To be fair, I've lost two carriers this year too, but these days I mostly fly supers.

Odyssey Expansion
50% or 'F'

(Reason, ship 'reblancing' is bullshit. Winmatar and Gallente are buffed. Amarr and Caldari are shafted to put it gently. UI changes and stargate-cinematic are good. Again missile changes avoid the glaring issue that you seem to be ignoring in a biased manner)

Odyssey Devs
15% or 'F'

Reason: The only points being awarded are for UI and stargate-cinematic changes.

Any of my fellow Eve Players disagree with my grading rubric?

Price for supers must be increased by 1000x. They still keep building them double it, then triple etc.

There seems to be too many of them at the moment.
__________________________________________

Kinda fascinating how that is working out...

Maybe the CCP guys like flying Minmatar. Hate Caldari and Amarr. And decided to help their in-game personal-account allies the gallente. Seems like a conflict of interest to me. Also raises the question of their professionalism.

SInce it is finals weeks for many people, CCP here are your grades over the last year:

Retribution Expansion
85% or 'B'

(Reason, didn't like the HML nerf when a change of missile mechanics would be common sense first step)

Retribution Devs
90% or 'A'

Odyssey Expansion
50% or 'F'

(Reason, ship 'reblancing' is bullshit. Winmatar and Gallente are buffed. Amarr and Caldari are shafted to put it gently. UI changes and stargate-cinematic are good. Again missile changes avoid the glaring issue that you seem to be ignoring in a biased manner)

Odyssey Devs
15% or 'F'

Reason: The only points being awarded are for UI and stargate-cinematic changes.

Any of my fellow Eve Players disagree with my grading rubric?

Kinda fascinating how that is working out...

Maybe the CCP guys like flying Minmatar. Hate Caldari and Amarr. And decided to help their in-game personal-account allies the gallente. Seems like a conflict of interest to me. Also raises the question of their professionalism.

@ Hagika
Shield/launcher ships are very problematic balance wise. Missiles are versatile damage weapon system that enables you to pierce through any known tank in EVE when you know what damage to shoot. When you fit your ship well they can also take out smaller ships which turret systems can't always do. When mixed to tank shield (mid slot) type that allows you to fit good bunch of damage mods to low slots you get really deadly system.

What comes to Raven I think it will get massive boost in Odyssey. That extra mid and the cruise buff makes it really good ship. Bit of irony though is that Typhoon seems to be better missile boat even Winmatars did not ever have primary missile system boats.. I could kick the dev / designer in CCP who keeps turning the M upside down for Winmatar.. Like they did not have already good toys or superior toys.

All in all I am really sad what is happening to BSes. These changes put BSes into shadow. Ships that have been really iconic part of EVE for long. Then again it gives more space for more agile ships to be flown so we will see what we will experience in Odyssey.

Pretty sad it took a nano fiber to allow the shield ship a slight faster speed over a 2 T2 plated ship.

And this is the problem - why take a Raven over a Typhoon? I really like the 'Phoon, and think the Raven is ugly, but this doesn't not mean that the 'Phoon should be outright better than the Raven.

What i dont understand ,(actually i do ,they do it cause they hate caldari biased devs bleh...) why the hell the raven has to be so much shittier than fe(to which we can compare it the most) the typhoon which is pretty much a matarized raven, oh yeah matarized which means just plain better in every possible term

A little sidenone, a bit on topic of build prices, but not directly related to this topic:

I found it "distracting" to have the minerals two times on the blue prints. First in the upper section of the material needs, and then again in the "additional" material needs.

Please rework all the blueprints to state all mineral needs in the upper section of the material needs, and only list "special non mineral" material needs under additional materials needed.

That would make things a lot less confusing.

Pls ye. Also fix LOLscorch. That crystal has been beyond OP for years now.

Significant nerf to Scorch (with all other things remaining same) would more or less obsolete all laser boats.

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

I'm fairly new to production. Won't this mean I won't be able to build Battleships for a profit for quite some time? I still can't make money on procurers. In fact I'd have to sell them at a significant loss.

I like the changes.

Battleships either need more buffs or have the more expensive ones made cheaper.

Cheaper Battleships mean they get blown up more, this trickles down into more bought, more built to meet demand and overall less stagnation in the economy.

How do you guys not see this?

Agreed, scorch is one of the few good things lasers have.

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.

Ever see a carriage horse? Those little black things near their eyes, they call them blinders. They were invented so the horse will only look straight and stay that course.

Now put us players on the carriage and the horse with blinders is Rise and the person steering the horse is Fozzie and he just happens to be wearing them too.

Now do you see the problem?

No, the laser, exactly the Scorch is the most overpowered ammo type in the game.
And the geddon will be the most overpovered t1 BS in the game,after changes, because that is not will be a t1 BS, will be a mini faction BS with those ridiculous overpowered (T2 EW bonus) neutraliser range bonuses.

If lasers were a selective damage type, then I would more sympathetic, but since Amarr are already struggling, this would put them with caldari in the toilet.. No thanks, the game is already in favor of the socialist hippies and the ex slaves who somehow have the most superior ships in game.

Nerfing scorch would put Amarr alot farther in the crapper. That is the reason why their ships are still decent.

Winmatar does not need to be the end all be all race. Its already obviously biased in their favor, they do not need another benefit with someone elses demise.

If lasers were a selective damage type, then I would more sympathetic, but since Amarr are already struggling, this would put them with caldari in the toilet.. No thanks, the game is already in favor of the socialist hippies and the ex slaves who somehow have the most superior ships in game.