These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Nnezu
Artificial Memories
#341 - 2013-05-06 11:28:57 UTC
Naomi Knight wrote:
Aglais wrote:
Hagika wrote:

As of now, i seriously doubt any massive boost at all. They have done huge changes for other races and added a slot to 2 of the caldari ships, ignoring the real issues and nerfing them when they are even barely used.


P.S- Caldaqri pilots would get more love in a prison shower right now.


As someone with high missile skills and Caldari battleship 5 who has tested the new Raven on Duality-

It's not good. At all. Still slow (hampered by awful capacitor and poor agility), EXCEPTIONALLY poor defense (Seriously- the NAVY AUGOROR can pretty much beat the Raven in terms of EHP- It's loads cheaper and it still does 50% of the Raven's DPS!), it has the sig of a small moon... There really are no upsides to the Raven now, at all, anymore, except maybe 'selectable damage types'. You have flight time (which was admittedly cut with the cruise missile boost), you have enemy sig/velocity penalties (which were smoothed out a bit with the cruise missile buffs, but I'm not sure how well it'll actually go), you have NO staying power whatsoever in ANY fight, you don't have the capacitor to haul your battleship into kiting range, you don't have the DPS to thwart an active tanked Dominix somehow... This ship is not worth 200 million ISK. This whole rebalancing of battleships has hit Caldari in the balls so hard that honestly they're only worth flying in the frigate and cruiser categories. You will NOT see more Ravens be flown in PvP. Likely, it'll drop off to actually being zero. Same with Scorpions. HORRIBLE sig resolution, abysmal forced armor tank, no weapons, first primary... ~180 million ISK. Not worth it. Not worth it at all.

What i dont understand ,(actually i do ,they do it cause they hate caldari biased devs bleh...) why the hell the raven has to be so much shittier than fe(to which we can compare it the most) the typhoon which is pretty much a matarized raven, oh yeah matarized which means just plain better in every possible term



Pls ye. Also fix LOLscorch. That crystal has been beyond OP for years now.
Hexatron Ormand
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#342 - 2013-05-06 11:38:17 UTC
A little sidenone, a bit on topic of build prices, but not directly related to this topic:

I found it "distracting" to have the minerals two times on the blue prints. First in the upper section of the material needs, and then again in the "additional" material needs.

For me it would make a lot more sense to add the minerals to the above values, and only place "special non mineral" material needs under "additional materials needed".


Would make it easier to sum up how many materials you need for several produktion runs on a ship. I had it a few times now that i thought i got everything, and then when i wanted to do my production runs, it told me "not enough materials". To then find out that there were even more minerals requested under "additional materials needed"


I find this very confusing, why should the minerals needed be listed on two different places on the same blueprint? What keeps you from "adding" them to the upper list of minerals already?


Please rework all the blueprints to state all mineral needs in the upper section of the material needs, and only list "special non mineral" material needs under additional materials needed.


That would make things a lot less confusing.
Nessa Aldeen
First Among Equals
#343 - 2013-05-06 12:44:37 UTC
To CCP RISE:

As many posters before me have already pointed out, increasing BS prices to this same level of production costs will only relegate them further away from being used in pvp more often. The tier 3 BCs have already displaced BS usage in small gangs with their higher agility, faster locking, and easily projected damage than a standard BS can. You can also see the higher usage of said BCs in large fleets as well.

While I understand the logic of the price increase and you would like players to know that the BS should be more expensive than their BC counterparts, again they don't necessarily project a lot of damage, and they get hit hard because of massive sig, and moves like a slug, in fact most BS die fairly quick. So why would anyone use them in pvp?

The solution is either to nerf these tier 3 BC tanks slightly or increase the survival factor of the BS through an increase of HP. I would prefer the latter. Standard BSes should feel heavy and ponderous, it must be able to tank much, much more than than their BC counterparts while significantly projecting BS damage (tier 3 does a wonderful job at this already and it's dead cheap). It's a battleship but it sure doesn't feel like one at the moment in comparison to the Tier 3 BC. In its current form, it's a crying shame that BSes are now relegated to PVE and sniper fleet ships than they were back in their glory days, where they were used to be King of the sub capitals.

Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#344 - 2013-05-06 12:45:18 UTC
Hexatron Ormand wrote:
A little sidenone, a bit on topic of build prices, but not directly related to this topic:

I found it "distracting" to have the minerals two times on the blue prints. First in the upper section of the material needs, and then again in the "additional" material needs.

Please rework all the blueprints to state all mineral needs in the upper section of the material needs, and only list "special non mineral" material needs under additional materials needed.

That would make things a lot less confusing.


they are in two places because they are two separate lists of minerals for the item. It is not a mineral and non-mineral split but an original bp requirement / rebalanced bp requirement split.

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.
Vaihto Ehto
#345 - 2013-05-06 13:36:57 UTC
Nnezu wrote:

Pls ye. Also fix LOLscorch. That crystal has been beyond OP for years now.


Significant nerf to Scorch (with all other things remaining same) would more or less obsolete all laser boats.

