Player Features and Ideas Discussion

The problem with this is that all other tech 1 ships will also be cheaper. So let's say prices drop quite dramatically like that. In that case you would potentially be looking at 50 mil attack battlecruisers against 160 mil battleships. In most smal gang or sniper fleet scenarios you would still be better off going for the ABC since it's much cheaper, more maneuverable and therefore survivable, and easier to carry logistically.

ok, so in a summarized form, what CCP thinks is that by increasing the price of battleship production, the prices will go down? you are forgetting that any and all markets are run at the core of supply and demand, if you want the prices to drop, you supply more then the demand, and if you want the prices to rise, you reduce the supply so as to rise the demand for the product, what you are suggesting here is to decrease the supply while maintaining the demand, as the production will have to collect more minerals to produce the same ships the prices of all ships will go up, with the mineral changes coming up, the prices might drop on their own, and battleship prices will drop. with these changes you are suggesting, the battleship prices will either rise even more, or stay at the same level.

back on the supply and demand part: ship prices will always be run by how wanted the ship is, Eg. if a major group picks the Rokh as their primary fleet doctrine, then the people supplying the ships can increase the prices of them as they see profit there, because the ship is wanted.

TLDR: this idea will not work, and has possibility of backfire.

No , some people think the average price wil not go up so much because CCP are chaging 0.0 mineral supply. Theert willb e a LOT more tritanium being produced and taht shoudl reduce the rpessure over the priuce of battleshisp that use a lot of tritanium.

Have you considered to release some cheep BS ?
For me - there is no problem to pay 40mil more for BS, but in case of new player additional 40 mil is "OMGWTFZFBFBFBB!!"
Especially that this BS will be mostly used to make isk - and won't have expected lifetime < insurance.
And many new player battleship end bad, very bad , within few days.

It would be good if new players have ability to have something like gnosis in the BS class.
Why?
First : "LOOK! I have my FIRST Battleship"
( this will keep more new players in game)
Second - if you give this ship FLAT bonuses that will help low skill players to achieve something "more", and at the same time they will be useless in PVP compared to the things you can get from skilled race BS.

The first two bonuses i can think of:
- Capacitor capacity and recharge.
- Repair/shield boost bonus.
This will allow new player to survive in their initial PVE experience , and is not so useful in big scale PVP engagement , or roams.

I know we have battle cruiser class - but in case new players you cant forget : "LOOK! I have my FIRST Battleship"
and the "My Battleship - why , oh why ......." few days after.

You also forget that they change gravitometric sites to anomalies that can be scanned using your ship on board computer -> miners will be more easier to be ganked. Which will affect both use of the resource and supply of the resources.

It will be interesting to see what happens when Odyssey hits.

Its not only the ABCs but also NBCs. NBCs are faster have almost same EHP, bit less damage, smaller sig, more flexible in fitting. Making the quite deadly against BSes when they get to close range.

Anyway its nice to see that other people also laugh at this stupid ABS concept. BSes are biggest of the sub capital ships. Their trait should not be speed or "weakness" but lot of EHP and superior tank (in comparison to smaller ships) and of course superior damage (in comparison to smaller ships) with limited tracking.

Is there any plan to have the increased mineral cost on rebalanced ships moved from "additional materials" (non afftected by ME and not recovered by reprocessing) to another type of cost, affected by ME (but still not recovered on reprocessing)?
As it stands, the 10% waste of a ME 0 dominix will become approximately 5%, impacting both the BPO reselling market and the profit margin of industry (which will get ****** for years anyway, but whatever).

I do agree but if EHP raises then the damage done needs to scale as well. Or we end in situation where no one can no one.

I agree with you on the whole botting thing, for the record I was here when the drone regions were introduced and the loot was nerfed, so perhaps I should have clarified that I was speaking of recent changes. but it's hard to type on a ****** smartphone keyboard so I kept it brief. The laptop is out today though so I in order to defend my point... The whole reason why the ships are going up in price is because CCP are increasing the amounts of minerals they require for production, as mentioned in their own dev posts they could have lowered them or even averaged them across all 3 vessels per battleship line but they didn't do so because it would have been recessionary... Ergo CCP do not want mineral costs to drop as they don't want a recession in eve. That's why I think that the coming changes to the game will be structured in a way that supports the economy and keeps the prices of items inflating.

Now I personally think that inflation is a bad thing and that if we had serious drops in prices and the economy became deflationary that would be a good thing as ships and modules would cost less and players might be more willing to risk them in pvp or exploratory actions like mining in low/null or wh space.

Personally I take great exception at high levels of dev interference in a supposedly 'player driven economy' as touted in the advertising if prices drop or rise due to player activity I'm all for it.

Superb idea, +1 we definately need more sinks in eve, I'm thinking that the pair of economists they've hired must be Keynesians. They too don't know when they are in a bubble...