Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
172
|
Posted - 2012.07.07 21:58:00 -
[1] - Quote
As it stands, I feel that the margin between subcaps and capital ships is not large enough. I believe that the material costs of capital ships should be increased. Let me show a simple chart to demonstrate:
(values are rounded) Brawler Frigate: 500K ISK 1M kg Heavy Combat Cruiser: 10M ISK (20x increase) 10M kg (10x increase) Tier 3 Battleship: 200M ISK (20x increase) 100M kg (10x increase) Dreadnought: 2.4B ISK (12x increase) 1B kg (10x increase)
With each 10x increase in ship size, there is approximately a 20x increase in material costs. But there is a much larger gap in combat effectiveness between battle ships and carriers/dreadnoughts than there is between cruisers and battleships, or between frigates and cruisers--yet carriers and dreadnoughts are no more than 12x the cost of battleships.
--on the small end of the scale-- Tackler Frigate: 100K ISK 1M kg Logistics Cruiser: 5M ISK (50x increase) 10M kg (10x increase) Tier 1 Battleship: 100M ISK (20x increase) 100M kg (20x increase) Carrier: 1.2B ISK (12x increase) 1B kg (10x increase) -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens |
Cheekything
Dark-Rising
102
|
Posted - 2012.07.07 22:33:00 -
[2] - Quote
I don't think you understand how markets work.
But it's build costs are not based around the weight of the ship, that is what is normally called a consequence. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
172
|
Posted - 2012.07.07 23:05:00 -
[3] - Quote
Cheekything wrote:I don't think you understand how markets work.
But it's build costs are not based around the weight of the ship, that is what is normally called a consequence. If I took the time to explain that I already knew you would wrongfully jump to that conclusion, along with all the other conclusions that idiots will jump in and claim, the post would be all about wrongful conclusions and it wouldn't have much actual content. Perhaps you could do me a favor and consider making a tiny leap of logic: the approximated values shown here are to show a general trend. I couldn't show that trend in numbers of combat value because they don't exist. But if they did, it would look something more like this: Frigate: 1 Cruiser: 0.7 Battleship: 3 Carrier: 15 Dreadnought: 20 -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens |
Lykouleon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
503
|
Posted - 2012.07.10 04:26:00 -
[4] - Quote
I remember when dreads cost 800mil for the hull.
(This is a really bad proposal) Lykouleon > CYNO ME CLOSER SO I CAN HIT THEM WITH MY SWORD |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1892
|
Posted - 2012.07.10 14:44:00 -
[5] - Quote
Making caps require more minerals will just drive up the price of minerals and everything made from them, because the alliances that have their own supply lines will be putting less on the market for general consumption. It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you. |
lisa 8
KISIN Enterprises
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.10 22:07:00 -
[6] - Quote
Heres a thought, I dont know how feasable or even if it would be practical for CCP to implement: Since CCP is going to introduce ring mining, why not tie in moon minerals into the production materials required for caps? They wouldnt have to be high end minerals, it could be low end moon minerals. Either way, it would encourage ring mining since Corps & Alliances love their caps. It would also fit perfectly into the theme of risk vs reward, since no doubt some may take advantage of PVP opportunities they might subsequently open up. If the end result of such a idea was to push up the cost of caps well so be it, it may help counter the high number of caps in the game over all. * now waits for wall of flame* |
sabre906
Old Spice Syndicate Sailors of the Sacred Spice
414
|
Posted - 2012.07.10 22:46:00 -
[7] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote: With each 10x increase in ship size, there is approximately a 20x increase in material costs.
'Tis true. For you, boss of internet spaceships, has decreed it so, thus no deviation is allowed.
Quote: But there is a much larger gap in combat effectiveness between battle ships and carriers/dreadnoughts than there is between cruisers and battleships, or between frigates and cruisers--yet carriers and dreadnoughts are no more than 12x the cost of battleships.
There's a much larger gap in tastiness between apples and oranges than there is between oranges and bananas, for you, most supple of fruit lovers, has objectively concluded it so. Standings Improvement Service https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=19454 |
Kusum Fawn
State War Academy Caldari State
149
|
Posted - 2012.07.11 16:58:00 -
[8] - Quote
for balance of cost why are you looking at isk build cost rather then mineral build cost? the market changes prices of minerals fairly regurlary but the build mineral requirements dont change that often. (dreads and carriers just got a mineral requirement change) and so the isk costs reflect that. coupled with a change in how minerals are introduced into the game, and you get wider disparity in isk costs.
take a look at the mineral costs of building the ships, the skills (and skill cost) and use that as your multipliers.
Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
Ships to goo calc - https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=107898 |
Asuka Solo
Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises
1565
|
Posted - 2012.07.14 15:15:00 -
[9] - Quote
As a Cap builder, I have to disagree with your idea.
Not because it would solve the cap blob, cuz it wont.
Not because it would make you feel relevant, cuz it wont.
Not because expensive caps would make the world a better place, because it wont.
But because I think capitals are way too expensive for what they are, as is. Give me a carrier hull that can easily tank 30 Battleships without triage and I might be inclined to entertain the notion of such a crappy idea. Give me expanded hull ranges for each class while your at it. But don't up the prices in exchange for nothing. |
Davon Mandra'thin
Solar Horizon Directive Blue Nation
101
|
Posted - 2012.07.14 16:12:00 -
[10] - Quote
This has been proposed countless times before, and shot down each time.
Increasing the price wont stop the massive sov space alliances making them to wage war in massive capital fleets. What it will do is hit the small corps, lowsec pirates and all the people who need all the help they can get. As it stands the problem with capital ships is that they are not killed often enough, which is why there is so many of them.
Making them more expensive to build wont change anything. All it will do is make people more careful with them, and so the rate at which cap ships will build up will stay the same. |
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
193
|
Posted - 2012.08.04 18:25:00 -
[11] - Quote
Kusum Fawn wrote:for balance of cost why are you looking at isk build cost rather then mineral build cost? the market changes prices of minerals fairly regurlary but the build mineral requirements dont change that often. (dreads and carriers just got a mineral requirement change) and so the isk costs reflect that. coupled with a change in how minerals are introduced into the game, and you get wider disparity in isk costs.
take a look at the mineral costs of building the ships, the skills (and skill cost) and use that as your multipliers.
Because there are components used in capital ship production that aren't used in normal tech 1 ship production. I made my post small to show a general trend and get people thinking. I'm impressed that I got even a few intelligent replies (yours included). It is a huge leap from the norm--when I give the answers in my post and people jump in and flame me because they disagree with things they didn't even bother to read.
1.) The simple solution is to increase the amount of non-standard materials used in capital ship production.
2.) The net result will be an increase in capital ship price and a decrease in capital ship numbers. -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
193
|
Posted - 2012.08.04 18:32:00 -
[12] - Quote
Asuka Solo wrote:Give me a carrier hull that can easily tank 30 Battleships without triage I'm inclined to believe you're joking or trolling, but the way you worded the rest of that paragraph tells me otherwise.
I'll make this easy for you to understand: In EVE, numbers matter a LOT. In general, when two individual ships united together in combat against one ship are evenly matched, the two ships are only marginally cheaper than the one. If a carrier could tank 30 battleships all by itself, then it should cost more than a titan. As long as it only costs as much as a handful of battleships, people who can fly carriers would almost exclusively fly carriers since they would almost never lose them.
As it stands, a carrier has several times the tank of a tier-3 battleship. It should probably cost at least 50 times as much, simply by virtue of its fleet combat value. -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens |
Asuka Solo
Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises
1593
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 05:44:00 -
[13] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Asuka Solo wrote:Give me a carrier hull that can easily tank 30 Battleships without triage I'm inclined to believe you're joking or trolling, but the way you worded the rest of that paragraph tells me otherwise. I'll make this easy for you to understand: In EVE, numbers matter a LOT. In general, when two individual ships united together in combat against one ship are evenly matched, the two ships are only marginally cheaper than the one. If a carrier could tank 30 battleships all by itself, then it should cost more than a titan. As long as it only costs as much as a handful of battleships, people who can fly carriers would almost exclusively fly carriers since they would almost never lose them. As it stands, a carrier has several times the tank of a tier-3 battleship. It should probably cost at least 50 times as much, simply by virtue of its fleet combat value.
The problem with your proposal, dear Nero
Is that the carrier already costs as much as 10 battleships... but it can't tank 10 battleships without triage or spider tanking awesomeness. Nor can it attack anything smaller than a BS without much difficulty or waiting 2 years to target something... don't get me started on warping out or after something compared to the BS....
Flawed argument is flawed. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
819
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 05:44:00 -
[14] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:1.) The simple solution is to increase the amount of non-standard materials used in capital ship production.
2.) The net result will be an increase in capital ship price and a decrease in capital ship numbers. Cost of production is almost never a limiting factor. Supercarrier and Titan proliferation proved this all too well.
What will happen is that you raise the bar for a small entity to get a carrier or dreadnought while doing nothing to curb their mass production by larger entities. Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
Terminator56
The 8th Tribe Seraphim Dragoons.
4
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 17:15:00 -
[15] - Quote
Prices are already skyrocketing to way above your proposed levels due to mineral costs. A carrier alone now costs around 1.4b. Theres no need to make them more expensive then they already are. When you factor in the prices of capital mods/fighters, a fit carrier costs over 2b; Thats a huge margin compared to the 250m it costs to fit a battleship. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
240
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 20:28:00 -
[16] - Quote
Should have been done years ago, were it to be changed now you'd essentially hand current capital owners a huge wad of cash as the market value spikes and unduly penalize all future prospective capital pilots.
Much more sense to limit what they can do and/or where they are of use. Lots of talk about various cyno restrictions and similar "soft" changes that could potentially have a huge impact on how/when/where caps are used. Probably easier (not as much forum rage) to change mechanics than ships at any rate, so there |
Eternal Error
Exitus Acta Probant
111
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 00:19:00 -
[17] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote:1.) The simple solution is to increase the amount of non-standard materials used in capital ship production.
2.) The net result will be an increase in capital ship price and a decrease in capital ship numbers. Cost of production is almost never a limiting factor. Supercarrier and Titan proliferation proved this all too well. What will happen is that you raise the bar for a small entity to get a carrier or dreadnought while doing nothing to curb their mass production by larger entities. This.
OP, I am with you in spirit, but your proposed changes are no good. This would just increase the barrier to entry as well as inflation. |
Super Chair
Project Cerberus Caldari State Capturing
309
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 07:37:00 -
[18] - Quote
Caps already have reduce insurance payouts (to make killing them feel more worthwhile) over other t1 hulls. Also their modules cost more. Also I can probably solo the OPs battleship with a frigate, so obviously frigates need to cost 200 million isk now. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
458
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 10:57:00 -
[19] - Quote
I don't agree with this either, the price of caps has doubled over the last 6 months or so due to the mineral cost rise and they are still flowing out the production lines. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc
194
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 21:11:00 -
[20] - Quote
I made a mistake in my last post. I meant to say that two ships that make an even match for one would each individually cost MUCH less total, simply because there are two of them.
Asuka Solo wrote:the carrier already costs as much as 10 battleships... but it can't tank 10 battleships without triage or spider tanking awesomeness. Nor can it attack anything smaller than a BS without much difficulty or waiting 2 years to target something... Carriers aren't even made for tanking without triage. They only tank well with triage, and they damn well can tank 10 battleships when they're feeding between one single other carrier and aren't getting neuted. Compare that to 2 logistics cruisers repping each other against 10 frigates--the frigates will destroy them and won't need neuts to do it, but the 10 frigates cost MUCH less than a logistics cruiser.
Asuka Solo wrote:And while were talking about numbers that mean allot... the sheer lack of approvals and or likes attributed to you or your ideas indicate a severe lack of UNDERSTANDING or buy in from the masses.... argumentum ad populum My number of likes received is only partially proportional to how much people like my ideas, it also has a lot to do with how often I visit the forums. The number of likes I have will never go away, and if I make a post one day about dressing corpses and I get several hundred likes from it, it won't increase my ability to make useful commentary on ships. But I shouldn't even have to explain this to you.
Shah Fluffers wrote:Cost of production is almost never a limiting factor. Supercarrier and Titan proliferation proved this all too well.
What will happen is that you raise the bar for a small entity to get a carrier or dreadnought while doing nothing to curb their mass production by larger entities. Your point is completely reasonable and definitely a major thing that will have to be considered when figuring out how to balance the resources. It is not impossible by any means, it simply hasn't been done right in the past. I don't know the exact solution to the problem (nobody does, without trying and finding out), but the best way to start would be to require capital ships cost materials that are limited in production by the number of players producing them--similar to PI. Absolutely none of the necessary resources should be possible to control completely by one alliance or cartel. This way, any individual with enough net worth can cough up a capital ship.
I think that some resources should be somewhat controllable, just to give something for big alliances to fight over. But there should always be some resource bleed into the main population so that the little people can get their hands on it. One method I thought of would be for moons to gradually deplete (over the course of months) and for other moons to sometimes grow into a new resource. This way, any alliance trying to control a resource (say Technetium) would have to constantly keep an eye out for the new sources, and wrest control of the systems that have it. A small alliance could potentially find a technetium deposit on one of their moons and keep it a secret until they had stockpiled a good chunk.
Terminator56 wrote:a fit carrier costs over 2b; Thats a huge margin compared to the 250m it costs to fit a battleship. You're talking about a jump from battleship to capital ship, so no, it's not. -á"The Mittani: Hated By Badposters i'm strangely comfortable with it" -Mittens |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |