DUST Search - Cost as a balancing factor.

Armatsu wrote:

The simple fact that EVE players have billions of disposable income is one of THE BIGGEST reasons why cost should not balance. Sure a Dust player may eventually transfer a few billion isk to their account from EVE and then buy the most expensive tank in the game. What does this do? In a free market system those players purchasing the most expensive tank like its nothing will greatly inflate the cost of the tanks since the supply can't keep up with the demand. Without billions of isk you may not be able to use those tanks frequently due to the inflation. The reason cost shouldn't be a balancing factor is because now that tank is so expensive that nothing should ever destroy it.

If you balance weapons without looking at cost and let the market decide the price point you don't have this problem. I would gladly let rich players buy millions upon millions of the prototype tanks for billions if not trillions of isk because that means that every other version of tank is now dirt cheap because there is a huge supply and low demand. Now i am casually able to buy the second best tank in the game as if it is nothing and with proper skills, fitting, and a bit of luck can still hold my own against the top tier tank with some help. Not to mention you will see people grinding out anti tank weapons as they will be a cheaper alternative to deal with a threat.

Balance every weapon based on its pro's and con's, what it is good against and what its counters are. Let the marketplace decide how expensive said item should be based on availability of the resources and time it takes to pump out the item. Even though in the beginning prices will be inflated outrageously by players selling items for 100x what they cost to make due to buyers buying them, there will be competitors continuously undercutting until the community finally settles on a number that is a reasonable profit without taking a loss. That is how the free market works and that is why you don't let an arbitrary value like cost dictate how good something is.

Example: If cost was the balancing factor in the computer market then Apple would make the most powerful and reliable machines out there. The fact of the matter is, they don't. Price means nothing more to a product than what people are willing to pay for it. If people weren't willing to pay 2k for a mediocre laptop then you would see the prices dropping to the 800 range where they should be because cost means nothing.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Kitt 514 Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 94	Posted - 2012.07.16 10:54:00 - [1] - Quote I'd like to discuss something that has created some very large issues in Eve Online, and something that I'm starting to see the beginnings of in dust. But first, here's a history lesson: So back when Eve came out, there were a very limited number of ships (comparitively). As patches came out, newer and larger ships started coming out. Capitals such as the dreadnought and carrier became feared combat vessles that held the main line in slugfests. A fight would start by the two opposing fleets jumping into each other, siegeing (imobilized for ten minutes), and proceeding to melt each others' faces off. At the time, battleships were previously the largest ships, and cost on the order of perhaps a hundred million isk. Capitals on the scene cost in the range of 1-2 billion. But battleships could still kill dreadnoughts Cruisers could still kill battleships And Frigates could still kill cruisers. All was well in the world of eve. Enter: Supercapitals. So with the success of capitals, why wouldn't CCP add another larger class? Supercarriers (then-named motherships) were designed as capital-ship killers (although they performed decently at killing sub-capital ships as well). And titans were well... we'll get to titans. What was the major difference between capitals and supercapitals? Well supercapitals were orders of magnitude more expensive. And they had more hitpoints a LOT more. Thus with the increasing size of fleet battles, they could last on the field much longer. But perhaps the even bigger advantage? No siege timer. Whereas previously capitals had to "commit" to a battle, supercarriers did not. But they were orders of magnitude more expensive than regular capitals. So they were balanced.... or so we thought. Now on the subject of titans. The biggest of the big. They were (and are) the most expensive unlimited-run ship you can own. The most hitpoints, able to 'bridge' entire fleets across tracts of space, and equipped with a powerful doomsday device TANGENT: okay so the doomsday itself started as an area-of-effect weapon that could be fired through a cyno (ie: from another system). Problem is that it could one-shot most subcapitals. This was partially in response to an overall trend of the 'blob' or just more players being in battles, and as a way to thin the numbers a little. This was quickly nerfed so that the titan had to be on grid with where it was going to doomsday. Years later, it would be nerfed again so that it wasn't area-of-effect, but it could one-shot any ship except another supercapital. It would be nerfed yet again so it could ONLY target other capitals. BACK ON TRACK: So when ccp released the titan, there was actually talk that nobody would ever build one because they had made it so expensive (50-60 billion isk). Boy were they proved wrong. Titans started being built. Slowly at first, and then at an alarming rate. Fleet battles were homogonized from an intricate chess game, to subcapitals just fitting tanks against specific damagetypes to circumvent the raw destructive power of the titans. But as battles started seeing 5+ titans on the field it soon became impossible (cue doomsday nerf). However the doomsday nerf paved the way for titan pilots to use their guns to 1-shot battleships. Years later, fleet dynamics were still controlled by titans, and how rediculously overpowered they were/are. These were issues however that caused many problems for both CCP, and the playerbase over the years, not to mention hard feelings. The final (at least that this post covers) major issue with supercapitals was that if you'd shot something, and you logged off, your ship would stay in space for 15 minutes before disappearing. with the sheer number of hitpoints on supercapitals however, supercapital pilots that messed up could often log off, and their ship would disappear safely. Not very immersive. This was actually quite recently changed so that it will persist in space after the pilot has logged off until it explodes, or it hasn't been shot for 15 minutes. At the time there was a lot of whine from supercapital pilots that someone in a 100 thousand isk ship (essentially a 1 day old noob) could potentially kill their 100 billion isk supercapital. This is the current state of eve. You might be wondering "So Kitt, why have you posted this history lesson about supercapitals in EVE?" Well, CCP based their initial moves on balancing these ships based on cost. If you've read this post, you will have realized that this does not work. COST IS NOT A BALANCING FACTOR... AT ALL. It is something that took both CCP and its playerbase a very long time to learn. And its something that has caused a lot of strife in the EVE community over the years. So when I hear the talk about how a 1-day-old militia player with militia gear shouldn't be able to take down your full-prototype gear, or your 120k isk dropship, or your 150k isk marauder. I hope you realize that you sound very, very silly. EDIT: I hope this also helps people realize that the amount of isk we're fiddling around with is nothing. My eve character has multiple billions. I don't even blink at 120k isk.
Kitt 514 Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 94	Posted - 2012.07.16 12:42:00 - [2] - 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? You are partially there. Lets keep in mind theat the point of eve is to ruin someone else's day. The size of your wallet does indeed help you win, but ships (and by extension guns and tanks) should not be balanced around cost. Cost is a product of role. However, I think you took my post to mean that certain sides had isk, and certain sides did not. That was not what I attempted to convey. What I am trying to convey is that cost is and should be eliminated from the balancing equation. Something is given a balanced application, and then given a cost based on the role. The argument "x costs more, so x should win" has no place in eve, and by extension dust. For argument's sake, lets say there is an item or vehicle that allows players to go 100/0 every match, but it costs 100 million isk (we're talking dust isk not eve isk here). Some might say "i grinded for hundereds of hours getting that isk, so i should be able to go 100/0" but that is including cost as a balancing factor. The question should be directed to "why can this allow any player to go 100/0" and not "but only a couple players have it because its so expensive etc." There is unfair, and there is unbalanced. There is a big difference. Unfair is good. war is not fair. unbalanced makes for a poor game.
Kitt 514 Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 94	Posted - 2012.07.16 12:45:00 - [3] - Quote 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)
Kitt 514 Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 94	Posted - 2012.07.16 13:00:00 - [4] - Quote fred orpaul wrote: ...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. no. you do not understand. isk balancing is NOT legitimate It is the inverse of the relationship. Cost is based on role, power is not based on cost. Ex: INCORRECT: "X costs more than Y, so X should be better than Y"
Kitt 514 Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 94	Posted - 2012.07.16 13:07:00 - [5] - Quote Garrett Blacknova wrote: Cost is a balancing factor. No. No its not. Nothing should be balanced based on how much it costs.
Kitt 514 Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 94	Posted - 2012.07.16 13:27:00 - [6] - Quote Danfen Stark wrote: 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. Ah, but thats a very important distinction. The role of a heavier tanked unit, with more damage, or whatever should deserve an increased cost. NOT the other way around. But if something must be brought in line the argument "it costs more so it SHOULD be winning" is not a valid one. The cost must be ignored, the item balanced, and the cost re-applied. Its a very important distinction. It might seem like I'm mincing words, but the difference is actually a large one.
Kitt 514 Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 94	Posted - 2012.07.16 23:12:00 - [7] - Quote Garrett Blacknova wrote: Kitt 514 wrote: Garrett Blacknova wrote: Cost is a balancing factor. But it's important that they avoid using it as a SOLE balancing factor No. No its not. Nothing should be balanced based on how much it costs. Way to ignore the more important part of my post. The rest of your post becomes invalid when you start with the premise that Cost is a balancing factor. Cost should not be a balancing factor... at all. I'm surprised I've had to say this this many times.
Kitt 514 Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 94	Posted - 2012.07.17 11:44:00 - [8] - Quote Armatsu wrote: The simple fact that EVE players have billions of disposable income is one of THE BIGGEST reasons why cost should not balance. Sure a Dust player may eventually transfer a few billion isk to their account from EVE and then buy the most expensive tank in the game. What does this do? In a free market system those players purchasing the most expensive tank like its nothing will greatly inflate the cost of the tanks since the supply can't keep up with the demand. Without billions of isk you may not be able to use those tanks frequently due to the inflation. The reason cost shouldn't be a balancing factor is because now that tank is so expensive that nothing should ever destroy it. If you balance weapons without looking at cost and let the market decide the price point you don't have this problem. I would gladly let rich players buy millions upon millions of the prototype tanks for billions if not trillions of isk because that means that every other version of tank is now dirt cheap because there is a huge supply and low demand. Now i am casually able to buy the second best tank in the game as if it is nothing and with proper skills, fitting, and a bit of luck can still hold my own against the top tier tank with some help. Not to mention you will see people grinding out anti tank weapons as they will be a cheaper alternative to deal with a threat. Balance every weapon based on its pro's and con's, what it is good against and what its counters are. Let the marketplace decide how expensive said item should be based on availability of the resources and time it takes to pump out the item. Even though in the beginning prices will be inflated outrageously by players selling items for 100x what they cost to make due to buyers buying them, there will be competitors continuously undercutting until the community finally settles on a number that is a reasonable profit without taking a loss. That is how the free market works and that is why you don't let an arbitrary value like cost dictate how good something is. Example: If cost was the balancing factor in the computer market then Apple would make the most powerful and reliable machines out there. The fact of the matter is, they don't. Price means nothing more to a product than what people are willing to pay for it. If people weren't willing to pay 2k for a mediocre laptop then you would see the prices dropping to the 800 range where they should be because cost means nothing. This man understands the universe. A great example in eve is say something that is meta 4 vs meta 3. Perhaps the meta 3 version is 500k isk. The meta 4 version could be 5 mil, because of supply and demand. Same with faction items, deadspace, officer, etc.