DUST Search - ISK cost vs effectiveness

Breakin Stuff wrote:

Once we get this tiericide thing done I would like to see the dev team take a second look at the pricing of vehicles.

Why?

Because once vehicles get a second pass and the madrugar gets adjusted ( and we all know it will) it will become rapidly apparent that the pricing of vehicles now versus the pricing of vehicles in acceptable, to the majority of players, balance will be skewed harshly against vehicle deployment.

I believe that vehicles need to be brought to heel, but despite the claims that ISK is not a balancing factor it is clear that it is being used thusly.

I've had conversations with the members of the CPM discussing this. Most will listen, one or two are reactionary and maintain that vehicles are universally OP and must shoulder excessive cost. This is a poor standard and makes choosing to spec into vehicles an idiot choice if it is held to because your vehicle will at minimum cost the equivalent of two 1000 WP victories.

Pricing of vehicles should be based on utility. If an HAV takes 4x as long to kill as a dropsuit SOLO then there is little to no justification for it costing in excess of 10 times a equivalent dropsuit.

We claim that HAV pricing isn't used as a balance point, but the evidence I see points the other way, and I'm pretty sure subconsciously. But I don't understand the resistance to making the HAV drivers able to susustain reasonable operations the same way that I can sustain dropsuit operations.

As long as we keep forcing a cost of 400k-1.5 million per HAV replaced the HAV drivers will have a valid argument. AGAINST proper balancing versus AV.

the costs need to come down with the overwhelming difficulty. Of putting one of those machines out of comission.

I don't play my tank alt precisely because paying 3-5 mil per match in losses that are unsustainable isn't fun at all.

Even running STD cheap fits is a bad prospect. Cost may not be a balancing concern, but the cost is disproportionate to the reward, and the profession is not sustainable.

Until it IS sustainable there will always be justification for HAV drivers to resist a reasonable balance between HAVs and AV.

Pages: 1 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 9	Posted - 2015.05.25 06:11:00 - [1] - Quote Once we get this tiericide thing done I would like to see the dev team take a second look at the pricing of vehicles. Why? Because once vehicles get a second pass and the madrugar gets adjusted ( and we all know it will) it will become rapidly apparent that the pricing of vehicles now versus the pricing of vehicles in acceptable, to the majority of players, balance will be skewed harshly against vehicle deployment. I believe that vehicles need to be brought to heel, but despite the claims that ISK is not a balancing factor it is clear that it is being used thusly. I've had conversations with the members of the CPM discussing this. Most will listen, one or two are reactionary and maintain that vehicles are universally OP and must shoulder excessive cost. This is a poor standard and makes choosing to spec into vehicles an idiot choice if it is held to because your vehicle will at minimum cost the equivalent of two 1000 WP victories. Pricing of vehicles should be based on utility. If an HAV takes 4x as long to kill as a dropsuit SOLO then there is little to no justification for it costing in excess of 10 times a equivalent dropsuit. We claim that HAV pricing isn't used as a balance point, but the evidence I see points the other way, and I'm pretty sure subconsciously. But I don't understand the resistance to making the HAV drivers able to susustain reasonable operations the same way that I can sustain dropsuit operations. As long as we keep forcing a cost of 400k-1.5 million per HAV replaced the HAV drivers will have a valid argument. AGAINST proper balancing versus AV. the costs need to come down with the overwhelming difficulty. Of putting one of those machines out of comission. I don't play my tank alt precisely because paying 3-5 mil per match in losses that are unsustainable isn't fun at all. Even running STD cheap fits is a bad prospect. Cost may not be a balancing concern, but the cost is disproportionate to the reward, and the profession is not sustainable. Until it IS sustainable there will always be justification for HAV drivers to resist a reasonable balance between HAVs and AV. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 1	Posted - 2015.05.25 08:09:00 - [2] - Quote I agree completely with everything you've said Breakin' Tankers specifically, but pilots in general should't have to worry about loosing vehicles. It's a game with vehicles and vehicles quite rare to see in all actuality. Sure people will cry; "BUT THE RAPEDRUGERS MAN". They go down easier than you think they do. Put a little effort in and enjoy the 300+ points you get. It's almost as if people forgot that you can out smart and out play people in an FPS. The best tankers in the game cannot afford to only run tanks[1]. The ones that do play every game at a loss and just have stockpiles of ISK from the past. 1) Sure you can profit tanking but you won't have fun sitting in the corner of the map or not actively helping your team. Mace yourself, blame someone else itGÇÖs okay, no one will believe you AIV member.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 9	Posted - 2015.05.25 08:34:00 - [3] - Quote Yup. Pilot/driver is supposed to be a valid career choice in the game. But unless it is a sustainable career in the game we can't expect to see balance. I kill madrugars. I know people who kill madrugars. But it's not skill vs. Skill. It's hoping that the tank driver makes a catastrophic mistake that you can capitalize on. But how do you balance for skill vs. Skill when one side of the equation only earns enough ISK for one unit every 4-6 matches for a good one, or eevery 2-3 matches for an arguably crap one? WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 1	Posted - 2015.05.25 09:14:00 - [4] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: It's hoping that the tank driver makes a catastrophic mistake that you can capitalize on. But how do you balance for skill vs. Skill when one side of the equation only earns enough ISK for one unit every 4-6 matches for a good one, or eevery 2-3 matches for an arguably crap one? Exactly. And this wasn't so bad in the days of passive PC ISK. Was able to fund my main and vehicle character off of my weekly paycheck for playing PC with a bit of savings which is now all but gone It was one of the biggest reasons why I was so against it's removal at first. PC for tankers is expensive Mace yourself, blame someone else itGÇÖs okay, no one will believe you AIV member.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 9	Posted - 2015.05.25 10:03:00 - [5] - Quote Unfortunately passive ISK was bad for the game. The majority of tank drivers could not benefit from the ISK faucet, limiting it's use to one HAV driver for every 50 I encountered. The other 49 had no recourse but to grind missions in starter fits when I'd come around the corner in my murder chariot and jump out shooting while they desperately tried to kill what they probably thought was a JLAV. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
Scheneighnay McBob Tribal Liberation Force Paramilitary 6	Posted - 2015.05.25 22:39:00 - [6] - Quote HAVs have always been an ISK balancing issue: if they get too hard to kill, it's hard to get the ISK cost right. Same goes for everything else that usually goes more than 1 battle without being destroyed. Some details can be ignored
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 19	Posted - 2015.05.25 23:36:00 - [7] - Quote You are addressing something that is always of primary concern for me. Budgeting. Attempting to run one well fit tank tend to cost more than the combined rewards for winning two public contracts. While I'm not going to deny armour HAV are currently out of balance I believe that's the result of the modules that can be fit to them functioning in a non health manner rather than AV being at a disadvantage. "Crush all who complain!" `- Arkena Wyrnspire`
MINA Longstrike Kirjuun Heiian 3	Posted - 2015.05.25 23:42:00 - [8] - Quote Driving vehicles will make you broke relatively quickly in addition to not accomplishing much in most matches. I've always wanted it to be a sustainable primary career, rather than playing a complete secondary role to everything infantry. Vehicles have problems with balance, but their largest problem is not actually having a role. Hnolai ki tuul, ti sei oni a tiu. Kirjuun Heiian. I have a few alts.
Aderek Made in Poland... E-R-A 139	Posted - 2015.05.26 08:42:00 - [9] - Quote I think, that price of tank is very good. I think, that price of SUITS is TOO LOW! STD -800 isk? Proto 40 K isk? Are you kiding me? In old time (beta version) adv siut cost about 30-50k. I want, to this time come back! Good price for weapon, siut and tank. Why miliia tank cost 50k, standard 90k adv 150k etc, but dropsiut 800, 2000, 40 000 ? You have to think about it.... dust514.pl, wcogram.pl, i-play24.net MM proto logi 60 kk SP and growing
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 1	Posted - 2015.05.26 09:07:00 - [10] - Quote It what dropships pilots have seen. The price of ADS reduced by over 100k and yet thier effectiveness was slashed as well. The high cost was one of many reasons ADS pilots were vehemently opposed to change. Tanks should not be disposable. But you ought earn back the loss of a decent fit tank every other match. Anyway you cut it the expensive OP tanks are no better for the game than a inexpensive tank (soma scourge of 1.7) Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.

Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 9	Posted - 2015.05.26 12:05:00 - [11] - Quote Aderek wrote: I think, that price of tank is very good. I think, that price of SUITS is TOO LOW! STD -800 isk? Proto 40 K isk? Are you kiding me? In old time (beta version) adv siut cost about 30-50k. I want, to this time come back! Good price for weapon, siut and tank. Why miliia tank cost 50k, standard 90k adv 150k etc, but dropsiut 800, 2000, 40 000 ? You have to think about it.... Nice sh*tpost. 1/10. far too obvious to derail this crowd. Get out. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 9	Posted - 2015.05.26 12:06:00 - [12] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: Tanks should not be disposable. The way the premise of this game is set up, EVERYTHING should be disposable. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
Roger Cordill The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 425	Posted - 2015.05.26 19:17:00 - [13] - Quote I've recently been trying to learn how to drive vehicles (mainly because people keep on calling me a scrub for being so bad), and from what I can see, Drop ships and LAV's are even worse in this aspect. From what I can see, and from what others has told me, do you think that it could be because payouts are kinda low? (From your Graceful Fish Lord) Breakin, I didn't even have to ask you to push my agenda. ******* wonderful. :D
Vesta Opalus Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation 743	Posted - 2015.05.26 19:56:00 - [14] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Once we get this tiericide thing done I would like to see the dev team take a second look at the pricing of vehicles. Why? Because once vehicles get a second pass and the madrugar gets adjusted ( and we all know it will) it will become rapidly apparent that the pricing of vehicles now versus the pricing of vehicles in acceptable, to the majority of players, balance will be skewed harshly against vehicle deployment. I believe that vehicles need to be brought to heel, but despite the claims that ISK is not a balancing factor it is clear that it is being used thusly. I've had conversations with the members of the CPM discussing this. Most will listen, one or two are reactionary and maintain that vehicles are universally OP and must shoulder excessive cost. This is a poor standard and makes choosing to spec into vehicles an idiot choice if it is held to because your vehicle will at minimum cost the equivalent of two 1000 WP victories. Pricing of vehicles should be based on utility. If an HAV takes 4x as long to kill as a dropsuit SOLO then there is little to no justification for it costing in excess of 10 times a equivalent dropsuit. We claim that HAV pricing isn't used as a balance point, but the evidence I see points the other way, and I'm pretty sure subconsciously. But I don't understand the resistance to making the HAV drivers able to susustain reasonable operations the same way that I can sustain dropsuit operations. As long as we keep forcing a cost of 400k-1.5 million per HAV replaced the HAV drivers will have a valid argument. AGAINST proper balancing versus AV. the costs need to come down with the overwhelming difficulty. Of putting one of those machines out of comission. I don't play my tank alt precisely because paying 3-5 mil per match in losses that are unsustainable isn't fun at all. Even running STD cheap fits is a bad prospect. Cost may not be a balancing concern, but the cost is disproportionate to the reward, and the profession is not sustainable. Until it IS sustainable there will always be justification for HAV drivers to resist a reasonable balance between HAVs and AV. Agree with everything you said. Tanks should be destroyable and cheap enough to be sustainable even when they are destroyed, and ISK balance should definately not be a factor when one side of the balance equation doesnt get to spend more ISK to achieve parity.


Pages: 1 :: [one page]