DUST Search - Still not understanding Teiricide?

All Channels

General Discussions

Still not understanding Teiricide?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Quil Evrything Triple Terrors 1331	Posted - 2014.04.28 17:29:00 - [1] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: The more I talk with people who disagree the more I find out most are just confused to what tiericide would do and may be the source of their opposition against the idea. ... blah blah TL;DR If you cant explain why your idea is a great thing in 3 sentances or less, it will never get the popular vote. Please work on that.
Quil Evrything Triple Terrors 1331	Posted - 2014.04.28 17:31:00 - [2] - Quote PS: Please see "Armored Core". Make dropsuit builds more like that, if you want true "tiericide". kthxbai
Quil Evrything Triple Terrors 1332	Posted - 2014.04.28 18:46:00 - [3] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Quil Evrything wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: The more I talk with people who disagree the more I find out most are just confused to what tiericide would do and may be the source of their opposition against the idea. ... blah blah TL;DR If you cant explain why your idea is a great thing in 3 sentances or less, it will never get the popular vote. Please work on that. "Empowering player decisions and rewarding those decisions." Fail. That's about equivalent to "Let's enhance productivity by leveraging synnergy!!" It doesnt communicate any actual information. it's pure marketing. Seriously, if you cant communicate the heart of your proposal, in 3 sentences, then you fail at proposal-making. Details are nice. Details are required. But you have to have a USEFUL SUMMARY FIRST, so people can judge whether it is worth their time to actually read the details. Hint: there are a million and one forum posts with subject lines like, "The REAL problem with xyz". They all fail, and deserve to, first of all because they think they have authority to claim that, and secondly because they have demonstrated they are too mentally deficient to even put a useful subject line together. Therefore, anything else they have to say will be similarly mentally deficient.
Quil Evrything Triple Terrors 1332	Posted - 2014.04.28 18:52:00 - [4] - Quote MarasdF Loron wrote: Just tell me that infantry side tiercide will be nothing like the tiercide that vehicles got in 1.7 and tiercide has my full support. I actually like what they did to vehicle modules, organizationally. I wish there were more options for modules. but at a high level, I like what they did. It made it much more straightforward to choose the style of vehicle you want to run, and then actually put it together. (The OP-ness of assorted weaponry and modules is a completely separate issue.)
Quil Evrything Triple Terrors 1333	Posted - 2014.04.28 19:44:00 - [5] - Quote Cotsy wrote: While i completely agree that matchmaking is broken, dividing matches based on gear to separate and highlight role performance is an invalid argument. I would also like to point out the phrase, "we would likely to see return to balance of power" is also completely false. In fact it is misleading, if we were to follow your argument the balanced based on tiers would actually increase the gap of power and not close it. your post is very long.. but unfortunately spends most of it on describing, and not enough justifying. You seem to think the use of the word 'logical', makes your argument magicaly logical, without actually providing logical grounding to it. For example: Cotsy wrote: There is 0 truth to balance based upon gear, the only logical solution to matchmaking is a system which balances based upon skill level (average WP + SP of individual or if people are in a squad then the top 3 members or the squad). The reason why this lacks logic, is that it doesnt sufficiently define goals, and words like "balance". If your goal is, "match up players of equal skill, every time".. well, good luck, but I doubt that will ever be possible. Meanwhile, I think most folks are more interested in fair matchups, where I will also define 'fair' more precisely. I, and others, have accepted the fact that there will always be a certain amount of skill imbalance between the players in a match. What irritates us the most, is when there is skill imbalance, combined with gear imbalance. It is the gear balance only, that I view as unfair. Heck, I want to play against players who are better than me. That's how I learn and improve. Trouble is, it ceases to be learning, and degenerates into stomping, when they're all wearing full proto-everything. So I dont want to be matched with people who are exactly my skill. i do want matches with restricted gear. You dont. you have other goals. that's just fine.. as long you you dont claim that is what everyone wants, or that YOUR plan is somehow the most or only "logical" thing to implement.
Quil Evrything Triple Terrors 1335	Posted - 2014.04.28 21:00:00 - [6] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: ... Concept level is overall the more important concept to sell to CCP though. ... Also far as I am concerned; you can forget anything about gear restrictions. Those restraints if ever made are going to be constructs of players own design and tools; not the developers. Approximate skill matching is something being looked into but gear will never be factored as a part of it. What you have implicitly just stated there, is: "CCP supports, and stands behind, protostomping. They like it, so it must always be protected". In which case, what I have to say is, "Screw you CCP, I'm out of here"
Quil Evrything Triple Terrors 1335	Posted - 2014.04.28 21:04:00 - [7] - Quote IWS you posted at the same time I did, so you may have missed my post. Here's a little nudge for you to scroll up.
Quil Evrything Triple Terrors 1335	Posted - 2014.04.28 22:56:00 - [8] - Quote Rusty Shallows wrote: Quil Evrything wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Quil Evrything wrote: If you cant explain why your idea is a great thing in 3 sentances or less, it will never get the popular vote. Please work on that. "Empowering player decisions and rewarding those decisions." Fail. That's about equivalent to "Let's enhance productivity by leveraging synnergy!!" snip I'll take a shot at the three sentence challenge. (Game Architectural) Tiericide is the redesign of specific game elements in relation to each other. Instead of rewarding investments with power-creep the player unlocks more options for play. Other redesign elements are made to better fulfill their role or even have a purpose that was denied to them because of tiers. Well, you certainly did a better job than IWS at it. But still too general. "other options". "other ...elements". How about throwing in a sentence with a specific example? Suggested framework: S1: Problem with current situation S2: Example of fix S3: S2 is better than S1, because....
Quil Evrything Triple Terrors 1338	Posted - 2014.04.28 23:02:00 - [9] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Quil Evrything wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: ... ... Also far as I am concerned; you can forget anything about gear restrictions. ... Approximate skill matching is something being looked into but gear will never be factored as a part of it. What you have implicitly just stated there, is: "CCP supports, and stands behind, protostomping. They like it, so it must always be protected". ... You implicably stated you don't bother to try to understand or read or understand the situation. (other distractions and insults snipped) Well, that's interesting. You neither tried to justify CCP's attitude, nor did you claim that is not their attitude. Deliberate attempt to change the subject away from what you wrote? Let's try again. What you wrote, implies that you have heard specific statements from CCP employees, along the lines that they LIKE having the power of massive gear level imbalances between players, therefore, gear restricted game modes will never be implemented. True, or false?
Quil Evrything Triple Terrors 1347	Posted - 2014.04.29 17:48:00 - [10] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: Quil Evrything wrote: Let's try again. What you wrote, implies that you have heard specific statements from CCP employees, along the lines that they LIKE having the power of massive gear level imbalances between players, therefore, gear restricted game modes will never be implemented. True, or false? Neither. The suggestion to CCP is rhetorical. So, if I understand you correctly now, your statements about [gear based limits are off the table], come not from any statement of theirs, but from you, IWS, being unwilling to put the suggestion to them. Reguardless of whether a large contingent of actual players, like the idea? Doesnt sound like the best community spokesperson behaviour. Iron Wolf Saber wrote: One does not simply waste time asking about things one already knows the answer to. S'funny, that's exactly what I would have said a few months ago, about the idea of asking scouts to have more module slots. And TWO equipment slots? that's just absurd Quote: What next SP brackets? gear brackets? epeen meter? Gearscore??? None of these will fix protostomp; cept for the name of the protostomp and a new problem starts up; its called orphaning. Having players forced in lobbies where they really don't belong Uhhh.. seems like you're the one missing the point here. There is no "forcing". It would be actually giving players a choice, whereas now they are "forced" to play a$$hats in proto as soon as they get kicked out of the academy.

Quil Evrything Triple Terrors 1364	Posted - 2014.05.01 16:56:00 - [11] - Quote Autoaim Bot514 wrote: LOL. Only suits need to get tiericide. Mods and weapons would remained tiered, as it is in EVE. BPO suits would get ADV stats, and become the new miltia, regular suits get proto stats. See, not that hard was it? Or, contrariwise, BPO and militia suits stay as they are. Toss both "basic" and "proto" suits. Leave ADV as the "this is what you skill into" suit. Proto level is where sanity goes out the window. Keep things at the ADV level, and the specialization between different suit types, actually stays meaningful.
Quil Evrything Triple Terrors 1365	Posted - 2014.05.01 20:11:00 - [12] - Quote Goric Rumis wrote: Your current BPO standard suits would be a step up from militia but not as good as what you'd buy off the in-game market. actually, MOST BPO suits are just militia. It's only a few rare ones that are "special". (last time I checked, anyways) For example, I have an Eon (Amarr) heavy suit BPO. 1H 1L Grr. PS: militia fits should be underpowered. otherwise people dont have sufficient incentive to skill into the good stuff.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.