Why would you not use an alt to post on the forums?
Theia Matova
Dominance Theory
#346 - 2013-05-06 13:45:00 UTC
Vaihto Ehto wrote:
Nnezu wrote:

Pls ye. Also fix LOLscorch. That crystal has been beyond OP for years now.


Significant nerf to Scorch (with all other things remaining same) would more or less obsolete all laser boats.


Agreed, scorch is one of the few good things lasers have.
Mike Whiite
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#347 - 2013-05-06 13:52:03 UTC
It's not the + 40 million, It's the 40 million + what it gets you.

I think the Drake blobs showed us that you're better off loosing a bunch of cheap ships than the more expensive ones.

Aside from 0.0 doctrine and PVE Battle ships had little use already, none of the new tierside changes did much to change that.


Yes cruisers are 10 times more expensive than frigates but then again Cruisers gain.


Significant more DPS (Most BS do less DPS than ABC's)
Significant more EHP (that is true most of the the time)

But the mass increase, speed decrease is through the roof.

As a whole I don't realy care about the price increase as such, though I think it will contribute to even less use of the BS class as a whole.
Lucs Interior
The Surfin Dead
#348 - 2013-05-06 15:01:50 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



    I'm fairly new to production. Won't this mean I won't be able to build Battleships for a profit for quite some time? I still can't make money on procurers. In fact I'd have to sell them at a significant loss.
    Bucca Zerodyme
    Good For Nothing Corporation
    #349 - 2013-05-06 15:12:24 UTC
    Lucs Interior wrote:
    I'm fairly new to production. Won't this mean I won't be able to build Battleships for a profit for quite some time? I still can't make money on procurers. In fact I'd have to sell them at a significant loss.


    If you are lucky it wont take that long, maybe you can sell your BS not in a Trade-Hub because usually the prices in Trade-Hubs are lower.
    Caljiav Ocanon
    The Holy Rollers
    #350 - 2013-05-06 16:04:43 UTC
    Battleships either need more buffs or have the more expensive ones made cheaper.

    Cheaper Battleships mean they get blown up more, this trickles down into more bought, more built to meet demand and overall less stagnation in the economy.

    How do you guys not see this?
    Hagika
    Standard Corp 123
    #351 - 2013-05-06 16:28:09 UTC
    Gejja Tokan wrote:
    I like the changes.



    Some people like S&M relationships where they get whipped or beat.

    Why should the other 95% of the people who have protested the changes be subject to what a tiny few think is fine.

    The needs of the many are greater than the needs of the few. If people practiced this logic, then the world would be alot better off.
    Hagika
    Standard Corp 123
    #352 - 2013-05-06 16:33:05 UTC
    Caljiav Ocanon wrote:
    Battleships either need more buffs or have the more expensive ones made cheaper.

    Cheaper Battleships mean they get blown up more, this trickles down into more bought, more built to meet demand and overall less stagnation in the economy.

    How do you guys not see this?



    Ever see a carriage horse? Those little black things near their eyes, they call them blinders. They were invented so the horse will only look straight and stay that course.

    Now put us players on the carriage and the horse with blinders is Rise and the person steering the horse is Fozzie and he just happens to be wearing them too.

    Now do you see the problem? P
    TravelBuoy
    Imperial Academy
    Amarr Empire
    #353 - 2013-05-06 16:55:54 UTC  |  Edited by: TravelBuoy
    Theia Matova wrote:
    Vaihto Ehto wrote:
    Nnezu wrote:

    Pls ye. Also fix LOLscorch. That crystal has been beyond OP for years now.


    Significant nerf to Scorch (with all other things remaining same) would more or less obsolete all laser boats.


    Agreed, scorch is one of the few good things lasers have.


    No, the laser, exactly the Scorch is the most overpowered ammo type in the game.
    And the geddon will be the most overpovered t1 BS in the game,after changes, because that is not will be a t1 BS, will be a mini faction BS with those ridiculous overpowered (T2 EW bonus) neutraliser range bonuses.
    Linna Excel
    Center for Advanced Studies
    Gallente Federation
    #354 - 2013-05-06 16:59:13 UTC
    CCP Rise wrote:
    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.


    IMO let the mineral prices suffer. Things would stabilize after awhile and everything will go on just fine.

    I can has blogging skills!
    Caljiav Ocanon
    The Holy Rollers
    #355 - 2013-05-06 17:12:39 UTC
    Hagika wrote:



    Ever see a carriage horse? Those little black things near their eyes, they call them blinders. They were invented so the horse will only look straight and stay that course.

    Now put us players on the carriage and the horse with blinders is Rise and the person steering the horse is Fozzie and he just happens to be wearing them too.

    Now do you see the problem? P



    Yeah, I was afraid of that...
    Hagika
    Standard Corp 123
    #356 - 2013-05-06 17:14:13 UTC
    TravelBuoy wrote:
    Theia Matova wrote:
    Vaihto Ehto wrote:
    Nnezu wrote:

    Pls ye. Also fix LOLscorch. That crystal has been beyond OP for years now.


    Significant nerf to Scorch (with all other things remaining same) would more or less obsolete all laser boats.


    Agreed, scorch is one of the few good things lasers have.


