|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Malkai Inos
Onikanabo Brigade Caldari State
1012
|
Posted - 2013.11.29 04:00:00 -
[1] - Quote
I'm not quite seing the glaring issue here. You chose to run a ~50k fit 13 times in a row and left at a loss. Doing relatively well in terms of k/d was pretty much bought with running the not quite inexpensive suit.
The glaring issue i see is that some corps are completely independant from the pub/FW payouts through their PC income. This puts unecessary pressure on all other players, since they have to actually manage their resources from match to match.
Let us also keep in mind that, once the secondary market takes over the general economy and becomes the new primary market so to speak, raising payouts will just lead to higher prizes, thus no improvement is achieved in this types of cases at all.
You can take a benign object, -you can take a cheeseburger and deconstruct it to its source...
|
Malkai Inos
Onikanabo Brigade Caldari State
1012
|
Posted - 2013.11.29 04:27:00 -
[2] - Quote
Aeon Amadi wrote:The glaring issue is that there is a major disparity between the casual player who uses Pubs/FW payouts as their primary income and the players (like myself) who receive a paycheck from PC. It's an issue, I feel, because when the matches start getting one-sided, as they often do, it gets to a point where the player has to make a decision between seeing it through or leaving all together. That's not good, in my opinion.
There aren't many close matches, we all understand that much. It usually feels one sided with stacked teams for whatever reason, be it in the Pub-Matches where the match maker throws together a hodge-podge of randomly queued individuals or Faction Warfare which is more free form. My problem is that the disparity between the two player groups is a bit large; I can afford to do this because I have PC funding, whereas another player may not.
That being said, what incentive is there to use the high-end gear for the matches that matter - like in Faction Warfare? If the payouts are the same (or nill, as CCP has stated they want to remove the payout all together) than the casual player is restricted to high-sec pub matches where these occasional high-investment battles can empty the wallet very very quickly.
Let me make it abundantly clear, this isn't Prototype/Complex gear. This is Advanced/Enhanced. If the losses incurred were so high that I couldn't even afford to replace half of them, how is a player without some other means of gaining ISK expected to continue using it in Faction Warfare? Or in a Pub match in which the match-maker for some reason decided to pit them against a team of Prototype-wearing individuals?
The disparity is real and an issue. That we agree on ( though my starting sentence kinda suggested otherwise). I just wanted to emphasise that I see the issue coming from the top end of the chain (PC), not the bottom end (everything else).
Matches should always have the risk of you losing ISK overall if you overcommit to a match that, by the looks of it, was very difficult and i don't think that this should be limited to proto gear.
I think that, for the average/poor player (like myself), the system works as designed. It's the fact that doing well in PC breaks this mechanic as those corps/players are quite simply not relying on pub payouts anymore.
Again, I think the solution is not to raise payouts in the low end, as this only leads to inflation so it isn't going to help the non-PC player much, but to figure out something that makes PC worthwhile that is not just straight up ISK. The FW changes, if done right, could be a a good example of that. I just don't know yet what that could be.
Edit Addendum: Maybe this will all become much better as soon as the secondary market kicks in. The .5b ISK player simply has nothing to spend all this cash on so that wasting it does not result in any loss.
Once you guys have to buy balac's for 5m each to have a fair chance in PC, because....well.... the enemy does so, wasting ISK on pubs could suddenly become a liability.
This means less proto in pubs -> means less pressure to counter with PRO/ADV -> lower cost to compete in this kind of matches.
You can take a benign object, -you can take a cheeseburger and deconstruct it to its source...
|
Malkai Inos
Onikanabo Brigade Caldari State
1012
|
Posted - 2013.11.29 05:03:00 -
[3] - Quote
Aeon Amadi wrote:I'm about to make another thread to illustrate this point more clearly but for a new player that price gets significantly higher (frames costing more than specialization suits).
Once Faction Warfare and PC are in a better place, and a proper (working) P2P market is in order, I'm all for restricting gear in pub-matches to emphasize on wanting to branch out from them. The expensive basic frames are a cheap (and bad) way to emphasise specialization. I'm all with you on this. They should be hybrids: Jack of all trades - master of none.
I would be really dissapointed if we had to limit gear on certain modes. The whole point this tiered design (that CCP is just finishing to kill in EVE, incidentallly) is to allow players a concious choice between low risk/low performance and high risk/high performance.
I view deliberate "protostomping" to force the opponent in a situation where they can either raise the odds and bring out their own shiny or switch to zerg and guerilla tactics as a valid mechanic in principle. The only thing that's broken about it right now is that "stomping" is no commitment, but a commonplace for too many corps and thus in too many matches.
I also don't like the idea of being able to "chose your encounter" in a New Eden Game. People have to learn at some point, that the enemy can always chose to throw money at the problem, and how to deal with it. Restricting pubs will just mean that they'll have to learn it a little later, at which point they might already be too accustomed to the safety of pubs to accept that.
You can take a benign object, -you can take a cheeseburger and deconstruct it to its source...
|
Malkai Inos
Onikanabo Brigade Caldari State
1021
|
Posted - 2013.11.29 17:08:00 -
[4] - Quote
Kazeno Rannaa wrote: I think the possibility to limit gear may be a little bit more plausible than people may think, an fit is a tool that is used in EVE, so it has a precedence. That being the limiting of certain hull types when you go mission running. But I canGÇÖt say that I have seen that in PvP in EVE.
The potential costs of running a pub match versus those players that have had the opportunity to sink themselves into the pit of money that PC can bring definitely puts newer players and those that are economically disadvantaged into a serious predicament.
The PvE limitations in EVE work the other way around to avoid farming missions in complete safety. You can still run L4/5 missions and 10/10 complexes with a T1 frigate if you want. Just not trivial L1/2s in a battleship.
PvP restrictions are, as Aeon said, mostly a restriction of cap/supercap vessels and certain advanced weapons (like bomb launchers, dictors/cynos) to low- and/or nullsec.
While a comparison can be made in this case I'd like to emphasise that most of these "banned" ships/mods are not simply "better" than the stuff that's allowed but rather much more advanced in terms of tactics and "****'ishness". They often add very specific mechanics to the field that you can not possibly deal with unless you know exactly what's happening.
PRO gear does not (usually) introduce new mechanics to the battlefield. It's generally just all around better. I'm not saying that restrictions ought to be out of question for this reason alone, but it is worth noting that the reasons and effects are not exactly alike between the EVE and DUST.
You can take a benign object, -you can take a cheeseburger and deconstruct it to its source...
|
|
|
|