Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Blastil
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 20:26:00 -
[1]
HAC prices have steadly risen for certain HAC's requiring ferogel and other T2 components over the last four-five months. HAC's like the Deimos which have always had cost-effectiveness issues are now rapidly becoming too expensive to fly in PVP capacities. 160 mil ISK for a ship that is not remotely as good as a battleship for its dedicated role is simply too much money, and this is the same for many other ships in the HAC category.
I would like to see the prices of Heavy Assault Cruisers and other T2 items/ships looked at and addressed to balance the cost/reward balance for HAC's.
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 20:31:00 -
[2]
dyspro moon owners are that way ->
|
Treelox
Amarr Seppuku Warriors
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 20:32:00 -
[3]
"Cost-effectiveness" is a matter of self perception.
I'm perfectly fine paying the current price of HACs.
Welcome to eve, where even the market is full of PvP, someone is beating you right now, cause they can afford what you cant. :)
TL;DR= NO --
|
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 20:44:00 -
[4]
And if I have my way depending on which regions you are in, they will peak at 200m
...as stated before, go complain about the material spreads in T2 usage |
Blastil
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 20:50:00 -
[5]
Its not an issue of you being willing to pay that much. Certainly there are some HAC's that I would pay that much for, but at this point, there's nothing a HAC can do that a rigged battleship couldn't do at the SAME PRICE. or a rigged BC at the same price. HAC's have always been the expensive rock stars of the PVP realm but at this point is out of hand. They need to be at least reviewed. I just think CCP should look at it is all.
|
BelNevyn
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 20:52:00 -
[6]
If HAC is to expensive, do like I do. Fly Dominix as PvP. That is so much better. Cost only 50M + equipment, and they do tank much better.
Well that is my 5 cent in the matter.
Or even better. Go out there and kill those Dysp moons, and taken them and build ship from that :-D.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 21:05:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Herschel Yamamoto on 27/07/2009 21:04:43 "Certain HAC's requiring ferrogel"? All HACs require ferrogel, and quite a lot of it.
As for your broader point, it's supply and demand. If you don't want to pay it, don't. Plenty of people are still willing to buy - the Deimos isn't especially good, but 20+ still trade hands in the average day in Forge, and that's essentially flat over the last year. Seems like people don't mind paying 135M any more than they minded paying 75M.
|
Cthul
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 21:17:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Blastil Its not an issue of you being willing to pay that much. Certainly there are some HAC's that I would pay that much for, but at this point, there's nothing a HAC can do that a rigged battleship couldn't do at the SAME PRICE. or a rigged BC at the same price. HAC's have always been the expensive rock stars of the PVP realm but at this point is out of hand. They need to be at least reviewed. I just think CCP should look at it is all.
not only do you obviously have trouble understanding economics, but you are forgetting the number 1 thing HAC's have that battleships don't; mobility.
|
BelNevyn
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 21:27:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Cthul
Originally by: Blastil Its not an issue of you being willing to pay that much. Certainly there are some HAC's that I would pay that much for, but at this point, there's nothing a HAC can do that a rigged battleship couldn't do at the SAME PRICE. or a rigged BC at the same price. HAC's have always been the expensive rock stars of the PVP realm but at this point is out of hand. They need to be at least reviewed. I just think CCP should look at it is all.
not only do you obviously have trouble understanding economics, but you are forgetting the number 1 thing HAC's have that battleships don't; mobility.
I can't give a thumbs up for this idea about CCP begins to fiddle with the economy. However, I give a thumb up to Cthul that have understand that Deimos and other HAC is much more agile ships than Battleships.
Is Deimos worth 200M? Well if you can kill other ships to a profit that is worth the (ships price + your equipment + rigg )times two (atleast). Then they are worth it. However, if you fly out from the station and then die right on the outside. Well I guess no ship is worth the ISK and time spending on getting that ship.
// BelNevyn "The untouchable"
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 22:55:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Cthul
Originally by: Blastil Its not an issue of you being willing to pay that much. Certainly there are some HAC's that I would pay that much for, but at this point, there's nothing a HAC can do that a rigged battleship couldn't do at the SAME PRICE. or a rigged BC at the same price. HAC's have always been the expensive rock stars of the PVP realm but at this point is out of hand. They need to be at least reviewed. I just think CCP should look at it is all.
not only do you obviously have trouble understanding economics, but you are forgetting the number 1 thing HAC's have that battleships don't; mobility.
And lockspeed. And tracking.
OP is forgetting that people bought - and fought with - HACs back before invention, when they were 300M+
|
|
steave435
Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 23:04:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Cthul
Originally by: Blastil Its not an issue of you being willing to pay that much. Certainly there are some HAC's that I would pay that much for, but at this point, there's nothing a HAC can do that a rigged battleship couldn't do at the SAME PRICE. or a rigged BC at the same price. HAC's have always been the expensive rock stars of the PVP realm but at this point is out of hand. They need to be at least reviewed. I just think CCP should look at it is all.
not only do you obviously have trouble understanding economics, but you are forgetting the number 1 thing HAC's have that battleships don't; mobility.
And lockspeed. And tracking.
OP is forgetting that people bought - and fought with - HACs back before invention, when they were 300M+
And considering the inflation, 300m back then was probably alot more then 300m is today.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 23:10:00 -
[12]
Originally by: steave435 And considering the inflation, 300m back then was probably alot more then 300m is today.
What's this "inflation" you speak of?
|
Stil Harkonnen
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 23:55:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Stil Harkonnen on 27/07/2009 23:55:17 I wish HACs could be cheaper.
I don't grind missions all day. I don't have the RL money to pay for a second account to make isk for me. I don't buy illegal isk. All I do for the most part is pvp, and run some level IV missions every once in a while to earn some isk to buy more cruisers and t2 fittings. right now I have around 123 million isk, which might not even be enough to afford a SINGLE HAC, regardless of the fittings.
Are you saying that because I don't have RL money, or the time to grind (and I believe EVE is supposed to be the one game where you are not required to grind in order to advance), that I must be forced to fly t1 cruisers all the time?
I support this.
|
Seluko
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 03:00:00 -
[14]
CCP messing with the market is bad. You not being able to pay for a ship, means your loss. If the price gets too high, then it will go back down, because other people will stop paying for them also. Capitalism is such a wonderful thing.
Oh, not supported.
|
Kahega Amielden
Minmatar Suddenly Ninjas
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 04:12:00 -
[15]
Hopefully the cost-effectiveness issue will be fixed when insurance is overhauled.
HACs are not too expensive. Fly t1 cruisers if HACs cost too much. That's what they exist for.
|
an internet
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 06:28:00 -
[16]
Considering the sheer amount of sniping HAC gangs I've run into, I'm fairly sure that they are cheap enough.
|
Furb Killer
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 07:57:00 -
[17]
CCP adjusting build cost wouldnt be messing with the market, it would be balancing, nothing wrong with that.
However while i am going to press the support button, i dont think they should change the build requirements of HACs. They should fix alchemy/moon mining in general to get supply and demand into balance again. The HAC prices are just an indicator that something else is wrong atm.
Right now there isnt even a healthy supply/demand relation, simply because supply is fixed. The ammount of people able to use t2 stuff increases. So the demand for the moon materials increases. However the production of high end moon stuff is completely fixed. Even if i would pay 100 times the price that it is going for now, the total supply of them wouldnt change anything, since it is allready maxed.
|
Mashashige
Minmatar Eternal Perseverance Flight School
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 08:08:00 -
[18]
Changing material costs for HACs wont change anything UNLESS they remove Desp need - it will only make owners of r64s richer. When supply is cornered, suppliers can demand any price that the market will pay - and if people are still buying HACS at 150mil, changing anything won't matter. This isn't like the T3 change where you have tons of people supplying materials for production - you have limited r64s, and most of them are owned by several big alliances who are usually together. Add to that the fact that trade isn't as simple as reducing production costs = reduced price tag, as people can play the market as they please.
