I know a lot of people feel ABC are too strong still, but that's its own issue which we are still watching.

When ABC are able to get higher performance fitting battleship weapons than battleships themselves, yes it most definitely is an issue and yes they are far too strong.

These changes are bad. Who will fly a 250 million Scorpion?

More tritanium in 0.0-ores-> more mining -> lower mineral prices -> lower T1 ship prices.
Better production in 0.0 stations -> more competition -> lower T1 ship prices.
Base mineral requirement for BS increased to get closer to former Tier3 BS build requirements.
Mineral requirement increase would be worth about 40 mil in current mineral prices.
In future mineral prices, the building requirement increase might be worth around 10 or 20mil and might be completely offset by the general decrease in price through lower mineral prices.
But nooooooo.
Lets not wait what happens and complain then!
We are so perfect at economics that we know 100% what will happen in this intricate system!
But instead of using that perfect knowledge to become rich in EvE, we use it to predetermine the worst scenario and then ***** about it on the forums as if it has already happend.

Me. I would even pay 750 mil for it as long as it is the only ECM Battleship.

More tritanium in 0.0-ores-> more mining -> lower mineral prices -> lower T1 ship prices.
Better production in 0.0 stations -> more competition -> lower T1 ship prices.
Base mineral requirement for BS increased to get closer to former Tier3 BS build requirements.

Me. I would even pay 750 mil for it as long as it is the only ECM Battleship.

More tritanium in 0.0-ores-> more mining -> lower mineral prices -> lower T1 ship prices.
Better production in 0.0 stations -> more competition -> lower T1 ship prices.
Base mineral requirement for BS increased to get closer to former Tier3 BS build requirements.
Mineral requirement increase would be worth about 40 mil in current mineral prices.
In future mineral prices, the building requirement increase might be worth around 10 or 20mil and might be completely offset by the general decrease in price through lower mineral prices.
But nooooooo.
Lets not wait what happens and complain then!
We are so perfect at economics that we know 100% what will happen in this intricate system!
But instead of using that perfect knowledge to become rich in EvE, we use it to predetermine the worst scenario and then ***** about it on the forums as if it has already happend.

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

Hi Rise,

Sorry, but I have to seriously disagree with the logic and reasoning behind this.

Hype used to be 220 unfit and wasn't very popular for alot of reasons. IMO It's vastly improved for Odyssey but if it stays at it's current price I'm doubtful you see many if any more used than currently. That's a failure.

Overall if you don't see more BS being used you can't claim success, and if you add 20-40% to their build costs that's what's gonna happen.

Attack & Disruption @ 100 mil, Combat 150-60'ish.

Nerf the mat's for the Hype, Rokh, Babbon, and Mael.

The only way this re-bal is successful is if you start to see ships that haven't been flown in years fielded in great numbers. You're shooting yourself in the foot if you start out by jacking the cost. Push it down and the market will hoard less but build more post patch ( will make all those new null slots seem like a blessing ).

So, since the role "cheap, mass produced battleship with low entry barriers for highsec POS grinds" that was formerly filled by the Geddon will apparently no longer exist, what are your ideas for the future of highsec wars? ABCs?

No, but SOME devs were concerned that it was going to be too hard on players with less income.

As a result we spent quite a bit of time talking about how quickly we wanted BS to be accessible, and we also looked into metrics around player income in as much detail as possible. It was easy to establish that people simply have higher income than they used to across all character ages. With that information, everyone agreed this was the best way to move forward.

Gonna go ahead and make the ~bold prediction~ that despite the doomcrying in this thread this won't really affect how much BS are used on the whole at all. Might even increase it a bit.

This is why we need a highsec analogue of the Dreadnought, possibly as a tech 2 battleship hull.

Think something like a Hyperion that can fit some new form of tactical reconfig module that prevents both local and remote repair and warping for 60 seconds and boosts damage output to large targets significantly.

Until we have that, the Talos is your friend.

I think this is an awful idea. I don't fly spaceships to hit a button that makes me immobile, thankyou very much.

They aren't even nerfing tier 3 BCs.

Scenario: A straight up fight between an equally sized Rokh Fleet and Naga fleet over some objective (breaking up a camp on a station, destroying a POS, whatever).
I can't see any plausible scenario where the Rokhs won't easily win.