DUST Search - Cost as a balancing factor.

Kitt 514 wrote:

Zerlathon wrote:

PEEEEEEETREEEEEEEEEEEEEE wrote:

I thought the whole point of Eve though was that it wasn't fair. That the size of your wallet has a determining factor in winning.

Most eve players that come on here and tout these facts to us "fps kiddies" all the time. Are you telling me that the eve playerbase wasn't happy about the imbalances and wanted a more balanced playing field?

I don't think it will be entirely fair from a funding point of view.

Obviously there's the personal funding, but you can also speculate how EVE Players and their pennies are going to contribute.

I don't consider this fair, but I'm not against the concept either. It's pretty much like modern day economics, there is always the risk of a Corporation bankrolling a load of Mercenaries and failing.

I'm sure it will lead to some interesting stories in the history of New Eden. Twisted

sorry for the double post, but i had to respond to this.

zerlathon gets this. eve isk might be unfair. but its not unbalanced.

wether there were 5 titans on each side of a battle, or 10 titans on one side, titans were unbalanced because they were balanced by cost (which doesn't work)


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Danfen Stark Algintal Core Gallente Federation 93	Posted - 2012.07.16 12:43:00 - [1] - Quote PEEEEEEETREEEEEEEEEEEEEE wrote: I thought the whole point of Eve though was that it wasn't fair. That the size of your wallet has a determining factor in winning. Most eve players that come on here and tout these facts to us "fps kiddies" all the time. Are you telling me that the eve playerbase wasn't happy about the imbalances and wanted a more balanced playing field? This shows how much you still have to learn about EVE. A game is still a game Yes, EVE is a cruel universe. Yes, theres back stabbing, and corruption. Yes theres scams and so on. But it is still a sandbox, and in fact, what people prefer more of in EVE is balance. Like the fact that a 1 day old noob can play their role in a fight. Like the fact if someone brings a fit that counters your fit, they'll most likely win, no matter how many skills you have. What they don't like is blantent inbalances in the system that cause 'one sidedness' or an overuse of something (i.e. the only way the tracking problems of Supers were brought to CCPs attention was by goonswarm & co throwing cheap small ships at them constantly, to get the point across). So yes, EVE is a cruel universe. But it is still a game where the players like a challenge, and for that there needs to be balance. As he said, balancing via cost proved to be futile, as it resulted in a case where all of the major alliances have a lot of money, can fund a lot of these super caps, and the state of 0.0 is pretty much stagnating with NAP fests & occasional blob wars. Even the Delve war has pretty much proven to be a farce...SoCo pretty much stopped fighting & withdrew the moment CFC started blobbing supers on them
Danfen Stark Algintal Core Gallente Federation 93	Posted - 2012.07.16 12:50:00 - [2] - Quote Kitt 514 wrote: Zerlathon wrote: PEEEEEEETREEEEEEEEEEEEEE wrote: I thought the whole point of Eve though was that it wasn't fair. That the size of your wallet has a determining factor in winning. Most eve players that come on here and tout these facts to us "fps kiddies" all the time. Are you telling me that the eve playerbase wasn't happy about the imbalances and wanted a more balanced playing field? I don't think it will be entirely fair from a funding point of view. Obviously there's the personal funding, but you can also speculate how EVE Players and their pennies are going to contribute. I don't consider this fair, but I'm not against the concept either. It's pretty much like modern day economics, there is always the risk of a Corporation bankrolling a load of Mercenaries and failing. I'm sure it will lead to some interesting stories in the history of New Eden. sorry for the double post, but i had to respond to this. zerlathon gets this. eve isk might be unfair. but its not unbalanced. wether there were 5 titans on each side of a battle, or 10 titans on one side, titans were unbalanced because they were balanced by cost (which doesn't work) This. Especially as, over the years, the ways EVE players can make money, and in large quantities, has increased. From hearing stories of a player in my corp who has been in since the beta...Battleships used to be extremely rare. There would be 1, possibly 2 per big alliance, and they were an important strategic asset (taking months for a corp effort to get). Now, a single player can get a battleship in their first month Which is where one of the problems with capitals/supers have come in. They were partly meant to be 'the new battleship'. Now though, even if they 'slightly' take a corp/allaince effort (and not much of one), they're just as affordable for the major alliances as any other ship. (although, with the nerfing of the drone regions earlier this year, a large income source of minerals for capitals have now been taken out of the game. I guess we'll see if this has much of an affect over the next year or 2 )
Danfen Stark Algintal Core Gallente Federation 93	Posted - 2012.07.16 12:59:00 - [3] - Quote fred orpaul wrote: youre right that if you can enable cheat mode with isk that is unfair, but with in reason isk balancing is is legitimate. what im more worried about is how aur will affect that balance. but we will see. I think the bigger worry, if CCP go the 'isk balancing' route, will be when EVE players can send Dust players ISK That would pretty much mean any balancing through cost is moot.
Danfen Stark Algintal Core Gallente Federation 93	Posted - 2012.07.16 13:16:00 - [4] - Quote Kitt 514 wrote: Garrett Blacknova wrote: Cost is a balancing factor. No. No its not. Nothing should be balanced based on how much it costs. I suppose what they're thinking is that, something that is stronger, more HP, larger etc, 'should' be more expensive (cost balancing), which is true in a way. Dessies are more expensive than frigates, cruisers more than dessies and so on, based on mineral/resources cost to produce them (And rightfully so). As you say though, this should not be the only way things are balanced. Something should be more expensive than something else due to common sense (i.e. a capital costs more to produce than a battleship), however, the actual balancing should come in the form of well thought out stats, counters, strengths and weaknesses, and not solely on cost.