| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Munen
Imperial Academy
   |
Posted - 2008.05.22 16:27:00 -
[1]
As someone who enjoys playing RTS games I find this statement mindset deeply flawed. Resource investments should matter in determining who wins in 0.0 and the upcoming Factional Warfare because no single alliance/person/corporation can keep on pumping out ships and modules indefinately.
Eve Online is a strategy game in many respects and from my perspective ignoring costs as a balancing consideration doesn't make sense.
That said I see certain things about Eve that make me reconsider this perspective but I never saw as strong enough reasons to make me recant.
1. The Player is the unit.
Unlike a strategy game like battletech where you take the position of the mercenary commander and have to deal with managing the logistics such as salaries, ammunition, food, salvage rights as well as the combat itself, in Eve (like every MMO) the majority of players are grunts instead of commanders.
It's an interesting point but I don't see this as a strong point because in reality you aren't grunts supported by a national army but knights who have to take care of their own armor and weapons swearinf fealty to fuedal lords who are more interested in managing large groups of people. Therefore, the scope of resource management is more focused and specific to just you but it is still fundamental part of any strategy game.
2. The resource supply is infinite.
In theory units with a resource requirement can only be balanced if the resources are limited to begin with. In practice it turns out the dynamics of a game shifts more heavily to the resource intensive units but that doesn't mean everything else is excluded. Some of the common units in limited resources games become rare and the opposite also occurs.
IMO unlimited resources have made a game less fun but in MMOs limiting resources seems to have very bad effects as has been seen when [urlhttp://www.mine-control.com/zack/uoecon/uoecon.html]UO tried it.[/url] (skip to "Hoarding and failure of the Closed Economy" if you can't read it all)
Secondly while resources are unlimited the ability to accumalte resources varies greatly on the rarity of materials and number of people trying to gather those materials.
As a result this point while strong in certain respects has certain issues that preent it from making Eve less of a strategy game.
3. A strategy game doesn't need to factor in resource management to be fun and balanced.
E.G. chess and go. Noone has to buy their pieces and these games are considered to be great primers in teaching and maintaining strategic skills.
The problem I have with this is that Eve is a strategy game with resources being a factor. If you want a good strategy game where resources shouldn't be a factor then go play Planetside because in time you can use any equipment there. You're being unrealistic to not expect the time it takes you to accumalte enough isk or blue prints to churn out what you need to not be factor in how the game should be played.
Those are the main talking points I could think of. Is there any other reason you think Eve should not balance modules and ships around price, because I'm interested in hearing them?
P.S. I hope you are not going to accidently confuse prices with resources needed to create modules.
How prices are determined is a reflection of many things that interact with each other such as:
Your allocation of game playing time.
Your in take of resources.
Your competition for resources, etc.
So even though isk is a resource, it isn't a resource used to construct ships and modules. It is used as a medium for both resources as well as time investment so the price constructed from isk is an issue I hadn't addressed in this op whenever I mention resources.
But feel free to bring up how much you like/dislike isk influencing the resource mangement aspects of this game, just please don't confuse yourself with isk == resources. I wasn't making that connection.
Be mindful of your surroundings. |
Katja Shade
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 16:49:00 -
[2]
I wish people would post a link to the page containing the statement they're wall-of-texting about along with said wall.
Thanks.
|
Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 16:52:00 -
[3]
Cost should definitely be a factor in game balance.
This makes competition over resources and the market meaningful; gives smarter, more market savvy, and/or more experienced people some leverage; and gives CCP another tool for differentiating and balancing items, ships, and locations. It deepens the game considerably.
Cost should definitely not be the preeminent factor in game balance.
This helps to keep newer players relevant, and means that profitability doesn't have to be the largest factor in player choices.
For the most part, EVE seems to be doing a good job of balancing these two ideas. Which is remarkable, given how complicated the game is, and how much of the economy is player controlled.
* * *
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
-Douglas Adams, writing about EVE |
Lord WarATron
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 16:53:00 -
[4]
Cost always is a factor. Thats why few people use Faction ships in pvp insted of everybody.
--
Billion Isk Mission |
Pan Crastus
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 17:02:00 -
[5]
Cost can no longer be a factor when RMT is so prevalent in EVE, it only works out to people with bigger RL wallets winning more easily.
EVE Online: a cold, cruel world where (RL-)rich people replace their losses with GTCs sold to poor students who need to farm ISK to afford their play time ...
|
Indigo Johnson
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 17:09:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Indigo Johnson on 22/05/2008 17:10:20
 Originally by: Pan Crastus
Cost can no longer be a factor when RMT is so prevalent in EVE, it only works out to people with bigger RL wallets winning more easily.
That has nothing to do with the game but with isk trading which is against EULA, you cannot berate CCP for an illegal activity that they are trying to put a stop to.
As for cost should matter, of course it should and does, infinite resources are finite in their prodcution amounts per unit time, is this really thread worthy? |
Dirk Magnum
Spearhead Endeavors
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 17:11:00 -
[7]
You can't nerf the virtual economy just so that the people who do RMT's become irrelevant. It's short sighted and cuts off the whole arm when the original problem was just an infected finger.
I agree that RMT is extraordinarily lame, and resource gathering with macro programs at least as lame too, but the solution to it is to make spot corrections. That is to say, deal with RM traders as they appear. Don't just kill the dynamic resource aspect of Eve for everyone to spite the [small] minority of players who buy ISK. |
Natsume Chidori
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 17:12:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Pan Crastus
Cost can no longer be a factor when RMT is so prevalent in EVE, it only works out to people with bigger RL wallets winning more easily.
This only works if you assume that the majority players RMT in some form, which is clearly not the case. |
Naviset
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 17:30:00 -
[9]
I don't see how it should be a factor because the giants in EVE already would never fall, unless its to another rich giant who becomes even more well off... If cost is a major factor in game balance theirs no going backwards.
The strongest, richest folks will hold the most profitable space, become richer and richer, take over more areas, become richer, lose their space to someone with even MORE money, and that person will perpetually make mad iskies until they control the universe.
|
Pan Crastus
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 17:41:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Indigo Johnson
Edited by: Indigo Johnson on 22/05/2008 17:10:20
Originally by: Pan Crastus
Cost can no longer be a factor when RMT is so prevalent in EVE, it only works out to people with bigger RL wallets winning more easily.
That has nothing to do with the game but with isk trading which is against EULA, you cannot berate CCP for an illegal activity that they are trying to put a stop to.
I should simply ignore you for mentioning the EULA. RMT isn't against the rules in EVE, since CCP supports it directly with the US$=>GTC and GTC=>ISK transfers.
EVE Online: a cold, cruel world where (RL-)rich people replace their losses with GTCs sold to poor students who need to farm ISK to afford their play time ...
|
Neutrino Sunset
KDM Corp
Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 17:43:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Indigo Johnson
Edited by: Indigo Johnson on 22/05/2008 17:10:20
Originally by: Pan Crastus
Cost can no longer be a factor when RMT is so prevalent in EVE, it only works out to people with bigger RL wallets winning more easily.
That has nothing to do with the game but with isk trading which is against EULA, you cannot berate CCP for an illegal activity that they are trying to put a stop to.
GTC is just RMT by another name. Therefore RMT is perfectly legal just as long as you give CCP the RM. In terms of game balance I don't see what difference it makes whether the wealthy/impatient/lazy/unprincipaled (select according to personal viewpoint) players get their bought isk from other players via CCP's GTC, or from other players directly.
On the face of it it would seem to have exactly the same effect on prices of high end goods (driving them up), and either way creates a class of players who can be inordinately succesful in Eve beyond their RL skill level due to the size of their RL wallets.
|
Pan Crastus
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 17:48:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Natsume Chidori
Originally by: Pan Crastus
Cost can no longer be a factor when RMT is so prevalent in EVE, it only works out to people with bigger RL wallets winning more easily.
This only works if you assume that the majority players RMT in some form, which is clearly not the case.
There is no evidence that warrants the use of the word "clearly" for your statement. From my personal experience I'd say the majority uses at least occasional GTC/ISK transfers nowdays (buying or selling). For every guy who sells GTCs on the forum, there's at least half a dozen different accounts that get fueled with game time. The timecode bazaar already has 90k topics since its inception less than a year ago.
EVE Online: a cold, cruel world where (RL-)rich people replace their losses with GTCs sold to poor students who need to farm ISK to afford their play time ...
|
Neutrino Sunset
KDM Corp
Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 18:04:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Pan Crastus
Originally by: Natsume Chidori
Originally by: Pan Crastus
Cost can no longer be a factor when RMT is so prevalent in EVE, it only works out to people with bigger RL wallets winning more easily.
This only works if you assume that the majority players RMT in some form, which is clearly not the case.
There is no evidence that warrants the use of the word "clearly" for your statement. From my personal experience I'd say the majority uses at least occasional GTC/ISK transfers nowdays (buying or selling). For every guy who sells GTCs on the forum, there's at least half a dozen different accounts that get fueled with game time. The timecode bazaar already has 90k topics since its inception less than a year ago.
Agreed 100%. Since CCP legalized their own version of RMT Eve has become rife with it. People I know that would never have dreamed of illegal RMT are more than happy to throw a few extra bucks at CCP each month so that they can fly HACs and Recons all day long without having to worry about working for it.
What's more since everyone got so rich so easily CCP now seems to spend more time creating fancy expensive new ships which obsolete stuff that was already in the game, worked perfectly, and was affordable to those who actually play the game. While at the same time ignoring shockingly bad beta quality implementations of core mechanics that have been present since day one, (NPC combat mechanics for instance).
|
Dirk Magnum
Spearhead Endeavors
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 20:22:00 -
[14]
Maybe I completely misread the OP's first post, but I didn't take it to mean anything about GTC's. GTC's are managed with ISK that's already in the game that's acquired by regular players. It isn't being farmed or macro'd and injected into the economy billions at a time.
Nerfing the virtual economy because of GTC's is even lamer than nerfing it because of EULA-violating RMT.
|
Valkazm
Eve Defence Force
Insurgency
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 20:33:00 -
[15]
i read this whole crap once and then went back to read it agian beacuse i see lots of things here but no point no suggestion .. whats this about anyway or what is the suggestion .. i mean i can whine about things all day but atleast suggest something i can laugh at ..
.......................................
Quote:
CCP Navigator mail at [email protected] for isk
|
Stakhanov
Metafarmers
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 20:51:00 -
[16]
ISK will always be a factor , as long as it's cost effective to hire mercs to do your bidding. In fact , ISK is the difference between going at your enemies with your lone frigate and carrier blobbing them.
Problems come when some resources can be simultaneously exploited by an unlimited number of players (highsec level 4 missions) with no way of interfering with the competition (T2 raven alts in NPC corps) and thus make wars of attrition or territorial conquest meaningless.
|
Joe Starbreaker
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 20:51:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Dirk Magnum
Maybe I completely misread the OP's first post, but I didn't take it to mean anything about GTC's.
I'm with you, Dirk. Lots of people posting in this thread must be much better readers than me, because I didn't get the point of the OP at all.
----------------
[insert signature here] |
Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 21:25:00 -
[18]
It's about a common argument that comes up in balance discussions.
For instance, player X says he spent a gazillion isk on such and such a ship, so it should be a lot more powerul then a ship that costs half as much. Player Y says that's nonsense, that ships have to be balanced by their attributes and effect on gameplay, not on cost.
Both sides of the argument can be misused if taken to an extreme, and are misused a lot.
* * *
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
-Douglas Adams, writing about EVE |
Goumindong
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 21:31:00 -
[19]
No one ever says cost should not be a factor they say "Cost should not justify something being overpowered"
Vote Goumindong for CSM |
Munen
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 21:47:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Munen on 22/05/2008 21:50:38
Edited by: Munen on 22/05/2008 21:48:58
Originally by: Valkazm
i read this whole crap once and then went back to read it agian beacuse i see lots of things here but no point no suggestion .. whats this about anyway or what is the suggestion .. i mean i can whine about things all day but atleast suggest something i can laugh at ..
It's called creating an open discussion. My question towards the end was quite clear.
I've seen in various threads about ship balance that cost shouldn't be a factor. I wanted to highlight ths arguement because it doesn't get the scrutiny it probably needs in understanding how this game is supposed to work.
The impending proliferation of Titans means doomsday can be applie more liberally. Is the cost formula for Titans correct?
People want nanos nerfed and the arguements vary between nerfing resource scarce items like implants while others want to nerf more common items like modules. Are you sure either item should be or not be affected because of how prolific they are?
Another hot topic is the viability of frigates and tech 1 ships in general. No matter how many times people argue about why they should viable I've yet to see any arguement that reflects how easy it is to produce tech 1. Shouldn't that in of itself be a consideration?
The list goes on from heavy interdictors vs interdictors, capitols vs non-caps, etc.
Originally by: Goumindong
No one ever says cost should not be a factor they say "Cost should not justify something being overpowered"
Do I really have to start posting links where I've seen exactly that? In fact I recently saw that in that nano thread you got involved in on General.
This arguement comes up a lot and I think it's important to just hash out the merits of it.
Be mindful of your surroundings. |
Gloria Stitz
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 22:02:00 -
[21]
Most boring post of the month, and we still have about a week to go.
-------------
'Don't try to learn Eve all at once, otherwise your brain will explode' - Albert Einstein
------------ |
Joe Starbreaker
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 22:06:00 -
[22]
@OP's nonsense walls of text: EVE has a player-run economy. There's no such thing as cost. It is almost theoretically possible to start with your rookie ship and build yourself a Titan. (In practice you'd have to earn in-game cash to buy blueprints, POS tower, etc.) CCP doesn't set the prices of ships, players do. Especially for faction and T2 ships. Take the Wolf and Jaguar, for example -- same requirements for invention, thus if there's any difference in selling price, that comes down to player supply and demand. In general, let me say that your walls of text are senseless and incoherent. What the hell are you on about?
----------------
[insert signature here] |
Munen
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 22:30:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Joe Starbreaker
thus if there's any difference in selling price, that comes down to player supply and demand.
Why does the supply vary? Because certain ships/modules are preferred more by consumers and because certain modules can't be made due to a constrained in take of resources.
This is about determining whether Eve Online should balance ships/modules based on cost.
Stop asking stupid questions when you can't read the second post only two spots above your own. I'm not going to repeat myself a third time.
Be mindful of your surroundings. |
Gloria Stitz
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 22:45:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Munen
Originally by: Joe Starbreaker
thus if there's any difference in selling price, that comes down to player supply and demand.
Why does the supply vary? Because certain ships/modules are preferred more by consumers and because certain modules can't be made due to a constrained in take of resources.
This is about determining whether Eve Online should balance ships/modules based on cost.
Stop asking stupid questions when you can't read the second post only two spots above your own. I'm not going to repeat myself a third time.
Please don't repeat yourself. It was turgid and meaningless the first time.
Please learn some more about the game before spewing drivel on the forums.
You seem to have decided what eve should be, not what it is.
Go make your own game.
-------------
'Don't try to learn Eve all at once, otherwise your brain will explode' - Albert Einstein
------------ |
Guvante
GALAXIAN
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 22:56:00 -
[25]
If you don't like paying 10x as much for a 10% increase then don't.
Hell you can have an awesome time in this game flying an Interceptor, which costs what, 10m with fittings (Don't remember off the top of my head too well). And the dang things are impossible to lose if you are careful.
EVE has a mostly player based economy, prices are determined by supply and demand. The only exceptions that I can think of are T2 BSes, whose prices are above demand but are dictated by the price of their components, whose value is raised from other ships/modules.
|
CrestoftheStars
Recreation Of The World
|
Posted - 2008.05.22 23:56:00 -
[26]
just as a statement (since i am not going into this discussion tonight).
i really enjoyed reading the op's post and i really enjoyed reading the well thoughtout posters post to it.
hope you will make more of these that is worthwhile reading
___________________________________________
Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without that law is both. For a wounded |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |