These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Theia Matova
Dominance Theory
#361 - 2013-05-06 17:56:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Theia Matova
TravelBuoy wrote:

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.


I do not think Domi is nerfed. I do not agree what CCP made to it but on right hands sentries are very powerful and capable platform. I haven't tried mega but I believe it will be okyish.

What comes to Amarr, we are stuck with EM and thermal damage that are most resisted resistances in most PVP brawls since armor is favored. Thermal kinetic is really good ammo type since kinetic is quite often the hole (not always but OFTEN :p). Also your guns take lot less cap than lasers LOT less. I started the game with Gallentean ships and you are flying party boat compared to Amarr ships.

What comes to Geddon many think its OP and it probably is. Yet true Amarrian players hate it because it can't really fit lasers. So you are stuck cross training drones and missiles. Yes its awesome neut boat and its probably one of the best BSes that are worth their money after Odyssey but you should not think its all joy. Many hate the fact that Geddon was chosen for this. And also CCPs policy make Amarrs secondary weapon system drones. Original EVE lore suggested Khanid being short range missile race not drone boats! Geddon was a r a p e. What CCP made to it was not justified. No matter if it is OP or not its not Amarr boat anymore.
Hagika
Standard Corp 123
#362 - 2013-05-06 18:02:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Hagika
Theia Matova wrote:
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.


Yes it should have stopped. I main gallente, mainly cause I always liked the up close and personal approach with high dps.

My alt is Amarr and my former pilot was caldari. I loved the idea of Caldari. A militarized race, top of the line technology and it tickled my ex military side.

Then with them using torps and missiles, I was like yes !! Go Go Gadget torpedoes !

Realized they were a flop and then went amarr. Its a lore thing, and reading the Gallente one, I was like oh no.. friggin french hippies..So i stayed away from them and matar, I just didnt care for the looks, and I find myself feeling more comfortable being on the oppressor side of things err I mean more of a religious zealot or military type. Evil

When minmatar got buffed weapon wise, the artillery got way to high of an alpha with an instant hitting weapon. I feel the alpha damage king should have been caldari.

I have no problem with missiles having flight time and taking longer to target, and not being able to hit a moving target as for full damage, but they should hit like a freight train with a slower firing time considering it is a missile and a torpedo tends to be the most powerful weapon in many sci fi themed movies and shows.

As I see it, when missiles are launched at someone, the intended victims ship should have the computer saying, missile launched detected like in starcraft with a nuke launch. Followed by a quick clip of Iron Maiden's Run to the Hills song.
At the part of Run to the hills, run for your lives !

Now I know CCP wont do that, but a with a weapon system like missiles, they should have the highest alpha and slowest firing (torps). While cruise have a longer range faster firing than torps but not as high alpha but not that far off and proceed down for the other missile systems.

Though I am straying off topic a bit, battleships should really have alot more tank. Then CCP could justify the price.
It should be alot of work to bring one down
Theia Matova
Dominance Theory
#363 - 2013-05-06 18:06:15 UTC
Hagika wrote:

Though I am straying off topic a bit, battleships should really have alot more tank. Then CCP could justify the price.
It should be alot of work to bring one down


I think the consensus is that BS should be buffed to justify this build cost. Now they are getting crappier and crappier in comparison to other smaller platforms.
Zor'katar
Matari Recreation
#364 - 2013-05-06 18:16:06 UTC
Hashi Lebwohl wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:

Quote:
Is there intention to ever roll these minerals back into the overall ship cost, so that ships have a price floor tied to the mineral price again?


It would be nice, but aren't willing to underestimate the extreme patience of the player base and so its hard to imagine how we could do it in the forseeable future.

Proposal:

You set a goal to eliminate extra minerals over say a 3-5 year period. At each expansion and possibly point release, a random group of ships (for example up to 20% of those with extra minerals) have their extra minerals reduced and refined increased by a figure of between 10-20%. The changes are not initially include in the patch notes - just announced when made.

The players therefore cannot buy a large stock in build for a instant and expected increase - you could buy the ship that doesn't get any changes for 2-3 years. More likely therefore would be some speculation around each patch and a quick cashing out following the patch but without really large gains.

