These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Emily Jean McKenna
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#401 - 2013-05-08 05:10:41 UTC
Kharamete wrote:
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.


Im sure a lot of people will like the Armageddon... I will miss the Pulse Laser death machine with heavy drones. It was one of my favorite ships to fly.
Aglais
Ice-Storm
#402 - 2013-05-08 05:48:09 UTC
Kharamete wrote:
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.


Right, let's just pick one of twelve battleships that's practically turning into a T1 Bhaalgorn and is likely going to actually be ok, and totally ignore the fact that the other Amarr battleships aren't doing so hot, and literally the entire Caldari battleship lineup, known for having very poor stats (Raven) and ability to do anything outside of PVE (also Raven), got NERFED (Rokh and Raven), and as such will remain either unused (look at the arguments I posted again, read them carefully, and realize that if a balance pass is done and like one ship comes out ok, ANOTHER PASS MUST HAPPEN).

The point of these balance passes is to make sure everything's flyable and worth using. As it stands, ~90% of battleships after Odyssey hits, due to a combination of the poor price boosting decision and even worse 'balancing' effort, will not be worth using. How is this hard to get. The point of a sandbox game isn't "duhhhh oh look a FOTM lets all latch onto it forever and never do anything else". That is lame, that is boring, and it is terrible. You should have a range of choices for how you want to approach a goal- this can be done by having each faction's ships perform differently but still be able to do things with overlap in various areas (ie. general PvP use, tacklers, ships of the line, etc.) but with their own racial flavor. It's not easy, and that is precisely why I think this balance round was bunged up so badly.
Carniflex
StarHunt
Mordus Angels
#403 - 2013-05-08 09:30:53 UTC
Cynthia Nezmor wrote:
Partak Cadelanne wrote:
These changes are bad. Who will fly a 250 million Scorpion?


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


Well for 750 mil you could fly instead 3 falcons. I would have to point out, afterall, that being a "battleship" is not advantage. For applying ECM there are other ships already that do the job pretty decently. Or you can have your main fleet carry swarms of ECM drones.

What is going for a scorpion, in general, is the range and hp buffer in combination of its price. If the price increases to the level of Falcons you are much better off using these for the ECM stuff in most cases.

Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.
Bad Messenger
Rehabilitation Clinic
#404 - 2013-05-08 10:59:41 UTC
just saying bye to cheap smartbomb ships.
Bucca Zerodyme
Good For Nothing Corporation
#405 - 2013-05-08 14:30:24 UTC
Kharamete wrote:


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.


You still need the same time of mining to build your first BS. But there is a different to the past, retievers has changed and you can get a orca-boost. I would say its still takes the same time to get into BS, then 4 years ago. Its true you can earn more isk, but you need to spend more isk on the same things.

Actually you can do lvl 4 missions with all skills on lvl 3. I did it 3 years ago and started a new charakter 1 year ago and its still works. You just need to know which missions you cant to do with low-skills. Remember there are many lvl 4 missions which are pretty easy.
Bucca Zerodyme
Good For Nothing Corporation
#406 - 2013-05-08 14:39:41 UTC
Carniflex wrote:
Cynthia Nezmor wrote:
Partak Cadelanne wrote:
These changes are bad. Who will fly a 250 million Scorpion?


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


Well for 750 mil you could fly instead 3 falcons. I would have to point out, afterall, that being a "battleship" is not advantage. For applying ECM there are other ships already that do the job pretty decently. Or you can have your main fleet carry swarms of ECM drones.

What is going for a scorpion, in general, is the range and hp buffer in combination of its price. If the price increases to the level of Falcons you are much better off using these for the ECM stuff in most cases.


Dude buy a Widow, if you have many isk to spend on ECM.
Veinnail
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#407 - 2013-05-08 15:18:28 UTC
changing the attributes of the hulls and the mineral req at the same time is going to deter new doctrine development.
Hagika
Standard Corp 123
#408 - 2013-05-08 16:00:03 UTC
Veinnail wrote:
changing the attributes of the hulls and the mineral req at the same time is going to deter new doctrine development.



Oh they know that, its just that they dont care. They realized we didnt like their ideas and because we responded harshly, they took offense and are ignoring us and are going to shove the changes down our throats just to spite us.
Theia Matova
Dominance Theory
#409 - 2013-05-08 16:29:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Theia Matova
Bucca Zerodyme wrote:

You still need the same time of mining to build your first BS. But there is a different to the past, retievers has changed and you can get a orca-boost. I would say its still takes the same time to get into BS, then 4 years ago. Its true you can earn more isk, but you need to spend more isk on the same things.

Also ABCs did not exist 4 years ago and yet they are here today competing about same spots in fleet. Also 4 years ago I had not been in a bus typing on tablet and raging to devs about game I like to play. Times change what once was should not perhaps be used as an anchor to draw back but to move forward. EVE should develop and evolve..

Bucca Zerodyme wrote:

Actually you can do lvl 4 missions with all skills on lvl 3. I did it 3 years ago and started a new charakter 1 year ago and its still works. You just need to know which missions you cant to do with low-skills. Remember there are many lvl 4 missions which are pretty easy.


Actually that can be true in some cases but as an Amarr you need at least IV or V from cap skill or you simply get to warp a LOT..

Removing tiers was not the best idea that CCP has done to battleship. Some BS changes are nice but in overall these changes just obsolete BSes in many many places. Many people agree that BSes are not fun to fly and use for them is very limited. So players have somewhat hate relationship to these ships. Build cost for sure do not make us love them more unless you are a miner or market exploitter.

My overall feeling especially from Amarr ships is that CCP has tried to do more they can jew and running trying to push more content into Odyssey that was wise.

I think many waited for BS balancing that they would be somehow brought closer to ABCs but instead CCP just makes the gap worse. Also introducing NBCs. Oh and Gnosis.. Which make BS more obsolete.

I love EVE but if CCP cannot do better decisions one is demotivated to continue pay for the game because they lose the faith for the developers.

About build costs themselves ABCs and BS hulls should be almost same build cost. I know people will hate me saying this but ABCs should probably be more costly than BSes.
Gul Amarr
Orange County Cruisers
#410 - 2013-05-08 17:51:48 UTC
Emily Jean McKenna wrote:


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



I'd disagree on BS not in need of a fix.

New ships directly conflicting with their roles have been introduced, many of their traditional roles were obsoleted by changes to gameplay mechanics. And pretty much everything below them was buffed multiple times.
- Sniper BS? obsolete due to on grid probing and outperformed by Tier 3 BCs in that regard nowadays.
- Niche at being AOE DD proof? Obsolete since there is no AOE DD anymore.
- Spider-repping BS gangs? Gone since logis were buffed.
- Going on a small-sized roam using BS? Not anymore since the web-nerf...


Alphablobs and the odd Hellcat fleet aside, BS are in a pretty sad state atm. I hoped the rebalance would bring them back to a competitive state outside of that, but unfortunately, they're not only denied the boost they utterly needed to reflect their higher price, but are getting shafted plus a price increase on top.

And no - I'm not looking at any specific race here - I have them all trained to V, but except for the Geddon, which looks like it could be a fun gimmick ship for once or twice, none of them looks remotely interesting. They Hype maybe springs to my mind if I had to think of one which wasn't changed for the worse...

Do they need a change? Absolutely - they need a buff of the same magnitude T1 cruisers were buffed - right now they are just as obsolete as T1 cruisers were before tiericide, their stats being from the same era - and what do we get? Some role-changes, some nerfs and a price increase.

Alas - a big opprtunity missed here and no - I don't care about the price increase as such, but they're completely out of balance compared to any other T1 ship when it comes to performance/cost. Most of these abominations will run into trouble not getting soloed by a T1 cruiser...
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#411 - 2013-05-08 20:39:34 UTC
A reminder of what we all tell every new player: "Only fly what you can afford to lose."

Essentially, then, making ships cost more simply means that newer players are going to be even more reluctant to lose them, which, in turn, means fewer players who are going to be willing to engage in PVP, esp. against when the odds aren't 100% in their favor.

After all, who the heck wants to grind ISK for a week, only to lose the ship on its first roam?

Cheaper ships means more players who can afford to lose them, and, thus, more players who will engage in risky PVP, with the healthy attitude of "gf - fortunately I can afford to replace it - brb for another fight".
Large Collidable Object
morons.
#412 - 2013-05-08 22:12:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Large Collidable Object
Sizeof Void wrote:
A reminder of what we all tell every new player: "Only fly what you can afford to lose."

Essentially, then, making ships cost more simply means that newer players are going to be even more reluctant to lose them, which, in turn, means fewer players who are going to be willing to engage in PVP, esp. against when the odds aren't 100% in their favor.

After all, who the heck wants to grind ISK for a week, only to lose the ship on its first roam?

Cheaper ships means more players who can afford to lose them, and, thus, more players who will engage in risky PVP, with the healthy attitude of "gf - fortunately I can afford to replace it - brb for another fight".



I for once don't want ships to be any cheaper - e.g. I'd love to see all Battlecruisers having to use large rigs - they're still far to cost-efficient compared to anything within their range of engageable ships.

Having remodeled one of each races BS into a true 'attack' BS with a sig-radius, cost and mobility just as well as tank closer to a BC than a current BS with lower cost would have made sense, rather than 'you're a BC - you can take on anything, you can get away from anything eccept a blob and your ship is dirt cheap' or *you're in a BS - unless you're fed with boosters, have an OGB and faction gear like burntime, you're ****** if anyone catches you outside a blob whilst having payed 5 times the price of a better performing ship'.
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
Theia Matova
Dominance Theory
#413 - 2013-05-08 22:24:49 UTC
Large Collidable Object wrote:

I for once don't want ships to be any cheaper - e.g. I'd love to see all Battlecruisers having to use large rigs - they're still far to cost-efficient compared to anything within their range of engageable ships.


BCs are too cheap in comparison to BSes. What this thread is a about is that CCP is making them even more cost efficient since BS price increases. As sizeof void said its about what you can afford to lose. Also simply that the insurance payout drops those that don't aggress get less paid back when they get popped.

BSes were already rare to see in low sec. Most I seen now have been smartbomb BSes that catches pods. In every other case everyone use ABC because you can rather easily kite snipe and even if ABC pops. You do not really need to care because you probably already got its price back while you explored. BSes have increased sig they can be scanned more easily, slower to warp, less DPS, less speed, if you do sites and don't snipe fit you are forced to 3-4 res module fit that usually leaves predictable hole in your resistance. So BS is basically flown death trap thank to CCP even more expensive flown death trap. I haven't yet had the possibility to test NBCs but I believe that they can do what T1 BS do maybe not with same EHP but less risk. Even the hull would pay more they will most likely be worth their money unlike these expensive flow death traps.
Large Collidable Object
morons.
#414 - 2013-05-08 23:05:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Large Collidable Object
Theia Matova wrote:
BCs are too cheap in comparison to BSes. What this thread is a about is that CCP is making them even more cost efficient since BS price increases. As sizeof void said its about what you can afford to lose. Also simply that the insurance payout drops those that don't aggress get less paid back when they get popped.



Yes - exactly my point (if I read you correctly) - BCs are too cheap and still too mobile compared to Cruisers and BS.

Personally, I don't mind insurance payout since I don't insure ships anymore. Over the last years, I realized that I lost more isk over insurance than actual ship loss.

Admittedly, I've been pretty inactive and before T1 rebalannce, I exclusively flew T2/faction ships - didn't insure the T2/faction because it didn't make any sense in the first place.

Atm, I don't touch faction/T2 with a ten foot pole because T1 is completely OP unless faction/T2 are rebalanced and I don't insure my T1 ships because their overall cost is irrelevant to me compared to modules I fit on them.

Insurance should be removed anyway.

I remember duo roaming in Abaddons with a corpmate before the nano-nerf - using proper spacing and the fact that webs still worked 90%, it worked pretty well - anyone who wanted got away of course - anyone getting cocky died.

But yeah - BS are suffering from enough issues - a sig-radius like Madagaskar, similar mobility, higer base price, more expensive modules, large rigs, less effective DPS against anything than a cap or LCO than even a T1 cruiser due to larger guns, worse sig res and tracking, and effective a more effctive (sig+speed-tanking included) tank than the new faction BC's etc..etc...

As much as I loved to see KIL2's vids and lurked in brining solo back, I wished CCP had managed to hire Prom instead.
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
Calathorn Virpio
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#415 - 2013-05-09 00:46:45 UTC
seeing as there will soon be no more "teirs" and all the BS's will cost around the same price, will we one day get to see naval variants of oh, say the rokh, abbadon, and the other current T3 BS's? kinda feels ****** with them being the only ones without an upper level variant.....

BRING BACK THE JUKEBOX

I attended the School of Hard Nocks, the only place you will ever learn anything of value, sadly most Americans never meet the requirments to attend
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#416 - 2013-05-09 08:11:05 UTC
Great changes. BC build Costs should also be tweaked.

The Tears Must Flow
Jeanne-Luise Argenau
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#417 - 2013-05-09 12:15:35 UTC
Interesting choice on the build costs for battleship. But i dont believe that the build cost changes and the battleship changes
are appropriate. The ABC Talos as an example does more damage compared to the old mega and maybe the same amount
compared to the new one. Talos has less tank but better speed and agility like a battlecruiser should have, i believe the new
battleships will be tanked to lightly tbh. But i havent tested them yet its just my impression from the forums i read so far (5 low slot tanked mega + 3 armor rigs should have 150k to 200k tank in my opinion to fullfill their role).
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#418 - 2013-05-09 12:25:11 UTC
I agree that the new BS's are going to be a little flimsy on tank but I also understand why CCP seem to be reluctant on buffing their EHP.

Ships with larger buffer tanks encourage blobbing which is something CCP and players don't really like.

Still. The new battleships really need their EHP increasing to justify their existance alongside CBC's and ABC's
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#419 - 2013-05-09 18:26:57 UTC
Spugg Galdon wrote:
I agree that the new BS's are going to be a little flimsy on tank but I also understand why CCP seem to be reluctant on buffing their EHP.

Ships with larger buffer tanks encourage blobbing which is something CCP and players don't really like.

Still. The new battleships really need their EHP increasing to justify their existance alongside CBC's and ABC's



Large EHP does nto encurage blobbing. The whoel GAMe encourages blobbing. Large cost encourage blobbign because failure has a higher cost.


That is not an issue with EHP, its an issue with the game not havign been designed to handle with too many players on combat. ANy game where all weapons do damage on any ship they hit and the ship has hitpoints and the effect of guns is only hitpoint loss will have this issue.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Bucca Zerodyme
Good For Nothing Corporation
#420 - 2013-05-09 19:15:12 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Spugg Galdon wrote:
I agree that the new BS's are going to be a little flimsy on tank but I also understand why CCP seem to be reluctant on buffing their EHP.

Ships with larger buffer tanks encourage blobbing which is something CCP and players don't really like.

Still. The new battleships really need their EHP increasing to justify their existance alongside CBC's and ABC's



Large EHP does nto encurage blobbing. The whoel GAMe encourages blobbing. Large cost encourage blobbign because failure has a higher cost.


That is not an issue with EHP, its an issue with the game not havign been designed to handle with too many players on combat. ANy game where all weapons do damage on any ship they hit and the ship has hitpoints and the effect of guns is only hitpoint loss will have this issue.



Just retrieve the old DD, then there would be less blobs, because it would be easier to lose them.