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 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?

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.

Lorhak Gannarsein

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.

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.

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.

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.

just take away everyone's ISK and start all over again

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?

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.

...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.

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.

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.

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?