, Babbon, and Mael.

    The only way this re-bal is successful is if you start to see ships that haven't been flown in years fielded in great numbers. You're shooting yourself in the foot if you start out by jacking the cost. Push it down and the market will hoard less but build more post patch ( will make all those new null slots seem like a blessing ).

    Aglais
    Ice-Storm
    #286 - 2013-05-05 00:51:59 UTC
    Havegun Willtravel wrote:
    Hi Rise,

    Sorry, but I have to seriously disagree with the logic and reasoning behind this.

    Hype used to be 220 unfit and wasn't very popular for alot of reasons. IMO It's vastly improved for Odyssey but if it stays at it's current price I'm doubtful you see many if any more used than currently. That's a failure.

    Overall if you don't see more BS being used you can't claim success, and if you add 20-40% to their build costs that's what's gonna happen.

    Attack & Disruption @ 100 mil, Combat 150-60'ish.

    Nerf the mat's for the Hype, Rokh, Babbon, and Mael.

    The only way this re-bal is successful is if you start to see ships that haven't been flown in years fielded in great numbers. You're shooting yourself in the foot if you start out by jacking the cost. Push it down and the market will hoard less but build more post patch ( will make all those new null slots seem like a blessing ).



    I do think that averaging them to a point somewhat below but still near the current tier 3 battleships would be the best idea, but I cannot personally even begin to imagine doing so until the myriad of problems with the Scorpion and Raven (Especially the Raven) are ironed out, because they aren't even worth their current prices with these changes.

    Nobody is going to look at the new Raven and say, "Hm, I think we should try to build a fleet doctrine out of this ship and make it widely used in nullsec", or "Hm, I think I could work with the Raven as a skirmisher battleship for small gangs in lowsec" or anything. They will look at it and think "This thing is way overpriced for slightly above battlecruiser tank, average weapons and 'speed' but no way of taking advantage of said 'speed', I think I'll go buy some ABCs instead".
    Sabriz Adoudel
    Move along there is nothing here
    #287 - 2013-05-05 01:02:43 UTC
    Zimmy Zeta wrote:
    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?


    This is why we need a highsec analogue of the Dreadnought, possibly as a tech 2 battleship hull.

    Think something like a Hyperion that can fit some new form of tactical reconfig module that prevents both local and remote repair and warping for 60 seconds and boosts damage output to large targets significantly.

    Until we have that, the Talos is your friend.

    I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
    Sabriz Adoudel
    Move along there is nothing here
    #288 - 2013-05-05 01:12:22 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.


    Don't just consider how early it should be available. Consider how early a player can absorb the loss of a fitted battleship.

    Realistically, if present Hyperion prices are anything to go by, a fitted, rigged BS will cost of the order 270m (meta 3 guns) or 300m (meta 4, tech 2 guns are a very long train). My first battleship, in March last year, cost maybe 120m.

    I don't undock in a ship I can't afford to lose, so I needed around 700m in total assets before I could undock in my first Dominic. Now I'd feel like I needed 1500-1600m behind me.

    New players are overly risk averse when their ships seem too expensive to lose, which means they start subscribing to rubbish ideas like 'I can't PVP until I have 12 million SP. And few people remain playing EVE when they don't get into PVP.

    I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
    Moonaura
    The Dead Rabbit Society
    #289 - 2013-05-05 01:33:23 UTC
    mynnna wrote:
    Gonna go ahead and make the ~bold prediction~ that despite the doomcrying in this thread this won't really affect how much BS are used on the whole at all. Might even increase it a bit.


    Sure, when you're part of an alliance that will knock these out as if they are candy, I doubt it will make any real dent in the wallets.

    But, it was already becoming pretty ballsy to use Battleships in lowsec these days, with the rise of the titan bridging. Its incredibly risky to use them these days, and certainly fool hardly to sit at a gate camping in them.

    Making them more expensive, will just see their use drop in all but big fleet battles.

    "The game is mostly played by men - 97%. But 40% of them play as women... so thats fine."  - CCP t0rfifrans 
    Adunh Slavy
    #290 - 2013-05-05 02:53:55 UTC
    I like this change, makes sense to me considering the balancing efforts. My only suggestion would be to increase the base Hit Points of all the battleships by a third.

    Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
    Kusum Fawn
    Perkone
    Caldari State
    #291 - 2013-05-05 04:10:52 UTC
    I am very curious how many of the battleships in the past year were lost to people covered under an alliance reimbursement policy and those that were not.

    Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
    Josilin du Guesclin
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #292 - 2013-05-05 05:15:12 UTC
    Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
    Zimmy Zeta wrote:
    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?


    This is why we need a highsec analogue of the Dreadnought, possibly as a tech 2 battleship hull.

    Think something like a Hyperion that can fit some new form of tactical reconfig module that prevents both local and remote repair and warping for 60 seconds and boosts damage output to large targets significantly.

    Until we have that, the Talos is your friend.
    I think this is an awful idea. I don't fly spaceships to hit a button that makes me immobile, thankyou very much.
    Wallenberg
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #293 - 2013-05-05 05:25:46 UTC
    While this may do something to lockup the stockpiles of minerals some alliances are sitting on, I can't help but think this will destroy tech 1 battleship market for years to come, far longer than the mining barge and battlecruisers will take.

    For the 'old folk' this isn't much of a concern, but for any future budding industry corps/alliances or players it removes a whole section of the manufacturing market that was already abit narrow on margins.

    By this I mean if mining barges and battlecruisers are expected to take over a year to begin normalizing to mineral cost, what exactly are we expecting battleships to do as, unless something more drastic happens, they will probably not see a very large increase in PvP use. If the isk faucet that is FW isn't seeing an upswing in battlship use after all this time, how can we expect to see it elsewhere?

    As a way to soak up some of the crazy amounts of minerals out there in alliance assets, sure thing. But I do hope tiericide doesn't slap down the next generation of entry level manufacturer who isn't willing to just become a cog in a 'old guard' nullsec alliance who 'got theirs' and have a nice layer of internet dust on their stockpiles.
    Sabriz Adoudel
    Move along there is nothing here
    #294 - 2013-05-05 06:49:36 UTC
    Josilin du Guesclin wrote:
    Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
    Zimmy Zeta wrote:
    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?


    This is why we need a highsec analogue of the Dreadnought, possibly as a tech 2 battleship hull.

    Think something like a Hyperion that can fit some new form of tactical reconfig module that prevents both local and remote repair and warping for 60 seconds and boosts damage output to large targets significantly.

    Until we have that, the Talos is your friend.
    I think this is an awful idea. I don't fly spaceships to hit a button that makes me immobile, thankyou very much.



    I didn't suggest immobility, just inability to warp. Less power than a dreadnought, less drawback.

    Still this is getting off topic, so I will stop commenting on this idea.

    I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
    Caitlyn Tufy
    Perkone
    Caldari State
    #295 - 2013-05-05 07:00:07 UTC
    The closer T1 BS get to their navy variants, the better those are, because insurance will cover a larger part of the loss. T1 were already a stepping stone to those in PVE, they're about to become the same in PVP imo.
    Seranova Farreach
    Biomass Negative
    #296 - 2013-05-05 07:23:30 UTC
    TrouserDeagle wrote:
    progodlegend wrote:

    This is supposed to be a re-balance of all the ships


    They aren't even nerfing tier 3 BCs.

    actually i recall reading somethign abotu them "polishing" the tier 3 BCs in the form of slowing them down a little

    [u]___________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg[/u]
    To mare
    Advanced Technology
    #297 - 2013-05-05 07:26:31 UTC
    Battleships were already one of the least used shipclass, many many players where expecting a major boost (T1 cruiser like) to make this class worth using again, we got some changes, some change of role like the geddon, some already bad ships are beingtotally overlooked (tempest raven scorpion), some BS even got nerfed(abaddon rokh dominix), and on top of that the price is going up quite alot. Nice move to make ppl use this things.


    I can understand the rise on price and i could even be fine with that but i would like to have this price increase justified by a performance increase.
    Now except for a couple of ships (geddon hype, maybe the phoon) we are just pain g more isk for the same old crap or even worse crap, since some ships got nerfed.
    Skia Aumer
    Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
    #298 - 2013-05-05 08:53:57 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.

    I can.
    The Rokh fleet would get hot-dropped by 3x sized blob. That is really plausible in a current game meta.
    Naga fleet is not that juicy target, and given their agility most of them can in fact escape when hot-dropped.

    Also a bit offtopic, could you suggest a scenario when gang of combat BC would perform better then equal sized ABC gang?
    Disiri Skai
    Garoun Investment Bank
    Gallente Federation
    #299 - 2013-05-05 09:34:55 UTC
    The price increase is irrelevant. The real issue is that most of the bs aren't worth using, and the ones that are, are used in big fleet battles so price is even less relevant there.
    Skia Aumer
    Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
    #300 - 2013-05-05 09:47:18 UTC
    CCP Rise wrote:
    ...I think its really dangerous to think about performance relative to price.

    Taking price into account when balancing ships doesnt work when prices are easily affordable. Who cares if a frigate costs 0.5 mil or 5 mil? But if you put a price tag of 1 bil on a Dread, you'll see it heavily abused. Or if you put a tag of 10 bil on the same Dread - everyone would just prefer Motherships.

    The trick is that you never know where is that threshold when it starts to hurt. Even worse, it changes in time. What's the solution then? It's easy - player-driven economy, which adjusts said price tag automatically. So when you screw it, treating inability to refine ships as a "minor issue" - you're doing it wrong.

    Yes, I'm quite aware that a change in price for frigates would lead to almost the same change for dreads. But that is because production itself requires rebalance. It's an offtopic of course - all I want to say is: dont add more bugs into production.