These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Summer] Pirate Battleship Cost Intervention

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
SurrenderMonkey
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#61 - 2017-06-08 19:45:16 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:


In June we are starting to address the supply of pirate battleship BPCs, with moderate changes to the chance of escalations spawning from the most popular high-end anomalies and larger changes to the drop rates of the BPCs themselves from quite a few NPCs.


This would also impact the availability of deadspace modules.

Is this intended (or, at least, considered to be acceptable collateral damage)? Or will drop rates for the mods be adjusted to compensate?

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#62 - 2017-06-08 19:46:03 UTC
Rarilmar wrote:
This should have been done by silently dropping the rates every month for about 3-6 months instead of making this announcement that nuked the market in an hour.


Especially since the damn change probably won't really be felt by the average player since it's a low random occurrence.
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate
#63 - 2017-06-08 19:53:33 UTC
Lugia3 wrote:
The problem isn't cost, it's supply... People already fit 2 bill fits + HG Slaves to their Machs. Making it a bill more expensive won't do anything. Nerf the drop rate so if a Mach fleet dies it can't be instantly repurchased.

Also RIP the Barghest, under the bus it goes.


agreed that you'll always have some who do. But not anywhere near on the level of the fleets roaming the skies today. It's not about killing the option, just dialing it back
Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues
Hookers N' Blow
#64 - 2017-06-08 19:56:12 UTC
SurrenderMonkey wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:


In June we are starting to address the supply of pirate battleship BPCs, with moderate changes to the chance of escalations spawning from the most popular high-end anomalies and larger changes to the drop rates of the BPCs themselves from quite a few NPCs.


This would also impact the availability of deadspace modules.

Is this intended (or, at least, considered to be acceptable collateral damage)? Or will drop rates for the mods be adjusted to compensate?


Given how cheap deadspace/faction modules are hopefully its intended they are all wayyyy too cheap.
ISD Max Trix
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#65 - 2017-06-08 19:57:54 UTC
JC Mieyli wrote:
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
JC Mieyli wrote:
increase material cost and lower bpc means less availability for pirate bs
this means all the industrialists get to build pirate bs early and stockpile
screws over the young industiralist again

how about for once instead of increasing cost to benefit veteran industrialist
try lowering the cost of everything else to help the young industrialist and screw the rich fatcat players
would be niceto see this happen for a change

"Instead of rebalancing one part of the game that's out of alignment, please change literally everything else about the EVE economy."

yup
is that a problem
and tbh its not the one part of the game thats out of alignment
the whole economy is out of alignment because of players taking advantage of mineral cost increases
and thats what is going to happen here too


Its called Free Market Economics.

ISD Max Trix

Lieutenant

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

I do not respond to EVE mails about forum moderation.
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate
#66 - 2017-06-08 19:58:39 UTC
Rarilmar wrote:
This should have been done by silently dropping the rates every month for about 3-6 months instead of making this announcement that nuked the market in an hour.


I hate to say it (I do) but probably afraid of leaks. Damn this real world is making me jaded, but I imagine it's a concern
JC Mieyli
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#67 - 2017-06-08 20:01:57 UTC
ISD Max Trix wrote:
JC Mieyli wrote:
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
JC Mieyli wrote:
increase material cost and lower bpc means less availability for pirate bs
this means all the industrialists get to build pirate bs early and stockpile
screws over the young industiralist again

how about for once instead of increasing cost to benefit veteran industrialist
try lowering the cost of everything else to help the young industrialist and screw the rich fatcat players
would be niceto see this happen for a change

"Instead of rebalancing one part of the game that's out of alignment, please change literally everything else about the EVE economy."

yup
is that a problem
and tbh its not the one part of the game thats out of alignment
the whole economy is out of alignment because of players taking advantage of mineral cost increases
and thats what is going to happen here too


Its called Free Market Economics.

no it isnt
its the opposite of that
Munted Happenstance
Panamanian Tax Evaders
#68 - 2017-06-08 20:03:42 UTC
I find it amusing that all CCP has to do is announce they intend to jack the price of pirate battleships, and the Jita traders will jack the price themselves before any actual changes have been made.

Top quality psychological warfare from CCP, a price increase of 100% has nearly already been achieved.

Well played.
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate
#69 - 2017-06-08 20:08:35 UTC
ISD Max Trix wrote:
JC Mieyli wrote:
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
JC Mieyli wrote:
increase material cost and lower bpc means less availability for pirate bs
this means all the industrialists get to build pirate bs early and stockpile
screws over the young industiralist again

how about for once instead of increasing cost to benefit veteran industrialist
try lowering the cost of everything else to help the young industrialist and screw the rich fatcat players
would be niceto see this happen for a change

"Instead of rebalancing one part of the game that's out of alignment, please change literally everything else about the EVE economy."

yup
is that a problem
and tbh its not the one part of the game thats out of alignment
the whole economy is out of alignment because of players taking advantage of mineral cost increases
and thats what is going to happen here too


Its called Free Market Economics.


If you want a free market to operate effectively you need to get better with scarcity, rarity, and depletion. Something far more agile than months/years between rebalancing. Because a free market doesn't take kindly to the sort of resource and money supply we see in this game. Not to mention that production and destruction is entirely out of whack, but that is as much related to the input faucets as anything else.
Aleverette
Bag ol' Dciks
#70 - 2017-06-08 20:12:37 UTC
We need more Barghest.

Mordu DED ASAP
I guess you CCP must want us to buy more skins right?
Aernir Ridley
Incredible.
Brave Collective
#71 - 2017-06-08 20:27:57 UTC
I honestly hope they nerf the actual stats of macharials to reduce they're overwhelming superiority in combat, but this is still a very good start to reducing their use in null and lowsec.

"For most people, the sky's the limit... For those who love aviation, the sky, is home."

-Cheers! :D
Mizhir
Devara Biotech
#72 - 2017-06-08 20:40:57 UTC
Eli Stan wrote:
I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of AT pilots suddenly cried out...

Mate, do you even know how AT works? The limiting factor is their high point cost. Not their isk value.

❤️️💛💚💙💜
Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
#73 - 2017-06-08 20:42:49 UTC
Mizhir wrote:
Eli Stan wrote:
I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of AT pilots suddenly cried out...

Mate, do you even know how AT works? The limiting factor is their high point cost. Not their isk value.

considering the serious teams are fielding 100b+ tournament ships, 1bil pirate bs aren't anywhere near a cost issue

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter
Vash Bloodstone
State War Academy
Caldari State
#74 - 2017-06-08 20:42:52 UTC
Something about this rubs me the wrong way.

I haven't played a lot recently, but why is this proliferation of pirate battleships considered a problem? Maybe someone can clarify for me? Are there too many gangs of pirate battleships roaming around? Did someone find this to be an problem and consider it to be unbalanced?

Well, for me, I've always kind of thought of Eve combat as a complex game of trade-offs, like rock-paper-scissors. Let give me a simple analogy using this game. Lets says we had a game where for some reason rock was winning more often than paper or scissors. Let's say we had two ways we could try to balance this game. We would either 1) Reduce the number of times people get to use rock by basically forcing people to use it less or 2) we could make whatever is causing rock to win more often to stop, possibly by changing paper and/or scissors. To Me, going with option 1, makes no sense, because it doesn't actually remove the imbalance, it just decreases the amount of times it happens. If you want a truly balanced game, you need to make all sides balance each other by their traits, not by how often they are used. Otherwise, you limit player choice.


Eve Online is very dynamic game and players should given free choice. If for some reason, CCP thinks pirate battleships are imbalanced, than that's a failure of game design, not of player choice. Players are always going to go for the best. What I would suggest is that if you think Pirate battleships are imbalanced, than change the traits of other ships and/or features to make it more difficult for them.

What I think will happen is that this pirate battleship scheme won't achieve its intended objective. If pirate battleships are unbalanced in whatever way CCP thinks they are, they will be continued to be used regardless of what they do. Especially since I think those who most use pirate battleships probably already have plenty of them or plenty of ISK. What this will really do is hurt the poor or inexperienced players from using pirate battleships by artificially increasing the cost of entry, which will reduce player choice, and hurt the game. Less Choices=bad. More choices=good
JC Mieyli
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#75 - 2017-06-08 20:46:32 UTC
Vash Bloodstone wrote:
Something about this rubs me the wrong way.

I haven't played a lot recently, but why is this proliferation of pirate battleships considered a problem?

the main percieved problem i believe is that pirate ships are cheaper than navy ships
Asian Driver
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#76 - 2017-06-08 20:47:51 UTC
Dupreesdiamond Stealie wrote:
Asher Elias wrote:
Will the barghest be affected by the production material increase?


Is it a Pirate BS....that's your answer.


But what about SoE? They're not really pirates.
Steelrattty
Broski North
#77 - 2017-06-08 20:48:06 UTC
i dont blame you fozzie, i blame whoever your boss is

im sorry
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#78 - 2017-06-08 20:51:44 UTC
So with the coming return of pirate battleships being niche, available to the rich only ships, will we see a buff to T1 battleships or will nulsec Citadels be even safer due to nothing being able to engage them (void bombs are just OP so exclude using anything requiring cap).

I suppose the big groups can always just use dreads and carriers for them. Not like there is a shortage out there and price wise they will be about the same compared to Machs and Rattles..


I'm not sure if making pirate battleships cost as much as a carrier and little less than a dread is good for the game. It certainly isn't good for those who aren't rich or newer players wanting to use them..
Doctrines will change and blue-balling will become far more common - Again.

Funny but if there was even 1 T1 battleship that was even half as good as a Mach or Rattle, pirate battleships wouldn't be the go to.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Mizhir
Devara Biotech
#79 - 2017-06-08 20:53:07 UTC
Vash Bloodstone wrote:
Something about this rubs me the wrong way.

I haven't played a lot recently, but why is this proliferation of pirate battleships considered a problem? Maybe someone can clarify for me? Are there too many gangs of pirate battleships roaming around? Did someone find this to be an problem and consider it to be unbalanced?

Well, for me, I've always kind of thought of Eve combat as a complex game of trade-offs, like rock-paper-scissors. Let give me a simple analogy using this game. Lets says we had a game where for some reason rock was winning more often than paper or scissors. Let's say we had two ways we could try to balance this game. We would either 1) Reduce the number of times people get to use rock by basically forcing people to use it less or 2) we could make whatever is causing rock to win more often to stop, possibly by changing paper and/or scissors. To Me, going with option 1, makes no sense, because it doesn't actually remove the imbalance, it just decreases the amount of times it happens. If you want a truly balanced game, you need to make all sides balance each other by their traits, not by how often they are used. Otherwise, you limit player choice.


Eve Online is very dynamic game and players should given free choice. If for some reason, CCP thinks pirate battleships are imbalanced, than that's a failure of game design, not of player choice. Players are always going to go for the best. What I would suggest is that if you think Pirate battleships are imbalanced, than change the traits of other ships and/or features to make it more difficult for them.

What I think will happen is that this pirate battleship scheme won't achieve its intended objective. If pirate battleships are unbalanced in whatever way CCP thinks they are, they will be continued to be used regardless of what they do. Especially since I think those who most use pirate battleships probably already have plenty of them or plenty of ISK. What this will really do is hurt the poor or inexperienced players from using pirate battleships by artificially increasing the cost of entry, which will reduce player choice, and hurt the game. Less Choices=bad. More choices=good



The issue is that pirate BS are so cheap that in most situations they are simply the superior choice. So they reduce the amount of choices there are simply because they are cheaper and better than navy BS and offers a much stronger power for a small price increase. The whole point of pirate BS is that they are supposed to be strong, but also expensive so if you lose it then it will hurt on the wallet. They are not meant to be cheap ships that everyone can fly and right now it seems like every large nullsec alliance uses them as one of their main doctrine - Even Pandemic Horde. Nerfing their stats will just make them useless as some other strong ships will fill the role instead.

❤️️💛💚💙💜
Boombeczka
Say no more.
#80 - 2017-06-08 20:56:03 UTC
wouldnt be better to not touch drop ratio/mineral cost and buff navy bses(add unique bonuses) that holds pretty much same, higher price than pirate bs? And that probably would be more reasonable lore-wise cuz somehow hsec/lowsec is pretty big chunk of space