Faction Capitals, Supercarriers and Titans — Are Their Prices Justified by Their Performance?

I’d like to start a discussion about the current relationship between the price, availability, and battlefield performance of Faction Dreadnoughts, Faction Supercarriers, and Faction Titans.

I’m not suggesting that every Faction Capital has exactly the same problem. Their individual roles and balance are obviously different.

My main concern is the broader relationship between how expensive these ships are, how difficult they are to replace, and how much additional combat capability they actually provide.

If Faction Capitals are meant to be used in war, they need to be affordable enough to lose — or powerful enough to justify their price.


Why are Faction Capitals so expensive?

Some Faction Dreadnoughts currently cost 3–5 times as much as a T1 or Navy Dreadnought, while their battlefield performance does not feel remotely proportional to that price difference.

This makes me wonder whether CCP intentionally designed Faction Capitals and Supercarriers to be extremely expensive luxury ships and status symbols, rather than practical combat assets.

If that is the intended role, then their current prices make sense.

However, if CCP would like these ships to become a more meaningful part of capital warfare, I think something needs to change.

One possible solution would be to increase the supply of Faction LP or introduce additional sources for Faction Capital components and BPCs.

Personally, I’d like to see Faction Dreadnoughts become common enough that in a large capital engagement — for example, 50 Dreadnoughts on each side — perhaps 10–15 ships on each side could reasonably be Faction Dreadnoughts.

They would still be expensive and valuable ships, but losing one wouldn’t feel like throwing away several times the value of a conventional Dreadnought for only a relatively small increase in combat capability.

I’m not suggesting that 10–15 out of 50 is necessarily the exact number CCP should target. It’s simply an example of the kind of availability I think would make Faction Dreadnoughts feel like real warships rather than extremely rare collector’s items.


Alternatively, if the price is intentional, the performance should reflect it

If CCP wants Faction Capitals to remain extremely expensive, then I think their performance should be adjusted to provide a meaningful advantage proportional to their cost.

For example, if a Faction Dreadnought costs several times more than a Navy or T1 Dreadnought, there should be a significant battlefield advantage that makes the additional investment worthwhile.

The same applies even more strongly to Faction Titans.

Their unique bonuses could potentially be made more meaningful.

For example, the effectiveness of their shield extenders or armor plates could potentially be increased from the current 500% effectiveness to something in the 700–750% range, giving Faction Titans a much more significant tank advantage.

Their Doomsday weapons could also receive an improvement.

For example, a Faction Titan could potentially have a 3-minute Doomsday cooldown at max skills, or its Doomsday damage could be increased from roughly 4.95 million to something in the 6–6.5 million range.

These numbers are only examples. I’m not arguing that these exact values are necessarily balanced.

My main point is that if a Faction Titan is going to cost several times more than a conventional Titan, its battlefield performance should provide a corresponding advantage.


I’d like to see these ships actually used

This is probably the part I find most disappointing.

CCP has created incredibly expensive and visually impressive ships, but in practice Faction Capitals and Supercarriers often feel more like collector’s items or event ships than regular combat assets.

They occasionally appear when a streamer or well-known player decides to risk an extremely expensive ship, or when someone wants to create a memorable event.

That’s certainly entertaining, but I think these ships could be much more interesting if they became a genuine part of capital warfare.

I’d love to see alliances actually consider Faction Dreadnoughts, Supercarriers, and Titans when preparing for major engagements, rather than treating them as ships that are simply too expensive to risk.


Existing owners would benefit too

I also believe that reducing the effective cost or increasing the availability of these ships would make it much easier for people who already own Faction Capitals and Supercarriers to actually use them.

I think most owners would rather see their expensive and powerful ships participating in major battles than sitting safely docked or only being used when almost no risk of losing them exists.

I say this from personal experience.

I currently own Faction Capitals including a Sarathiel, Caiman, and Azariel, and I would absolutely love to use them in major fights more often.

The problem is that when the replacement cost is so disproportionately high compared to the additional battlefield performance, it becomes extremely difficult to justify putting them at serious risk.

Lowering the barrier to replacing these ships would not necessarily make existing owners unhappy. It could actually make them more willing to undock and risk the ships they already own.

I don’t think I’m the only one who feels this way.


Two possible solutions

I think CCP has two broad options:

1. Lower the effective cost / increase the supply

Increase Faction LP supply and/or introduce additional sources of Faction Capital components and BPCs.

The goal would be to make Faction Capitals affordable enough that they can actually be fielded, lost, and replaced during serious wars.

2. Keep the current prices, but significantly increase their performance

If Faction Capitals are intended to remain extremely rare and expensive, then their battlefield performance should be strong enough to justify that enormous price premium.


Personally, I would prefer the first option.

I’d much rather see Faction Dreadnoughts, Supercarriers, and Titans become a meaningful part of everyday capital warfare than remain incredibly expensive ships that only come out for special occasions.

I don’t think Faction Capitals need to become cheap or commonplace.

I simply think there should be a healthier relationship between their price, their availability, and their actual battlefield value.

I’d be interested to hear what other players think.

Are Faction Capitals currently priced appropriately for their performance, or are they simply too expensive to be practical combat ships?

CC-who?

Prices do not settle in relationship to an item’s performance. The prices settle in relation to demand and supply. In big picture it is as simple as that. Everything’s fair and square with that in terms of capital pricing.

1 Like

That’s a whole load of AI.

I’m not going to read it, but based on the title:

Faction capitals and supers are for if you have too much ISK and want something more special than the more common non-faction ships.

As usual in EVE you’re paying a lot extra fro a little extra performance.

If you just wanted a cost-effective jump bridge or doomsday you’d buy a T1, but sometimes a croissant is nice to look at and draws more attention in a time many others have regular titans.

TL;DR: no

3 Likes

haha sry about that
i can’t speak eng
So I asked you to summarize my thoughts.

That is okay. Next time just use an online translator. Even when you write in you native language, the translators work well enough. AI is not the best tool to do your thought processing.

To answer your question. no, titans pricing is justified by their price. When you buy a Lamborghini Diablo, you expect to get a quality made Italian sports car. When you buy a Titan in EVE, you expect to get an over priced, ship that has all the same functions as a rock. While everyone looks in awe at your Titan, it is only a matter of fime, before they charge your ship shouting, “Get him!”.

A Titan is all about status and not quality.

Fly safe o7

Don’t want - don’t buy

1 Like

I am not interested in talking to an inanimate object. I’m not mentally insane.

I like how all the users are dog piling on the obvious AI and fail giving legit answers. Question ( REDACTED ) ? Just curious.

My legit answer is, FC ( REDACTED ) doesn’t set these prices. I know this is very crazy, but the market is run by the players who build those ships. FC ( REDACTED ) doesn’t build one ship here in this game. YOU build the ships.

Right click on your ship, and under the information - industry you can see this window.

There you can see, I need materials and a blueprint to build this ship. Once it is built, I can charge 100 billion ISK for it. I would be crazy to ask for that much, but you would be crazier to buy it.

But indirectly they do.

FC sets the rarity of the BPC and the stats of the ship, as well as the build cost, which are the main three factors contributing to where the price of a faction (super)capital ship ends up.

For example if a 10-run BPC of a faction titan was handed out for free to every Omega player, you can bet that the price of that Titan would end up at around the cost of the material and jobs, because the added cost of BPC rarity is made worthless by FCCP.

If moderators are going to do something in such a case, I’d like to see them ban AI posts instead.

Long-winded and created with little effort by the writer it pushes all effort to the reader instead, who now have to read through endless posts and work through the hallucinations to find what the person ‘writing’ the post intended to say. And repetitive too, because with as little effort as these posts are written you could easily generate an entire forum filled with more text than any human is willing to read.

AI-generated long-winded posts like these make the forum less usable and less readable, which naturally creates resistance amongst readers.

So if anything should be done about it: get a policy against AI.

2 Likes

That’s a wild conjecture. Any actual sources to back up your claims?

Corporations do rebranding. In the EU companies are not identified by their name for financial purposes, but by their tax ID. Unless FC closed the old company (bankruptcy?) and started a whole new one subsequently getting a new tax ID, it is not possible for them to hide from debt collectors. Only a very jaded and distrustful person would jump to ‘‘hiding from debt collectors’’ from ‘‘rebranding’’.

So you like talking to an inanimate object, do you? You think that’s a quality interaction? Did you read through the whole opening post?

Regardless of the AI crap he posted, everyone gave him adequate advice. The title alone was sufficient to give him proper pointers on the subject. He wants a better quality attention, he’s gonna have to actually write his posts himself.

2 Likes

Et tu, @Christine_Creed et tu?

They ( REDACTED ) my post too. Not that it matters much since all those others quoted it before I got back here.

Stay safe! :upside_down_face: