EVE Search - Tech 2 frigate costs too high?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Tech 2 frigate costs too high?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Megan Maynard Out of Order	Posted - 2008.04.09 01:09:00 - [1] With the recent ramblings about assault frigates and stealth bombers being ineffective, I tried to look at the problem from an industry viewpoint. I realize the following OP could be considered and "science and industry", but I am suggesting that the combat ability of some ships is hindered by it's cost. (A fact well know by CCP are that bombs are not cost effective. This directly effects combat in eve, even though it has nothing to do with actual bomb effectiveness.) Using average market prices from eve-central I set out looking to see how the different classes; frigate, cruiser, battlecruiser, and battleship t2 variants compared to their t1 counterparts. (In price) Price Check! This image shows what most people all ready know. T2 frigates are marked up in price compared to their t1 counterparts more then any other ship class. Spreadsheet, couldn't get it too upload on eve files. (Sorry for the annoying site.) So I would like an open discussion on price vs. combat. Some questions that come up in my mind: If frigates shared the same pricing pattern as the cruiser class would assault frigs and bombers become more useful? Would this make interceptors, by far the highest increase from t1 to t2, too powerful? And is this problem the other way around? Are cruisers and larger class ships too easy to produce? Would a price INCREASE in these ships make small ships more effective? Miz Stelth Bomerz iz the ****nit.
Arvald The Trade Federation Inc.	Posted - 2008.04.09 01:15:00 - [2] Edited by: Arvald on 09/04/2008 01:15:44 Edited by: Arvald on 09/04/2008 01:15:31 t2 prices are determined by invention costs and time and probably a 100 other factors that i dont know about as well as the players, end of thread Quote: IceGuerilla > You're never gonna believe my bad luck. JagdWurst5150 > well i have ur body := IceGuerilla > Yeah, now find the other one.
Dingi223 University of Caille	Posted - 2008.04.09 01:30:00 - [3] Prices are determined by players, which in effect, is supply vs demand. Since T2 items require an investment of time of invention, the cost is ultimately higher. Since demand for these ships is so poor (because they have issues as ships), of course the resulting cost of poor T2 items over the T1 items is greater. I would argue that you are seeking to change the wrong variable - changing the price will not make the ship more useful, however making the ship more useful will make the ship cheaper as people recognise the demand, and increase the supply. Unfortunately EVE is in a position where ISK is easy to make, players are wealthy, so the jump from a T2 frigate to a T2 cruiser (even if the frigate was cheaper) isn't a big enough jump to change my mind. I would rather spend the ISK to get a solid ship, ISK is cheap.
Megan Maynard Out of Order	Posted - 2008.04.09 01:41:00 - [4] Originally by: Dingi223 Prices are determined by players, which in effect, is supply vs demand. Since T2 items require an investment of time of invention, the cost is ultimately higher. Since demand for these ships is so poor (because they have issues as ships), of course the resulting cost of poor T2 items over the T1 items is greater. I would argue that you are seeking to change the wrong variable - changing the price will not make the ship more useful, however making the ship more useful will make the ship cheaper as people recognise the demand, and increase the supply. Unfortunately EVE is in a position where ISK is easy to make, players are wealthy, so the jump from a T2 frigate to a T2 cruiser (even if the frigate was cheaper) isn't a big enough jump to change my mind. I would rather spend the ISK to get a solid ship, ISK is cheap. Is a ship that is supposed to be tough as nails, or pure gank supposed to be "solid"? Certainly it has its flaws. When I see people asking for a/f set-ups and the response is: "Just buy a t1 frig, it's cheaper." I see a problem with ship building costs. Ship effectiveness has nothing to do with making it cheaper. The crow, the most produced interceptor hands down, costs the most of any ceptor, has the highest price mark up of 40000 percent, (yes there are the correct amount of zero's there.) and have only gotten cheaper with the advent of t2 invention. Amarr ships, by and far the the least built ships in game, also have some of the cheapest ships in the game. Demand drives costs up, not down. A lack of buyers makes producers lower prices to get rid of their goods. The percentages still are similar for every race, frigates are extremely more expensive when in comparison to their t1 counterparts. Should an a/f really cost 7-12 mil when it's t1 variant doesn't cost more then 500k? Miz Stelth Bomerz iz the ****nit.
Anaalys Fluuterby Perkone	Posted - 2008.04.09 01:41:00 - [5] Originally by: Arvald t2 prices are determined by invention costs and time and probably a 100 other factors that i dont know about as well as the players, end of thread I bet the OP doesn't do any invention. Otherwise he would know that AFs pretty much sell at cost with very little markup once you count invention failures into it.... Want to reduce the cost of T2 frigs? Get CCP to alter the construction requirements. Originally by: Audri Fisher On the other, the emo tears being cryed in this thread tell me that just because you shoot somebody for a living, does not mean you aren't a carebear
Ulstan Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2008.04.09 01:53:00 - [6] For AF's, their cost is definitely part of the problem. Frigates are supposed to be (a) agile (b) cheap AF's are neither, which means they suffer in PvP compared to, well, anything really. Would be better off in most cases in a vastly cheaper T1 cruiser.
Dirk Magnum Spearhead Endeavors	Posted - 2008.04.09 02:47:00 - [7] Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 09/04/2008 02:48:09 Originally by: Ulstan For AF's, their cost is definitely part of the problem. Frigates are supposed to be (a) agile (b) cheap AF's are neither, which means they suffer in PvP compared to, well, anything really. Would be better off in most cases in a vastly cheaper T1 cruiser. Arguments (a) and (b) are accurate for T1 frigates. T2 is a completely different story. Battleships are supposed to put out large damage against large targets, but the Black Ops can't... so should they be changed? No, because they are intended to operate differently than T1 battleships, just as T2 frigates operate differently than T1 (usually.) Also the Minmatar AFs are both extremely nimble. The Enyo is no more expensive than tier 2 cruisers, and the Ishkur has a giant DPS for its size with good skills. Also, T1 cruisers are not interchangeable tactically with Assault Frigates. The situations that each can excel at are quite different. AFs are one of the most broadly purposed ship classes in the game. I think that nerfing them into a narrow niche is the wrong way to go.
Megan Maynard Out of Order	Posted - 2008.04.09 03:11:00 - [8] Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby Originally by: Arvald t2 prices are determined by invention costs and time and probably a 100 other factors that i dont know about as well as the players, end of thread I bet the OP doesn't do any invention. Otherwise he would know that AFs pretty much sell at cost with very little markup once you count invention failures into it.... Want to reduce the cost of T2 frigs? Get CCP to alter the construction requirements. That's the entire point of the thread......... Miz Stelth Bomerz iz the ****nit.
Redglare's Demise Mutually Assured Distraction	Posted - 2008.04.09 03:28:00 - [9] Their cost is fine. Assault frigs are getting their bonuses fixed, and stealth bombers are effective with cruises (their bombs are getting fixed). As already pointed out, the cost to produce T2 ships has very little bearing on their combat effectiveness, nor should it.
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.04.09 03:32:00 - [10] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 09/04/2008 03:34:25 Edited by: Cpt Branko on 09/04/2008 03:33:38 Originally by: Dirk Magnum Also the Minmatar AFs are both extremely nimble. Extremely nimble? When jumping from a Jaguar into a 200 plate Rifter, I feel like I've just unloaded a 800 plate off the thing or something. However, he's some numbers for you: 3.3s align for unplated Rifter 3.7s align for 200RT Rifter 4.1s align for 400RT Rifter 5s align for Thrasher (see the huge jump?) 5.2s align for Jaguar 5.3s align for unfitted Stabber 5.4s align for unplated Wolf 6.1s align for unplated Rupture 6.3s align for 400mm RT Wolf 6.8s align for 800mm RT Rupture Quote: AFs are one of the most broadly purposed ship classes in the game. I think that nerfing them into a narrow niche is the wrong way to go. I agree. But their agility (and mass) is HORRIBLE. It needs a fix. I think they should remain a 'generalist' class, really, imposing roles on them is bad. Making AF invention work better would probably reduce the cost quite a lot (ie. more likely to succeed, better ME/PE). Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint

Megan Maynard Out of Order	Posted - 2008.04.09 03:35:00 - [11] Originally by: Redglare's Demise Their cost is fine. Assault frigs are getting their bonuses fixed, and stealth bombers are effective with cruises (their bombs are getting fixed). As already pointed out, the cost to produce T2 ships has very little bearing on their combat effectiveness, nor should it. What i've heard is exactly the opposite of what you are claiming. Bombs are being fixed by reducing COST. It's been stated in a live dev blog. A/F, the verdict is still out. My vote would be to lower production cost, I'd use the jag a lot more often. Miz Stelth Bomerz iz the ****nit.
Etho Demerzel	Posted - 2008.04.09 03:55:00 - [12] Originally by: Megan Maynard Originally by: Redglare's Demise Their cost is fine. Assault frigs are getting their bonuses fixed, and stealth bombers are effective with cruises (their bombs are getting fixed). As already pointed out, the cost to produce T2 ships has very little bearing on their combat effectiveness, nor should it. What i've heard is exactly the opposite of what you are claiming. Bombs are being fixed by reducing COST. It's been stated in a live dev blog. A/F, the verdict is still out. My vote would be to lower production cost, I'd use the jag a lot more often. Sorry, but you can't reduce the cost enough to make them good. They are worse than T1 cruisers for almost everything, for gods sake. And T1 cruisers are dirty cheap. ===== "If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron...
Megan Maynard	Posted - 2008.04.09 04:06:00 - [13] Originally by: Etho Demerzel Originally by: Megan Maynard Originally by: Redglare's Demise Their cost is fine. Assault frigs are getting their bonuses fixed, and stealth bombers are effective with cruises (their bombs are getting fixed). As already pointed out, the cost to produce T2 ships has very little bearing on their combat effectiveness, nor should it. What i've heard is exactly the opposite of what you are claiming. Bombs are being fixed by reducing COST. It's been stated in a live dev blog. A/F, the verdict is still out. My vote would be to lower production cost, I'd use the jag a lot more often. Sorry, but you can't reduce the cost enough to make them good. They are worse than T1 cruisers for almost everything, for gods sake. And T1 cruisers are dirty cheap. So make the a/f cheaper. If they can't think up a role for it, and it's not cost effective, fix one of the problems right off the bat. I really don't have a problem with the a/f atm. The enyo is pretty nasty, the amarr frigs can tank like no other frig, harpy has some sick range, and the jag is a good heavy tackler. Problem is to lose one of these ships costs an arm and a leg before you even fit the thing. Miz Stelth Bomerz iz the ****nit. Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Kiki Arnolds	Posted - 2008.04.09 04:26:00 - [14] I couldn't get the spreadsheet to work, so I'll just ask, are you considering insured or uninsured value of ships when you compare the markups for tech 2? Also, don't forget the impact of modules, a full T2 fit T1 frigate/cruiser is alot more expensive than the hull... ç¦
Megan Maynard	Posted - 2008.04.09 04:41:00 - [15] Originally by: Kiki Arnolds I couldn't get the spreadsheet to work, so I'll just ask, are you considering insured or uninsured value of ships when you compare the markups for tech 2? Also, don't forget the impact of modules, a full T2 fit T1 frigate/cruiser is alot more expensive than the hull... LOL, not sure actually. Interceptors can be quite expensive with rigs. Polycarbs are way expensive. Want to do that research? Seems like it'd take a while. Miz Stelth Bomerz iz the ****nit. Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Helios Hyperion	Posted - 2008.04.09 05:32:00 - [16] Lol, meg, I've been a strong supporter of this movement. you and Branko have the absolute right idea, keep them generalist, reduce invention/production costs. simple fix would make my wolf my main boat.
Jacky doodle	Posted - 2008.04.09 16:22:00 - [17] ive recently started inventing t2 frigs. but almost quit it immediatly. with base me -4 on invention, the very hard to get components for a good price. its near impos to compete. for example to build 5 vengeance i need 1 itty mark 5 incredilous amount of jumps to get the cheapest parts. ontop i wil barely be able to keep the production costs below 8-10 mil (its pos but profit really isnt worht the hassle) to be treu profit margin on easy to build t1 cruiser is easyer and higher. and asault frigs sell bad and now i hear peeps consider them to expensive. if someone can chance prices its ccp. but current requierments vs market components and hard to get t2 components its nearly imposible to offer asault frigates cheap. (i run enough profit on other t2 mods and t2 ammo) but for me t2 frigs would be worth it if they were sold around 12 mil (yeh i know its high) but below that its more trouble time then profit)
Corstaad Minmatar Vardr ok Lidskjalv	Posted - 2008.04.09 16:33:00 - [18] I don't see price as a problem when yah get done tweaking your ship it cost much more then its base price. The AFs are along the same lines as the other T2 frigs for price wise. The problems of the ship are for its niche role it has they don't act like its T1 variant.
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.04.09 16:41:00 - [19] Quote: Also the Minmatar AFs are both extremely nimble Uh, compared to other AF's maybe. Not to ships in general, however. Quote: Also, T1 cruisers are not interchangeable tactically with Assault Frigates. The situations that each can excel at are quite different. Sure they can. In almost any pvp situation you may as well be in a T1 cruiser/destroyer. The situations that assault frigates 'excel' at are pve situations where frigates are the largest ships that can fit through the warp gate. Quote: AFs are one of the most broadly purposed ship classes in the game. I think that nerfing them into a narrow niche is the wrong way to go. Explain to me now unnerfing their agility and mass to a reasonable level is somehow going to make their niche narrower.
Bronson Hughes Knights of the Wild Visions of Warfare	Posted - 2008.04.09 18:48:00 - [20] With a few exceptions (doing low level 'plexes, pod-sniping in a Harpy), Assault Ships just aren't worth what you pay for them even at cost. The prices on other T2 frigates are driven at least in part by demand, whereas most Assault Ship manufacturers sell at cost or just a little above because so few people use them. If you want to fix this, you don't need to change production costs, invention, or anythin else, you just need to make Assault Ships worth buying. Pricing on other T2 frigates is fine because you get what you pay for: a small specialist ship that fills a certain role very well. -------------------- "I am hard pressed on my right; my centre is giving way; situation excellent; I am attacking." - Ferdinand Foch at the Battle of the Marne

Kraken Sra'vik	Posted - 2008.04.09 20:38:00 - [21] Originally by: Megan Maynard Should an a/f really cost 7-12 mil when it's t1 variant doesn't cost more then 500k? Should a HAC cost 80-100 mil when it's t1 variant costs less than 10 mil? **** off.
Kraken Sra'vik	Posted - 2008.04.09 20:39:00 - [22] Originally by: Ulstan Quote: Also the Minmatar AFs are both extremely nimble Uh, compared to other AF's maybe. Not to ships in general, however. They are nimble compared to the damn Taranis...
Megan Maynard Minmatar Out of Order	Posted - 2008.04.10 00:50:00 - [23] Originally by: Kraken Sra'vik Originally by: Megan Maynard Should an a/f really cost 7-12 mil when it's t1 variant doesn't cost more then 500k? Should a HAC cost 80-100 mil when it's t1 variant costs less than 10 mil? ** off. Wow, somebody forgot their basic math skills..... 100 mil HAC, 4 mil t1 variant is a 2500 percent mark up. That doesn't even scratch the t2 frigates. 300k t1 frig (Which is typical) compared even to a 10 mil t2 variant is a 3300 percent mark up. Battlecruisers don't even break 1000 percent, battleships are also low. Cruisers are at least consistent. AGAIN, a crow, has on average a 40000 percent mark up from it's t1 variant. That is a crock. Miz Stelth Bomerz iz the **nit.
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.04.10 01:02:00 - [24] Originally by: Kraken Sra'vik Originally by: Ulstan Quote: Also the Minmatar AFs are both extremely nimble Uh, compared to other AF's maybe. Not to ships in general, however. They are nimble compared to the damn Taranis... LOL. 3.2s align for the Taranis compared to 5.2 for the Jaguar and 5.4 for the Wolf? Nible compared to a Taranis? I won't even discuss plated Wolf configs. It's not funny. Originally by: Kraken Sra'vik Originally by: Megan Maynard Should an a/f really cost 7-12 mil when it's t1 variant doesn't cost more then 500k? Should a HAC cost 80-100 mil when it's t1 variant costs less than 10 mil? **** off. I wonder if they do basic math at school. You just said that that AFs should not cost more then 5M... Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Helios Hyperion Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2008.04.10 03:26:00 - [25] =P you guys complain too much... I love that the taranis is less nimble and slightly slower than other interceptors, adds to the challenge . Also, what about a plated, heavily armored assault ship fighter should be agile? Pish posh, don't make the frigs MORE agile, make the larger ships.. even less agile. then you'll have something more real, and something vastly more interesting
Marc Helier	Posted - 2008.04.10 06:14:00 - [26] CCPs obsession with large-scale fleet PvP is behind the lack of general usefulness of most T2 ships, and that specialisation and its consequent low demand is responisible for the pricing. For the vast majority of players who mostly mission, rat, mine, manufacture, trade, and perhaps indulge in small gang PvP, T2s are almost always outgunned and outclassed by the next largest T1 ships. In PvE, bigger is usually more efficient. In PvP, cheaper is usually more efficient. A lot of PvE players prefer the faction version of their favourite T1 ship over the T2 version with its mostly useless bonuses, and are wiling to pay more for it. I'm so sick of looking at T2 bonuses and seeing that half of them are things that I will never use. Imo CCP needs to make a 'gank and tank' T2 variant of every T1 fighting ship, with much the same bonuses as the T1 version, but better all round.
Corstaad Minmatar Vardr ok Lidskjalv	Posted - 2008.04.10 06:51:00 - [27] Well said Marc, if you fly T2 it should be the base ship with nice options.
Helios Hyperion Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2008.04.10 06:52:00 - [28] naw, there never supposed to be an, "i win" button. this game is built around that. the t2 ship shouldn't be the tech 1 only better. it should be it's own monster, that's the way ccp works.
Helios Hyperion Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2008.04.10 06:53:00 - [29] P you guys are just whining. the AF makes sense that it's less maneuverable than it's t1 counterpart... it's not the same ship, it's got heavy armor, heavy weaponry, that's the idea. the ship changes to meet it's new role. it doesn't just get better.
Corstaad Minmatar Vardr ok Lidskjalv	Posted - 2008.04.10 08:24:00 - [30] Helios bait smells. Sometimes good somtimes bad. AF in current role is made to counter pve roles.



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.