Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
41
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 19:03:00 -
[91] - Quote
For a guy who hasn't lost anything bigger than a harbinger in the last year, you sure seem knowledgeable about the costs of big burly battleships.
Nex apparatu5 wrote:Skia Aumer wrote:Nex apparatu5 wrote:It's 40 million isk. It's a trivial amount Should we add 40 mil to frigate price tag, while we're at it? Sure, go for it. We'll still give them away to new players
Point proven. Thanks for saving me the effort. |
Hagika
LEGI0N
73
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 19:03:00 -
[92] - Quote
Nex apparatu5 wrote: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
40 million trivial, so lets add 40 million to all ships and fittings,rigs and see how trivial it really is..Oh wait, not so trivial after all is it?
|
mechtech
Ice Liberation Army
354
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 19:03:00 -
[93] - Quote
Great change. This will boost demand for lower-class ships and increase battlefield variety. |
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus Aeterna Anima
73
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 19:04:00 -
[94] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Quote:This makes a lot more sense than the original post Cool. Maybe I should switch them! Also good meeting you at fanfest, when we were talking I didn't realize that you were on your way to CSM and that I would be talking to you much more!
I'm not sure if your quoting is some kind of personal style decision, but IMO it would be a lot easier to see who you're referring to, if you made a habit of using 'quote=...'. |
Naso Aya
EVE University Ivy League
56
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 19:05:00 -
[95] - Quote
Just wanted to say called it, that's all.
|
JamesUtah
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 19:05:00 -
[96] - Quote
can i get an explanation on what 'ZFBFBFBB' in OMGWTFZFBFBFBB stands for? |
Veyer Erastus
Red-dormice
7
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 19:05:00 -
[97] - Quote
Quote:You will NOT be able to buy battleships now and then refine them for the increased cost after the changes go live. Like all previous tiericide changes we will use extra materials to implement this cost change. This sound really bad in economy terms to me, as net cost is net cost. As i see this mechanic serves only one strange purpose - to screw the manufacturing. In case you just increase material requirements of BP's the moment the patch hits those old guys with abundance of old BSs will meet a choice - ether to reprocess them and acquire X money or put them on the market for X money. Either way that will result in same money and sound economy. You could argue that this will create minerals "out of nowhere", but this will be offseted by imminent mineral prices drop mirroring BS prices rising. On the other hand if you implement Extra Materials the owners of said BSs won't do anything the moment patch hits. What they will do - they will sell the BSs at the old price, like they used to be. That already happened with frigates not long ago. Making manufacturing of those ships completely unprofitable.
Maybe, maybe, this change is actually not about "materials out of nowhere", but about inflation. But if you want to fight inflation, find a technical mechanic for that. Maybe cutting insurance, maybe something else. But destroying the big part of gameplay - manufacturing is not a right way to do this. |
Nex apparatu5
Friendship is Podding Test Alliance Please Ignore
511
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 19:06:00 -
[98] - Quote
Hagika wrote:Nex apparatu5 wrote: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 40 million trivial, so lets add 40 million to all ships and fittings,rigs and see how trivial it really is..Oh wait, not so trivial after all is it?
I'd be fine with that. Adding a bill or so to my carrier doesnt make me flinch in the slightest. |
Nex apparatu5
Friendship is Podding Test Alliance Please Ignore
511
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 19:07:00 -
[99] - Quote
Grarr Dexx wrote:For a guy who hasn't lost anything bigger than a harbinger in the last year, you sure seem knowledgeable about the costs of big burly battleships.
To be fair, I've lost two carriers this year too, but these days I mostly fly supers. |
Tubrug1
162
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 19:09:00 -
[100] - Quote
Just to point out- 40mil is the average build cost increase, and since they say they're not going to be changing Tier 3s that much it means T1 and T2s will increase by roughly 60mil. www.tubrug1.blogspot.co.uk
|
|
Skia Aumer
Atlas Research Group
15
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 19:09:00 -
[101] - Quote
Nex apparatu5 wrote:Skia Aumer wrote:Should we add 40 mil to frigate price tag, while we're at it? Sure, go for it. We'll still give them away to new players Good for new players, unless they want to play their game - not be spoon-fed. |
Skia Aumer
Atlas Research Group
17
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 19:12:00 -
[102] - Quote
Nex apparatu5 wrote:I'd be fine with that. Adding a bill or so to my carrier doesnt make me flinch in the slightest. That's what happens then CCP makes shiny CQ instead of fixing Tech. |
Jill Antaris
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
34
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 19:15:00 -
[103] - Quote
Hm sounds like the new BS prices will be something around 160-200M, so around 40-60M for the hull after insurance. Sounds a bit harsh compared to BC prices(keep in mind stuff like guns and rigs is also quite a bit more expensive). On the other hand I like to see the throw away BS go.
I would still like to see that BC's have to use large rigs, to even out the price difference a bit.
|
Nex apparatu5
Friendship is Podding Test Alliance Please Ignore
512
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 19:15:00 -
[104] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Nex apparatu5 wrote:I'd be fine with that. Adding a bill or so to my carrier doesnt make me flinch in the slightest. That's what happens then CCP makes shiny CQ instead of fixing Tech.
The HBC doesn't actually have much tech, and if you read the patch notes they fixed it. hth. |
Sable Moran
Moran Light Industries
151
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 19:16:00 -
[105] - Quote
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:Sable Moran wrote:Muscaat wrote:Isn't this going to screw up the market for battleship manufacturers, in the same way that the frigate changes screwed up that market for manufacturers? LOLled so hard my ribs hurt. I've been selling frigates for many years and I can say that there was no screwing the manufacturers. Every frigate I sell, I sell for profit. Nice example of the narrow mindedness of EVE players regarding overall balance and future players. It's potential manufacturers AFTER the patch that are screwed if half the BPOs are worthless, because the market is flooded with products below (the new) production cost.
After every change there will be short term ripple effects. But they'll pass and a new equilibrium will be reached so stop worrying.
Besides, BEFORE anyone does any manufacturing he, she or it really needs to do some market study to see what sells for profit and what doesn't. If someone enters the market without looking first I will be in the front row deriding him/her/it for being a fool (yes I'm one of those nasty pvp kind of carebears). Sable's Ammo Shop at Alentene V - Moon 4 - Duvolle Labs Factory. Hybrid charges, Projectile ammo, Missiles, Drones, Ships, Need'em? We have'em, at affordable prices. Pop in at our Ammo Shop in sunny Alentene. |
Hashi Lebwohl
Oberon Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
25
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 19:17:00 -
[106] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Quote:Is there intention to ever roll these minerals back into the overall ship cost, so that ships have a price floor tied to the mineral price again? It would be nice, but aren't willing to underestimate the extreme patience of the player base and so its hard to imagine how we could do it in the forseeable future.
The extra minerals distorts all ships cursed with them - the floor price for these ships is below build cost because this is affected by the refine valuation of the ship. Extra minerals have a major disadvantage because they are unaffected by researching the print - hardly encouraging builders, who therefore may prefer ships builds that are not so afflicted.
Proposal:
You set a goal to eliminate extra minerals over say a 3-5 year period. At each expansion and possibly point release, a random group of ships (for example up to 20% of those with extra minerals) have their extra minerals reduced and refined increased by a figure of between 10-20%. The changes are not initially include in the patch notes - just announced when made.
The players therefore cannot buy a large stock in build for a instant and expected increase - you could buy the ship that doesn't get any changes for 2-3 years. More likely therefore would be some speculation around each patch and a quick cashing out following the patch but without really large gains.
A player could buy a large stock now and cash out in 3-5 years - but there is a huge opportunity cost of tying up enough isk to make this worthwhile that probably would put off the investor, especially given the uncertainty of a dev destroying the profit margins by tweeking the database in the intervening period. |
Veyer Erastus
Red-dormice
7
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 19:19:00 -
[107] - Quote
Sable Moran wrote:Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:Sable Moran wrote:Muscaat wrote:Isn't this going to screw up the market for battleship manufacturers, in the same way that the frigate changes screwed up that market for manufacturers? LOLled so hard my ribs hurt. I've been selling frigates for many years and I can say that there was no screwing the manufacturers. Every frigate I sell, I sell for profit. Nice example of the narrow mindedness of EVE players regarding overall balance and future players. It's potential manufacturers AFTER the patch that are screwed if half the BPOs are worthless, because the market is flooded with products below (the new) production cost. After every change there will be short term ripple effects. But they'll pass and a new equilibrium will be reached so stop worrying. Besides, BEFORE anyone does any manufacturing he, she or it really needs to do some market study to see what sells for profit and what doesn't. If someone enters the market without looking first I will be in the front row deriding him/her/it for being a fool (yes I'm one of those nasty pvp kind of carebears).
"If it's broken, just don't use it" - that's a flawed logic concerning game balance. |
marVLs
127
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 19:20:00 -
[108] - Quote
I understand that BS should be expensive, but they're not worth it, ther's a problem.
50m vs 220m and?
+ little bigger dps + little bigger tank
- bad mobility - big radius - big mass - bad tracking - cap problems (amarr guns, large MWD uses too much cap - change it or remove cap penalty from it)
So You don't want to use them in LS and WH, only station games, and some capital fights
I think BS's should have bigger tanks (raven get only 100ehp on all5...) and more mid slots for their modules (MJD, target breaker) |
Skia Aumer
Atlas Research Group
17
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 19:23:00 -
[109] - Quote
Sable Moran wrote:Besides, BEFORE anyone does any manufacturing he, she or it really needs to do some market study to see what sells for profit and what doesn't. If someone enters the market without looking first I will be in the front row deriding him/her/it for being a fool (yes I'm one of those nasty pvp kind of carebears). It's not that easy. You may have heard that CCP wants to give a kick start to nullsec industry. Guess what? Such changes make that efforts a little less efficient. |
Theia Matova
Dominance Theory
37
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 19:29:00 -
[110] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: Should be interesting times for those mineral market prospectors.
Good time to hold on your ores and materials.. When mining gets more difficult and it won't be 'botted' multiaccounted as much. We will see also increase in mineral cost (which BTW would have been probably enough to balance the prices anyway -_-).
Oh well I do not know if I should care.. When it comes to need of BS capable ship I can always fly either ABC or T3.. Who needs BS anyway.. |
|
Mia Restolo
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
96
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 19:30:00 -
[111] - Quote
Mineral changes combined with this tiercide balancing makes final prices really difficult to predict, I really think the mineral requirements should be closer to the tier 2 BSs.
To older players the pricing is less of a problem, but I remember being a noob and running missions for my isk and finding the grind to my first raven almost unbearable and prices are up significantly since then. Newer players are pretty bad at making isk (I know I was) so I find the current tier 3 BS prices a huge barrier to entry for new players.
My second concern is how close BCs and BSs are performance-wise in PvP. They offer different fighting style options but applied DPS and EHP are more even than it seems on paper or EFT because of the difference in mobility. Some great solo BC videos out there demonstrate that.
P.S. - Extra minerals and insurance levels could use some slow long term adjusting. |
Pinky Feldman
Gank Bangers Moar Tears
523
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 19:31:00 -
[112] - Quote
I honestly think this is one of those situations where the Tier system actually worked somewhat and personally, I don't like the thought or mentality that BS are end game ships. They may be "end game" in regards to the skill requirements, but in terms of performance they're very niche.
For example, cheap Geddons and Apocs with the cap bonus gave low SP groups with limited budget tools to POS or POCO bash. Should those kind of groups be able to do that? Absolutely. Its those groups that provide content for the larger more experience groups that can actually field proper equipment. E-Uni's Dragonslayer BS fleets brought some really good fights into lowsec, as does Sadistica. Regardless of whether or not you think these groups suck or not, you need new blood stepping up and generating content otherwise you run into the situation that nullsec is in where its the same people fighting the same people with nothing new.
How fun would it be for groups to get BS brawls out of BNI when they get the SP, except now they're hilariously expensive so nope, the biggest you ever get to fight out of those groups is cruisers forever.
Anyways, before you bring up the arguement that if those groups want to get into the big leagues by taking moons or create a poco slum empire, they need to make friends because EVE is a social game, just take a look at your blue donut getting bluer and enjoy even more stagnation. BNI and Fweddit are two other good examples of some of the most successful startups in recent times that still suffer hard from the glass ceiling in EVE, where once you hit a certain size your only option is to join a major coalition. This will only exacerbate that.
The moar you cry the less you pee |
Sable Moran
Moran Light Industries
151
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 19:33:00 -
[113] - Quote
Veyer Erastus wrote:Sable Moran wrote:Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:Sable Moran wrote:Muscaat wrote:Isn't this going to screw up the market for battleship manufacturers, in the same way that the frigate changes screwed up that market for manufacturers? LOLled so hard my ribs hurt. I've been selling frigates for many years and I can say that there was no screwing the manufacturers. Every frigate I sell, I sell for profit. Nice example of the narrow mindedness of EVE players regarding overall balance and future players. It's potential manufacturers AFTER the patch that are screwed if half the BPOs are worthless, because the market is flooded with products below (the new) production cost. After every change there will be short term ripple effects. But they'll pass and a new equilibrium will be reached so stop worrying. Besides, BEFORE anyone does any manufacturing he, she or it really needs to do some market study to see what sells for profit and what doesn't. If someone enters the market without looking first I will be in the front row deriding him/her/it for being a fool (yes I'm one of those nasty pvp kind of carebears). "If it's broken, just don't use it" - that's a flawed logic concerning game balance.
There's a lot of hot air on the forums on the battleship changes. Just like there was when the frigates were changed, and the cruisers. Look how they ended up. Personally there are some changes that I like and some that I don't like (poor Typhoon) but I'm more of a glass is half full person, every new BS will find their uses. Not every boat will be as universally useful as the next but that's only natural.
Anyway, I've put a pretty penny on some good old market speculation, let's see how it pans out. Sable's Ammo Shop at Alentene V - Moon 4 - Duvolle Labs Factory. Hybrid charges, Projectile ammo, Missiles, Drones, Ships, Need'em? We have'em, at affordable prices. Pop in at our Ammo Shop in sunny Alentene. |
Sable Moran
Moran Light Industries
151
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 19:42:00 -
[114] - Quote
Skia Aumer wrote:Sable Moran wrote:Besides, BEFORE anyone does any manufacturing he, she or it really needs to do some market study to see what sells for profit and what doesn't. If someone enters the market without looking first I will be in the front row deriding him/her/it for being a fool (yes I'm one of those nasty pvp kind of carebears). It's not that easy. You may have heard that CCP wants to give a kick start to nullsec industry. Guess what? Such changes make that efforts a little less efficient.
So there will be one more complication. Agreed, it will be a bit more difficult to find profit in the future. I don't see it being in itself a purely bad thing. Sable's Ammo Shop at Alentene V - Moon 4 - Duvolle Labs Factory. Hybrid charges, Projectile ammo, Missiles, Drones, Ships, Need'em? We have'em, at affordable prices. Pop in at our Ammo Shop in sunny Alentene. |
Lyron-Baktos
The Scope Gallente Federation
425
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 19:57:00 -
[115] - Quote
Another nerf to battleships How the **** do you remove a signature? |
Cultural Enrichment
Jenkem Puffing Association
1
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 20:04:00 -
[116] - Quote
progodlegend wrote:Manny Moons wrote:progodlegend wrote:Insurance values are tied to the mineral costs, when they go up, the insurance will go up.
Though this raises the question, will the insurance react to the extra materials increase, or does it not include those. If it doesn't include them, then yes you are right insurance needs to be looked at. I'll make sure to bring that up at the next meeting, because that's a minor fix that may have been overlooked. 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. There is an average of 200 procurers being traded every day in jita, with occasional spikes of a few thousand units.
There is an average of 50 scorps traded everyday in jita, with spikes to 200 units. Between 20 and 40 megathrons are traded each day. Same for typhoon, with some frequent spikes around 200 units. Factor in the lack of attention of people for the procurer prior to the barge rebalance, the silly price of it's BPO compared to the cost of the ship (over 1.4b for a ship that used cost less than 10m to produce). Almost nobody had a procurer not wanted one, and now, they sell almost as fast as tornados.
Almost every nullsec player have one or two scorps lying somewhere that they used once, when ECM was the flavor of the month. Almost every highsec mission runner have a raven that he'll never lose, and eventually sell for a CNR, golem or whatever. A good bunch of nullsec people do as well. Many manufacturers already have researched BS BPOs, and are probably already getting as many as possible out while they're cheap.
My point: t1 and t2 BS are much more frequents in hangars than procurers were before their rebalance, often in lower demand. Between people reselling their old assets, industrialists stockpiling them and speculators hoarding them, I dont see the stockpiles for BS lasting less than 1 year. |
Kururugi
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 20:05:00 -
[117] - Quote
I would agree with this change if you made battleships even into bigger and meaner battleships with more survivability instead of keeping them so close to battlecruisers. It's time we stop revolved the game around tier 3 battlecruisers.
Lets see how it goes...
These are interesting times...
|
Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent
241
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 20:08:00 -
[118] - Quote
While you can't make an overpowered ship balanced by increasing its price, cost effectiveness, a function of capability offered by the ship and modules equipped and the price ta which those abilities are bought, does play a part in developing fleet doctrines. As things are today, battleships are rarely used unless one needs the longer range that select sniper platforms offer, or a larger buffer for triage support. They are already too slow, a minimal improvement over most battlecruisers, and insufficiently survivable to be deployed outside of situations where buffer is more important than mobility. The Tier 3 Battlecruisers have made Battleships more or less irrelevant in many circumstances, and now they're going to be even more expensive than they were before?
Unless in a monolithic ball, or working under a doctrine built around the Micro Jump Drive, why would I want to fly a Battleship without the support of Recons, Tech 3s, and Triage Carriers? Battleships are increasingly becoming the poor man's tool in Capital Ships Online, and this only exacerbates the situation. |
Altimo
Homicidal Teddy Bears
18
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 20:23:00 -
[119] - Quote
Evelgrivion wrote:While you can't make an overpowered ship balanced by increasing its price, cost effectiveness, a function of capability offered by the ship and modules equipped and the price ta which those abilities are bought, does play a part in developing fleet doctrines. As things are today, battleships are rarely used unless one needs the longer range that select sniper platforms offer, or a larger buffer for triage support. They are already too slow, a minimal improvement over most battlecruisers, and insufficiently survivable to be deployed outside of situations where buffer is more important than mobility. The Tier 3 Battlecruisers have made Battleships more or less irrelevant in many circumstances, and now they're going to be even more expensive than they were before?
Unless in a monolithic ball, or working under a doctrine built around the Micro Jump Drive, why would I want to fly a Battleship without the support of Recons, Tech 3s, and Triage Carriers? Battleships are increasingly becoming the poor man's tool in Capital Ships Online, and this only exacerbates the situation.
Agreed, I couldn't have said it better myself. This changes makes my tier1/2 battleships become 40 million less efficient.
The problem with these ships is, they are supposed to be a hard hitting answer for fleets, hitting bigger ships, capitals and what have you. However, because of tier 3 battle cruisers, the battleships become less used, as you can get smaller ships with the same kind of buffer, for the same kind of cost, and have a more versatile use for handling different combat situations.
Battleships are slow, they don't hit targets well, and they don't survive that well for what you are investing into just a t1 variant. The new navy battle cruisers will have more survivability due to the fact they are more agile, but have the same amount of HP, as with other well set up fleets using battlecruisers and under with logi support. In other words, smaller classes of ships can be used more effectively to fill roles that battleships should fill. |
Jayrendo Karr
Suns Of Korhal Terran Commonwealth
211
|
Posted - 2013.05.03 20:24:00 -
[120] - Quote
OH BOY, MORE BARRIERS TO ENTRY FOR NEW PLAYERS!!! |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |