Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
devilator
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 09:44:00 -
[1]
As a CS pilot and builder I think its high time to fix the production cost and the roles of the most skill intensive ship to train sub capital. CCP has clearly stated that they want T3 ships around the price of 200-300mil. That puts them right alittle higher than the price of CS. Considering it takes half the time to train and fly a T3 ship but has almost equal if not better results then the CS, where does that leave the CS? At the current market values I cant build one for under 190mil..Its just not possible, so the invented bpc just sits there. CCP where do you see the CS in a year or two. What price level do you think this ship should be at. If the T3 market continues to drop to the level you guys/gals want, I believe it will totally phaseout the CS. Why would anyone train to fly one when flying a T3 would be easier with better results and soon will cost the same. Something has to be done, lower the bill requirements that may help. Because as of right Now the CS market is very stagnate and the Ships roles are even worst
|
Rashmika Clavain
Gallente Shadows Of The Federation
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 09:54:00 -
[2]
The Damnation is an awesome Command Ship.
As is the Minnie version for boosting long range points...
The Eos needs some minor tweaks (ie Command ship bonus to give you 125m3 bandwith with CS level 5 and limit the turret hardpoints to four).
However, I don't see anything wrong with the production cost. They're hte same for everyone else. If you want to make a profit, build something else that IS profitable. I think that would be a better approach than simply asking CCP to "fix it" just to cater to the way you want to play EVE.
...and I am sorry but a T3 ship will never be as good as a Damnation giving out the Armoured Warfare Ganglinks
Removed. Please keep your EVE signature related to your EVE persona and not that of a real life politician. Navigator |
devilator
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 10:25:00 -
[3]
No the production cost is out of WACK. I shouldnt lose close to hundred mil or more building anyship. I have alt that builds all races so i do build whats profitable. But I think something is wrong when the prices for the CS are so Inverted. It cost more to build than the current sell price is by a stagering amount. To lose 1 to 10 mil is acceptable by all means which most ships are in this range. CS ar 40-60mil lost and have been for awhile now. |
Rashmika Clavain
Gallente Shadows Of The Federation
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 10:33:00 -
[4]
The production costs don't matter. It's what people are prepared to pay for them versus what people try and sell them for.
The Command Ship is hugely situational and consequently I don't see demand as ever being that high; coupled with people leaving them parked at a POS for gang links also reduces the ship turnover.
Reducing the production cost and reducing its speciality to make it a more general ship of the line which has high DPS and a high tank will simply create a problem of having lots of cheaper to produce "I win" ships.
Removed. Please keep your EVE signature related to your EVE persona and not that of a real life politician. Navigator |
devilator
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 11:00:00 -
[5]
Im sorry but your are a little mistaken here. The build cost is what sets the price of the ship. It dosent matter what some will pay for it, because if it cost me 190 mil to make a ship i will not sell it for for anything less. the price folks will pay for the ship will never pay determine the build cost.
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 11:17:00 -
[6]
I suspect you arent using decryptors.
Wherever you went - Here you are.
|
lucifers widow
3rd Kador lancers
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 11:29:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Ghoest I suspect you arent using decryptors.
Definately not using the enter key.
|
Don Pellegrino
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 11:51:00 -
[8]
Originally by: devilator Im sorry but your are a little mistaken here. The build cost is what sets the price of the ship. It dosent matter what some will pay for it, because if it cost me 190 mil to make a ship i will not sell it for for anything less. the price folks will pay for the ship will never pay determine the build cost.
Yes, it costs you 190M. So dont invent it if you're are not 100% sure you will make a profit out of it. Plain and simple, really. There is the same number of T2 BPOs for every T2 item (that existed in the time of the lottery). So unpopular ships like the Eos will have a very low demand and Invention won't be profitable on them because T2 BPO owners already feed the market. Oh well, just invent something else!
And by the way, you should take some time to look at how decryptors work and do the math for all 5 decryptors before inventing something. I guess the Collision Mesurements(Gal.)/Formation layout(Amarr)/Tuning Instructions(Cal.)/Calibration data(Min.) decryptor is what you need.
And yes, I do agree that if the T3 cruiser prices drop to 200-250M, CS aren't going to be really useful anymore. Some of them have unique bonuses, but...
|
devilator
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 12:22:00 -
[9]
Edited by: devilator on 29/09/2009 12:24:33 Ok I do know how decryptors and such work along with everything else dealing with the invention/building process for T2 ships. Im just stating that the inversion of build cost to sell price is rather large for CS and has always been an issue( maybe except for 1 week where prices skyrocketed). As the role of the CS becomes more cloudy due to the invent of T3 ships, the demand for them will contiune to drop therefore reducing the prices even more. The build cost on the otherhand will remain extremely high, which basically kills the ships all together. I guess the question is, Just like CCP stated that want the price of the T3 ships around 200-250mil what prices do they envision the CS to be, which is directly linked to the build cost ?
|
Jana Tanaka
Caldari Tanaka Industries Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 15:48:00 -
[10]
The CS market is one of the segments heavily dominated by the BPO owners. Last time I checked there was no profit to be made with CS invention, taken into account the effect of decryptors and one step of vertical integration.
While CS are nice ships, the demand is to low since the premium payed for their abilities is to high in comparison to a battleship.
Since the demand is low, BPO holders even given the long production times can use their low production costs to influence the market and keep prices at a level that makes the entry for inventors unprofitable. With a higher demand inventors could break this tacit monopol.
*shruggs* Well and of course there is the issue of raw material costs.. yet we will see what dominion brings with regards to that.
Oh and just my favorite number about the overall relevance of T2 BPOs in T2 ship production:
Relation of Ships produced from BPO to those produced from invented BPCs BPO:BPC = 56%:44% [QEN Q2/09]
|
|
JitaPriceChecker2
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 15:50:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Jana Tanaka The CS market is one of the segments heavily dominated by the BPO owners. Last time I checked there was no profit to be made with CS invention, taken into account the effect of decryptors and one step of vertical integration.
While CS are nice ships, the demand is to low since the premium payed for their abilities is to high in comparison to a battleship.
Since the demand is low, BPO holders even given the long production times can use their low production costs to influence the market and keep prices at a level that makes the entry for inventors unprofitable. With a higher demand inventors could break this tacit monopol.
*shruggs* Well and of course there is the issue of raw material costs.. yet we will see what dominion brings with regards to that.
Oh and just my favorite number about the overall relevance of T2 BPOs in T2 ship production:
Relation of Ships produced from BPO to those produced from invented BPCs BPO:BPC = 56%:44% [QEN Q2/09]
Waiting for interceptor argument.
|
Jana Tanaka
Caldari Tanaka Industries Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.09.30 19:48:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Jana Tanaka on 30/09/2009 19:48:08
Quote: Waiting for interceptor argument.
The interceptor argument does not apply here. Inties have a high demand due to
- costing a fraction of a CS
- being easier accessible skill wise
- overall more usefull if not to say essential for PVP
Also the skillset and capital needed to invent and produce interceptors is minimal in comparison to that needed to invent and produce command ships.
Note please that my intention is to merely offer my opinion with regards to the OPs observation.
I do not like T2 BPOs simply since they distort a few market segments, yet since there is so far no fair applicable solution for that problem, there is no point in excessive whining :)
|
Arous Drephius
|
Posted - 2009.09.30 20:00:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Rashmika Clavain ...and I am sorry but a T3 ship will never be as good as a Damnation giving out the Armoured Warfare Ganglinks
Damnation with All Lvl 5 skills + Mindlink = 25.87% bonus. Legion with same skills + mindlink = 28.12% bonus.
You may not be able to fit the rest of the ship better, but if it's parked at a safespot/POS just to give bonuses, it's better.
|
Korizan
Red Mercury Incorporated
|
Posted - 2009.09.30 20:07:00 -
[14]
Kind of a catch 22 is it not ?
Without invention the Price of a T2 ship would double as BPO Holders could set there own price. But @ the same time with Invention BPO holders in some cases are selling below the value to make it profitable for invention. And if you could get rid of T2 BPO's then invention holders could raise there prices.
So some cases with low volume items (CS's) we need both to keep the prices @ a level people are willing to pay. And with high Volume items those find there own natural level do to fact that that the BPO owners can't keep up with the demand. So the higher the demand the less effect a t2 BPO holder has on the market.
|
Dretzle Omega
Caldari Global Economy Experts Stellar Economy Experts
|
Posted - 2009.09.30 20:57:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Dretzle Omega on 30/09/2009 20:57:31
Originally by: devilator Edited by: devilator on 29/09/2009 12:05:22 Im sorry but your are a little mistaken here. The build cost is what sets the price of the ship. It dosent matter what some will pay for it, because if it cost me 190 mil to make a ship I will not sell it for for anything less. the price folks will pay for the ship will never determine the build cost.
No, that is completely wrong. Basic Economics.
Supply and Demand set the price. Where they agree is where the price will be.
It doesn't matter if it costs you 190 Mil to make it if no one is willing to pay you 190 Mil to buy it. The price people will pay for the ship does not determine the build cost, but it does determine the price.
1st problem with your logic is that you think that only T2 inventors (or BPO holders, in otherwords producers) are the only ones that ever sell the ship.
2nd problem with your logic is that you think that producers won't sell below build cost. Some will. One reason is that the demand for the ship isn't high enough to sell what they want at the price they want. They accept a loss and get out of the market. Or there's the stupid factor. They build and sell at that price because that's the price it's selling at. They accept a loss because their actions are subsidized by other activities and they don't realize they're losing money.
At any rate, the appropriate response when you see that it is not worth your time and cost to sell an item is you don't build it. Look for something that is worth it. Build that instead. No need for CCP to boost the ship only to raise demand so you can sell yours.
|
Cygwin Gaad
Caldari The Element Syndicate Black Mesa Project
|
Posted - 2009.10.01 01:30:00 -
[16]
thread full of -
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |