These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
violator2k5
Crescent Nova
#381 - 2013-05-07 19:54:47 UTC
firstly to CCP rise, while I do think its good what you guys are doing discussing changes coming into play into the game you guys are making mistakes that hurt the market to some degree. What happened to the "screw the player base lets just throw in some stealth changes" attitude?

Changes made in this fashion really shouldn't be advertised so openly and only ignites people to try to capitalize from it which in the end hurts the market for a while till back stocks are cleared.

Naso Aya wrote:
Just wanted to say called it, that's all.

anyone with half a brain for industry would of seen this coming after the min buff on cruisers.

Hagika wrote:
40 million trivial, so lets add 40 million to all ships and fittings,rigs and see how trivial it really is..Oh wait, not so trivial after all is it?

with the amount of isk flying around this game and some with more then common sense, I really don't think another 40mil on top of current build cost is anything to worry about.

did you forget paying something like 20mil per T2 gun and upto 7-10mil per enam or invuln II?
Theia Matova
Dominance Theory
#382 - 2013-05-07 20:26:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Theia Matova
violator2k5 wrote:

Hagika wrote:
40 million trivial, so lets add 40 million to all ships and fittings,rigs and see how trivial it really is..Oh wait, not so trivial after all is it?

with the amount of isk flying around this game and some with more then common sense, I really don't think another 40mil on top of current build cost is anything to worry about.


For some BSes this increase is nearly 100%. 40mils can be lot of money depends on who you ask. If you can turn that 100% into isk.. Which several BSes? hmm consider again.

If you look at Abaddon too it got resistance drop. If it gets nerf we should also be dropping its manufacture price?
Mithril Ryder
Genstar Inc
#383 - 2013-05-07 20:31:05 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


    Once again, CCP is bad at math. If you average out the mineral cost, so that the new ships all have about the same mineral cost, and the total mineral cost of building 1 of each is about the same pre and post patch, you'd be looking at about the same demand. In reality, due to the lower numbers of t3 BS built flown and lost in PvP due to their cost/usefulness ratio, you'd be looking at a small increase in total mineral consumption.

    Ah well, thanks for another opportunity for some of us to make easy isk by pre-building ships again.
    Hagika
    Standard Corp 123
    #384 - 2013-05-07 20:58:38 UTC
    violator2k5 wrote:
    firstly to CCP rise, while I do think its good what you guys are doing discussing changes coming into play into the game you guys are making mistakes that hurt the market to some degree. What happened to the "screw the player base lets just throw in some stealth changes" attitude?

    Changes made in this fashion really shouldn't be advertised so openly and only ignites people to try to capitalize from it which in the end hurts the market for a while till back stocks are cleared.

    Naso Aya wrote:
    Just wanted to say called it, that's all.

    anyone with half a brain for industry would of seen this coming after the min buff on cruisers.

    Hagika wrote:
    40 million trivial, so lets add 40 million to all ships and fittings,rigs and see how trivial it really is..Oh wait, not so trivial after all is it?

    with the amount of isk flying around this game and some with more then common sense, I really don't think another 40mil on top of current build cost is anything to worry about.

    did you forget paying something like 20mil per T2 gun and upto 7-10mil per enam or invuln II?



    I guess it is true, some people like to be lied to before they get screwed..Ignorance is bliss right?

    There is plenty of isk in the game, just like there is plenty of currency in the real world, so that means everyone is rich right?
    We all can afford to spend on countless money on items that has little use or not worth their value right?

    Seriously, wake up to reality. Not everyone in eve is a hardcore gamer who can spends hours upon hours doing an isk grind to where they can throw money around like its nothing. The cost of a fully fitted BS after this change would take awhile even by incursions standards.
    Little Dragon Khamez
    Guardians of the Underworld
    #385 - 2013-05-07 21:32:02 UTC
    Dumas Athos wrote:
    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.


    On the face of it, it seems sensible, it will never happen.

    Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...
    Kharamete
    Royal Assent
    #386 - 2013-05-07 21:34:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Kharamete
    Hagika wrote:

    The cost of a fully fitted BS after this change would take awhile even by incursions standards.


    And it is supposed to be so. A battleship should be a serious step up, a ship you should cry about losing. It used to be so that people mined for weeks and months with Miner I:s and cruisers to be able to get a battleship. I'm glad if this change is a small little step back to that past.

    Edit-
    There is a reason why noobs are often pathetically bad in battleships. They race to it. They try to get it as fast as possible, without spending the time needed to skill up on ship integrity, gunnery, armor or shields, and navigation. They think a battle ship is so bad-ass. Big is beautiful.

    If there's a high price tag, maybe the new players will spend some time getting ready for it.

    CCP FoxFour: "... the what button... oh god I didn't even know that existed. BRB."

    My little youtube videos can be found here
    Hagika
    Standard Corp 123
    #387 - 2013-05-07 21:39:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Hagika
    Kharamete wrote:
    Hagika wrote:

    The cost of a fully fitted BS after this change would take awhile even by incursions standards.


    And it is supposed to be so. A battleship should be a serious step up, a ship you should cry about losing. It used to be so that people mined for weeks and months with Miner I:s and cruisers to be able to get a battleship. I'm glad if this change is a small little step back to that past.


    You just dont get it... They are not worth the price increase.. Have you not been reading?

    That is the major complaint, so if its not worth the cost then people will fly smaller ships that can get almost the same performance. Which means battleships will be used even less.

    A battleship should be a serious step up but, raising cost and keeping them weak is not a valid nor smart move by ccp.

    Do you get it now, or must you have the other hundreds of people explain the same thing?

    Edit-

    I am not trying to jump all over your case, the problem is battleships need to have alot more tank and some more firepower to actually make them justify their price.
    Aglais
    Ice-Storm
    #388 - 2013-05-07 21:55:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Aglais
    Kharamete wrote:
    Hagika wrote:

    The cost of a fully fitted BS after this change would take awhile even by incursions standards.


    And it is supposed to be so. A battleship should be a serious step up, a ship you should cry about losing. It used to be so that people mined for weeks and months with Miner I:s and cruisers to be able to get a battleship. I'm glad if this change is a small little step back to that past.


    I agree with this that's bolded. Here's the thing though.

    THEY ARE NOT WORTH THEIR PRICES, ESPECIALLY THE RAVEN AND SCORPION. THEY ARE JOKES. BATTLECRUISERS CAN HAVE MORE TANK, WITH LESS SIG, THAN THE RAVEN, WHILE STILL HAVING EASIER TO APPLY DPS. THIS PRICE INCREASE IS BEING GIVEN TO SHIPS THAT IN FACT, WERE BAD BEFORE, BUT GOT NERFED WITH THESE CHANGES. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? CAN YOU READ ME PROPERLY AND THE MESSAGE I WANT TO GET ACROSS IF I USE BOLD AND ALLCAPS? BECAUSE THIS SHOULD BE INCREDIBLY ******* OBVIOUS THAT FOR THEIR PRICE, THEY ARE HORRIBLE, AND THE LEAST ISK-EFFICIENT SHIPS IN THE ENTIRE GODDAMN GAME.

    Yes. A battleship should be a very big investment. Here's the thing though. A 'very big investment' should not be WHOLLY UNABLE to achieve ANY level of defense that it's peers can (and I'm talking about the other attack battleships- the Raven is easily the softest of the group, even the Minmatar ones somehow manage to be hardier! I don't ******* get it! CALDARI is the tank race! Not Minmatar! They have mobility, which they use to make up for their lack of tank! Caldari have LOADS of tank, to make up for their lack of speed! The Raven has neither tank, NOR speed! A 2x 1600MM II TRIMARKED TYPHOON IS STILL FASTER THAN A RAVEN NOT SPORTING A NANOFIBRE. Oh, and said Typhoon also has more EHP than the Raven in question, too.)
    Large Collidable Object
    morons.
    #389 - 2013-05-07 21:57:20 UTC
    Whilst I deem the concerns concerning mineral price balance somewhat valid, I agree with many people in this thread regarding the cost-efficiency of BS in the bigger picture.

    Tier 1 and 2 BS haven't seen overly widespread use in their current iteration and I can't see any improvements warranting a price increase after Tiericide.

    An easy comparison: the Oracle will beat the new Apoc in almost every aspect except tank, which it compensates with better mobility.
    Add the fact that the apoc needs large rigs as opposed to the Oracles meds to the fact that the Apoc will cost considerably more and I can't see why anyone would ever fly an Apoc over an Oracle.

    If I want something more tanky, I'd rather pick one of the new faction BCs - BS tank, smaller sig, better mobility, better tracking and less damage projection and again, due to the large vs med rigs and in this case the cheaper modules, they will probably be cheaper to fly than a BS.

    Current BS are underwhelming outside blobs, Odissey iterations even nerf some of them and on top of that, we get a price increase.
    You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
    Jill Antaris
    Jill's Open Incursion Corp
    #390 - 2013-05-07 22:08:02 UTC
    I think he is referring of the days where a IFFA DCU did cost 20+ million isk and a fully T2 fittet BS where around the 300-400 ISK price tag. However a lot of things changed in eve since this days and BS are not really the all end of sub capital ships any more at least outside long range engagements and where mobility is a negation able thing.

