|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Red at Math
Royal Uhlans
Amarr Empire
41
   |
Posted - 2012.08.17 04:52:00 -
[1] - Quote
There has been much discussion regarding the balance of various weapon types against one another (HMGs vs ARs vs SMGs etc) that I feel constantly overlooks a critical piece of information. I feel like any discussion on the topic of weapon balance is being impeded by this missing piece of the puzzle, and would ask that CCP would please weigh in to help make the feedback we're providing in the beta better. Let's begin.
The usual argument being made is that a Scout with a Sub Machinegun facing off against an Assault suit with an AR should win 50% of the time, given that both players are equally skilled. Further, the same arguments state that either of those Class and Weapon combos facing off against a Heavy with a Heavy Machinegun should likewise win 50% of the time given equal skill on the part of both players. This argument is completely sound given a standard FPS environment with class or weapon selections open to all players. However, this ignores an integral part of what makes DUST unique; the Cost of items, both in ISK and SP invested.
First up, is item cost. (Figures are rounded estimations to make the math easier to digest)
- Prototype SMGs Cost ~50kisk.
- Prototype ARs Cost ~75kisk
- Prototype HMGs Cost ~150kisk
Followed by skill multipliers for the 3 weapon groups.
- Sidearm Support Skills 1x
- Light Weapon Support Skills 2x
- Heavy Weapon Support Skills 3x
What is CCP's intention in making them that way?
Are ARs, which are 150% the cost of SMGs in both ISK and SP intended to be 50% better? Are HMGs, which are 300% the cost of SMGs in both ISK and SP intended to be 200% better? Are HMGs intended to be 50% better than ARs? If the answer is no, then what justifies the cost of these weapons? If the answer is yes, then I think we need to be discussing weapon balance in a completely different way, as no one is arguing for HMGs to be 3x the weapons that SMGs are.
Please CCP, give us some feedback on this. We're in the dark here and it means we're not providing the best feedback we can. |
Red at Math
Royal Uhlans
Amarr Empire
41
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 12:29:00 -
[2] - Quote
Seran Jinkar wrote:??? Where is the point? The weapon prize depends on the complexity of the weapon. Requirement SP are based ont he rank of the skill. Simple as that: A weapon for every class (like SMG or Scrams) are the lowest rank, while specialised weapons need more experience. Why is this difficult to understand?
A complex specialist weapon costs more isk and SP. That's why a sniper rifle costs more than a Mass Driver. That's why a gun that can take down a tank in three shots costs more than a pistol that would barely scratch the paint.
I'm sorry that you've missed the point. I will try to explain it better.
Weapon Prices and Skill Point Requirements are Different across weapon groups. Weapons are not subsequently better than other Weapons to compensate for this additional cost. If Assault Rifles and Heavy Machineguns are Balanced against one another, then a player investing 10m SP in Light Weapons will simply come out ahead of a player investing 10m SP in Heavy Weapons. He will end up with more skill levels in a weapon that is cheaper to field.
If it's not supposed to be that way, if Higher Cost weapons are supposed to be better, then we need to seriously reexamine the way we've been discussing balance on these forums as it's leading to a situation where SMGs are just as good as any weapon, yet require 1/2 or 1/3 the Cost to field.
|
Red at Math
Royal Uhlans
Amarr Empire
41
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 13:48:00 -
[3] - Quote
Seran Jinkar wrote:*SNIP*
I think you're presenting a solution to the question I presented. But I'm not actually looking for a solution...I'm looking for an answer. The way I see it you either
A) Make every weapon balanced against every other weapon. Everything costs the same ISK, every weapon skill has the same multiplier. Every weapon is a good choice to make, with differences largely based on the preferences of the player. This is the standard approach an Arcade Shooter takes.
B) You make weapons that cost more ISK and SP better than weapons that cost less. This has the disadvantage of not feeling as "fair" to the casual observer, however it seems to be more in line with the Skill system and ISK cost of items in DUST.
The problem is, if we're intending B, we're also listening to people that call for a damage nerf to HMGs because they're better than ARs or a charge slowdown nerf to Forge Guns because they're better than Swarms, we're increasing the range on SMGs because they're inferior to ARs, the list goes on. We're moving towards an equilibrium of weapon balance because we have a bunch of players coming to this game from other FPS titles that believe that inherent unbalance of a weapon is simply bad game design instead of an intended mechanic.
What I'm asking is simply, "Which is it?" |
Red at Math
Royal Uhlans
Amarr Empire
41
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 13:50:00 -
[4] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:I have to agree on the arugment about the isk damage from heavy weapons is unbelivable in the new build.
Also another thing to consider training multipliers is how difficult the gun is really to operate.
Its much easier to train people to use weapons that where very familiar with before they became immortal.
How often did the non dusters get thier hands on a man portable HMG? probably never. Forge gun was recently made as wellt here isnt anything else in the known eve universe that operates like these guns. Where as rifles and pistols have much lower powered versions regular security forces are quite familar with.
Also price per gun is semi sensible.
Vulcan cannons are typically vehicle weapons costs waaaay more than any sniper cannon ever did.
What you're ignoring is that in the world of video games, choosing these "difficult...to operate" weapons is an inferior choice for the player. If my 10m SP doesn't get me as many levels in ARs as it does in SMGs, but the two weapons are otherwise equal, then I am fool for training the AR and an even bigger one for training the HMG. |
Red at Math
Royal Uhlans
Amarr Empire
41
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 22:39:00 -
[5] - Quote
Kivverg wrote:Honestly, I think it's waaay too early to chime in on weapon balance.
This is a point worth addressing (and since Iron Wolf wouldn't show up in a frigate to fight my Battleship in EVE, I had nothing else to do). I'm not really trying to address the balance of these weapons right now. What I am trying to do is get an answer on how CCP wants these weapons balanced, because the answer to that question will greatly change how the feedback on weapon balance is given. For instance, are Heavy Weapons currently weak because they're not 3x as effective as Sidearms? Are they too strong because they're better than Sidearms at all? This is what we need established before good feedback on weapon balance can happen, otherwise you're just going to get people giving wildly differing advice because they don't understand the intent of the game designer. |
Red at Math
Royal Uhlans
Amarr Empire
41
|
Posted - 2012.08.19 16:23:00 -
[6] - Quote
SILENTSAM 69 wrote:Cost will eventually be set by supply and demand with market manipulations thrown in. Prices now are almost irrelevant.
That's not quite true...raw material costs (be those NPC sell orders or a materials from a manufacturing process) will always set a floor for the prices. But CCP has ultimate control over what that floor is. Also, supply and demand will never affect SP multipliers. |
|
|
| |
|