These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Change to SP loss in regards to T3's

First post
Author
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
Sedition.
#101 - 2013-08-12 20:23:51 UTC  |  Edited by: PotatoOverdose
baltec1 wrote:
PotatoOverdose wrote:

If it plays zero part in balancing why is the zealot better than the omen at all? They fill the same role. As you say, the zealot does it slightly better.

The zealot also costs more.

Seems to me that cost is indeed a factor. Big smile


They are being balanced against the t1 class ships so that they are only a bit better not not to the point where they dominate.

So.......they are better. Check.

And they cost more. Check.

So again, cost is clearly a balancing factor. Big smile
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#102 - 2013-08-12 20:29:21 UTC
PotatoOverdose wrote:
So.......they are better. Check.
And they cost more. Check.

So again, cost is clearly a balancing factor. Big smile
No. Cost is a product of balance (through the affect balance has on the demand for the item). It is not a factor in balance for the simple reason that it can never affect that balance. Something overpowered and costly does not mean it's not overpowered, and something underpowered and cheap does not mean it's not underpowered.

You're confusing cause and consequence.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#103 - 2013-08-12 20:37:43 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
The irony here is t3 are about to get buffed.

Not sure what you mean by that.

Their combat capabilities certainly aren't going to be buffed, since they're extremely strong and they hurt both battleships and HACs. Namely:

The Legion is stronger at the Zealot's role than the Zealot is.
The Tengu is stronger at the Cerberus' role than the Cerberus is.
The Loki is stronger at the Muninn's role than the Muninn is.
The Proteus is stronger at the Diemos' role than the Diemos is.

The Loki and Proteus are also better than the Huginn and Lachesis, respectively, even though the and relevant EWAR bonuses (web range and point/scram range, respectively) are halved. Why? Because the Loki and Proteus have staying power, while the recons really don't. The Huginn and Lachesis also have secondary EWAR bonuses, but in fleet doctrines these are rarely used. Because the tackling Loki and Proteus are both armor tanked, this is the primary reason that 0.0 fleet doctrines now heavily favor armor tanking.

Their boosting capabilities are getting nerfed, that much is confirmed.

You know all this. I'm putting it here for the benefit of everyone else.

Being a generalized jack of all trades, master of none isn't a buff. It doesn't make a ship good. Just look at the Gnosis. It sends the ship to the scrapheap because any other ship can do one of those things better, and so people will just mix combinations of ships that do things well. The only people who will fly T3s then are people who fly solo.

If you really ask me, I think CCP has no idea what to do about T3s, because they know that in their current capacity they're too damaging to the T1/T2 dynamic, but they also want to keep them as ships that people will actually pay money to use.

Did you stop to consider that the reason the Huginn and Lachesis are are not used more might be because they were pre-nerfed. For them to fullfill a role like fleet tackle - lets take the Lachesis because I''m familiar with it - might it have been wise of CCP to realise that they'd be getting targetted and maybe give them a bit more HP...

Its not the T3 that are lacking.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)

PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
Sedition.
#104 - 2013-08-12 20:38:16 UTC  |  Edited by: PotatoOverdose
Tippia wrote:
PotatoOverdose wrote:
So.......they are better. Check.
And they cost more. Check.

So again, cost is clearly a balancing factor. Big smile
No. Cost is a product of balance (through the affect balance has on the demand for the item). It is not a factor in balance for the simple reason that it can never affect that balance. Something overpowered and costly does not mean it's not overpowered, and something underpowered and cheap does not mean it's not underpowered.

You're confusing cause and consequence.


Not bad, but there is a fundamental mineral, pi product, and moon product cost associated with any given ship irrespective of market price and demand for that particular ship.

You are trying to confuse market price and cost. A zealot will always cost more than an omen. And as has been established, repeatedly, a zealot is somewhat better than an omen.

So again:
They are better. Check.
And they cost more. Check.

So again, cost is clearly a balancing factor. Big smile
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#105 - 2013-08-12 20:40:15 UTC
PotatoOverdose wrote:

So.......they are better. Check.

And they cost more. Check.

So again, cost is clearly a balancing factor. Big smile


No it not.

The cost is only what it is because of what players are willing to pay. This is why you can never balance anything with cost.
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
Sedition.
#106 - 2013-08-12 20:42:32 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
PotatoOverdose wrote:

So.......they are better. Check.

And they cost more. Check.

So again, cost is clearly a balancing factor. Big smile


No it not.

The cost is only what it is because of what players are willing to pay. This is why you can never balance anything with cost.

False. Again. There is a fundamental mineral, PI material, and moon material cost to every ship. It has absolutely nothing to do with what people will pay. The zealot will always have a higher cost than the omen.

So again:
They are better. Check.
And they cost more. Check.

So again, cost is clearly a balancing factor. Big smile
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#107 - 2013-08-12 20:44:26 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Did you stop to consider that the reason the Huginn and Lachesis are are not used more might be because they were pre-nerfed. For them to fullfill a role like fleet tackle - lets take the Lachesis because I''m familiar with it - might it have been wise of CCP to realise that they'd be getting targetted and maybe give them a bit more HP...

Its not the T3 that are lacking.

I'm not sure how any part of my post could be construed as "T3 are lacking".

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#108 - 2013-08-12 20:46:45 UTC
PotatoOverdose wrote:

False. Again. There is a fundamental mineral, PI material, and moon material cost to every ship. It has absolutely nothing to do with what people will pay. The zealot will always have a higher cost than the omen.

So again:
They are better. Check.
And they cost more. Check.

So again, cost is clearly a balancing factor. Big smile


Moon materials are what make up most of the cost and they only cost what they do because people are willing to pay that.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#109 - 2013-08-12 20:47:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
PotatoOverdose wrote:
So again:
They are better. Check.
And they cost more. Check.

So again, cost is clearly a balancing factor. Big smile

y=ƒ(x). If x increases by 2 then y increases by 4, so clearly y is a factor in x, and not the other way around. Roll

No. Again: They cost more because they are better, but that cost does not make them worse (or better). In other words, they could cost nothing or a trillion, and the balance would not change in the slightest because the cost is not a factor in that balance.

Quote:
but there is a fundamental mineral, pi product, and moon product cost associated with any given ship irrespective of market price.
None of which are in any way relevant to the balance of the ship, only their (base) price, which has everything to do with how much people are willing to pay.

I'm not trying to confuse anything — I'm trying to make you understand that one thing being the cause of another does not mean that the other is the cause of the one. Or, as the saying goes, correlation does not mean causation, and what you're doing is assuming a causation that, if it existed at all, would be in the exact opposite direction of what you're assuming.

The fact remains: if they changed the price on the Zealot to be the same as an Omen, the balance would not be affected in the slightest. The Zealot would still be just as much better as always. Conversely, if the Zealot suddenly required three times the resources to obtain, the balance would still be the same.
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
Sedition.
#110 - 2013-08-12 20:52:57 UTC
Tippia wrote:

[snip]


Again, no. Here are the build materials for a zealot.
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Zealot

Note how it requires one (1) omen and an additional minerals and commodities to produce a zealot.

A zealot will ALWAYS cost more than an omen, irrespective of market.

So again:
They are better. Check.
And they cost more. Check.

So again, cost is clearly a balancing factor. Big smile
Prince Kobol
#111 - 2013-08-12 20:53:00 UTC
PotatoOverdose wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
PotatoOverdose wrote:

So.......they are better. Check.

And they cost more. Check.

So again, cost is clearly a balancing factor. Big smile


No it not.

The cost is only what it is because of what players are willing to pay. This is why you can never balance anything with cost.

False. Again. There is a fundamental mineral, PI material, and moon material cost to every ship. It has absolutely nothing to do with what people will pay. The zealot will always have a higher cost than the omen.

So again:
They are better. Check.
And they cost more. Check.

So again, cost is clearly a balancing factor. Big smile


Using your logic the Revenant must be the best Supercarrier due to being outrageously expensive.

Marauders are better then all other Battleships because of their price.

Cost is irrelevant when it comes to balancing simply because CCP can not set their price in stone. The price of a ship is created by the players.

PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
Sedition.
#112 - 2013-08-12 20:57:24 UTC
Tippia wrote:


The fact remains: if they changed the price on the Zealot to be the same as an Omen, the balance would not be affected in the slightest.

Bullshit. No one would ever produce an omen again if they could produce a zealot for the same exact material cost. And likewise, no one would ever fly an omen again if it had the exact same cost as a zealot.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#113 - 2013-08-12 21:00:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
PotatoOverdose wrote:
Again, no. Here are the build materials for a zealot.
…the price of which is almost entirely determined by players, and the cost difference of which is so small as to not particularly matter.

Since the Zealot is better (for certain things), you pick it because it is better. Its cost does not change this. Changing its price or cost does not make it any better or worse. Until you show up with some kind of proof that the Zealot — or indeed any ship — has become better or worse because of a change in cost (and it has to be in that direction, not the other way around), you have failed to show that cost is a factor in balance.

You can repeat your fallacy as often as you like, but correlation is still not causation.

Quote:
So again:
They are better. Check.
And they cost more. Check.
So again, cost is not a balancing factor since you failed to establish any kind of causal link between cost and balance (in that direction). All you're doing is confusing causation with correlation.

Quote:
No one would ever produce an omen again if they could produce a zealot for the same exact material cost
…but the balance between the two would not still have changed in the slightest.
Prince Kobol
#114 - 2013-08-12 21:03:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Prince Kobol
PotatoOverdose wrote:
Tippia wrote:

[snip]


Again, no. Here are the build materials for a zealot.
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Zealot

Note how it requires one (1) omen and an additional minerals and commodities to produce a zealot.

A zealot will ALWAYS cost more than an omen, irrespective of market.

So again:
They are better. Check.
And they cost more. Check.

So again, cost is clearly a balancing factor. Big smile


No it isn't.

The zealot costs more as it is more difficult to build, the materials also cost more, HOWEVER, the costs are created by the player, not CCP.

That is unless I missed the memo where CCP have introduced materials being sold by NPC vendors :)

Until such time CCP starts to sell materials via NPC vendors then they can not balance a ship based on cost.
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
Sedition.
#115 - 2013-08-12 21:15:16 UTC  |  Edited by: PotatoOverdose
Edit: Double post
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
Sedition.
#116 - 2013-08-12 21:18:48 UTC  |  Edited by: PotatoOverdose
Tippia wrote:
PotatoOverdose wrote:
Again, no. Here are the build materials for a zealot.
…the price of which is almost entirely determined by players, and the cost difference of which is so small as to not particularly matter.

But there IS an absolute immutable cost difference in terms of materials between a zealot and an omen. The fact that a particular person (you) deems it irrelevant is really.... quite irrelevant.

Tippia wrote:

The fact remains: if they changed the price on the Zealot to be the same as an Omen, the balance would not be affected in the slightest.

So, you're telling me that on a pound for pound basis, the zealot and the omen are balanced against each other. That one of those two ships is not clearly better than the other. Roll Nice try.

Prince Kobol wrote:


No it isn't.

The zealot costs more as it is more difficult to build, the materials also cost more, HOWEVER, the costs are created by the player, not CCP.

Material price is irrelevant. That the zealot requires an equivalent or greater AMOUNT of each and every material to build is not controlled by the players, but by CCP.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#117 - 2013-08-12 21:19:46 UTC
PotatoOverdose wrote:

So, you're telling me that on a pound for pound basis, the zealot and the omen are balanced against each other.



These ship hulls are indeed getting balanced against eachother. Thats the entire point of teircide, to get rid of T1 T2 T3.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#118 - 2013-08-12 21:21:58 UTC
PotatoOverdose wrote:
But there IS an absolute immutable cost difference in terms of materials between a zealot and an omen.
…that doesn't affect the balance between the two in the slightest.

Quote:
So, you're telling me that on a pound for pound basis, the zealot and the omen are balanced against each other.
No. I'm merely telling you that the balance between the two ships are determined by their respective stats, not their costs.

I'm telling you that cost is not a factor in balance because no ship has had its balance altered by its cost: awful ships are awful ships, no matter how cheap; overpowered ships are overpowered, no matter how costly; you cannot compensate for balance deficiencies by altering the cost — not in EVE, not in any game ever. All cost does is delay the deployment (which is used in PvE games to adjust the difficulty curve line so that, while you come across more difficult enemies, you have now unlocked more powerful ships that deal with them as easily as the old cheap stuff dealt with the lower-class stuff you went up against before).
ISD Tyrozan
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#119 - 2013-08-12 21:24:50 UTC
Thread has been moved to Features & Ideas Discussion.

ISD Tyrozan

Captain

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

@ISDTyrozan | @ISD_CCL

PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
Sedition.
#120 - 2013-08-12 21:29:25 UTC  |  Edited by: PotatoOverdose
Tippia wrote:
PotatoOverdose wrote:
But there IS an absolute immutable cost difference in terms of materials between a zealot and an omen.
…that doesn't affect the balance between the two in the slightest.

Quote:
So, you're telling me that on a pound for pound basis, the zealot and the omen are balanced against each other.
No. I'm merely telling you that the balance between the two ships are determined by their respective stats, not their costs.

I'm telling you that cost is not a factor in balance because no ship has had its balance altered by its cost: awful ships are awful ships, no matter how cheap; overpowered ships are overpowered, no matter how costly; you cannot compensate for balance deficiencies by altering the cost — not in EVE, not in any game ever. All cost does is delay the deployment (which is used in PvE games to adjust the difficulty curve line so that, while you come across more difficult enemies, you have now unlocked more powerful ships that deal with them as easily as the old cheap stuff dealt with the lower-class stuff you went up against before).

Ok...so the zealot is equivalent or better than the omen in practically every way (Damage, Damage projection, Tracking, EHP, etc. etc.).

The Omen is likewise worse in all of those categories. So what exactly does the zealot give up to be superior or equivalent to the omen in every other way?

I suggested raw material amount, to which you replied:
Tippia wrote:

The fact remains: if they changed the price on the Zealot to be the same as an Omen, the balance would not be affected in the slightest.


So the zealot has better stats than the omen, and this is counter balanced by..... what exactly?