DUST Search - Balancing the game on ISK

All Channels

General Discussions

Balancing the game on ISK

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Lorhak Gannarsein Nos Nothi 4475	Posted - 2015.03.23 11:41:00 - [1] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: No. Don't make threads this dumb, please. You cannot balance a game on ISK. Pay to be a broken class is not okay. I see this sort of thing all the time. Why not? Why should the game not be balanced on ISK, at least to some extent? Isn't the justification for the power of prototype gear the extreme expense involved? What is the purpose of ISK, if not as a balancing factor? In Battlefield and similar, HAV equivalents (because those, of course, are the context in which the original statement was made) are placed on a timer. Clearly that's not the case in DUST, and couldn't be the case. So we pay for it. And that's why they're strong. Someone explain to me this logic? If I can't make money in the 'broken class', which in these days of 1.1M HAVs is not the easiest thing in the world (sure, I go 20/0 in this game - next game I run into another guy with an expensive tank and I go 10/2. It will now take me ten games to make my money back) then I won't use them. (Which is not to say I don't think armour hardeners are a bit overpowered, because I do). The same applies with prototype gear - you die twice, you're now ISK negative, congrats. You're good at DUST and you can play without dying consistently? Well done, you're now using superior gear and making money while doing it. So. Someone please explain to me in what respect ISK is not a balancing factor? Sure, it lets you use a crutch - those crutches have serious limitations. Which are mostly ISK. Guys, we need to stop calling MU a 'matchmaker' when it's actually a 'teambuilder'. And I want to play FE:A now. Damn.
robin williams' ghost whisky tango foxtrot sir 1075	Posted - 2015.03.23 11:44:00 - [2] - Quote I feel so bad for you not being able to go 20/0 in every single match. It must be terrible. Robin Williams endorses this corp
Lorhak Gannarsein Nos Nothi 4475	Posted - 2015.03.23 11:48:00 - [3] - Quote robin williams' ghost wrote: I feel so bad for you not being able to go 20/0 in every single match. It must be terrible. See, that's not what I said. The reason I go 20/0 as opposed to more (or less)? The enemy is garbage, or competent. If the enemy is bads, I get excessive scores. If the enemy is decent, I lose many many ISKs. Is that not the balance? I'm not disputing that PRO Madrugars are ridiculously good right now; what I'm disputing is simply the statement that 'ISK should not be a balancing factor'. Inherently it is. Guys, we need to stop calling MU a 'matchmaker' when it's actually a 'teambuilder'. And I want to play FE:A now. Damn.
robin williams' ghost whisky tango foxtrot sir 1076	Posted - 2015.03.23 11:53:00 - [4] - Quote Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: robin williams' ghost wrote: I feel so bad for you not being able to go 20/0 in every single match. It must be terrible. See, that's not what I said. The reason I go 20/0 as opposed to more (or less)? The enemy is garbage, or competent. If the enemy is bads, I get excessive scores. If the enemy is decent, I lose many many ISKs. Is that not the balance? I'm not disputing that PRO Madrugars are ridiculously good right now; what I'm disputing is simply the statement that 'ISK should not be a balancing factor'. Inherently it is. If you're not prepared to lose your million dollar tank don't use it. Such is the way of dust. What else do you propose? Take everyone's isk away and give us all the same exact fits? Robin Williams endorses this corp
Minmatar Mercenary 9292 Nos Nothi 602	Posted - 2015.03.23 12:09:00 - [5] - Quote robin williams' ghost wrote: Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: robin williams' ghost wrote: I feel so bad for you not being able to go 20/0 in every single match. It must be terrible. See, that's not what I said. The reason I go 20/0 as opposed to more (or less)? The enemy is garbage, or competent. If the enemy is bads, I get excessive scores. If the enemy is decent, I lose many many ISKs. Is that not the balance? I'm not disputing that PRO Madrugars are ridiculously good right now; what I'm disputing is simply the statement that 'ISK should not be a balancing factor'. Inherently it is. If you're not prepared to lose your million dollar tank don't use it. Such is the way of dust. What else do you propose? Take everyone's isk away and give us all the same exact fits? Are you even reading what he wrote? Either robin Williams lost his ability to read as a ghost or your not reading properly or just imagining what you want him to write so you can complain, it's like your having a different conversation or something. He isn't saying he's not prepared to lose an expensive tank, he isn't saying he should automatically go 20/0 because he paid a lot for his tank, he isn't saying every ones fit should all be the same and cost the same he's asking why the assets in this game cannot be balanced around isk. If the tank costs a lot it's power should reflect that, now I ***** hate tanks so lorhak can suck a ** but I don't really see why isk couldn't be used as a balancing factor if isk wasn't so meaningless. The problem with doing so is isk is so irrelevant to most people at this point it becomes insanely unfair if the more expensive stuff was Powerfull but if the isk situation was more like it was for people in chrome then it could see it being ok. If it's important to you, you'll find a way. If not you'll find an excuse.
DildoMcnutz Nos Nothi 602	Posted - 2015.03.23 12:09:00 - [6] - Quote robin williams' ghost wrote: Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: robin williams' ghost wrote: I feel so bad for you not being able to go 20/0 in every single match. It must be terrible. See, that's not what I said. The reason I go 20/0 as opposed to more (or less)? The enemy is garbage, or competent. If the enemy is bads, I get excessive scores. If the enemy is decent, I lose many many ISKs. Is that not the balance? I'm not disputing that PRO Madrugars are ridiculously good right now; what I'm disputing is simply the statement that 'ISK should not be a balancing factor'. Inherently it is. If you're not prepared to lose your million dollar tank don't use it. Such is the way of dust. What else do you propose? Take everyone's isk away and give us all the same exact fits? Are you even reading what he wrote? Either robin Williams lost his ability to read as a ghost or your not reading properly or just imagining what you want him to write so you can complain, it's like your having a different conversation or something. He isn't saying he's not prepared to lose an expensive tank, he isn't saying he should automatically go 20/0 because he paid a lot for his tank, he isn't saying every ones fit should all be the same and cost the same he's asking why the assets in this game cannot be balanced around isk. If the tank costs a lot it's power should reflect that, now I ***** hate tanks so lorhak can suck a ** but I don't really see why isk couldn't be used as a balancing factor if isk wasn't so meaningless. The problem with doing so is isk is so irrelevant to most people at this point it becomes insanely unfair if the more expensive stuff was Powerfull but if the isk situation was more like it was for people in chrome then it could see it being ok. If it's important to you, you'll find a way. If not you'll find an excuse.
robin williams' ghost whisky tango foxtrot sir 1076	Posted - 2015.03.23 12:23:00 - [7] - Quote Minmatar Mercenary 9292 wrote: robin williams' ghost wrote: Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: robin williams' ghost wrote: I feel so bad for you not being able to go 20/0 in every single match. It must be terrible. See, that's not what I said. The reason I go 20/0 as opposed to more (or less)? The enemy is garbage, or competent. If the enemy is bads, I get excessive scores. If the enemy is decent, I lose many many ISKs. Is that not the balance? I'm not disputing that PRO Madrugars are ridiculously good right now; what I'm disputing is simply the statement that 'ISK should not be a balancing factor'. Inherently it is. If you're not prepared to lose your million dollar tank don't use it. Such is the way of dust. What else do you propose? Take everyone's isk away and give us all the same exact fits? Are you even reading what he wrote? Either robin Williams lost his ability to read as a ghost or your not reading properly or just imagining what you want him to write so you can complain, it's like your having a different conversation or something. He isn't saying he's not prepared to lose an expensive tank, he isn't saying he should automatically go 20/0 because he paid a lot for his tank, he isn't saying every ones fit should all be the same and cost the same he's asking why the assets in this game cannot be balanced around isk. If the tank costs a lot it's power should reflect that, now I ***** hate tanks so lorhak can suck a ** but I don't really see why isk couldn't be used as a balancing factor if isk wasn't so meaningless. The problem with doing so is isk is so irrelevant to most people at this point it becomes insanely unfair if the more expensive stuff was Powerfull but if the isk situation was more like it was for people in chrome then it could see it being ok. Oh so what you two commies are saying is take everyone's isk away and make everyone have the same amount of isk... gotcha Robin Williams endorses this corp
Maiden selena MORTIMOR Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 362	Posted - 2015.03.23 12:28:00 - [8] - Quote No I agree isk is like the number 1 balancing factor of dust. And it always will be because this is a ftp game. Tanks on dust are merely the illusion of a powerful functional role ..vehicles in dust sole purpose is to be an isk sink. The less people that have mountains of isk the more aurum ccp may sell. no im not a mortedeamor alt..im her slave When my master is banned I represent her wishes and that of the Mortimor famil
Foo Fighting Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 209	Posted - 2015.03.23 12:43:00 - [9] - Quote ISK was supposed to be a balancing factor but it was allowed to get out of control with district locking, beta inventory buy backs and alt farming. It's now only a balancing factor for 60-70% of the players.
Sole Fenychs Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation 671	Posted - 2015.03.23 13:37:00 - [10] - Quote Money balancing can only be done roughly, with levels of investment. As an extreme example, take a dropsuit that costs 2 billion ISK and has infinite armor and shielding and all of the role bonuses and a 5/5/5 module loadout with H/L/S weapon slots. You could raise it to 100 billion ISK and would still be completely broken. Same for a completely useless weapon. If it does zero damage and nothing else, it doesn't matter if it's 0 ISK or even a BPO. And then you have the current BPO suits, like the APEX, which make ISK balance even more wonky - You can run an APEX and save money, while your opponents don't have APEX and thus either run their Starter Suits (Which give them less payout because they are less effective) or suits that actually cost money. Even if they trade 1:1 with you, death wise, you'll make much more money, which you can then invest into saving up for the 10 trillion ISK Omnisuit. If you want ISK to be a balancing factor, you have to remove all BPOs, among other drastic measures. The current system is completely broken. And the warbarge money factory, as well as the trading agent, makes it even more of a slippery slope. Hell, what about removing the starter ISK from new characters? Their suits are free, anyway, and they'll make that money back in about five matches. And yes, I'm aware that the biomassing of new characters is a very tedious process with only minimal ISK payout already. But it's still a way for free money - If the ISK system was actually balanced, this exploit would be massively disruptive. Where ISK shines is in the tiers that we currently have. In theory. Proto is so expensive that it isn't worthwhile for pub play, because it's only marginally more survivable than ordinary suits and can easily die from a random shot from a randomly spawned tank... Except that pubs allow full squads, so this kind of random death source is diminished quite a bit. Advanced is only good as long as you are doing well, with Basic a better option on the defense... Which is pretty ********, when you think about it. It's on level with the Orbital Bombardement mechanic in terms of creating a slippery slope that disadvantages the losing team even more than it already is.

Mejt0 Dead Man's Game RUST415 1137	Posted - 2015.03.23 13:58:00 - [11] - Quote It should be to some point. But it shouldn't be in a game where old players are put versus new players. Caldari Hero Loyal To The State Mejt0 Sale List
Juno Tristan Obscure Reference 471	Posted - 2015.03.23 14:03:00 - [12] - Quote Soraya's position is ridiculous, this isn't COD The point of proto gear is you get diminishing returns, so a proto suit that cost 10 times more than a basic is no where near 10 times more powerful ADS Ramming Revenge! Plasma Cannon Rampage
Avallo Kantor 555	Posted - 2015.03.23 14:16:00 - [13] - Quote ISK performs in a relative way as it does between same ship classes in EVE. There are always more expensive variants to something that get increasingly better in certain respects. On many modules you have things like this: (as the goal) http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/66535/1/PostMetacideExample.jpg The power level on that scale is generally over a comparatively small increase in power, generally only a few % difference between "tiers". On the other hand the price goes up exponentially. In short, in EVE you are welcome to spend an extra few billion on a ALoD-fit Frigate, but even with that billions and billions spent, you aren't going to be more effective than 2 or so frigates. In fact in many cases it only takes one to take you down with a counter fitting despite being far cheaper in ISK cost. Another way of looking at it: You can never buy out the ability to be immune to counters. In DUST we have a similar system, although on a much more linear power-scale. However, even that linear powerscale offers the same basic notion as EVE's does: You can't buy immunity or counter immunity. Much like a protosuit can still be caught unawares and killed by a basic fit suit, so too can any asset be taken out by similar means. Tanks, as they exist in DUST, need to be considered in this light. They are a different class of vehicle on the field, much like comparing frigates and destroyers in EVE. (Or perhaps even frigates and cruisers) You can pay large amounts of money for small increases in power, but this increase still doesn't make you immune or unconquerable. You can still be killed by an ambushing tank, or skilled AV. Perhaps even with those suits using vastly cheaper gear than you. That is because, for all the money you spent in, the price of such equipment does not match the relative % increase in power compared to such costs. In short: The design goal of EVE and DUST with same-tier gear balancing is that costs increase exponentially while power increases more linearly, and not at all at comparable rates. You can never pay enough to be immune, or without counters.
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 1872	Posted - 2015.03.23 15:16:00 - [14] - Quote @Lorhak Gannarsein, It may be that you either choose not to separate the Battlefield balancing and Metagame balancing, or are confused between those two. Playing Dust is all about the Battlefield gameplay. It Battlefield balance is broken, almost everyone's gonna have a bad time playing. Broken battlefield balance is broken game. If [fitting A] is more than slightly better than [Fitting B] and [A]'s only limitation is isk cost, that is very bad design. There is absolutely no reason not to use it to gain advantage on the Battlefield. [A] should have some other balancing factor with it (perhaps some weakness does not have, or being very hard to get. Even SP is a bad extra limitation because it just delays the problem) Having isk as only balancing factor promotes cookie cutter fits and creates no-brainer situations, which in turn make the game dull and stagnant. If you get to use something very powerful, there has to be some sacrifice in performance elsewhere - and isk is not that. FACTS: - In time, people WILL have practically infinite isk. That will happen for the richest 5-10%. - If there is an advantage over others, people WILL use it. - In dust, bringing more people won't counter any 'OP' fittings. 16 vs 16 it is. Leave isk for the metagame and long term balancing, not battlefield. [b]ISK BALANCING = WORST BALANCING. You may quote me on that. Looking at both sides of the coin. Even Aurum one.
Michael Epic Horizons' Edge 725	Posted - 2015.03.23 16:28:00 - [15] - Quote Quote: Lorhak Gannarsein Prepare your salt shaker.....you good and salty? Fantastic! :D How could you balance a game on ISK when there are so many ways to make ISK without even stepping on the battlefield? There are so many ways to make ISK on this game without even playing it that its barely even believable. Everyone talks about their 1.2 million isk tanks, like that's even remotely expensive. I can see if you rely totally on PUBS payout, then yes...holy crap, it takes 3-4 matches to get ONE tank. BUT say you were to make 15 million isk a day without even playing the game or you made 50 million ISK a week without even logging in to the game.....then what? 1.2 million isk tanks are a dime a dozen then. That's 41 tanks a week if its 50 million or 12 tanks a day at 15 million isk a day How would you balance that? What would you do? What ideas do you have to balance a game where ISK making is in OUR control and not some rudimentary process written within the game? Michael Epic's "EPIC" Proposal to his girlfriend :D
Darken-Sol BIG BAD W0LVES 1855	Posted - 2015.03.23 16:44:00 - [16] - Quote After two years the playerbase is still not ready for this. It would become a stagnant boring game. You'd see pubs turn into the PC farming scene. We would experience many more redline fights. I never had a stomach for what it takes to get super rich or be competitive in PC. The exploits, farming, proto stomping, or hand holding. It is all meaningless to me. Isk could function better but using it as a regulator is foolish if CCP cannot anticipate exploits or fix them in a reasonable time frame. We are still feeling imbalance from old PC mechanics and alt farms. Crush them
Alena Ventrallis Ahrendee Inc. Negative-Feedback 2780	Posted - 2015.03.23 17:05:00 - [17] - Quote Here is the reason why. A little reductum ad absurdum to illustrate the point Let's say, we buff the AR to do 1200 DPS with a 100m range and no kick. Incredibly OP, right? Now, going with your idea, let's make it cost 600k ISK each. Seems a fair price for that power, right? HEre is what happens: the people with money (FA, OH, the NS) have metric f*cktons of ISK from back when PC gave passive ISK. The have BILLIONS of ISK. So they can afford to pay for this montrous death machine and lose it over and over again without worry. However, a new player starting out, or a corp without such ISK reserves, cannot afford to continuously replenish their supply of this weapon. So they don't get to run it as often as the high-baller players. Which means when the high-ballers go against the poor players with their far weaker weaponry, guess whose going to win? When one side has a squad with this 1200 DPS AR going against a squad who cannot afford it, who do you think will win the fight? Consequently, who do you think will receive a higher payout, which allows them to continue using this massively OP rifle? Of course such a weapon will never exist, but it makes the point clear: Balancing on ISK only separates the haves from the have-nots. Those who are filthy rich can run this weapon for days and not feel the sting of its loss, while the poor can only run it every once in a while. This is why protostomping is so frowned upon; even if my squad pulls out proto to counter a proto stomp of say Nyain San, in the end my squad cannot afford to run proto battle after battle, whereas Nyain San can because they have those massive ISK reserves and we don't. ISK can be a small balancing factor, but it should never be the primary, or even the secondary or tertiary factor when it comes to achieving balance. Balancing on ISK only let's the rich use it and the poor hate it. Listen to my muscle memory Contemplate what I've been clinging to Forty-six and two ahead of me
Vrain Matari Mikramurka Shock Troop Minmatar Republic 2582	Posted - 2015.03.23 19:59:00 - [18] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: Here is the reason why. A little reductum ad absurdum to illustrate the point Let's say, we buff the AR to do 1200 DPS with a 100m range and no kick. Incredibly OP, right? Now, going with your idea, let's make it cost 600k ISK each. Seems a fair price for that power, right? HEre is what happens: the people with money (FA, OH, the NS) have metric f*cktons of ISK from back when PC gave passive ISK. The have BILLIONS of ISK. So they can afford to pay for this montrous death machine and lose it over and over again without worry. However, a new player starting out, or a corp without such ISK reserves, cannot afford to continuously replenish their supply of this weapon. So they don't get to run it as often as the high-baller players. Which means when the high-ballers go against the poor players with their far weaker weaponry, guess whose going to win? When one side has a squad with this 1200 DPS AR going against a squad who cannot afford it, who do you think will win the fight? Consequently, who do you think will receive a higher payout, which allows them to continue using this massively OP rifle? Of course such a weapon will never exist, but it makes the point clear: Balancing on ISK only separates the haves from the have-nots. Those who are filthy rich can run this weapon for days and not feel the sting of its loss, while the poor can only run it every once in a while. This is why protostomping is so frowned upon; even if my squad pulls out proto to counter a proto stomp of say Nyain San, in the end my squad cannot afford to run proto battle after battle, whereas Nyain San can because they have those massive ISK reserves and we don't. ISK can be a small balancing factor, but it should never be the primary, or even the secondary or tertiary factor when it comes to achieving balance. Balancing on ISK only let's the rich use it and the poor hate it. ^ Right on the ~~money~~ISK, Alena. Thanks for the clear example. @ OP. EVE has a long history with this and it's not a lesson we need to learn twice. Dust is also dealing with this, from various ccpfkups in the past, the biggest being broken Planetary Conquest left untouched by CCP for a ridiculously long time. The pointlessness of 'ISK balancing' is why we have protospam in pubs now. There are actually players in this game(tho many have left) who are good enough to run proto in pubs solo and make a profit. I know who they are and it's a very short list. Nowadays it's impossible to tell because we have mobs of PC-rich schlubs running proto in packs stomping noobs in pubs 24/7. gg CCP. gg protoVets. PSN: RationalSpark
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 18980	Posted - 2015.03.23 20:13:00 - [19] - Quote To understand why you dont balance around isk you need to understand what the purpose of isk and resources is in the overall game design. Simply put and boiled down; currency is a means of control of content; how frequently players will use the desired item? Do you want players to use the item ALL the time? you make it cheap. You want to make it so that players only use it on special occasions you make it expensive. Isk has and never will be used as a justification to make a game play level change; rather the other way around an items power has immensely more dictation of the price tag. Even more sadly item demand and popularity are more capable factors of altering costs than the isk is capable of affecting its stats. If you must seriously want to try to balance something because of 'resource x,y, or z' Consider the following three Slot Power Grid CPU CPM 1, Secretary Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior \\= ADV HAVs =// Unlocked
Vesta Opalus T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K 537	Posted - 2015.03.23 20:35:00 - [20] - Quote Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: No. Don't make threads this dumb, please. You cannot balance a game on ISK. Pay to be a broken class is not okay. I see this sort of thing all the time. Why not? Why should the game not be balanced on ISK, at least to some extent? Isn't the justification for the power of prototype gear the extreme expense involved? What is the purpose of ISK, if not as a balancing factor? In Battlefield and similar, HAV equivalents (because those, of course, are the context in which the original statement was made) are placed on a timer. Clearly that's not the case in DUST, and couldn't be the case. So we pay for it. And that's why they're strong. Someone explain to me this logic? If I can't make money in the 'broken class', which in these days of 1.1M HAVs is not the easiest thing in the world (sure, I go 20/0 in this game - next game I run into another guy with an expensive tank and I go 10/2. It will now take me ten games to make my money back) then I won't use them. (Which is not to say I don't think armour hardeners are a bit overpowered, because I do). The same applies with prototype gear - you die twice, you're now ISK negative, congrats. You're good at DUST and you can play without dying consistently? Well done, you're now using superior gear and making money while doing it. So. Someone please explain to me in what respect ISK is not a balancing factor? Sure, it lets you use a crutch - those crutches have serious limitations. Which are mostly ISK. Theres a difference between gaining an advantage for ISK and becoming invincible for ISK. Right now an optimized for AV min commando can sit there spamming swarms as fast as they can and even a standard madruger can easily fit modules that will make them literally invincible to them, the tank's health will be pegged at full. Go ahead, give it a try. Its not balance, its just bullshit, I dont give two fucks about windows of opportunity.

Himiko Kuronaga Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 5486	Posted - 2015.03.23 21:04:00 - [21] - Quote Lol. I wish we had the money everyone seems to think we have. Usually banned for being too awesome.
Joseph Ridgeson WarRavens 3505	Posted - 2015.03.23 21:23:00 - [22] - Quote My concern is that it gates away content for players. This is most true when it comes to vehicles. Vehicles, or at least tanks, were recently brought directly in line with Dropsuits. They have their primary weapons, their sidearms, the hull, and the upgrades just like Dropsuits. Having tanks cost so much money naturally brings up "shouldn't it be better?" The problem I have with it is the person who is a straight tanker. "I have 12 million SP and all of it into Tanks. I am no different than someone who put all that into being a Logistics. The difference, however, is that my stuff costs more. If I cannot afford to do that role, I have wasted that much SP." There is obviously a slippery slope with this, making things cost no money so people can use it and the like, but balancing for ISK is something I think we should avoid. The statement of "people with billions get to win because they have billions" also applies. "This is B.S! This is B.S! I paid money! Cash money, dollars money, cash money!"
WeapondigitX V7 The Exemplars 303	Posted - 2015.03.23 21:28:00 - [23] - Quote Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: No. Don't make threads this dumb, please. You cannot balance a game on ISK. Pay to be a broken class is not okay. I see this sort of thing all the time. Why not? Why should the game not be balanced on ISK, at least to some extent? Isn't the justification for the power of prototype gear the extreme expense involved? What is the purpose of ISK, if not as a balancing factor? In Battlefield and similar, HAV equivalents (because those, of course, are the context in which the original statement was made) are placed on a timer. Clearly that's not the case in DUST, and couldn't be the case. So we pay for it. And that's why they're strong. Someone explain to me this logic? If I can't make money in the 'broken class', which in these days of 1.1M HAVs is not the easiest thing in the world (sure, I go 20/0 in this game - next game I run into another guy with an expensive tank and I go 10/2. It will now take me ten games to make my money back) then I won't use them. (Which is not to say I don't think armour hardeners are a bit overpowered, because I do). The same applies with prototype gear - you die twice, you're now ISK negative, congrats. You're good at DUST and you can play without dying consistently? Well done, you're now using superior gear and making money while doing it. So. Someone please explain to me in what respect ISK is not a balancing factor? Sure, it lets you use a crutch - those crutches have serious limitations. Which are mostly ISK. The game was originally designed to have ISK as a partial balancing factor, but that feature has gradually started to be less relied upon because many players have millions and billions of ISK. I currently have 150 mill isk without any PC participation. I would have 300 million if I didn't have a habit of buying 600 Proto suits every 6 months.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17810	Posted - 2015.03.23 22:13:00 - [24] - Quote Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: No. Don't make threads this dumb, please. You cannot balance a game on ISK. Pay to be a broken class is not okay. I see this sort of thing all the time. Why not? Why should the game not be balanced on ISK, at least to some extent? Isn't the justification for the power of prototype gear the extreme expense involved? What is the purpose of ISK, if not as a balancing factor? In Battlefield and similar, HAV equivalents (because those, of course, are the context in which the original statement was made) are placed on a timer. Clearly that's not the case in DUST, and couldn't be the case. So we pay for it. And that's why they're strong. Someone explain to me this logic? If I can't make money in the 'broken class', which in these days of 1.1M HAVs is not the easiest thing in the world (sure, I go 20/0 in this game - next game I run into another guy with an expensive tank and I go 10/2. It will now take me ten games to make my money back) then I won't use them. (Which is not to say I don't think armour hardeners are a bit overpowered, because I do). The same applies with prototype gear - you die twice, you're now ISK negative, congrats. You're good at DUST and you can play without dying consistently? Well done, you're now using superior gear and making money while doing it. So. Someone please explain to me in what respect ISK is not a balancing factor? Sure, it lets you use a crutch - those crutches have serious limitations. Which are mostly ISK. ISK is a balancing factor in New Eden and should be in Dust however that is under an open market setting in which players determine the value of the objects based on demand for them. Raphael: I'm warning you. Do not leave me here. I will find you. Castiel: Maybe one day. Today you're my little bitch
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 1876	Posted - 2015.03.24 00:59:00 - [25] - Quote True Adamance wrote: ISK is a balancing factor in New Eden and should be in Dust however that is under an open market setting in which players determine the value of the objects based on demand for them. Ahh, here it came. Eve comparison. You are right, in Eve there is a market and we were supposed to have that. True, free market tends to balance demand-cost ratios. BUT That is the resulting price, ie. balance afterwards. What OP and everyone is talking about is setting price to something very and using that as a excuse to have something op-ish in the game. So even on theoretical level isk is not a balancing *tool* On practical level, free market is now impossible in dust as there is endless supply of fixed prices of all NPC produced goods. As a sidenote, CCP DID try a big scale mistake in the past while thinking that "I if we set the titan costs so ludicrous that all alliances would have maximum of few, then we can allow them to have a REAL doomsday weapon (the old area effect DD which wiped out and ended the battle for 300+ players with a single click). Funnily enough, on 19.03-¦2015 design panel CCP Fozzie told that CCP will no more design ships/anything assuming there will be only a certain number around but rather the things must function properly how many/few there are. Looking at both sides of the coin. Even Aurum one.
Forced Death Corrosive Synergy Rise Of Legion. 221	Posted - 2015.03.24 01:06:00 - [26] - Quote just take away everyone's ISK and start all over again TritusX
Booby Tuesdays Ahrendee Inc. Negative-Feedback 1441	Posted - 2015.03.24 01:27:00 - [27] - Quote They give away ISK and SP like candy these days. If you are low on either you're bad and should feel bad, imho. IF YOU CAN READ THIS YOU DON'T NEED GLASSES
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 1876	Posted - 2015.03.24 05:17:00 - [28] - Quote Forced Death wrote: just take away everyone's ISK and start all over again That will do nothing to justify isk balancing the battlefield. It would just delay the issue, and later people would get their isk back. Trust me. Looking at both sides of the coin. Even Aurum one.
nelo kazuma Da Short Buss Driving School 54	Posted - 2015.03.24 07:21:00 - [29] - Quote i think isk payout is perfectly fine as is it is if u wanna go proto in amb ur pay still will most likely be anywhere between 200k - 350k if enemy bringing out expensive gear. thats essentially 2 proto suits if they lose those no pay out more than that lose in isk i run my dragonfly bpo with toxin assault rifle bpo 2 of the new bpo damage modes n miltia and basic gear on my suits never cost more than 5k--8k. Mind u i do this when im capped out so im making dam near anywhere between 190k - 250k profit per match. big corps basically have infinite funds because of districts but instead of complaining people should be banding together to fight back hell i hate getting proto stomped but i try to fight back nontheless ive killed so many in amb costing them their winnings for the match and went positive with profit. Now that being said i do think skirm and dom should have a lil bit better of a payout since they are more prolonged but i will admit their sp payout is better because of it so meeeehhhh
Gyn Wallace Ready to Play 312	Posted - 2015.03.24 16:58:00 - [30] - Quote KEROSIINI-TERO wrote: That is the resulting price, ie. balance afterwards.[/b][/b] What OP and everyone is talking about is setting price to something very and using that as a excuse to have something op-ish in the game. [b][b]So even on theoretical level isk is not a balancing *tool* On practical level, free market is now impossible in dust.. Every hotfix, CCP could adjust prices to mimic a player market, by raising the prices of the most used items and reducing the prices of the least used items. If they want use of proto gear to be rarer, raising its price is one way to approach that goal. The Dust/Eve Isk Exchange Thread



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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.

IF YOU CAN READ THIS YOU DON'T NEED GLASSES