Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
709
|
Posted - 2015.07.25 15:18:30 -
[31] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Zan Shiro wrote:Your best bet is to run in crew not driven by the almighty isk efficiency rating. In these kind of isk efficiency places you won't see fun comps. Its not the isk to some that is concern. Its the ass chewing in comms after as some e-dictator is ranting about how they are messing up the kb stats. Speaking of isk efficiency and killboard stats, remember when moa lost a dabigredboat revenant? Revenants: rare and expensive, and will mess up your killboard stats
in the case of pl's space turd loss I enjoyed the grath comm leaks the most from the whole incident, their isk efficiency hit just could not compare.
And to be honest the I guess leader of that op got some rep points from me. Just rolled along with the loss on that it seems. At least on the comm leaks that went around. I will admit to liking the irony of a PL dynamite fishing trip blowing up in their face. But lots of cool points for the balls to actually run stuff like this was given to them. |
Iain Cariaba
1715
|
Posted - 2015.07.25 15:28:18 -
[32] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:10 years + of attempting to balance ships in EvE hasn't worked. Why? Because the methodology is flawed. From battleships to Supers to T3s to Ishtars whenever a ship or module or mechanic is nerfed Seriously when has CCP ever actually nerfed a ship? *cough* Drake *cough*
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
I couldn't have said it better.
Will troll for a t-shirt.
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
316
|
Posted - 2015.07.25 15:43:32 -
[33] - Quote
artificially raising prices on ships is just horrible, so no.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3613
|
Posted - 2015.07.25 19:30:11 -
[34] - Quote
Arla Sarain wrote:Because Monopoly.
You limit the amount of possible production and Goons will lock it down.
Then it won't matter if those ships are OP or not. You won't ever see them. Then it will be the next big thing. You gonna limit the production on those too? How long till we are all back in rookie ships?
Exactly this.
OP, why should we be the only people allowed to fly tengus, ishtars, gilas, domis, or whatever else is FOTM this time? |
Lu Ziffer
Jelly Baby Corporation Fidelas Constans
25
|
Posted - 2015.07.25 20:21:02 -
[35] - Quote
Yes CCP could add an artificial limit but this is not how a sandbox works. Ship supply is limited already by ressource supply that is why an Titan today costs 100billion and not 35 like in 2009. We do not fly battleship fleets anymore because they are expensive loosing 250man fleet with bs and t2 is 50billion isk and 2000hours of mining to get the ressources.
With the removal of the botting fleets and droneloot the infinite ressourcepool is gone and ships are limited in supply already.
Nerfing?? Anyone remembering the Vagabond in 2008 ? 30km/s+ 400dps and no way to tackle that vagabond that was fun. The balacing in 2015 is a lot better then it was 10 years ago. Stop crying about the flavor of the month ship it will pass and there will be another ship you can cry about. |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
2335
|
Posted - 2015.07.26 04:33:43 -
[36] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:Arla Sarain wrote:Because Monopoly.
You limit the amount of possible production and Goons will lock it down.
Then it won't matter if those ships are OP or not. You won't ever see them. Then it will be the next big thing. You gonna limit the production on those too? How long till we are all back in rookie ships?
Exactly this. OP, why should we be the only people allowed to fly tengus, ishtars, gilas, domis, or whatever else is FOTM this time? The issue of coalitions is a separate problem that needs to be solved seperately. For coalitions of 40,000 people, a tax of 1,000,000 isk per day is enough to buy 40 supers, 400 Domis or 80 fully fit t3.
Obviously a very broken aspect of the game. The game mechanics should not be built around broken goonswarm.
CCP Fozzie GǣWe can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonGǪ in null sec anomalies. Gǣ*
Kaalrus pwned..... :)
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2063
|
Posted - 2015.07.26 04:51:26 -
[37] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:Danika Princip wrote:Arla Sarain wrote:Because Monopoly.
You limit the amount of possible production and Goons will lock it down.
Then it won't matter if those ships are OP or not. You won't ever see them. Then it will be the next big thing. You gonna limit the production on those too? How long till we are all back in rookie ships?
Exactly this. OP, why should we be the only people allowed to fly tengus, ishtars, gilas, domis, or whatever else is FOTM this time? The issue of coalitions is a separate problem that needs to be solved seperately. For coalitions of 40,000 people, a tax of 1,000,000 isk per day is enough to buy 400 Domis or 80 fully fit t3. Obviously a very broken aspect of the game. The game mechanics should not be built around broken goonswarm.
You can't ignore coalition in any balance proposal. Making friends will always be powerful and will always happen, espcially if it enable you to corner an important asset like the rare component used to produce the latest WTFPWNMOBILE. |
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
2356
|
Posted - 2015.07.26 05:19:39 -
[38] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:10 years + of attempting to balance ships in EvE hasn't worked. Why? Because the methodology is flawed. From battleships to Supers to T3s to Ishtars whenever a ship or module or mechanic is nerfed the player finds a new best ship and the cycle continues.
Currently the best of the best in our world is the F22 or Sukhoi PAK FA so why don't all airforces use these platforms? Why are some airforces using F16's or F18's?
I think the game would benefit by linking some form of bottleneck on the production of ships to limit the amount of a specific ship being produced. A example but not necessarily a workable suggestion would be purchasing an item from the manufacturer (Ishukone for example) for each run of a BP with a scaling cost based on demand.
You could have OP ships in game but given such ships would be in high demand the cost would scale to become prohibitive, rather than the devs nerfing ships or mods the game would nerf base on demand as happens in the real world.
Oh for goodness' sake.
Cost is never, ever the most important issue when it comes to balance. Capabilities are the most important issue.
If you automagically increase prices on popular ships, only those with the cash will fly them. They will then be more capable of bringing in more cash, further driving up the price, and further ensuring that no one can challenge them without overwhelming numbers. Social engineering to prevent collusion... won't work. Period.
Besides which... who says that balancing ships in Eve "hasn't worked"? I think it's worked wonderfully. Ships are dynamically being balanced and new metas are arriving on the scene to adapt. This drives diversity in fleets over time and ensures the overall health of the game. Looking for a single "perfect balance" is utterly ridiculous and leads to stagnation. If there is a single, long-term answer to "which ship is best" then the game is broken. Period. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
3137
|
Posted - 2015.07.26 05:27:06 -
[39] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:10 years + of attempting to balance ships in EvE hasn't worked. Why? Because the methodology is flawed. From battleships to Supers to T3s to Ishtars whenever a ship or module or mechanic is nerfed the player finds a new best ship and the cycle continues.
Currently the best of the best in our world is the F22 or Sukhoi PAK FA so why don't all airforces use these platforms? Why are some airforces using F16's or F18's?
I think the game would benefit by linking some form of bottleneck on the production of ships to limit the amount of a specific ship being produced. A example but not necessarily a workable suggestion would be purchasing an item from the manufacturer (Ishukone for example) for each run of a BP with a scaling cost based on demand.
You could have OP ships in game but given such ships would be in high demand the cost would scale to become prohibitive, rather than the devs nerfing ships or mods the game would nerf base on demand as happens in the real world.
No. Bottlenecks in production were done before. Remember the sky high Technetium prices, OTEC, and how unbalancing that was?
And what is the point of having a OP ship that is cost prohibitive. Might as well delete it...like this thread.
Sorry, just a bad, bad idea.
Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence
So Local Chat vanished, now what?
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
13795
|
Posted - 2015.07.26 06:55:06 -
[40] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote: The reason is cost is THE MOST IMPORTANT factor in balancing.
Quoting for posterity.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
|
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
2335
|
Posted - 2015.07.26 08:56:46 -
[41] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:Danika Princip wrote:Arla Sarain wrote:Because Monopoly.
You limit the amount of possible production and Goons will lock it down.
Then it won't matter if those ships are OP or not. You won't ever see them. Then it will be the next big thing. You gonna limit the production on those too? How long till we are all back in rookie ships?
Exactly this. OP, why should we be the only people allowed to fly tengus, ishtars, gilas, domis, or whatever else is FOTM this time? The issue of coalitions is a separate problem that needs to be solved seperately. For coalitions of 40,000 people, a tax of 1,000,000 isk per day is enough to buy 400 Domis or 80 fully fit t3. Obviously a very broken aspect of the game. The game mechanics should not be built around broken goonswarm. You can't ignore coalition in any balance proposal. Making friends will always be powerful and will always happen, espcially if it enable you to corner an important asset like the rare component used to produce the latest WTFPWNMOBILE. Huge coalitions exist because of the topography and systems the devs created. The idea of huge multi-thousand person fleet fights as a promotional tool worked as long as you were viewing it on youtube but the reality was far fron the advertised fun. They were and are as broken as CFC in terms of playability and health of the game.
In regards to cornering rare assets since no actual mechanics were suggested, if you read the OP, I specifically stated it was a concept and not a suggestion of what should be implemented, that would at this stage be impossible.
The fallacy is easily exposed by the analogous suggestion that artificially limiting amounts of harvestables in asteroids would allow Goons to corner the minerals market. It's nonesense.
CCP Fozzie GǣWe can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonGǪ in null sec anomalies. Gǣ*
Kaalrus pwned..... :)
|
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
2335
|
Posted - 2015.07.26 09:31:36 -
[42] - Quote
If you want a rough idea of how such a controlled system might work when implemented:
1: Reduce the need for coalitions. Any biological system will flourish as long as there is energy and comfortable space for it to expand into. Take China for example. It expanded absorbing other states because there were few barriers to prevent expansion. It failed though when it attempted to conquer Vietnam because terrain and barriers existed to prevent its expansion.
The same is true for EvE. CFC expanded around the map because there were interregional links and cynosuaral fields capable of moving forces over a huge number of light years. If the map was adjusted such that tactical choke points could be turned into defensive bastions, rather than being skipped over by cyno or alternate regional jumps the necessity of forming huge defensive coalitions would not be as necessary.
2: Create a limited unique component required for each particular ship. Let's say for Ishtar the required mineral is Dickite (discovered by Allen **** if you're curious about the name.) Dickite is sold by Creodron exclusively. Creodron produce a specific amount of Dickite at the base rate. As demand increases in comparison to the other Gallante Heavy Assault Cruisers the price is increased to reflect that.
If balanced correctly with relatively balanced ships it would encourage people to choose cheaper competitive hulls. Since there are counters to Ishtar's those that refused to change would find themselves in tactically superior but economically inferior ships winning battles but losing multiple times worth of isk than they're killing. Unless the isk faucet was really out of wack that's a unsustainable situation in the long term.
CCP Fozzie GǣWe can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonGǪ in null sec anomalies. Gǣ*
Kaalrus pwned..... :)
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
263
|
Posted - 2015.07.26 10:25:40 -
[43] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Watched it and tbh, I don't have any problems with what I saw. It was a well laid trap with a specific fit for that job. Likewise, don't see an issue there:
His burst damage is 120,090 (from the roll-over), and typically the hits (from the notifications) are around 1-2% of that, on MWD'ing destroyers...
Looks like he had fun...
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
709
|
Posted - 2015.07.26 12:20:28 -
[44] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:
2: Create a limited unique component required for each particular ship. Let's say for Ishtar the required mineral is Dickite (discovered by Allen **** if you're curious about the name.) Dickite is sold by Creodron exclusively. Creodron produce a specific amount of Dickite at the base rate. As demand increases in comparison to the other Gallante Heavy Assault Cruisers the price is increased to reflect that.
So you are making special materials for every t2 ship in this game. And since you are breakind down by hac even....as I read it ishtar gets this dicktite element, diesmost I can sssume gets one too, I'll call it vagtite
Did you even think about this?
At frigates alone this is an overcomplicated steaming pile of crap really.
4 EAF components (1 eaf per race) 8 AF components (2 AF's per race, 4 races) 8 CO components (bomber and CO fall under this title, 2 components time 4 races).
You have 20 new elements right here. Each one purpose. For just t2 frigates offs.
Several cruiser classes, some of them multishipped....throw in 2 CS and BS per race.....and this idea is shooting up to over 50 special elements.
And its NPC based to go against cop's clear drive to as much a player driven economy as possible.
And since you want to kill fotm sales....you'd have to do this for T1. In case you missed the memo, VNI is also used. So now that is getting an element. So is every t1 ship in game. In case my navy crapacal ever blots out the sun. Or my plain vanilla T1.
And yes....lets do this right....I want worm-tite, gila-tite, and rattlerr-tite. Now go through all the other pirate ships.
Are you trying to kill fotm ship production or make ANY ship production in this game an overcomplicated **** pile? What I am seeing with what will be 100+ new elements to make all ships in the game.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium. CODE.
13823
|
Posted - 2015.07.27 01:30:43 -
[45] - Quote
Zan Shiro wrote: Are you trying to kill fotm ship production or make ANY ship production in this game an overcomplicated **** pile?
I don't think it's that, he just has absolutely zero capacity for introspective thought. He is incapable of actually viewing his own ideas objectively to see just how bad each and every one of them really are.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
711
|
Posted - 2015.07.27 02:25:37 -
[46] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Zan Shiro wrote: Are you trying to kill fotm ship production or make ANY ship production in this game an overcomplicated **** pile?
I don't think it's that, he just has absolutely zero capacity for introspective thought. He is incapable of actually viewing his own ideas objectively to see just how bad each and every one of them really are.
Basically.
the only perfect pvp game that was created was imo Pong. two long bars, one ball to bounce around. Ready, Fight lol.
Anything above this simple model will have issues.
this model he is proposing doesn't even work.
Blizzard tried this with D3 and the release of AH. To keep AH viable blizzard did a ton of stuff that sucked for everyone. Stuff Blizzard finally got their head out of their ass later and pulled.
For blizzard they were reaching the point of extensive micromanagement to keep item drops under control. Both in terms of drop rate control...and when I played it during these times rebalance passes weekly, hell sometimes 2 of them a week. Barb build 5 the new way spam to increase drop rate...nerf it. This had to have had killed massive dev time. Even with the manpower they have.
Sucked for the players. It broke the spirit of the what diablo was...kill and loot game. We run the same stuff again and again for the thrill of that nice item drop action. Its like a nerd lottery, and it does feel good when you win for the night. We did not play to have drop rates dicked up to keep AH viable and be told well...buy it off AH.
And it broke builds to the point I left. I got tired of having to read patch several times a week to see what they broke on chars this patch. Wasn't even an item spammer...I just wanted to play the game nice and single player like and didn't even touch AH. Not have my build go to crap if I stumbled upon a spammers build. |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
2337
|
Posted - 2015.07.27 03:24:14 -
[47] - Quote
The "model" as I stated in the post was a rough example. However it would be effective in limiting or at least penalising use of flavour of the month hulls.
As for Bitter Kalrus, many of the ideas and issues I proposed which were trolled and belittled by Kalrus n friends have been implemented or acknowledged by CCP staff. Of special note are the inability of small gang or solo to affect Sov assets and the huge amount of ISK being made in null.
CCP Fozzie GǣWe can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonGǪ in null sec anomalies. Gǣ*
Kaalrus pwned..... :)
|
Shallanna Yassavi
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2015.07.27 04:47:21 -
[48] - Quote
For most players, cost already is an issue, especially if we're going to be wrecking a few of them. For most corps, cost is already an issue, which is why the emphasis on kills-per-ISK: you never know how long a fight is going to last, so you gear cheap to last through the fight.
For ludicrously rich corps and industrial moguls, it's not, and never will be.
A signature :o
|
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
712
|
Posted - 2015.07.27 04:59:59 -
[49] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:The "model" as I stated in the post was a rough example. However it would be effective in limiting or at least penalising use of flavour of the month hulls.
.
Did you ever think some fotm hulls are that way because of lack of choice?
I will for the moment pretend Ishtar does not exists (some will rejoice at that thought lol). I know you are gunning for this most likely. So poof its gone.
Other classes and other races have that one ship is spammed because there is no better option in the class.
You'd be screwing over caldari here for example. Imo based on years of flying them (combat char started caldari in apoc era) they are a very polarized line of ships. One ship good, rest meh to just flat out crap. this damn near applies up the whole class lineup. Some exceptions over time...but ccp usually "changes" that at some point. So caldari will do fotm a lot as well option b is to fly a flaming turd of ship.
For a caldari pilot just looking at t2 cruisers, cerb will be classed as fotm most likely. run an eagle to demystify this trend if you have not. CCP gave medium hybrids a shot at the title...then took it away. So end result is here you would be penalizing caldari pilots for choosing cerb over what has been a lackluster HAC for pretty much years.
Or hell ishar vs diemost. Even before all the changes and Ishtar was an average hac (which it was long ago)...it was still spammed by gallente pilots. Why? Diemost got that nickname for a reason, google the history if so inclined. YOu will find hits going back years even on the original now archived old eve forums.
In short your solution will make people go to the ships they avoided in the first place because they sucked ass. Or pay more to avoid mediocrity,
|
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
2337
|
Posted - 2015.07.27 06:02:29 -
[50] - Quote
Zan Shiro wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:The "model" as I stated in the post was a rough example. However it would be effective in limiting or at least penalising use of flavour of the month hulls.
. Did you ever think some fotm hulls are that way because of lack of choice? I will for the moment pretend Ishtar does not exists (some will rejoice at that thought lol). I know you are gunning for this most likely. So poof its gone. Other classes and other races have that one ship is spammed because there is no better option in the class. You'd be screwing over caldari here for example. Imo based on years of flying them (combat char started caldari in apoc era) they are a very polarized line of ships. One ship good, rest meh to just flat out crap. this damn near applies up the whole class lineup. Some exceptions over time...but ccp usually "changes" that at some point. So caldari will do fotm a lot as well option b is to fly a flaming turd of ship. For a caldari pilot just looking at t2 cruisers, cerb will be classed as fotm most likely. run an eagle to demystify this trend if you have not. CCP gave medium hybrids a shot at the title...then took it away. So end result is here you would be penalizing caldari pilots for choosing cerb over what has been a lackluster HAC for pretty much years. Or hell ishar vs diemost. Even before all the changes and Ishtar was an average hac (which it was long ago)...it was still spammed by gallente pilots. Why? Diemost got that nickname for a reason, google the history if so inclined. YOu will find hits going back years even on the original now archived old eve forums. In short your solution will make people go to the ships they avoided in the first place because they sucked ass. Or pay more to avoid mediocrity, It's not what you fly it's how you fly it. If you look at my kb you'll see I fly Proteus a lot. I do very well in it, about 30 / 1 K/D but it's also stupidly OP. My second ship of choice is Ishtar which I used very effectively to solo 10/10s and made multi billions of Isk. It's also OP. OP ships are bad because they lead to FotM which makes for boring crappy gameplay.
Having to choose rather than being force into best ship is good for the game. At the end of the day losing 100 billion and winning a battle is worse than losing the battle and only losing 1 billion.
CCP Fozzie GǣWe can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonGǪ in null sec anomalies. Gǣ*
Kaalrus pwned..... :)
|
|
Barrogh Habalu
Forever Winter Absolute Zero.
960
|
Posted - 2015.07.27 06:29:30 -
[51] - Quote
So there's the problem. Current FOTM pwnmoble is being spammed by some groups of players (probably those with better organization and logistics), up until it's prohibitive to use it. The rest have choice: fly garbage (which will exist because balancing ships is wrong approach apparently, so let's not bother), die and go home; fly good ships in small numbers, die and go home; pack up and go home. I'd go with 3rd one and I'm pretty sure I'm with majority here.
Even if nobody corners markets specifically, there is still majority of individual players who are SOL.
You are saying that it won't happen just as limited spawns of other resources didn't affect market that much. Well, here's the problem: some resources are so abundant it's practically impossible to monopolize them, while when we had some materials that were rare enough, it was perfectly doable (see old tech).
Your entire premise is to develop a system that will actually matter - ergo, there should be a shortage of desirable hulls by design. Therefore your system is vulnerable to manipulations by design.
The real reason balancing effort takes so long is because of nature of EVE. Not only number of factors to balance is huge, making it very hard to find powerful stuff both for players and devs, but it also has massive inertia associated with lasting investments into previous doctrines, need to train skills for new one, build it in the first place.
It takes years to flesh out characters in fighting games of all things - yes, even though it takes just going to character select screen to drop a character and a few days to pick up basics of a new one, meta develops in months upon months. For the record, this is genre where you can model hundreds of situations in training mode every evening and find stuff pretty quick. And it doesn't involve herding cats, sorry, corpmates and hunting paranoid and naturally risk-averse (in a good way) opposition in order to test anything. In EVE it will take a lot more. I mean, how much time passes between devs tweaking some stats and people actually starting to fly doctrines that rely on them? It takes years sometimes.
In the past EVE had many more bottlenecks and eventually this led to conclusion that it's probably a bad idea. Workarounds were implemented. This is no different.
What EVE's balance truly needs is a few more decades of effort. No, I'm not kidding.
Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
|
Kenrailae
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
451
|
Posted - 2015.07.27 08:48:26 -
[52] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote: Currently the best of the best in our world is the F22 or Sukhoi PAK FA so why don't all airforces use these platforms? Why are some airforces using F16's or F18's?
And because the F15 is still more than good enough as an air superiority fighter that most countries don't need to spend the ridiculous amounts of money an F22 costs and get all the problems that come with it. Same story for the A10.
The Law is a point of View
|
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
2337
|
Posted - 2015.07.27 10:18:35 -
[53] - Quote
Kenrailae wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote: Currently the best of the best in our world is the F22 or Sukhoi PAK FA so why don't all airforces use these platforms? Why are some airforces using F16's or F18's?
And because the F15 is still more than good enough as an air superiority fighter that most countries don't need to spend the ridiculous amounts of money an F22 costs and get all the problems that come with it. Same story for the A10. Exactly right. And the same applies to many ships in EvE that are hardly used because the best is easily in reach with minimal expenditure.
The lack of an appreciable difference in price for the best is one of the main reasons for FotM. Demand should be having an affect on price.
CCP Fozzie GǣWe can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonGǪ in null sec anomalies. Gǣ*
Kaalrus pwned..... :)
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
1404
|
Posted - 2015.07.27 10:45:05 -
[54] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:Demand should be having an affect on price.
It is, but supply also has an effect on price. Suppliers are able to produce enough to meet the increased demand.
Eve has a free market for weapons. The Real World does not have a free market in weapons. That is a good thing in both instances.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, why do I post here?
I'm stubborn.
|
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
2337
|
Posted - 2015.07.27 10:56:51 -
[55] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:Demand should be having an affect on price. It is, but supply also has an effect on price. Suppliers are able to produce enough to meet the increased demand. Eve has a free market for weapons. The Real World does not have a free market in weapons. That is a good thing in both instances. No it's obviously a bad thing because it's leading to FotM fleets which are bad for the game. An oversupply of cheap top end equipment is bad for all games including EvE.
CCP Fozzie GǣWe can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonGǪ in null sec anomalies. Gǣ*
Kaalrus pwned..... :)
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2064
|
Posted - 2015.07.27 14:39:47 -
[56] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:Demand should be having an affect on price. It is, but supply also has an effect on price. Suppliers are able to produce enough to meet the increased demand. Eve has a free market for weapons. The Real World does not have a free market in weapons. That is a good thing in both instances. No it's obviously a bad thing because it's leading to FotM fleets which are bad for the game. An oversupply of cheap top end equipment is bad for all games including EvE.
The only current balance for those "top end" equipement is that they are widely available so both side can always use them. It lead to boring drone doctrine gameplay right now but at least you can field the same stuff your opponent does even if his ISK budget is way over yours.
Balancing the ship so it has an effective counter would be better to generate counter play doctrine but right now, those are kinda missing... |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
2337
|
Posted - 2015.07.28 04:53:47 -
[57] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:Demand should be having an affect on price. It is, but supply also has an effect on price. Suppliers are able to produce enough to meet the increased demand. Eve has a free market for weapons. The Real World does not have a free market in weapons. That is a good thing in both instances. No it's obviously a bad thing because it's leading to FotM fleets which are bad for the game. An oversupply of cheap top end equipment is bad for all games including EvE. The only current balance for those "top end" equipement is that they are widely available so both side can always use them. It lead to boring drone doctrine gameplay right now but at least you can field the same stuff your opponent does even if his ISK budget is way over yours. Balancing the ship so it has an effective counter would be better to generate counter play doctrine but right now, those are kinda missing... Making all top end equipment easily available is not balance. Its a mistake that leads to stagnation and poor game experience. It trivialises content and makes the majority of modules and vehicles obsolete.
Yes ideally balancing ships against each other would be good except then you have all ships relatively equal and homogenous. That makes for a boring game too.
The primary driving balancing force of any resources based game is work vs reward vs power vs risk. You put in work (ex mining) to get reward (ex points or currency) to buy powerful items (magic sword, car or ship) but using it comes with risk of loss.
EvE breaks this by making the risk negligible because the powerful items are not much more expensive than the least powerful in the class.
It's somewhat like Bugatti offering an EB110 for -ú100,000 and a Bugatti Veyron for &110,000. Obviously the only vehicles they're going to be selling are Veyrons. It's not how markets should work. It's why the balancing and FOTM cycle will continue forever and why the devs after 10+ years still struggle with balance. There is no self balancing force such as supply / demand linked to price.
CCP Fozzie GǣWe can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonGǪ in null sec anomalies. Gǣ*
Kaalrus pwned..... :)
|
Barrogh Habalu
Forever Winter Absolute Zero.
963
|
Posted - 2015.07.28 05:18:22 -
[58] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:Making all top end equipment easily available is not balance. There isn't supposed to be top equipment in the first place.
Infinity Ziona wrote:Yes ideally balancing ships against each other would be good except then you have all ships relatively equal and homogenous. That makes for a boring game too. And that is why there's a fuss about roles and specializations lately. Notice how most problematic ships at the moment are those that were initially created on rule of cool with no other considerations in mind and got anything that was crippling them "fixed" lately.
Infinity Ziona wrote:The primary driving balancing force of any resources based game is work vs reward vs power vs risk. You put in work (ex mining) to get reward (ex points or currency) to buy powerful items (magic sword, car or ship) but using it comes with risk of loss. They are only that powerful by mistake, and gaming industry shows that it's possible to balance stuff until FOTM is only in people's head (because of duckling effect, ease of use etc.). Is there a particular reason EVE devs specifically must give up?
Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
|
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
2342
|
Posted - 2015.07.28 13:05:56 -
[59] - Quote
Barrogh Habalu wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:Making all top end equipment easily available is not balance. There isn't supposed to be top equipment in the first place. Infinity Ziona wrote:Yes ideally balancing ships against each other would be good except then you have all ships relatively equal and homogenous. That makes for a boring game too. And that is why there's a fuss about roles and specializations lately. Notice how most problematic ships at the moment are those that were initially created on rule of cool with no other considerations in mind and got anything that was crippling them "fixed" lately. Infinity Ziona wrote:The primary driving balancing force of any resources based game is work vs reward vs power vs risk. You put in work (ex mining) to get reward (ex points or currency) to buy powerful items (magic sword, car or ship) but using it comes with risk of loss. They are only that powerful by mistake, and gaming industry shows that it's possible to balance stuff until FOTM is only in people's head (because of duckling effect, ease of use etc.). Is there a particular reason EVE devs specifically must give up? Balance in EvE is different. EvE combat is extremely simple. It's just points with x hp shooting at x hp with y damage. No lines of sight no bleed no penalty to any overkill in numbers, That makes balancing based on roles or specialisation almost useless. The ship (currently Ishtar) with the best dps (sentries) wins and the best counter to that is usually the same.
As long as combat remains so simple so will ship choice and balance won't work. The only real solution is to make best (most used) cost more on a scaling demand system. That will hurt the min / maxers and allow and encourage others to use something different to win by victory with such fleets very painful on the wallet.
CCP Fozzie GǣWe can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonGǪ in null sec anomalies. Gǣ*
Kaalrus pwned..... :)
|
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
308
|
Posted - 2015.07.28 17:02:04 -
[60] - Quote
Gabriel Karade wrote:Mag's wrote:Watched it and tbh, I don't have any problems with what I saw. It was a well laid trap with a specific fit for that job. Likewise, don't see an issue there: His burst damage is 120,090 (from the roll-over), and typically the hits (from the notifications) are around 1-2% of that, on MWD'ing destroyers... with a target painting support from a Hyena, and a buddy in a Vargur... Looks like he had fun...
and I think that hyena might have been webbing, too. so he was supported by 1 marauder, 2 frigates, in a specific fit - if the enemy had dropped 2 dreads, that marauder would have died, at which point they could have dropped a HIC, for point, and then dropped a small fleet for the kill. Intel presumably meant that was unlikely
For posting an idea into F&I:
come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it.....
If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |