Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1860
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 09:55:52 -
[1] - Quote
What if there was a balance factor applied to hull production cost and time if that ship was used in PvP significantly more than its peers?
The Problem
CCP does not have a great history when it comes to balancing overpowered ships in a timely manner. Things have to get really out of hand before they are corrected and this leads to stale, boring metas dominated by specific hulls. You all know what I mean. It would be good to increase diversity of hull use, even if this is just within classes, meaning that single hull types would be less likely to become absurdly dominant.
Assumptions
1. Diversity in ships is good. 2. Lack of diversity in ship types is bad. 3. Cost is generally a dangerous balancing tool but can be useful to shift cost/benefit balance in certain scenarios.
Solutions
1. CCP gets better, or at least faster, at balancing. This will happen Soon. 2. Something else.
CCP has usage stats for each hull and, I think, this can be broken down by PvP and PvE use. This means the distribution of use within each ship class can be determined. For example, assume that the usage distribution in the Attack Frigates class in PvP is:
Atron = 29% Condor = 50% Executioner = 16% Slasher = 5% (note that I donGÇÖt know/care what the actual figures are)
The poor Slasher is clearly rubbish relative to the other frigates whereas the Condor is overused for disgraceful kite-scrubbing. While such a usage pattern would be a clear indication to CCP that a balance pass was needed it will probably take them another three years to get around to it. Until then, enter the Balance Factor to keep the Condor menace in check.
The Balance Factor is a ME and/or TE multiplier based on the PvP usage stats within a class. If a ship is consistently used much more in PvP than an average distribution within the class would predict then the ME and/or TE stats will be nerfed automagically during production. Such usage stats could be calculated as a weekly average or whatever makes most sense.
Using the above example, an average distribution across the class of four ships would obviously be 25% each. By the simplest, linear approach the Atron at 29% is given a Balance Factor of 16% (29/25 = 1.16), while the Condor at 50% is given a Balance Factor of 2.00 (50/25 = 2). This means that their ME and/or TE are multiplied by the current Balance Factor at the time the production run is submitted. The Atron base materials could multiplied by 1.16 (16% more minerals to build) while the Condor would multiplied by 2 (double the minerals).
In the above example the maximum multiplier would be 4. This could be tweaked. The shape of the curve to the maximum multiplier could be logarithmic rather than linear such that minor distribution biases would be virtually unnoticeable but be punished increasingly heavily as bias increases.
Ships below the line (Executioner and Slasher above) do not get a ME discount because reprocessing could start to create minerals. Which is bad. Reprocessing for all hulls would be unaffected so even though the overused ships require more materials they do not return more materials when reprocessed.
Objections
Objection 1: Just nerf the Ishtar already and everything will be fine. Everything will be fine until the new dominant ship becomes clear and everyone trains into it. This will take a few months and then the Gila or Eos or Velator will be the new Ishtar.
Objection 2: Only goons and PL will be able to afford the Ishtar and I wonGÇÖt be able to fight them and they will take over the world and I will cry. LetGÇÖs assume the Ishtar accounts for 30% of the PvP use of the HAC class. This means the other seven have 10% each. They would cost the same to produce while the Ishtar would cost 384m instead of 160m. The cost/benefit analysis for the Ishtar is now considerably different. Remember the purpose is only to increase diversity.
Objection 3: This is not a substitute for good balancing. I agree. This is designed only to minimise the impact of imbalance and hopefully avoid repetitions of Hurricane, Drake, Tengu, Ishtar etc dominant metas. This would also allow the metas to shift more, as fleets avoid certain hulls due to cost but then move back as the price again becomes reasonable. There could be some interesting game play around strategic stockpiling.
Objection 4: This doesnGÇÖt help battleships because this would only be within a class. No, maybe it doesnGÇÖt. Get your own solution. Or maybe it does because the next best ship is up a class or two.
Objection 5: People would still just fly that ship because price is not a good deterrent. Generally true but you could sure have a lot more viable ships to choose from with significant production cost increases.
Any others?
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
842
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 11:59:09 -
[2] - Quote
I think this is a reasonable idea - it makes an attempt to model the real world.
What I'd really like to see is the ability for each corporation to research its own technology, so that corporations could themselves compete to produce the best performing versions of hulls and modules using technology that they have researched, licensed from other corporations or stolen.
This would I believe, revolutionise eve industry and provide a diverse and fascinating market in ship technology.
Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
|
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1629
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 13:03:57 -
[3] - Quote
Balancing around cost/price is utterly stupid. See titans for a good example. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
844
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 13:17:33 -
[4] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Balancing around cost/price is utterly stupid. See titans for a good example.
I have to respectfully disagree that it's "utterly stupid".
I agree that it's sub-optimal, and for people in a large, well-organised fleet cost is less important (since you expect to win) than people who are roaming.
It seems to me that what the OP is trying to suggest is that CCP builds in some automatic balancing features to the game, which would give rise to more player choice.
As an extreme example, please consider a scenario in which 2 people want to go on a roam (i know, I know) and they need to choose a ship.
Let's imagine that ishtars are so popular that they cost 1Bn isk at this point, and that sacrileges and (say) hurricanes cost ~80m.
Is there tangible utility in risking 2Bn for a fun roam? Does it give you 10x the probability of survival and 10x the kills?
I would suggest (having flown all these ships in combat), probably not. The sac and cane are probably a more sensible choice for most people under these circumstances.
Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
|
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1629
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 13:41:17 -
[5] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Balancing around cost/price is utterly stupid. See titans for a good example. I have to respectfully disagree that it's "utterly stupid". I agree that it's sub-optimal, and for people in a large, well-organised fleet cost is less important (since you expect to win) than people who are roaming. It seems to me that what the OP is trying to suggest is that CCP builds in some automatic balancing features to the game, which would give rise to more player choice. As an extreme example, please consider a scenario in which 2 people want to go on a roam (i know, I know) and they need to choose a ship. Let's imagine that ishtars are so popular that they cost 1Bn isk at this point, and that sacrileges and (say) hurricanes cost ~80m. Is there tangible utility in risking 2Bn for a fun roam? Does it give you 10x the probability of survival and 10x the kills? I would suggest (having flown all these ships in combat), probably not. The sac and cane are probably a more sensible choice for most people under these circumstances.
Then I can re-process my ships I already own since you change the mat cost of the ship itself and inflate it as big as needed for people to reduce the usage? Remember there is no way to know a ship was produced before the price was scaled since repackaging it reset it's item id in the database. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
844
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 13:53:30 -
[6] - Quote
That's a fair (if tangential) question about implementation details, not about the general principle of building in some incentive to diversify vehicle selection and fitting choices (which has a real-world parallel).
Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
|
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1630
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 14:06:35 -
[7] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:That's a fair (if tangential) question about implementation details, not about the general principle of building in some incentive to diversify vehicle selection and fitting choices (which has a real-world parallel).
The real world parallel is nonexistant because in a case where the vast majority of possible user want a specific type of vehicle, the company producing them don't jack up prices but ramp up production. See SUV craze a few years ago when everybody and their mother wanted one.
Everybody and their mother want Ishtars? Then ramp up production of Ishtars.
If ship are not being used, their parameters are bad and need to be changed. If a ship is ******, no amount of extra prices on the most powerful one will make others use the bad one. They will all flip down the the next big thing until the "top" one comes back to non stupid market prices. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
844
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 14:11:59 -
[8] - Quote
I think your points have merit.
See my preferred solution above - allow player corp innovation paths and a truly competitive industry in ship research and production. Then it's self-levelling (and awesome!)
Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
|
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1631
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 14:36:38 -
[9] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:I think your points have merit.
See my preferred solution above - allow player corp innovation paths and a truly competitive industry in ship research and production. Then it's self-levelling (and awesome!)
Except any corp starting alter is a a huge disadvantage just because he started later. There is already enough advantage to being a long established group. We don't need to give a bigger edge to it. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
844
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 15:15:37 -
[10] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:I think your points have merit.
See my preferred solution above - allow player corp innovation paths and a truly competitive industry in ship research and production. Then it's self-levelling (and awesome!)
Except any corp starting alter is a a huge disadvantage just because he started later. There is already enough advantage to being a long established group. We don't need to give a bigger edge to it.
Sure, but then there's information theft, licensing, wars, competition springing up a whole new line in another part of the universe that obsoletes the established manufacturing blocs.
This happens in the real world all the time - it gives inventors incentives to invent - so they can get bought by behemoths. I would argue that it would *improve* the economy, politics and intrigue behind eve.
Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
|
|
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
589
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 17:32:50 -
[11] - Quote
CCP tried balance by bp needs. It was called tiericide. And it did not work imo. Long ago It wasn't the bp costs of lolrox vs. drake that made 14 inch ***** suck. It was the hull and medium hybrids.
