|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
KEROSIINI-TERO
The Rainbow Effect
1872
   |
Posted - 2015.03.23 15:16:00 -
[1] - 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.
|
KEROSIINI-TERO
The Rainbow Effect
1876
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 00:59:00 -
[2] - 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.
|
KEROSIINI-TERO
The Rainbow Effect
1876
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 05:17:00 -
[3] - 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.
|
|
|
| |
|