    No, the laser, exactly the Scorch is the most overpowered ammo type in the game.
    And the geddon will be the most overpovered t1 BS in the game,after changes, because that is not will be a t1 BS, will be a mini faction BS with those ridiculous overpowered (T2 EW bonus) neutraliser range bonuses.


    Nerfing scorch would put Amarr alot farther in the crapper. That is the reason why their ships are still decent.

    Winmatar does not need to be the end all be all race. Its already obviously biased in their favor, they do not need another benefit with someone elses demise.

    If lasers were a selective damage type, then I would more sympathetic, but since Amarr are already struggling, this would put them with caldari in the toilet.. No thanks, the game is already in favor of the socialist hippies and the ex slaves who somehow have the most superior ships in game.
    Theia Matova
    Dominance Theory
    #357 - 2013-05-06 17:27:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Theia Matova
    Hagika wrote:

    If lasers were a selective damage type, then I would more sympathetic, but since Amarr are already struggling, this would put them with caldari in the toilet.. No thanks, the game is already in favor of the socialist hippies and the ex slaves who somehow have the most superior ships in game.


    Lol that just made my day.

    I do not think socialist hippies are too good sure drones and ability to cross fit armor or shield tank make them both very flexible and dangerous in the cross/paper/scissor game of eve. But gallente has been in so and so balance always. When Winnies have been always the king of the day. Cane was for long very versatile and OP BC that was also cheap. It has lost some of its former glory but wait wait for the navy BCs.. Guess who is making a come back :D Oh and don't forget rifter who is quite iconic frigate guess whose it is? You guessed it, it is a WINNY!

    I do not want to make the races all the same but there are serious issues that CCP need to address to truly balance the races. What they did with this first round of ships (removing cap bonus for lasers and cutting down res bonus rebalance of TC/TE) is only the first small step they need to take.

    This service flight of rust buckets has already gone so long it should already have stop.
    Hagika
    Standard Corp 123
    #358 - 2013-05-06 17:27:47 UTC
    Considering the Battleships are the bridge between cap ships and sub cap ships, they really need an increase in tank.

    Like atleast double of what they are now.

    I think balance should be more aimed like this for example.

    Starting from frigs, it should take 4 frigs to kill a destroyer. 4 destroyers to kill a cruiser, 4 cruisers to kill a battle cruiser and 4 battle cruisers to kill a battleship.

    Keep in that theory, 4 battleships to kill a dread or carrier, 4 dreads or carriers to kill a mother ship and 4 motherships to kill a Titan.

    The tech 2 variants should only take 2 instead of 4. Pirates ships being similar to t2 variants, maybe take 3 instead of 4.

    In reality, a Battleship ship should have an amazing tank with really powerful damage. Price should reflect the ships.

    Some prices will go up, others down, but a battlecruiser fleet should require near 4x the numbers to be able to beat an equal number of battleships and atleast 3x the numbers to even have a chance.
    TravelBuoy
    Imperial Academy
    Amarr Empire
    #359 - 2013-05-06 17:32:12 UTC  |  Edited by: TravelBuoy
    Hagika wrote:
    TravelBuoy wrote:
    Theia Matova wrote:
    Vaihto Ehto wrote:
    Nnezu wrote:

    Pls ye. Also fix LOLscorch. That crystal has been beyond OP for years now.


    Significant nerf to Scorch (with all other things remaining same) would more or less obsolete all laser boats.


    Agreed, scorch is one of the few good things lasers have.


    No, the laser, exactly the Scorch is the most overpowered ammo type in the game.
    And the geddon will be the most overpovered t1 BS in the game,after changes, because that is not will be a t1 BS, will be a mini faction BS with those ridiculous overpowered (T2 EW bonus) neutraliser range bonuses.


    Nerfing scorch would put Amarr alot farther in the crapper. That is the reason why their ships are still decent.

    Winmatar does not need to be the end all be all race. Its already obviously biased in their favor, they do not need another benefit with someone elses demise.

    If lasers were a selective damage type, then I would more sympathetic, but since Amarr are already struggling, this would put them with caldari in the toilet.. No thanks, the game is already in favor of the socialist hippies and the ex slaves who somehow have the most superior ships in game.





    The gallentean ships have selectable ammo type ? No and they need cap too fir shot, but they shot from falloff instead optimal.
    And check the gallentean BS changes. Domi nerfed + Mega nerfed but amarrians will be get a overpowered armageddon, which shot to 45km+can neutralising to same distance with faction neut. This changes is bad and give to them a huge advantages against anyone.
    chatgris
    Quantum Cats Syndicate
    Of Essence
    #360 - 2013-05-06 17:33:48 UTC
    Malcanis wrote:
    Roime wrote:
    Malcanis wrote:
    Roime wrote:


    Fact: I won't be flying tier 1 or 2 battleships after Odyssey, their poor performance won't justify the huge ISK loss on the killboard



    Do you honestly let "killboard stats" dictate your playstyle?

    Really?



    wow


    What else?


    Some people have other goals.

    So if CCP didn't give us killmails, you'd literally have nothing to play for?


    Pretty much.