DUST Search - Cost as a balancing factor.

All Channels

General Discussions

Cost as a balancing factor.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

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.
Jack McReady 46	Posted - 2012.07.16 12:19:00 - [2] - Quote pretty much agree, cost is no factor. my EvE character is able to fund me more tanks then I can use in my whole life, even if they would cost 2mil.
PEEEEEEETREEEEEEEEEEEEEE Seituoda Taskforce Command Caldari State 781	Posted - 2012.07.16 12:28:00 - [3] - Quote 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?
Zerlathon Algintal Core Gallente Federation 213	Posted - 2012.07.16 12:36:00 - [4] - 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? 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.
Kitt 514 Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 94	Posted - 2012.07.16 12:42:00 - [5] - 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.
Danfen Stark Algintal Core Gallente Federation 93	Posted - 2012.07.16 12:43:00 - [6] - 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
Ventis Gant Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 37	Posted - 2012.07.16 12:44:00 - [7] - Quote "balance" in EvE means that everyone has the opportunity to use the same ships, the same tactics, and that one ship or tactic or fitting isn't an automatic win over nearly everything else. Titans had to be nerfed because the only realistic way to counter them was with more titans. Combat in EvE is supposed to have a sort of rock/paper/scissors relationship, but with the complexity and number of options in EvE, this has always been difficult to maintain. The litmus test for imbalance, however, has always been: can this be countered by anything but just bringing more of the same thing to the field? The size of your wallet has more to do with your ability to win a war of attrition. If you can stand up to losses over the long run, then you can wear your enemies down.
Kitt 514 Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 94	Posted - 2012.07.16 12:45:00 - [8] - 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)
Danfen Stark Algintal Core Gallente Federation 93	Posted - 2012.07.16 12:50:00 - [9] - 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 )
fred orpaul Tritan-Industries Legacy Rising 212	Posted - 2012.07.16 12:53:00 - [10] - Quote 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.

Danfen Stark Algintal Core Gallente Federation 93	Posted - 2012.07.16 12:59:00 - [11] - 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.
Kitt 514 Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 94	Posted - 2012.07.16 13:00:00 - [12] - 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"
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 1849	Posted - 2012.07.16 13:03:00 - [13] - Quote Cost is a balancing factor. But it's important that they avoid using it as a SOLE balancing factor when it comes to significantly-overpowered gear. If the (very old) interview where they mentioned War Points as a secondary limiting factor on calling vehicles onto the field, there's probably going to be a good sense of balance within each battle.
Kitt 514 Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 94	Posted - 2012.07.16 13:07:00 - [14] - Quote Garrett Blacknova wrote: Cost is a balancing factor. No. No its not. Nothing should be balanced based on how much it costs.
Danfen Stark Algintal Core Gallente Federation 93	Posted - 2012.07.16 13:16:00 - [15] - 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.
Kitt 514 Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 94	Posted - 2012.07.16 13:27:00 - [16] - 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.
Abron Garr Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 256	Posted - 2012.07.16 14:08:00 - [17] - Quote I'm glad other people get it. I've got a few bil just waiting to be transferred over as soon as Dust launches. No brag, just fact. If you think I'm going to worry about a 2mil loss if it means I win the battle and pad my personal and corp K/D, you're crazy. And before you say, "But you spent more than the other side!", a Pyrrhic victory is still a victory and that's all that matters to some corps and alliances. I'm not going to throw isk away, but I'm not going to start pinching pennies any time soon either. Don't let Marauders or any Vehicle/suit/gun w/e become Dust's Titan or SC. Price should only be a reflection of how much it took to produce and replace, not how effective it is on the battlefield. My Guardian and Basilisk each cost me 200 times more in isk than their T1 counterparts the Augoror and Osprey. They're good, but not 200 times better. They cost that much because that's how much it required at that moment to produce in minerals and research, plus whatever profit the contractor could manage. Every suit/vehicle/weapon should have a role, even if it's niche. But don't let one suit or build steam roll everything else just because it happens to cost more. Otherwise, when people figure this out, all you will see on the Battlefield will be whatever that FOTM happens to be. Trust me, that gets stale really quick.
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 1849	Posted - 2012.07.16 14:21:00 - [18] - Quote 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.
Bresker Veyne Algintal Core Gallente Federation 152	Posted - 2012.07.16 15:19:00 - [19] - Quote Abron Garr wrote: I'm glad other people get it. I've got a few bil just waiting to be transferred over as soon as Dust launches. No brag, just fact. If you think I'm going to worry about a 2mil loss if it means I win the battle and pad my personal and corp K/D, you're crazy. And before you say, "But you spent more than the other side!", a Pyrrhic victory is still a victory and that's all that matters to some corps and alliances. I'm not going to throw isk away, but I'm not going to start pinching pennies any time soon either. Don't let Marauders or any Vehicle/suit/gun w/e become Dust's Titan or SC. Price should only be a reflection of how much it took to produce and replace, not how effective it is on the battlefield. My Guardian and Basilisk each cost me 200 times more in isk than their T1 counterparts the Augoror and Osprey. They're good, but not 200 times better. They cost that much because that's how much it required at that moment to produce in minerals and research, plus whatever profit the contractor could manage. Every suit/vehicle/weapon should have a role, even if it's niche. But don't let one suit or build steam roll everything else just because it happens to cost more. Otherwise, when people figure this out, all you will see on the Battlefield will be whatever that FOTM happens to be. Trust me, that gets stale really quick. Yup, totally aggree. I don't understand why people believe expensive gear should be able to steamroll everything. Most arguments I see are: "Battlefield is supposed to be unfair" or "you just have to get the sp and isk yourself", but they don't seem to realise that balance is what keeps a game alive. They might have a lot of fun spawncamping everyone, but the players being camped won't stay around for long after which Dust will only be played by those who already got the gear and skill points.
Kitt 514 Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 94	Posted - 2012.07.16 23:12:00 - [20] - 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.

Darkz azurr Royal Uhlans Amarr Empire 105	Posted - 2012.07.16 23:34:00 - [21] - Quote +1 op good post, i agree with you.
TEBOW BAGGINS FIREFLY ATLANTIS ENTERPRISES UNLIMITED TACNET 549	Posted - 2012.07.17 00:53:00 - [22] - Quote but do we know if it will be possible to transfer isk from our EVE pilot to our DUST merc?
Xocoyol Zaraoul Zumari Force Projection Caldari State 259	Posted - 2012.07.17 00:57:00 - [23] - Quote This is not an article about COST being a bad balancing factor, this is an article of NUKES (Read, the Doomsday) being a bad game mechanic. Titans without the doomsdays are not omgwtfbbq, this is the main reason why Titans steamrolled people, because the ridiculous blast radius weapon from hell allowed them to deal effectively infinite damage, where as something like a dreadnought simply is a beefed up BS (read, no instagib impossible to dodge nuclear weapon from the ninth ring of hell that can hit effectively an infinite amount of ships at once.).
Bones1182 Circle of Huskarl Minmatar Republic 86	Posted - 2012.07.17 01:09:00 - [24] - Quote All this talk about cost is relatively pointless as the free market in eve is going to screw with the prices whenever someone with enough kel decides to buy every last tank he can find. Tank is used only as an example. One individual or alliance can take the price from 1.2 million to 1.2 billion just because they want to. It would not be easy but such is the chaotic nature of a free market system. All of that being said if no ones gets that wild hair stuck in their arse the cost will be based roughly on how much the resources that go into to building it cost at the time of production. If it requires very little to produce the cost will likely be low unless there are not a lot of them available. The laws of supply and demand. For anyone who wants to try to understand how this system will function I believe there is an economy for dummies book out there or some sort of college course you can take. Likely unless you enjoy a lot of numbers and theory you will end up with a headache. The whole reason CCP has am economist on the payroll.
Ignatius Crumwald Sanmatar Kelkoons Minmatar Republic 475	Posted - 2012.07.17 01:48:00 - [25] - Quote I think cost should be a part of balance but not the deciding factor - because like the OP said, it will fail. That said, I'm sure much of this is connected to the OP tank QQ. Let's not go nerfing them till we see everything in action. AV grenades with limited homing are on the horizon. The advanced AV's do over 2k each, turning three AV fit infantry into tank killers. I don't care what you have, you aren't repping through that, especially if one has a forge gun. On the subject of transfering ISK directly from EvE to DUST, where has this been said to be confirmed? Seems rather counter productive to me. Why even have the contract system if I can just mine for a day on Eve and send my Dust character 1 billion ISK? That's just a plain and simple broken gameplay mechanic on the order of ME3's Galaxy At War assets they're fashioning there and if that's what they truly intend they might want to rethink that because it's bad design.
Bones1182 Circle of Huskarl Minmatar Republic 86	Posted - 2012.07.17 02:03:00 - [26] - Quote Ignatius Crumwald wrote: I think cost should be a part of balance but not the deciding factor - because like the OP said, it will fail. That said, I'm sure much of this is connected to the OP tank QQ. Let's not go nerfing them till we see everything in action. AV grenades with limited homing are on the horizon. The advanced AV's do over 2k each, turning three AV fit infantry into tank killers. I don't care what you have, you aren't repping through that, especially if one has a forge gun. On the subject of transfering ISK directly from EvE to DUST, where has this been said to be confirmed? Seems rather counter productive to me. Why even have the contract system if I can just mine for a day on Eve and send my Dust character 1 billion ISK? That's just a plain and simple broken gameplay mechanic on the order of ME3's Galaxy At War assets they're fashioning there and if that's what they truly intend they might want to rethink that because it's bad design. Imagine this you are a dust character in an eve corp. The CEO can give you temporary access to a specific corp wallet that has billions of ISK in it. He tells you to clean it out and go kill for the corp. Then he revokes your access. Transfer accomplished. No matter how much you might not like that is only one of at least a half dozen ways to "transfer" money. Others contracts for millions of ISK in return for one assault rifle or something else ridiculous. Preferential payouts on merc contracts. Or just giving them the stupid awesome gear for free. I am not particularly creative when it comes to this stuff. All of that can be done within the corp system no cheats no actual donations to the player. By simply linking the players in the same corp any way to combat transfer of ISK is moot. Just the market being linked is enough to do most of these things.
Septem Mortuus Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 86	Posted - 2012.07.17 02:14:00 - [27] - Quote Cost WOULD be a decent balancing factor for DUST if not for EvE. It would be easy enough for CCP to balance the amount of ISK awarded per contract based on the "level" of Duster expected to participate and anyone foolish enough to use high-end expensive gear in a low-end cheapo battle is going to go broke pretty damn fast and stop doing it. But with the sheer amount of ISK that EvE players are going to pour into Dust (Even just those EvE players who also play Dust will still move billions as soon as it is possible to do so.) cost is not going to be a factor at all for these players and hence balance, particularly against Dust-only players, is lost. The only way to maintain balance will be via SP - no matter how wealthy, powerful or whatever your EvE character is, you can't transfer SP, best you could do is trade for some AUR and buy a booster, and anyone can get a booster.
Ignatius Crumwald Sanmatar Kelkoons Minmatar Republic 475	Posted - 2012.07.17 02:28:00 - [28] - Quote Bones1182 wrote: Ignatius Crumwald wrote: I think cost should be a part of balance but not the deciding factor - because like the OP said, it will fail. That said, I'm sure much of this is connected to the OP tank QQ. Let's not go nerfing them till we see everything in action. AV grenades with limited homing are on the horizon. The advanced AV's do over 2k each, turning three AV fit infantry into tank killers. I don't care what you have, you aren't repping through that, especially if one has a forge gun. On the subject of transfering ISK directly from EvE to DUST, where has this been said to be confirmed? Seems rather counter productive to me. Why even have the contract system if I can just mine for a day on Eve and send my Dust character 1 billion ISK? That's just a plain and simple broken gameplay mechanic on the order of ME3's Galaxy At War assets they're fashioning there and if that's what they truly intend they might want to rethink that because it's bad design. Imagine this you are a dust character in an eve corp. The CEO can give you temporary access to a specific corp wallet that has billions of ISK in it. He tells you to clean it out and go kill for the corp. Then he revokes your access. Transfer accomplished. No matter how much you might not like that is only one of at least a half dozen ways to "transfer" money. Others contracts for millions of ISK in return for one assault rifle or something else ridiculous. Preferential payouts on merc contracts. Or just giving them the stupid awesome gear for free. I am not particularly creative when it comes to this stuff. All of that can be done within the corp system no cheats no actual donations to the player. By simply linking the players in the same corp any way to combat transfer of ISK is moot. Just the market being linked is enough to do most of these things. Imagine this... Why the ** would I revoke access to my own ***** wallet? Also, I was under the impression that while could join alliances in Eve from dust, you would have to create a separate corp and/or holding company in Dust. Still begs the question, Why even have contract system? If the game is going to go the way many think it is then the market would be flooded with cheap money within a day locking 99% of the player base out of the market. Something tells me that it's not going to be how you think it's going to be - FYI
William HBonney Imperfects Negative-Feedback 318	Posted - 2012.07.17 02:32:00 - [29] - Quote ISK will eventually....within a month or two not be a stepping stone....a million isk tank that doesn't die will still be fielded because the risk is so low. CCP needs to increase the options for AV, ie mines, better mechanics for AV gernades, make fielding a tank a risk, otherwise, in 2 years it'll be tank wars and anyone in a suit will be 2 shotted by missles.
Ignatius Crumwald Sanmatar Kelkoons Minmatar Republic 475	Posted - 2012.07.17 02:37:00 - [30] - Quote William HBonney wrote: ISK will eventually....within a month or two not be a stepping stone....a million isk tank that doesn't die will still be fielded because the risk is so low. CCP needs to increase the options for AV, ie mines, better mechanics for AV gernades, make fielding a tank a risk, otherwise, in 2 years it'll be tank wars and anyone in a suit will be 2 shotted by missles. How when I can just "OPEN MY OWN WALLET TO MYSELF" and buy 6000 tanks on day one? Not to jump on you PPH, but just using it to make a point that some people may be planning or counting on eventualities that never materialize. And I want the pain of that realization to sink in.



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.