Iron Wolf Saber
Den of Swords
18999
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 05:28:00 -
[31] - Quote
Gyn Wallace wrote: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.
Why when players will able to do that themselves pretty soon?
CPM 1, Secretary
Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior
\\= ADV HAVs =// Unlocked
|
Harpyja
Nos Nothi
2351
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 14:15:00 -
[33] - 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. Just throwing an idea out here, a rather drastic one...
What if the change was made to make ISK a much greater balancing factor at the same time as wiping everyone's assets and ISK and giving everyone say 5 million to start with?
"By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
|
Lorhak Gannarsein
Nos Nothi
4480
|
Posted - 2015.03.25 15:48:00 -
[34] - 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.
|