Hello everyone!

The purpose of this post is to explain the last element of the battleship rebalance: build costs. We found that even internally this was a very sensitive subject, one which people had very strong feelings about, and so we spent a lot of time making sure that we went ahead with a good plan. We feel confident that we have that plan, and while we do appreciate feedback (as always), this proposal is very likely the way we will be proceeding at release.

Let me give you the 'what' first, then the 'why':

The AVERAGE build cost of a battleship is going up by around 40mil

Former tier 3 prices will not change substantially, and so the majority of the change in cost is carried by the former tier 1 and 2s.

Prices will be differentiated slightly by role ('attack' and 'disruption' being a bit cheaper than 'combat')

The reasons for the change are as follows:

The primary goal of tiericide is to eliminate any explicit power difference between ships within a class. If the power within a class is more or less level across all ships (which it is after the rebalance), the price should also be level.

So then, if prices are to be more level, where should this new price line be set? The obvious answer would be to just average the cost of all battleships and then set the prices at that average - top tier prices would come down, and bottom would go up. Unfortunately, with battleships, this was not possible. Top tier battleships represent an enormous amount of mineral consumption in EVE at their current costs. That means that lowering the cost of tier 3 battleships would have a recessionary effect on EVE's economy as mineral prices suffered.

That means we are to have prices more equal, but also, we can't lower the prices of the top tier ships significantly. This felt a bit uncomfortable at first, causing certain Devs to say "OMGWTFZFBFBFBB!!" when they saw the proposal, but we looked into some metrics around player wealth and income and found that EVE players are making money faster and faster, and even new players should have no trouble enduring the bump in cost. On top of this, inflation provides room for cost increase as well.

The result is that we all agree that this price increase should not hurt demand substantially, and reflects a more healthy overall design philosophy than the old tier system.

Special Note: 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.

We hope you agree, and look forward to your feedback.

CCP Rise

Special Note: 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.

EVE players are making money faster and faster

Current Tier 3 prices have a range of approximately 200-240m depending on hull. In the past you've smoothed that kind of variation out, will you be doing that here too?

Current Tier 3 prices have a range of approximately 200-240m depending on hull. In the past you've smoothed that kind of variation out, will you be doing that here too?

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?

Well this is going to be an interesting way to pass the next 5 hours at work.

So then, if prices are to be more level, where should this new price line be set? The obvious answer would be to just average the cost of all battleships and then set the prices at that average - top tier prices would come down, and bottom would go up. Unfortunately, with battleships, this was not possible. Top tier battleships represent an enormous amount of mineral consumption in EVE at their current costs. That means that lowering the cost of tier 3 battleships would have a recessionary effect on EVE's economy as mineral prices suffered.

Hey man, nice to talk with you at fanfest

This is supposed to be a re-balance of all the ships

I don't like this kind of logic dictating balance. It sounds like your pricing decision has nothing to do with whether a 220mil isk battleship is balanced compared to a 40-50 mil isk battlecruiser, but instead is entirely based in not wanting to mess with any of the mineral consumption numbers, even though you are about to give mining a major boost anyway, which is sure to have the same effect.

This is supposed to be a re-balance of all the ships, they should not be priced based on whether the economy might react slightly or not. It's lazy logic anyway, as their is no guarantee that a reduction in price would result in a reduction in consumption. Even simple economics states that if you reduce price, demand and consumption will go up, and that should balance out your mineral consumption that you lost initially.

I can remember numerous times when alliances in 0.0 have stopped using battleship fleets temporarily because of the costs of losing them, so it's not crazy to think that a price reduction would lead to a usage increase.

I can remember numerous times when alliances in 0.0 have stopped using battleship fleets temporarily because of the costs of losing them, so it's not crazy to think that a price reduction would lead to a usage increase.

The Raven will not be worth it's new price. At all.

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?

Frigates are still selling for (in some cases) a third of their build cost...

How balanced is the cost and effectiveness of a BS compared to a BC? Is a BS really worth 4 BCs?

Part of me understands what you are doing. I agree what you are doing makes sense. Another part of me goes "I can have more fun in 4 BCs than I can in that BS." It's going to be unusual having no real ship to fill the between BC (~50 mil) and the tiericeded BS (~200-240 mil) prices. That is a large jump with no filler.

Hey progod

We ended up going with this largely because no one could make a good case that there was a need for them to be cheaper. The tier 3s worked as a good bar because they show that if battleships are balanced well they are perfectly consumable at the tier 3 price.