Navy Battle ships Issues

Hi

There is major issue with the BS navy one for all races.
It has higher price to obtain from the navy which reflect the market price.
Low demand and less sale orders in the market.
Some T1 is already better than the navy ships.

There is several ways To fix that:
1- LP for the navy should be reworked like +.
2- Buff the navy ships.
3- Make it possible in Invention.
4- Missions that provide it as reward.
5- Skills that decrease LP cost (this will effect every thing).


Chatting with my self and you are free to read what in down here:

I see that fixing LP is a complicated one because the missions FW and incursion relay on it.

Me my self i see that we should remove all the missions from the game and introduce new
one with reasonable reward.

Exclude these from removing:
Epic Arc.
Cosmic missions.

Now we should create Navy missions that is in compare with other aspect of the game.

But here is some notes:

*The reward most reflect the shortest time being done for the mission.
*Players value one LP for like 1000-2000 ISK and in reality some is less than that.
*Players want high risk for high reward when safe mean less ( I do not like this actually).
*Navy and pirate should be higher reward than other factions.

Highest income in eve that is not trading is 120M per 20 minutes which ratting via supers.
Rorq Mining can do like 74M per 20 minutes.

Because of that I will consider security missions L5 to get as reward like 1/3 of that in high
security system which it is 40M.

Mining mission L5 need to get like 30M per 20 minutes.

Then L5 distribution will get like 25-30M per 20 minutes (This level dose not exist actually).

What exist is L4 distribution which can be 20-25M per 20 minutes but it reward less actually.

Now we can know how much we should get from one mission if we know how long time
we are going to take to do one mission.

Usually Distribution mission take since the acceptness till the next request like 8-12 minutes.

L5 Security missions do like 15-20 minutes .

I do Not know about mining missions.

So 40M per 20 minutes is good only for navy security missions.
Other Security missions for other faction is less.
Mining navy mission less than that.
Mining for other faction is less rewarding.
Distribution for faction is less in reward.
Then Distribution of the other faction is the less one totally.

This is a chart to explain how i see the reward for missions including LP and ISK in million:

The issue now how to split that between ISK and LP.
Is the LP will be like 70% of the reward ?
or the ISK will be 70%?

Seem the first is acceptable for me.

Then this is the reward in LP per mission and level (Might be shocking and rejectable ):

So the ISK will be like this in millions:

New story and new location should be produced.

And less faction also.


Second choice is Buffing the navy ships.
I think that require an addition rule which Role bonus.
(T1 has race bonus and
pirate has two race bonus + role bonus
so it not good to give navy two type)
of traits)


Third choice is to make navy ships more available via invention like T2 stuff.
I do not think that need explain more but must not be built massivly so it need to be a little harder.


The fourth choice is Providing Navy ships via missions is good choice actually and easiest but it
require injecting the missions that give it in between all agent missions.


Fifth is Adding skills that decrease the LP cost from the store but this one will effect all LP
including none navy missions except if there is a way to define navy missions than normal one
missions.

Some other post about similar topic.



An addition note that all the Missions can receive what the connection skill can provide.
Anom missions or What called Burner missions is considered L6 for me.

So, because you think Navy Battleships need a buff, you want to toss out the entire mission system? That seems…ineffecient.

A few things in no particular order:

  1. There are already skills that increases the number of LP you earn from doing a mission. Why should there also be a skill that reduces LP costs? That move would throw the faction item market, and likely the market as a whole, entirely out of whack.

  2. Invention is already an annoyingly complicated system and I don’t think anyone who actually does it wants to see it expanded at all. Besides, this kind of goes against the whole idea of faction BPs in the first place. (i.e. if you want a faction BP, you either have to kill NPCs of that faction or run missions for them.)

  3. Navy battleships are, generally, in a good place overall right now balance-wise. They’re tankier than their T1 counterparts and either do more damage or are more flexible, without being overpowered. I think the only real issue with them as a class is their price, and that’s going to be driven as much by the price and availability of pirate and T2 battleships as it is the LP store price of Navy ones; changing their LP store price won’t necessarily fix the price issue.

Cheers!

2 Likes

Well I think reducing the ISK cost in the LP store would definitely be a good move.

http://www.ellatha.com/eve/lp/Caldari-Navy
3 options for raven NI
I take the present highest direct best LP offers at 1200 isk/LP / the “correct” price of 1k isk/LP

  • RNI for 600k LP + raven 145M + az-1 20M => 885M / 765M
  • BPC for 500k LP + tags worth 50M +minerals 150M => 800M / 700M
  • BPC for 500k LP + 200M isk + minerals 150M => 950M / 850M

basically right now using the LP store for a raven and selling it less than 700M is just bad.

That would defeat the purpose of LP shops - ISK sink. Tag version of BPCs should always be more lucrative than direct ISK one to create demand for tags.

how do you know being an isk sink is a purpose of the LP store ?

That’s just impossible to enforce. It’s actually the opposite, tag prices are driven by their use : if tags are sold too high, people dfon’t buy them, so the farmers need to sell them cheaper.

It isn’t so much the high cost of navy ships but the low cost of pirate ships. A few years ago pirate battleships cost roughly twice as much as navy, which cost roughly twice as much as T1. Now the pirate and navy hulls are basically the same price making the pirate ships a better value.

Reducing the value of LP is not the answer - it represents a substantial portion of mission runners income. The build cost of pirate ships needs to be increased - perhaps a T1 battleship should be included in the bill of material.

because otherwise there wouldnt be any need to add an additional price to LP items at all. Also: MER

I just bought a few barghests and I can tell you they still are not that cheap :stuck_out_tongue:

Can you elaborate ? How does this prove that ?

They didn’t accidentally put an isk cost in lp stores when they made them. It’s an isk sink by design.

Given how much the economy is running away from us, reducing an isk sink as significant as the lp stores would almost surely only exacerbate the problem.

@Op
As mentioned, the issue is the over supply of pirate ships rather than faction battleships.

Faction battleships suffer from similar issues to all battleships, but beyond that i don’t see much issue with them. I mean i wish the fleet pest was a bit more different to the T1 pest and mach, but it’s not weaker than the T1 pest.

They put an isk cost so it is an isk sink. You can “want an isk cost” without “want an isk sink”.
So having an isk cost is not a proof of “the isk sink is the purpose of the cost”.

I’m still expecting a proof that the purpose of the isk cost in the LP store is to be an isk sink.

Surely that cannot be true. They knew what the result would be.

I can’t paint a fence with green paint without the intention of it resulting in a green fence.

It’s still not a proof.

I ask for a proof that “being a isk sink” is a purpose of the LP store.

Yet the purpose was not to be a cost in your wallet.

If that’s how i acquired it then it is. The purpose of exchanging currency for goods or services.

Taken as a whole it’s not a happy accident that paint was bought with money and a fence painted. Each action has a purpose behind it that feeds into the greater economy.

Nope. If that was the case you would be happy to pay more for the same thing.

Your fence being a cost is a consequence of the fence being your purpose. The cost is not a purpose by itself.
Same for the isk sink. “being an isk sink” is a consequence from being an isk cost. Does not mean it’s a purpose in itself.

Disagree but semantics.

it’s not semantic, it’s definition.

The costs of a choice are the opposite definition of the purpose of this choice.
Both are consequences, but one has a positive value, the other has a negative value.

Affirming that your purpose when purchasing a fence was to lose money is a plain nonsense.

BTW I’m not affirming that isk sink is not a purpose of the LP cost. I am affirming that unless you prove it, affirming it is one is a lie.

I’m saying the cost has purpose.

It’s not a side-effect or coincidence. It’s a deliberate and fundamental part of a transaction. Much like when isk cost to lp store was made. It was a deliberate and fundamental part of the transaction.

It’s role as an isk sink is proved by its existence, otherwise it could be easily removed or never existed. But it has been deliberately added as part of the design and deliberately left in, as part of the design.

In short;
It’s an isk sink because it’s an isk sink. If it wasn’t meant to be an isk sink, it wouldn’t be an isk sink.

That proof can only be provided by CCP. But i know for sure when you add an ISK cost element to the feature - you intentionally make it to serve ISK sink purpose. No one says it is main purpose of LP shop (although it can be argued) or that features can only have one purpose (if thats what you meant) but its pretty obvious that ISK sink is one of the purposes of LP shop.