TL;DR version - CCP can try and **** with the market, but unless consumers stop being willing to pay 150mil per HAC (or whatever) prices will not change. And for that to happen people will have to create big "buyers groups" that will say NO to high prices. But that will never happen, cause people are stupid and usually follow the herd mentality anyhow.
So no, not supported at all. But please, when you do buy that HAC finally, please faction fit it and come to lowsec - I could use a nice ransom. =======================================
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." |
killerbitsch
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 08:55:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Stil Harkonnen Edited by: Stil Harkonnen on 27/07/2009 23:55:17 I wish HACs could be cheaper.
I don't grind missions all day. I don't have the RL money to pay for a second account to make isk for me. I don't buy illegal isk. All I do for the most part is pvp, and run some level IV missions every once in a while to earn some isk to buy more cruisers and t2 fittings. right now I have around 123 million isk, which might not even be enough to afford a SINGLE HAC, regardless of the fittings.
Are you saying that because I don't have RL money, or the time to grind (and I believe EVE is supposed to be the one game where you are not required to grind in order to advance), that I must be forced to fly t1 cruisers all the time?
I support this.
i can't see the sense in this argument... i think it's because it's not an argument after all, but some kind of whine. you have no money because:
1. you're lazy to make some 2. what you make you rapidly go to get it popped
with the same effort and logic you should propose that carriers with fighters and stuff (and skills too, yes) should be not more then 123million ISK, because you just have that amount. so what? don't buy any, m8, you don't have to. 123mill is good for approx 100 rifters with OKish fittings, so you can do a lot of PVP, go with it.
the price for HACS is just fine, they give you approx the same tank as a good bs, with real good sensors, locking time, mobility, and at the same time, they can put out quite decent dmg. and until peepz buy it for 160mil, the price will not (and shouldn't) change.
no support
|
Mr LaboratoryRat
Confederation of DuckTape Lovers
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 09:07:00 -
[20]
So the problem are the alliances that are holding the R64 moons..... i wonder why that problem keeps popping up everywere... ow wait maybe its time to revieuw that!
That brings me to alliance cost to run space, (for noobs, yes pos fuel & jb cost isk....). To run and defend space properly u need sov... that sounds fimiliar, ccp is going to change the sov system end of this year. So maybe in a year or 2 the OP get's his way, after the sov revieuw, after R64's distrubution revieuw & probaly after some L4 mission boosts.
Like i always say: "Cheap ship is dead ship". I always spend atleast 250m on my hac's if i pimp them with faction, they need that love. With recons the same, they need faction to be flown properly, in a pvp way not a blobfest, there u need ****ty T1 cruisers for
|
|
Mashashige
Minmatar Eternal Perseverance Flight School
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 09:29:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Mr LaboratoryRat So the problem are the alliances that are holding the R64 moons
No.
There is no problem. Prices are a factor of supply and demand and people playing with said supply and demand in order to artificially raise moon mineral prices. Also, since the moon mining dupe bug was fixed, there are less minerals on the market = more demand = higher prices. Now ofc, the mineral prices might be too high for reason - but again, its not about alliances or sov, its all about what people will or won't be willing to pay.
So basically, if you have a problem with the prices of HACS or moon minerals, don't pay it. If enough people are not willing to pay, prices will go down. But like I've said - since people are stupid, its more than likely that people will still pay todays prices for the next 2-3 months. =======================================
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." |
Larkonis Trassler
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 09:51:00 -
[22]
Get out. Seriously. You think things are bad at the moment, I remember paying 300 mil for my first Vaga... AND I had to travel across 3 regions to find on on the market.
Kids today don't know they're born.
With no big wars on at the moment prices should stabilise.
Cost effectiveness is in the eye of the beholder. To some people a diemost is obviously worth 160 mil because people are still buying them at that price.
FOR SALE: ALLIANCE TOURNAMENT 7 SLOT |
RedClaws
Amarr Dragon's Rage Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 10:20:00 -
[23]
We all know the problem is r64 moons, it always has.
It's about damn time ccp did something about it, it's been going on for far too long.
0.0 space = if don't have an r64 moon, oeps sorry you're dead cause 1 r64 moon will give more income than the tax of 500 players.
|
Slave 2739FKZ
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 11:19:00 -
[24]
The only problem is with balance between moon materials in production, should the other two R64 be balanced like prom & dysp in usage the prices would stabilize a bit lower, but not droping too much so it's meaningless. That and fixing damn alchemy allready.
Anyway is a matter of how spread wants T2 to be, maybe they are actually not that bad with it reaching such prices as it was too wide spread. But raising the issue to know what are the thoughs of CCP may not be a bad idea at all.
There are too much richie rich kiddos who spend too much time at internet spaceships, but for the average player, according to QEN and other devblogs and real data, losing a ship which with rigs and t2 fit can reach >200 mill. lose is a hard enough hit. So what does CCP think about it?
An other way to go is removing the damn insurance allready on T1 ships for older players (say 3 months old?), suddenlly losing a BS worth 250 mill. is not such a vain thing.
|
Mr LaboratoryRat
Confederation of DuckTape Lovers
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 11:37:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Mashashige
Originally by: Mr LaboratoryRat So the problem are the alliances that are holding the R64 moons
No.
There is no problem. Prices are a factor of supply and demand and people playing with said supply and demand in order to artificially raise moon mineral prices.
Like i said, There are parties that have enough r64's to do this stuff. That are responsible for 20% of the dyspo market (kuch kuch delve). No offence T1 goonies, just a example. R64's attracts big alliances and once a alliance got enough of them they can manipulate the whole T2 market. We all know what happend when delve was sieged. The problem is that there arnt enough R64's that are owned by non big alliances. U can wonder now should it be able for someone to have a r64 for is onw,.... NO deffinaly not. But if i look here i see 6-7 large alliances holding 95% of the R64's of witch 3 own 60% of all the dyspo moons. I wonder if there is a real market in R64 mins....
|
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 12:50:00 -
[26]
Actually the issue is with R64 moons, but not in the sense that most people assume it is. Many people assume that every alliance in null space controls a vast swath of R64s and R32s which fuel this massive conspiracy that there is this conglomerate to control the market.
The truth is far more sinister.
The actually truth is that way back in the way back machine when the game was bright and young, whatever dev team seeded the original moons did so half drunk and dumb with no sense or rhyme or reason to balance.
So in reality we have sections of space are literally overflowing with R16s and R32's. Seriously, its a freaking cadmium fest. And then you have sections of space where its nothing but R64s, and in some infinite wisdom, that I have yet to figure out in my lengthy time here, they seeded those R64s according to racial space....which would make sense if the actual build requirements and spread were spread according to racial space.
But as we know now, they are not. Only 2 R64's go into the bulk of all production, and to make things worse every expansion since a point of time has actually made it worse by bulk copy pasta build requirements (see jump freights) so that instead of fixing this balance in demand.. its actually made it worse.
You want to fix T2 prices... fine... just argue from the right platform.
Either the build requirements change to use the less used R64's (some of us have pushed the idea that all industrial T2 items should use the Amarr lines instead of Gallente) or moon locations need to change as well (which wouldn't be so bad in of itself either) |
Feggy
|
Posted - 2009.07.29 10:06:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Larkonis Trassler Get out. Seriously. You think things are bad at the moment, I remember paying 300 mil for my first Vaga... AND I had to travel across 3 regions to find on on the market.
Kids today don't know they're born.
quoted for truth.
|
Medidranda Livoga
|
Posted - 2009.07.29 10:16:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Medidranda Livoga on 29/07/2009 10:15:56 T2 ships need to be far more expensive still, that 300m+ sounds like a pretty good starting point.
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.07.29 10:24:00 -
[29]
Supply and demand. Sorry.
|
Slave 2739FKZ
|
Posted - 2009.07.29 12:22:00 -
[30]
Still distribution of moons & weight in industrial process sucks.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |