These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Hagika
Standard Corp 123
#421 - 2013-05-09 22:07:04 UTC
That would do it. Atleast for null blobs when cap ships and stuff come out.
Hagika
Standard Corp 123
#422 - 2013-05-09 22:15:30 UTC
Theia Matova wrote:
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.



We can just jack the price on every ship and totally ruin the casual player, and we can all spend hours more a day grinding isk to fund our little ships. That sound better?

Seriously, Everytime prices go up, causal players have to work harder to get in to pvp. New players will have to suffer trying to make isk just to get into pvp.

So a person starting out is not only at a skill problem but also an isk problem. They lack the skills to really make any decent amount until they can either have enough skill points to get into incursions, fly a decent mission or pray they get taken down to some large alliance to throw them ships.

If you want to remove the blobs, drop alot of the isk flow in game, You have to start taking shots at the tech moons.

When ship replacement programs go away, then people have to work for their ships. Then since everyone will not be able to toss isk everywhere then they will not be able to throw the high numbers out.

The ship and plex cost in eve has skyrocketed since I have been playing. I remember when Plex was 200 mil and now you are lucky to get it around 500?
Large Collidable Object
morons.
#423 - 2013-05-09 23:37:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Large Collidable Object
Hagika wrote:


We can just jack the price on every ship and totally ruin the casual player, and we can all spend hours more a day grinding isk to fund our little ships. That sound better?

Seriously, Everytime prices go up, causal players have to work harder to get in to pvp. New players will have to suffer trying to make isk just to get into pvp.


Ship prices may have gone up, but at the same time, ships you can fly within 1-2 weeks of skilling have been seriously beefed and in part even outperform their T2 counterparts. We're talking about 5 million isk ships outperofrming 120 mill isk ships here.

Anyway - you're missing the entire point:

An Abaddon costs 238 mill in Jita right now, according to the OP, they will all be raised to that level, so thre new Apoc will be ~240 mill isk.
Compare the new Apoc to an Oracle costing way less than a third in base-price. Now add to that the fact the Apoc uses large rigs, the Oracle uses Mediums - so make that more than 400-500% price difference in the basic, rigged hull.

Now look at the new Apocs stats and bonuses and think about what it can do.

Look at the Oracles stats and think about what you could do with that.

Which ship would you pick - either for a fleet or 1on1 situation?

And the ship noone would pick for obvious reasons takes a month longer to train and costs 5 times more??

Yeah - right - makes sense...


It's not about overall ship cost, but whilst cost is a bad overall balancing factor, performance should reflect the cost at least somewhat.
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
Illest Insurrectionist
Sparta.
#424 - 2013-05-10 07:35:30 UTC
"according to the OP, they will all be raised to that level, so thre new Apoc will be ~240 mill isk. "

No where in the original post does it say that. No where. The new Apoc will be around 170-175 with mineral prices set to decrease and a pre-patch apocs not evaporating.
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
#425 - 2013-05-10 08:06:34 UTC
Personally I don't like the current regime of 'balancing' ships and prefer it the way it was before where ships were different eg the Hulk having the best yield and the Mackinaw being the best ship to mine ice in. But we have no say in these matters apparently even with the CSM gaining more influence.

I presume the balancing regime is going to carry on through the remaining ships all the way up to Titans. What is going to happen when Freighters for example become the next ships to be rebalanced. I expect we will get some mid range capacity Freighters introduced to bridge the gap between Mammoths & Fenrirs which will be nice. But adding extra materials to Freighters is going to be a massive mineral requirement to build them. Obviously there are pros & cons to every change but I'm still not a fan of rebalancing if extra materials on BPO's is the fallout.

" They're gonna feel pretty stupid when they find out. " Rick. " Find out what ? " Abraham. " They're screwing with the wrong people. " Rick. Season four.   ' The Walking Dead. ' .
Zimmy Zeta
Perkone
Caldari State
#426 - 2013-05-10 09:00:56 UTC
Large Collidable Object wrote:
Hagika wrote:


We can just jack the price on every ship and totally ruin the casual player, and we can all spend hours more a day grinding isk to fund our little ships. That sound better?

Seriously, Everytime prices go up, causal players have to work harder to get in to pvp. New players will have to suffer trying to make isk just to get into pvp.


Ship prices may have gone up, but at the same time, ships you can fly within 1-2 weeks of skilling have been seriously beefed and in part even outperform their T2 counterparts. We're talking about 5 million isk ships outperofrming 120 mill isk ships here.

Anyway - you're missing the entire point:

An Abaddon costs 238 mill in Jita right now, according to the OP, they will all be raised to that level, so thre new Apoc will be ~240 mill isk.
Compare the new Apoc to an Oracle costing way less than a third in base-price. Now add to that the fact the Apoc uses large rigs, the Oracle uses Mediums - so make that more than 400-500% price difference in the basic, rigged hull.

Now look at the new Apocs stats and bonuses and think about what it can do.

Look at the Oracles stats and think about what you could do with that.

Which ship would you pick - either for a fleet or 1on1 situation?

And the ship noone would pick for obvious reasons takes a month longer to train and costs 5 times more??

Yeah - right - makes sense...


It's not about overall ship cost, but whilst cost is a bad overall balancing factor, performance should reflect the cost at least somewhat.


Regarding the tier 3 BCs I fail to see the the reason behind the whole concept for "Attack Battleships".
With less firepower than the ABCs, less tank than the Combat Battleships and significantly slower speed than ABCs, Attack Battleships seem to be a blend of those both ships with no clearly defined role of their own that will inevitably perform worse at any task than their more specialized cousins.

I'd like to apologize for the poor quality of the post above and sincerely hope you didn't waste your time reading it. Yes, I do feel bad about it.
Pattern Clarc
Citeregis
#427 - 2013-05-10 09:05:59 UTC
Zimmy Zeta wrote:


Regarding the tier 3 BCs I fail to see the the reason behind the whole concept for "Attack Battleships".
With less firepower than the ABCs, less tank than the Combat Battleships and significantly slower speed than ABCs, Attack Battleships seem to be a blend of those both ships with no clearly defined role of their own that will inevitably perform worse at any task than their more specialized cousins.

I agree, and it's not like we don't have faction or t2 battlecruisers with BS EHP even more speed or 3/4rds the dps.

Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction
Zimmy Zeta
Perkone
Caldari State
#428 - 2013-05-10 09:15:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Zimmy Zeta
It's too late now anyway, but if CCP wanted to assign special roles to different battleship tiers, I'd rather seen something like this:

1. Welpship: (Geddon, Pest, Raven, Mega), comparably poor performance, generous PG and CPU to make them very newby friendly, also extremely cheap to be the most cost-efficient of all battleships.

2. Fleet ship: (Mael, Baddon, Hype, Rokh) . Bonus to racial tanking, bonus to primary racial weapon system and enough PG and CPU to fit a full rack of your largest racial long range guns.

3. Gang ship: (Apoc, Phoon, Scorpion, Domi): Bonus to primary and secondary racial weapon system, generous med slot layout and utility high for highly flexible roles and combat utility. Rather limited PG and CPU to make those more suited to older players with good skills.

I'd like to apologize for the poor quality of the post above and sincerely hope you didn't waste your time reading it. Yes, I do feel bad about it.
Caljiav Ocanon
The Holy Rollers
#429 - 2013-05-10 19:39:29 UTC
cruisers
combat battle cruisers
attack battle cruisers
Tech III cruisers

My only take away here is that CCP intends/wants everyone to fly cruisers and that the cruiser class is a "catch all" for all their crazy ideas. But why?
Illest Insurrectionist
Sparta.
#430 - 2013-05-10 21:52:11 UTC
Caljiav Ocanon wrote:
cruisers
combat battle cruisers
attack battle cruisers
Tech III cruisers

My only take away here is that CCP intends/wants everyone to fly cruisers and that the cruiser class is a "catch all" for all their crazy ideas. But why?


It is the odd idea of new folks being competitive. It is the odd idea that power shouldn't increase in a linear fashion with cost.
Baron vonDoom
Scorn.
#431 - 2013-05-10 23:33:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Baron vonDoom
Illest Insurrectionist wrote:


It is the odd idea of new folks being competitive. It is the odd idea that power shouldn't increase in a linear fashion with cost.



Makes sense - just like the the odd idea that looking at current BS plans, they've actually managed to implement exponemtial decay with increasing cost.
Jeanne-Luise Argenau
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#432 - 2013-05-11 12:46:51 UTC
im still staying to my word bs needs more staying power every battleship.

my idea of how the ships r currently

frigates = frigates
t1 cruiser = light cruisers
hacs = cruisers
combate battlecruiser = heavy cruisers
attack battlecruiser = battlecruiser
Battleship = s*** their role means they need more tank
cant command on dreads, titans and carriers
Caljiav Ocanon
The Holy Rollers
#433 - 2013-05-11 12:57:10 UTC
Illest Insurrectionist wrote:


It is the odd idea of new folks being competitive. It is the odd idea that power shouldn't increase in a linear fashion with cost.



The only niche Tech I Battleships have right now is being a slightly tankier ABC.

Pretty crappy role IMHO.
mr ed thehouseofed
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#434 - 2013-05-11 13:37:06 UTC
Chribba wrote:
Bagehi wrote:
Miners everywhere cheer. Where's Chribba?

no time to post, must mine!


lmao

i want a eve pinball machine...  confirming  CCP Cognac is best cognac
Large Collidable Object
morons.
#435 - 2013-05-11 23:30:02 UTC
Illest Insurrectionist wrote:
"according to the OP, they will all be raised to that level, so thre new Apoc will be ~240 mill isk. "

No where in the original post does it say that. No where. The new Apoc will be around 170-175 with mineral prices set to decrease and a pre-patch apocs not evaporating.
I stand corrected.

So it's 70 mill less - doesn't change anything about the point.

It simply doesn't make sense to have the more skill-intense ship perform worse whilst it's more expensive to fit and the basic hull costs more - doesn't really change anything if it's 4 or 5 times more expensive.

A fleet of Oracles (or any ABC) vs a fleet of Apocs? The ABCs will kite the Apocs to death, because they're faster, have a smaller sig radius and actually have less issues fitting long range weaponry.

This applies to all gang sizes. Unless you jump into them using an MJD - 'I-was-there-guy-style' and the ABC gang isn't asleep at the same time, the BS don't stand a chance.

Yes - you may argue that's not its role, but a sitting duck without range, cap, grid and CPU, a sig radius like a moon and a scan resolution resulting in lock times allowing you to take a bio-break before the lock is finished isn't a close-range brawler, it's a sitting duck.

[sarcasm]Perfectly validates an increase in cost. [/sarcasm]
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
Bigg Gun
T.I.E. Inc.
#436 - 2013-05-12 00:24:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Bigg Gun
OP stated that all BS prices will be equal to the prices of the current tier 3s. So I'm thinking that 220 mil domi better bring twice the dps of it's current version... oh it won't , does it have twice the tank? ... no ? Does it move twice as fast? NO? What do you mean it's dps is actually lower. I thought the price went up? Can we buy the BPO of the current domi at the current price and keep making it? It's obviously the better ship, price wise, dps wise , utility wise, everything wise... Gоddamnit I hate totalitarian regimes , and this "open box" game just took away yet another choice from me. Fuсk you!
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#437 - 2013-05-13 15:21:43 UTC
Bigg Gun wrote:
OP stated that all BS prices will be equal to the prices of the current tier 3s. So I'm thinking that 220 mil domi better bring twice the dps of it's current version... oh it won't , does it have twice the tank? ... no ? Does it move twice as fast? NO? What do you mean it's dps is actually lower. I thought the price went up? Can we buy the BPO of the current domi at the current price and keep making it? It's obviously the better ship, price wise, dps wise , utility wise, everything wise... Gоddamnit I hate totalitarian regimes , and this "open box" game just took away yet another choice from me. Fuсk you!

if only you could stock up on domis now while they are cheap... Roll

I should buy an Ishtar.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#438 - 2013-05-13 20:17:31 UTC
So my expensive habbit is about to get more expensive. Welp.

On another note, will you be getting rid of the split mineral costs on the BPO/BPC info any time soon?
Suzuka A1
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#439 - 2013-05-13 21:47:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Suzuka A1
It’s sad that CCP Rise has not posted on this thread for almost 10 days. Sad

Adunh Slavy wrote:

I like this change, makes sense to me considering the balancing efforts. My only suggestion would be to increase the base Hit Points of all the battleships….


Hagika wrote:

Considering the Battleships are the bridge between cap ships and sub cap ships, they really need an increase in tank.

Like at least double of what they are now.

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


Caitlyn Tufy wrote:

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.


As these people have said I must also agree, BSs do need more EHP to help define them in comparison to battlecruisers and it would help some people ‘justify’ spending more for a BS in the future.

"PvP Tanked" EHP (IMO)
Frigs ~2-4k
Destroyers ~3-6k
Cruisers ~8-20k
Battlecruisers ~30-50k
Battleships ~40-120k
*Big Gap*
Carriers ~1M+

I think that is an obvious gap that needs to be addressed and I think the above quotes help point out that BSs have lost there role in EVE.

Mynna, care to make a comment on your veiws of BS EHP?

Josilin du Guesclin wrote:

Battleships should be offering a very different experience, one where when a cruiser shoots you, you get to shrug and laugh at them for not bringing an entire fleet of friends, and one where when you push 'F1' something really noticeable happens to someone (unless they're another battleship, in which case you settle in for a long slugging match). As it is, BS damage projection feels poor, and their tanks seem to get torn up by fast agile ships too easily, IMO.


I think it is crazy some of the smaller rebalanced ships have so much dps. Just thinking that 2 frigs/destroyers have enough DPS to break the tank of a heavily tank BS is weird, IMO.

Nessa Aldeen wrote:

The solution is ... increase the survival factor of the BS through an increase of HP. 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.


“The Glory Days” for those of us that missed them. http://declarationsofwar.com/?p=269

Never forget the battle of Z9PP-H  What actually happened: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgcUwTmHY74 Battle Report: http://www.kugutsumen.com/showthread.php?42836-They-Might-Be-Giants-The-Southwest&p=497626&viewfull=1#post497626
Suzuka A1
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#440 - 2013-05-13 21:55:56 UTC
Mineral Costs
Kharamete wrote:

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.


In general I want to say that we have become spoiled with having some cheap BSs to buy. If you think about Caldari pilots, as an example, it has been cheap and easy for missile users to buy a Raven (~90M) but the hybrid users have had to wait longer in order to get a Rokh (~210M). This mineral change just makes the experence more consistant in this senario.
I would also like to say that it is likely with the ore changes that some high sec miners may start mining in low sec in ventures. If you can remember when the venture came out gas prices dropped because lots of people started day tripping into WHs. If enough of them do move to low sec we could very well see the cost of the BSs be 20-40M isk less than the 150-240M it looks like it will be. But also there may be some null sec miners that choose to export ore to high sec (although it might not be worth the jump fuel cost). We will have to wait and see.


Other Stuff
Hagika wrote:

If you want to remove the blobs, drop alot of the isk flow in game, you have to start taking shots at the tech moons.


Read the Dev Blogs, tech is being nerfed in Odyessy. I am apart of an Alliance that has tech and relies on it. We are preparing for the impacts this might have on us and we will not stop “blobbing” with or without the use of tech. It’s just a fact, it’s part of EVE, and it really does **** when you are on the receiving end of a blob. But it can be fun going down in flames and even more fun if you face a blob and somehow come out as the victor. Big smile

Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn wrote:

What is going to happen when Freighters for example become the next ships to be rebalanced. I expect we will get some mid range capacity Freighters introduced to bridge the gap between [T1 industrials] & [freighters] which will be nice.


I personally want a “T3” mid-size freighter with 1 subsystem type which allows you to either hold items or assembled ships. I think it could be very handy.

Never forget the battle of Z9PP-H  What actually happened: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgcUwTmHY74 Battle Report: http://www.kugutsumen.com/showthread.php?42836-They-Might-Be-Giants-The-Southwest&p=497626&viewfull=1#post497626