snip

TL;DR: tiericide is f*cking stupid.

Most of your post reads like a PAC attack AD. I live in a battleground State so these are pretty easy to spot.

Still Tiericide will not work for Dust as it did for EVE, it will either bring some strong benefits or ruin variation and invalidate SP like it does for tank modules.

Tl:dr = Op has no idea what he's talking about.

assaults and logis are specialized roles making them tech 2.

The only valid argument against tiericide is we don't have enough suits to make it worth it.
Eve has 6 frigates, 2 destroyers, 4 cruisers, 3 battle cruisers and 3 battleships that are just "tech one"
Excluding capitals and industrials and tech two and factional etc etc that's 18 ships so 72 ships among 4 races before you count all the others. Making eve at least 6x times more diverse than dust.
it's actually much greater but you get the point.

Dust has 3 per race, making 12 among the 4 races. This is why our variety is so lacking. We have no suits, our only "variety" comes from the ineffective tiers and palette swaps. Standard and advanced tiers suck and every complains about proto being to strong. we should have 4-5 different suits per category. With a specialized tech 2 version of each. Meaning 12-15 unique skins and 24-30 suits per race FOR STARTERS.
Tiericide is getting rid of the three suit tiers and making all suits good instead of having useless standard-advanced tiers.

Even with this solely valid argument against tiericide we still need it.

Still Tiericide will not work for Dust as it did for EVE, it will either bring some strong benefits or ruin variation and invalidate SP like it does for tank modules.

TLDR; tiericide can ONLY work if MORE SCHTUFF is ADDED to the game.-á

TLDR; tiericide can ONLY work if MORE SCHTUFF is ADDED to the game.-á

Still Tiericide will not work for Dust as it did for EVE, it will either bring some strong benefits or ruin variation and invalidate SP like it does for tank modules.

Agreed that it would ruin modules. It could work for reorganizing weapon sub-variants by skill level rather than having so many teirs. Where it can shine is holding back power creep on Frames and Vehicles. Both of those are areas we'e had (or are having) trouble with.

So you support pay to win then right?

You're both right and wrong here.

Right because tiericide is about specialising the higher ranked suits, making them better than the lower ranked ones at specific roles, like Logi, scout, assault, heavy.

Wrong in your comparison to the ship classes in EVE. Dropsuits aren't the equivalent of all the ship classes in EVE, they're the equivalent of just one of the classes. So standard suits would be the equivalent of T1, low bonuses to give light, medium and heavy suits a bit of a role bonus, but make them still usable for any role. Advanced would be the equivalent of T2, better bonuses in more specific fields, so you start to properly see Logi, Scout, Heavy Weapons and Assault, maybe adding something like a Combat engineer at some point in the future, but at this level they start to also get less effective in other roles. And Proto would be T3, where suits are the best they can be at one task, maybe bonused for one type of weapon or equipment, but they're at a serious disadvantage if you fit them for other roles.

Each race would have it's own specialisations in each role by what types of modules they're bonused for. Amarr assaults would have bonuses to laser rifles and Caldari assaults bonussed for Rail rifles , for example. That way to get the most out of the game, you would not only put SP into whatever specialisation you wanted to play, but you'd also go into other races to give you more weapons variation or into other roles for greater tactical flexibility on the battlefield.

This is exactly how it works in EVE, you don't fit lasers onto a Minmatar Logi ship, like the Scythe, because there is a better ship for them, in the form of the Ammaran Maller or Omen.

The suits would also get slot layouts and bonusses for either shield or armour tanking, making it much rarer to find someone who has set up a dual tanked dropsuit with three or four times the base eHP.

I don't really understand why the dropsuits weren't set up this way in the first place or why CCP didn't foresee the protostomping problem with how the suits are set up at the moment.

There would, of course, be a period of adjustment whilst players got used to the new system, but once that period was over, Dust would be a more balanced game where new players wouldn't automatically be stomped because they don't run all proto gear and skill and tactical squad composition would become an important factor.

Or that's what I think anyway.

Wrong, as I detail above. But it does allow for more to be added to the game in the future without seriously unbalancing everything.

RISK vs. ISK
This is a very rich and interesting mechanic, that not only defines DUST, but distinguishes it from all other FPS games in the market. Choice, consequences, meaning: itGÇÖs the GÇ£special sauceGÇ¥ of DUST 514.

AUR GEAR
Tiericide would ruin the AUR market. AUR gear promises to give early access to gear before you have the skills to use it. This goes away when everyone has access to everything with minimal SP requirements. I donGÇÖt know what percentage of DUST 514GÇÖs revenue is produced by AUR gear sales vs. Boosters, but I suspect this would hurt CCPGÇÖs bottom line.

POWER DIVIDE

Either the power gap is sufficient to incentivize players to commit for the long haul, and put in the time and effort, or itGÇÖs not. Tiericide greatly reduces this incentive.

NPE
I can assure you that new players will continue to be stomped even if all gear was STD and there was no SP. Teamwork, knowledge of the maps/game mechanics, and experience are huge advantages in this game.

THE ECONOMY SUCKS
Part of the problem with PRO gear is that the economy is broken. With DNS taking over PC there is way too much ISK being generated without the right ISK sinks to destroy it.

TL;DR: tiericide is f*cking stupid.

Tiericide is one of those buzzwords that gets flown around a lot, I think without everyone realizing it's implications or what it means. I am unconvinced "tiericide" is the magical fix-all for the game. And emphasizing ISK efficiency would do wonders, as people can be competitively marked using any tier of gear, based on how well they use it.

No tech 1 is basic frames.
Tech 2 is specialized roles
And tech 3 is customizable roles

The 72 count excludes tech 2 ships and only covers 5 ship categories.
If we count tech 2 dust has 12 skins and 32 suits. I believe eve would have 130ish ships with 72 skins.
Again that's only non rookie frigates-battleships.
Plus eve has waaaaayyyy more types of modules and 8 slots max whereas dust has only 5
we need alot more suits and eve parity on most modules before tiericide would make a big improvement.

We already have little to no variety. Tiericide can't fix that.

Not having to create 3 suits for each role would free CCP up to introduce more roles for new suits.

A little open ended here, but the idea of AUR being purchased would greatly help CCP. The idea of a matchmaking tier system as I have described it would be based on SP at low levels and SP + skill at higher levels.

If one is able to get AUR gear at a lower level, it would provide a marginal advantage over his fellow beginners, or battle academy members. CCP is not a pay to win, because everyone can purchase the same gear either via AUR or time/playing the game. Having a tier system like I suggested would be a greater benefit to CCP money wise but would only give players a marginal advantage and for a very very short time. AUR would also allow players in the second bracket to use all the gear they used in Academy, which would encourage players to spend more money, and doesn't provide any advantage.

AUR provides very small advantages in the early process, and frankly, none at later tiers.

The game is far from pay to win, it's more of the EVE model whereby the longer you're account has been active the more likely you are given the advantage. This doesn't always hold true because boosters, and time played, but it's not too far off the EVE model.

Let me throw a curveball at you then.

You have infinite isk and SP

Justify not using prototype gear.

Assuming the economy is in full swing and PC gets fixed, ISK. ISK will justify not using pro gear like we see now. Imagine paying ten million ISK for a proto setup.

Edit: one more thing. If the economy and of is fixed, no one will have infinite ISK.

Agreed that it would ruin modules. It could work for reorganizing weapon sub-variants by skill level rather than having so many teirs. Where it can shine is holding back power creep on Frames and Vehicles. Both of those are areas we'e had (or are having) trouble with.

That doesn't answer the hypothetical which is regardless a highly possible situation without the artificiality.

Infinite isk

and more SP than that suit can ever use in any type of situation

Justify not using prototype.

Then no one can justify not using proto in that situation. This is why fixing PC is important first and foremost to address the infinite ISK problem in addition to dealing with alt-recycling exploiters.

Let me throw a curveball at you then.

You have infinite isk and SP

Justify not using prototype gear.

If proto has enough diminishing returns, that it's barely superior, but drastically more costly, only those who are the absolute richest and most tryhardy will always use proto. And if diminishing returns on gear quality works right, proto will be a small enough increment above advanced, that it won't help them compensate for a lack of player skill.

Then no one can justify not using proto in that situation. This is why fixing PC is important first and foremost to address the infinite ISK problem in addition to dealing with alt-recycling exploiters.