DUST Search - using the cost of something to justify its balance

BobThe843CakeMan wrote:

Vrain Matari wrote:

BobThe843CakeMan wrote:

Zekain Kade wrote:

Is fu*cking re*tarded. Realize that. If we all had infinite funds, cost would not matter, and it shouldn't now. But the balance of things would still be the same. The cost of a fitting, item, or vehicle is only directly related on how you can manage your funds. Using it to justify a Godly tank, or a super heavy, or a UBer rifle is pure retardation.

The cost of something is irrelevant.

why shouldn't cost be considered. you tell me why? All you told me here is that is stupid but why?

It's a bad idea because it doesn't address the underlying imbalance, just tries to compensate for it by changing the price. It's like trying to hold lousy architecture together with glue: the stresses and the shears are still there in the structure, and the thing wants to come apart at the first opportunity.

We're gonna have a lot of people with a lot of isk in this game, and also a lot of peeps flat broke. The amount of ISK availiable to DUST mercs and corps will escalate wildly when nullsec warfare gets going. I guarantee you corps will be taking contracts for billions of ISKies.

But balancing with cost is a bad idea in any game. In some, where the devs control the economy, they can maybe get away with it. But nobody, CCP included, controls the economy in New Eden(that's why they had to hire a Ph.D. research economist), and any ISK-based balancing of unbalanced weapons will go bad fast.

Then what's the point of it being more expensive if it isn't better? How is it imbalanced. The more expensive and item is the better it is. This has nothing to do with balancing. Now if there was a weapon that got some overwhelming bonus for being proto maybe. But ever since they nerfed the differences between the 3 gears it should be better.

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Zekain Kade BetaMax. 931	Posted - 2013.01.28 01:03:00 - [1] - Quote Is fucking retarded. Realize that. If we all had infinite funds, cost would not matter, and it shouldn't now. But the balance of things would still be the same. The cost of a fitting, item, or vehicle is only directly related on how you can manage your funds. Using it to justify a Godly tank, or a super heavy, or a UBer rifle is pure retardation. The cost of something is irrelevant.
BobThe843CakeMan BurgezzE.T.F 132	Posted - 2013.01.28 01:07:00 - [2] - Quote Zekain Kade wrote: Is fucking retarded. Realize that. If we all had infinite funds, cost would not matter, and it shouldn't now. But the balance of things would still be the same. The cost of a fitting, item, or vehicle is only directly related on how you can manage your funds. Using it to justify a Godly tank, or a super heavy, or a UBer rifle is pure retardation. The cost of something is irrelevant. why shouldn't cost be considered. you tell me why? All you told me here is that is stupid but why?
Zekain Kade BetaMax. 931	Posted - 2013.01.28 01:09:00 - [3] - Quote BobThe843CakeMan wrote: Zekain Kade wrote: Is fucking retarded. Realize that. If we all had infinite funds, cost would not matter, and it shouldn't now. But the balance of things would still be the same. The cost of a fitting, item, or vehicle is only directly related on how you can manage your funds. Using it to justify a Godly tank, or a super heavy, or a UBer rifle is pure retardation. The cost of something is irrelevant. why shouldn't cost be considered. you tell me why? All you told me here is that is stupid but why? Maybe you should re ready the post, because I did just say why.
BobThe843CakeMan BurgezzE.T.F 132	Posted - 2013.01.28 01:14:00 - [4] - Quote Zekain Kade wrote: BobThe843CakeMan wrote: Zekain Kade wrote: Is fucking retarded. Realize that. If we all had infinite funds, cost would not matter, and it shouldn't now. But the balance of things would still be the same. The cost of a fitting, item, or vehicle is only directly related on how you can manage your funds. Using it to justify a Godly tank, or a super heavy, or a UBer rifle is pure retardation. The cost of something is irrelevant. why shouldn't cost be considered. you tell me why? All you told me here is that is stupid but why? Maybe you should re ready the post, because I did just say why. so you saying a 200k isk sica should be able to kill a 2 million isk sagaris.Or a proto heavy should not be able to kill a standard heavy. Thts what your dumb post says. Or do you mean a proto heavy should not be able to kill a guy with a assault rifle? skill into a counter or get good.
Dr Debo Galaxy GunFall Mobilization Covert Intervention 200	Posted - 2013.01.28 01:16:00 - [5] - Quote There is also the SP balance, PG and CPU balance. The SP balance works by you having to level certain thing up to first be able to use it. Then there are other things like proficiencies, to give you more damage, less spread, or CPU/PG usage. The PG/CPU balance works so that even if you can afford the items cost you may not have leveled your CPU/PG to use it. Also there is the whole innate skills where you get upgrades to your stats without modules. So I can level up my shield recharge, shield strength,armor, armor rep., weapon damage, etc. So you could be wearing all militia gear but have stats of an advanced set with no upgrade. Also if everyone is a god, no one is.
Mars El'Theran Red Rogue Squadron Heart 0f Darkness 52	Posted - 2013.01.28 01:16:00 - [6] - Quote I'm lost. What were we talking about? A good car costs more than a bad car; price is relevant because the cost to manufacturer is relevant to the price. We just don't have our own manufacturing to compare with these things, but if you read the descriptions of some items, I am fairly certain they'll suggest higher quality materials and advanced production techniques were used. Also, better is generally more expensive because it is better, generally.
Lasarte Ioni Noob Gaming 72	Posted - 2013.01.28 01:27:00 - [7] - Quote the most r3tarded thread in this forum. If you got infinite funds, you get the most expensive and THEN you may expect balance, but militia vs proto balance is plain r3tarded. So militia SL vs proto tank -> not a scratch? i think its normal. You can't compare between tiers, it's like going into a race with a fiat 300 and complaining the ferrari is owning damn it son, it cost as much as little house on the countryside. Cost comes with excellency; if you want the best, you pay the most, if you can't afford it, get something worse, on the paper someone with the same gear but of higher tier will kill you (that's when you compensate with skill) Should i use this full proto 400k fit in a match that gives me 300k? I deserve to be way more effective than myself using the same fit but militia tier, but hell, if i die on it it's not gonna pay off. Then you may be fighting in some critical scenario where defeat is not an option, well, then you buy excellency, the poor (literally) guys are gonna complain, but , if they could get into that gear they wouldn't. Would they? Edit: really? r3tarded is a grave insult for a theoretical +16 audience? What a country.
Reimus Klinsman BetaMax. 320	Posted - 2013.01.28 01:33:00 - [8] - Quote I think the issue is that Cost isn't a factor for many people. Currently I have 18m isk and I know that MANY more people have loads more than that. When Eve-Dust market is in place, cost will not be an issue. Most eve players can urinate a billion isk. There should be another factor people need to think about when fielding the more expensive gear. For example, there could be modifiers on WPs gained. Currently if a protofit kills a militia fit, they get 50WP.. whereas if a militia fit kills a protofit, they still only get 50WP... Add in kill modifiers where a militia fit gets additional WP for killing a protofit and and proto gets reduced for militia.... With the modifier, people will find it less lucrative to field protogear at all times.
Zat Earthshatter Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 304	Posted - 2013.01.28 01:35:00 - [9] - Quote Because this is a game universe where every unit of ISK counts, even more than every kill you make. There is a concept in this universe known as ISK War. Say there is a battle versus Player 1 and Player 2. Player 1 dies 3 times with full Proto, loses about 1mil. Player 2 died 10 times, but used Standard gear. He lost about 300k. In this situation, Player 2 is the real winner. Why? Because it takes far longer to recoup 1mil than 300k, which means that Player 1 will run out of resources sooner, which will win the war in Player 2's favor. If anything, this benefits you as you can utilize strategy and tactics to beat a faction that zerg-rushes. But, in order for that to exist, there has to be a reason to use more ISK in the first place - that is why more expensive things have to have an advantage. Just be glad that all paying real money does is earn it sooner. In the future, I recommend trying to avoid an aggressive or angry-sounding post, which is what the OP came off as. Aggressive posts are more likely to draw "flame" posts and insults, which will often lead to a warning or threadlock by moderators.
Vrain Matari ZionTCD Legacy Rising 404	Posted - 2013.01.28 02:05:00 - [10] - Quote BobThe843CakeMan wrote: Zekain Kade wrote: Is fucking retarded. Realize that. If we all had infinite funds, cost would not matter, and it shouldn't now. But the balance of things would still be the same. The cost of a fitting, item, or vehicle is only directly related on how you can manage your funds. Using it to justify a Godly tank, or a super heavy, or a UBer rifle is pure retardation. The cost of something is irrelevant. why shouldn't cost be considered. you tell me why? All you told me here is that is stupid but why? It's a bad idea because it doesn't address the underlying imbalance, just tries to compensate for it by changing the price. It's like trying to hold lousy architecture together with glue: the stresses and the shears are still there in the structure, and the thing wants to come apart at the first opportunity. We're gonna have a lot of people with a lot of isk in this game, and also a lot of peeps flat broke. The amount of ISK availiable to DUST mercs and corps will escalate wildly when nullsec warfare gets going. I guarantee you corps will be taking contracts for billions of ISKies. But balancing with cost is a bad idea in any game. In some, where the devs control the economy, they can maybe get away with it. But nobody, CCP included, controls the economy in New Eden(that's why they had to hire a Ph.D. research economist), and any ISK-based balancing of unbalanced weapons will go bad fast.

Y0UR NAME HERE Imperfects Negative-Feedback 444	Posted - 2013.01.28 02:08:00 - [11] - Quote Dumbest post I've ever read. Truly. Also if its expensive and op or just pure op, Then bet your ass the eve economy will make sure it doesn't get used often, by playing the market with them and making them very very expensive. You may go to restock one day only to find out 1 guy bought the entire weapon out in jita only to relist at 20x the price. One more edit, this is why proto gear should be op to the lower tiers. The price tag that will sit on it. A vindicator isn't expensive only because its faction right? Because its an op solo ship that will smash your face in, do people have isk to afford it every time? Some do, but most don't. Isk is very relevant.
BobThe843CakeMan BurgezzE.T.F 132	Posted - 2013.01.28 02:12:00 - [12] - Quote Vrain Matari wrote: BobThe843CakeMan wrote: Zekain Kade wrote: Is fucking retarded. Realize that. If we all had infinite funds, cost would not matter, and it shouldn't now. But the balance of things would still be the same. The cost of a fitting, item, or vehicle is only directly related on how you can manage your funds. Using it to justify a Godly tank, or a super heavy, or a UBer rifle is pure retardation. The cost of something is irrelevant. why shouldn't cost be considered. you tell me why? All you told me here is that is stupid but why? It's a bad idea because it doesn't address the underlying imbalance, just tries to compensate for it by changing the price. It's like trying to hold lousy architecture together with glue: the stresses and the shears are still there in the structure, and the thing wants to come apart at the first opportunity. We're gonna have a lot of people with a lot of isk in this game, and also a lot of peeps flat broke. The amount of ISK availiable to DUST mercs and corps will escalate wildly when nullsec warfare gets going. I guarantee you corps will be taking contracts for billions of ISKies. But balancing with cost is a bad idea in any game. In some, where the devs control the economy, they can maybe get away with it. But nobody, CCP included, controls the economy in New Eden(that's why they had to hire a Ph.D. research economist), and any ISK-based balancing of unbalanced weapons will go bad fast. Then what's the point of it being more expensive if it isn't better? How is it imbalanced. The more expensive and item is the better it is. This has nothing to do with balancing. Now if there was a weapon that got some overwhelming bonus for being proto maybe. But ever since they nerfed the differences between the 3 gears it should be better.
Vrain Matari ZionTCD Legacy Rising 404	Posted - 2013.01.28 11:40:00 - [13] - Quote BobThe843CakeMan wrote: Vrain Matari wrote: BobThe843CakeMan wrote: Zekain Kade wrote: Is fucking retarded. Realize that. If we all had infinite funds, cost would not matter, and it shouldn't now. But the balance of things would still be the same. The cost of a fitting, item, or vehicle is only directly related on how you can manage your funds. Using it to justify a Godly tank, or a super heavy, or a UBer rifle is pure retardation. The cost of something is irrelevant. why shouldn't cost be considered. you tell me why? All you told me here is that is stupid but why? It's a bad idea because it doesn't address the underlying imbalance, just tries to compensate for it by changing the price. It's like trying to hold lousy architecture together with glue: the stresses and the shears are still there in the structure, and the thing wants to come apart at the first opportunity. We're gonna have a lot of people with a lot of isk in this game, and also a lot of peeps flat broke. The amount of ISK availiable to DUST mercs and corps will escalate wildly when nullsec warfare gets going. I guarantee you corps will be taking contracts for billions of ISKies. But balancing with cost is a bad idea in any game. In some, where the devs control the economy, they can maybe get away with it. But nobody, CCP included, controls the economy in New Eden(that's why they had to hire a Ph.D. research economist), and any ISK-based balancing of unbalanced weapons will go bad fast. Then what's the point of it being more expensive if it isn't better? How is it imbalanced. The more expensive and item is the better it is. This has nothing to do with balancing. Now if there was a weapon that got some overwhelming bonus for being proto maybe. But ever since they nerfed the differences between the 3 gears it should be better. In New Eden, those better, higher-tier weapons will be more expensive because the minerals and blueprints that go into them for manufacturing are more expensive. The market does the rest on its own.
crazy space 2100046106 ZionTCD Legacy Rising 879	Posted - 2013.01.28 11:51:00 - [14] - Quote See CCP is dumb, every mmo on the planet balances based on cost. and so should dust. No ***. Tech 2 gear is better than tech 1, it takes more to make so it's more expensive. A wolf is more expensive than a rifter. The cost is what justifies the whole thing! If the Wolf was only 400,000 instead of 13 milion. It would unbalanced. The harder it is to get the parts and to build it tech2/tech3* the more expensive they can sell it because the demand will be higher than supply. This is why having your own R&D corp is awesome. Because if you make them yourself, you can do so cheaper. And many corps have lower corp prices, since profit isn't a concern. And as gear is lost in battle large wars will increase the price. But the point is, if it's more expensive in base material cost it should be better. This is a simple fact of balance that even eve online follows despite people trying to say otherwise. Even if CCP does find creative ways to allow the players to control the market through wars/trade routes.
pegasis prime The Shadow Cavalry Mercenaries 81	Posted - 2013.01.28 11:59:00 - [15] - Quote Zekain Kade wrote: Is fucking retarded. Realize that. If we all had infinite funds, cost would not matter, and it shouldn't now. But the balance of things would still be the same. The cost of a fitting, item, or vehicle is only directly related on how you can manage your funds. Using it to justify a Godly tank, or a super heavy, or a UBer rifle is pure retardation. The cost of something is irrelevant. Of bloody course cost matters you tool , yea i can how your argument might make sense in tard land. The better the wepon the higher the cost. its simple really i doubt ............ well i hope you can understand this concept. if not then im sure the world is doomed for sure.saying I mean think about what you'r for christs sake. The cost isnt directly related to how you manage your funds you tool the cost is related to te effectivness of your equipment. I think by the sounds of it you have been taken down too many times and it has cost you too much stop your QQing and man up .
The Dragon Ascendant Celtic Anarchy 101	Posted - 2013.01.28 12:13:00 - [16] - Quote I think what the OP is trying to say is he wants infinite funds. ... I think.
Washlee UnReaL. 131	Posted - 2013.01.28 12:15:00 - [17] - Quote I always have left over funds , I never lose profit always make. Unless me and my corp do battles. Just make alot of money then refit all your classes with all. Use BPO's And Starter FIts
pegasis prime The Shadow Cavalry Mercenaries 81	Posted - 2013.01.28 12:19:00 - [18] - Quote The Dragon Ascendant wrote: I think what the OP is trying to say is he wants infinite funds. ... I think. I dont think he is saying that at all. I just think he has no isk left or ends out with little profit from a game because he is loosing too much expensive equipment and cant manage his finances . his argument was the cost wouldent matter if we had an unendless supply of isk which we dont, so the cost does matter.
ChromeBreaker SVER True Blood Unclaimed. 197	Posted - 2013.01.28 12:31:00 - [19] - Quote I will now ramble... This is a part of BALANCE You gain isk from doing well - the better you do the more isk you get - the more isk you have the more you can afford. If you do well, you can afford the nicer things in life - if you then die you lose this. The nicer a thing is, the more it is worth - and the bigger the loss if you die. Do well - lose more If you dont buy nice things, and save up millions of isk - you are wasting that isk, what is it doing for you? by not spending isk you get by playing well you are not plying to your full potential. To conclude: ISK NOT SPENT ---- IS ISK WASTED Edit: I have 12 suit builds, and 4 different tank fits, and i have many of each. I then have 2mill isk as a buffer/contingency to replace things and/or buy something new. Any extra cash i put into better mods, suits and of course skills. As i am, i can sustain this living. I COULD just use cheep fits and make lots of isk, but that would be a waist unless im saving for something in particular.
Ninjanomyx Imperfects Negative-Feedback 16	Posted - 2013.01.28 12:33:00 - [20] - Quote Risk vs Reward is the name of the game in New Eden. HTFU, L2P KthxBAI :P

Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 1849	Posted - 2013.01.28 12:38:00 - [21] - Quote Should ISK be the only point of balance for a powerful item? No way. Should it be considered a limiting factor on an item, and thus part of how said item is balanced? DEFINITELY YES.
pegasis prime The Shadow Cavalry Mercenaries 81	Posted - 2013.01.28 12:47:00 - [22] - Quote ChromeBreaker wrote: I will now ramble... This is a part of BALANCE You gain isk from doing well - the better you do the more isk you get - the more isk you have the more you can afford. If you do well, you can afford the nicer things in life - if you then die you lose this. The nicer a thing is, the more it is worth - and the bigger the loss if you die. Do well - lose more If you dont buy nice things, and save up millions of isk - you are wasting that isk, what is it doing for you? by not spending isk you get by playing well you are not plying to your full potential. To conclude: ISK NOT SPENT ---- IS ISK WASTED i compleatly agree with you my heavy Mk2 suit with all its mods and the HMG isnt cheep compaird to the standrd mk1 with mk1 tear mods and wepons , but i stay alive much longer and often go on games of abush and skirmish with less than 3 deaths and anything between 7-25 kills. so using the correct tier wepons and mods is expensive but does help you play to your full potential and stay alive without wasting isk on the battlefield.
Vrain Matari ZionTCD Legacy Rising 404	Posted - 2013.01.28 14:37:00 - [23] - Quote Garrett Blacknova wrote: Should ISK be the only point of balance for a powerful item? No way. Should it be considered a limiting factor on an item, and thus part of how said item is balanced? DEFINITELY YES. You're right ofc Garrett. The way CCP will implement this minimum cost is through the value of the manufacturing inputs required to produce the item. Nobody will sell below cost(well, except for the hard-up-for-cash and market noobs/loball buy orders), and free market suppy/demand will set the price. In New eden that means market pvp, freighter gankings at a Jita gate because some idiot jumps his freighter with 30 billion isk of cargo through without scouting first, distance-to-market, risk-to-market, and much more underhanded shenanigans etc. But underneath that market Are the intrinsic performance characteristics of the item, e.g. an assault rifle. The characteristics of that item(dps, accuracy, range falloff, fitting requirements, clip size, etc.) are what should be tweaked to achieve balance, not the ISK cost of the item. If this is done right we will se a healthy mix of weapon types and tiers on the battlefield, if it is done poorly we will start to see a less rich and diverse set of choices being made. So the situation I am worrying about is when the item's inherent minerals cost is lower than its performance level. In a well-supplied market competition will drive the price down to a sliver above cost of production and poof everybody and their dog is running around with protoman's Creodron breach AR's, for example.
R F Gyro ZionTCD Legacy Rising 315	Posted - 2013.01.28 15:09:00 - [24] - Quote Hopefully CCP have learned by now that balancing primarily on ISK is a bad idea (google for "Eve Titan Blobs"). Over the timescales that CCP are talking about for Dust, huge number of players will accumulate vast amounts of resources. The only truly limited resource in online games is players. All game balance should be based on all players being of roughly equal value, with other issues (ISK, in-game skills, etc.) being secondary "tweaking". This is why HAVs are the cause of so much bitterness; CCP are trying to balance on ISK (a tank costs 5 times as much as a dropsuit) not players (one player in a tank is much more effective than one player in a dropsuit). They could solve this in an instant by making HAVs need 3 players to operate effectively; they can then be three times as effective and cost three times as much as a dropsuit, and no-one would complain (much).
RuckingFetard Better Hide R Die 22	Posted - 2013.01.28 15:23:00 - [25] - Quote Zekain Kade wrote: Is fucking retarded. Realize that. If we all had infinite funds, cost would not matter, and it shouldn't now. But the balance of things would still be the same. The cost of a fitting, item, or vehicle is only directly related on how you can manage your funds. Using it to justify a Godly tank, or a super heavy, or a UBer rifle is pure retardation. The cost of something is irrelevant. Someone mentioned me?
pegasis prime The Shadow Cavalry Mercenaries 81	Posted - 2013.01.28 15:59:00 - [26] - Quote RuckingFetard wrote: Zekain Kade wrote: Is fucking retarded. Realize that. If we all had infinite funds, cost would not matter, and it shouldn't now. But the balance of things would still be the same. The cost of a fitting, item, or vehicle is only directly related on how you can manage your funds. Using it to justify a Godly tank, or a super heavy, or a UBer rifle is pure retardation. The cost of something is irrelevant. Someone mentioned me? hahahaha love it
Y0UR NAME HERE Imperfects Negative-Feedback 444	Posted - 2013.01.28 16:00:00 - [27] - Quote pegasis prime wrote: RuckingFetard wrote: Zekain Kade wrote: Is fucking retarded. Realize that. If we all had infinite funds, cost would not matter, and it shouldn't now. But the balance of things would still be the same. The cost of a fitting, item, or vehicle is only directly related on how you can manage your funds. Using it to justify a Godly tank, or a super heavy, or a UBer rifle is pure retardation. The cost of something is irrelevant. Someone mentioned me? hahahaha love it lolol classic.
Kaserai Mandrag DUST University Ivy League 57	Posted - 2013.01.28 16:13:00 - [28] - Quote Zekain Kade wrote: Is fucking retarded. Realize that. If we all had infinite funds, cost would not matter, and it shouldn't now. But the balance of things would still be the same. The cost of a fitting, item, or vehicle is only directly related on how you can manage your funds. Using it to justify a Godly tank, or a super heavy, or a UBer rifle is pure retardation. The cost of something is irrelevant. Ah look. Another Call of Duty child complaining about the HMG. Just some info, the horse your beating has long since turned to jelly
knight of 6 ZionTCD Legacy Rising 66	Posted - 2013.01.28 16:52:00 - [29] - Quote Zekain Kade wrote: If we all had infinite funds, cost would not matter, and it shouldn't now. i take it you're one of the silly folks who stands in front of my tank shooting with an AR? the logical fallacy with your argument is that if everything were perfectly balanced there would be no reason to run anything but starter fits. would you buy a Ferrari if it were no better than a clunker? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ my tank = 204,000 Isk loseing my tank = -204,000 match income = 190,000 net match earnings = -14,000 i can't afford to lose a tank every match, so i don't. heavies are the same way, the heavy skillbook alone costs roughly a mill, not to mention the number of skillpoints needed. we pay more; we get more. you want more? spend more.
Tregar Kerrigan Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 36	Posted - 2013.01.28 16:56:00 - [30] - Quote As ti currently stands, we are able to make a little over 200k ISK per match. Excluding corporate donations, that puts a limit on how much ISK you can field in a given match. Once you hit that 200k mark, you are not making any money on the match, and you either suffer the loss, or use worse gear. Because I don;t have all the equipment I want yet, nor all the skills, I limit myself to 100k loss per match, about 5 suits that are well fit. I don't risk that much in terms of ISK on any given life, so I am not as effective as someone who is willing to risk twice as much ISK.



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