In the days before tiericide....people also paid more for the "good" ships. This was tried and failed too.
Why I am not a fan of tiericide. It made scorpions which I liked as cheap mess with your head rides (they used to be like 70-80 mil base hull) into the higher priced they are now (rats ass out about added low I can give....stacking penalty on ecm boost mods or the fact I am not there to be dps so 1 more BCU means crap to me really).
Even back in these days though...I shelled out way more isk for rokh for more general fleet bs use. It be the same here....ship is known good, whats 20 mil more for it. Its 2015 not 2009.....way more isk making ways than when I started 6 and change years ago.
You also run the risk of market havoc. Make 100's of ships ships pre change you know are fotm....sell them after. Same ship, higher price...isk for nothing really. As until ccp works out the secret sauce to some ships they would still be spammed after as it was before this change. Ishtar 30 mil more....is still a drop/assist sentry and fly way ride. It will die less than an in your face brawler. 30 mil more (or more) justified by the fact it dies less as result of this. CCP has been here too. I sold exhumers for way more what I paid for them and my charon made me some good isk too. How? Exhumers were bought before moon goo realignment many patches back that shot them upwards from pre change price. Charon also shot up in price in some other change as well. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
868
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 19:27:20 -
[12] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:I think this is a reasonable idea - it makes an attempt to model the real world.
How does this model the real world? if the f16 gets used more and more it gets harder to produce?
all this would do is confuse new players trying to get into industry since their BPs keep changing
-1
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3?
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1862
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 20:14:26 -
[13] - Quote
Thanks for the replies everyone. Interesting comments.
Frostys Virpio wrote:Balancing around cost/price is utterly stupid. See titans for a good example. I knew this would be one of the first comments. This is not intended as a balancing tool in itself but rather one way to help limit the dominance of specific hulls. Would Ishtar be as dominant as it is if it were 3x the price? 5x the price? 10x the price? Usage would fall away somewhere along that progression. Also, titans are a little different to subcaps in that there are no direct functional alternatives. Titans vs all other ships is a different scenario to Ishtar vs Deimos, Eagle etc.
Frostys Virpio wrote:Then I can re-process my ships I already own since you change the mat cost of the ship itself and inflate it as big as needed for people to reduce the usage? Remember there is no way to know a ship was produced before the price was scaled since repackaging it reset it's item id in the database. I covered this in the OP. Reprocessing would not change at all and be based on the base material cost. The Balance Factor is applied at time of production and not tied to a particular hull or bp. Think of it as a surcharge at time of production which is not 'remembered'.
Frostys Virpio wrote:If ship are not being used, their parameters are bad and need to be changed. If a ship is ******, no amount of extra prices on the most powerful one will make others use the bad one. They will all flip down the the next big thing until the "top" one comes back to non stupid market prices. The Deimos and Eagle (for example) are solid HACs which are overshadowed by the OP Ishtar. The problem is not that all the other ships are bad but rather that one particular ship is OP. I disagree that GÇ£no amount of extra pricesGÇ¥ will discourage Ishtar use.
Zan Shiro wrote:CCP tried balance by bp needs. It was called tiericide. And it did not work imo. Long ago It wasn't the bp costs of lolrox vs. drake that made 14 inch ***** suck. True but this would be at a different scale of cost increase. Also, bp costs were one-off and could be ignored by established industrialists. There was no ongoing pain for using fotm. This was not a major disincentive.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1862
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 20:15:13 -
[14] - Quote
Zan Shiro wrote:You also run the risk of market havoc. Make 100's of ships ships pre change you know are fotm....sell them after. Same ship, higher price...isk for nothing really. This is a positive IMHO. It is not isk for nothing, it is isk for predicting the meta and committing resources to cash in on it at the expense of those that didn't. Exactly the way to market works.
Zan Shiro wrote:Ishtar 30 mil more....is still a drop/assist sentry and fly way ride. It will die less than an in your face brawler. 30 mil more (or more) justified by the fact it dies less as result of this. Sure at 30mil. What about 300m more? Many would be selling their Ishtar at the inflated price and buying Eagle, Deimos, Proteus...
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: all this would do is confuse new players trying to get into industry since their BPs keep changing -1
Industry boils down to pure spreadsheets and process optimisation with little opportunity for a more entrepreneurial approach. This opens up enormous opportunities for speculative industrialists who try to predict, or even manipulate, ship production costs into the future.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
868
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 20:26:05 -
[15] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: all this would do is confuse new players trying to get into industry since their BPs keep changing -1
Industry boils down to pure spreadsheets and process optimisation with little opportunity for a more entrepreneurial approach. This opens up enormous opportunities for speculative industrialists who try to predict, or even manipulate, ship production costs into the future.
that would be great if ccp didn't just change industry with the goal to be more new player friendly
you wan't to make industry better remove region buy orders
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3?
|
Madd Adda
36
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 20:26:45 -
[16] - Quote
you do know if CCP nerfs one thing, the only thing that'll happen is another will become the new meta, thus we'll be back to square one again.
Carebear extraordinaire
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1862
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 20:28:50 -
[17] - Quote
Madd Adda wrote:you do know if CCP nerfs one thing, the only thing that'll happen is another will become the new meta, thus we'll be back to square one again. This is exactly what the idea is supposed to help. This would encourage shifting metas, or at least creative use of a dominant ship's peers to counter it rather than relying on CCP alone.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Reina Xyaer
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
43
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 20:32:05 -
[18] - Quote
-1 from me
I just don't think that increasing the cost of ships just because they happen to be OP is any kind of good game mechanic.
One of your pre-emptive objections is that "Only goons and PL would be able to afford blah blah..."
And this is a really important objection, making the Ishtar cost 400mil because it's OP is only going to hurt the solo and small gang people who fly it (where it isn't so OP, when used in small scale). The big alliances will still loose less of them, buy/replace them for their line members, etc.
Seriously can't -1 this enough.
CCP just needs to balance things more actively. How about instead of adding stupid crap like T3s every few patches, they do balance updates ever 2 weeks? Anyone? |
Anhenka
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
1247
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 20:47:38 -
[19] - Quote
The the problem with this reasoning is the assumption that a moderate increase in price would prevent people from flying the most effective ship for a situation.
If a ship is expensive but makes you have lower losses than you would otherwise, it's still the best ship the job because between requiring fewer people for the same punch and lower actual losses due to increased combat effectiveness leading to faster victory, it's still better to fly the more effective ship.
Plus the whole idea of scaling material costs is stupid from the start. Mass production inevitably results in greater efficiency through routine, automation, and established efficient procedures.
What you have here is a ham handed hack that attempts unsuccessfully to force people to use inefficient choices through making the more efficent ones more expensive.
What actually happens is that one side pays 30% more for the efficient fleet setup, the other side brings an inefficient fleet setup, and the first side wrecks the second, taking far fewer overall losses.
-1 |
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy
681
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 22:04:56 -
[20] - Quote
I gotta tell you I hate this idea.
First, I am not for any game that creates skills or tools that are all identical excerpt for the graphic and sound used. you might as well give everyone exactly the same ships all the time.
Second, ships have different uses in PVP so are very situational in the frequency of their useage. If game play should change in the future the useage may change.. Given the changing nature of player habits, it doesn't seem like a good idea to have a flexible balance system.
Third, I don't believe in balance. It's distruptive to game play, to lore, and to any historic measure of strength. I like the fact that roles and specialties are extremely different from ship to ship. This opens the door to discovering new synergy and tactics (a good thing). I see no reason to make all things of comparable size equal with each other - or worse a moving target for role and fits. At some point situational usage must be more important than balance...period. I'm not happy with a lot of the balance changes made recently because they strike me as balance for the sake of looking like we are doing something to change the game or worse, balance because we have nothing else to do.
Fourth, balance is an illusion. You can never balance unequivelent things perfectly. This is just the way it is.. and trying to perfect balance is an exercise in maddeness. Better to let the players discover strengths and weaknesses and rely on them.
Fifth, your method seems like it could be abused (exploited). Large crews could fly something they wish to get nerf deliberately and repeatedly previsous to an engagement where they use ships those nerfed ships may best counter.
Sixth, I believe in a free market. Prices should never be regulated by any unnatural mechanic. (note PLEX are unique becaue they come from outside the game). This too might be exploited for market manipulation.. no, I am actually willing to go out on a limb and offer that it would absolutely be exploited. While you may not have actually suggested a sliding balance mechanic that is where this will lead to.. I have to decline.
I applaud you for thinking up new ideas.. and this one has the advantage of never having been suggested ...at least not with this detail. Good job.. now back to the drawing board. :-)
-á-á- remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not-á "afk" cloaking-á-
[IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG]
|
|
Madd Adda
36
|
Posted - 2015.03.13 22:13:39 -
[21] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Madd Adda wrote:you do know if CCP nerfs one thing, the only thing that'll happen is another will become the new meta, thus we'll be back to square one again. This is exactly what the idea is supposed to help. This would encourage shifting metas, or at least creative use of a dominant ship's peers to counter it rather than relying on CCP alone.
you're giving people and CCP too much credit. People will always find the best way to do things and everyone with duplicate that, it's simple. CCP won't change something unless there is something seriously wrong with it. It's not to say CCP won't balance/nerf/buff/etc. it's whether if it's worth the money they pay to the devs to do it.
Carebear extraordinaire
|
Juan Mileghere
Incident Command Southern Star Dominion
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 02:43:22 -
[22] - Quote
ooks at supers, looks back at OP, HAHAHAHAHAHA.... |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
514
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 06:34:21 -
[23] - Quote
Let's look at the basic issues.
You produce your own ships in your own station: there is no reason for costs to increase just because volume of use for a given hull increases.
The games resource model is completely ******** and will never ever allow for a true economic production model until it is changed. Allow me to qualify: highsecs resources should by 11 years in to the game be practically nonexistent. I don't mean mined out by some isboxer before you get there I mean literally nonexistent. Those resources were consumed a long time ago. Similarly to how real life works where you must go further and further abroad for materials eve could run a "regional resource monitor" where there is a static amount of resources available for mining per week and that systems/constellations which see heavy mining will quickly deplete utterly and all the resources eventually consolidate towards less used systems (predictably leading all resources to concentrate in lowsec) over time.
This has the same effect of increasing cost for a given region on manufactured items. Observe: regions where all the resources have pooled in lowsec now face dynamic danger to mining ships such as frequent pirate attacks with no concord, extortion, mining protection fleets and inevitability prices for goods spiralling out of control as gankers starve the market for minerals. A starvation so severe big groups might decide to put the cheap ganks down. This is how you encourage people to take risks - by starving them.
In nullsec the lack of easy minerals (in addition to new sov indices) encourages mining locally. Over time resources get further and further away from central systems (caveat - indices for industry get modified to be based on industry not just mining) and this promotes risks for mining fleets as they by necessity get closer to the front lines. In all ways do prices for things go up especially mineral inefficient tech2 ships but also incomes go up too since mining itself becomes a more valuable task and the trade of B.N.I. (bearer negotiable instruments) can become a second market.
I've been involved in real life mining/markets/logistics for years. My understanding might not be as complete as guys like Ejyog but to me this would promote a healthier market climate, healthier gameplay and give more reasons to concentrate your empires power near its edges not its centres.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
589
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 14:05:54 -
[24] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote: I've been involved in real life mining/markets/logistics for years. My understanding might not be as complete as guys like Ejyog but to me this would promote a healthier market climate, healthier gameplay and give more reasons to concentrate your empires power near its edges not its centres.
Not really. With new SOV change coming we can safely predict any mining ops will keep the diggers closer to the heart to keep up defensive bonus. Unless 0.0 had a change of heart the outer areas in my experience are the pets, pets of pets and renters. AKA...meat shields who are disposable to some degree. They can die off or just soak up the bullets ideally till backup come at some point. It gives core member corps times to prep for the next phase of invasion.
We can also predict even some miner unfriendly homes will change their mind as while die hard miners who CBA to run combat ships and were more useless in current sov mechanics will actually be useful potentialy soon. Mine away for system defense boost guys in these core systemes we can't lose...maybe pretend to give 2 craps about trollceptors and half ass stop them and we can be happy with that even.
They stay close, indices go up, ABC comes much faster. And low ends in 0.0 get real big since not many hit them till the ABC is gone.
ccp is slowly encouraging turtle tactics imo. Great environment to mine in. Large alliance would probably be happier the trollceptors blow their cover to attack an exhumer before entosising the sov of vital systems. More reaction time to set the counter.
Bait, system defence and mins....triple double there. Hell I am changing my outlook on pure 0.0 miners in core systems just writing it....and I tbh hate them with a passion. Didn't ask for much when out there besides getting their ass in fleet and no whining. New sov....hell they may not even have to do that and I consider them useful to some degree.
|
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
514
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 17:43:21 -
[25] - Quote
What.. the hell are you talking about? One of the first pieces of feedback on the new sov system was to make the industry indices account for performed construction jobs (and presumably a lot more than just mining which is bullshit).
