|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Vell0cet
SVER True Blood
General Tso's Alliance
1100
   |
Posted - 2014.03.17 21:16:00 -
[1] - Quote
Prices should be balanced around ISK destroyed, not the ability to run profitably. CCP should do a simple calculation: total_ISK_of_assets_destroyed_by_dropships / number_of_dropships_killed for the data since 1.7 released. In other words, if dropships are averaging 600K in in suits, tanks, and other dropships per death, then the price should be roughly 600K. If they're only destroying 150K ISK then that's roughly what they should cost. The same is true of tanks.
Best PvE idea ever!
|
Vell0cet
SVER True Blood
General Tso's Alliance
1101
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 01:08:00 -
[2] - Quote
Skihids wrote:If you want to base price off average ISK destroyed things are going to get very expensive for HAVs and proto suits.
Let's say a tank averages 15 suit kills and 0.5 tank kills (since tanks pretty much only die to tanks).
Let's further estimate an average suit price of 40k ISK.
That gives us:
T = ( 15 x 40k ) + 0.5 T
T - 0.5 T = ( 15 x 40k )
0.5 T = 600k ISK
T = 1.2M ISK
Hey, that's what tanks used to cost! And I came up with that honestly (no reverse calculations).
So there you go MLT HAVs should cost 1.2M ISK again.
They will all reach an equilibrium eventually. If tanks go up to 1.2M then fewer people will use them, and only the best tankers would be on the field. The amount of ISK destroyed would drop as a result. Eventually balance would be achieved, and that would be a reasonable price.
This is a very fair way to price things. Consider it this way: let's say there was a very powerful dropsuit released that was immune to 90% of enemy fire, and it averaged 2Million ISK worth of stuff destroyed for each death. If you priced it cheaply, the only sane thing for a corp looking to inflict maximum economic hardship on another corp (and lets be clear, wars in New Eden are fought and won with ISK far more than with skill) would be to field those in every engagement with your enemy. You would eventually bleed them out financially. It would have to be balanced based on he cost of what it deals and not on the feasibility of being affordable to run 24/7.
Proto suits shouldn't be affordable to run all day, every day. They should be saved up for and used when the situation merits it. Big alliances in EVE don't pull out the Super Caps for small/meaningless engagements for a reason. They only do so when the risk/ISK ratio is reasonable. You don't hear EVE pilots whining that it's unaffordable to run expensive ships. You may have to mine, haul, run missions, trade, manufacture, etc. to support your Heavy Assault Cruiser PvP habit. There's nothing wrong with that. It forces you to value your ship as a real asset that took hard work to earn. It forces you to play smart and defensive. This is what makes DUST unique and fun. If tanks and dropships are cheap and disposable that can easily be run 24/7, then you can afford to be very reckless and aggressive with them. The game looses the sense of value, and combat feels cheap and spammy, instead of strategic with a high emphasis on loss aversion and self-preservation. This is the only FPS I've ever played where people try to retreat, and care a lot about avoiding losses. Combat is much more meaningful and interesting as a result.
The ISK DESTROYED / TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS LOST is a reasonable metric to find balance. I have no idea what that would be for tanks or dropships, but it is a fair way to balance the price.
Best PvE idea ever!
|
Vell0cet
SVER True Blood
General Tso's Alliance
1102
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 02:49:00 -
[3] - Quote
Foundation Seldon wrote:This is a pretty compelling post and I'm inclined to agree having read it. Thanks for taking the time to write it up, it definitely puts things in perspective when you bring EVE style Super Cap. comparisons on the table.
Thanks. CCP's CEO gave a really interesting talk about this at D.I.C.E. earlier this year. He tells a pretty funny/interesting story about paying for a ship, his dilemma, what he did, and the epiffany he had as a result.
Best PvE idea ever!
|
Vell0cet
SVER True Blood
General Tso's Alliance
1103
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 03:10:00 -
[4] - Quote
Skihids wrote:[quote=Vell0cet]You have it wrong. It's not the total ISK destroyed by tanks, it's the average per tank.
So as tanking becomes a specialty that average will only climb. The strong players will get more kills per tank, so the pice will have to increase to keep in balance.
EVE comparisons are totally irrelevant as there is no restriction on player count as there is in DUST.
You're right that it's the average, but you're wrong that the number will rise. With fewer tanks on the battlefield, AV will be better able to coordinate and hunt without being overwhelmed. As a result, tankers will have to be more cautious in their engagements and less spammy with their tanks. This will result in fewer kills overall. Also, even if the price rises substantially, you will still have many players saving up to try their hands at it. Driving something, big, expensive and powerful is enticing, so you'll still have plenty of losses. I cant wait to get into vehicle combat, but I'm holding out for Amarr vehicles with laser turrets. I'm fully prepared to fund losses in vehicles with grinding in BPO's/starter/cheap fits. Eventually an equilibrium would be reached.
Best PvE idea ever!
|
Vell0cet
SVER True Blood
General Tso's Alliance
1103
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 03:50:00 -
[5] - Quote
Skihids wrote:I use all basic modules and an ADV turret and my ship still costs 372k ISK.
That's the equivalent of running an ADV racal suit with STD modules and an ADV weapon. Should that put you negative if you lose one?.
Going positive or negative is completely irrelevant. If your ship manages to put 6 other players in the negative then you got your ISK's worth out of it. I think the biggest problem is that ISK efficiency isn't published and tracked on the end of match screen and the leader boards. It should be the most respected stat out there. It would change the mentality of going positive or negative for the match to inflicting maximum financial damage on your opponent for the least cost to you. People with shiny suits/vehicles would have a huge target on their backs, just like a blinged-out fit ship in EVE.
As for WPs I think that's a separate issue. If dropship pilots aren't getting compensated appropriately for their efforts, then that should change.
Best PvE idea ever!
|
Vell0cet
SVER True Blood
General Tso's Alliance
1104
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 05:04:00 -
[6] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:but ads will be spammed and op  That's too moronic to be funny. It took me a week just to get in the groove of both maneuvering and hitting targets at the same time. You can't spam something that requires such a skillpoint investment and has such a high learning curve.
If they're highly effective, very ISK-efficient against your opponents, and cheap, I can assure you people will learn to do it. There are a lot of infantry players who are close to or have already maxed out Dropsuit Upgrades, they already have a few proto suits and weapons and will start to put points into vehicles to mix things up/add variety (instead of trying to max out each racial suit and weapon). Right now, most characters are either infantry or vehicle spec. By this time next year, a large percentage of them will be invested in both.
Best PvE idea ever!
|
|
|
| |
|