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 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 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)

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.

...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.

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.

No. No its not. Nothing should be balanced based on how much it costs.

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.

Way to ignore the more important part of my post.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

It definitely shouldn't be a MAJOR balancing factor.

But it definitely SHOULD be a balancing factor. If it isn't, then money has no value. And if money has no value, there's no use playing.

Expensive gear should be valuable. That means it needs to be worth something. If not, there's no use for it, so nobody will use it.

But expensive gear should ALSO be hard to use for its rewards, or only have an advantage in being easier to use rather than better, or should have some IMMEDIATE cost involved for you to use it as well as the purchase cost, or have some other limiting factor to balance it IN ADDITION TO THE PRICE.