And why does everyone assume that all systems must be taken and MUST have sov structures up? Most of nullsec is empty just leave those POS systems to rot with no structure in them it doesn't matter, and sure send your mining fleet in there hell we had a team of prospects raiding some mining anomalies in my region of space. We don't care, we might as well not even own those systems since noone lives in them.
It's kind of like the argument of sending an army to conquer a swamp, a swamp that stretches for miles and miles and is full of discarded large-web fishing net and bear traps. Only someone with a fetish for preserved cadavers and a high casualty rate would bother.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
Ben Ishikela
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 18:19:14 -
[26] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: that would be great if ccp didn't just change industry with the goal to be more new player friendly
EZ. mockup
No more nerfing of percieved Overpowered Content!
It makes a game boring after too many iterations. Instead add new modules or ships that can use tactics and strategies to fight the current Meta.
|
Ben Ishikela
22
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 21:01:03 -
[27] - Quote
I like OP's suggestion. It makes longtime investment in the market even more interesting. Also i like to fly cheap :) (and i had the same idea 2 weeks ago, but did not write it) Let me think about it:
Reina Xyaer wrote: I just don't think that increasing the cost of ships just because they happen to be OP is any kind of good game mechanic.
i agree with this argument, but it does not apply here, because OP prefers balance patches over his suggestion.
Anhenka wrote:The the problem with this reasoning is the assumption that a moderate increase in price would prevent people from flying the most effective ship for a situation. No such assumption has been made. I say: Anyone who cant calculate or guess risk/benefit ratio should immediately learn it or accept to be bad in this game.
Anhenka wrote:What you have here is a ham handed hack that attempts unsuccessfully to force people to use inefficient choices through making the more efficent ones more expensive. Where is that rage coming from? noone would force anyone. but the more efficient ones will get less efficient by costing more. then it might be more efficient to bring other ships and different numbers at some point.
Anhenka wrote: What actually happens is that one side pays 30% more for the efficient fleet setup, the other side brings an inefficient fleet setup, and the first side wrecks the second, taking far fewer overall losses. Well, the odds are against the second party, but IF they win (and i assume you know that this is unlikely but still very possible) then they safed some isk. note: the 30% should be some number that expresses these odds. hint: If you just want to win, bring lame overkill without proper escalation, but you get less kills in result. phil: Isnt every fight similar to a bet, where you want to manipulate the odds to your favor, but one brings stakes as he likes? if yes, there should at least be a healthy risk measurement possible. credo: we need more ewartypes that also penetrate caps and drones, obviously.
Reina Xyaer wrote:..., making the Ishtar cost 400mil because it's OP is only going to hurt the solo and small gang people who fly it (where it isn't so OP, when used in small scale). interesting. why even use ishtar in solo/smallscale then? more diversity is my common goal here. deimos will be sooo much cheaper with nearly same effectiveness and much higher efficiency.
Reina Xyaer---"The big alliances will still loose less of them, buy/replace them for their line members, etc." Big alliances loose less, that might be true. but big organisations still need to calculate risk/benefit. if its worth to bring one dread or more recons instead of 6 ishtars they might do it. --> more versatitily Suggestive Addition: Let ships that have gotten damage loose Resistance efficiency. (Exploit: repackage->assemble.) -> (higher rig/salvage consumption. <-- i'd like that). To encourage usage even more one might even apply resistance mali to ships that do not fight at all. Rust all the things!
Reina Xyaer---"CCP just needs to balance things more actively. How about instead of adding stupid crap like T3s every few patches, they do balance updates ever 2 weeks? Anyone?" I agree. I would like that. I just wonder, how expensive is that devtime?
--- However, i still like adjusting resistance profiles to usage patterns most of all the self balance mechanix. make the "OP" ships more like glasscannons automatically without any devtime involved. -> easier release of rage against the overpowery. It would cover the following issue being made here: Anhenka---"If a ship is expensive but makes you have lower losses than you would otherwise, it's still the best ship the job because between requiring fewer people for the same punch and lower actual losses due to increased combat effectiveness leading to faster victory, it's still better to fly the more effective ship."
No more nerfing of percieved Overpowered Content!
It makes a game boring after too many iterations. Instead add new modules or ships that can use tactics and strategies to fight the current Meta.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1865
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 21:26:48 -
[28] - Quote
Reina Xyaer wrote:CCP just needs to balance things more actively. How about instead of adding stupid crap like T3s every few patches, they do balance updates ever 2 weeks? Anyone? That would be ideal.
Anhenka wrote:What actually happens is that one side pays 30% more for the efficient fleet setup, the other side brings an inefficient fleet setup, and the first side wrecks the second, taking far fewer overall losses. GÇÿEfficiencyGÇÖ is a balance between cost and performance. There is a point somewhere between 30%, 300%, 3000% where it is no longer efficient to use the fotm. I did not limit the cost increase to 30%.
Barbara Nichole wrote:First, I am not for any game that creates skills or tools that are all identical excerpt for the graphic and sound used. you might as well give everyone exactly the same ships all the time. This proposal would not do this. It doesnGÇÖt change the ships at all. Are you aware of the current nullsec meta?
Barbara Nichole wrote: Second, ships have different uses in PVP so are very situational in the frequency of their useage. If game play should change in the future the useage may change.. Given the changing nature of player habits, it doesn't seem like a good idea to have a flexible balance system. Why? It seems like a good idea to me. Please provide some reasoning here.
Barbara Nichole wrote: Third, I don't believe in balance. It's distruptive to game play, to lore, and to any historic measure of strength. Alright, this is a separate discussion. Balance passes will occur and this proposal is written in that context. Anyway, remember that existing ship stats are not GÇÿnaturalGÇÖ but rather completely artificial in the first place. They are sometimes just wrong.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1865
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 21:27:46 -
[29] - Quote
Barbara Nichole wrote: Fourth, balance is an illusion. You can never balance unequivelent things perfectly. This is just the way it is.. and trying to perfect balance is an exercise in maddeness. Better to let the players discover strengths and weaknesses and rely on them. Yes, I agree and am not proposing a system whereby ship stats are progressively nerfed. Just cost. When imbalance is left too long then you get stale metas. Think Drake, Hurricane, Tengu, Ishtar. These are examples of GÇÿplayers discovering strengths and weaknesses and relying on themGÇÖ to the extreme.
Barbara Nichole wrote: Fifth, your method seems like it could be abused (exploited). Large crews could fly something they wish to get nerf deliberately and repeatedly previsous to an engagement where they use ships those nerfed ships may best counter.
Sixth, I believe in a free market. Prices should never be regulated by any unnatural mechanic. I see no problem with the fifth objection. This sounds like emergent game play to me. The free market argument could just as well be applied to every ship rebalance pass. We are operating under the assumption that balance passes will occur.
Thanks for a constructive post. It was interesting and useful to read.
Juan Mileghere wrote:ooks at supers, looks back at OP, HAHAHAHAHAHA.... This is a proposal to balance within classes, not between them. Or are you suggesting that the concept is flawed within the supers class?
Caleb Seremshur wrote:GǪno reason for costs to increase just because volume of use for a given hull increases. I agree there is little lore justification for this. I think diversity is more important than lore. IGÇÖm sure a way could be found GÇô just look at the Entosis link.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage RAZOR Alliance
516
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 23:13:53 -
[30] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Caleb Seremshur wrote:GǪno reason for costs to increase just because volume of use for a given hull increases. I agree there is little lore justification for this. I think diversity is more important than lore. IGÇÖm sure a way could be found GÇô just look at the Entosis link.
WHAT
WHAT THE HELL
ARE YOU SERIOUS
ITS NOT A MATTER OF LORE: ITS ABOUT GAME BALANCE AND PRACTICALITY AND YOUR SUGGESTION IS AN INSULT TO EVERY PERSON WHO WORKS THEIR ASS OFF IN THIS GAME. You need to lay of the DRUGS and get back in touch with reality. Your suggestion is so game-breakingly unfair and ridiculous I am astounded that you even managed to conceptualise it in the first place and it yanks on heart strings that there are idiots on planet who might agree with you
what next? Some arbitrary tax on being taxed on taxable income???? because that's the slippery slope this kind of degenerative and backwards thinking is going to take us.
The problem with ishtars is that they're OVERPOWERED when using SENTRIES. This has everything to do with poor design choices for just ONE ship and nothing to do with penalising players for using one type of ship "too much".
What else? Oh yeah, what about the ships that are actually balanced and see common use because they're good at solo or good for fleets or logi or whatever the **** else that will get arbitrarily made more expensive because it sees common use.
WHAT
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |