Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
SandKid
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry Templis CALSF
186
|
Posted - 2015.06.15 22:54:42 -
[1] - Quote
So this is more idea and less 'feature' and I'd like to hear your opinions on this...
Go through lowsec and null, you'll maybe notice something interesting - lots of tech 1 ships. Of course we know why: nothing in EvE is free, and Tech II ships are DEFINITELY not free. This isn't to say they aren't flown or that they are even rare to see. On the contrary, you'll have a hard time visiting 0.4 or lower and not seeing a T2 or higher ship.
They're just relatively very few and far between compared to everything else. They aren't horribly expensive, but they are expensive. Anyone who lost their first 20+mil ship knows the feeling...and 20mil isn't that much by EvE standards. By the time you outfit that Tech II ship though, 20mil looks really small.
So this is what I want to pitch: reduce manufacturing input costs for Tech II ships (not capitals or T3s). I can't begin to think of an actual percentage that I can justify, but in my head I figure a 10 to 15% decrease in total isk value would be good. It could be spread between the blueprint invention cost and actual materials needed. I would NOT decrease Tech I prices as those directly fuel the T2 prices.
So, why? Well the idea is this - if you reduce input costs, the ships will sell for less because less is in them. For traders, inventors, and manufacturers, there is no actual loss of 'real isk'. i.e. The actual purchasing power of your isk. You put less into making it, so eventually the market will sell them for less as a result of natural competition. Your wallet's real number will be smaller, but your purchasing power won't have changed (less resources needed in the ships is not tied to what the resources sell for by themselves except in demand).
Who benefits: everyone who flies these ships - or wants to. This isn't a 'wha wha, I wanna fly it' thread. Everything costs something in EvE (and should). Capitals cost a lot of isk for plenty of reasons, including incentivizing you not to fly it alone.
My question is: Is the opportunity cost of flying Tech II too steep?
Considering more than half of the ships in EvE are Tech II, it's a bit of a shame we don't see these beasts out more often. Logis, interceptors, and bombers...there's your majority mix. Again, the rest are all present but are present in relatively few numbers.
I don't think the current isk faucets are too low either - missions or plexes for example. I feel like every other product in EvE is pretty well balanced cost-wise, but Tech II is not. If Tech II ships cost less on the market, the risk-aversion to fly them goes down. They are the best of EvE's vessels, shouldn't they also be the most used outside hisec? (most of them weren't designed with hisec in mind after all)
If more T2 ships are flown, more get blown up - which means more mods of better quality drops too. That affects the market for them also, again lowering prices through simple supply/demand. The market eventually settles at a lower cost to fly these ships. Tech II ships, while specialized, are also more difficult to predict in their fittings and power projection. This is important because potential conflicts (where FCs are debating to engage) are harder to determine when Tech II is involved - which means fleets are more likely to take a chance in a fight for the sake of a fight. With Tech 1 fleets, FCs can determine if they have a chance or not in an engagement - which leads to a stagnant cycle of conflict of waiting on attackers to catch defenders.
There IS an isk faucet created with this: Faction Warfare would see more LP gains as a result of more expensive ships being blown up more often. I don't know nor could I calculate how much of a faucet we're talking though, but it should be kept in mind as fooling with faucets/sinks is always tricky business.
So, what are your thoughts F&I? Should ship mobility be easier? Would EvE benefit from cheaper (not significantly) Tech II? Or are prices well placed and changing them would not improve gameplay?
On the con side: cheaper Tech II ships means the 'thrill' of flying and losing these ships will also be diminished. The meaningfulness of taking down these ships also decreases. We can talk numbers all day that could be in favor, but if the game isn't 'fun' or less fun than it was - we made it worse. If you think this would happen, say so! It's a valid argument. I personally think that the these diminished values are offset by more awesome fights - T2's have more ehp, resulting in longer, more memorable fights. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Snuffed Out
8186
|
Posted - 2015.06.15 23:12:10 -
[2] - Quote
Son.... I come from a time when some battleships and Tech 2 ships used to cost about 100 mil.
The reason prices increased is because material costs increased. And the reason that increased is because people felt it was more risky to get/ship materials around. Or because less people were harvesting it. Or because people felt their time was worth more to them.
Things are a little more complicated than "decrease material requirements and things will be cheaper." It is just as likely for people to maintain the current prices and pocket the difference.
Also... Tech 2 and Tech 3 prices should be higher in my opinion. They are getting too cheap again. And you should be PAYING THROUGH THE NOSE for that slight performance increase.
How did you Veterans start?
The Skillpoint System and You
|
SandKid
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry Templis CALSF
186
|
Posted - 2015.06.15 23:25:24 -
[3] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:Son.... I come from a time when some battleships and Tech 2 ships used to cost about 100 mil.
The reason prices increased is because material costs increased. And the reason that increased is because people felt it was more risky to get/ship materials around. Or because less people were harvesting it. Or because people felt their time was worth more to them.
Things are a little more complicated than "decrease material requirements and things will be cheaper." It is just as likely for people to maintain the current prices and pocket the difference.
Also... Tech 2 and Tech 3 prices should be higher in my opinion. They are getting too cheap again. And you should be PAYING THROUGH THE NOSE for that slight performance increase.
lmao...I appreciate your candid opinion!
I do disagree on the pocketing the difference - unless there is an underground trade union that is price fixing, prices would actually decrease eventually. Eventually could be a few weeks or years.
I agree Tech III should cost more. A lot more. Way too much utility for so little cost...but that's neither here nor there.
As there is no way to 'program cheaper material costs' - like you said, less people justify spending their time getting it which in turn leads to this economy as it is - that is why I suggest taking it to the next level that IS controllable. The unfortunate side-effect of a truly 'real' player economy is exactly your point: few producers results in higher prices and, eventually, fewer consumers. Look up any country in Europe and you can find this problem in some stage or another (no that's not a swing at Europe, relax! America is quickly heading the same way).
That said, lower input prices on Tech II makes them more accessible and usable. Study retail and you may have heard of using lower prices to increase total revenue and profits. If more people fly T2, traders/manufacturers/inventors may actually see the real value of their isk increase as well as see the nominal value increase through more product movement.
A 15% cut in production costs that could lead to a 5% increase in product moved (remember, material cost has no impact on your margins - you roll it into the product price anyways) is more isk in your pocket, nominally and realistically. Food for thought.
I welcome more posts starting with "Son..." |
Baali Tekitsu
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
788
|
Posted - 2015.06.15 23:30:15 -
[4] - Quote
Prices for t2 ships are too low imho, same with faction/pirate ships. T2 ships above destroyer size could easily be twice as expensive as they are now and still be worth the price. Same for pirate/faction.
RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
|
SandKid
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry Templis CALSF
186
|
Posted - 2015.06.15 23:33:33 -
[5] - Quote
Baali Tekitsu wrote:Prices for t2 ships are too low imho, same with faction/pirate ships. T2 ships above destroyer size could easily be twice as expensive as they are now and still be worth the price. Same for pirate/faction.
Honest question...
Why aren't they then? (Not sarcastic)
I, too, could see them selling higher...I don't think they should...but why don't they? |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
666
|
Posted - 2015.06.15 23:36:37 -
[6] - Quote
Tiericide wrecked bp costs....this my usual rant. Ship class with 3 tiers (1,2,3... higher numbers better and usually FOTM). CCP stepped in and said this is the problem and removed tiers and redid bp costs. And well....when done whatever was tier 2 or 3 (got a name change for this) was still better and still FOTM over the old tier 1.
Great change there and so effective. My usual example....lolrox did not lose out to drake in the old days because of tier or bp costs. It lost out because it sucked. BC redo did not change this. It was the until recent hybrid buff (then nerfed) that had it not suck as much.
Other example is scorpion. It was, is and always will be a niche ship. All this crap did was shoot it up ten's of millions of isk in price. Tiericide did not have them blot out the sun. Hell it took away its 2nd utility high which I found more useful than an added low.
Then CCP messed up indy structure. Long ago...ME meant something in this game. there was even a pita skill I 5'd to tweak that as much as I could. then one day....it got converted to crap PE boosts. Which I did not want or need. As that nice PE boost does me little good when my orders come out faster and can't do damn thing about it since at say work.
basically before the indy redo you had builders like me who tweaked out ME really high so we could push out gear at lower prices since our cost to build was much lower. Now PE is king, we lost our isk flexibility in pricing and pass this crap onto you, the customers. |
Baali Tekitsu
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
788
|
Posted - 2015.06.15 23:37:15 -
[7] - Quote
Becuase CCP rebalanced t2 production and materials. Long gone are the days of the OTEC cartel. Pirate and navy ships got overfarmed in exploration and missions running/fw.
RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
|
SandKid
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry Templis CALSF
186
|
Posted - 2015.06.15 23:44:51 -
[8] - Quote
Baali Tekitsu wrote:Becuase CCP rebalanced t2 production and materials. Long gone are the days of the OTEC cartel. Pirate and navy ships got overfarmed in exploration and missions running/fw.
Pirate ships definitely suffer the farming problem and I can only assume the only way to change that is through mechanics different from what's discussed in OP. Same for Navy Ships...you're talking playing around FW mechanics on LP payout since that's the main source of them.
Short of "Bind on Purchase" - like the ship can't be repackaged or somesuch - there is no way to separate navy ships from FW payouts so I think they will always be artificially lower in price by virtue of how they are obtained. It's that or you make them more expensive to even FW, defeating the purpose of their existence in the first place - and removing an important incentive from FW.
On a separate note...darn, I was hoping there WAS a cartel for me to join...lol |
SandKid
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry Templis CALSF
186
|
Posted - 2015.06.15 23:51:38 -
[9] - Quote
Zan Shiro wrote:Tiericide wrecked bp costs....this my usual rant. Ship class with 3 tiers (1,2,3... higher numbers better and usually FOTM). CCP stepped in and said this is the problem and removed tiers and redid bp costs. And well....when done whatever was tier 2 or 3 (got a name change for this) was still better and still FOTM over the old tier 1.
Great change there and so effective. My usual example....lolrox did not lose out to drake in the old days because of tier or bp costs. It lost out because it sucked. BC redo did not change this. It was the until recent hybrid buff (then nerfed) that had it not suck as much.
Other example is scorpion. It was, is and always will be a niche ship. All this crap did was shoot it up ten's of millions of isk in price. Tiericide did not have them blot out the sun. Hell it took away its 2nd utility high which I found more useful than an added low.
Then CCP messed up indy structure. Long ago...ME meant something in this game. there was even a pita skill I 5'd to tweak that as much as I could. then one day....it got converted to crap PE boosts. Which I did not want or need. As that nice PE boost does me little good when my orders come out faster and can't do damn thing about it since at say work.
basically before the indy redo you had builders like me who tweaked out ME really high so we could push out gear at lower prices since our cost to build was much lower. Now PE is king, we lost our isk flexibility in pricing and pass this crap onto you, the customers.
Thanks for the explanation! Your final point of passing costs is normal and should be...I mean, that's how any retail process works.
So, again, decreasing input costs doesn't affect the middle men (manufatcurers/inventors/traders) except in potentially increasing total product moved...which could potentially make that PE more useful.
In all seriousness, I haven't seen a solid reason for increasing prices or keeping them where they are. The real value of your isk doesn't change (if anything it may increase), so you actually DO make more isk as a result of this idea. It renders PE more useful (more product being moved more quickly). And it results in more pew pew with bigger ships that last longer and create better memories and play experiences.
I'm all for the scrooge factor, who doesn't love isk? This isn't an altruistic thread - it's about heating up the engine of war more, and that makes everybody happy. Who doesn't love a good war that involves more ships that cost more? |
Kenrailae
Fallen Reich
361
|
Posted - 2015.06.16 00:04:04 -
[10] - Quote
What was it a bhaal or Mach or something I saw in jita the other day for 500mil ish? Entirely too cheap. That being said I remember when domi's cost 50 mil ish. Maybe 60. Some t1 hulls are a bit too expensive imo but a lot of t2 and faction are WAY too cheap.
The Law is a point of View
|
|
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
666
|
Posted - 2015.06.16 00:32:35 -
[11] - Quote
Problem with PE imo is its trying to apply real world production to eve. Its not a very good fit.
In the real world yes you have say china owned electronics places pushing out components really really fast. others as well.
PE in theory works here. I will even completely remove ME....which they do as well. Even .05 cents saved on an item made in the millions adds up to savings.
Problem is with realworld PE large companies like dell also accept, and in fact factor in, losses due to stock that does not sell. When dell makes a new computer line, we'll call it GX-XYZ, they will make say 500,000 of them just in time to cover completely X-mas rush. They will know say 10% of that will probably never sell.
So what do they do with that 10% overage? Some will be cannibalized for support parts, others sold towards end of life as a really good deal, and the rest....become allowable business losses. As long as that that 90% sold meets some goal set by the bean counters, Dell executive types are happy campers.
Take away is real life bulk business accept losses.
Now we enter eve. PLayers spend 300 million to make item A in massive amounts. they want 300 million back. there is no allowable business loss. There is no me making 1000 rifters in record time, selling 900 of them and a year later saying oh well....100 are a business loss lets move on.
Also fails to emulate real world as the retail industry uses what are called loss leaders. Walmart does this quite often, they are pro at it. See that truly kick ass sales advert and go I must go to walmart this weekend and buy it. Ever wonder how they make money off this? Here is how. they sell an item for an actual loss. But....its the bait to dangle to get you in the store to buy something else for break even or profit.
They get you in the store for the really cheap item A. While there you go "well while I am here...." and buy something else. this works. If not married (and male) wait till you go shopping with the wife. I can go to the store to buy 1 item. I prefer to do this in fact. If roped into taking the wife and kid a 15 minute run for 1 item becomes an hour + easy and there is more than 1 item in the cart lol.
this again is something eve builders or even buyers don't do. I don't put 20,000,000 ammo on market at a deliberate loss to entice you to come by and buy a ship I will make profit on. Many are coming to say jita regardless....I don't need to bait them with loss leaders. |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
666
|
Posted - 2015.06.16 00:33:09 -
[12] - Quote
Problem with PE imo is its trying to apply real world production to eve. Its not a very good fit.
In the real world yes you have say china owned electronics places pushing out components really really fast. others as well.
PE in theory works here. I will even completely remove ME....which they do as well. Even .05 cents saved on an item made in the millions adds up to savings.
Problem is with realworld PE large companies like dell also accept, and in fact factor in, losses due to stock that does not sell. When dell makes a new computer line, we'll call it GX-XYZ, they will make say 500,000 of them just in time to cover completely X-mas rush. They will know say 10% of that will probably never sell.
So what do they do with that 10% overage? Some will be cannibalized for support parts, others sold towards end of life as a really good deal, and the rest....become allowable business losses. As long as that that 90% sold meets some goal set by the bean counters, Dell executive types are happy campers.
Take away is real life bulk business accept losses.
Now we enter eve. PLayers spend 300 million to make item A in massive amounts. they want 300 million back. there is no allowable business loss. There is no me making 1000 rifters in record time, selling 900 of them and a year later saying oh well....100 are a business loss lets move on.
Also fails to emulate real world as the retail industry uses what are called loss leaders. Walmart does this quite often, they are pro at it. See that truly kick ass sales advert and go I must go to walmart this weekend and buy it. Ever wonder how they make money off this? Here is how. they sell an item for an actual loss. But....its the bait to dangle to get you in the store to buy something else for break even or profit.
They get you in the store for the really cheap item A. While there you go "well while I am here...." and buy something else. this works. If not married (and male) wait till you go shopping with the wife. I can go to the store to buy 1 item. I prefer to do this in fact. If roped into taking the wife and kid a 15 minute run for 1 item becomes an hour + easy and there is more than 1 item in the cart lol.
this again is something eve builders or even buyers don't do. I don't put 20,000,000 ammo on market at a deliberate loss to entice you to come by and buy a ship I will make profit on. Many are coming to say jita regardless....I don't need to bait them with loss leaders. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1103
|
Posted - 2015.06.16 01:59:43 -
[13] - Quote
Ship prices all have to do with the relative values of all the material inputs into the game:
1. ISK 2. LP 3. T1 minerals 4. T2 materials 5. T3 materials 6. PI material 7. Loot drops 8. PLEX 9. AURUM 10. Ice products
I may have left off one or two sources, but you get the idea.
Right now the relative values of these materials are off. T1 materials are relatively expensive compared to T2 and T3 at the moment.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Mr Mieyli
Hedion University Amarr Empire
11
|
Posted - 2015.06.16 05:47:06 -
[14] - Quote
I support lowering prices for T1 and T2 ships generally as pvp in eve is too risk averse. Nobody wants to lose a T2cruiser worth 200m for maybe a few minutes of fun (unless you find warping around looking for a fight fun) and as a result combat only happens when the outcome is next to guaranteed.
One other point that this thread has just made me think of, does anyone believe the lack of use of T1 battleships comes from the similarity in price to T2 cruisers? Why would I spend 130m for a t1 battleship when I can buy a much better ship for only a couple mil more? |
FireFrenzy
Satan's Unicorns
461
|
Posted - 2015.06.16 05:50:24 -
[15] - Quote
Quite frankly i dont see a need to a global price reduction but then i am "wealthy" enough that when my corp wanted to go on an impromptu roam of null my first reponce was "sweet i'll buy a confessor, oh we're going shields guess i'll sell the confessor and buy a sviple, oh i cant fly the sviple yet guess i'll buy another confessor"
Which once upon a time would have been insane to me but back in those days you did buy a megathron for ~90 million so those 3 35 million ships would have added up quickly even with my tendancy to try and sell of **** i dont need to keep my internet spaceship stuff to a minimum...
EDIT: i have never gotten the price makes people risk adverse thing. I am mainly a carebear and as such i mainly know carebears, and once we went bombing and i had to remind people that No your incursion clones with 8 bill in implants are probably not ideal for the stealthbomber slosh op we're planning,,, |
Mr Mieyli
Hedion University Amarr Empire
11
|
Posted - 2015.06.16 06:00:06 -
[16] - Quote
FireFrenzy wrote:Quite frankly i dont see a need to a global price reduction but then i am "wealthy" enough that when my corp wanted to go on an impromptu roam of null my first reponce was "sweet i'll buy a confessor, oh we're going shields guess i'll sell the confessor and buy a sviple, oh i cant fly the sviple yet guess i'll buy another confessor"
Which once upon a time would have been insane to me but back in those days you did buy a megathron for ~90 million so those 3 35 million ships would have added up quickly even with my tendancy to try and sell of **** i dont need to keep my internet spaceship stuff to a minimum...
EDIT: i have never gotten the price makes people risk adverse thing. I am mainly a carebear and as such i mainly know carebears, and once we went bombing and i had to remind people that No your incursion clones with 8 bill in implants are probably not ideal for the stealthbomber slosh op we're planning,,,
Price does make people risk averse or we'd see more bling being used / more expensive ships being flown regularly. Are you sure that your example doesn't just show a poor understanding of the risks from people who don't engage in pvp rather than an acceptance of risk? |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
885
|
Posted - 2015.06.16 06:20:54 -
[17] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote:
Price does make people risk averse or we'd see more bling being used / more expensive ships being flown regularly. Are you sure that your example doesn't just show a poor understanding of the risks from people who don't engage in pvp rather than an acceptance of risk?
It was more a case of people space rich enough that 8b was more annoying for having to buy new implants than the monetary loss.
I really think that there is more bling used than most people think, but because it is being used intelligently and usually wins over the t2 and meta only fits with choice of fights it does not die often. I also think that much of that apparent risk aversion is due to people wanting to be underestimated, alongside the mediocre increases in performance for most faction mods in most places, and the yet greater expense of the deadspace mods that really change the entire parameters of an engagement.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1412
|
Posted - 2015.06.16 06:48:18 -
[18] - Quote
Can't believe no one mentioned the tiericide which made some of the most common ships, frig/cruisers, really REALLY good. You're seeing supply and demand. |
Celthric Kanerian
Ascendance Of New Eden Workers Trade Federation
325
|
Posted - 2015.06.16 10:53:45 -
[19] - Quote
Ships are not supposed to be cheap in lowsec and null... |
Portiko
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2015.06.16 12:16:11 -
[20] - Quote
Since I started, price of PLEX has doubled, but price of ships has dropped overall. |
|
Samillian
Angry Mustellid The Periphery
840
|
Posted - 2015.06.16 12:25:22 -
[21] - Quote
If anything T2 hulls are probably cheaper than they should be considering what it takes in time, effort and resources to actually build them.
NBSI shall be the whole of the Law
|
Alexis Nightwish
250
|
Posted - 2015.06.16 14:30:44 -
[22] - Quote
The following is just my opinion but:
T1D is a little too low. I'd like them at 2.25m. T3D is too low. They should be closer to 70m. T1BC is too high. I'd like them at 45m. Gnosis excluded of course. Pirate BS, are too low. Around 1b is where I think they should be at. Ironically, the Nestor which is IMO the shittiest of the pirate BS is this price. Amazing pirate BS like the Bhaalgorn and Rattlesnake are under 500m. Even the Vindi is noticeably cheaper at just over 700m. I'm sure I'll get nerd rage flung at me, but I think caps/supers are too low. Dreads and carriers should be 4b each, and supers 80b each.
Why? Because for T1 ships at least you'd have a logical progression in price with 'half steps' (ex: dessy to cruiser) being 4.5x the previous size hull, and 'full steps' (ex: frigate to cruiser) being 20x the previous hull:
Frigate 0.5m Destroyer 2.25m Cruiser 10m Battlecruiser 45m Battleship 200m Capital 4b Supercap 80b
CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
Fixing bombs, not the bombers
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |