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.
|
Lorhak Gannarsein
Nos Nothi
4475
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 11:48:00 -
[2] - 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.
|
Lorhak Gannarsein
Nos Nothi
4480
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 15:48:00 -
[3] - Quote
Sole Fenychs, Alena Ventrallis wrote:...reductio ad absurdum...
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. I'd agree here except it isn't happening in a vacuum; game balancing happens too, and what I'm seeking is not the reverse, but simply a justification for this position; I'm not suggesting either that it's Soraya's exact position (although I accept it might seem that way) but simply that Soraya is a high-profile proponent of this concept and is the poor sucker whose post got me thinking about it.
It's not a fault of ISK as a balancing factor that people have too much of it through CCP's incompetent and inefficient development schedule.
And finally, 600k is far too little for such an HMGAR. Especially considering HAV turrets have rarely been that effective and have the limitations that HAVs... well, have. Consider that the Duvolle deals 10% damage more than the STD AR. It's over 30x more expensive to make up for it. That hypothetical HMGAR deals like three times the DPS of the AR; the price would therefore be exponentially higher - in theory I don't see a problem with such a weapon.
So you have limitless ISK... well, you won't for long. And that's the whole point, isn't it?
KEROSIINI-TERO wrote: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.
ISK BALANCING = WORST BALANCING.
You may quote me on that.
I'm not trying to suggest that it's good balance or anything; I really don't understand how it could not possibly be considered to be an aspect of balance, which the quote in OP is heavily implying. (for reference, I'm really not comfortable with the cost/effectiveness of HAVs, as I mentioned in OP).
You're right; I am actively refusing to dissociate (to some extent) Battlefield- and Metagame-balance, because I don't really see what the difference is in DUST. If I can't afford equiv-tier gear, I can't compete with you (assuming equal skill and teams). If I can, we're competitive. If you can't, we're back to being non-competitive.
Many people justify their performance by ISK metrics; when it was a thing I worried about I'd run no more than 5 ADV fits in a game; if ever I was unfortunate enough to die more than that it'd be STD or BPO gear. There are enormous differences of scale between ISK tiers, and that ISK balance is the only thing separating them.
That certain players (PC players, as regularly alleged by certain persons) can afford certain things (HAVs, ADS, PRO, etc) is not a fault of ISK balancing in any way, shape or form. Obviously at a certain point it might become a bit over-the-top, but that's the point of regular balance.
Ultimately, my question boils down to this: If ISK shouldn't be a balancing factor, without an economy, what is it for? Although, to be honest, the presence or otherwise of an economy doesn't really change anything.
And really, if ISK is balanced properly to power, then there ought not to be people with 'practically infinite ISK', as you suggest, because if they do then clearly it's imbalanced. By that argument alone, the game is currently ISK imbalanced, considering that there are more than a few players with assets exceeding 1BN; many of those can comfortably run fully PRO-fit suits for the foreseeable future. Now, I know people have suggested that the problem here is matchmaking queues not actually existing, but I think that if those were possible they'd have been done; we can throw that solution away completely.
Avallo Kantor wrote: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. Well, yes, this is the optimal situation; however the issue follows thusly: one of your suggested counters for SuperFrigate is two regular frigates. We have a hard cap of 16v16. We established a good while ago that a flat increase in effectiveness requiring two players to perform the counter is a bad, bad thing. As such, that aspect of ISK balance vs gameplay balance cannot function.
Also I mention HAVs specifically only because I use them and they are expensive, and therefore it is easy for me to make a point with them. Given the vitriol they inspire, perhaps that was unwise, but ce la vie?
Michael Epic wrote: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? Why would I need to balance a thing that isn't possible? You talk like if suddenly I'm allowed to mine rocks or whatever I'm suddenly capable of creating my own ISK - which is completely misguided. If CCP Rattati decides I'm mining for too much easy ISK, he'll cut it, simple as that.
Balance achieved.
So, to clarify my position a little in light of some of these responses; I don't disagree that the game should not be balanced primarily on ISK; I do disagree that it is not currently balanced somewhat (poorly, I'd suggest) on ISK (either, I think, high-end gear needs to be gated somewhat more than it is already, or payouts need to increase dramatically, and I mean dramatically to make it a non-factor).
Now, I've tried to answer everyone I could; I've combined or overlooked similar points. I suspect my responses are a bit more extreme than I intended (cut me some slack, it's 3am xD) but hopefully it's all comprehensible?
Guys, we need to stop calling MU a 'matchmaker' when it's actually a 'teambuilder'.
And I want to play FE:A now. Damn.
|