These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Manny Moons
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#61 - 2013-05-03 18:08:29 UTC
progodlegend wrote:
Manny Moons wrote:
Just look at the lowly Procurer. Current build cost is about 21 million isk. You can buy one in Jita for 9 million. Platinum insurance payout is 2,043,391. That pretty much sums up the problem with "Extra Materials".


I think it more exhibits a problem with the usefulness of the procurer if demand is so low that people aren't even bothering to build it.

Clearly there were huge quantities stockpiled prior to the barge buff, and the relatively low demand will take a long time to absorb them. But it's the extra materials that are responsible for the current disparity. If you could scrap Procurers for anything close to their build cost, there would be no glut.

Jonas Sukarala
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#62 - 2013-05-03 18:08:35 UTC
Zimmy Zeta wrote:
I understand the reasoning behind those prices.
Since I usually don't fly Battleships very often I do not care very much, personally.
But my problem is that the increase in BS cost might draw even more players towards the still ridiculously overpowered and widely loathed tier 3 Battlecruisers.
Is there any plan to increase their cost, too? I don't want to play Oracle Online...Ugh



If only they made ABC's T2 hulls then they would be more expensive and better balanced..... mm...

'Tech3 ships need to be put down, like a rabid dog drooling everywhere in the house, they are out of line' CCP Ytterbium Nerf missile range into place where is the TD missile change?  ..projectiles should use capacitor. ABC's should be T2 HABC and nerf web strength its still too high

Esharan
State War Academy
Caldari State
#63 - 2013-05-03 18:09:46 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
EVE players are making money faster and faster


Not me. Pretty limited with 1 account, no high sec access and no interest in T3s.


Yah wicked generalization. I don't make isk fast at all, eve isn't about making isk to me its about pew - I think ships should be cheaper not more xpensive so I can shoot things more.

Seriously.
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#64 - 2013-05-03 18:19:00 UTC
Destoya wrote:
iskflakes wrote:
If it isn't obvious, I suggest everybody go and buy as many battleships now as you can. You may not be able to reprocess them, but after the patch the prices will be 40m higher.


You aren't wrong, but there's still a ton of people selling off tier one bc's and procurers for something like 50% of build cost; it takes a while for all the stockpiles to run out

This time it's even more complicated.
They are changing mining yields, which may or may not lead to decrease of mineral prices - thus annihilating a large portion of future profits.
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#65 - 2013-05-03 18:19:43 UTC
Grarr Dexx wrote:
People aren't making money faster. OTEC is skewing the values on that graph. This increase in build cost will further reduce battleship usage, even with the buffs they have coming.


Calling them attack battleships and reducing their HP isn't exactly a buff.
Avald Midular
Doomheim
#66 - 2013-05-03 18:20:48 UTC
CCP Rise -

I notice your'e actively giving feedback in this thread but have largely forgotten the T1 BS threads. Is feedback largely done in those threads because players are still actively discussing in them and would like a back and forth if you have the time.
Karig'Ano Keikira
Tax Cheaters
#67 - 2013-05-03 18:26:03 UTC
cannot shake off feeling that battleships got short end of stick in entire tiericide - for most, increase in performance is suspicious at best, entire attack battleship class is dubious compared to attack battlecruisers (cmon, who really needs attack ship with 3 - 4 times the price tag that does less damage and has much lower mobility (ok, more tank, but not like selling point of attack ships is tank)) and their cost-efficiency was problematic even before price increase
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#68 - 2013-05-03 18:28:02 UTC
And yes, I think that makes attack battlecruisers even more OP. Cut their turrets already, would you.
Soon Shin
Scarlet Weather Rhapsody
#69 - 2013-05-03 18:28:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Soon Shin
With Battleships costing 200+ million for all of them, I'm going to have a hard time justifying flying these niche ships over cheaper and more general purpose battlecruisers which are 3 times cheaper with the hull costs.

Factoring Rig and module costs it will be far far far more cheaper to use battlecruisers than battleships.


I understand your reasoning, but this will definately hurt the usage of battleships.

Battleships have a fairly limited role in today's battles.

Just like ship and tanks of Real life; big size, lack of mobility, and high costs are what killed Battleships and Heavy tanks.

That same will happen to Battleships in EVE.
DeadRow
Blue Canary
Watch This
#70 - 2013-05-03 18:30:33 UTC
*Sigh* and I was looking forward to flying these ships.

Nevermind.
Hagika
Standard Corp 123
#71 - 2013-05-03 18:33:34 UTC
Had a long response but the draft system screwed it up yet again, so I will make it simple and short.

The cost increase done by CCP will not be the actual total increase. With changes of the ships, the market is still controlled by the players for the most part and so the increase will be even more than what you intended.

I really wish you all would look into all aspects of changes before you implement them in game.

Also with the addition of new ships to the game will add even more problems and balances when there are so many issues that have been on going for years, yet adding more on top will just continue to get the old issues ignore for even more time.

Medium rails for example? Also the blanket resist nerf to ships is a very poor and not thought out nerf.

Not only that but the community has overwhelmingly spoken out against it and provided many alternatives to the nerf, yet they go unanswered.

This cost increase to battleships is detrimental the game and to the players who continue to find their pvp fix in smaller hulls.
A battleship is not worth more than 2 tier 3 battlecruisers and not really worth more than 3 tier 1 and 2 battle cruisers.

Especially not poorly changed raven.
Nex apparatu5
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#72 - 2013-05-03 18:33:51 UTC
To everyone who is complaining that the price makes battleships somehow "worse", I have news for you: price isn't a balancing factor. hth.
Hagika
Standard Corp 123
#73 - 2013-05-03 18:38:26 UTC
Avald Midular wrote:
CCP Rise -

I notice your'e actively giving feedback in this thread but have largely forgotten the T1 BS threads. Is feedback largely done in those threads because players are still actively discussing in them and would like a back and forth if you have the time.


Its a done deal bro, that are setting it in stone and are going to ignore the more experienced player base.

Maybe the fixes will come in another few years. Until then we get glorious price increases with ships that are not even close to the value of cost.

Government knows best right? Errr CCP.
Grarr Dexx
Blue Canary
Watch This
#74 - 2013-05-03 18:39:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Grarr Dexx
Nex apparatu5 wrote:
To everyone who is complaining that the price makes battleships somehow "worse", I have news for you: price isn't a balancing factor. hth.


This is coming from the guy whose alliance has a full reimbursement policy? When's the last time you actually paid for a PVP ship?
Soon Shin
Scarlet Weather Rhapsody
#75 - 2013-05-03 18:39:18 UTC
Nex apparatu5 wrote:
To everyone who is complaining that the price makes battleships somehow "worse", I have news for you: price isn't a balancing factor. hth.


It is a balancing factor.

Why pay 3-4 times maybe even 5 times more considering rig and fitting costs on a Battleships which have fairly niche usage

where its not a whole lot better than general battlecruisers in that niche?


Increasing the cost of Battleships does very little to fix the BC vs BS situation where 9/10 players will fly a BC over a BS.
Tubrug1
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#76 - 2013-05-03 18:41:07 UTC
Please stop adjusting the mineral requirement for ships, all it does is decrease the acessability of PVP and completely breaks manufacturing for years after the change.
Hagika
Standard Corp 123
#77 - 2013-05-03 18:45:23 UTC
Nex apparatu5 wrote:
To everyone who is complaining that the price makes battleships somehow "worse", I have news for you: price isn't a balancing factor. hth.



I have news for you, the other forums speaking of the changes do not warrant the price increase that the community will feel in their pockets. This will no doubt make battleship use even less common.

Perhaps you should factor that into your view of balance vs cost because, cost is a balance factor when compared to other hulls.

Though I do not see you as the type as being able to figure that out, when everyone else is currently saying the opposite as you.
Nex apparatu5
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#78 - 2013-05-03 18:50:06 UTC
Soon Shin wrote:
Nex apparatu5 wrote:
To everyone who is complaining that the price makes battleships somehow "worse", I have news for you: price isn't a balancing factor. hth.


It is a balancing factor.

Why pay 3-4 times maybe even 5 times more considering rig and fitting costs on a Battleships which have fairly niche usage

where its not a whole lot better than general battlecruisers in that niche?


Increasing the cost of Battleships does very little to fix the BC vs BS situation where 9/10 players will fly a BC over a BS.


Well by that logic the price of titans should be cut in half. Why use them when a dread does more DPS? I mean, 9/10 pilots will fly a dread instead of a titan. Hell, probably more like 99/100
Grarr Dexx
Blue Canary
Watch This
#79 - 2013-05-03 18:52:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Grarr Dexx
Nex apparatu5 wrote:
Soon Shin wrote:
Nex apparatu5 wrote:
To everyone who is complaining that the price makes battleships somehow "worse", I have news for you: price isn't a balancing factor. hth.


It is a balancing factor.

Why pay 3-4 times maybe even 5 times more considering rig and fitting costs on a Battleships which have fairly niche usage

where its not a whole lot better than general battlecruisers in that niche?


Increasing the cost of Battleships does very little to fix the BC vs BS situation where 9/10 players will fly a BC over a BS.


Well by that logic the price of titans should be cut in half. Why use them when a dread does more DPS? I mean, 9/10 pilots will fly a dread instead of a titan. Hell, probably more like 99/100


Reductio ad absurdum. Dreadnoughts do not offer jump bridges or a 5 million m³ ship hangar / 112 thousand m³ cargo space. You also don't have to lock them in place for five minutes to deal that damage and can deliver a burst of three million damage up front at the cost of only locking it in place for thirty seconds.

Stop embarrassing yourself.
Nex apparatu5
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#80 - 2013-05-03 18:53:40 UTC
Hagika wrote:
Nex apparatu5 wrote:
To everyone who is complaining that the price makes battleships somehow "worse", I have news for you: price isn't a balancing factor. hth.



I have news for you, the other forums speaking of the changes do not warrant the price increase that the community will feel in their pockets. This will no doubt make battleship use even less common.

Perhaps you should factor that into your view of balance vs cost because, cost is a balance factor when compared to other hulls.

Though I do not see you as the type as being able to figure that out, when everyone else is currently saying the opposite as you.


It's 40 million isk. It's a trivial amount