Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
14938
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 17:22:37 -
[1] - Quote
Hello again folks. I'm here today to talk a bit about pirate battleships, the costs of obtaining them and what were here at CCP are planning to do about it.
One of the major EVE balance concerns raised by the community over the past several months has been the low price of pirate battleships and their impact on the rest of EVE. Prices for pirate battleships have been dropping over the past three years, with the changes caused largely by buffs to BPC drop rates and to anomaly escalations in late 2014.
These price decreases have negatively impacted ship balance as pirate battleships become more competitive for their cost compared to many other ship classes.
Obviously the price isn't the only balance concern about a ship group as prominent and diverse as pirate battleships, and other factors such as the strength of Upwell structure energy neutralization weapons contribute to the dominance of the Machariel in particular. However after giving this situation some thought internally and engaging in plenty of community discussion through venues such as Fanfest and the CSM, we agree that price should be the target of the first set of changes.
Our changes relating to pirate battleship prices will come in a few stages, with the first arriving next week in our June release and another set of changes coming in July.
In June we are starting to address the supply of pirate battleship BPCs, with moderate changes to the chance of escalations spawning from the most popular high-end anomalies and larger changes to the drop rates of the BPCs themselves from quite a few NPCs.
In July we plan to begin making changes to the material composition of the pirate battleships to increase their build costs somewhat. More details of these changes will come later.
We don't expect any of these changes to be silver bullets, especially since there will be stockpiles of BPCs and ships to work through. However we do believe that these changes will be a solid set of next steps in helping to address this situation.
Thanks.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
|
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
14938
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 17:22:50 -
[2] - Quote
Reserved
Game Designer | Team Five-0
Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
|
|
Jin'taan
Pentag Blade Curatores Veritatis Alliance
273
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 17:38:17 -
[3] - Quote
Really glad to see this discussion make it to the public, especially given the impacts it might have on other areas of balance, such as the Strategic Cruiser rebalance. |
Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere Coalition of the Unfortunate
1857
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 17:40:38 -
[4] - Quote
Taking bets on the effective price being doubled.
|
JC Mieyli
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
70
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 17:45:07 -
[5] - Quote
increase material cost and lower bpc means less availability for pirate bs this means all the industrialists get to build pirate bs early and stockpile screws over the young industiralist again
how about for once instead of increasing cost to benefit veteran industrialist try lowering the cost of everything else to help the young industrialist and screw the rich fatcat players would be niceto see this happen for a change |
ROFL-HARRIS
spicy memes and dank upvotes inc I too am gay
3
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 17:46:58 -
[6] - Quote
that's a spicy memeball |
Fifth Blade
Jump Drive Appreciation Society Goonswarm Federation
102
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 17:48:02 -
[7] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:In June we are starting to address the supply of pirate battleship BPCs, with moderate changes to the chance of escalations spawning from the most popular high-end anomalies and larger changes to the drop rates of the BPCs themselves from quite a few NPCs.
In July we plan to begin making changes to the material composition of the pirate battleships to increase their build costs somewhat. More details of these changes will come later. Finally. Good change. |
Mikokoel
Know your Role League of Unaligned Master Pilots
28
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 17:48:08 -
[8] - Quote
JC Mieyli wrote:increase material cost and lower bpc means less availability for pirate bs this means all the industrialists get to build pirate bs early and stockpile screws over the young industiralist again
how about for once instead of increasing cost to benefit veteran industrialist try lowering the cost of everything else to help the young industrialist and screw the rich fatcat players would be niceto see this happen for a change
Try googling "Malcanis' Law" please
Mikokoel | Head FC League of Unaligned Master Pilots
|
Justin Andrard
Ascendance Goonswarm Federation
5
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 17:48:30 -
[9] - Quote
I am seriously hoping that this is going to affect more than just machs |
Grenouile
Liga Freier Terraner Northern Coalition.
11
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 17:49:50 -
[10] - Quote
How about you nerf Citadels first? |
|
Prometheus Hinken
Star Frontiers Brotherhood of Spacers
27
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 17:50:01 -
[11] - Quote
Pirate battleship proliferation has been a hotbed issue; most folks agree that the escalation rate and drop rate are too dang high. With these really good proposed changes, I can't wait to see the same folks start griping and complaining and getting out the pitchforks. |
Romvex
Furnace Thermodynamics
588
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 17:50:51 -
[12] - Quote
About time |
JC Mieyli
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
70
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 17:51:38 -
[13] - Quote
Mikokoel wrote:JC Mieyli wrote:increase material cost and lower bpc means less availability for pirate bs this means all the industrialists get to build pirate bs early and stockpile screws over the young industiralist again
how about for once instead of increasing cost to benefit veteran industrialist try lowering the cost of everything else to help the young industrialist and screw the rich fatcat players would be niceto see this happen for a change Try googling "Malcanis' Law" please except what i said is the opposite of that how does devaluing vet player stockpile help the vet player it means they make a loss on their products |
Lquid Drisseg
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
13
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 17:52:49 -
[14] - Quote
I like how this is a dual nerf to Pirate battleship proliferation and potential ratting income streams. |
Asher Elias
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
31
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 17:55:25 -
[15] - Quote
Will the barghest be affected by the production material increase? |
Huydo
Liga Freier Terraner Northern Coalition.
74
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 17:56:13 -
[16] - Quote
What do you think about make other Ships more viable for fleets than nerf it? |
Hendrink Collie
Contra Ratio DARKNESS.
110
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 17:57:04 -
[17] - Quote
Asher Elias wrote:Will the barghest be affected by the production material increase?
Let go of the dream Asher. Barghest fleet ain't happening. |
Alekseyev Karrde
Capitalist Army New Eden Trading Company.
1778
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 17:58:07 -
[18] - Quote
JC Mieyli wrote:increase material cost and lower bpc means less availability for pirate bs this means all the industrialists get to build pirate bs early and stockpile screws over the young industiralist again
how about for once instead of increasing cost to benefit veteran industrialist try lowering the cost of everything else to help the young industrialist and screw the rich fatcat players would be niceto see this happen for a change "Instead of rebalancing one part of the game that's out of alignment, please change literally everything else about the EVE economy."
Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM
|
Hendrink Collie
Contra Ratio DARKNESS.
110
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 17:58:40 -
[19] - Quote
Huydo wrote:What do you think about make other Ships more viable for fleets than nerf it?
Power creep is bad. |
JC Mieyli
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
70
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 18:02:27 -
[20] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:JC Mieyli wrote:increase material cost and lower bpc means less availability for pirate bs this means all the industrialists get to build pirate bs early and stockpile screws over the young industiralist again
how about for once instead of increasing cost to benefit veteran industrialist try lowering the cost of everything else to help the young industrialist and screw the rich fatcat players would be niceto see this happen for a change "Instead of rebalancing one part of the game that's out of alignment, please change literally everything else about the EVE economy." yup is that a problem and tbh its not the one part of the game thats out of alignment the whole economy is out of alignment because of players taking advantage of mineral cost increases and thats what is going to happen here too |
|
Romvex
Furnace Thermodynamics
589
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 18:02:34 -
[21] - Quote
Huydo wrote:What do you think about make other Ships more viable for fleets than nerf it?
honestly can't tell if satire or not |
Querns
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2876
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 18:07:21 -
[22] - Quote
A simple increase in materials will do quite a bit to solve The Machariel problem, assuming balance changes are off the table. I'm not so sure BPC drop rates are going to do much, but there's no reason not to make them more rare.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Trespasser
S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore
77
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 18:08:14 -
[23] - Quote
honestly i disagree with this approach.
I think a much better way would be to make pirate battleships use their faction components found in 0.0 data sites to build.
CCP can then control the drop rate of these components to increase or decrease the price as needed. This also removes the need to screw with any escalation or drop rate as the bottleneck to production will no longer be the amount of blueprints on the market, the bottleneck will be these components.
This would also finally make data sites worth doing as 99.9% of them are trash. |
Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
3177
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 18:08:15 -
[24] - Quote
and the whole pirate bs market just flipped
@ChainsawPlankto on twitter
|
Coelus Kugisa
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 18:09:34 -
[25] - Quote
Hisec incursion tears will be extra salty. |
Mostlyharmlesss
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
304
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 18:14:44 -
[26] - Quote
The current stockpiles of Pirate Battleship BPC will take YEARS to exhaust, this will not have the intended effect any time soon!
You NEED to overhaul battleships yesterday to make them more viable otherwise there will be literally NO shift in battleship usage.
Follow me on Twitter for the latest regarding GoonSwarm Federation and our recruitment drives!
|
Dirk MacGirk
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
190
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 18:16:40 -
[27] - Quote
The intersection of mineral oversupply and Pirate Faction battleships provides an excellent opportunity to go directly at bumping the cost based on build. Don't even bother screwing with the drop rates or spawns. All in on mins. Massive quantities of whatever mineral(s) are out of balance in the economy. |
Logan Jakal
Blue Sun. DARKNESS.
22
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 18:18:17 -
[28] - Quote
Smart, how to stealthy nerf ratting income. |
Joshua Foiritain
Coreli Corporation Mercenary Coalition
1785
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 18:18:42 -
[29] - Quote
Dayum the markets cleared out fast
The Coreli Corporation is recruiting.
|
Coelus Kugisa
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 18:18:42 -
[30] - Quote
Querns wrote:A simple increase in materials will do quite a bit to solve The Machariel problem, assuming balance changes are off the table. I'm not so sure BPC drop rates are going to do much, but there's no reason not to make them more rare.
Will the extra rarity increase cost enough to keep ratting income about even while raising consumer cost enough to keep them nonviable for fleet comps long term, while material increase make the current BPC hoards more expensive short term?
Will CCP oops the numbers so bad that pre-nerf ships are worth insurance fraud?
Will lowsec howl? |
|
Serinus
Katelo Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 18:21:05 -
[31] - Quote
Tangential issue, can we have more valuable BPCs in data sites? Even if they're rare?
It would have been great if T3Ds or something would have had bpc drops in data sites. |
T-B0NE
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 18:23:20 -
[32] - Quote
So if you have a specific problem you want to address, then address it in a way that is specific to only that problem (AKA increase the mineral price of the ship or nerf the drop rate of the BPC). By nerfing escalation chances you effectively nerf EVERY module that comes from those escalations not just the BPC you are attempting to nerf. |
Querns
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2876
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 18:25:35 -
[33] - Quote
T-B0NE wrote:So if you have a specific problem you want to address, then address it in a way that is specific to only that problem (AKA increase the mineral price of the ship or nerf the drop rate of the BPC). By nerfing escalation chances you effectively nerf EVERY module that comes from those escalations not just the BPC you are attempting to nerf.
Heaven forbid X-Type hardeners be an actual expense rather than an afterthought.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Zomgnomnom
Contra Ratio DARKNESS.
79
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 18:27:17 -
[34] - Quote
Trespasser wrote:honestly i disagree with this approach.
I think a much better way would be to make pirate battleships use their faction components found in 0.0 data sites to build.
CCP can then control the drop rate of these components to increase or decrease the price as needed. This also removes the need to screw with any escalation or drop rate as the bottleneck to production will no longer be the amount of blueprints on the market, the bottleneck will be these components.
This would also finally make data sites worth doing as 99.9% of them are trash.
I was gonna say almost exactly this. So I'll just quote Tress. |
Romvex
Furnace Thermodynamics
589
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 18:27:24 -
[35] - Quote
Querns wrote:T-B0NE wrote:So if you have a specific problem you want to address, then address it in a way that is specific to only that problem (AKA increase the mineral price of the ship or nerf the drop rate of the BPC). By nerfing escalation chances you effectively nerf EVERY module that comes from those escalations not just the BPC you are attempting to nerf. Heaven forbid X-Type hardeners be an actual expense rather than an afterthought.
basically this, both pirate battleships and blue mods are too cheap for the benefit they provide |
Gaius Clabbacus
Basket of Deplorables
44
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 18:30:14 -
[36] - Quote
- If you own a big rental empire: go fly pirate BS.
- If you are not part of a slumlord alliance: fly T1 or convert some plex.
Sounds exactly like the kind of change that EVE needs. |
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
3049
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 18:32:16 -
[37] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:["Instead of rebalancing one part of the game that's out of alignment, please change literally everything else about the EVE economy." To be quite honest: Why not? The days when BS cost 90M per hull were more awesome than the days today with BS costing you 200M+ for just the hull. Back then, the BS were super awesome and it didn't bankrupt you if you lost a BS in a fleet. You could even have several stocked up for quick reships instead of hogging your money in 1 ship.
UI Improvement Collective
My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
|
Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues
Hookers N' Blow
36
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 18:33:51 -
[38] - Quote
Logan Jakal wrote:Smart, how to stealthy nerf ratting income.
Agreed. In general almost everything in the game is over farmed.
|
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
3049
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 18:37:52 -
[39] - Quote
Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues wrote:Agreed. In general almost everything in the game is over farmed. Now imagine if even more people lived in Null sec all with some sort of agreement because they want some PVP but not constant sov invasions. That's the fun of more people (chars, I admit) playing the game.
UI Improvement Collective
My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
|
Dupreesdiamond Stealie
Wormbro The Society For Unethical Treatment Of Sleepers
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 18:39:07 -
[40] - Quote
Asher Elias wrote:Will the barghest be affected by the production material increase?
Is it a Pirate BS....that's your answer. |
|
Henry Plantgenet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
212
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 18:39:21 -
[41] - Quote
Remember to properly code the changes! Don't want the drop rate to be 0.00001% instead of 0.0001%. or even Floor(integer(0.0001%)) like happened with small ancillary armor repairers or faction POS towers pre 2013. |
Schmell
Russian Thunder Squad Project.Mayhem.
50
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 18:43:21 -
[42] - Quote
CCP Fozzie, what do you think about costs of deadspace modules (especially "large" variety, that come from 7 to 10/10)? Will you be tweaking tables for those? |
Cade Windstalker
1568
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 18:43:57 -
[43] - Quote
Big fan of this one-two approach, since just cutting the BPC supply probably wouldn't fully solve the problem, and wouldn't fix the issue of Pirate Battleships having unusually low material costs compared to T1 hulls. |
Lugia3
Lazerhawks L A Z E R H A W K S
1534
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 18:47:50 -
[44] - Quote
The problem isn't cost, it's supply... People already fit 2 bill fits + HG Slaves to their Machs. Making it a bill more expensive won't do anything. Nerf the drop rate so if a Mach fleet dies it can't be instantly repurchased.
Also RIP the Barghest, under the bus it goes.
"CCP Dolan is full of shit." - CCP Bettik
|
Mizhir
TURN LEFT HYDRA RELOADED
75442
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 18:50:41 -
[45] - Quote
Coelus Kugisa wrote:Hisec incursion tears will be extra salty. I doubt they will care much. They have already flown pirate BS for years and can easily afford the increase cost in the hull.
Death rides a fast C4mel
|
Joe Barbarian
I'm fine and You aren't Goonswarm Federation
10
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 18:51:43 -
[46] - Quote
Lugia3 wrote:The problem isn't cost, it's supply... People already fit 2 bill fits + HG Slaves to their Machs. Making it a bill more expensive won't do anything. Nerf the drop rate so if a Mach fleet dies it can't be instantly repurchased.
Also RIP the Barghest, under the bus it goes. Did you not read the part where Fozzie say's they are nerfing the supply?
|
Odelll
Project Valhalla. The Initiative.
34
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 18:57:04 -
[47] - Quote
Hell CCP, why not just remove all PvE content from the game entirely and just sell people ISK? I know, how about we use Plex as ammunition too! That will generate the sales your aiming for.
Or, you know, how about you expand on your existing game and generate new intresting content that gets your playerbase moving around in space again instead of essentially removing/constricting/nerfing consistantly the few things that people still actually login for?
Seriously, stop removing content from this content starved game. |
MechaJeb Kerman
Horde Vanguard. Pandemic Horde
33
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 18:58:48 -
[48] - Quote
Trespasser wrote:honestly i disagree with this approach.
I think a much better way would be to make pirate battleships use their faction components found in 0.0 data sites to build.
CCP can then control the drop rate of these components to increase or decrease the price as needed. This also removes the need to screw with any escalation or drop rate as the bottleneck to production will no longer be the amount of blueprints on the market, the bottleneck will be these components.
This would also finally make data sites worth doing as 99.9% of them are trash.
This. Make data sites great again. It's rather ridiculous that they drop on average 5 times less than Relic sites. Also, pretty sure SAAR BPC drop rates were improved, but after literally hundreds of data and relic sites I haven't seen a single one. A 1 run copy dropped from a random faction rat though.
I'll crudely Photoshop an image of Helen Thomas onto a picture of your choosing for 30m. PM me.
|
Timm3h
Oruze Cruise White Stag Exit Bag
114
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 18:59:44 -
[49] - Quote
When you drop upcoming changes as a rapid response to csm leaks and pray the over-reaction from the market is enough to hide the leak and prevent further destabilization of csm reputation
|
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners ChaosTheory.
16048
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 19:03:54 -
[50] - Quote
Welp, time to rat none stop from now till next week. BRB gotta call my boss and tell him I'm sick, I feel the mega flu coming on. |
|
Jason Galente
Tempest Legion
1201
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 19:04:53 -
[51] - Quote
The ridiculously low cost of pirate battleships (Bhaalgorn and Machariel in particular) is probably one of the biggest problems plaguing ship variety in the game. Good to see it get addressed, though I'm a bit concerned about what it means for market speculation and industrialists. However, as a PVPer, that ain't my problem ^^
This really needs to happen. And while we're at it, CCP, please focus on giving Heavy Assault Cruisers a balance pass. With more expensive Machariels, T3C changes and finally a HAC update, maybe the game can return more options to FCs and more variety in terms of fleet composition and tactics. That will only serve to make PVP more engaging.
Only the liberty of the individual assures the prosperity of the whole.
And this foundation must be defended.
At any cost
|
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners ChaosTheory.
16048
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 19:05:08 -
[52] - Quote
MechaJeb Kerman wrote:Trespasser wrote:honestly i disagree with this approach.
I think a much better way would be to make pirate battleships use their faction components found in 0.0 data sites to build.
CCP can then control the drop rate of these components to increase or decrease the price as needed. This also removes the need to screw with any escalation or drop rate as the bottleneck to production will no longer be the amount of blueprints on the market, the bottleneck will be these components.
This would also finally make data sites worth doing as 99.9% of them are trash. This. Make data sites great again. It's rather ridiculous that they drop on average 5 times less than Relic sites. Also, pretty sure SAAR BPC drop rates were improved, but after literally hundreds of data and relic sites I haven't seen a single one. A 1 run copy dropped from a random faction rat though.
This also, very good idea.
|
Rarilmar
Legends Unbound Greater D.U.S.K. Coalition
2
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 19:28:04 -
[53] - Quote
This should have been done by silently dropping the rates every month for about 3-6 months instead of making this announcement that nuked the market in an hour. |
Kibitt Kallinikov
Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate
21
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 19:29:30 -
[54] - Quote
Will LP store blueprints also see a cost to build increase, or will they remain as they are now? |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
3159
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 19:30:19 -
[55] - Quote
JC Mieyli wrote:increase material cost and lower bpc means less availability for pirate bs this means all the industrialists get to build pirate bs early and stockpile screws over the young industiralist again
how about for once instead of increasing cost to benefit veteran industrialist try lowering the cost of everything else to help the young industrialist and screw the rich fatcat players would be niceto see this happen for a change
Yes, if something is broken, it definitely makes sense to change the entire universe to correct that, instead of just fixing the one thing that is broken.
We'd be lost without your keen insight.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
JC Mieyli
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
72
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 19:32:35 -
[56] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:JC Mieyli wrote:increase material cost and lower bpc means less availability for pirate bs this means all the industrialists get to build pirate bs early and stockpile screws over the young industiralist again
how about for once instead of increasing cost to benefit veteran industrialist try lowering the cost of everything else to help the young industrialist and screw the rich fatcat players would be niceto see this happen for a change Yes, if something is broken, it definitely makes sense to change the entire universe to correct that, instead of just fixing the one thing that is broken. We'd be lost without your keen insight. theres more than one thing broken here
|
Eli Stan
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
660
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 19:38:55 -
[57] - Quote
I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of AT pilots suddenly cried out...
|
Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues
Hookers N' Blow
36
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 19:39:17 -
[58] - Quote
Odelll wrote:Hell CCP, why not just remove all PvE content from the game entirely and just sell people ISK? I know, how about we use Plex as ammunition too! That will generate the sales your aiming for.
Or, you know, how about you expand on your existing game and generate new intresting content that gets your playerbase moving around in space again instead of essentially removing/constricting/nerfing consistantly the few things that people still actually login for?
Seriously, stop removing content from this content starved game.
Its not their fault the game is content starved is the player bases fault. People are risk averse because they dont want to lose ships or eff up their killboards. Everyone just wants to whore and accumulate wealth.
Thats called human nature, ccp couldnt do **** to fix it.
|
ValentinaDLM
Khushakor Clan Of Questionable Repute
976
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 19:39:32 -
[59] - Quote
I am of the opinion that if you want pirate BPCs you should have to get them from the LP stores of those factions, which would make NPC nullsec have more value and have more action out there, instead of giving sov null all of the stuff to farm. |
Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues
Hookers N' Blow
36
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 19:41:17 -
[60] - Quote
Rarilmar wrote:This should have been done by silently dropping the rates every month for about 3-6 months instead of making this announcement that nuked the market in an hour.
This is a really good point. CSM's seems to get a lot of knowledge ahead of changes, so whoever rush logins first or is a csm gets free isk.
Probably one of the best posts in the thread. |
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
3159
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 19:45:16 -
[61] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
In June we are starting to address the supply of pirate battleship BPCs, with moderate changes to the chance of escalations spawning from the most popular high-end anomalies and larger changes to the drop rates of the BPCs themselves from quite a few NPCs.
This would also impact the availability of deadspace modules.
Is this intended (or, at least, considered to be acceptable collateral damage)? Or will drop rates for the mods be adjusted to compensate?
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3377
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 19:46:03 -
[62] - Quote
Rarilmar wrote:This should have been done by silently dropping the rates every month for about 3-6 months instead of making this announcement that nuked the market in an hour.
Especially since the damn change probably won't really be felt by the average player since it's a low random occurrence. |
Dirk MacGirk
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
190
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 19:53:33 -
[63] - Quote
Lugia3 wrote:The problem isn't cost, it's supply... People already fit 2 bill fits + HG Slaves to their Machs. Making it a bill more expensive won't do anything. Nerf the drop rate so if a Mach fleet dies it can't be instantly repurchased.
Also RIP the Barghest, under the bus it goes.
agreed that you'll always have some who do. But not anywhere near on the level of the fleets roaming the skies today. It's not about killing the option, just dialing it back |
Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues
Hookers N' Blow
37
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 19:56:12 -
[64] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
In June we are starting to address the supply of pirate battleship BPCs, with moderate changes to the chance of escalations spawning from the most popular high-end anomalies and larger changes to the drop rates of the BPCs themselves from quite a few NPCs.
This would also impact the availability of deadspace modules. Is this intended (or, at least, considered to be acceptable collateral damage)? Or will drop rates for the mods be adjusted to compensate?
Given how cheap deadspace/faction modules are hopefully its intended they are all wayyyy too cheap. |
ISD Max Trix
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
1907
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 19:57:54 -
[65] - Quote
JC Mieyli wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:JC Mieyli wrote:increase material cost and lower bpc means less availability for pirate bs this means all the industrialists get to build pirate bs early and stockpile screws over the young industiralist again
how about for once instead of increasing cost to benefit veteran industrialist try lowering the cost of everything else to help the young industrialist and screw the rich fatcat players would be niceto see this happen for a change "Instead of rebalancing one part of the game that's out of alignment, please change literally everything else about the EVE economy." yup is that a problem and tbh its not the one part of the game thats out of alignment the whole economy is out of alignment because of players taking advantage of mineral cost increases and thats what is going to happen here too
Its called Free Market Economics.
ISD Max Trix
Lieutenant
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Dirk MacGirk
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
190
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 19:58:39 -
[66] - Quote
Rarilmar wrote:This should have been done by silently dropping the rates every month for about 3-6 months instead of making this announcement that nuked the market in an hour.
I hate to say it (I do) but probably afraid of leaks. Damn this real world is making me jaded, but I imagine it's a concern |
JC Mieyli
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
72
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 20:01:57 -
[67] - Quote
ISD Max Trix wrote:JC Mieyli wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:JC Mieyli wrote:increase material cost and lower bpc means less availability for pirate bs this means all the industrialists get to build pirate bs early and stockpile screws over the young industiralist again
how about for once instead of increasing cost to benefit veteran industrialist try lowering the cost of everything else to help the young industrialist and screw the rich fatcat players would be niceto see this happen for a change "Instead of rebalancing one part of the game that's out of alignment, please change literally everything else about the EVE economy." yup is that a problem and tbh its not the one part of the game thats out of alignment the whole economy is out of alignment because of players taking advantage of mineral cost increases and thats what is going to happen here too Its called Free Market Economics. no it isnt its the opposite of that
|
Munted Happenstance
Panamanian Tax Evaders
4
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 20:03:42 -
[68] - Quote
I find it amusing that all CCP has to do is announce they intend to jack the price of pirate battleships, and the Jita traders will jack the price themselves before any actual changes have been made.
Top quality psychological warfare from CCP, a price increase of 100% has nearly already been achieved.
Well played. |
Dirk MacGirk
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
190
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 20:08:35 -
[69] - Quote
ISD Max Trix wrote:JC Mieyli wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:JC Mieyli wrote:increase material cost and lower bpc means less availability for pirate bs this means all the industrialists get to build pirate bs early and stockpile screws over the young industiralist again
how about for once instead of increasing cost to benefit veteran industrialist try lowering the cost of everything else to help the young industrialist and screw the rich fatcat players would be niceto see this happen for a change "Instead of rebalancing one part of the game that's out of alignment, please change literally everything else about the EVE economy." yup is that a problem and tbh its not the one part of the game thats out of alignment the whole economy is out of alignment because of players taking advantage of mineral cost increases and thats what is going to happen here too Its called Free Market Economics.
If you want a free market to operate effectively you need to get better with scarcity, rarity, and depletion. Something far more agile than months/years between rebalancing. Because a free market doesn't take kindly to the sort of resource and money supply we see in this game. Not to mention that production and destruction is entirely out of whack, but that is as much related to the input faucets as anything else. |
Aleverette
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 20:12:37 -
[70] - Quote
We need more Barghest.
Mordu DED ASAP I guess you CCP must want us to buy more skins right? |
|
Aernir Ridley
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
13
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 20:27:57 -
[71] - Quote
I honestly hope they nerf the actual stats of macharials to reduce they're overwhelming superiority in combat, but this is still a very good start to reducing their use in null and lowsec.
"For most people, the sky's the limit... For those who love aviation, the sky, is home."
-Cheers! :D
|
Mizhir
TURN LEFT HYDRA RELOADED
75446
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 20:40:57 -
[72] - Quote
Eli Stan wrote:I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of AT pilots suddenly cried out...
Mate, do you even know how AT works? The limiting factor is their high point cost. Not their isk value.
Death rides a fast C4mel
|
Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
3177
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 20:42:49 -
[73] - Quote
Mizhir wrote:Eli Stan wrote:I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of AT pilots suddenly cried out...
Mate, do you even know how AT works? The limiting factor is their high point cost. Not their isk value. considering the serious teams are fielding 100b+ tournament ships, 1bil pirate bs aren't anywhere near a cost issue
@ChainsawPlankto on twitter
|
Vash Bloodstone
Chiaotzu's Revenge
36
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 20:42:52 -
[74] - Quote
Something about this rubs me the wrong way.
I haven't played a lot recently, but why is this proliferation of pirate battleships considered a problem? Maybe someone can clarify for me? Are there too many gangs of pirate battleships roaming around? Did someone find this to be an problem and consider it to be unbalanced?
Well, for me, I've always kind of thought of Eve combat as a complex game of trade-offs, like rock-paper-scissors. Let give me a simple analogy using this game. Lets says we had a game where for some reason rock was winning more often than paper or scissors. Let's say we had two ways we could try to balance this game. We would either 1) Reduce the number of times people get to use rock by basically forcing people to use it less or 2) we could make whatever is causing rock to win more often to stop, possibly by changing paper and/or scissors. To Me, going with option 1, makes no sense, because it doesn't actually remove the imbalance, it just decreases the amount of times it happens. If you want a truly balanced game, you need to make all sides balance each other by their traits, not by how often they are used. Otherwise, you limit player choice.
Eve Online is very dynamic game and players should given free choice. If for some reason, CCP thinks pirate battleships are imbalanced, than that's a failure of game design, not of player choice. Players are always going to go for the best. What I would suggest is that if you think Pirate battleships are imbalanced, than change the traits of other ships and/or features to make it more difficult for them.
What I think will happen is that this pirate battleship scheme won't achieve its intended objective. If pirate battleships are unbalanced in whatever way CCP thinks they are, they will be continued to be used regardless of what they do. Especially since I think those who most use pirate battleships probably already have plenty of them or plenty of ISK. What this will really do is hurt the poor or inexperienced players from using pirate battleships by artificially increasing the cost of entry, which will reduce player choice, and hurt the game. Less Choices=bad. More choices=good
|
JC Mieyli
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
72
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 20:46:32 -
[75] - Quote
Vash Bloodstone wrote:Something about this rubs me the wrong way.
I haven't played a lot recently, but why is this proliferation of pirate battleships considered a problem? the main percieved problem i believe is that pirate ships are cheaper than navy ships |
Asian Driver
Forgotten Artifacts Laboratories
1
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 20:47:51 -
[76] - Quote
Dupreesdiamond Stealie wrote:Asher Elias wrote:Will the barghest be affected by the production material increase? Is it a Pirate BS....that's your answer.
But what about SoE? They're not really pirates. |
Steelrattty
Broski North skill urself
72
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 20:48:06 -
[77] - Quote
i dont blame you fozzie, i blame whoever your boss is
im sorry |
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
1374
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 20:51:44 -
[78] - Quote
So with the coming return of pirate battleships being niche, available to the rich only ships, will we see a buff to T1 battleships or will nulsec Citadels be even safer due to nothing being able to engage them (void bombs are just OP so exclude using anything requiring cap).
I suppose the big groups can always just use dreads and carriers for them. Not like there is a shortage out there and price wise they will be about the same compared to Machs and Rattles..
I'm not sure if making pirate battleships cost as much as a carrier and little less than a dread is good for the game. It certainly isn't good for those who aren't rich or newer players wanting to use them.. Doctrines will change and blue-balling will become far more common - Again.
Funny but if there was even 1 T1 battleship that was even half as good as a Mach or Rattle, pirate battleships wouldn't be the go to.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Mizhir
TURN LEFT HYDRA RELOADED
75446
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 20:53:07 -
[79] - Quote
Vash Bloodstone wrote:Something about this rubs me the wrong way.
I haven't played a lot recently, but why is this proliferation of pirate battleships considered a problem? Maybe someone can clarify for me? Are there too many gangs of pirate battleships roaming around? Did someone find this to be an problem and consider it to be unbalanced?
Well, for me, I've always kind of thought of Eve combat as a complex game of trade-offs, like rock-paper-scissors. Let give me a simple analogy using this game. Lets says we had a game where for some reason rock was winning more often than paper or scissors. Let's say we had two ways we could try to balance this game. We would either 1) Reduce the number of times people get to use rock by basically forcing people to use it less or 2) we could make whatever is causing rock to win more often to stop, possibly by changing paper and/or scissors. To Me, going with option 1, makes no sense, because it doesn't actually remove the imbalance, it just decreases the amount of times it happens. If you want a truly balanced game, you need to make all sides balance each other by their traits, not by how often they are used. Otherwise, you limit player choice.
Eve Online is very dynamic game and players should given free choice. If for some reason, CCP thinks pirate battleships are imbalanced, than that's a failure of game design, not of player choice. Players are always going to go for the best. What I would suggest is that if you think Pirate battleships are imbalanced, than change the traits of other ships and/or features to make it more difficult for them.
What I think will happen is that this pirate battleship scheme won't achieve its intended objective. If pirate battleships are unbalanced in whatever way CCP thinks they are, they will be continued to be used regardless of what they do. Especially since I think those who most use pirate battleships probably already have plenty of them or plenty of ISK. What this will really do is hurt the poor or inexperienced players from using pirate battleships by artificially increasing the cost of entry, which will reduce player choice, and hurt the game. Less Choices=bad. More choices=good
The issue is that pirate BS are so cheap that in most situations they are simply the superior choice. So they reduce the amount of choices there are simply because they are cheaper and better than navy BS and offers a much stronger power for a small price increase. The whole point of pirate BS is that they are supposed to be strong, but also expensive so if you lose it then it will hurt on the wallet. They are not meant to be cheap ships that everyone can fly and right now it seems like every large nullsec alliance uses them as one of their main doctrine - Even Pandemic Horde. Nerfing their stats will just make them useless as some other strong ships will fill the role instead.
Death rides a fast C4mel
|
Boombeczka
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 20:56:03 -
[80] - Quote
wouldnt be better to not touch drop ratio/mineral cost and buff navy bses(add unique bonuses) that holds pretty much same, higher price than pirate bs? And that probably would be more reasonable lore-wise cuz somehow hsec/lowsec is pretty big chunk of space |
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
3159
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 21:10:38 -
[81] - Quote
Vash Bloodstone wrote:Something about this rubs me the wrong way.
I haven't played a lot recently, but why is this proliferation of pirate battleships considered a problem? Maybe someone can clarify for me?
Sure.
Quote:Are there too many gangs of pirate battleships roaming around?
Gangs? Try mainline fleet doctrines. T1 and navy BS have been almost completely supplanted by pirate BS.
Do you really not see why that's a problem?
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Rukia Taika
The Walking Deads DARKNESS.
19
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 21:11:09 -
[82] - Quote
This is rather odd and unexpected by CCP but for some reason I am not surprised. A move in this direction does create some opportunities for the old and the new. I feel the goal is that CCP may be pushing for in a direction to create mining teams with build teams involved.
Sounds rather odd knowing how eve is when it comes to scamming and stabbing folks in the back at the last minute of things. But there are those rare groups that actually do what they say.
After all you need like 20 miners in hulks with a rorq are 3 and a booster to mine the rocks to build Capitals and Titans.
I see no problem with this other then the other thread where the Mining Anoms are getting hit with the nerf bat with respawn timers.
With all the changes that is coming this summer I feel CCP kshould be implementing it at the same time the mining arrays come out. |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Northern Coalition.
1916
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 21:23:23 -
[83] - Quote
I strongly advise against any kind of nerf to the escalation spawns. Escalations are a great content creator in this game as they make people do risky stuff which tends to lead to many kinds of interaction with other players.
Keep the changes to droprates and/ or required materials please. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2898
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 21:25:20 -
[84] - Quote
Trespasser wrote:honestly i disagree with this approach.
I think a much better way would be to make pirate battleships use their faction components found in 0.0 data sites to build.
CCP can then control the drop rate of these components to increase or decrease the price as needed. This also removes the need to screw with any escalation or drop rate as the bottleneck to production will no longer be the amount of blueprints on the market, the bottleneck will be these components.
This would also finally make data sites worth doing as 99.9% of them are trash.
This is an excellent suggestion.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
BrutalButFair
Almost Dangerous Stranger Danger.
103
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 21:31:57 -
[85] - Quote
Will this ignite the return of the true Rooks and Kings? |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2898
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 21:59:10 -
[86] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:I strongly advise against any kind of nerf to the escalation spawns. Escalations are a great content creator in this game as they make people do risky stuff which tends to lead to many kinds of interaction with other players.
Keep the changes to droprates and/ or required materials please.
I disagree. As someone who both runs escalations and sells escalations, they do not create much content. People tend to run the ones that are close to home and ignore the rest. They find safe travel methods to get to the escalations. It's practically impossible to become the victim of non-consensual PVP inside an escalation, because no one else can find it if you just warp out before they scan down your ship. And even if they do come inside to go after you, they cannot hotdrop on you inside the complex. In short, escalations are relatively risk free.
They need to drastically reduce the frequency of escalations. That will make exploration more viable. Then the upcoming T3 changes should increase the risk of people going out there to explore, which should further raise the value of the product.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
Rita Torres
The Graduates The Initiative.
12
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 22:11:39 -
[87] - Quote
why dont u fix navy faction battleship or even standard battleships to be on par with other battleships. battleships in general are supposed to be powerful but not very many people use them anymore cause mach's are better. |
Bromum Atom
Vodka wh0res and a lil bit
3
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 22:32:39 -
[88] - Quote
Pirate battleship by 50% of carrier cost? Who and why will by them? |
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
1374
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 23:01:10 -
[89] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Vash Bloodstone wrote:Something about this rubs me the wrong way.
I haven't played a lot recently, but why is this proliferation of pirate battleships considered a problem? Maybe someone can clarify for me? Sure. Quote:Are there too many gangs of pirate battleships roaming around? Gangs? Try mainline fleet doctrines. T1 and navy BS have been almost completely supplanted by pirate BS. Do you really not see why that's a problem? T1 BS are shite in comparison, which IS the problem. If there was a viable alternative for the Mach it wouldn't automatically be the go to.
As for Navy versions, being LP based as soon as one sees more than average use the price goes up to match and demand will always outstrip supply. Napocs were a thing but got priced out of usefulness..
Making pirate ships cost more isn't going to "fix" any problems - Those who can afford them will still use them, those who can't or don't want to spend the extra will keep complaining - Devs will keep increasing costs and reducing supply until they once again become a rarely used niche class of ships.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
1374
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 23:13:31 -
[90] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Gilbaron wrote:I strongly advise against any kind of nerf to the escalation spawns. Escalations are a great content creator in this game as they make people do risky stuff which tends to lead to many kinds of interaction with other players.
Keep the changes to droprates and/ or required materials please. I disagree. As someone who both runs escalations and sells escalations, they do not create much content. People tend to run the ones that are close to home and ignore the rest. They find safe travel methods to get to the escalations. It's practically impossible to become the victim of non-consensual PVP inside an escalation, because no one else can find it if you just warp out before they scan down your ship. And even if they do come inside to go after you, they cannot hotdrop on you inside the complex. In short, escalations are relatively risk free. They need to drastically reduce the frequency of escalations. That will make exploration more viable. Then the upcoming T3 changes should increase the risk of people going out there to explore, which should further raise the value of the product. Why would reducing the amount of escalations increase exploration? Are pirate BS bpc's going to drop in data sites?
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
|
Kenrailae
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
769
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 23:37:23 -
[91] - Quote
So the real question is are you going to rebalance/recalculate ALL pirate NPC ship build reqs incorporating the faction build mats that were introduced with the pirate caps(even though yes you'll have to add in new materials for subcaps and the pirate caps you haven't done yet), as you should, or just piecemeal it hope it works out?
Also, while we're at it, can we consider carrying this into the Navy stuff as well, with possible segway into caps, keeping consideration for the LP market. I'd be just as excited about a Roden or Federation Moros as a Serpentis Moros.
The Law is a point of View
The NPE IS a big deal
|
Jason Galente
Tempest Legion
1205
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 23:39:28 -
[92] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:
Making pirate ships cost more isn't going to "fix" any problems - Those who can afford them will still use them
Am I correct in saying that you think a massive price increase of 2-3x current prices is going to result in the number of people "who can afford them" remaining approximately the same? Because if that's indeed what you think, you're insane. And if that's not what you meant, then the change has meaning and you don't really have a point.
Only the liberty of the individual assures the prosperity of the whole.
And this foundation must be defended.
At any cost
|
FearlessLittleToaster
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
202
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 23:47:58 -
[93] - Quote
As an (ex) explorer I have to say the change to escalations doesn't make me sad. I did exploration as my sole PvE activity from 2010 until early this year. The thrill of running gate camps, scouting with an alt, and the big find where one site paid for Eve for a month on a good drop was really the hook that got me into Eve. I liked it so much I've written articles about it, taught classes to Goons on it, and held it up as the right balance between risk and reward to anyone who asked. And, as of the start of the year, drops from anom escalations devalued the rewards to much they drove me out of it.
I tried like hell to keep going too. I figured out site spawn theory and started exploring in dangerous areas where others weren't brave enough to go since that got me more sites. I went from two alts to four, from a couple T1 battleships to three spider tanking Domis to three bling-fit rattlesnakes to three sins and a covops-cyno/prober scout to get more efficient at finding sweet sweet deadspace sites. But the value of the drops just kept going down. In the end, even with the sins running sites almost non-stop and the scout doing archeology the whole time, it just didn't pay anymore.
There is more Isk and less risk in almost any other PvE activity, to include active anom ratting in a carrier or faction battleship... and selling the escalations to a site running service. And yes, I could have just bought sites, but it wasn't grinding out 10/10s all day I really loved. It was moving between systems, running sites in hostile space with a red in local and daring them to come in and get me, it was the finding of a system crammed full of signatures after working out where others explored and daring to go where they wouldn't.
As an explorer who misses the PvE that made Eve awesome every minute I sit on rocks and watch my drones grind out spod, I support these changes. I actually have more Isk now, but earning is is a lot less fun. So maybe this change will do a bit to save nullsec exploration from being devalued into the new belt ratting. I can only hope.
|
Draqolas Windfury
CBC Interstellar Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 23:48:36 -
[94] - Quote
Just another "brillant" CCP idea. Make something bad even worse. Bhaalgorn BPC prize have just rised from 70m to 300m!! CCP congrats. Soon machariel hull 1b. I think it will be cheaper to swap for carriers
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
3161
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 23:56:46 -
[95] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:SurrenderMonkey wrote:Vash Bloodstone wrote:Something about this rubs me the wrong way.
I haven't played a lot recently, but why is this proliferation of pirate battleships considered a problem? Maybe someone can clarify for me? Sure. Quote:Are there too many gangs of pirate battleships roaming around? Gangs? Try mainline fleet doctrines. T1 and navy BS have been almost completely supplanted by pirate BS. Do you really not see why that's a problem? T1 BS are shite in comparison, which IS the problem. If there was a viable alternative for the Mach it wouldn't automatically be the go to. As for Navy versions, being LP based as soon as one sees more than average use the price goes up to match and demand will always outstrip supply. Napocs were a thing but got priced out of usefulness.. Making pirate ships cost more isn't going to "fix" any problems - Those who can afford them will still use them, those who can't or don't want to spend the extra will keep complaining - Devs will keep increasing costs and reducing supply until they once again become a rarely used niche class of ships.
It's supposed to be the case that those who can afford/feel they're worth it use them. Those who don't will use something cheaper. That isn't a problem, especially when the general premise is linear power gains for exponential increases in cost.
The problem is that, right now, the list of people who can afford them and feel they're worth it is... basically everyone, because the pricing, at present, offers linear power gains for linear increases in cost.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Ebony Texas
The Alabaster Albatross Sev3rance
20
|
Posted - 2017.06.08 23:58:51 -
[96] - Quote
Grenouile wrote:How about you nerf Citadels first?
bullchit.. citadels above all needs to be given proper bonus..\
fozzie how about you just remove or update a fortizar's freaking point defenses and citadel's overall defenses!... the fighters are a fawking joke! |
Novor Drethan
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 00:06:39 -
[97] - Quote
Romvex wrote:Querns wrote:T-B0NE wrote:So if you have a specific problem you want to address, then address it in a way that is specific to only that problem (AKA increase the mineral price of the ship or nerf the drop rate of the BPC). By nerfing escalation chances you effectively nerf EVERY module that comes from those escalations not just the BPC you are attempting to nerf. Heaven forbid X-Type hardeners be an actual expense rather than an afterthought. basically this, both pirate battleships and blue mods are too cheap for the benefit they provide Should a 5% improvement come with a 500% increase in value?
I'd say that's too expensive for the benefit they provide. |
Vash Bloodstone
Chiaotzu's Revenge
36
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 00:11:59 -
[98] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote: Sure.
Gangs? Try mainline fleet doctrines. T1 and navy BS have been almost completely supplanted by pirate BS.
Do you really not see why that's a problem?
There's two problems here I think. 1.) One is that just increasing the cost of Pirate Battleships won't solve the fundamental problem. 2). This issue is mostly being looked at from a PvP perspective and ignoring any PvE issues.
What I suggest is that CCP come up with a way to counter a fleet of Pirate Battleships. I've always thought that being apart of a large fleet was OP. I think there needs to be more ways to counter this. Currently, In my opinion, you can either bring in more ships to counter a big fleet of Pirate BS or maybe you can try to use stealth bombers. Of course, this actually requires creative work and intelligence. I might suggest something like a new ship, a Cruiser sized Stealth bomber that can shoot multiple bombs? Could this counter Pirate Battleships? How about large mines that only blow up when it detects a BS or larger? Its just one idea, the point is, this would represent an actual attempt to balance the game, instead of trying to micromanage the economy or other similar schemes. (that won't work) Players are very adaptive, people will find a way around this, you'll only annoy them, which will ultimately decrease satisfaction and make the game less fun.
Also, I know most won't care but increasing the cost of Pirate Battleship could hurt PvE a lot. Pirate BS are big in pve, i believe, and this will hurt those guys a lot more than those who just go for pvp. You have more options in PVP, but a lot of pve content benefits tremendously from being able to use pirate bs.
|
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Northern Coalition.
1917
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 00:15:39 -
[99] - Quote
Novor Drethan wrote:Romvex wrote:Querns wrote:T-B0NE wrote:So if you have a specific problem you want to address, then address it in a way that is specific to only that problem (AKA increase the mineral price of the ship or nerf the drop rate of the BPC). By nerfing escalation chances you effectively nerf EVERY module that comes from those escalations not just the BPC you are attempting to nerf. Heaven forbid X-Type hardeners be an actual expense rather than an afterthought. basically this, both pirate battleships and blue mods are too cheap for the benefit they provide Should a 5% improvement come with a 500% increase in value? I'd say that's too expensive for the benefit they provide.
that's the way eve always has been and always should be. |
Kenrailae
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
769
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 00:27:13 -
[100] - Quote
Novor Drethan wrote:Romvex wrote:Querns wrote:T-B0NE wrote:So if you have a specific problem you want to address, then address it in a way that is specific to only that problem (AKA increase the mineral price of the ship or nerf the drop rate of the BPC). By nerfing escalation chances you effectively nerf EVERY module that comes from those escalations not just the BPC you are attempting to nerf. Heaven forbid X-Type hardeners be an actual expense rather than an afterthought. basically this, both pirate battleships and blue mods are too cheap for the benefit they provide Should a 5% improvement come with a 500% increase in value? I'd say that's too expensive for the benefit they provide.
No, as has been said, that is the way things should be. Certainly not the only one, but I remember using vindi's as a doctrine when they were still 1.3b/hull. That extra 5% we paid all the extra isk for helped us counter the much larger fleets of hostiles we would fight at the time. These days, everyone can afford a vindi, everyone uses (insert pirate BS) and everyone can make crap loads of isk in no time, so the extra 5% that used to have meaning, just doesn't anymore, because everyone uses it. The small skill/quality over quantity groups are pretty much almost all gone now, because everyone can afford to use the fits(or close enough) they could use anyway, AND bring crap loads more mans as well.
The Law is a point of View
The NPE IS a big deal
|
|
Novor Drethan
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 00:35:04 -
[101] - Quote
Kenrailae wrote:Novor Drethan wrote:Romvex wrote:Querns wrote:T-B0NE wrote:So if you have a specific problem you want to address, then address it in a way that is specific to only that problem (AKA increase the mineral price of the ship or nerf the drop rate of the BPC). By nerfing escalation chances you effectively nerf EVERY module that comes from those escalations not just the BPC you are attempting to nerf. Heaven forbid X-Type hardeners be an actual expense rather than an afterthought. basically this, both pirate battleships and blue mods are too cheap for the benefit they provide Should a 5% improvement come with a 500% increase in value? I'd say that's too expensive for the benefit they provide. No, as has been said, that is the way things should be. Certainly not the only one, but I remember using vindi's as a doctrine when they were still 1.3b/hull. That extra 5% we paid all the extra isk for helped us counter the much larger fleets of hostiles we would fight at the time. These days, everyone can afford a vindi, everyone uses (insert pirate BS) and everyone can make crap loads of isk in no time, so the extra 5% that used to have meaning, just doesn't anymore, because everyone uses it. The small skill/quality over quantity groups are pretty much almost all gone now, because everyone can afford to use the fits(or close enough) they could use anyway, AND bring crap loads more mans as well. You're already paying more isk for faction ships and modules, so the question isn't whether they should be more expensive, but by how much.
Barghests are 700m right now, and no one uses them. Increase that to 1.4b, and still no one will use them. If you increase Machariels to 1.4b, people will still use them.
So the issue isn't the value of these ships, but the fact that they outclass every other hull their size. |
Kenrailae
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
770
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 00:39:01 -
[102] - Quote
Novor Drethan wrote: You're already paying more isk for faction ships and modules, so the question isn't whether they should be more expensive, but by how much.
Barghests are 700m right now, and no one uses them. Increase that to 1.4b, and still no one will use them. If you increase Machariels to 1.4b, people will still use them.
So the issue isn't the value of these ships, but the fact that they outclass every other hull their size.
Then it sounds like there is an issue with the barghest that needs that ship rebalanced. 1.4b for a Mach is a fair price, for everything that ship is capable of doing.
The Law is a point of View
The NPE IS a big deal
|
Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
382
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 00:44:30 -
[103] - Quote
Pirate Battleships are supposed to be expensive. Navy types are supposed to be more expensive than their non-navy counterparts
Why are people complaining about the price? are you dumb?
Like another poster already stated. I feel all Faction ships should be obtained from their respective LP stores, With that said, maybe adding in chips like for the Astero/Stratios/Nestor would be all right, but you still need for the most part to use the LP store. You want the ships/prints, grind for them or have some one that likes doing that do it and pay them for it. FFS where do you think a lot of those implants come from (crystals, slaves etc), or Barge BPO's (well most ORE gear).... It comes from the LP stores and the people doing the PVE. Imho, allowing for more diverse cultures on the PVE side of things will fuel the Combat PvP side of things.
Just think about it for a minute or two CCP, if you really want to balance the Playing Field here...quit allowing for these prints to drop in sites and let the Hunters/Prey do their little menagerie of dances for this. |
Novor Drethan
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 00:45:28 -
[104] - Quote
Kenrailae wrote:Novor Drethan wrote: You're already paying more isk for faction ships and modules, so the question isn't whether they should be more expensive, but by how much.
Barghests are 700m right now, and no one uses them. Increase that to 1.4b, and still no one will use them. If you increase Machariels to 1.4b, people will still use them.
So the issue isn't the value of these ships, but the fact that they outclass every other hull their size.
Then it sounds like there is an issue with the barghest that needs that ship rebalanced. 1.4b for a Mach is a fair price, for everything that ship is capable of doing. It depends. Are you basing that 1.4b price tag off the fact that it's seeing such great usage? Because a great deal of that depends on void bombs being kept as oppressive as they currently are. If CCP nerfs void bombs, Machariels won't be nearly as great, and that 1.4b price tag then seems unreasonable because the practical value of the ship has dropped. |
Ruby Gnollo
22
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 00:49:37 -
[105] - Quote
Hendrink Collie wrote:Huydo wrote:What do you think about make other Ships more viable for fleets than nerf it? Power creep is bad.
Just have so-called pirates behave abit smarter. Like, warpout with their loot when their fight is turning bad |
Kenrailae
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
770
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 00:50:23 -
[106] - Quote
Novor Drethan wrote:Kenrailae wrote:Novor Drethan wrote: You're already paying more isk for faction ships and modules, so the question isn't whether they should be more expensive, but by how much.
Barghests are 700m right now, and no one uses them. Increase that to 1.4b, and still no one will use them. If you increase Machariels to 1.4b, people will still use them.
So the issue isn't the value of these ships, but the fact that they outclass every other hull their size.
Then it sounds like there is an issue with the barghest that needs that ship rebalanced. 1.4b for a Mach is a fair price, for everything that ship is capable of doing. It depends. Are you basing that 1.4b price tag off the fact that it's seeing such great usage? Because a great deal of that depends on void bombs being kept as oppressive as they currently are. If CCP nerfs void bombs, Machariels won't be nearly as great, and that 1.4b price tag then seems unreasonable because the practical value of the ship has dropped.
No, I'm basing that on experience with the ship, it's strengths and weaknesses, and a time when the Evecosystem was more balanced between the small/large groups. Granted, I don't know if CCP is ever going to try to find a balance between large/small scale again, that isn't just summed up with 'well at least you got asset safety, right?', but before their prices started the downward dip they've been on until today, that is about where they were. Pirate BS still were purchased and used(the barghest wasn't around at the time), but they were not everywhere all the time. Also balancing one problem based on another problem isn't a good strategy.
The Law is a point of View
The NPE IS a big deal
|
Shaqil
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 01:09:21 -
[107] - Quote
Pirate BSs were fine for the price they were. CCP screwed it with BPC drop rates, now going to nerf bat them into oblivion. This is ridiculous. |
Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
382
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 01:17:19 -
[108] - Quote
Shaqil wrote:Pirate BSs were fine for the price they were. CCP screwed it with BPC drop rates, now going to nerf bat them into oblivion. This is ridiculous.
again why are you crying? they are not be nerfed, CCP is attempting re-initiate their high cost value....though i think this proposed method is flawed an nothing more than a bandaid on a wound that requires tourniquet and some stitches. |
Shinji Katsuragi
Y.G.G.D.R.A.S.I.L. Branch
7
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 01:23:56 -
[109] - Quote
This is definitely NOT GOOD. |
Helene Fidard
CTRL-Q
55
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 01:36:48 -
[110] - Quote
Finally!
Now remove guided void bombs :)
Hey! I don't know about you
but I'm joining CTRL-Q
|
|
Vix Sparda
Boa Innovations Brothers of Tangra
1
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 02:14:30 -
[111] - Quote
heres an idea fozzie. stop doing anything. |
Romvex
Furnace Thermodynamics
592
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 02:23:23 -
[112] - Quote
seems to be alot of unintelligent posters in here who can't understand how important this change is. |
RedHand
Endless Defiance
2
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 02:30:27 -
[113] - Quote
Thank you. Admittedly, I love pirate battleships and getting them for as cheap as they are, but they seem so easy to throw away for what's supposed to be a high impact ship.
Although, please don't **** with the Barghest's price too much, it's expensive compared to the rest already... |
xXxNIMRODxXx
Crusader Brewery
46
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 02:43:58 -
[114] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:MechaJeb Kerman wrote:Trespasser wrote:honestly i disagree with this approach.
I think a much better way would be to make pirate battleships use their faction components found in 0.0 data sites to build.
CCP can then control the drop rate of these components to increase or decrease the price as needed. This also removes the need to screw with any escalation or drop rate as the bottleneck to production will no longer be the amount of blueprints on the market, the bottleneck will be these components.
This would also finally make data sites worth doing as 99.9% of them are trash. This. Make data sites great again. It's rather ridiculous that they drop on average 5 times less than Relic sites. Also, pretty sure SAAR BPC drop rates were improved, but after literally hundreds of data and relic sites I haven't seen a single one. A 1 run copy dropped from a random faction rat though. This also, very good idea.
....this our only hope. |
Mykale Kwijybow
1
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 03:23:54 -
[115] - Quote
I agree with the ideas posted here about making Data sites drop the BPCs or buying them from faction LP stores. The Data site idea brings Data sites back into relevance and the faction LP store idea allows CCP to control their value via LP costs which take time to farm.
"Give a man a bullet and he'll want a gun. Give a man a gun and he'll give away bullets"
|
RushRushRush Aishai
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 03:37:26 -
[116] - Quote
i dont care what it changed what i cared is:
THE CHANGE HAS BEEN LEAKED MORE THAN 10 DAYS
some pp bought hundreds of billions of bpc now,its price maybe doubled
dont know how it leaked but it happened how could we stand this?!! |
D'nara Atreidis
Sub--Zero The Bastion
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 03:38:43 -
[117] - Quote
Pirate battle ships are not cheap for many people.... nor are the useful DED space modules.... of course the stupid ones are cheap... but the better ones are 50 mill+ with some dang near 1 billion isk... The only people that pirate battle ships are cheap for are the same ones who will have the isk to buy them regardless of the changes.... Nerf their stats and you get the end goal which is to widen ship choice... dont make them the price of a freaking carrier |
JC Mieyli
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
75
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 04:34:54 -
[118] - Quote
putting impact on the economy and leak conspiracies to one side for a moment i wanna talk about power levels of pirate bs no one ever used to use bs for solo or small gang stuff because they are garbage the fact people even use pirate bs in these roles tells us one thing pirate bs are in the right place for where bs should be in terms of capability all bs should be rebalanced to where pirate bs are now because the pirate bs are the only bs that are in the right place |
Sylvia Kildare
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
75
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 05:12:51 -
[119] - Quote
Mizhir wrote:Coelus Kugisa wrote:Hisec incursion tears will be extra salty. I doubt they will care much. They have already flown pirate BS for years and can easily afford the increase cost in the hull.
Not to mention that a lot of incursioners are still flying their same hulls from years ago. Incursion pirate BSes don't die every day. Hell, some spent 1.2 to 1.5 bil ISK on their Vindi or Mach hull and are still using it to this day.
I hope some middleground between the cheap 300-400 mil ISK hulls of the past year and the 1.2 to 1.5 range can be found. Maybe the 600-900 range or so?
I've gotten into Marauders in the past year or two and as the pirate BS prices dropped and Marauders stayed relatively stable (I know, t2 ship production costs are fairly high, especially above the cruiser size), it's always struck me that that gap is too high. And yes, the Navy BS prices were, in some cases, nearly double their comparable pirate BS prices.
Sanity is cool. But please don't overcompensate the other way, CCP. |
Lamajagarn McMyra
No Vacancies No Vacancies.
21
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 05:13:12 -
[120] - Quote
JC Mieyli wrote:putting impact on the economy and leak conspiracies to one side for a moment i wanna talk about power levels of pirate bs no one ever used to use bs for solo or small gang stuff because they are garbage the fact people even use pirate bs in these roles tells us one thing pirate bs are in the right place for where bs should be in terms of capability all bs should be rebalanced to where pirate bs are now because the pirate bs are the only bs that are in the right place
Faction battleships are average now since pretty much everyone use them exclusively. Hell, put plat insurance on it and you're dealing with prices similar to t2 cruiser (2-400mil).
If t1 battleships were the norm, t1 would be considered okay and faction actually good. |
|
NightmareX
Coreli Corporation Mercenary Coalition
763
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 05:27:46 -
[121] - Quote
Let's say that the Machariel goes from 400 to like 600-650 mill isk. If that happens, i wont care. If the Machariel goes from 400 to 800 mill - 1 bill isk, i will be angry about that.
A Machariel and Rattlesnake is the 2 main Battleships i use now, so it would be bad to let them be super expensive.
Here is a list of my current EVE / PVP videos:
1: Asteroid Madness
2: Clash of the Empires
3: Suddenly Spaceships fighting in Tama
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
3164
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 06:04:21 -
[122] - Quote
NightmareX wrote:Let's say that the Machariel goes from 400 to like 600-650 mill isk. If that happens, i wont care. If the Machariel goes from 400 to 800 mill - 1 bill isk, i will be angry about that.
A Machariel and Rattlesnake is the 2 main Battleships i use now, so it would be bad to let them be super expensive.
Really? It would be bad to let them be super expensive (if we're really calling a billion super-expensive)?
Objectively bad, or just bad for you?
Maybe poors should use something else for their "main" battleships?
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Jeremiah Saken
The Fall of Leviathan
813
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 06:08:00 -
[123] - Quote
Something, something, market speculation. Fozzman please, you could nerf spawn rate and nobody will notice for month or two. Then wrote this.
As for production cost:
T1->Navy->T2->Faction (maybe take a look at marauder cost along with faction hulls)
For the love of God please do something with data sites this time, you have great opportunity with citadels yet you didn't make the move.
"I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..." - Herman Melville
|
JC Mieyli
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
75
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 06:10:16 -
[124] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Maybe poors should use something else for their "main" battleships? like a t3c you mean what other alternatives are there anyway judging by your replies in this thread and looking at your corp name seems like youre one of the people this change is gonna benefit |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
3164
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 06:21:15 -
[125] - Quote
JC Mieyli wrote:SurrenderMonkey wrote:Maybe poors should use something else for their "main" battleships? like a t3c you mean what other alternatives are there anyway judging by your replies in this thread and looking at your corp name seems like youre one of the people this change is gonna benefit
Believe it or not, there are a dozen (!) other battleships in the 150-200M price range, and 8 more in the 3-400M price range, that aren't directly affected by these changes.
Maybe try some of those.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
GROUND XERO
Rennfeuer Project.Mayhem.
15
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 06:21:16 -
[126] - Quote
- pirate faction changes incomming ...... i don-¦t like it but it will have an effect : 1. only rich dudes can afford to fly it as doctrine, like in the old times when a sword was worth like 28 pigs or a horse! 2. someone is becomming rich ...because of leaks (you can check market datas if you like) 3. we might see "cool" doctrines again like "hellcats" or stuff like that .... only to see them burning ..... because of the rich guys
NCPL (Necromonger of new Eden) will make EVE great again!
|
JC Mieyli
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
75
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 06:24:27 -
[127] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:JC Mieyli wrote:SurrenderMonkey wrote:Maybe poors should use something else for their "main" battleships? like a t3c you mean what other alternatives are there anyway judging by your replies in this thread and looking at your corp name seems like youre one of the people this change is gonna benefit Believe it or not, there are a dozen (!) other battleships in the 150-200M price range, and 8 more in the 3-400M price range, that aren't directly affected by these changes. Maybe try some of those. no thanks theyre garbage reprocess fodder
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
3164
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 06:31:47 -
[128] - Quote
JC Mieyli wrote:SurrenderMonkey wrote:JC Mieyli wrote:SurrenderMonkey wrote:Maybe poors should use something else for their "main" battleships? like a t3c you mean what other alternatives are there anyway judging by your replies in this thread and looking at your corp name seems like youre one of the people this change is gonna benefit Believe it or not, there are a dozen (!) other battleships in the 150-200M price range, and 8 more in the 3-400M price range, that aren't directly affected by these changes. Maybe try some of those. no thanks theyre garbage reprocess fodder
That's the thing - they're really not, except they're basically in the same price-class as pirate BS and, in that context, they provide very poor value/price:performance.
Compare this to cruisers, where a popular pirate hull like the Gila is about 25x the cost of a popular T1 hull like the Caracal or Vexor.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
NightmareX
Coreli Corporation Mercenary Coalition
763
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 06:37:41 -
[129] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Really? It would be bad to let them be super expensive (if we're really calling a billion super-expensive )? Objectively bad, or just bad for you? Maybe poors should use something else for their "main" battleships? Yes, going over a billion isk for a Pirate Battleship is expensive. I had a Vindicator some years ago that did cost 1.3 bill isk which was really expensive.
It would be bad for alot of us and not just me, even though alot of us isn't poor.
Here is a list of my current EVE / PVP videos:
1: Asteroid Madness
2: Clash of the Empires
3: Suddenly Spaceships fighting in Tama
|
JC Mieyli
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
75
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 06:43:11 -
[130] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:That's the thing - they're really not i know you got an overstock of crappy t1 bses you need to clear out but thats called false advertising |
|
Kendarr
Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation
63
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 06:48:56 -
[131] - Quote
Thank for for planning to make T1 BS great again.
Zebra-Corp
|
Karmen Baric
State War Academy Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 06:53:31 -
[132] - Quote
Rarilmar wrote:This should have been done by silently dropping the rates every month for about 3-6 months instead of making this announcement that nuked the market in an hour.
Yes exactly this.
The way this was done has screwed some players over and made others a fortune..... makes me want to not play this game tbh. |
Ice Ice1
Glorious Domination CFO Shadow of xXDEATHXx
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 07:38:42 -
[133] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:with moderate changes to the chance of escalations spawning from the most popular high-end anomalies.
This will affect drone horde anom. and 10/10? |
Beta Maoye
163
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 07:51:02 -
[134] - Quote
I suggest dev issuing a statement next week that after careful consideration, the pirate battleship change is not necessary and BPC will drop as usual. Collect salts from speculators. |
Blazemonger
Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group
6
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 08:01:59 -
[135] - Quote
So much for EVE being a player driven economy.. CCP makes changes, sees they do not have the desired effect (to them) later on and then nerfs things to fall in line with what they want to see..
What is going to happen is traders will start stockpiling ships, then rake in the profits when the prices soar .. It's your typical rich getting richer scheme and CCP is willingly providing it... |
lorddlo25
DAB Mordus Angels
1
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 08:03:00 -
[136] - Quote
ok so CCP can you please tell us all which ship's you would like us to use for PVP and PVE or we could all just go around in carriers as everything else is pretty much pointless in null sec space which is what will happen.
I mean back in the old days BS's was sweet in 0.0 you had ravens / mega's and scorpion fleets aswell as apoc's but thay had been made obsolete due to changes over time and the fact other ship's did it better not so much cheaper but better.
I don't mind changes as long as it brings back those type's of fleets how ever it wont as the cost is not a factor TBH it's about numbers now.
also with dwindling player base you see numbers active of like max 40k now how many of those are multi accounts as some players have 10+ mining chars.
I am a very old player that came back just before alpha and already I am thinking about jacking it in as no matter what we use or do as the player base it will get hit by the nerf hammer as that's what you CCP are forcing us to use not by our choice but due to it being the best at what the ship does for what we need it for.
|
Logan Jakal
Blue Sun. DARKNESS.
24
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 08:20:25 -
[137] - Quote
RushRushRush Aishai wrote:dont know how it leaked but it happened how could we stand this?!!
It's called CSM bud.
|
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
1376
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 08:24:36 -
[138] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:SurrenderMonkey wrote:Vash Bloodstone wrote:Something about this rubs me the wrong way.
I haven't played a lot recently, but why is this proliferation of pirate battleships considered a problem? Maybe someone can clarify for me? Sure. Quote:Are there too many gangs of pirate battleships roaming around? Gangs? Try mainline fleet doctrines. T1 and navy BS have been almost completely supplanted by pirate BS. Do you really not see why that's a problem? T1 BS are shite in comparison, which IS the problem. If there was a viable alternative for the Mach it wouldn't automatically be the go to. As for Navy versions, being LP based as soon as one sees more than average use the price goes up to match and demand will always outstrip supply. Napocs were a thing but got priced out of usefulness.. Making pirate ships cost more isn't going to "fix" any problems - Those who can afford them will still use them, those who can't or don't want to spend the extra will keep complaining - Devs will keep increasing costs and reducing supply until they once again become a rarely used niche class of ships. It's supposed to be the case that those who can afford/feel they're worth it use them. Those who don't will use something cheaper. That isn't a problem, especially when the general premise is linear power gains for exponential increases in cost. The problem is that, right now, the list of people who can afford them and feel they're worth it is... basically everyone, because the pricing, at present, offers linear power gains for linear increases in cost. So you would rather have it so those who can afford it will always win because the rest just can't hope to compete. I'm sorry but that is Fozzie logic which I am afraid is really bad for the game.
Game balance is about EVERYONE having the same opportunities in all aspects of the game as long as they put in the effort. What is happening is - Opportunity is being limited by Devs to those who can afford it, BAD game design...
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
1377
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 08:30:10 -
[139] - Quote
Jason Galente wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:
Making pirate ships cost more isn't going to "fix" any problems - Those who can afford them will still use them
Am I correct in saying that you think a massive price increase of 2-3x current prices is going to result in the number of people "who can afford them" remaining approximately the same? Because if that's indeed what you think, you're insane. And if that's not what you meant, then the change has meaning and you don't really have a point. Ok, the doctrine I fly is around 750 mil now including fit. Double the price of the hull it is still around a bil and will still perform its role better than any other battleship in the game, which is why it is used in the first place. Even at a bil for the hull (which is likely), some groups will still use them as long as supply is viable.
So, you tell me if i have a point or not. NB; we generally field 150 + Machs at a time, with no SRP for losses - EVERYONE in alliance has one or more in their hangers.
The only real alternative is capitals and with pirate battleships (Machs) being reduced to niche use, the largest capital groups will never be contested. How good will this be for Eve overall?
-- - -- - -- - -- When the cost to play a game becomes too high - People find other games. Right now CCP is headed toward the - It is costing too much zone.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
1377
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 09:02:27 -
[140] - Quote
Romvex wrote:seems to be alot of unintelligent posters in here who can't understand how important this change is. And at least one who posts an unintelligent reply with no reasoning or even thought put into it.
This change is nothing more than CCP trying to push prices up in the hope more people will buy Plex.
A triple increase to the cost pirate battleships is not needed. Less drops = higher cost Increased mineral use - higher cost Another nerf to nulsec mining = higher cost
3 increases to how much a pirate battleship will cost, in one fell swoop.
Fozzie; Changing any aspect of the game to suit only the rich is not good game balance..
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
|
Matthias Ancaladron
Wrath of Angels Solitaire.
340
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 09:09:51 -
[141] - Quote
This only hurts the little guy who won't be able to get a fun ship now. Nothings gonna stop huge corps from just farming stuff and producing Machs en masse.
Added together with the Plex increases and Its just making it harder for players to Plex. |
She11by
Big Boys Don't Cry Kids With Guns Alliance
11
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 10:06:30 -
[142] - Quote
Matthias Ancaladron wrote:This only hurts the little guy who won't be able to get a fun ship now. Nothings gonna stop huge corps from just farming stuff and producing Machs en masse.
Added together with the Plex increases and Its just making it harder for players to Plex.
Exactly will hurt newer players, and annoy veterans. |
Blazemonger
Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group
7
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 10:34:37 -
[143] - Quote
The current string of nerfs and 'balancing' is obviously mostly geared towards CCP's bottom line. Seeing the articles which have been posted in several financial publications recently it's reasonable to assume a drive to increase net worth to be able to ask a better price when (yes when, not if) the CCP buyout offer comes.
Going F2P did not have the desired effect, bottom end players as well as new players are mostly irrelevant as they do not generate the revenue expected. I can see an Alpha nerf coming, maybe not his year but it will come. Then the push to monetize through micro transactions will get kicked up a notch again..
By then Dual Universe will hopefully have matured enough. |
Cartheron Crust
Matari Exodus
213
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 11:18:06 -
[144] - Quote
Heh all this crying about BUT I JUST TRAINED/BOUGHT NOW WHY YOU NERF?!!1
One of the things I first learned/read about in EVE was don't FOTM chase. As it will get nerfed when you least want it too. Even more so now if you are going to go out and buy injectors to fly that FOTM stuff.
:AdaptOrDie:
[EDIT] - I for one will enjoy seeing less pirate BS as the norm. Even though it's going to take a while to churn through the, what I imagine, are massive stockpiles. |
Commander Spurty
1683
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 11:25:25 -
[145] - Quote
The content in Null is done by swafts of 'frigates' (Hello Pirate Citadel which drops trillions of isk), so lets cull Pirate Battleships ...
Please don't even bother until Pirate battleships are the 'bar' for entry to null or something. So many more things for you to buff (like the content / NPCs flying out of those pirate citadels) before we need to see Nerfs.
There are good ships,
And wood ships,
And ships that sail the sea
But the best ships are Spaceships
Built by CCP
|
Spurty
1683
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 11:25:25 -
[146] - Quote
The content in Null is done by swafts of 'frigates' (Hello Pirate Citadel which drops trillions of isk), so lets cull Pirate Battleships ...
Please don't even bother until Pirate battleships are the 'bar' for entry to null or something. So many more things for you to buff (like the content / NPCs flying out of those pirate citadels) before we need to see Nerfs.
There are good ships,
And wood ships,
And ships that sail the sea
But the best ships are Spaceships
Built by CCP
|
JC Mieyli
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
77
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 11:33:28 -
[147] - Quote
Cartheron Crust wrote:Heh all this crying about BUT I JUST TRAINED/BOUGHT NOW WHY YOU NERF?!!1 One of the things I first learned/read about in EVE was don't FOTM chase. As it will get nerfed when you least want it too. Even more so now if you are going to go out and buy injectors to fly that FOTM stuff. :AdaptOrDie: [EDIT] - I for one will enjoy seeing less pirate BS as the norm. Even though it's going to take a while to churn through the, what I imagine, are massive stockpiles. eh theyre not being nerfed theyre just putting more isk into rich player hands is all and nerfing mining so to increase the value further and now nerfing ratting so their isk becomes more valuable
this has nothing to do with game balance or health of the economy it comes down to 2 things 1 - get rich players even richer and screw the economy 2 - get everyone flying t3cs to make more $$$ from sp extractors |
Cartheron Crust
Matari Exodus
214
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 11:54:30 -
[148] - Quote
JC Mieyli wrote:Cartheron Crust wrote:Heh all this crying about BUT I JUST TRAINED/BOUGHT NOW WHY YOU NERF?!!1 One of the things I first learned/read about in EVE was don't FOTM chase. As it will get nerfed when you least want it too. Even more so now if you are going to go out and buy injectors to fly that FOTM stuff. :AdaptOrDie: [EDIT] - I for one will enjoy seeing less pirate BS as the norm. Even though it's going to take a while to churn through the, what I imagine, are massive stockpiles. eh theyre not being nerfed theyre just putting more isk into rich player hands is all and nerfing mining so to increase the value further and now nerfing ratting so their isk becomes more valuable this has nothing to do with game balance or health of the economy it comes down to 2 things 1 - get rich players even richer and screw the economy 2 - get everyone flying t3cs to make more $$$ from sp extractors
It's about time they started doing hats at the New Eden Store. How much was the Tin Foil one? |
JC Mieyli
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
77
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 12:02:54 -
[149] - Quote
wow that was a clever post dont overdo yourself okay |
Taliyah Riraille
Valkyrie - Wilherser Group
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 12:04:29 -
[150] - Quote
I for one welcome our new command ship overlords! |
|
Zoey Quickpoke
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 13:20:06 -
[151] - Quote
JC Mieyli wrote:Cartheron Crust wrote:Heh all this crying about BUT I JUST TRAINED/BOUGHT NOW WHY YOU NERF?!!1 One of the things I first learned/read about in EVE was don't FOTM chase. As it will get nerfed when you least want it too. Even more so now if you are going to go out and buy injectors to fly that FOTM stuff. :AdaptOrDie: [EDIT] - I for one will enjoy seeing less pirate BS as the norm. Even though it's going to take a while to churn through the, what I imagine, are massive stockpiles. eh theyre not being nerfed theyre just putting more isk into rich player hands is all and nerfing mining so to increase the value further and now nerfing ratting so their isk becomes more valuable this has nothing to do with game balance or health of the economy it comes down to 2 things 1 - get rich players even richer and screw the economy 2 - get everyone flying t3cs to make more $$$ from sp extractors
Maybe you haven't the t3 focus group but T3C's are on the operating table too! big changes are coming! |
JC Mieyli
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
78
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 13:58:01 -
[152] - Quote
yeah but removal of sp loss isnt one of them lol |
Jehle
Cruisers Crew Badfellas Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 15:03:06 -
[153] - Quote
This is ********. Why mess with the "player run" economy at all? |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
3167
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 15:43:05 -
[154] - Quote
Jehle wrote:This is ********. Why mess with the "player run" economy at all?
Because it's actually a simulated economy and, unlike a real economy, there's an effectively limitless influx of new resources instead of a finite amount of material in the universe and, consequently, the flow rate of this influx periodically requires management.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Amarth X
Homicidal Suicidal IT'S ONLY PIXELS
16
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 15:49:01 -
[155] - Quote
Did you consider that pirate battleships might be cheap simply because battleships in general are? Which in turn can be explained by their weakness in large scale fleet fights.
Most alliances have been favouring HAC and T3 doctrines for many years, simply because they are that much better. They have far smaller sig, they apply damage better, they are faster on grid and in warp.
While the advantages of BS are very few. They do not provide a lot of extra EHP and the extra they get does not make up for the significantly larger sig radius. They do more damage but apply it worse. The only real benefit of BS are that utility slots are much easier to fit, plus the ability to use a few oddball BS-only modules.
This is the root of the problem. Pirate/faction battleships are about the only BS that make sense to use for doctrines, since they overall have larger bonuses than t1. So maybe fix the root of the problem: make BS useful in fleet pvp.
Their main weaknesses are sig radius and warp speed. They are supposed to be big and slow so that's fine. But maybe compensate this by actually giving them higher damage and better tank than cruisers? Right now BS are pretty low on the food chain, having to fear anything from stealth bombers, to sig tanking T3, to blap dreads.
---
In addition, I don't believe there is such a big relation between the amount of BPCs dropped and the ships on market. Likely, industrialists aim to get BPCs for ships that give the greatest profit. Supply and demand dictates that the ships that are used the most will get built the most.
The by far best BS for large scale fleet fights is the Machariel, which is also likely the reason why it is currently expensive compared to the other pirate BS. While the Bhaalgorn is cheapest by far, since it is useless for anything but small gang pvp.
---
Overall, I wish CCP could focus their endless re-balancing projects on things that are fundamentally broken, rather than on things that presently work somewhat well. Instead of tinkering with pirate BS and T3, why not focus on fixing completely broken things such as the bumping mechanics, the cloak mechanics and the nullsec sov system.
|
Jonathon Rodriguez
SUNDER. Clouds Of War
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 16:57:44 -
[156] - Quote
JC Mieyli wrote:increase material cost and lower bpc means less availability for pirate bs this means all the industrialists get to build pirate bs early and stockpile screws over the young industiralist again
how about for once instead of increasing cost to benefit veteran industrialist try lowering the cost of everything else to help the young industrialist and screw the rich fatcat players would be niceto see this happen for a change
THIS is the truth. |
Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
384
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 17:07:22 -
[157] - Quote
Jonathon Rodriguez wrote:JC Mieyli wrote:increase material cost and lower bpc means less availability for pirate bs this means all the industrialists get to build pirate bs early and stockpile screws over the young industiralist again
how about for once instead of increasing cost to benefit veteran industrialist try lowering the cost of everything else to help the young industrialist and screw the rich fatcat players would be niceto see this happen for a change THIS is the truth.
hmmm, the truth.......???
I am one of those rich fatcat vet indy guys that builds everything else......please do on reducing the costs. |
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
127
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 17:11:13 -
[158] - Quote
in regards to all of this ^^^
Escalation nerf for anomalies would be an ok idea, but apply it across the board not just to top grade anomalies.
Faction BPC droprate: can't say I run nullsec sites so best I could offer there is to not theorycraft on what i don't know. an alternative suggestion would be allow limited numbers of faction newb ship bpc's to drop.
Build cost changes: I don't agree with special materials requirements unless the material droprates are also increased to compensate for the increased load, instead normalizing them to require similar materials to their T1 counterparts (for all not just BS) would be in line.
Rebalance: it's not the faction BS's that need a balance pass, it's the T1's. Fitting is tighter and they can't compete well.
As for fleet doctrine usage..... as long as there is a supply, there will be usage. |
JC Mieyli
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
84
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 17:26:40 -
[159] - Quote
Max Deveron wrote:Jonathon Rodriguez wrote:JC Mieyli wrote:increase material cost and lower bpc means less availability for pirate bs this means all the industrialists get to build pirate bs early and stockpile screws over the young industiralist again
how about for once instead of increasing cost to benefit veteran industrialist try lowering the cost of everything else to help the young industrialist and screw the rich fatcat players would be niceto see this happen for a change THIS is the truth. hmmm, the truth.......??? I am one of those rich fatcat vet indy guys that builds everything else......please do on reducing the costs. glad you agree those markets should become more accessible i find your selfless disregard for your own source of income quite commendable
|
Mina Sebiestar
Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
1209
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 18:06:26 -
[160] - Quote
this is not nerf to pirate ships this is padding certain ppl wallets in game
faction ship need to be looked up TFI especially it should get range bonus like mach or vargur to be stepping stone to those ships without tank like varg or warp speed and general mobility like mach it wont step on them but will be at least viable to do dmg where those ship can project.
Insted being saddest of tempest hulls faction battleship even with lowest dmg output among all minmatar battleship while having dual friking dmg bonus.
I like my X-Type stuff but that shiet need to have price tag on it(as in rare) and not be traded for pocket change.
You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear
Because >>I is too hard
|
|
Gallente Citizen 92008988
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 18:47:59 -
[161] - Quote
IMO
Should start with changing the building materials amounts first. It only makes sense, but CCP has a history of doing the wrong things for the benefit of the few.
Loving the free to play aspect of the game
|
Kay Bold
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 18:59:16 -
[162] - Quote
Once again ccp pandering to Null cry babies and screwing everybody over. Pirate ships unbalanced? as if they had T3C resists... nope.
And thanks for releasing this info before the changes, all we wanted was for more market manipulation to happen. Couse u'know plex reaching 1,5Bi is totally fine.
"Balance". This will just ****-block the poorest and small groups. I don't see any of eve's empires struggling to pay 1Bi in a ship hull to build a fleet. And it only benefits the same empires that hold the territories in order to farm the bloody BPs
T1 and faction Battleships suck, how about some buffs on them??? |
Pegs Thiesant
The Draconis Combine Deus Vult.
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 19:08:53 -
[163] - Quote
JC Mieyli wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:JC Mieyli wrote:increase material cost and lower bpc means less availability for pirate bs this means all the industrialists get to build pirate bs early and stockpile screws over the young industiralist again
how about for once instead of increasing cost to benefit veteran industrialist try lowering the cost of everything else to help the young industrialist and screw the rich fatcat players would be niceto see this happen for a change "Instead of rebalancing one part of the game that's out of alignment, please change literally everything else about the EVE economy." yup is that a problem and tbh its not the one part of the game thats out of alignment the whole economy is out of alignment because of players taking advantage of mineral cost increases and thats what is going to happen here too
Hmmmm how about this: Eve is a true reflection of real life, it is as corrupt, full of spongers, con artists, and people just trying to screw you out of your isk, either through scams or multifaceted corps making the price fixing. (can't wait to hear the responses)
But also as in real life there are some honest, reliable and trustworthy people in this game. You either except that or you dont, we all have a choice. |
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
3169
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 19:12:07 -
[164] - Quote
Kay Bold wrote:Once again ccp pandering to Null cry babies
Really, you think this is at the request of null pilots?
The ones fielding machs as mainline doctrines?
Really?
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Maya Sakamoto
morti invictus dominus Evil.Tech
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.09 19:46:48 -
[165] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Kay Bold wrote:Once again ccp pandering to Null cry babies Really, you think this is at the request of null pilots? The ones fielding machs as mainline doctrines? Really?
What he/she's getting at is the this won't (necessarily) affect the pockets of those able to hang in null, but will definitely hurt new players/small corps and alliances. No need to deflect the point.
If anything, it's an attempt by CCP to drive plex sales up by "poorer" indy/pvp players to be able to stay in the current doctrines/metas to otherwise be competitive as well as being able to afford the cost increases. Meanwhile the veteran indy players will enjoy their added income along the way once this happens.
As suggested before, CCP could have ninja-nerfed the drop rates for the BPCs and be done with it. The price increases won't really raise so much until the current stockpiles of those BPCs start running dry, but you can bet some will jump on trying to make them raise before it's "necessary". |
O2 jayjay
Usque Ad Mortem Solyaris Chtonium
62
|
Posted - 2017.06.10 02:56:16 -
[166] - Quote
This is a great change. Thank you CCP! We can get back to where large fights were T1 battleships. game was great and only the elite brought out faction battleships. Buff battleships and HAC and take away extreme buffer T3 crusiers and we will have a pretty nice balanced game. |
O2 jayjay
Usque Ad Mortem Solyaris Chtonium
62
|
Posted - 2017.06.10 03:22:47 -
[167] - Quote
NightmareX wrote:SurrenderMonkey wrote:Really? It would be bad to let them be super expensive (if we're really calling a billion super-expensive )? Objectively bad, or just bad for you? Maybe poors should use something else for their "main" battleships? Yes, going over a billion isk for a Pirate Battleship is expensive. I had a Vindicator some years ago that did cost 1.3 bill isk which was really expensive. It would be bad for alot of us and not just me, even though alot of us isn't poor.
I had vindicators that were 1.3 bil per hull also. If they go back to 1.3 bil its no where near as expensive Like they were back then. First, there were no escalations from anoms. Second, after down time is when the russians and euros would fight for the 10/10. As you had to scan them down and they didnt respawn until downtime. So, if you wernt on after downtime, no 10/10's for you. Lastly, plex was 450mil. So a vindicator was almsot $60 compared to $20 if they were to reach 1.3bil today. I dont feel any pity because thats how I learned. I had to pay every month and wait for my skill que. Today yall can just kill inject if you want to fly something. Yall are spoiled but dont worry, This will make you stronger! |
Sethyrh Nakrar
203
|
Posted - 2017.06.10 03:49:03 -
[168] - Quote
The problem with BS in general right now is, their ballance is a mess. Some are too expensive for what they can do(Scorpion Navy), some are realy specialized(Rokh), some where way too cheap(Machariel, Bhaalgorn) and some are now hillarious expensive(Barghest). And then the ones, who are very strange(Typhoon). Just increasing the ammount of minerals to build pirate-BS and lower the drops of their BPCs fixes nothing. It just messes everything more up. The navy-BS are in need of a re-work. Some of the T1 even more.
Praise the Omnissiah!
|
Karmen Baric
State War Academy Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2017.06.10 04:47:09 -
[169] - Quote
People play this game to have lots of ships they can fly around and nerfing the ability to afford those ships means some players will simply leave the game.
Bad move. |
JC Mieyli
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
87
|
Posted - 2017.06.10 05:56:58 -
[170] - Quote
Sethyrh Nakrar wrote:The problem with BS in general right now is, their ballance is a mess. Some are too expensive for what they can do(Scorpion Navy), some are realy specialized(Rokh), some where way too cheap(Machariel, Bhaalgorn) and some are now hillarious expensive(Barghest). And then the ones, who are very strange(Typhoon). Just increasing the ammount of minerals to build pirate-BS and lower the drops of their BPCs fixes nothing. It just messes everything more up. The navy-BS are in need of a re-work. Some of the T1 even more. like i said earlier it seems to me like the only bses in the right place are the pirate bses id like to see all non-t2 bses rebalanced to be on same power levels as pirate bses just give the pirate hulls a special pirate feature similar to mach warp speed or something and then navy hulls can have a unique feature maybe you cant lose sec status and standings and t1 are just as powerful just without the bonus features of the faction hulls i think this will bring bses back into the meta for all players for all reasons people might say they will be too powerful and kill small gang and small ship meta but pirate bses already do that in their current state and who cares small ships have had their fun killing larger metas for long enough imo |
|
Kenrailae
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
771
|
Posted - 2017.06.10 10:47:41 -
[171] - Quote
Karmen Baric wrote:People play this game to have lots of ships they can fly around and nerfing the ability to afford those ships means some players will simply leave the game.
Bad move.
Eve isn't for everyone. Also bad is having ships which should require more investment, more 'risk for reward' be negligible on the 'risk' side, for a much larger reward.
The Law is a point of View
The NPE IS a big deal
|
NextDarkKnight
Mental Disorders Inc. Guardians of the Asylum
59
|
Posted - 2017.06.10 11:44:29 -
[172] - Quote
So by changing the minerals does that make them somewhat insurable? |
Ama Zing
Black Scorpions Inc Circle-Of-Two
22
|
Posted - 2017.06.10 12:49:38 -
[173] - Quote
Hey Fozzie,
as this game is announced sandbox by CCP, what is your understanding of a sandbox?
As soon as there are market tendencies detected by you, you influence the market with the argument, that the market is manipulated by large entities! You shouldn't do that in a sandbox!
The more you do to "shield" the market, the more flexible the community responds. Do you really think, that an entitiy like the goons mine less with that rorqal **** over? Nope, because they can!
If you really think to nerf the Pirate BPC drops is going to influence, what ships are in future fleets, you are wrong again. The playerbase will adapt as always.
Stop being a sandbox lawyer and let the game develop itself without being directed. I know that you put a **** ton of work into this game and you have my respect for that. But influencing the game like you did with those last two patches, makes large entities even stronger and the smaller entities are not able to compete anymore.
If you want content, let the playerbase create it. If the vets stop playing, you can't do any "reverse engineering" to make them play again. Believe me!
cheers Ama Zing
|
Mhari Dson
Lazy Brothers Inc
127
|
Posted - 2017.06.10 14:46:50 -
[174] - Quote
NextDarkKnight wrote:So by changing the minerals does that make them somewhat insurable?
Depends on how much they get changed. |
Elithiel en Gravonere
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
10
|
Posted - 2017.06.10 16:13:58 -
[175] - Quote
I personally am very happy about the changes. For too long, the price of Rattlesnakes and other pirate battleships was far too low. Suppliers like me got out of that market because, Jita Traders were playing silly buggers with the market and what should be a very expensive ship was going for a price point below what it actually costs to collect the BPC alone...
Now hopefully this puts BPC suppliers like myself back in the market. I'd also like to see more use of T1 battleships instead of everything being pirate ones and this helps do that. |
tasman devil
Puritans We want your ISK
86
|
Posted - 2017.06.10 17:06:54 -
[176] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: something something... Obviously the price isn't the only balance concern about a ship group as prominent and diverse as pirate battleships, and other factors such as the strength of Upwell structure energy neutralization weapons contribute to the dominance of the Machariel in particular. However after giving this situation some thought internally and engaging in plenty of community discussion through venues such as Fanfest and the CSM, we agree that price should be the target of the first set of changes.
whatever whatever
If you have problem with Machs then why not address that in the first place?!? Like Finally getting to the point of Projectile weapons actually needing capacitor to fire?!?!
(while you are at it, the same could be said for the missile launchers too)
I don't belive in reincarnation
I've never believed in it in my previous lives either...
|
Cartheron Crust
Matari Exodus
217
|
Posted - 2017.06.10 18:31:51 -
[177] - Quote
tasman devil wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: something something... Obviously the price isn't the only balance concern about a ship group as prominent and diverse as pirate battleships, and other factors such as the strength of Upwell structure energy neutralization weapons contribute to the dominance of the Machariel in particular. However after giving this situation some thought internally and engaging in plenty of community discussion through venues such as Fanfest and the CSM, we agree that price should be the target of the first set of changes.
whatever whatever If you have problem with Machs then why not address that in the first place?!? Like Finally getting to the point of Projectile weapons actually needing capacitor to fire?!?! (while you are at it, the same could be said for the missile launchers too)
WTF? No just no.
|
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
321
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 01:39:12 -
[178] - Quote
Can you please also intervene in PLEX prices ? as they're too high so please lower them.
|
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
321
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 02:16:03 -
[179] - Quote
Ama Zing wrote:As soon as there are market tendencies detected by you, you influence the market with the argument, that the market is manipulated by large entities! You shouldn't do that in a sandbox! Exactly, players set the prices for all the items in game, ccp should not intervene.
If pirate battleships are too cheap, why is PLEX expenssive ? Maybe ccp should intervene in PLEX prices so we get cheaper plex too.
|
Shinji Katsuragi
Y.G.G.D.R.A.S.I.L. Branch
8
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 02:52:28 -
[180] - Quote
If you want people to use other ships-MAKE THEM WORTH USING AND COST EFFECTIVE. Buff t1,t2, t3 ships |
|
Kenrailae
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
774
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 03:35:35 -
[181] - Quote
Shinji Katsuragi wrote:If you want people to use other ships-MAKE THEM WORTH USING AND COST EFFECTIVE. Buff t1,t2, t3 ships
It's not a matter of buffing other ships.... it is a matter of putting the ships that have fallen out of balance back where they go, in this case mostly the pirate BS. Normal BS are 'supposed(loosely snowballing for market variance)' to sit around 200m give/take. Faction BS are supposed to sit around 500m, and pirate BS are supposed to sit around a bil, again, all of that being contingent on the specific swaying of the market. The problem is that the ships that were supposed to cost more but be better have mostly fallen way out of their target price range because of other changes that have made them much much much easier to acquire. When all of those are at/near their target price, then there are much more clear choices in the risk/reward scales.
Yeah, I could use a megathron. It's not quite as good as a Navy Thron, but still not bad and half the price. Gets the job done, a bit slower, but yeah, and if I die, it's not a huge ding on my wallet.
Or I could use the navy thron, a bit more expensive, but better stats and fitting, so I can get things done more quickly or survive longer. But, if I die, it's gonna hurt a bit more.
Or I have the Vindi. Great bonuses, will do this thing very well compared to the other two, buuuutttt..... it's pretty expensive..... I probably need to be really careful with it, cause if I lose it... yeah, it's gonna sting.
Then I have the Kronos.... whole 'nother can of worms.
That part of the risk/reward tree has completely evaporated, because up until a couple days ago, it was 'yeah vindi is 100m more and so much better. Buy Vindi.' If you just buff the other ships and leave the price trees how they are, there is still not going ot be any reason to really use 2 of the 3 ships, because 1 is going to be objectively better and cost about the same. By fixing the problems that have led to the collapse of the target price, you restore the value of 'worth using and cost effective.'
The Law is a point of View
The NPE IS a big deal
|
JC Mieyli
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
93
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 04:56:38 -
[182] - Quote
disgree none of the other bses are worth using except maybe hype buffing pirate bs prices doesnt suddenly make other bses worth using or taking into fights we just see even less bses in fights than we do currently of course ccp only cares about csm fleet doctrine experience
|
Gustav Gomez
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 05:54:25 -
[183] - Quote
I worry that your balance team has really come off the rails. You're making changes on two fronts - the mineral costs (prices will increase from rorq nerfs) and bpc costs (reduced drops). You have no idea how effective either of these moves is going to be, you're just reacting like it's an emergency when this trend has been an obvious problem for more than 6 months....
It's time for a timeout. Huddle up with the team, reassess where you are right now. Prioritize what players actually care about and what is actually going to have a detrimental effect on the game in the near term. Change your roadmap and fix this, you probably still have time before we just log out. gl, really. |
Alexander Draegar
Nocturnal Tumescence Fidelas Constans
11
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 21:41:58 -
[184] - Quote
So, what'll happen in situations where individual players cannot obtain a BPC at a reasonable cost in terms of ISK or effort?
The reason that large alliances are able to easily get a hold of these things is because they are just that: large alliances with lots of players, who are able to simply warp in, destroy everything in a single pass, collect every scrap of good loot, then warp to the next similar site. This is much the reason why BPC costs are as low as they are. Wealth tends to beget more wealth, and these guys have a LOT of resources (players, ships, and ISK) to work with from the start.
For individual players though, it's a much different story. We have to work our tails off to get a single copy of a pirate battleship print, and even then it's sometimes too expensive to build for us, and/or we don't have the skills or materials to make use of our hard-won prizes. Even then, when we're all done we've got ONE pirate battleship that we've put together ourselves. Or, we've got ONE that we've worked hard earning enough ISK to buy on our own.
What'll happen with both groups (and those in between) during an economic re-balance of these hulls and their cost to drop & build?
"To kick ass harder, swing foot faster. To kick more ass, keep swinging foot!"
~Alexander Draegar
|
Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
386
|
Posted - 2017.06.11 22:01:53 -
[185] - Quote
Alexander Draegar wrote:So, what'll happen in situations where individual players cannot obtain a BPC at a reasonable cost in terms of ISK or effort?
The reason that large alliances are able to easily get a hold of these things is because they are just that: large alliances with lots of players, who are able to simply warp in, destroy everything in a single pass, collect every scrap of good loot, then warp to the next similar site. This is much the reason why BPC costs are as low as they are. Wealth tends to beget more wealth, and these guys have a LOT of resources (players, ships, and ISK) to work with from the start.
For individual players though, it's a much different story. We have to work our tails off to get a single copy of a pirate battleship print, and even then it's sometimes too expensive to build for us, and/or we don't have the skills or materials to make use of our hard-won prizes. Even then, when we're all done we've got ONE pirate battleship that we've put together ourselves. Or, we've got ONE that we've worked hard earning enough ISK to buy on our own.
What'll happen with both groups (and those in between) during an economic re-balance of these hulls and their cost to drop & build?
1.) are you not in F-Con? is that not a null group like your talking about there?
2.) If people want a level playing field( I am sure they do not) then they should agree to push towards regulating all Faction prints of this nature to the Loyalty Point stores and stop having them as drops. |
Thayer Anzomi
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 00:02:01 -
[186] - Quote
This change is going to make me have to sit down and think if I really want to work that hard to play a game.
It's unfortunate that the development team thinks the game needs to head in this direction, and I think it's going to lead to many players being unwilling to risk a ship to engage in PvP. It's hard enough as it is to get started in this game and work your way into better ships.
Now you're talking about making it twice as hard (going by the market prices I saw today.)
That doesn't even sound fun.
|
Kenrailae
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
775
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 05:00:43 -
[187] - Quote
JC Mieyli wrote:disgree none of the other bses are worth using except maybe hype buffing pirate bs prices doesnt suddenly make other bses worth using or taking into fights we just see even less bses in fights than we do currently of course ccp only cares about csm fleet doctrine experience
Fortunately you're agreeing or disagreeing is utterly irrelevant, as history has strongly indicated you are fabulously wrong. In fact, current events in Eve also do. Maelstroms vs Machariels. Maelstroms are cheap, do the job, easy to replace. Machs are better than maelstroms, but they are more expensive as well. The advent of mach's being used as main null doctrines is fairly new in Eve's history, as they became cheaper and more available. Before that, it was very heavily weighted toward maelstroms, rokhs, and megathrons, with machs being more small gang, PVE, or 'quality over quantity' pvp groups. Up until this recent price hike, if you're not trying to put a bunch of new players in alpha platforms, there is no real reason to use a maelstrom over a mach because a mach does everything, better.
Fixing the target price problem absolutely fixes the worth using problem. It raises the bar at which pirate bs are worth using/risking, allowing for the other BS to have a bar at all, as until this, they by and large do not because pirate bs are so cheap.
You're also trying to compare apples to oranges in that you're talking about BS vs everything else(when we know T3C's are stupid broken and CCP is only now JUST getting to them), as opposed to talking about battleship usage compared to pirate BS usage.
The Law is a point of View
The NPE IS a big deal
|
JC Mieyli
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
100
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 05:27:23 -
[188] - Quote
if you think comparing ships in the meta is like comparing apples and oranges it shows how clueless you are if you think one meta doesnt affect another and the only way you can make a point is by going on about the garbage fleet doctrines for fights that dont happen anymore and are boring as hell countering my point that ccp only cares about garbage fleet doctrine by using fleet doctrine as an argument sigh
also id like to see what you think im fabulously wrong about |
Blazemonger
Omni Galactic Central Omni Galactic Group
8
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 09:23:08 -
[189] - Quote
Flying a BS only to have it crippled into a brick in space by a single ECM boat sitting 100KM out is what one of the biggest problems right now revolves around.
CCP won't have he balls to nerf ECM though.. |
Kenrailae
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
776
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 10:41:24 -
[190] - Quote
JC Mieyli wrote:if you think comparing ships in the meta is like comparing apples and oranges it shows how clueless you are if you think one meta doesnt affect another and the only way you can make a point is by going on about the garbage fleet doctrines for fights that dont happen anymore and are boring as hell countering my point that ccp only cares about garbage fleet doctrine by using fleet doctrine as an argument sigh
also id like to see what you think im fabulously wrong about
Congratulations, you've ticked all the boxes on the 'I'm just opinionated with no experience to back me up' bingo board. I would suggest opening Zkill and taking a look at anything, really. Also.... isn't the current rage of rorquals and ratting carriers exactly opposite of fleet PVP doctrines? And the launching of the Reprocessing facilities soon *TM and Hyasyoda/Thukker service modules? And even the BR Sotiyo? Negating your claim that CCP only cares about fleet doctrines?
Another also... yeah, only an idiot would say that meta's don't affect each other, but it also takes someone nearly as gifted to suggest that comparing broken meta's to broken meta's, then using those comparisons to make overarching generalizations about balances within a single meta gives a usable outcome. If you go back and re-read just a bit... you'll see the thread is about battleships to battleships.... not battleships to everything else, broken or not.
No doubt there are issues that battleships as a class need resolved, but they are not, as you have put it, not used because they are all bad and fights don't happen anymore. Within the past 2-3 days, a couple(at least) mid sized fights have taken place using machs and maelstroms.... Eve doesn't balance ships so that a single bad in a battleship can YOLO around and kill all the bads cause he's Uber, Eve balances ships to have strengths and weaknesses, and more importantly, limits. Yes, we're in a slower period right now, but if war breaks out tomorrow you can bet machs, maelstroms, and torphoons will be back in style. One of battleships largest problems should be resolved if CCP properly nerfs T3's back into place.. But this thread is not about how battleships compare to broken things like T3's or ECM(which isn't just broken for battleships, it will equally break anything if you are silly enough to get caught on your own with ECM on the field)... it's about how Pirate BS are out of balance with all other BS, making all other BS not really even a thing worth bothering with, with a few notable exceptions. If you'd like to discuss the matter at hand... please do. If you're just gonna complain about how slighted you feel that you'll have to pay what a machariel is actually supposed to be worth and how unfair it is that it doesn't WTFPWN everything.... go to reddit.
Do I expect you to take in anything being said? No, your fingers are in your ears and you're screaming 'I'm right you're wrong!' at the top of your lungs. Instead I'd just ask you to sit quietly. We get it, you're mad you will have to pay what a Pirate BS should actually be worth. If that's too much to ask, then contract me your stuff brah.
The Law is a point of View
The NPE IS a big deal
|
|
CowQueen MMXII
545
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 11:10:18 -
[191] - Quote
Alexander Draegar wrote: The reason that large alliances are able to easily get a hold of these things is because they are just that: large alliances with lots of players, who are able to simply warp in, destroy everything in a single pass, collect every scrap of good loot, then warp to the next similar site. ?
What now? Sites are done by individual players and the escalations which result from that and may drop the BPCs as well. The wealth/power/whatever of an alliance has nothing to do with it beyond the fact that the are providing the relatively safe space to do so.
Alexander Draegar wrote: For individual players though, it's a much different story. We have to work our tails off to get a single copy of a pirate battleship print, and even then it's sometimes too expensive to build for us, and/or we don't have the skills or materials to make use of our hard-won prizes.
You do realize that building a Pirate BS from a BPC requires almost no skills (industry 1) and only standard minerals? The build cost is currently also similar to standard tech 1 BS.
Moo! Uddersucker, moo!
|
JC Mieyli
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
102
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 11:14:00 -
[192] - Quote
Kenrailae wrote:One of battleships largest problems should be resolved if CCP properly nerfs T3's back into place derp hypocrite
Quote:it's about how Pirate BS are out of balance with all other BS, making all other BS not really even a thing worth bothering with, with a few notable exceptions derp thats exactly what i saidf
Quote:If you'd like to discuss the matter at hand... please do. If you're just gonna complain about how slighted you feel that you'll have to pay what a machariel is actually supposed to be worth and how unfair it is that it doesn't WTFPWN everything.... go to reddit. derp never said that
Quote:Do I expect you to take in anything being said? No, your fingers are in your ears and you're screaming 'I'm right you're wrong!' at the top of your lungs. Instead I'd just ask you to sit quietly. We get it, you're mad you will have to pay what a Pirate BS should actually be worth. If that's too much to ask, then contract me your stuff brah. derp hypocrite
yup thanks for wasting my time by contradicting your own arguments using my own points against me and then making stuff up that i never even said
all this because youre jealous im a younger player than you and you feel the need to assert your superiority as an older player except everything you just said is garbage and you just come off as a condescending jerk bye |
O2 jayjay
Usque Ad Mortem Solyaris Chtonium
63
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 12:10:11 -
[193] - Quote
tasman devil wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: something something... Obviously the price isn't the only balance concern about a ship group as prominent and diverse as pirate battleships, and other factors such as the strength of Upwell structure energy neutralization weapons contribute to the dominance of the Machariel in particular. However after giving this situation some thought internally and engaging in plenty of community discussion through venues such as Fanfest and the CSM, we agree that price should be the target of the first set of changes.
whatever whatever If you have problem with Machs then why not address that in the first place?!? Like Finally getting to the point of Projectile weapons actually needing capacitor to fire?!?! (while you are at it, the same could be said for the missile launchers too)
I don't need "capacitor" to shoot my M16. |
Kenrailae
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
776
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 13:35:50 -
[194] - Quote
JC Mieyli wrote: all this because youre jealous im a younger player than you and you feel the need to assert your superiority as an older player except everything you just said is garbage (okay il;l give you maelstrom is somewhat decent along with hype wow 1 bs wd) and you just come off as a condescending jerk bye
I don't need to assert anything. Your back and forth all over the spectrum ruins whatever credence you may have had. You go from 'No one uses battleships, lel, clueless, garbage fleet doctrines, lel, ccp only cares about pvp' to 'oh crap I'm wrong and don't know what I'm talking about' to 'but all the metas affect each other so problems BS face as a whole must be pinned on the changes being made within the battleships themselves' to 'noo no no no no, what what I actually said is hat battleships aren't worth using because machariel, not because other metas' to 'Oh I better stick my fingers in my ears and yell, and lel and bad trolling even harder, while picking single line responses to my earlier posts out and hanging on them like a lifeline cause I don't have anything else to say.'
Being an older player doesn't make anyone anything. Some of the worst players I've met in this game were older players who knew everything about everything. There is a great deal about this game I don't know much of anything about. You should see my first carrier loss. Comical. I didn't know. Rorqual mining and carrier ratting for another. But, f you're going to call my perspective garbage, then back it up with actual substance. Or sit quietly and derp to yourself in your corner. As it stands, you've not provided a single statement that lends any credence to you being anything other than a really really really really bad at trying to troll. But please, go on, tell me I'm jealous, if you feel the need to stroke yourself. It's fine. I've been called far worse. Frankly I'm having more fun than anything else at this point. Starting to wonder if you're not actually Reaver Glitterstem, though in his defense, he would write pages and pages of response.... even if it was all way out there.
Quote:disgree none of the other bses are worth using except maybe hype buffing pirate bs prices doesnt suddenly make other bses worth using
Translation: The other BS aren't worth using, and changing the Pirate prices doesn't change that.
Actuality: It does. Explained a few posts ago. Fabulously wrong, you are..
The Law is a point of View
The NPE IS a big deal
|
JC Mieyli
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
103
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 14:01:25 -
[195] - Quote
wow you are just making stuff up to make yourself feel better literally putting words in my mouth if you paid attention to any of my posts you would see my points have been 1. complaints about how mineral changes will benefit veteran players and 2. buffing all bses to have pirate power levels to make them all viable with faction hulls having superior fittings or more specialised role in the case of pirate bs
these have been my 2 points throughout the entire thread everything else you have said is stuff youve made up yourself just because you came at me weilding a hammer now realise how dumb you like by lying about stuff ive said and stubbornly keep arguing instead of just saying sorry i overreacted |
Kenrailae
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
776
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 20:22:50 -
[196] - Quote
JC Mieyli wrote:wow you are just making stuff up to make yourself feel better literally putting words in my mouth if you paid attention to any of my posts you would see my points have been 1. complaints about how mineral changes will benefit veteran players and 2. buffing all bses to have pirate power levels to make them all viable with faction hulls having superior fittings or more specialised role in the case of pirate bs
these have been my 2 points throughout the entire thread everything else you have said is stuff youve made up yourself just because you came at me weilding a hammer now realise how dumb you look by lying about stuff ive said and stubbornly keep arguing instead of just saying sorry i overreacted
Kinda hard to get any substance out of any of your posts when they are all literally badposting. Now that you've actually provided something concrete:
1) Get over it or unsub. Of course making them more expensive will make them more exclusive. That is literally the problem that needs fixing, that they are too numerous and easy to get. More exclusive and a harder goal to attain is what they are designed to be, not a hot rod in everyone's garage.
2) Can you say 'Let's just power creep all the things!'? Cause that's what buffing everything is called. Pirate and Faction ships/mods are supposed to objectively be better than T1.
Go ahead and keep accusing me of making stuff up. Your stance is objectively wrong on a fundamental level, based on your opinion, not game design or a working knowledge of about how things are intended to be balanced. I do accept your apology for overreacting though.
HINT: ^ that last bit there was taking what you've said and making stuff up. Everything else has been responding directly to what you've said and the only intelligible implication I can get out of it.
The Law is a point of View
The NPE IS a big deal
|
JC Mieyli
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
106
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 20:44:14 -
[197] - Quote
dude just give up already im not talking about exclusivity im talking about veteran players taking advantage of incresed material costs to hog the market and how is it power creep when the ships only reach the same levels of power as currently exisitng ships (even though i already said the same relationship between t1 and faction should be maintained ie better fittings and base stats) and i never apologised you already know that though youre just trying to get a final dig in because you know youre wrong about everything you said about me and every assumption you made about me |
Kenrailae
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
776
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 23:01:11 -
[198] - Quote
JC Mieyli wrote:dude just give up already im not talking about exclusivity im talking about veteran players taking advantage of incresed material costs to hog the market and how is it power creep when the ships only reach the same levels of power as currently exisitng ships (even though i already said the same relationship between t1 and faction should be maintained ie better fittings and base stats) and i never apologised you already know that though youre just trying to get a final dig in because you know youre wrong about everything you said about me and every assumption you made about me
You should inject reading comprehension 1.
Quote:I do accept your apology for overreacting though.
HINT: ^ that last bit there was taking what you've said and making stuff up.
That bit there? Yeah. Good game though. Was fun while it lasted. You said 'ok bye' 3 posts ago, but you're still going. When are you going to deliver on that? Or are you still trying to prove you're not completely ignorant?
Concrete proof you are:
Quote:2. buffing all bses to have pirate power levels to make them all viable with faction hulls having superior fittings or more specialised role in the case of pirate bs
Quote:(even though i already said the same relationship between t1 and faction should be maintained ie better fittings and base stats)
Quote:and how is it power creep when the ships only reach the same levels of power as currently exisitng ships
Because you're suggestion to just make them the same power levels as pirate BS, but then make the faction and pirate ones better, doesn't work like that. One is going to be better than the other. You either keep their power levels relative to where they are and rebalance within that, which is what this change is doing... or you make them all stronger, which is what you're suggesting. PS: Making T1's pirate level strength then distinguishing the faction and pirate with extra stuff is increasing all their power level.
Also hint: Of course veteran players are going to have an easier time. As it should be. Every single game in existence, veteran players have an advantage, be it in experience, equipment, skills, whatever. Having goals to work for and things that require time, isk and experience is a good thing for a game. Get over it. You don't get to walk in and on day one fly a VNI, on day two, fly a Vindicator, and on day 3 be in a super carrier, unless you're going to inject some serious skills, which you could do. But a veteran player will still have an advantage in experience, resources, and contacts. Duh?
So about that 'Ok, bye' comment you made a few posts back?
The Law is a point of View
The NPE IS a big deal
|
Alexander Draegar
Nocturnal Tumescence Fidelas Constans
12
|
Posted - 2017.06.12 23:22:02 -
[199] - Quote
Max Deveron wrote:Alexander Draegar wrote:So, what'll happen in situations where individual players cannot obtain a BPC at a reasonable cost in terms of ISK or effort?
The reason that large alliances are able to easily get a hold of these things is because they are just that: large alliances with lots of players, who are able to simply warp in, destroy everything in a single pass, collect every scrap of good loot, then warp to the next similar site. This is much the reason why BPC costs are as low as they are. Wealth tends to beget more wealth, and these guys have a LOT of resources (players, ships, and ISK) to work with from the start.
For individual players though, it's a much different story. We have to work our tails off to get a single copy of a pirate battleship print, and even then it's sometimes too expensive to build for us, and/or we don't have the skills or materials to make use of our hard-won prizes. Even then, when we're all done we've got ONE pirate battleship that we've put together ourselves. Or, we've got ONE that we've worked hard earning enough ISK to buy on our own.
What'll happen with both groups (and those in between) during an economic re-balance of these hulls and their cost to drop & build? 1.) are you not in F-Con? is that not a null group like your talking about there? 2.) If people want a level playing field( I am sure they do not) then they should agree to push towards regulating all Faction prints of this nature to the Loyalty Point stores and stop having them as drops.
1. Yes, I'm in FCON. However, I'm still expected to make enough ISK to get my stuff myself. I don't mine (because it's far from my favorite activity), I can't really build all that much stuff. So, I go and shoot at rats myself, to buy myself the stuff I use to work with my alliance to defend the territory we use to make our money on our own time.
2. Confining prints to loyalty point stores makes the market slide towards the FW side of the house, where the most loyalty points tend to be earned.
"To kick ass harder, swing foot faster. To kick more ass, keep swinging foot!"
~Alexander Draegar
|
Schelyra
WipeOut Inc. Circle-Of-Two
3
|
Posted - 2017.06.13 02:43:23 -
[200] - Quote
Timm3h wrote:When you drop upcoming changes as a rapid response to csm leaks and pray the over-reaction from the market is enough to hide the leak and prevent further destabilization of csm reputation
|
|
JC Mieyli
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
107
|
Posted - 2017.06.13 04:33:29 -
[201] - Quote
Kenrailae wrote:Because you're suggestion to just make them the same power levels as pirate BS, but then make the faction and pirate ones better, doesn't work like that no it isnt again making up lies and putting words in my mouth make t1 on the same power level as pirate is what i said faction keeps their advantage with fittings and and base stats never mentioned a buff to pirate or faction except maybe warp speed like mach which is hardly a game breaking buff
Quote:PS: Making T1's pirate level strength then distinguishing the faction and pirate with extra stuff is increasing all their power level. oh noes not the security status the whole game is broken because a dude podded without going -0.1 on security
Quote:Of course veteran players are going to have an easier time. As it should be. Every single game in existence, veteran players have an advantage, be it in experience, equipment, skills, whatever. Having goals to work for and things that require time, isk and experience is a good thing for a game. a broken economy is good for a game lmao literally what you just said
Quote:Get over it. You don't get to walk in and on day one fly a VNI, on day two, fly a Vindicator, and on day 3 be in a super carrier, uhhh yes you do i dont know what game youre playing this is eve online im a 3 month old character with 20m sp
Quote:unless you're going to inject some serious skills, which you could do. But a veteran player will still have an advantage in experience, resources, and contacts. Duh? so you say but i cant say i see it judging by your posts
god you are so mad to try and win an argument its like i said earlier you just see me as a noob and you as a vet and you are determined to try and make me look bad all youre doing is making yourself look bad well im sorry i dont care if you feel humiliated and ashamed im sick of you wasting my time with this garbage now |
Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
386
|
Posted - 2017.06.13 08:18:52 -
[202] - Quote
Alexander Draegar wrote:
1. Yes, I'm in FCON. However, I'm still expected to make enough ISK to get my stuff myself. I don't mine (because it's far from my favorite activity), I can't really build all that much stuff. So, I go and shoot at rats myself, to buy myself the stuff I use to work with my alliance to defend the territory we use to make our money on our own time.
2. Confining prints to loyalty point stores makes the market slide towards the FW side of the house, where the most loyalty points tend to be earned.
1.) Ok then i dont see the issue with prints then......BPC's as a ratter should not really be part of your main concern, thats for indy guys.
2.) FW? no dont add them to FW.....add/place them in all the corp LP stores relative to the faction they come from.....oh wait Machariel already is in the LP store for ArchAngels, just stop it from being a loot drop now and we are good. |
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
2796
|
Posted - 2017.06.13 09:39:53 -
[203] - Quote
Maybe now we can put to bed the idiotic often quoted dev comment "cost is not a balancing factor". That one was beyond stupid. Clearly given this post it is (and always was).
CCP Fozzie GǣWe can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonGǪ in null sec anomalies. Gǣ*
Kaalrus pwned..... :)
|
JC Mieyli
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
107
|
Posted - 2017.06.13 13:29:35 -
[204] - Quote
its not a balancing factor its just when superior ships are cheaper than inferior ships those ships are effectively removed from the game |
Khara Hirl
Almost Tech II RAZOR Alliance
39
|
Posted - 2017.06.13 22:33:11 -
[205] - Quote
The market is in a frenzy and prices have gone up over 25% in some cases especially in the rattlesnack and other popular faction based ships.
That news mail showing the drop rate was being reduced should of stated an over all drop reduction % or expected result versus the old result, with out this information CCP has just made another ship unaccessable to a great number of people. It's only thing to pay 350m for a ship it's another to pay 530m.
Perhaps this is the point all a long to raise prices so players buy plex in order to buy the ships they want?
I fear this market change is going to be perm unless a member of CCP comes out and states the actual change ratio/percentage. I am a Senior Game Moderator for another company and I happen to be trusted internally with important information, one thing we never tell our player base is what items are dropping and if any chances are made to the drop chance, because we do not want to influence the economy.
CCP needs to start taking this approach when it comes to what drops where and how much, keeping a tight lip keeps things nice for all the playerbase.
I will admit that I am incredibly disappointed with the announcement of that specific change, it's likely that the chance is so insignificant and only affects a fraction of what the player base is speculating it to actually effect. Buy orders shot up from 325m to 472m in a matter of 4 day, please CCP acknowledge in a separate post what the Faction BPC change drop rate actually went down to, so we can settle this economy.
Continuation, CCP is making things cost more in this game so young alpha's buy more plex to afford their fancy new ships while destroying the players that have played for 5 maybe even 10 years and earned everything by reducing the value of what they own.
Also ISD Max, thanks for locking my other topic illegally even though it wasn't a repost thx bro thx, I know you're harassing me because I reported you. |
Vraygan
4
|
Posted - 2017.06.16 01:17:24 -
[206] - Quote
CCP_Fozzie wrote:In June we are starting to address the supply of pirate battleship BPCs, with moderate changes to the chance of escalations spawning from the most popular high-end anomalies and larger changes to the drop rates of the BPCs themselves from quite a few NPCs. Apparently, Rogue Drone Sentient spawns are considered escalations, because after the patch the are only spawning 1/5th (or) worse as often as before the patch. Last month we ran over 1,000 Drone patrols in the same system with maxed military index. This patch we've already run over 100, and it is clear that something has drastically changed. Is this intended? If the drop rate of Nexus chips was also changed, then SOE BS will be a lot rarer than you intended... Please see this post for more info if you want it. Unintended Nerf: NPC Commander/Officer Spawn Rate |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3424
|
Posted - 2017.06.16 19:57:31 -
[207] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:Maybe now we can put to bed the idiotic often quoted dev comment "cost is not a balancing factor". That one was beyond stupid. Clearly given this post it is (and always was).
It's not so much the price that is a problem as much as the availability. As long as they stay the only platform that can effectively fight on a contested citadel grid, their price won't matter. Passive fit armor tank + capless weapon + good set of stats make Mach pretty much alone in their category. They will get used even if the cost go up as long as they can be found on the market. With the previous prices, a full fleet welp of them would put a dent on the market but it would recuperate fast and then come back to regular. With those change, each welp will actually bring back some rarity to those ships. Once the current stockpile of ships is burned through (no idea how long that will take TBH), then the change will start to have it's intended effect of making them harder to replace.
Cost not being a balance factor does not mean the price was always to be meaningless. It's still important but you can't really base balance choice just on that since most cost can be grinded through anyway. Titans are a good example of this. They learned that cost was not that good of a balance factor when they realized people were willing to go through the effort if it looked worthwhile even if it was relatively high compared to anything else in the game. |
Jutlah Onok
Parthenon Inc.
3
|
Posted - 2017.07.07 15:17:55 -
[208] - Quote
Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues wrote:Odelll wrote:Hell CCP, why not just remove all PvE content from the game entirely and just sell people ISK? I know, how about we use Plex as ammunition too! That will generate the sales your aiming for.
Or, you know, how about you expand on your existing game and generate new intresting content that gets your playerbase moving around in space again instead of essentially removing/constricting/nerfing consistantly the few things that people still actually login for?
Seriously, stop removing content from this content starved game. Its not their fault the game is content starved is the player bases fault. People are risk averse because they dont want to lose ships or eff up their killboards. Everyone just wants to whore and accumulate wealth. Thats called human nature, ccp couldnt do **** to fix it.
This right here. Every time someone complains about a slight nerf to their ratting/mining/whatever income and how it is "removing content" it isn't...it literally isn't removing the content at all it is altering the speed at which it generates profits and it's affect on the economy.
Content in a sandbox like this is on the player base, everyone is happy to just sit and make isk and belly ache if their bottom line is affected. Go out and die in a fire people, start a sov war, pvp in a pheonix.
Have fun. |
Toobo
Project Fruit House Solyaris Chtonium
436
|
Posted - 2017.07.10 13:43:04 -
[209] - Quote
Pirate BS have been cheap for way too long IMHO. It should have never been allowed for these ships to reach this low level. By adjusting drop rates and such over the past years, instead of a mega change right now after not touching them for so long.
But that's the fault of past management, which hasn't been ideal, but nothing we can do to change now (i.e. CCP should have done it better/earlier but oh well, it will just have to be done now).
I think increasing the 'cost' of pirate BS is the best option as the 'first step'. Surely there would be other steps to follow, which could include ship balance changes in terms of bonuses, functions, specifications, etc. But these are secondary issues to be looked at. The price of pirate BS has to increase in order to make any possible future changes to have any meaning. It wouldn't make sense to bring any ship balance changes without first tweaking with pirate BS costs, and although people talk about market already changing for this now, it is much better to tweak with cost now than after you release the new ship balances - you want people to speculate on it without really knowing what changes will happen to these ships.
As Frostys has said, it's the 'rarity' that will ultimately prove to be significant, not the 'cost'. I think 'right' price range of pirate BS should be at least 1b. This is still easily affordable for most players who have their basic income operations established, but it will not really be a throw-away ship for even people with hundreds of billions. This more psychological IMO. Unless you don't relly care at all, you do not want regular 1b loss mails on your KB. Your wallet can tank it without a problem, but it just start to look pretty stupid if your 10 most recent losses were all over 1b+ loss.
Rarity is also important here. Maybe one could afford to lose officer modules, in terms of ISK it may not matter at all with someone with enough ISK. But how quickly can you replace it, if it's a really rare drop? Also, for AT ships, there are people who can afford them and fly them - it's the 'rarity' that makes it more risky, not the cost - even if you had trillions, if the availability is so limited and no such ship was on market, you don't really want to lose it, not because you can't afford it, but because you can't 'replace' it.
** A bit off topic, but I feel generally many things are in f**ked up prices now. To some extent this is due to 'player driven economy/content' that EVE is famous for, but I think there also had been some silly decisions on game mechanics that devalued many things. I am not as active on the market as I have been before, but I don't really see anything where price has increased significantly over the past year or two. Most things I look at, the prices have actually dropped quite a lot over the 1~2 year periods. All this downward trend in prices (especially of things that cost many times more before, WH stuff, pirate ships, capitals, DED mods, etc) actually happened while people became more and more capable of making more ISK in shorter period of time.
tl;dr - prices have been crashing while people were making more ISK. Doesn't look too good to me
Cheers Love! The cavalry's here!
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page] |