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.

Some of the new ships/ship changes coming will fill that somewhat - tho not sure what price faction battlecruisers, etc. will be.

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

This makes a lot more sense than the original post

Its very consistent across EVE to get linear power increase for exponential cost increase. Is a Cruiser worth 10 frigates? Is a Machariel better than 5 battleships? I think BS happened to be at a point in the curve which is extremely important because the price point is right where it starts to hurt people, but BC are right there reminding you of how small your performance increase is.

We think it fits though. PVEers are making their first long-term investment on a BS usually and we don't want that to be available too quickly, and for large scale PVP BS are the last step before moving to extremely end-game ships and so it needs to feel significant.

Cool. Maybe I should switch them!

Also good meeting you at fanfest, when we were talking I didn't realize that you were on your way to CSM and that I would be talking to you much more!

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

Miners everywhere cheer. Where's Chribba?

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.
CCP Rise

Its very consistent across EVE to get linear power increase for exponential cost increase. Is a Cruiser worth 10 frigates? Is a Machariel better than 5 battleships? I think BS happened to be at a point in the curve which is extremely important because the price point is right where it starts to hurt people, but BC are right there reminding you of how small your performance increase is.

We think it fits though. PVEers are making their first long-term investment on a BS usually and we don't want that to be available too quickly, and for large scale PVP BS are the last step before moving to extremely end-game ships and so it needs to feel significant.

Will insurance values be looked at? If not the current tier 1/2 will be a lot less viable for many pilots than the current tier 3 which seems a shame considering the effort being put into balancing them.

Insurance values are tied to the mineral costs, when they go up, the insurance will go up.

Though this raises the question, will the insurance react to the extra materials increase, or does it not include those. If it doesn't include them, then yes you are right insurance needs to be looked at. I'll make sure to bring that up at the next meeting, because that's a minor fix that may have been overlooked.

The mineral supply community thanks you for your contribution.

If it isn't obvious, I suggest everybody go and buy as many battleships now as you can. You may not be able to reprocess them, but after the patch the prices will be 40m higher.

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

This forum needs a dislike button, too, as a note.

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

This forum needs a dislike button, too, as a note.

If it isn't obvious, I suggest everybody go and buy as many battleships now as you can. You may not be able to reprocess them, but after the patch the prices will be 40m higher.

Insurance values are tied to the mineral costs, when they go up, the insurance will go up.

Though this raises the question, will the insurance react to the extra materials increase, or does it not include those. If it doesn't include them, then yes you are right insurance needs to be looked at. I'll make sure to bring that up at the next meeting, because that's a minor fix that may have been overlooked.

Just look at the lowly Procurer. Current build cost is about 21 million isk. You can buy one in Jita for 9 million. Platinum insurance payout is 2,043,391. That pretty much sums up the problem with "Extra Materials".

It would be nice, but aren't willing to underestimate the extreme patience of the player base and so its hard to imagine how we could do it in the forseeable future.

I think it more exhibits a problem with the usefulness of the procurer if demand is so low that people aren't even bothering to build it.

I understand the reasoning behind those prices.
Since I usually don't fly Battleships very often I do not care very much, personally.
But my problem is that the increase in BS cost might draw even more players towards the still ridiculously overpowered and widely loathed tier 3 Battlecruisers.
Is there any plan to increase their cost, too? I don't want to play Oracle Online...

Not me. Pretty limited with 1 account, no high sec access and no interest in T3s.

You aren't wrong, but there's still a ton of people selling off tier one bc's and procurers for something like 50% of build cost; it takes a while for all the stockpiles to run out

People aren't making money faster. OTEC is skewing the values on that graph. This increase in build cost will further reduce battleship usage, even with the buffs they have coming.

CCP Rise -

I notice your'e actively giving feedback in this thread but have largely forgotten the T1 BS threads. Is feedback largely done in those threads because players are still actively discussing in them and would like a back and forth if you have the time.

To everyone who is complaining that the price makes battleships somehow "worse", I have news for you: price isn't a balancing factor. hth.

To everyone who is complaining that the price makes battleships somehow "worse", I have news for you: price isn't a balancing factor. hth.

To everyone who is complaining that the price makes battleships somehow "worse", I have news for you: price isn't a balancing factor. hth.

It is a balancing factor.

Why pay 3-4 times maybe even 5 times more considering rig and fitting costs on a Battleships which have fairly niche usage

where its not a whole lot better than general battlecruisers in that niche?


Increasing the cost of Battleships does very little to fix the BC vs BS situation where 9/10 players will fly a BC over a BS.

Well by that logic the price of titans should be cut in half. Why use them when a dread does more DPS? I mean, 9/10 pilots will fly a dread instead of a titan. Hell, probably more like 99/100

I have news for you, the other forums speaking of the changes do not warrant the price increase that the community will feel in their pockets. This will no doubt make battleship use even less common.

Perhaps you should factor that into your view of balance vs cost because, cost is a balance factor when compared to other hulls.

Though I do not see you as the type as being able to figure that out, when everyone else is currently saying the opposite as you.

LOLled so hard my ribs hurt. I've been selling frigates for many years and I can say that there was no screwing the manufacturers. Every frigate I sell, I sell for profit.

Reductio ad absurdum. Dreadnoughts do not offer jump bridges or a 5 million m-¦ ship hangar / 112 thousand m-¦ cargo space. You also don't have to lock them in place for five minutes to deal that damage and can deliver a burst of three million damage up front at the cost of only locking it in place for thirty seconds.

It's 40 million isk. It's a trivial amount

It's 40 million isk. It's a trivial amount

Titans do not offer the ability to dock or the ability to shoot anything smaller than a capital either. Do you think the doomsday and jump portal gen are really worth the 110b more a titan costs?

Nice example of the narrow mindedness of EVE players regarding overall balance and future players.

It's potential manufacturers AFTER the patch that are screwed if half the BPOs are worthless, because the market is flooded with products below (the new) production cost.

Should we add 40 mil to frigate price tag, while we're at it?

Let me summary:
- Raven didnt changed at all, except some slot swaps. Neighter get EHP nor anything others
- Rokh got nerfed
- Lets adjust prices, because they are balanced now
- The price of the Raven will be about 40m higher now

Sounds fair. How about we balance CCP-Devs, too?

Sure, go for it. We'll still give them away to new players

It's 40 million isk. It's a trivial amount

Cool. Maybe I should switch them!

Also good meeting you at fanfest, when we were talking I didn't realize that you were on your way to CSM and that I would be talking to you much more!

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.

40 million trivial, so lets add 40 million to all ships and fittings,rigs and see how trivial it really is..Oh wait, not so trivial after all is it?

For a guy who hasn't lost anything bigger than a harbinger in the last year, you sure seem knowledgeable about the costs of big burly battleships.

Sure, go for it. We'll still give them away to new players

I'd be fine with that. Adding a bill or so to my carrier doesnt make me flinch in the slightest.

That's what happens then CCP makes shiny CQ instead of fixing Tech.

Nice example of the narrow mindedness of EVE players regarding overall balance and future players.

It's potential manufacturers AFTER the patch that are screwed if half the BPOs are worthless, because the market is flooded with products below (the new) production cost.

It would be nice, but aren't willing to underestimate the extreme patience of the player base and so its hard to imagine how we could do it in the forseeable future.

After every change there will be short term ripple effects. But they'll pass and a new equilibrium will be reached so stop worrying.

Besides, BEFORE anyone does any manufacturing he, she or it really needs to do some market study to see what sells for profit and what doesn't. If someone enters the market without looking first I will be in the front row deriding him/her/it for being a fool (yes I'm one of those nasty pvp kind of carebears).

Besides, BEFORE anyone does any manufacturing he, she or it really needs to do some market study to see what sells for profit and what doesn't. If someone enters the market without looking first I will be in the front row deriding him/her/it for being a fool (yes I'm one of those nasty pvp kind of carebears).

Should be interesting times for those mineral market prospectors.

"If it's broken, just don't use it" - that's a flawed logic concerning game balance.

It's not that easy.
You may have heard that CCP wants to give a kick start to nullsec industry.
Guess what? Such changes make that efforts a little less efficient.

I think it more exhibits a problem with the usefulness of the procurer if demand is so low that people aren't even bothering to build it.

While you can't make an overpowered ship balanced by increasing its price, cost effectiveness, a function of capability offered by the ship and modules equipped and the price ta which those abilities are bought, does play a part in developing fleet doctrines. As things are today, battleships are rarely used unless one needs the longer range that select sniper platforms offer, or a larger buffer for triage support. They are already too slow, a minimal improvement over most battlecruisers, and insufficiently survivable to be deployed outside of situations where buffer is more important than mobility. The Tier 3 Battlecruisers have made Battleships more or less irrelevant in many circumstances, and now they're going to be even more expensive than they were before?

Unless in a monolithic ball, or working under a doctrine built around the Micro Jump Drive, why would I want to fly a Battleship without the support of Recons, Tech 3s, and Triage Carriers? Battleships are increasingly becoming the poor man's tool in Capital Ships Online, and this only exacerbates the situation.

OH BOY, MORE BARRIERS TO ENTRY FOR NEW PLAYERS!!!

There is an average of 200 procurers being traded every day in jita, with occasional spikes of a few thousand units.

There is an average of 50 scorps traded everyday in jita, with spikes to 200 units. Between 20 and 40 megathrons are traded each day. Same for typhoon, with some frequent spikes around 200 units. Factor in the lack of attention of people for the procurer prior to the barge rebalance, the silly price of it's BPO compared to the cost of the ship (over 1.4b for a ship that used cost less than 10m to produce). Almost nobody had a procurer not wanted one, and now, they sell almost as fast as tornados.

Almost every nullsec player have one or two scorps lying somewhere that they used once, when ECM was the flavor of the month. Almost every highsec mission runner have a raven that he'll never lose, and eventually sell for a CNR, golem or whatever. A good bunch of nullsec people do as well. Many manufacturers already have researched BS BPOs, and are probably already getting as many as possible out while they're cheap.

My point: t1 and t2 BS are much more frequents in hangars than procurers were before their rebalance, often in lower demand. Between people reselling their old assets, industrialists stockpiling them and speculators hoarding them, I dont see the stockpiles for BS lasting less than 1 year.

1. New players shouldn't be flying battleships. They lack the support skills. They lack the financial support for replacement.

2. Bigger doesn't equal more fun.

3. The other re-balancing efforts have made great strides for newer players across the board. Good job completely ignoring those.

Hm sounds like the new BS prices will be something around 160-200M, so around 40-60M for the hull after insurance. Sounds a bit harsh compared to BC prices(keep in mind stuff like guns and rigs is also quite a bit more expensive). On the other hand I like to see the throw away BS go.

I would still like to see that BC's have to use large rigs, to even out the price difference a bit.

1. New players shouldn't be flying battleships. They lack the support skills. They lack the financial support for replacement.

2. Bigger doesn't equal more fun.

3. The other re-balancing efforts have made great strides for newer players across the board. Good job completely ignoring those.

While you can't make an overpowered ship balanced by increasing its price, cost effectiveness, a function of capability offered by the ship and modules equipped and the price at which those abilities are bought, does play a part in developing fleet doctrines. As things are today, battleships are rarely used unless one needs the longer range that select sniper platforms offer, or a larger buffer for triage support. They are already too slow, a minimal improvement over most Battlecruisers, and insufficiently survivable to be deployed outside of situations where buffer is more important than mobility. The Tier 3 Battlecruisers have made Battleships more or less irrelevant in many circumstances, and now they're going to be even more expensive than they were before?

Unless in a monolithic ball, or working under a doctrine built around the Micro Jump Drive, why would I want to fly a Battleship without the support of Recons, Tech 3s, and Triage Carriers? Battleships are increasingly becoming the poor man's tool in Capital Ships Online, and this only exacerbates the situation.

Just look at the lowly Procurer. Current build cost is about 21 million isk. You can buy one in Jita for 9 million. Platinum insurance payout is 2,043,391. That pretty much sums up the problem with "Extra Materials".

Hello everyone!

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.

CCP Rise

It would be nice, but aren't willing to underestimate the extreme patience of the player base and so its hard to imagine how we could do it in the forseeable future.

Because every Joe Schmoe has a right to jump from his Pinto to a Flashy 300,000 dollar 600 horsepower Ferrari.

It may not be smart and he will more than likely crash it, but its his right to do it. Same rule applies here. They may not be ready for a BS, but when they lose it, they gain experience on why not they should not be flying it.

It also provides us prowlers a yummy kill.

People do not need to be hand held and directed to fly certain ships as pushed by the Devs or isk cost.

My first real loss when I was a noob years ago was bringing out a Navy raven to a small gang fight. I had it poorly fitted and blew most of my isk on it.

When it got smashed, i realized my mistake real quick. People need that reminder., because most fail to listen to others because they do not like being told what to do in a game they play for fun.

They need to really understand why they do not need to be in it, by taking that loss and feeling the effects.

Did I also mention it gives us older players a yummy kill?

wait so you're telling me all bs's will have similar prices? AND they're going to be shittier than current?

Guess im sticking with t2 cruisers and bc's even harder now.

wait so you're telling me all bs's will have similar prices? AND they're going to be shittier than current?

TL:DR
Remember all those battleships we were rebalancing to make more viable and interesting? Yeah, well you're not going to be flying any of them because the ones that were still somehow not prohibitively expensive just became prohibitively expensive. One more step towards the door here.

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

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.

What a bullshit of a statement. Tier 3 "worked" exactly because of it being tier 3. Outperforming everything by a huge margin. Argumenting this way earn you no credibility at all.

Oh god forbit, 40mil!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pubbies lol

protip: it costs 32mil roughly~ to buy the guns on a talos. You could up it to 60mil and people would still buy 8 t2 neutron blasters and not stop flying taloses.

Perhaps 10% - 20% more tank overall for BS?

Generaly i have no problems with these changes, but the performance gap between BS and BC is allready low... Some Battlecruiser reach allmost as much tank as some BS.... And the damage you gain by flying a battleship is not THAT high... Something has to make up for the lack of agility and speed.

Just make them a bit more tough. These are ships designed for direct face-to-face standoffs and should be able to take a beating (or more of it) ;)

No. This is EVE.

You have a right to nothing.

Have you been living in a alternate universe which is a direct parallel to our own? ;)

No, some people are just oblivious to the real world and like living under a rock. They are also the same people who cover their ears.. say, I cant hear you and scream lalalalalalalala over and over.

If people don't like it don't buy it.

The dev blog is pretty clear. CCP wants the battleships to cost more because eve players are rich.

The spin about making sure that mineral usage would change if they reduced the build cost to tier 2 levels is just spin. if they were honest about the subject they would just determine what the actual average mineral usage for battleship manufacturing is and set the number at that point. Sounds like it should be easy to quantify and still be able to make happy hour.

Instead they state in the dev blog eve players are rich they can afford it. If people don't like it don't buy it.

Insurance better damn well cover these price increases, and I mean an exact relative refund to the increase so the %payout of insurance increases a little from current payouts (so the isk loss per hull remains the same).

If not:

Congratulations on a futile effort.

You boost battleships by a tiny amount. Then you increase costs by a significant amount.
Seem fair? I think not!

Hell the rokh was nerfed, the scorp gets a low slot and the raven gets a med slot and loses ehp. (But their sig got better!!!11) The domi loses a damage bonus too.

And then you increase huge price hikes like this!??

Raven was what (correct me if wrong), ~140mill, Scorp was ~100mill. Now they're ~230... TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY MILLION??

NO ONE will fly a raven, scorp, mega, domi etc. etc. etc if you don't increase insurance significantly.

This may actually hurt producers if no one will buy their product!

What a waste of time this battleship reiteration was, we were better off before

You want a bigger isk sink? Guess what, the average joe of Eve isn't some multi-billionare moon miner that can throw away their isk, you're not helping anyone.

/rant.

i like this, points out the critical flaws

(and don't forget the Ammar BS's, CCP seems to be going along the lines of "lets **** up every ship that's NOT gallente or minmmatar")

Insurance better damn well cover these price increases, and I mean an exact relative refund to the increase so the %payout of insurance increases a little from current payouts (so the isk loss per hull remains the same).

If not:

Congratulations on a futile effort.

You boost battleships by a tiny amount. Then you increase costs by a significant amount.
Seem fair? I think not!

Hell the rokh was nerfed, the scorp gets a low slot and the raven gets a med slot and loses ehp. (But their sig got better!!!11) The domi loses a damage bonus too.

And then you increase huge price hikes like this!??

Raven was what (correct me if wrong), ~140mill, Scorp was ~100mill. Now they're ~230... TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY MILLION??

NO ONE will fly a raven, scorp, mega, domi etc. etc. etc if you don't increase insurance significantly.

This may actually hurt producers if no one will buy their product!

What a waste of time this battleship reiteration was, we were better off before

You want a bigger isk sink? Guess what, the average joe of Eve isn't some multi-billionare moon miner that can throw away their isk, you're not helping anyone.

/rant.

Yeah matar fanboy devs and now the new gall fanboy dev whose favourite ship is the talos , no wonder battleships and especially not matar/gall are pretty bad.

And as others said , people wont use battleships if they think it wont worth the costs ---> probably even less minerals will be used up

Btw why not increase frigs/cruisers costs then too? They are used a lot ,could be a great miner sink ^^
Also ammo should cost much more + t1 crystals should get dmg +drones should cost ammo too great isk sinks right there :O
or warping should cost fuel -> another isk sink
logging on should cost isk --> another one
one is better than the other do it ccp!!!!

That's happens when economist start saying what the game should look like....
I'm having more doubts that CCP at all plays the game. You need to stop watching the excel and try to play the game....
Yeah you might say it's balanced but it's f... useless at that price.

This will really hurt newer players.

If they are smart and follow the 'don't fly it if you can't afford to lose it' - it will be a lot longer until they can get into a battleship hull than it is now. If they are foolish and get into a BS hull before they can afford a loss, the likely loss will hurt them even more.

Given that, for ~4-5m SP pilots, battleships are by far the best PVE ships available to them, this will hurt PVE oriented newbies badly. And it will also result in less battleships fielded in PVP engagements - players with 1-2b in assets won't be able to shrug off a Dominix loss the way they can now.

This will lead to more risk aversion, just as the changes to t1 cruisers have made newer players less willing to risk one of those in PVP than they were a year ago when the boats were a lot cheaper.

More proof in that from how they just buffed the Matar dread and removed the launchers and put it to turrets and gave it a huge bonus, turning it into pretty much the best dread in game, and said nothing about the phoenix and nothing on capital missile weapons.

:)
Oh i love that dread boost , the naglfar will be so minmatar , with being just better than the other dreads it is so minmatarish.

Also love how the loki became the no1 t3 ship for pvp too, ccp-s quick reaction to nerf the tengu payed off pretty well.

Isnt it strange when a caldari boat shows up on top 20 it suddenly gets a nerf?
Falcon->nerfed
Drake-> nerfed+will be nerfed as it still shows up on the list
Tengu->nerfed
Rokh->soon to be nerfed
Naga->probably will get a nerf soon^^

but when minmatar ships are there nothing is done as they work as intended,intended to be the superior ships for pvp

My 15$ a month and training, says i have a right to fly what ever i choose.

No. No it doesn't.

If you can't afford to fly it too bad.

Well for those who pay to play, we can also buy plex to afford to buy it.

Though at this point, with the current changes and many of them less than spectacular. Buying plex is not in my future. I just reactivated my accounts a month ago and now, I feel like letting it lapse again.

Can I have your stuff?

By the way, these "if you don't do what i want, i'll quit" posts aren't amusing now, weren't amusing in the past and won't be amusing in the future.

With Battleships becoming and ever so larger and larger isk sink for their actual value, smaller hulls will just become even more popular.

As it sits, battleships are becoming too costly for their actual benefit on the battlefield when smaller hulls bring almost as great of firepower and better mobility for less the cost.

thankfully expecting that I spent all my money on armageddons and typhoons to resell later...

ITT:

CCP: 'BS's will get an increase in buildcost of approximately 40mil isk'

Former T1 BS 2 days ago: 90-130mil

Playerbase: 'Waaaaaah! My [former T1 BS] will cost 250million!'

90 to 130mil, 40mil increase -> 250mil

Solid mathskills...

Former T1 BS 2 days ago: 90-130mil

Playerbase: 'Waaaaaah! My [former T1 BS] will cost 250million!'

90 to 130mil, 40mil increase -> 250mil

Solid mathskills...

As I see it the problem with battleships is a little different from this - due to the weapon systems one mounts on a BS and their lack of agility battleships are vulnerable to being killed, or at least tackled, neuted, and jammed out, by ships much smaller than themselves that they cannot themselves kill.

[quote=Illest Insurrectionist]

Because every Joe Schmoe has a right to jump from his Pinto to a Flashy 300,000 dollar 600 horsepower Ferrari.

It may not be smart and he will more than likely crash it, but its his right to do it. Same rule applies here. They may not be ready for a BS, but when they lose it, they gain experience on why not they should not be flying it.

ITT:

CCP: 'BS's will get an increase in buildcost of approximately 40mil isk'

Former T1 BS 2 days ago: 90-130mil

Playerbase: 'Waaaaaah! My [former T1 BS] will cost 250million!'

90 to 130mil, 40mil increase -> 250mil

Solid mathskills...

At the moment the cost of a damage control to protect a capital ship is the same as the cost to protect a t1 frigate. I think everyone would agree that isn't right.

Fact: I won't be flying tier 1 or 2 battleships after Odyssey, their poor performance won't justify the huge ISK loss on the killboard

Do you honestly let "killboard stats" dictate your playstyle?

Really?



wow

Do you honestly let "killboard stats" dictate your playstyle?

Really?



wow

ITT:

CCP: 'BS's will get an increase in buildcost of approximately 40mil isk'

Former T1 BS 2 days ago: 90-130mil

Playerbase: 'Waaaaaah! My [former T1 BS] will cost 250million!'

90 to 130mil, 40mil increase -> 250mil

Solid mathskills...

How will this make sense? If you raise the prices on everything faction BSes like the navy typhoon will cost the same as a normal typhoon, pretty stupid if you ask me. Considering how some tier 1 or 2 ships haven't even changed much why would you increase the price by much?

ITT:

CCP: 'BS's will get an increase in buildcost of approximately 40mil isk'

Former T1 BS 2 days ago: 90-130mil

Playerbase: 'Waaaaaah! My [former T1 BS] will cost 250million!'

90 to 130mil, 40mil increase -> 250mil

Solid mathskills...

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.