open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked T3 ships has been the biggest let down ever (for me)
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4

Author Topic

Solid Prefekt
Haven Front
Posted - 2009.05.22 04:57:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Solid Prefekt on 22/05/2009 04:59:14
First off, I am not an industrialist and am not speaking from that point of view. For all I know they could LOVE T3 production and the current progress of production.

However, for me as a pure PVP pilot that was thrilled about the concept of T3 ships when it was first announced, I am sorely dissapointed. I considered T3 much more then all the other ship releases (like the Marauder, Black Ops, and EA Ships) and really expected to see a lot more by now at reasonable prices. I am more then willing to lose SP to fly the ship, but I simply can't afford the ISK to fly the ship in PVP. Am I supposed to wait another 6 months for the price to drop to fly it?

And I do not need nor want an explanation of why they are still so expensive. If you tell me then you are not understanding my post.

If you are happy with T3 ships then more power to you. For me though, the T3 ships has been a HUGE let down. So, am I the only one thinking this or do others feel the same way?

LiveWire364
Posted - 2009.05.22 05:06:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: LiveWire364 on 22/05/2009 05:05:55
Remember when Hulks came out?
Yeah. Same deal.
Now STFU with the whining.

Kendar
Gallente
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.05.22 05:20:00 - [3]
 

Confusing post, you complain about prices but dont want to be explained why they are expencive? Laughing


Intense Thinker
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.05.22 05:20:00 - [4]
 

I remember when Hulks came out... 1b isk each. Those were the days when I never saw one ever, now 3 years later they're all over the belts and everyone and their mother has 3

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2009.05.22 05:22:00 - [5]
 

I'm going to repeat what I said countless of times already...


CCP, in spite of having employed an economist (he's been running pretty damned silent lately, by the way, not even putting out the "quarterly newsletters" anymore, is he still employed?) have serious problem when trying to determine the proper drop/harvest/volume/whatever ratios in just about anything related to the EVE economy... and that in spite of countless of voices telling them the exact same thing from even BEFORE T3 was introduced on TQ.

You might say "all is working as intended". Well, incorrect !
We have at least three separate CCP sources hinting at the fact they WANTED to make T3 somewhat affordable and with a decent adoption rate, but in spite of their intentions, they failed to do the math, and we ended up with what we see now.

The three separate sources I'm claiming ?
First, there's the infamous "I fully expect T3 ships to end up costing" forum post (well, it's "only" one order of magnitude wrong, so it could have been worse I guess... not).
Second, there's the devblog about several things Apocrypha related, where they sideways hint at adoption rates far below "expectations" (well, duuh... if your expectations are not based on any calculations, that's what usually happens).
Finally, there's the feedback from people attending the Las Vegas get-together, claiming CCP employees have repeatedly expressed a dissapointment on how little T3 ships have been in use in spite of massive efforts required to put them into the game.

It's as close as it gets to CCP actually admitting failure without actually putting it in a news bulletin.


THE SOLUTION ?

The solution is so obvious and simple it hurts : they need to tweak the "T3 resource" gathering rates UP by one order of magnitude.
Sure, it would be nice if they also bumped the volumes of the materials down one magnitude level, but that's only really necessary for the gasses (and incidentally, that would also automatically bump up the harvest rates, so they wouldn't have to modify any items relating to gas mining).

Banana Torres
The Green Banana Corporation
Posted - 2009.05.22 05:44:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: LiveWire364
Remember when Hulks came out?

Yes.
Originally by: LiveWire364
Yeah. Same deal.

Is there a t3 BPO lottery? Is the number of t3 ships that can be produced limited in this way? No. So not the same deal at all.
Originally by: LiveWire364
Now STFU with the whining.

Now STFU with the rubbish comments.

Solid Prefekt
Haven Front
Posted - 2009.05.22 05:47:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: LiveWire364
Edited by: LiveWire364 on 22/05/2009 05:05:55
Remember when Hulks came out?
Yeah. Same deal.
Now STFU with the whining.

A hulk was a buffed mining barge. T3 is a whole new concept of modular ships where you lose SP. You want to compare then look at when T2 first came out. To compare the two is ******ed so you better just STFU before you put your foot so far down your mouth you choke yourself. Though I am sure you are used to having huge things in your mouth.

Now, how about some actual intelligent responses from non re-tards.

Solid Prefekt
Haven Front
Posted - 2009.05.22 05:50:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Kendar
Confusing post, you complain about prices but dont want to be explained why they are expencive? Laughing


Going to share a secret with you. CCP could make the a T3 ship cost 20 million isk if they wanted to. The issue has nothing to do with the mechanics that make the ship expensive as that can all be easily tweaked.

I SoStoned
Caldari
Posted - 2009.05.22 05:51:00 - [9]
 

Agreed.

T3 turns out to be an utter flop.

Restricted areas to gain the components, and BPs only in the thoughest of these already rather tough areas.

Introduction of new NPCs that are far beyond the experience of 95% of the player base, running most of them away after just a single experience.

This results in only a few hardcore groups going to the effort of recovering this resource. They're making it hand over fist, as well they should, but CCP stacked the decks toward: scare off the weekend wanderers, which are the lion's share of the Eve player base.

Thus, with only a few hardcore groups bringing in the resources, supply remains far, FAR below what CCP expected or intended. Thus prices remain ludicrously high and only the monied mobs can afford to fly them (and, after running into a few, they're rather laughably easy to kill due to pilot overconfidence).

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2009.05.22 05:57:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: I SoStoned
difficulty = scarcity

I beg to differ.
It doesn't matter how difficult it is to obtain, it only matters how PROFITABLE it is to obtain, adjusted for risk.
Right now, all but the most difficult areas in w-space are barely more profitable than L4 highsec mission-running, so it's only natural almost nobody bothers.
Bump up drop rates up a lot, individual component prices (and therefore final T3 price) will drop a lot too, but the profitability per expedition will go up, and supply will go up a lot more than the drop in price (also, demand will skyrocket due to heavily decreased prices), reaching another equilibrium where T3 prices are affordable, adoption levels are high and w-space is profitable to be in... even if it's hard to complete and risky as hell.

iudex
Posted - 2009.05.22 06:38:00 - [11]
 

Command ships > or = T3 cruisers
but
T3 cruiser cost > command ship cost

For the homo oeconomicus type of player t3 cruisers are a no-buyer if it remains above command ship price.
If the price go down, the homo eoconomicus type of isk-maker won't do wormholes due lack of comparable profitability (Akita T's argument).
Solution: Bring T3 BC or BS into play.
IF T3 BC/BS > as T2BC/BS, mission-runners will come into play. Mission-runners are willing to pay lot's of isk if they get a little more efficient mission-running tool for their highsec mission-running. They pay several billions for officer launcher/damage-mods, some of the shield-booster go for over 2 billion etc. Cost doesn't matter if it helps doing missions faster, since they don't expect to lose the investment.
Then you have a price built by demand and supply - and not one that is capped by a cheaper substitute good like the command ship. Charge 5 billion for the T3 BS if its better for mission-running - and they'll pay it if your the only one who offers it.
Result: T3 production is boost, T3 buyers are happy.


Miyamoto Uroki
Caldari
Sarum Industries
Posted - 2009.05.22 07:22:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: iudex
Command ships > or = T3 cruisers
but
T3 cruiser cost > command ship cost

For the homo oeconomicus type of player t3 cruisers are a no-buyer if it remains above command ship price.
If the price go down, the homo eoconomicus type of isk-maker won't do wormholes due lack of comparable profitability (Akita T's argument).
Solution: Bring T3 BC or BS into play.
IF T3 BC/BS > as T2BC/BS, mission-runners will come into play. Mission-runners are willing to pay lot's of isk if they get a little more efficient mission-running tool for their highsec mission-running. They pay several billions for officer launcher/damage-mods, some of the shield-booster go for over 2 billion etc. Cost doesn't matter if it helps doing missions faster, since they don't expect to lose the investment.
Then you have a price built by demand and supply - and not one that is capped by a cheaper substitute good like the command ship. Charge 5 billion for the T3 BS if its better for mission-running - and they'll pay it if your the only one who offers it.
Result: T3 production is boost, T3 buyers are happy.



I hope the whole post is sarcasm, as it's utter crap tbh ^^

This is exactly the wrong approach type that drove the eve economy in it's crippled state that it's currently in.
Mission runner don't need any more effective mission ships. lvl 4 missions still need a nerf, that's part of the solution for wormhole expeditions.

Like Akita said, the resources for a tech3 cruiser simply take way too long to gather. As time is isk, it becomes too expensive as everybody compares his income at a risk vs reward level, and usually lvl 4 missions come out on top of this (which needs a goddamn nerf, grow some balls cpp...)

Really I cannot understand why it is so hard for ccp to do the math. Or if they have done the math, why not publish your math here on the forums and the reason why you are still waiting and doing nothing. As long as there is no response, it's simple: everyone has the (rightfully) opinion that ccp isn't capable of doing the math, maybe because they dont have employees that are playing the game that much as their customers are.

Listen to the complains about this issue, Ccp, they are damn reasonable. And where the **** is your economist hiding again?...

Miyamoto Uroki
Caldari
Sarum Industries
Posted - 2009.05.22 07:28:00 - [13]
 

And regarding the ops question...

Yes, I also ain't satisfied with tech3 cruisers, mainly because I cannot afford one yet,and not having one makes me a sad panda ^^

Cat Molina
Minmatar
Intransigent
Posted - 2009.05.22 07:34:00 - [14]
 

CCP: We've added new ships for you to fight in!!!

Players: GREAT!! They look really cool!

CCP: Cool? They're amazing! Unlike anything else in the game. You can change their base attributes.

Players: Wow. I can't wait to get in one.

CCP: Ahahahahahahahahha!!! Got you!! You'll never afford them.

<pause>

Players: Why did you add them in the first place?



CCP: griefing their players since 2004. Laughing

CHAOS100
The Ankou
Raiden.
Posted - 2009.05.22 07:42:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: LiveWire364
Edited by: LiveWire364 on 22/05/2009 05:05:55
Remember when Hulks came out?
Yeah. Same deal.



Yeah. They were 500mil until CCP implemented drastic changes in the T2 production. Same deal.

The price will go down when CCP decides to adjust it next year. Or maybe they will consider it a write off, like black ops.

KiloAlpha
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2009.05.22 09:26:00 - [16]
 

T3 Ships will be affordable sooner than the op makes it sound.

example: On april 27 the price for a loki hull was around 900-950 Mil, as of today(may 22) the price for a loki is round 600 mil.

if my math is right thats a 33% drop in price in under a month( if im wrong pls tell me and im sure u will)

so OP price is dropping but feel free to cry more in the meantime

Miyamoto Uroki
Caldari
Sarum Industries
Posted - 2009.05.22 09:35:00 - [17]
 

Edited by: Miyamoto Uroki on 22/05/2009 09:36:11
yes, price has dropped some. But thats not the question. The question is, how far down can the price go at all? Producers will not make losses just to produce the ships and sell them below production price.. simple, eh?..

And the lowest price at which it is still profitable to produce tech3 cruisers is currently hardcapped by the time it takes to gather all the needed materials. Point..

And when you look at the gas alone, it takes 24 hours to gather the gas for one cruiser. And that's pure mining time, without breaks and organisation and whatsoever.. so a rather unrealistic figure. One wanna earn 10 mio at least per hour, thats 240 mio for the gas. Add at least the same pricetag on top for gathering ALL the other stuff AND doing the production process, and you will have a hardcapped lowest price limit of somewhere about 500 mio easy. AND THAT IS TOO MUCH!!!

So yes, prices will drop. But not that much anymore without changing the stats and drop rates on CCP's side.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2009.05.22 09:44:00 - [18]
 

Oh, wow, moved to Ships&Modules... hmmz... who was the genius ?

Reven Cordelle
Caldari
Total Mayhem.
Cry Havoc.
Posted - 2009.05.22 09:47:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Cat Molina

CCP: griefing their players since 2004. Laughing


I lol'd.

T3 is a forbidden fruit. Its prohibitively expensive and the advantages, although delishis are not worth the billions. That and the moment T3 is spotted on the overview, it is blobbed into oblivion for the killmail.

The only thing they can really do is streamline the manufacturing and increase the component drop rates.

That causes the material costs to drop, sellers whine about lower profits and beat the "Risk Vs Reward" Dead Horse again, and everyone flies T3 and anything but T3 is dominated on the battlefield.

The lack of availability and overzealous costing of T3 is what keeps it special. Make it easier to get and it just becomes common-place.

Personally I don't really think T3 being common would be a BAD thing, it wouldn't be gamebreaking plus "balance" would be moot considering the fit and ship characteristics are totally down to the player. However, it seems CCP want T3 to remain as the podpilot's Lamborghini, so we're a long way from seeing such revelations.

Troye
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.05.22 09:53:00 - [20]
 

To all those people wanting a tec3, they're realy not that great... I'd much rather fly a BS into battle anyday and not just because of the cost.

Miyamoto Uroki
Caldari
Sarum Industries
Posted - 2009.05.22 09:55:00 - [21]
 

I doubt that ccp really want tech3 cruisers to be rare. Their statements headed into the opposite direction.
And regarding the dead horse... Akita already explained how it would work so that harvesters would NOT lose their income. And ofc nerfing the risk free highest income is part of that too.. am I repeating myself? Heck I do, as long as CCP finally gets a clue and removes that inflation mechanic.

Kuolematon
Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United
Posted - 2009.05.22 10:05:00 - [22]
 

I trained T3 skills to lvl5 until I realised that my destroyer with T2 fitting is far more superior comparing DPS/ISK ratio. Even my SB is better DPS/ISK ratiowise!

iudex
Posted - 2009.05.22 10:15:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Miyamoto Uroki

I hope the whole post is sarcasm, as it's utter crap tbh ^^

This is exactly the wrong approach type that drove the eve economy in it's crippled state that it's currently in.
Mission runner don't need any more effective mission ships. lvl 4 missions still need a nerf, that's part of the solution for wormhole expeditions.



Before you call something crap you should first think about it.
Mission-runners are the only people in game that will pay billions of isk for something that is slightly better for doing missions than the rest. This is proven by the prices of high-end missionrunner-items, e.g. officer modules.

Not many will buy a 500+ million ship for pvp if it's only slightly better than it's t1/t2 counterpart. Some will, but I'm talking about the homo economicus type of player, who is making rational decisions and use his isk efficiently.
For a highsec mission-runner who doesn't expect to lose his ship ever, it is rational to pay 5 billion for a T3 ship which ceteris paribus does lets say 15% more damage than a Marauder. For someone who has a risk of losing it, it's not.
That's why it's important to create a ship highly demanded by mission-runners, if that ship shall be sold for lot's of isk, so that buyers and sellers are happy.
That's one approach to solve the problem, the other one of course is to make the component drop more often, so that the production of t3 ships becomes cheap and everyone and his dog can afford one even for pvp (which shouldn't be the goal for tech 3 ships IMHO).

You also have to understand why command ships are what economist call a substitute good for t3 ships (in particular when it comes to mission-running), and what this means for the price of t3 ships; especially why the command ship's prices are a cap for t3 ships prices if the t3 ships aren't better than command ships (while being comparable/ using same weapon types etc).

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2009.05.22 10:34:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: iudex
That's one approach to solve the problem, the other one of course is to make the component drop more often, so that the production of t3 ships becomes cheap and everyone and his dog can afford one even for pvp (which shouldn't be the goal for tech 3 ships IMHO).

The explicitly stated intention for T3 ships was to provide an ALTERNATIVE to T2 of the same class (roughly same performance and pricetag ballpark, give or take), with flexibility as the main selling point... not provide an IMPROVEMENT over it.

Miyamoto Uroki
Caldari
Sarum Industries
Posted - 2009.05.22 10:34:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: iudex
Originally by: Miyamoto Uroki

I hope the whole post is sarcasm, as it's utter crap tbh ^^

This is exactly the wrong approach type that drove the eve economy in it's crippled state that it's currently in.
Mission runner don't need any more effective mission ships. lvl 4 missions still need a nerf, that's part of the solution for wormhole expeditions.



Before you call something crap you should first think about it.
Mission-runners are the only people in game that will pay billions of isk for something that is slightly better for doing missions than the rest. This is proven by the prices of high-end missionrunner-items, e.g. officer modules.

Not many will buy a 500+ million ship for pvp if it's only slightly better than it's t1/t2 counterpart. Some will, but I'm talking about the homo economicus type of player, who is making rational decisions and use his isk efficiently.
For a highsec mission-runner who doesn't expect to lose his ship ever, it is rational to pay 5 billion for a T3 ship which ceteris paribus does lets say 15% more damage than a Marauder. For someone who has a risk of losing it, it's not.
That's why it's important to create a ship highly demanded by mission-runners, if that ship shall be sold for lot's of isk, so that buyers and sellers are happy.
That's one approach to solve the problem, the other one of course is to make the component drop more often, so that the production of t3 ships becomes cheap and everyone and his dog can afford one even for pvp (which shouldn't be the goal for tech 3 ships IMHO).

You also have to understand why command ships are what economist call a substitute good for t3 ships (in particular when it comes to mission-running), and what this means for the price of t3 ships; especially why the command ship's prices are a cap for t3 ships prices if the t3 ships aren't better than command ships (while being comparable/ using same weapon types etc).


uhm, okay.

First off, WHY are mission runners the only people who can afford a multi-billion isk ship? Because they earn too much money with not losing their ships during the process. Consequence: Nerf lvl 4 high sec Mission income

Second, WHY are prices so extremly high for faction stuff etc? Check first point. Consequence for lowering the price so that an average player can actually afford that kind of mods: Nerf lvl 4 high sec Mission income

You are estimating that 500 mio for the ship is an intended price and that noone at this price will buy one. So better reduce the price, right? Consequence: make production process of tech 3 cruisersn cheaper

Next we have a horrible opinion that tech3 ships shouldn't be affordable for pvp? Huh, what? Helloooo, this is a pvp game. Ask CCP what they intended the ships for..

What I agree with, though, is that tech3 ship in its current form have the ability to replace command cruisers. This just needs careful balancing to be addressed though, and can be done afterwards.

But your core mistake (imho) is, that you forget to take into consideration what happens if you give risk-free mission runners another new tool to enable them to earn even more isk/hour, still without any risk at all. Modules will cost more and more and people will then expect every income which has more risk to become even better than now. Which wont be the case so all other activites than lvl 4 mission running will be abandoned even further. So all in all, I call that a crappy idea..

Qual
Gallente
Cornexant Research
Posted - 2009.05.22 10:50:00 - [26]
 

Actually, I doubt that the avarage player knows that its not the hard to get materials (hard as in you have to be a huge group of uber players) that keeps prices up. Its acually a basic ancient salavage component that keeps prices up. Now you can get this from even the most basic wh sites, but they are fairly rare (you might get 5-20 from a low level anomally or perimeter radar/mag site). Only thing required here is grind, not that much skill.

I guess CCP was suppriced that not more people are doing the low end sites which hapmpers the supply. Funny thing is that you can easily make good ISK doing those low end anoms solo. With prices up around 6-8M each for these low level drops I can only think that the lack of knowledge about them are whats keeping solo players from cashing in on this little goldmine.

Tester128
Fremen Sietch
DarkSide.
Posted - 2009.05.22 10:51:00 - [27]
 

T3 is not going to be any cheaper then it is atm
Producton of t3 hull + 5 subsystems needs 60 neurovisual input matrix which are rare sleeper salvage and cost about 9kk each in jita atm. Not to count other components. It's a bottleneck and only ccp could do anything about it.
The other bottleneck is datacores for reverse engineering which add about 20-40 mil to each subsystem price.
So it is completely up to ccp to make t3 a mass product and the bottlenecks were obvious from the day 1 of apocrypha. ATM Golems in jita about outsell all t3 hulls combined.

Admiral IceBlock
Caldari
Northern Intelligence
Posted - 2009.05.22 10:51:00 - [28]
 

Can you even fly a t3 ship?

T3 are controlled by supply and demand. If players can't be arsed to go into wormholes to get the needed supplies, prices go up. Are you with me?

Minerals too, are controlled by supply and demand. If players can't be arsed to mine to get the needed supplies, prices go up. Are you with me?

Loyalty points and faction rewards too, are controlled by supply and demand. If players can't be arsed to mission to get the needed supplies, prices go up. Are you with me?

Basic economy 101; you with me?

iudex
Posted - 2009.05.22 11:04:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Miyamoto Uroki
First off, WHY are mission runners the only people who can afford a multi-billion isk ship? Because they earn too much money with not losing their ships during the process. Consequence: Nerf lvl 4 high sec Mission income

Second, WHY are prices so extremly high for faction stuff etc? Check first point. Consequence for lowering the price so that an average player can actually afford that kind of mods: Nerf lvl 4 high sec Mission income

..


That's the wrong approach and I'm glad you're not a Dev. To ask for a mission-runner nerf is very envy-oriented. And this thread isn't about highsec-missionrunners, so i see it from the T3 manufacturer point of view. For a T3 producer it's important to make good isk.
With the current time+effort required to build a T3 ship, he won't get the isk he deserves from a pvp player who buys cost-effective ships for pvp. Here the mission-runner comes into play. Why don't let him play the game he likes and charge a huge amount of isk by offering him a slightly better tool for isk making than he currently has ?

Everyone wins: the missionrunner (has a better ship), the T3 producer (gets lots of isk) and CCP (has 2 more satisfied customers).
In your scenarios everyone loses: the mission-runners (gets nerved), the T3 producer (no one pays him the isk he deserves), CCP (has 2 more frustrated customers).



Quote:

Next we have a horrible opinion that tech3 ships shouldn't be affordable for pvp? Huh, what? Helloooo, this is a pvp game. Ask CCP what they intended the ships for..


That's not horrible but rational. Good stuff costs lots of money, and can be afforded only by few. Not everyone is flying command ships, faction ships or Marauders in pvp instead of t1 either, although it's a pvp game. Those expensive ships aren't made to be the standard pvp ship.
If you make t3 cruisers too common, they will obsolete the lower tier ships, breaking the whole game balance. They should be used in a non-cost-effective way, but not in the daily pvp by everyone. Powerful ships should remain rare, nothing wrong about that.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2009.05.22 11:06:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Admiral IceBlock
T3 are controlled by supply and demand. If players can't be arsed to go into wormholes to get the needed supplies, prices go up.
Incorrect.


Pages: [1] 2 3 4

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only