A player could buy a large stock now and cash out in 3-5 years - but there is a huge opportunity cost of tying up enough isk to make this worthwhile that probably would put off the investor, especially given the uncertainty of a dev destroying the profit margins by tweeking the database in the intervening period.

+1, came here to suggest something very similar (although I hadn't thought of the randomized bit... that's a good addition). Opportunity cost puts an upper limit on how much it's worth stockpiling ships to wait for the day when they can be reprocessed for more. I don't do investment in Eve myself, but enough people do that it shouldn't be too difficult to tune the numbers. Then at least we'd have a plan for eventually getting us back to a system that makes sense, even if it takes a decade.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#365 - 2013-05-06 20:00:40 UTC
Theia Matova wrote:
Hagika wrote:

Though I am straying off topic a bit, battleships should really have alot more tank. Then CCP could justify the price.
It should be alot of work to bring one down


I think the consensus is that BS should be buffed to justify this build cost. Now they are getting crappier and crappier in comparison to other smaller platforms.


They also have bad "Fleet level" tanks. Lots of ehp, but t1 resistances and a huge sig. Factor in logi and a cruiser can tank better than a bs in many situations.

IMO all t1 BS should have received a slight increase to their base resistance.
Berluth Luthian
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#366 - 2013-05-06 20:14:07 UTC
Missed this over the weekend, could this change help maintain the link between highsec industry and nullsec destruction?
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#367 - 2013-05-06 21:01:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Gypsio III
Aglais wrote:


Alright. The Typhoon can fit multiple painters and webs if you want, can get 78,880 EHP with two trimark rigs and a rigor in the rig slots, it's only like 8 m/s slower than the Raven with two 1600mm II plates on it, seems to align at about the same rate. Capacitor roughly the same. Initially, it looks like the Raven takes a win here actually, because the Typhoon does less damage with it's cruise missiles- then you remember it has a nontrivial drone bay. Oh. They're practically on par. Typhoon wins for sig radius, lock speed, utility going towards actually using it's missiles. The Raven I'd fit has two CDFE Is and an EM resist rig, which SEEMS to boost it's EHP to 81k, actually. Which is surprising, because that still burns away like ******* nothing in a fight.

...Huh. Just from looking at stats, it almost looks like the Raven is marginally better than the Typhoon. Then you remember it's bonus and the fact that it can easily fit multiple painters/webs. I think the Typhoon will still actually perform better in a real fight, somehow.


I think you're putting too much emphasis on solo or unorganised gang there. If anyone actually uses either the Typhoon or the Raven, which they won't because ABCs are better and much cheaper, I'll think they'll prefer Typhoon for smaller gangs and Raven for larger ones. As gang size increases, the Raven's missile velocity bonus will help reduce the reaction time of hostile logi, while its extra medslots will help its resists for its own RR. The Typhoon's explosion velocity bonus sounds nice but is generally negated by the long-range web that such a gang will need anyway.

For smaller, less organised stuff, an ASB Typhoon with its drones would be more useful. But really, you'd be wondering why you weren't flying an ABC.
Kenshi Hanshin
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#368 - 2013-05-07 00:24:35 UTC
Caljiav Ocanon wrote:
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...

I second that!
Kenshi Hanshin
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#369 - 2013-05-07 00:44:10 UTC
Hagika wrote:
Theia Matova wrote:
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.


Yes it should have stopped. I main gallente, mainly cause I always liked the up close and personal approach with high dps.

My alt is Amarr and my former pilot was caldari. I loved the idea of Caldari. A militarized race, top of the line technology and it tickled my ex military side.

Then with them using torps and missiles, I was like yes !! Go Go Gadget torpedoes !

Realized they were a flop and then went amarr. Its a lore thing, and reading the Gallente one, I was like oh no.. friggin french hippies..So i stayed away from them and matar, I just didnt care for the looks, and I find myself feeling more comfortable being on the oppressor side of things err I mean more of a religious zealot or military type. Evil

When minmatar got buffed weapon wise, the artillery got way to high of an alpha with an instant hitting weapon. I feel the alpha damage king should have been caldari.

I have no problem with missiles having flight time and taking longer to target, and not being able to hit a moving target as for full damage, but they should hit like a freight train with a slower firing time considering it is a missile and a torpedo tends to be the most powerful weapon in many sci fi themed movies and shows.

As I see it, when missiles are launched at someone, the intended victims ship should have the computer saying, missile launched detected like in starcraft with a nuke launch. Followed by a quick clip of Iron Maiden's Run to the Hills song.
At the part of Run to the hills, run for your lives !

Now I know CCP wont do that, but a with a weapon system like missiles, they should have the highest alpha and slowest firing (torps). While cruise have a longer range faster firing than torps but not as high alpha but not that far off and proceed down for the other missile systems.

Though I am straying off topic a bit, battleships should really have alot more tank. Then CCP could justify the price.
It should be alot of work to bring one down


Agreed 100%

+1
Joan Greywind
The Lazy Crabs
#370 - 2013-05-07 04:23:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Joan Greywind
Is the price of the ships taken based on current mineral prices, or the expected (after odyssey) prices? According to the ore composition post, low end minerals (trit, Pyerite) will be widely and heavily available in high end ore, increasing their supply (for no increase in effort in aqcuiring them). An increase in supply means a decrease in price of those minerals, directly affecting the prices of those ships. Is the ore composition change going to be big enough to affect the intended prices of the battleships after odyssey?

The main reason I ask is the op clearly states 40 mill increase in average price, and not only an increase in the building mineral need of the ships.


And just a side note, this topic clearly is about the build costs of the sips, why did the post delve into whether the ships are balanced or not? isn't there other posts where that can be discussed?
Avald Midular
Doomheim
#371 - 2013-05-07 04:49:12 UTC
Joan Greywind wrote:
Is the price of the ships taken based on current mineral prices, or the expected (after odyssey) prices? According to the ore composition post, low end minerals (trit, Pyerite) will be widely and heavily available in high end ore, increasing their supply (for no increase in effort in aqcuiring them). An increase in supply means a decrease in price of those minerals, directly affecting the prices of those ships. Is the ore composition change going to be big enough to affect the intended prices of the battleships after odyssey?

The main reason I ask is the op clearly states 40 mill increase in average price, and not only an increase in the building mineral need of the ships.


And just a side note, this topic clearly is about the build costs of the sips, why did the post delve into whether the ships are balanced or not? isn't there other posts where that can be discussed?


Probably because CCP's ignored the feedback threads for some time and they saw Rise posting in here.
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#372 - 2013-05-07 04:53:09 UTC
Theia Matova wrote:
I do not think Domi is nerfed.

I consider a 50% increase in the build cost of a Domi to be a rather significant nerf, esp. when coupled with a lower insurance payout.

Isn't that what we should be discussing on this thread? There are other threads to discuss the performance issues.
Caitlyn Tufy
Perkone
Caldari State
#373 - 2013-05-07 05:36:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Caitlyn Tufy
Joan Greywind wrote:
And just a side note, this topic clearly is about the build costs of the sips, why did the post delve into whether the ships are balanced or not? isn't there other posts where that can be discussed?


Because performance relative to price decides whether something will be used or not. T1 battleships compete with smaller, cheaper T1 ships and more expensive, better performing navy ships. If you skew the performance or price too much in one direction, you risk them being replaced by either group. Unfortunately, CCP decided to keep T1 BS relatively weak, while at the same time increasing their price and lowering the margins to navy insurance. As a result, T1s are likely to be left as a stepping stone to navy ships, save for a few select fleet ships. Sad, but that's the way it's about to go down due to the increased cost tag.

That's why my initial suggestion was to increase the ehp of the battleships - that way, they'd be worth the extra cost, but they would also have a very clear niche relative to their counterparts, they'd be the "brick wall" of the battlefield. Now, they're just oversized, overpriced battlecruisers.
Hagika
Standard Corp 123
#374 - 2013-05-07 05:43:46 UTC
Avald Midular wrote:
Joan Greywind wrote:
Is the price of the ships taken based on current mineral prices, or the expected (after odyssey) prices? According to the ore composition post, low end minerals (trit, Pyerite) will be widely and heavily available in high end ore, increasing their supply (for no increase in effort in aqcuiring them). An increase in supply means a decrease in price of those minerals, directly affecting the prices of those ships. Is the ore composition change going to be big enough to affect the intended prices of the battleships after odyssey?

The main reason I ask is the op clearly states 40 mill increase in average price, and not only an increase in the building mineral need of the ships.


And just a side note, this topic clearly is about the build costs of the sips, why did the post delve into whether the ships are balanced or not? isn't there other posts where that can be discussed?


Probably because CCP's ignored the feedback threads for some time and they saw Rise posting in here.


Ding Ding, winner winner, chicken dinner !!
Gunther Nhilathok
Doomheim
#375 - 2013-05-07 06:10:53 UTC
I'm going to miss the days of battleships being cost effective, viable options in pvp. Oh well, we've got tier 3 BC, we don't need tank when we have alpha.
Mr VonBraun
Collegium Ignis
#376 - 2013-05-07 12:53:00 UTC
So,once again the Devs take the opportunity to stick 2 fingers up to the Caldari. Are you trying to make the caldari completely obsolete? Seems so!
The Scorpion is a pile of problems with an engine attached, the Raven has the potential to be an awesome combat battleship,instead it gets weaker every time you guys tweak something. Okay the Rokh is good,but it's not exactly flexible (when is the last time you saw someone doing PVE in a Rokh?)

Yep okay in Inferno you did a good job with the launchers...but that was purely cosmetic. When are you gonna give us Caldari some love,so we don't all have to skill for Winmatar?
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#377 - 2013-05-07 18:03:51 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.

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.


Yeah I agree with that, I don't build that much, so perhaps I'm missing something, but when I've mined the materials I needed to get the blueprint into production I am always baffled by the extra materials bit. Why do I need extra when I've got everthing the blueprint tells me I need lol.

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...
Jill Antaris
Jill's Open Incursion Corp
#378 - 2013-05-07 18:14:23 UTC
Hexatron Ormand wrote:
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?.


Because they try to avoid that people build BS now and reprocess them for more minerals or self destruct them for more insurance after the patch.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#379 - 2013-05-07 18:31:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Vincent Athena
CCP Rise wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Current Tier 3 prices have a range of approximately 200-240m depending on hull. In the past you've smoothed that kind of variation out, will you be doing that here too?


Somewhat, but it won't be completely smooth.

Quote:
Is there intention to ever roll these minerals back into the overall ship cost, so that ships have a price floor tied to the mineral price again?


It would be nice, but aren't willing to underestimate the extreme patience of the player base and so its hard to imagine how we could do it in the forseeable future.

Here is how you do it.

Every month or so look at the sale price of these ships and their value if reprocessed. Use the "high buy" for the ship price, not the "low sell".
If the price is significantly above the reprocess value, move some of the "extra materials" out to the "materials required" area. Not enough to make buying and reprocessing profitable, just to bring the reprocessed value up to the market price.
After that modification anyone holding on to an old ship could reprocess it and get more minerals than it took to make that ship, but that will not give them any more ISK than if they just sold it.
The new bill of materials will put a higher floor under that ship price. As stocks continue to get sold, the price will rise more, allowing you to move more out of "extra materials".
Eventually it will all be gone.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Dumas Athos
World Curling Team
#380 - 2013-05-07 18:54:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Dumas Athos
Vincent Athena wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Current Tier 3 prices have a range of approximately 200-240m depending on hull. In the past you've smoothed that kind of variation out, will you be doing that here too?


Somewhat, but it won't be completely smooth.

Quote:
Is there intention to ever roll these minerals back into the overall ship cost, so that ships have a price floor tied to the mineral price again?


It would be nice, but aren't willing to underestimate the extreme patience of the player base and so its hard to imagine how we could do it in the forseeable future.

Here is how you do it.

Every month or so look at the sale price of these ships and their value if reprocessed. Use the "high buy" for the ship price, not the "low sell".
If the price is significantly above the reprocess value, move some of the "extra materials" out to the "materials required" area. Not enough to make buying and reprocessing profitable, just to bring the reprocessed value up to the market price.
Now anyone holding on to an old ship could reprocess it and get more minerals than it took to make that ship, but that will not give them any more ISK than if they just sold it.
The new bill of materials will put a higher floor under that ship price. As stocks continue to get sold, the price will rise more, allowing you to move more out of "extra materials".
Eventually it will all be gone.


That's a non r etarded idea. It'll never happen.