    I think the biggest problem will be the lacking insurance payout for the old tier 1 BS, making them overall the most expensive ships in the BS line-up. For tier 2 and 3 BS nothing really big changes here, since the price tag and minerals shouldn't change much. While the internal investment into a BS is high, and BS sized rigs and modules cost quite a bit, insurance made them a ok alternative compared to HACs or CS for some applications. The biggest problem might be the existence of tier 3 BCs that are a lot cheaper and the trade off between speed vs. ehp is actually more a situational thing instead of a real drawback compared to BS.
    Bigg Gun
    T.I.E. Inc.
    #391 - 2013-05-07 23:56:35 UTC
    Why does everyone assume that rushing into a BS is a bad idea. Obviously BS is not for the small gang or solo pvp, since it cannot get out of the fecal matter if it happens to hit the oscillating air propagator. Devs see 500 abaddon fought in pvp this month and think all is fine but the fact is that it was 1 fleet with 500 of the same ship. No small gang BS, no not in eve.

    However for pve it's the only ship that makes sense - large reppers or large EHP are the only thing that can and will save you in a serious pve situation, whether group or solo that's the only ship that makes sense (well there's the tengu nowadays and the ishtar and gila from the original lineup, but those just confirm the rule). And in PVE there is no such thing as rushing into a BS. The earlier you get into one the earlier you start rolling the dough. Hell if I was starting a new account now, I'd get to lvl 4 ASAP just so I can start making real money and after that get into an incursion with meta 4 guns , t 1 rigs and somewhat faction tank. OF course with price of 300 mil the initial investment into a BS is too big for a newbie. Obviously the newbie has to fork over 15 extra just to get into it's new shiny ship.

    Ah well the best we can do out of a bad situation is buy as many tier 1 ships as we can and wait for the market to double the prices. It will kill the manufacturers but ah well, at least CCP can sell more plexes
    Taggs Corhan
    Crimson Reavers
    #392 - 2013-05-08 00:24:05 UTC
    Problem with the idea of rushing a battleship for pve effectiveness.

    If I rush to tech 2 cruisers, I get the same effectiveness, more -effective- tank, and lower cost. . . and can still run level 4's.

    If I rush to assault frigates, i can run level 4's, effectively, safely, and while slightly slower than with the tech 2 cruisers, for a far smaller isk investment and far less risk.

    If I rush to faction cruisers, I can run level 4's with tech 2 fittings, at more risk of loss than the tech 2 cruiser, but less risk of loss than a rushed battleship. Again, with less isk risked, more effective than the battleship, and less intensive by far on skills trained.

    Each of these three options is viable for running level 4 missions in very short order, less time than rushing an effective battleship build that would allow you to safely run all 4's.

    Battleships just suck for pve. Massively. In large blob-fights, they are good, but then, in large blob fights, almost any ship can be good when used in a proper strategy. Point in case? Newb frigate gate camps.

    This is the same kind of thing that has been posted about by everyone else regarding battleships. They just aren't the big toys they used to be. And are becoming less and less the big guns with every iteration of changes to them.

    If I were starting a new account today, I'd rush into tech 2 cruisers for mission running, and branch out from there. By the time I could fly a tech 2 cruiser, I'd be in 4's, and I'd be safer in that t2 cruiser than I ever was in my first battleship.

    A bulet may have your name on it, but shrapnel is addressed 'to whom it may concern'.

    A nuke is addressed to 'Current Resident'
    Arronicus
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #393 - 2013-05-08 00:24:38 UTC
    CCP Rise wrote:
    Quote:
    How balanced is the cost and effectiveness of a BS compared to a BC? Is a BS really worth 4 BCs?


    Its very consistent across EVE to get linear power increase for exponential cost increase. Is a Cruiser worth 10 frigates? Is a Machariel better than 5 battleships? I think BS happened to be at a point in the curve which is extremely important because the price point is right where it starts to hurt people, but BC are right there reminding you of how small your performance increase is.

    We think it fits though. PVEers are making their first long-term investment on a BS usually and we don't want that to be available too quickly, and for large scale PVP BS are the last step before moving to extremely end-game ships and so it needs to feel significant.


    It is a longer and more skill intensive train, for a battleship, than it is for a tech 3 cruiser. As has been proven numerous times over the last couple years, tech 3 ships are completely viable, and occasionally used, for large scale PVP. To that end, I would say that BS are the last step skillwise, perhaps, but not cost-wise, and even then, many people never bother with battleships, simply going, Frigate > destroyer > Cruiser > Battlecruiser > Hac/Recon/Logi/T3 cruiser > Faction BS/Capitals, skipping tech 1 battleships altogether.

    The new price point is going to make battleships cost prohibitive for pvp. The rokh, Abaddon, dominix, and others are not only getting nerfed for pvp, but the lower end models are going to see a price increase. When the ships already see limited usage, far less than they did 4-5 years ago, how is it justified to favour 'mineral supply prices' via high cost low demand, as opposed to keeping the price of battleships lower, so that more of them blow up, and you actually see a net volume INCREASE in mineral demand? Seems to me this change simply was not well thought out.

    That being said, my production lines are running.
    Theia Matova
    Dominance Theory
    #394 - 2013-05-08 00:46:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Theia Matova
    I would laugh so hard now when CCP announced that they would adjust the build prices downward. People mass product BSes. Market would really stagger and industrial people would cry.

    And I do believe this or buffing BSes has to happen. Because it seems that players are in consensus that BSes are not worth the updated build price.

    Lets see when the crap hits the fan it will be messy and smelly.
    Arronicus
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #395 - 2013-05-08 02:57:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Arronicus
    Theia Matova wrote:
    I would laugh so hard now when CCP announced that they would adjust the build prices downward. People mass product BSes. Market would really stagger and industrial people would cry.

    And I do believe this or buffing BSes has to happen. Because it seems that players are in consensus that BSes are not worth the updated build price.

    Lets see when the crap hits the fan it will be messy and smelly.


    CCP is just back on their, 'ignore the playerbase. we know best, the end' line of thought. Eventually, a few years down the road, someone will step back, and try to analyze the problem.
    Emily Jean McKenna
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #396 - 2013-05-08 03:17:03 UTC
    Theia Matova wrote:
    I would laugh so hard now when CCP announced that they would adjust the build prices downward. People mass product BSes. Market would really stagger and industrial people would cry.

    And I do believe this or buffing BSes has to happen. Because it seems that players are in consensus that BSes are not worth the updated build price.

    Lets see when the crap hits the fan it will be messy and smelly.


    It all blows back into our face...

    Anyway, Most of the BS changes are garbage. I want the tiered battleships... The Armageddon and Dominix were my favorites, now I wont even fly them. Enough said there really.
    Emily Jean McKenna
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #397 - 2013-05-08 03:18:44 UTC
    Arronicus wrote:
    Theia Matova wrote:
    I would laugh so hard now when CCP announced that they would adjust the build prices downward. People mass product BSes. Market would really stagger and industrial people would cry.

    And I do believe this or buffing BSes has to happen. Because it seems that players are in consensus that BSes are not worth the updated build price.

    Lets see when the crap hits the fan it will be messy and smelly.


    CCP is just back on there, 'ignore the playerbase. we know best, the end' line of thought. Eventually, a few years down the road, someone will step back, and try to analyze the problem.


    Yeah, the last time they did this stance... they lose a large chunk of players. A lot of them came back once they apologized and tried to fix things that were ****** up in the game for years.

    Again though, there is alot of **** that needs to be fixed... the BS changes were not one of them.
    Hagika
    Standard Corp 123
    #398 - 2013-05-08 03:44:29 UTC
    Emily Jean McKenna wrote:
    Arronicus wrote:
    Theia Matova wrote:
    I would laugh so hard now when CCP announced that they would adjust the build prices downward. People mass product BSes. Market would really stagger and industrial people would cry.

    And I do believe this or buffing BSes has to happen. Because it seems that players are in consensus that BSes are not worth the updated build price.

    Lets see when the crap hits the fan it will be messy and smelly.


    CCP is just back on there, 'ignore the playerbase. we know best, the end' line of thought. Eventually, a few years down the road, someone will step back, and try to analyze the problem.


    Yeah, the last time they did this stance... they lose a large chunk of players. A lot of them came back once they apologized and tried to fix things that were ****** up in the game for years.

    Again though, there is alot of **** that needs to be fixed... the BS changes were not one of them.


    Kinda interesting how they are avoiding this thread and the BS change threads like the plague and are posting on others. As soon as we spread over to another thread and bring the subject up, they stop posting there and ignore the player base.

    Last time I checked, that is bad for business and very unprofessional.

    Seems like they didnt learn their lesson from last time, so they will have to learn again.

    Rule # 1 - Keep the customer happy, or lose money.
    Frostys Virpio
    State War Academy
    Caldari State
    #399 - 2013-05-08 04:29:03 UTC
    People keep saying the price does not amtter in balance but in the end, if you can do the exact same thing or really close to it for much cheaper, you will go the cheaper route. Why would you use the turtle speed slow locking ECM boat when you can have one cheaper with speed tanking and locking it's target much faster to apply the ECM before it gets erased from grid?
    Kharamete
    Royal Assent
    #400 - 2013-05-08 05:00:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Kharamete
    Hagika wrote:


    You just dont get it... They are not worth the price increase.. Have you not been reading?


    Of course I've read it. Doesn't mean anything else than that I'm constantly flipping amazed by the amount of verbiage which can be wasted on trivialities.

    Of course it will be worth it. I'm building Armageddons now. They're going to be freaking awesome come patch day. I must ensure that I have plenty that will blow up around me.

    CCP FoxFour: "... the what button... oh god I didn't even know that existed. BRB."

    My little youtube videos can be found here